- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Posts
- 4,123
Yeah lol am pretty sure this guy can figure out body alignment....
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.
Maybe. Dave McPhail would disagree with you:Yeah lol am pretty sure this guy can figure out body alignment....
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?...
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
...
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.
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/
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/
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.
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.
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