 Poster: A snowHead
|
Edited 16.2.06 (on behalf of Smallzookeeper) so as NOT to be confused with cuff alignment & canting.
At the recent Epic Ski Academy I attended an excellent & illuminating evening presentation from Bud Heishman & Steve Bagley, two of the US’s leading boot fitters.
Boot Alignment
Bud’s talk on boot fitting highlighted all the well known procedures & advice that has been detailed on snowHeads before. However, it was his comments on boot alignment (or ‘balancing’ as they call it in the States) & the interface with the ski’s bindings which was most enlightening. It appears that most boot fitters & skiers spend a huge amount of time getting the boot to fit correctly (& quite right too!) but then neglect the critical requirement to have the boots correctly aligned to the skier’s stance. Balancing is different from cuff alignment & canting adjustment which should be part of the boot fitting process to ensure that the upper portion of the boot aligns & flexes with the lower leg. Balancing is the act of taking the correctly fitted boot & ensuring that when the skier clicks in their bindings in their skiing stance that the skis lie flat & straight etc & that the feet & calves are at the correct forward leaning angles.
The type of bindings used can affect the stance considerably. For example, Rossignol/Look apparently have one of the steepest ‘delta angles’ on the market (ie the heel piece is a lot higher than the toe piece), while my Atomic Neox bindings are at the lowest end of the spectrum. So even if you have perfectly fitted & aligned boots but are using Rossi bindings you could then have way too much forward lean which has an adverse affect on your skiing. This is increased the smaller your feet are as the closer the toe & heel pieces are to each other the greater the angle. Blindingly obvious really but something I’d never considered. Apparently this is a very common problem with women on Rossi skis.
Bud checked my boot fitting which thankfully was fine but when I took ‘my skiing stance’ on my b5's & he measured my leg/boot alignment with his gauges, calipers & set squares etc he concluded that my boots had too much forward lean, my boot ramp angle was too steep & that I needed a 1 degree adjustment to outside of my left boot sole & 1.5 degrees to the outside of my right boot. This meant that when I thought the skis were running flat they were actually both running slightly on the inside edges. No wonder I found it hard to initiate a slow speed carve to the right! Bud also reminded me that I had been ‘set up’ for my Neox bindings. I bought some Rossi/Look bindings in the States (very cheap!) so when I come to mount then I’ll need to put the right thickness spacer under the toe piece to reduce the delta angle.
BTW, I’ve had boots in the past from EB’s and S&R and as well as being poorly fitted neither of them made any alignment adjustments. My current boots are from Profeet & Bud said that the fit was excellent & they are the correct make/model for my foot shape, correctly canted, & right for my ability/requirements etc. Profeet did do some basic alignment adjustment to my right boot only but this was done by eye with me marching on the spot rather than by Bud’s more accuracte measurement system & with me rolling from one ‘edge’ to the other on his special platform.
A couple of hours later I collected my modified boots. The boot’s internal canting adjustment had been locked in their existing setting to avoid movement & Bud had ground the required angles off the soles to flatten them. He had installed a thicker toe piece & thinner heel piece on the sole to adjust the ramp angle. The tops of the heel piece & toe piece were routed down back to the correct dimension to fit the binding. My boots have an adjustable forward lean so that was altered without requiring any bootsmithing work.
What a difference the next morning. The new more upright stance just took a couple of runs to get used to but that feeling of potentially 'going over the handlebars' was now gone. I couldn't really tell the difference on the left boot but I immediately noticed the difference on my right turn initiation, especially carving at low speed on the cat tracks. I can now do the 'one legged balance down a shallow fall line' drill & I continue to run straight instead of veering off.
The cost for the analysis & all the work was $170/£100 which included a spare set of the heel & toe pieces in case I wear them down too much. I reckon this was money extremely well spent.
Campbell Dynamic Ski Balancer
Steve’s presentation was all about the binding mounting position on skis & how he uses the Campbell Dynamic Ski Balancer to mount bindings in exactly the correct position for each individual user. Here’s a piece from the Campbell patent that I’ve pinched from a post on Epic by Noodler which best explains the theory:
"Currently, the positioning of ski boot bindings on alpine skis is determined by aligning a ski boot midsole mark indicative of the midpoint of the boot sole with a ski manufacturer's prescribed mounting mark on the surface of the ski. The mounting mark is typically a predetermined point which is generally determined by the manufacturer using statistical averages. Such a positioning system is ineffective for skiers whose physiology differs significantly from the statistical averages. More importantly, the prior art systems are not capable of dealing with individual variations in a person's flex, stance and balance. Such individual variations are significant. In particular, there is a substantial physiological difference in the flex, stance and balance characteristics of men and women which ought to be taken into account in the positioning of bindings on skis in order to enhance skier comfort, safety and efficiency for a particular skier. Use of the present standards for aligning the boots and bindings on skis by utilizing the manufacturer's midsole mounting points typically positions many skiers, and particularly women, too far back on their skis. The deviation from a neutral dynamic balance point is often found to be several centimetres. Skiers positioned too far back or forward on their skis are not able to turn their skis as effectively and efficiently as skiers properly positioned at a dynamically neutral balance position on the skis who, therefore, have adequate control over the operation of the skis."
The balancer is a see-saw contraption that you place a pair of skis on (without bindings). The skis have a line across them directly over the centre of the skis contact/running length (the part of the base actually in contact with the snow, ie, not the upturned tips & tails). The skis are placed on the balancer so that this line is directly over the pivot point of the see-saw. The user then stands on the skis in their boots & adopts their skiing stance. By flexing the ankles & driving the knees forward & back the user operates the see-saw.
Starting by standing on the skis with one’s boot midsole mark directly over the line it is waaaay more difficult to rock forwards than backwards. The user then moves forward along the skis at 5mm intervals until a point is reached where they are in perfect balance, ie it’s as easy to see-saw forwards as it is backwards. At this point you measure from the front edge of the boot back to the contact/running length centre line & that measurement in cm’s is your individual Campbell score, ie +7cm. It is very rare for anyone to have a minus figure, ie their balance point is behind the centre line, but it has been known. A +7cm skier should mount their bindings so that the front of their boot is 7cm in front of the centre of the contact/running surface of their ski.
The next morning I was in a long line of ESA attendees for Steve to do his balance analysis on in his shop in Snowbird resort. It only takes five minutes & my +9cm score meant moving the bindings 1cm further forward than the position on my Neox bindings that I was using. Luckily my rail mounted Neox bindings are virtually infinitely adjustable so after Steve's analysis I could easily alter the bindings without needing to redrill etc.
Now being a gear geek & tinkerer I'd tried this position before & turn initiation was superb & pivot slips were real easy but I felt I was in imminent danger of going to go 'over the handlebars' if I hit a small bump or some soft snow or something. However, with my newly balanced & more upright boots this binding position was perfect. I've never carved so securely, positively & as fast as I did on the groomers at the local resorts during our second week. Pivoting in bumps is also noticeably easier. You won't believe how much of a difference 1cm makes in how a ski feels and performs. It's like putting on a different pair of skis.
Prior to altering my bindings I was talking to Martin Bell about the Campbell balancer. Martin was concerned that as the system is based upon measuring from the centre of the running surface of the ski that the binding could be too far forward for use in powder & could cause the tips to submarine. I asked Steve about this & he said the Campbell measurement works just as well in powder because the skis upturned tip is longer than the upturned tail so that when they come in to play in powder, this effectively increases the contact/running surface length more at front of the ski than the rear. This has the affect of moving the binding position back a tad which is ideal for use in powder.
Unfortunately we didn’t get any more fresh powder so I was unable to try my skis in the really deep soft stuff but they again seemed easier to turn in the few inches of powder remnants that I managed to find over the next few days.
BTW, some of the ESA guys were having their bindings moved forward as much as 5/6cm & were absolutely amazed at the difference - & we’re talking long time high end skiers here.
The cost for the balance analysis was $40/£23 & Steve then charges about $30/£18 to re-drill the mounting position if required. Again money very well spent IMO.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 16-02-06 22:17; edited 7 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
spyderjon,
i am currently working with a similar system of lateral alignment using wedges internally in the boot from foot foundation...they are currently redesihning there balance machine to account for fore aft balance as the Campbell system does, a collegue is actually our at their offices this week so more info when i get it.
one interestinf point with the lateral balance wedges that footfoundation produce is that they can be used in a golf shoe, a running shoe or a cycling shoe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
spyderjon, excellent post, clearly written, good info, essential stuff, marked down only for lack of an address within a 3000 mile radius to get this done!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| .........essential stuff, marked down only for lack of an address within a 3000 mile radius to get this done! |
I'm still a bit jet lagged I'm afraid, hence the 3.30am post. But come on, do I have to do everything for you?  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
spyderjon, can I answer 'yes' to that question? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
spyderjon, Can you re-title this as not to be confused with cuff alignment and canting, cheers.
Otherwise awsome post, should be standard practise in our shop from now on, for those with their own skis or buying skis.
Tchh, more geometry, good job i'm a Mathmatical genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon, do you by chance recall whether any of the balanced mounts were offset (different for a left and right ski)?
SMALLZOOKEEPER/CEM, thoughts on natural toe-out or toe in and whether the two procedures above provide sufficient data and correction for all cases?
I am aware that ski selection also plays a role (e.g. tip width, taper angle).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, Spot on with the ski selection variable. Skis are made to flex with a very specific pattern.
I am working lots with toe out-in(Ab-duction and Ad-duction) i think thats what you meen. We have two new boots 1.5 degree Ab-ducted and are getting some great results and have had great results in the Combined.
Massive subject, alignment, orthotics and longitudal alignment, now to couple that with Ab-ducted boots and my brain frys. Add plastic structure, response and resistance and natural body defect and i'm ready to go back to cooking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, yes, that was the question. Cooking, ha! "Add In" is how I always remember which is which on those 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, Me, 'Abduct' take the toes away from the meridian.
Add too, snow density/resistance, temperature, foot mobility, AGGGHHHH!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Jon, thanks for posting this.
I had the balance work done too, because after spending 6 days skiing on my pistols with their Rossi bindings (i.e. high ramp angle), and then hopping on to my Heads with their flatter Tyrollia bindings, I found it more difficult to hold a carved edge.
I went in to see Steve Bagley (at Christy Sports in Snowbird), and after being on the Campbell Balance, he moved my bindings forward 1.5cm. The results were excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| comprex wrote: |
| spyderjon, do you by chance recall whether any of the balanced mounts were offset (different for a left and right ski)? |
Not on my skis as they're only 76mm underfoot & I'm afraid that I don't know about anyone else's. I suppose that would only apply to the real fatties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon, sorry, should have been clearer, meant front-to-back offset. Thanks for the writeup!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
comprex, it is sumed up pretty well by SZK. (and he is quite a good cook so i am told, don't think he ever got as far as making dinner we just went to the pub)
Atomic have been making shells with an abducted stance (offset shell) for a few years, makes a lot of sence as there is a higher proportion of people who stand aducted than adducted
i don't get to see it so much day to day, due to location but have seen some very interesting video clips of before and after adjustments of this nature (boot balancing, fore aft alignment)have been made
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| I suppose that would only apply to the real fatties. |
Since when have you been known as 'slim shady'
Seriously,thanks for the very informative post.As one who skis(like the vast majority)on 'out of the box' kit,I've known for some time that something was wrong.........but what?I have two specific problems,and your post rings true for them both.
1 Sitting back.I have to make a very concious effort to adopt a forward stance,to the extent that I tend to crouch a little and pressure the front of the boot quite strongly.If I stand tall,I immediatly feel on the rear of the skis.Not much of a problem on piste,but when the going gets soft the effect gets worse.
2 Running straight.At times,I find it quite difficult to glide as my skis(feet)tend to go pidgeon toed.The risk of catching an edge(outside)is magnified.I usually tend towards a very shallow carve so as to stay on the correct edges.
This season I hope to get on some 'fats'.I have a nasty suspicion that this will add to my problems?Any of this ring a bell?
BTW,Boots-Rossignol Softs----Skis-Volkl 5* c/w Marker M12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
snowskisnow, you will probably find catching an edge less of a problem on fats, particularly if you get ones without too much sidecut. I find I prefer to use your tactic when running straight on my carvers. My fats are very stable when going straight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Very informative...but where can we get such service in the UK or in the Alps?
I have never seen such analysis offered...I'd have my credit card out in seconds if I knew where to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
rungsp, I think Jon was considering building a balance, and then between the two of us, we could offer our services for a reasonable fee...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rungsp, We're testing at the momment, too many variables to get it right first time, ski constuction, flex points, ramp angles, ankle flex and all that jazz. However it does make sense and with the tests we've done it changes loads. If the changes are good or accurate requires more participation and patience. Would love more snowhead input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rungsp wrote: |
| Very informative...but where can we get such service in the UK or in the Alps?...... |
Unfortunately you can't. AFAIK, there isn't a Campbell Dynamic Balancer (CDB) in the UK or Europe. I've been doing a lot research on the balancer over the last week. The only two CDB service offerings I've been able to track down are Steve Bagley's in Snowbird & Lou Rosenfeld's in Calgary.
It appears that the inventor, Harry Campbell, lost interest in the project after beating his head agianst the industry wall. He very effectively got the cold shoulder from the ski manufacturers - not surprising really as he was effectively saying that the ski manufacturers midmark (MM) mounting method of boot midsole mark over the mark on the ski was bollox & that all of the ski buying public are being short changed!
Interestingly, before the current mounting method (before my time in the old straight ski days ), the ski manufacturers used the ball of foot over the centre of running surface (BoF/CRS) method which according to the email I've received from Atomic is still used initially by their & all other WC technicians. From there the racers do mega testing & adjust the bindings position to their preference. The ski manufacurers adopted the MM method to make mounting easier/faster for the retailers, not to give a better service to their customers  .
There's loads of research that has been done (if you're sad enough to go searching for it  ) that basically proves that when a skier is mounted more than 1cm away from their individually balanced position it affects their ability to balance & makes skiing a constant struggle. Often they find themselves stuck in the back seat. One cm away from perfectly balanced seems to alter the ski performance characteristics but within a skiers ability to maintain balance. Obviously spot on means that the skier is not fighting their balance or their ski in any way.
The BoF/CRS method, if done correctly, should get the user to 1cm. Unfortunately, if skis need drilling then recreational skiers can't test different positions. Luckily with some of the modern rail mounted systems (like my Neox's) then the user can play around at will.
I've attempted to contact Harry through a third party but the message came back that he now works as a stockbroker & is not involved in the ski industry. He doesn't even have enough parts lying around to make a balancer  . However, I have managed to obtain a set of drawings from which I could manufacture a balancer & I am currently investigating the original US & German patent implications.
I'll let you know if & when I'm going to manufacture a balancer (you'd probably get a call from WTFH, my self appointed Sales & Marketing Director  ) but until then I'd recommend sticking with the BoF/CRS method. If I had to mount skis now without knowing my CDB measurement then I'd mount an off-piste/fat ski using the exact BoF/CRS method but I'd mount a piste ski 1cm further forward.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Where things have changed recently is with the binding position on the new female specific skis.
I've had a look at Deb's new 160cm K2 Burnin' Luvs & compared them closely to her old 163cm Volkl Gamma 320's. The Gamma 320 was Volkl's female specific version of their standard 320. Although the Gamma is slightly softer flexing than the standard 320 it's binding position is virtually the same as the standard 320.
Deb's old Gamma's position the end of the toe (what would be the CDB measurement) 4.5cm from the CRS & the bindings are about 4cm behind what would be her BoF/CRS position.
However, the factory setting on her new Burnin' Luv's position the end of the toe 10cm from the CRS & about 0.5cm behind her BoF/CRS position. No wonder she skiing waaay better, finds them waaay easier to turn & you can see that she's out of the back seat
Maybe that's why sales of the K2 T9 'Luv' series have rocketed & the Burnin' Luv's are sold out in the UK & the US. Maybe K2 have just put the bindings where they should have been all along?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon,
not sure how true this is, but i did hear that frank finch at finches in london had a balancer, I have the lateral cant rockers as have a couple of people i know, but if Frank has the balancer he is the only one, also waiting to find out if we will have the foot foundation version in the next week or two
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is very, very interesting. If you'd asked me before reading the whole thread I would have said it was bollox, based loosely on skiing on very many pairs of skis and many bindings including non-standard setups. Also, I played a bit in, errr, '90 with ESS (later Atomic) bindings which gave about 2-3 cm fore and aft adjustment to binding position. On traditional skis (201cm Rossi 7SK, 205cm Atomic ARC SL) I found they changed sensation but made little real impact.
Although I would instantly have agreed with many of the sentiments about why manufacturers do particular things.
However, the one pair of skis that I have actively disliked in recent years were Volant Machetes (don't know exactly which one). I skied exactly one day on them in reasonable powder (heliskiing, so about 12-14 decent runs) and could not get rid of the overwhelming sensation that they were hauling me backwards. I can ski powder tolerably well on slalom 203s so I don't think it was just ropey technique.
I wonder if just moving the bindings forward would have made all the difference and made for a much more fun day?
It's also interesting that it sounds as though these relatively fine adjustments can be applied at all skiing levels - a rare occurrence of ski technology that isn't just marketing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
spyderjon, I think your post is one of the most informative and well-explained I've seen on snowHeads - in a crowded field. Do you have any links for the guys who gave the talks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you ever do figure out how to set up a balance thing then please do let me know and I'll get my cash ready.
Do you know who can do the boot alignment in the UK or Alps? I got them done by Profeet and am very happy with them in general, but I am keen to get as close to 100% as I can.
Many thanks in advance...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
spyderjon, I'd have thought it was fairly easy to rig a balance device up, now I've seen it in the flesh. Are there any UK patents you're aware of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
marc gledhill, Yep, pretty easy in engineering terms, although it needs to be far more accurate & durable than one would initially think. The US patent office info I have only lists the US & German patents. I'm currently checking out their coverage & whether or not they've expired. The patents listed cover a few different designs which include a width adjustable balance plate & a balancer that had adjustable vertical out-riggers that the user aligned their hips with to ensure correct posture.
BTW, did you have a go on Steve Bagley's balancer, & if so what was your measurement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| Are there any UK patents you're aware of? |
If there's not, there might be soon... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
real problem discussing things you want to patent before you have done it.....now purely by printing this page i could patent your idea, or claim that you took it from me.
NEVER EVEN TALK ABOUT any thing you want to patent until you have filed the paperwork (from a friends experience)!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
CEM, Don't worry, I'm 45 years old & I haven't had an original idea in my life .
I just want to be sure that if I make a balancer along the Campbell lines then I'm not violating Harry's patent(s). I may be naive but even if Harry's patents have expired or are not valid in the UK I would plan to contact him to hopefully get his blessing. Afterall, it is/was all his work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
spyderjon, never got to had a go. I was thinking of the balance and a footbed, but in the end was just too busy skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
spyderjon, thats the problem, all the good ideas have been had, you just got to think them up again and use them in another context 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc gledhill, maybe next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon, and what goes on in the tub, stays in the tub...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.
). Turns are easier and skis felt more responsive and I wasnt so quick to get in the "back seat" when the going got tougher.
