 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'd be interested in hearing the different pros/cons with regard to footbed customisation.
In my limited experience most bootfitters have the customer standing on the softened footbed as it conforms to the underfoot shape.
My favourite bootfitter has the customer sitting on a raised seat with legs hanging in air, the footbed is then formed to the unweighted underfoot.
His argument is that the foots natural shape is when it is unweighted, and that is how it should be supported. If fitted to the weight bearing foot then the footbed is conforming to a squashed/flattened, collapsed foot and is thereby maintaining any problems.
That makes a lot of intuitive sense to me (and I find my feet never have any problems with these footbeds).
So why do the great majority of other bootfitters fit to the weight bearing foot...what is the differential reason?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| CH2O wrote: |
If you want the holy grail, best get yourself a pair of Tecnica Zero G Pro, get them cooked right and you'll need nothing else. Sure a WC boot is a WC boot, and a Ski Mo boot is a Ski Mo boot, but combine these two things perfectly, with little or no compromise and voila, OG Mutha Feckers!! |
Great boot with a custom liner. The stock one isn’t suitable for a daily driver. Still use my Alpine boots with big skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
The stock one isn’t suitable for a daily driver.
|
YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rungsp wrote: |
I'd be interested in hearing the different pros/cons with regard to footbed customisation.
In my limited experience most bootfitters have the customer standing on the softened footbed as it conforms to the underfoot shape.
My favourite bootfitter has the customer sitting on a raised seat with legs hanging in air, the footbed is then formed to the unweighted underfoot.
His argument is that the foots natural shape is when it is unweighted, and that is how it should be supported. If fitted to the weight bearing foot then the footbed is conforming to a squashed/flattened, collapsed foot and is thereby maintaining any problems.
That makes a lot of intuitive sense to me (and I find my feet never have any problems with these footbeds).
So why do the great majority of other bootfitters fit to the weight bearing foot...what is the differential reason? |
There are really two schools regards this, weighted and unweighted, taking a cast of the worst case scenario doesn't make sense to me much. Being able to gently judge the shape and pressure required to make a foot bed requires fundamentally a sensitivity of hand. After you need to know your biomechanics very well to be sure that those sensitive hands don't over correct or worse under correct and thus sell you nothing. Most shops i see making footbeds use the weighted method, this technique means you can't really over correct but under-correcting is pretty much certain. This enables shop staff to convince you they are knowledgeable however don't do you any harm but are unlikely to do good either.
The main reason is training, dedication and competence. The weighted technique can be learned in a couple of attempts and it's simple operation of machinery. Unweighted processes are much more cerebral and delicate, you're looking at the foot for it's change in shape through it's range of motion, through 3 axis. It makes each job unique and a pleasure to work with. For me, if you can't do this with your hands you have no chance doing this job to it's optimal level.
It's our Mantra at SOLE, the boys have to have that "sensitivity of hand" above anything else, the rest of what we do it "Arts and Crafts" we use glitter alot.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 27-03-20 12:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Quote: |
The stock one isn’t suitable for a daily driver.
|
YMMV |
It's not good enough to use as a dishcloth to be honest.
TMDV
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| @CH2O, Is the Ski-Mo market really that big or just where the most tinkering is going on? Isn't it a niche of a niche? I accept locally in France and maybe Italy it is but it ain't a tourist volume thing unless either MAMILs are looking for winter kicks or millennials are looking to live their best lives by the speed they get up a snowy mountain to eat a smashed avocado |
The tourist volume is the same "heads" year on year, up and down from time to time but the product there requires little or no change, until as i say tools wear out.
The product here is hilarious, it's very good but the marketing and "technology" utter comedy.
The Ski Mo guys get in quick and throw loads of money into tech and weight, all expensive, we love them, they're always a pleasure to speak to, know all the jargon and weights, all in boots 2 sizes too big, massive watches, great big bushy beards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CH2O,
Do you think smaller brands like Dynafit and Scarpa will keep up now that brands like Atomic, Salomon, Tecnica, Head etc are investing and have an interest in the ski touring/ski-mo market?
Are the new Atomic Mimic liners going to be a game changer in ski boot liners or just another marketing gimmick?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| charlie.wilkinson wrote: |
@CH2O,
Do you think smaller brands like Dynafit and Scarpa will keep up now that brands like Atomic, Salomon, Tecnica, Head etc are investing and have an interest in the ski touring/ski-mo market?
Are the new Atomic Mimic liners going to be a game changer in ski boot liners or just another marketing gimmick? |
Dynafit will survive, there's alot of money there and they have eggs in many baskets.
Scarpa i think are on the edge, they have to be, what do you do with Telemark? it's not even worth it to be dominant. I'm amazed by the popularity of the Maestrale, absolutely gobsmacked, but it shows they have loyalty, but i expect from mountaineering and climbing, but everyone else does it so much better.
The ski boot guys are making way better touring boots than the traditional brands, Dynafit, rightly, then wrongly and rightly again invest in great design and function so again i expect them to continue, they own the Ski Mo market to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Are the new Atomic Mimic liners going to be a game changer in ski boot liners or just another marketing gimmick?
|
We've done maybe 20 pairs, have no idea what the fuss is about, it's certainly takes a nice shape, but they seem awful thin to us. Weird articulation in the XTD models. A good stock liner if that's the amount of filling you require.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CH2O, yeah, well management weren't going to sign off on new liners till I've broken these ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@CH2O, and on the other side of the tunnel, Roxa?
Have a few friends who kicked Sportiva and Dynafit into touch in favour of them, and they are people who do a feck load of vertical and mountaineering.
And as you say above, there's a lot more to it than just the boot and liner, other major factors well away from the feet can be the root of the issue as it were?
https://stylealtitude.com/ski-boot-problems.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ski boot design and manufacture is very much more an art than a science in my experience. Look at the Scott/garmont cosmos, that thing is ancient and still flying off the shelves. A smaller company can easily create a great boot, perhaps material costs will be higher.
The biggest issue i think is the marketing powerhouses backing up the larger brands. That's got to be hard to compete with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cost of the moulds is fairly significant.
Smaller companies are working at a disadvantage because of that specific tooling cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@CH2O, can I flip the OP around and ask if instead of brand aversion, brand loyalty is also to be avoided?
About 10 years ago I made the decision to buy a fitted pair of boots, having learnt the hard way that buying boots as an impulse purchase in an end of season sale in a sports store in Colorado Springs (where I was visiting for work) was a literal pain.
We spent a full afternoon in a ski resort shop trying all sorts of boots and settled on a pair of Atomic Hawx. My recollection is that we struggled with a lot of the options with a perceived looseness around the heels - I was told I must have narrow heels. I also got a set of custom soles.
For just over 10 years now, with about 170 ski days, I've been really happy with my purchases.
With the boots that age, and hopefully facing a full season in the next 2-3 years, I'm starting to think about replacements.
Questions arise - should I be brand loyal and have Atomics at the forefront of my search? Or simply start again with an open mind?
Also, can I keep my custom beds and take them to new boots or should I replace them too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@dharnett, That's kinda interesting. In this particular instance the Atomic range of Hawx boots runs into 3 different lasts for men, same for women and the also have the XTD model, so Atomic have quite a cool recipe for success, across a fairly broad range of boots. However, do you have the correct size, a well made footbed, did the shop have shell shapes better for you than Atomic, how much of the success you've had was down to the liner? There are many lasts out there, and assuming you're looking for an optimum fit there may now be better out there to serve you. WC boots are all lower volume, tighter in the heel area than you describe and are available right down to a flex of 110 (we advise never going below unless you're tiny or very light.) So i wouldn't put Atomic anywhere in my choices until a reputable BF is able to assess whether new last shapes are better/worse. It's alot about interpretation. Atomic are making amazing boots, with some cool features that make fitting them pretty easy, however it maybe that in the 10 years since your feet are better served with another brand, hard to tell. Your old boots are now known as Hawx Prime, there are the Ultra, lower volume, and Magna, much higher volume but all based around the same basic footshape. Your footbeds should be remade or new purchased for optimum support, your body will be very different after 10 years, we advise a rebuild or new footbed every 3 years to accomodate changes in body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@CH2O, thanks for that. Open mind will be the approach so. Shouldn't be a surprise that things will have moved on in the 10 years or so. Interesting that the footbed should be looked at every 3 years, wouldn't have thought of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
