You haven't posted pictures lately, the last ones you shared didn't come close to that place.You should see our garage
You haven't posted pictures lately, the last ones you shared didn't come close to that place.You should see our garage
It still doesn't but probably better that probably 90% of the shops out there.You haven't posted pictures lately, the last ones you shared didn't come close to that place.
I would not doubt you, compared to other shops.It still doesn't but probably better that probably 90% of the shops out there.
This is why I asked, last year I had a pair of Mach1 130 LVs canted using Cantology, and even at 2 Deg it looked like the front lug was going to be on the thin side. I just had a pair of Atomic CS done and no issues with the solid lugs in terms of worrying about the lug thickness.the tolerances are determined by the binding norms (most boot fitters test and cut boots using iso 5355 soles) so the toe is 19mm the heel 30mm +/- 1mm any thinner and they wont fit into the binding correctly, (on world cup boots sometimes we add 3mm steel shims to the top of the lugs so we mill them 3mm less than the 19/30
the reason that Cantology only produce shims up to 2.5 degrees for some models is that they have hollow lugs so there is a risk of ending up cutting into a void space (fixable with the right glue and skills but it don't look pretty)
the reason 3 degrees is the norm for maximum outward canting and 2 degrees for inward canting is the amount of joint space at the knee.... even with those maximums some people cant tolerate the change so sometimes you have to set up "better than before" but not perfect top get the best results
shouldn't ever be a problem on any of the boots where cantology make shims for them, it is still pretty solid plasticThis is why I asked, last year I had a pair of Mach1 130 LVs canted using Cantology, and even at 2 Deg it looked like the front lug was going to be on the thin side. I just had a pair of Atomic CS done and no issues with the solid lugs in terms of worrying about the lug thickness.
That was the thing. At 2 deg it looked like it was going to be too thin…..on the Mach 1…but who knows, this is why is ask “how thin is too thin”.. there must be a rule/standard…? I mean it is not lIke..how much can I grind a shell…this is more of a safety thing. I would be surprised (maybe not) if there wasn’t some sort of guidance other then leaving it up to the shop tech….IMHO, the Mach 1 lugs are a problem. 2 degrees is about max for routing, but they make 3 degree cantology shims. Don't ask how I know this, but Tecnica was very good about replacing my customer's boots. Thankfully it was pre-season.
A step aside from the current conversation- do boot soles usually get canted after or before cuff canting (on an unstable base)? Seeing the procedure, I imagine that 1) cuff canting could really offset the knee position that is measured on the angle-ruler 2) uncanted cuffs, though, could impact the measurement in the same way by not letting the boot tip enough to show the imbalance in pressure.
is it the same boot model as the old one?Since someone was nice enough to bump this thread, I'll ask here.
My previous boots had a 1 1/2 degree cant on the right boot. I'm on new boots this season and haven't done anything beyond a toe punch so far. On soft snow, I don't notice anything, but on firm snow on steeper sections I definitely rush the top half of my left turns. Seems not as smooth going from the top of the turn to the bottom half.
Is this a canting issue or or could it also be the fact that I need a bit more Omfit in my Zipfit liner and can't find any in stock?
Sort of. Old was Rossi Experience 130lv, new is Lange RX130lv.is it the same boot model as the old one?
so the experience was the same mold as the old RX, not the current RX so there answer might be you need nothing other than a little more cork material, but equally you need to get the whole thing assessed fullySort of. Old was Rossi Experience 130lv, new is Lange RX130lv.
Thanks. Just haven't had the time.so the experience was the same mold as the old RX, not the current RX so there answer might be you need nothing other than a little more cork material, but equally you need to get the whole thing assessed fully
the differences are minor but they are there, the OMfit into the liner might show up that you need more or less than previouslyThanks. Just haven't had the time.
Many years ago I had boots fit at the shop run by the inventor of the Somatec thing. When I asked about alignment, I was told the point of the boot was to change where the shin tracked, not the knee. Which is not how Fischer''s "Free your knees" posters sold it.the Fischer boots that said they were toed out to allow the knee to flex directly over the ski.
How much work do you want/expect to have to do to a shell?I've looked for but have not found a boot that's shaped like my foot. Every boot I've ever owned has had both the boot and liner big toe puncheded out but it's still frequently a hot spot.
Without seeing your feet, no idea what boot will work for them. As far as the toe-out, that is call abduction and Fischer and Nordica had it in the past. As far as changes in the 20 years, canting is canting, other than a few new ways to assess it and a ton of new canting shims and such available wich require less shell modification. There are some good shops in Big Sky, I would ask @BS Slarver for a suggestion on who to see there.My knees drive inward when I do moderate knee bends in my ski boots or running shoes. I need to be careful to not overedge on turns.
Long ago I traveled to a "Best Bootfitter" specifically to investigate canting. He adjusted my cuffs and canted the soles. I really couldn't see much change in my skiing. I probably had three visits and my skiing may have improved a little. I'm confident he did the best he could to help me. After a season in my canted boots and a few falls walking across the concourse I got so concerned about falls I bailed out of my carefully modified boots and bought the Fischer boots that said they were toed out to allow the knee to flex directly over the ski. This sounded good to me because if I simply point my toes out a little my knees flexed straight ahead. Experimenting with canting my shoes on a flat surface never accomplished the smooth stress free straight ahead flex of pointing my toes a little to the outside. Unfortunately the Fischer boots were misfit. They were too wide and maybe too long too. After two or three years of flopping around in the Fischer's I moved on to something else. By then Fisher nolonger promoted the toe out stance so I decided to just live with conventional boots.
I'm ready to buy new boots next season. Shoes that fit my feet best are Birkenstocks and my golf shoes are ECCO BIOMs. I've looked for but have not found a boot that's shaped like my foot. Every boot I've ever owned has had both the boot and liner big toe puncheded out but it's still frequently a hot spot. I'll be 76 years old so comfort is important to me. I need relatively narrow, something like 98mm. Flex 110-120.
Are there improvements in the canting process in the past 20 years that I might find helpful?
Does anyone make a ski boot shaped like my foot?
Can I address my narrow foot, my foot shape, canting and ease of entry - exit in one boot?
I thought the shin bone was connected to the thigh bone? I.e., where the shin tracks, the knee tracks. I don’t get what he was saying.When I asked about alignment, I was told the point of the boot was to change where the shin tracked, not the knee.
My knees still tracked inward. He was saying this was irrelevant as long as the shin tracked how they wanted it to.I thought the shin bone was connected to the thigh bone? I.e., where the shin tracks, the knee tracks. I don’t get what he was saying.