• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Gas pedalling

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
Yeah lol am pretty sure this guy can figure out body alignment....
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Thanks Mike! I forgot to mention in my post yesterday that my bindings are almost flat which helps my situation. I hope that you are right and that I my ideal setup is the same for all of my skis as that would make life great. I'm doubting it will be because the only pair that seems decent right now is my 86mm waist. Of course those are mainly my firm snow skis but even the other skis on firm snow seem way more "off" than these do. It will be nice to try some shims between boot and binding on each to see if the effect is fairly similar which would make life easier. Even if I were to get to the point where I (combo of my experimenting with working with a pro) found out that my skinny skis need say a 5mm toe lift and the other skis need more, I could get that much done to the boots with a fitter so that those skis don't need any plates under the bindings. Then, dialing in the others skis would be easier as I already have some for gas pedal done with the boots and would need less in the plates. Right now it's pure speculation but I am looking forward to at minimum trying shims under my boots and that should tell me if I'm moving in the right direction or am totally out of my league as far as trying to gain some knowledge on my own before going to a fitter. Thanks for the help!

The full “net” delta should be the same across all of your skis. The reason you might need different specific adjustments for each ski would only be due to variations in ski thickness under the binding toe and heel. Remember that you’re not just standing on top of only the binding... there’s a ski under there too. Don’t assume the ski is the same exact thickness under the toe and heel. Delta must be measured from bottom of the boot sole to bottom of the ski.
 
Thread Starter
TS
surfandski

surfandski

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Posts
708
Location
Clearwater Beach, Fl and Pisgah Forest, NC
The full “net” delta should be the same across all of your skis. The reason you might need different specific adjustments for each ski would only be due to variations in ski thickness under the binding toe and heel. Remember that you’re not just standing on top of only the binding... there’s a ski under there too. Don’t assume the ski is the same exact thickness under the toe and heel. Delta must be measured from bottom of the boot sole to bottom of the ski.

Thank you, that's a good point!
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,383
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
Yeah lol am pretty sure this guy can figure out body alignment....
Maybe. Dave McPhail would disagree with you:

Arguably the most important aspect of skiing is a strong stance. Any variance in the fore-aft angle of the plane of support under the feet and the plane of the base of the ski has significant impact on stance. Yet these subjects are barely blips on the Doppler Radar of the ski industry.​

Since I started the dynamic ramp angle assessment project a few weeks ago I have found that when asked to do so, it is rare for a skier of any ability to be able to assume a strong ski stance in an off the ski hill environment. Even when a skier skis with a relatively strong stance, they seem to lack a sense of what a strong stance feels like. Because of this, they lack the ability to consciously replicate a strong stance. If asked to do so, they would be unable to coach a skier in the sequence of events that I described in my last post​

In the dynamic ramp angle assessment project, I have also observed that skiers with with a boot/binding ramp angle greater than 2.8 degrees appear to have become accustomed to the associated unstable, dysfunctional feeling and identify with it as ‘normal’. Before I can test them, I have to spend time coaching them into the correct stance because it feels unnaturalto them.​

When I go back and forth between a strong functional stance on a flat, hard level surface to a stance on the dynamic ramp angle device set to an angle of 4 degrees, I can get close to the same angles of ankle, knee and hip. But when I do, I feel strong tension, stiffness and even pain in my mid to lower back which is common in some skiers and even racers.​

Based on results to date with the dynamic ramp angle device, it appears as if strong skiers ski best with ramp angles close to zero. But depending on their sense of balance and athletic ability, they may have a wide range in which they sense little difference on the effect of ramp angle until they approach the upper limit of stability. While they may be able to ski well with a ramp angle close to the maximum limit of stability, ramp angles much above 1.2 to 1.5 degrees may not offer any benefits. This can only be tested on skis where balance is tested by dynamic forces which cannot be replicated in a static setting.
From https://skimoves.me/category/zeppa-delta-angle-posts/
 

Doug Briggs

"Douche Bag Local"
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
7,483
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Perhaps, I'm missing something, but the OP said:
...
Skiing with last year's setup was pretty darn good on groomers/spring corn and not bad in a couple inches of powder but as soon as it got deep like some 12-24" days on really steep terrain, my quads were absolutely screaming
...
Why is the delta and modification of said delta being addressed for all skis when the reported issue is only when skiing deep and steep powder? Why change apparently effective setups to address a problem that only exists when skiing deep, steep powder, presumably on the OP's powder skis?
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
my point was the guy has enough knowledge to do alignment on boots, whether or not he is moving correctly I wouldnt know with out videos of the skier.

The skier manifesto is overly complex for the sake of trying to sound smarter and gatekeeping. I have an Engineering Degree and my head spins 3 sentences in to it everytime I read it. the part your quoted though is combination of how someone should stand and how their boots/binding should be. I can certainly feel instantly when something is off, although I tend to run my powder skis with higher toes and my hard packed skis more level.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
Perhaps, I'm missing something, but the OP said:

Why is the delta and modification of said delta being addressed for all skis when the reported issue is only when skiing deep and steep powder? Why change apparently effective setups to address a problem that only exists when skiing deep, steep powder, presumably on the OP's powder skis?

for my own use, I run higher toes on my powder skis, because it lets me move even farther forward with out getting tip dive. I also tend to like rearward mounts on my powder skis.
 

Doug Briggs

"Douche Bag Local"
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
7,483
Location
Breckenridge, CO
for my own use, I run higher toes on my powder skis, because it lets me move even farther forward with out getting tip dive. I also tend to like rearward mounts on my powder skis.

Are your powder skis delta negative (toe higher than heel)?

As I read the thread, the OP is discussing changes to all his setups not just his powder skis. Or perhaps I'm reading the thread wrong? And I agree, without videos all we are blind to his actual issues. All we can do is discuss theoreticals which may or may not be helpful in the OP achieving his desired results.

Apart from the OP changing (messing up?) his stance/balance with toe lifts, I'm really concerned about the safety of the boot/binding interface once he exceeds flat and his toes are higher than his heels.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
I would say my they are even at binding. My boot has 2mm of heel lift which is pretty spot on for most marker system binding for me. I have long femurs over a really short inseam. Basically my boot ramp is adjusted to the system binding because they are the one ski I can not change. I believe those system binding are zero delta but I could be wrong.

@Noodler brings up a great point about how some skis the binding may fall different on them and that may explain why on the same binding I sometimes feel a little off shimmed the same way, and have to go up or down a 1mm or 2 mm to make it feel perfect.

In fact omplete honestly because I can feel the offness of the a wrong delta angle on binding I do not know the measurements and just cut some delrin out to make things right until it feels right. To @Mike King /the quote from skiers manifesto what I feel right could be wrong but I am in front of enough very skilled coaches including myself watching myself on video that I think my feel is correct, I have literally asked others to tell me if its wrong, if it is wrong.

I am someone who supremely anal about equipment setup though because I would rather be the only thing to blame for my shortcomings than have some excuse about my alignment being off or on the wrong ski. I do blame my Mach 1 130 for being too soft to ski certain ways when I skied them but that is a whole another story. or maybe not. IMO softer boots need to be made more upright or at least thats what it feels like to me.
 

ted

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
595
As a reformed telemarker, I am a fan of David McPhail. Having more freedom of movement works for me. But as Josh's case proves, it's hard to have a one version suits all. Zero delta works for me but I am not Josh.

I just wish there was a better way than trial and error of what delta works for an individual.
Internal boot ramp is determined by ankle dorsiflexion.
Josh mentioned somewhere it is tibia to femur ratio, some else mentioned somewhere(HeluvaSkier?) it is torso to leg length ratio.

Any more details would be appreciated.
 

ted

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
595
Maybe. Dave McPhail would disagree with you:

Arguably the most important aspect of skiing is a strong stance. Any variance in the fore-aft angle of the plane of support under the feet and the plane of the base of the ski has significant impact on stance. Yet these subjects are barely blips on the Doppler Radar of the ski industry.​

Since I started the dynamic ramp angle assessment project a few weeks ago I have found that when asked to do so, it is rare for a skier of any ability to be able to assume a strong ski stance in an off the ski hill environment. Even when a skier skis with a relatively strong stance, they seem to lack a sense of what a strong stance feels like. Because of this, they lack the ability to consciously replicate a strong stance. If asked to do so, they would be unable to coach a skier in the sequence of events that I described in my last post​

In the dynamic ramp angle assessment project, I have also observed that skiers with with a boot/binding ramp angle greater than 2.8 degrees appear to have become accustomed to the associated unstable, dysfunctional feeling and identify with it as ‘normal’. Before I can test them, I have to spend time coaching them into the correct stance because it feels unnaturalto them.​

When I go back and forth between a strong functional stance on a flat, hard level surface to a stance on the dynamic ramp angle device set to an angle of 4 degrees, I can get close to the same angles of ankle, knee and hip. But when I do, I feel strong tension, stiffness and even pain in my mid to lower back which is common in some skiers and even racers.​

Based on results to date with the dynamic ramp angle device, it appears as if strong skiers ski best with ramp angles close to zero. But depending on their sense of balance and athletic ability, they may have a wide range in which they sense little difference on the effect of ramp angle until they approach the upper limit of stability. While they may be able to ski well with a ramp angle close to the maximum limit of stability, ramp angles much above 1.2 to 1.5 degrees may not offer any benefits. This can only be tested on skis where balance is tested by dynamic forces which cannot be replicated in a static setting.
From https://skimoves.me/category/zeppa-delta-angle-posts/


Mike, can you explain what you are doing in your assessments?
 
Thread Starter
TS
surfandski

surfandski

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Posts
708
Location
Clearwater Beach, Fl and Pisgah Forest, NC
For the record, Mike's quote above could very much describe me and I acknowledge that, "I have also observed that skiers with a boot/binding ramp angle greater than 2.8 degrees appear to have become accustomed to the associated unstable, dysfunctional feeling and identify with it as ‘normal’." From my other sports/hobbies, my body seems to be very good at adapting to changes so it's very possible that even though I feel fine on my mostly firm snow skis, it could be that the setup there is just as unstable/dysfunctional and my body has adapted. It's why I totally agree that once I do some experimenting, I absolutely want to get some pro eyes on me to dial it in. Certainly one could argue that it could be a waste of time to experiment if I won't be able to tell if my changes are technically right or wrong but I'm also fairly sure that my current setup is so far from "normal" that I could also waste a ski lesson showing up with my current setup. No doubt it's going to be a process but unless it's dumping every day the first couple weeks of our trip, I actually look forward to the experimenting on the early season, non-fresh days.

So my earlier comments about the aircraft weren't to say I think I'm smart enough to figure all of this out on my own but to say I'm pretty sure I won't KILL myself doing some experimenting with the delta angles. Thanks for everyone's help!
 

Smear

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Posts
238
Maybe. Dave McPhail would disagree with you:

Arguably the most important aspect of skiing is a strong stance. Any variance in the fore-aft angle of the plane of support under the feet and the plane of the base of the ski has significant impact on stance. Yet these subjects are barely blips on the Doppler Radar of the ski industry.​

Since I started the dynamic ramp angle assessment project a few weeks ago I have found that when asked to do so, it is rare for a skier of any ability to be able to assume a strong ski stance in an off the ski hill environment. Even when a skier skis with a relatively strong stance, they seem to lack a sense of what a strong stance feels like. Because of this, they lack the ability to consciously replicate a strong stance. If asked to do so, they would be unable to coach a skier in the sequence of events that I described in my last post​

In the dynamic ramp angle assessment project, I have also observed that skiers with with a boot/binding ramp angle greater than 2.8 degrees appear to have become accustomed to the associated unstable, dysfunctional feeling and identify with it as ‘normal’. Before I can test them, I have to spend time coaching them into the correct stance because it feels unnaturalto them.​

When I go back and forth between a strong functional stance on a flat, hard level surface to a stance on the dynamic ramp angle device set to an angle of 4 degrees, I can get close to the same angles of ankle, knee and hip. But when I do, I feel strong tension, stiffness and even pain in my mid to lower back which is common in some skiers and even racers.​

Based on results to date with the dynamic ramp angle device, it appears as if strong skiers ski best with ramp angles close to zero. But depending on their sense of balance and athletic ability, they may have a wide range in which they sense little difference on the effect of ramp angle until they approach the upper limit of stability. While they may be able to ski well with a ramp angle close to the maximum limit of stability, ramp angles much above 1.2 to 1.5 degrees may not offer any benefits. This can only be tested on skis where balance is tested by dynamic forces which cannot be replicated in a static setting.
From https://skimoves.me/category/zeppa-delta-angle-posts/

I'm obviously not a bootfitter but don't see how McPhail's version could ever work for the OP.

Thanks Doug. If I'm sitting in a chair with the center of my knee directly over the center of my heel, I can raise my forefoot a minimal amount (millimeters) but it's all in the foot bones that allow it as my talus and tibia are now one bone. I told the surgeon to fuse it in a slightly forward (maybe 87°) angle for skiing and unfortunately he didn't, and maybe even has it slightly more than 90° as I can point my toes a lot more than I can bring them up towards my shin, so it's really not a good ankle for a skier but he really can't go in now and cut the bone and refuse it just to change the angle.

So OP has severely limited ankle flexion. If ramp + delta can not be more than 2.8 degrees, and the OP has to be in a VERY upright boot because of his limited ankle flexion, then he will basically only be able to ski standing almost completely upright. If he need to flex he has to bend his upper body very forward to compensate. But he can then only go a very limited way down before he will fall backwards....


Got curious so tried to measure the ramp of my own boot with smartphone inclinometer. Not easy to measure, seems to be somewhere around 4.0-4.5 degrees. Is that a lot? also from other boot guys than McPhail? Have set all my bindings to flat delta after some experimenting that wasn't very conclusive... Other than that changes feel weird, but I get quickly used to them. I ski a bit taller with 0 mm delta than with +4 mm, but don't get crippled in any way...
 
Last edited:

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
I have skied on race skis most of my life, I have learned recently that most race bindings have zero binding delta, or at least close to zero. I have always played around with my boot forward lean so that I am in a comfortable "athletic stance" while skiing. When I get new boots, I have to try different forward leans to see what feels right.

Now to the point, with my boots dialed, I got new skis about 5 years ago that were not race skis. They had Marker Jester bindings on them. My stance was thrown off, but I didn't understand why. These skis were also on the short side for me, 178, and wide. After buying over a dozen skis in the last 5 years, some felt comfortable stance wise, some didn't. I finally measured all my binding delta's and the skis with zero delta felt good, the greater the delta the worse they felt, stance wise. The Marker Jesters had a 6 mm toe low delta, that was the worst. My BSL is 336 if someone wants to do the calc for angle, I just go by caliper measurements. I shimmed all my toe bindings with a dleta greater than 2mm back to zero. All skis felt great after that. I could also tell that stiff narrow skis could tolerate more delta than soft wide skis. Probably influenced by typically using softer wider skis in softer snow. My main "feeling" was too much pressure on my tips and tip dive or tip "squirm". Once the delta was corrected, I felt more balanced and could regulate the pressure on my tips easily.

To me, this is pretty much what Noodler went through and sorted out. I do move most of my bindings back and forth as well to find the sweet spot. I also think this fits the info from Mike King about delta's greater than 2.8 deg. (alright, with a 6 mm height and a 336 BSL, my delta angle is 1.02 deg.) being very bad. I guess I am fairly sensitive to this.

Finally, for the OP: If your bindings on different skis have different delta's then that is a factor and I would suggest making them all 0, as others have said. It makes sense that your wide soft powder skis feel the worse stance wise. Whatever shim or correction you arrive at should work for all your skis, although may not be needed the stiffer and narrower and more hard snow they are. Race skis can take a lot of tip pressure without getting squirmy.

Lastly, I would be careful putting shims under your boot toes. The only way this really works even for a test is if the toe height can go up and down, as Doug has said, only Salomon bindings do this. Adding a shim between the binding and ski is common and not that hard once you have the shim. Modifying your book is permanent, so only do that when you know what you need and it works for all your skis.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,900
Location
Behavioral sink
Got curious so tried to measure the ramp of my own boot with smartphone inclinometer. Not easy to measure, seems to be somewhere around 4.0-4.5 degrees.

Did you build one of the zeppa angle extenders? https://skimoves.me/2018/03/21/zeppa-delta-angle-extender/


I ask because without one +/-1degree is a commonplace error - and with one you generally notice that the footboard is not even close to being flat.
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,383
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
One other thing I'll add to the equation. Based on my skiing as observed by my coach, we considered putting a gas pedal on my current boot, but with the canting I already have and the fact it is not a solid sole boot, there wasn't enough material in the lug to do so. So, the boot fitter looked at how I was standing in the boot and, most importantly, how I was buckling the boot. We moved the power strap to be inside the top buckle which had the effect of moving the lower leg back. It opened up my skiing and got me off of the front of the boot. Eventually we substituted a booster strap, again under the top buckle, and haven't looked back since.

All of this is to say that there may be other mechanisms that achieve the result. Another area that often can be useful or problematic is the spoiler in the boot. So, there's a few degrees of freedom here.

Mike
 

ted

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
595
Did you build one of the zeppa angle extenders? https://skimoves.me/2018/03/21/zeppa-delta-angle-extender/


I ask because without one +/-1degree is a commonplace error - and with one you generally notice that the footboard is not even close to being flat.

This is probably an even better method -

https://skimoves.me/2016/09/16/more-on-zeppa-boot-board-ramp-angle/

It eliminates the variable angle boot boards often have. But if we're getting that picky, it assumes the boot board sits level in the boot. Probably better done in boot with a shell spreader and a confirmed.level surface
 

ted

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
595
One other thing I'll add to the equation. Based on my skiing as observed by my coach, we considered putting a gas pedal on my current boot, but with the canting I already have and the fact it is not a solid sole boot, there wasn't enough material in the lug to do so. So, the boot fitter looked at how I was standing in the boot and, most importantly, how I was buckling the boot. We moved the power strap to be inside the top buckle which had the effect of moving the lower leg back. It opened up my skiing and got me off of the front of the boot. Eventually we substituted a booster strap, again under the top buckle, and haven't looked back since.

All of this is to say that there may be other mechanisms that achieve the result. Another area that often can be useful or problematic is the spoiler in the boot. So, there's a few degrees of freedom here.

Mike

This shows how complicated Sagittal plane balance is.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
This has been one of the best threads on ideas and resources for fore/aft stance alignment in many years. Lateral alignment via sole canting and cuff adjustments is now fairly well understood across instructors, race coaches, and fitters. It wasn't always that way (you have to go back many years to remember many of the "battles" that were waged).

I mention this history because I hold out hope that eventually a protocol for finding optimal fore/aft alignment will be developed and widely accepted. The more awareness we build, the more data we will collect from testing and anecdotal observations. I have started capturing some ideas for a protocol, but it isn't fully fleshed out yet. As noted by Josh, MacPhail's writing can be tough to slog through, I don't agree with everything, but there are quite a few real gems in his observations and tests.

Recognition that there truly is a problem is the first step in finding a solution.
 
Thread Starter
TS
surfandski

surfandski

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Posts
708
Location
Clearwater Beach, Fl and Pisgah Forest, NC
I've had a little more time to take some measurements so I thought I'd weigh in again. I ordered a bunch of pieces of HDPE plastic ranging from 2.5mm to 20mm and by stacking some, I can make pretty much any height spacers and I plan to head west with various spacers made, Binding Freedom inserts installed in all my skis and with various lenght screws so I can experiment on the hill. I also spent quite a few hours reading on David Macphail's skier manifesto posts. He says that around 3° is the ideal boot/binding ramp angle. I happened to have a 8" digital level that I use for setting the prop pitch on airplanes and it's the perfect length to have one end on my zeppa where my heal would go and the other where the ball of my foot goes. All of my bindings have a delta angle of about .7-1° which equates to 2-2.5 mm so thankfully, all of my bindings are fairly flat. On my good ankle that currently has an 8 mm heel lift, I have a 6° boot/binding ramp angle consisting of 5° boot/1° binding and on my bad ankle which has 20 mm heel lifts I have 9.7° boot/binding angle(8.7° boot/1° binding) and this is measured clipped into the skis on a flat surface.

Playing around with (not actually remounting the toe piece but clicking in my boot into the binding with various shims underneath) different heights, it would take a 6.5 mm toe lift (very doable) on my good ankle and a 32 mm toe lift on my bad ankle (WTF?) to get me to 3° like David says is optimal. Obviously that's not going to happen so compromises are going to have to be made. The challenge is that there are a number of options on how to make these compromises and I bet if you asked 20 top boot fitters, there'd be differing opinions on how to achieve this. Here are some questions I've been thinking about:

-Do I start with the good ankle and choose the ideal setup for it (I bet if I got rid of the heel lift completely I'd probably be close to 3° but my highly regarded boot fitter in Breck thought I should sorta split the difference so my setups weren't too different vs my 20mm heel lift on my bad ankle) or do I focus on the bad ankle and get that the best it can be and then make compromises on my good ankle? Keep in mind we have a few variable with heel lifts, toe lifts, and now for the first time, potentially different amounts of "boot uprightness" if say I go with no heel or toe lift for my good ankle and a super upright boot if I went with a really tall toe lift on my bad ankle. Having one boot way more upright than the other almost sounds worse than my current setup but I could be wrong.

-Another consideration is on my bad ankle.......to avoid needing a massive toe lift to offset my massive heel lift which would have my entire foot a lot higher off the ski than my normal ankle, would I be better off lowering the heel of that boot by shaving down the removable heel piece (RS 130 wide has a 11mm replaceable piece so some of that could be ground down) and having material added to the top of the lug to bring it back to standard? Let's say a boot fitter removed 7mm off that heel piece, that would be 7mm less I'd need to raise the toe to have the same impact and maybe keeps it somewhat closer to the setup on my good ankle.

-My boot fitter thinks that my bad leg is now 5-8mm shorter than my good leg after they removed the cartilage in my ankle joint so it's ok for that side to have more of a heel lift which is why he put the heel lift in my good ankles boot as that + the leg length difference is close to the 20 mm heel lift. This has me leaning towards keeping the 8 mm heel lift in that boot.

-Since there is no way I can run a 32 mm lift under my toe binding to get anywhere close to 3°, I have to accept that my bad ankle will be a compromise. The question is how much, and how low to try to get that one from the 9.7° it is now with the 20 mm lift. Keep in mind that going with too much of a toe lift (or combo of toe lift and heel drop ^^^) is going to make my already upright Langes, very upright. The positive is that it will make my boot feel stiffer and I'll be less likely to flex it beyond my ROM and risk breaking my ankle where its fused (though I'd think my binding would release before that as I only run an 11 DIN).

Obviously there is no 100% correct gameplan for how to go about this but I'd be curious to hear some of your thoughts. I'm leaning towards keeping the heel lift in both boots and trying a 6.5 mm toe lift under my good boot to get that one about perfect and then maybe a 12.5 mm toe lift under my bad ankle which would reduce it from 9.7° to 7.3° (crazy how little effect toe lifts have when you have that much heel lift). I could then have a boot fitter lower that heel by maybe 7mm which would get me down to about 5.8°. If anyone wondered about the numbers:

Toe lift Boot binding angle
0 9.7°
9.7 mm 7.8°
12.6mm 7.3°
20 mm 5.5°
29 mm 3.7°
32 mm 3°

Right now I'm just throwing out hypothetical numbers based upon David Macphail's writings so I acknowledge that my gameplan will likely change once I start trying out heights (I'm going to install Binding Freedom inserts so I can change shims on the hill). BTW- is David around and accessible that I could maybe bounce my situation off of him? Thanks for your help!
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top