School me on forward lean

[Vincent_Diesel]

I watched a video the other day that coincides with this thread. Very interesting. My takeaway was those who are adding “heel lift” to their boot as a measure of correcting boot angle/lean is also adding more “aft” increasing rear body weight distribution, thus decreasing forward weight distribution and decreasing forward lean. This is due to opening the angle of foot to shin, as opposed to closing it akin to women wearing high heels.

 

[Choucas]

There is a lot of good info in this thread. It's difficult, however, to sort out fact from fiction. i.e., More forward lean keeps you in the front of the boot vs. more forward lean puts you in the back seat. I believe that the set up of your boots along with the ramp angle of the binding (not even getting into binding location) can make a major difference in how balanced and efficient your skiing is. When things are out of whack, it's virtually impossible to ski in a relaxed, balanced position. I know that there are tons of variables and everyone's body is different, but can we get some folks with balance and alignment bona fides to weigh in here? This is to take nothing away from those who have posted already. As I said, lots of good info.
Case in point: I have a female friend who is a good skier and really likes her new Nordica boots. She tends to be a back seat skier and, watching her ski, I don't think that the boots are helping her in this regard. They have more ramp angle and more forward lean than my wife's new last year's Nordica's (different model but similar performance range) which seem to help her (my wife) attain a more upright and balanced stance. I think my friend would ski in better balance and with less fatigue if the angles were different, but I really don't know how she should go about getting this diagnosed (maybe I'm all wet, and she's in a great position for her body type and skiing style) and if it is indeed an issue, how to go about getting it right.
Jackson Hogen wrote about a video camera that Jan's uses at Deer Valley to video skiers to get a handle on their alignment and fore-aft balance issues and then they make temporary changes (things taped under liners etc.) and then re-video. Sounds like a bit or trial and error, but they seem to be able to diagnose and test and make changes with a short turn around time as well as get immediate skier feedback.
We seem to spend a lot of time talking about boot fitting, comfort, power straps, flex numbers etc., but getting the boots dialed for fore-aft balance and alignment remains elusive.
Very important thread.

 

[Noodler]

There is a lot of good info in this thread. It's difficult, however, to sort out fact from fiction. i.e., More forward lean keeps you in the front of the boot vs. more forward lean puts you in the back seat. I believe that the set up of your boots along with the ramp angle of the binding (not even getting into binding location) can make a major difference in how balanced and efficient your skiing is. When things are out of whack, it's virtually impossible to ski in a relaxed, balanced position. I know that there are tons of variables and everyone's body is different, but can we get some folks with balance and alignment bona fides to weigh in here? This is to take nothing away from those who have posted already. As I said, lots of good info.
Case in point: I have a female friend who is a good skier and really likes her new Nordica boots. She tends to be a back seat skier and, watching her ski, I don't think that the boots are helping her in this regard. They have more ramp angle and more forward lean than my wife's new last year's Nordica's (different model but similar performance range) which seem to help her (my wife) attain a more upright and balanced stance. I think my friend would ski in better balance and with less fatigue if the angles were different, but I really don't know how she should go about getting this diagnosed (maybe I'm all wet, and she's in a great position for her body type and skiing style) and if it is indeed an issue, how to go about getting it right.
Jackson Hogen wrote about a video camera that Jan's uses at Deer Valley to video skiers to get a handle on their alignment and fore-aft balance issues and then they make temporary changes (things taped under liners etc.) and then re-video. Sounds like a bit or trial and error, but they seem to be able to diagnose and test and make changes with a short turn around time as well as get immediate skier feedback.
We seem to spend a lot of time talking about boot fitting, comfort, power straps, flex numbers etc., but getting the boots dialed for fore-aft balance and alignment remains elusive.
Very important thread.

It's a body morphology driven conundrum. Basic guidance uses the femur and tibia lengths and their relative ratios. I can't seem to find a diagram of this (although I think there is one available), but you can mostly understand what's happening just by drawing some stick figures with varying amounts of forward lean at the tibia and different lengths of the leg segments. In general, skiers with longer legs typically end up requiring more forward lean while shorter people should have a more upright shell, but this generalization doesn't fully take into account the ratios of the leg segments and other confounding variables like the net ramp and delta. Of course how you carry your weight and the size of your calves (and they way they mesh with the rear of the cuff) also add to the fun. This is why I put up the post in the current fore/aft alignment thread about experimenting. Most pros will say they want to see you on snow (or at least have video). You can get a start to the process with some indoor work, but it usually isn't a definitive assessment without the on-snow testing.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I haven't taken many lessons but at the better ones the instructor would look at my stance and skiing to determine if my gear setup was causing any fore/aft problems. A visit to a bootfitter and a private or semiprivate lesson might help rule out any major gear problems so you can focus on technique problems and/or physical limitations.