How do they decide what they prefer? I've talked to one tech who said sometimes the one that "feels better" they are actually slower on.
It tells you something about boot setup when even Mikaela with all the resources available, has trouble.
Yep, you'll hear "feels good, times slow", as age old words. I recall when Nordica came put with the Doberman with the duck foot stance that they felt would be in particular a fast speed boot. Felt great to ski for many guys. Timed "not so fast" for anybody that I heard of.
Depends on the ski and the discipline. And the skier. But basically it involves a lot of time on the same course, sane track, with clock and video.
In that article and video I find it interesting to hear Alex Martin state that Ligety really uses a different ski and setup "than anybody else" as he generates his speed by skiing super clean arc to arc instead of skiing a shorter, uglier more aggressive line. I think it will be interesting to see how it goes with the new skis.
Speed skis, BTW, involve a lot of testing relative to the pure speed of the ski. Glide tracks and such. More emphasis on base material, structure, edges. And then of course you have the whole wax testing process.
I believe that the pilot makes the difference, but sure is a lot of work in testing the planes!
I would love to have some real insight as to when one of the very best in the sport considers making a change in ski/boot companies and how they go about those evaluations in a short period of time. I guess you are concerned with the exact model and design. Have to evaluate so much, as well as hammer out the contract. Seems somewhat complicated.
Though some deals have been made just on the money. And the relative reputation of the company on tour.
As always...what they are skiing is not what we are skiing, though it has become closer.
MS' boots? I think sometimes no matter the resources, it's not that easy. Could also have some really opinionated people in the room. You might have a model and design that has worked really well, you have had tweaked, and then they roll out a new model that's problematic. That was the case with the first Redsters.
You have some of these athletes add a fair amount of muscle mass in a year or so. MS, Hirscher, etc. That can change the equation.
I'm reminded of when you go to your friendly bootfitter, who knows your foot, and needs. You walk in, in flip flops and shorts, looks at your foot, does an evaluation and says "Yep, that foot was made for a XYZ boot." Last time around, I really wanted to try a Head boot. My guy, who is good and experienced with me, said "no way" and explained why. The many reasons.
So....if I were paid a HUGE sum of money, and was a top of the heap athlete, I guess I'd have three options. One is for them to do whatever magic they can with a stock boot, and a huge bin of boot parts. A second would be to maybe do a few things with other boots and parts in their corporate family. Third would be for them to build me a complete custom boot, from the clog up. That does happen, but not for many.
Even the custom boot doesn't always work. In some cases an athlete's physiology is just not ideal for the boot. Boot was designed for somebody else. So there is constant non stop tweaking and fiddling. And of course some athletes develop that the reputation of constant
fiddling.
Better you are, more fiddling put up with!
And some fiddle themselves. Some guys swear they can feel a single piece of electrical tape under a toe or heel piece, or on one side to adjust cant. Thomas Vonn was one, as a coach and working with LV. That's kind of precise!
Coaches with "a good eye" can generally recognize a boot problem, but sometimes need more than a run to do so. And, sometimes they are on the money, sometimes not!
I am amazed at the really skilled ones.
