EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ask the Boot Guys › canting analysis - tekscan vs traditional methods
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

canting analysis - tekscan vs traditional methods

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

Can a bootfitter please explain to me what the traditional methods of canting analysis are for shops that do not have a computerized pressure mapping system?  How accurate are these methods vs the computerized system?

post #2 of 14

ok this is going to open a can of worms


not much of a fan of ther computerised version myself as there is no specific protocol in place only what the individuals using the technique have made up for themselves


as for the traditional methods, i assess several things in an order then double check then triple check then plane the boot if that is what we are going to do


1 footbed

2base board

3 cuff angle matched close to leg as possible

4 plumb bob offcente knee mass to centre boot seam

5 rockered bottom cant evaluator to check if the static measure is correct or if we need to fill rather than cant depending on joint space availability

6 set up using metal cant chips to A see how it looks and B see how it feels


if unsure check strength tests to make sure we are not settign up a weak body


plane the boot, add the shim do what ever else we need to do


guess it all dependfs on what you are wanting to achieve

post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 



If someone already has custom footbeds do you inspect them to see if there are any problems with how they were molded?  If so what are some typical problems you would look for?


What is involved with assessment of the base board?


Can you list some of the strength tests used?  I believe I've had one done before during a general boot fitting clinic for our race group.  The boot fitter had me put my arms out to the side shoulder height and attempted to push down on them.  At first I was not able to resist the pressure,  which indicated a weak body.  After placing shims under the boots he did the test again and my ability to resist was remarkably better.


Thanks for the response!

post #4 of 14

on the footbed i am looking for various things, arch fill, suitable rigidity for the foot, posting and general finish, baseboards we zero or where appropriate remove all lumps and twists and leave a slight varus angle if suited to the foot, but almost always zero, often you tyake all the support out and put it back in in a different way

strength tests yes similar to what you describe but only as a final check


think that is about enough said, sounds like i am giving instructions to someone wanting to start doing this on a commercial levelwink.gif

post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 

Haha no...I'm just a software developer, not getting into bootfitting anytime soon.  But I do find it all very interesting and I love to ask questions!  I just want to be an informed customer before I go in and get my own canting analysis done.  I've gotten to the point where I feel my advancement in skiing is being hindering by some kind of canting issue.  I'm just trying to gather some facts and observations before I pay a visit to a bootfitter.

post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 

I'll post another thread with questions more specific to myself now that I know the process involved.  Thank you for all the info.

post #7 of 14

Where are you going to have your canting analysis done?

post #8 of 14

I agree with CEM, not a big fan of the pressure pad method to assess canting needs.  The only person I know who uses one is Lou and he only does cuff adjustments off the pressure pad results.  I use a more comprehensive evaluation with a very similar methodology as CEM.

post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 

It's a toss up between Heinos and Northern Ski Works.

post #10 of 14

All canting /stance systems can work. It is all based on the experience of the bootfitter. Myself as a bootfitter I find my eyes and hands to be best tools to use.

post #11 of 14

I have used digital force plates for almost 20 years, but not for canting. In my experience there is no better way to do cuff alignment, and it is a big part of our fore/aft balance protocol.


It is also very useful with pressure reduction with orthotics.


Canting, not so much.



post #12 of 14



would be interesting in learning more on how you use it for fore/aft assessments?  How do you factor into the equation delta angles? or binding mount positions on a given ski model?


Merry Christmas to all my boot fitter friends!  I really appreciate our friendships and working relationships!  Hope you will be making some turns on Christmas!



post #13 of 14

Wow in all the years of doing this I don't think anyone has asked this question so that we could talk openly about methods.


I have used a pressure pad since I opened the store.  Not to do canting, but to do cuff alignment.  I was always skeptical of canting techniques because I saw a lack of consistent methodology.  Please before I go further don't take this to mean that I think canting doesn't work or lacks methods.  Simply that in my view at the time I saw inconsistent methods and I saw that I could use methods with a pressure pad that I saw as consistent.


In canting techniques a shim is used under the boot to either get the skier on a flat ski or to move the knee to a specific position in space.  Boot cuffs in this technique are simply set to a neutral position in which they align with the tibia and don't affect results


When using the pressure pad to do cuff alignment I measure under-boot pressure medial/lateral of the boot sole center then use cuff alignment to move pressure until the skier has slightly more pressure medial than lateral.  In the past I haven't moved beyond this to use canting as I generally had good results with this method alone.


Recently I attended Masterfit and was exposed to the way very knowledgeable fitters use canting and intend this winter to try and determine how the two systems can work together as I think they certainly both have merit.



post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 



From what I remember when having a tekscan analysis done for the cuff alignment, it revealed that I had somewhere around 78% weight on inside edge of the right boot and something like 70% on the left.  When the boot cuff buckles were loosened the reading reported about 50/50.  After moving the cuffs to align with the leg the left was pretty close, about 55%, and the right inside edge was still out around 60%.  The right cuff adjustment was set at its maximum stop and so this was the best I was going to get with the cuff alignment.   At this point would the reading from tekscan indicate a need for further canting analysis using what I referred to as "traditional"/non-computerized methods?  In other words is this a very reliable supplement to assess a need for canting analysis?



New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ask the Boot Guys
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ask the Boot Guys › canting analysis - tekscan vs traditional methods