[Warning: Long post. Proceed with caution. Tried to separate into segments to make it easier]
I just received a new pair of boots in the mail, the Rossignol ZB. 130 flex, 92 mm, 26.5 modo size.
Previously I owned a Nordica Speedmachine 100 flex, 100 mm, 27.5 boot size. I was swimming in those!
Two surprises: 1. How ridiculously hard it was to get into the boot! I've tested the Head 130 Raptor,which I entered quite easily with Harald's entry technique tips, but this pair, I had to hairdry the shell to get my feet past the instep (or remove the liner - COMPLETELY stuck using the regular entry technique). 2. How easy it was to flex - I thought it would be a lot stiffer!
So, to the questions:
1. Shell sizing:
First, should I buy a heat bag? Or is it fine removing the liner after each ski day, then reinsert it?. Once inside the boot, the lateral fit feels tight but good (very snug). There's less than HH minimum of 0.31 cm (1/8 inch) width in the shell, more like 10 mm (flattened index finger) in the ankle lateral pocket (5 mm medial ankle pocket) and 1.5-2 mm in the bottom - but I don't really mind the compression. No lateral movement in the liner.
Despite this, I'm afraid i've ordered a size too large. I can get 2 fingers into the bottom of the heel pocket, the space is about 1,3 cm on the left foot (+1 cm from pointy end of heel to bottom of heel) and 1.7 cm on the right (+1 cm from pointy end of heel to bottom of heel). With fingers I get about one and a half down on the right, about two on the right, going down along the side of the heel to the bottom. There's about 1.2 cm from heel spur to bottom of heel. Fit seems to be somewhere in the comfy-luxury spectrum on the right and a comfy fit on the left. Really difficult to say anything precise though, I took a few photos I'll try to upload later.
When I measued my feet with two different Salomon brannock devices, I got 26.5 (26 unweighted) with my left foot and 26 (25.5 unweighted) on my right foot. The width on the two different devices deviated - on one, 92mm weighted, on the other 95mm weighted. Measuring myself, I get 94 mm from 1st to 5th metatarsal. The measuring itself was done meticulously, on numerous occasions, so I find it kind of strange there is that much space in the Rossi bootshell?
Could the reason be that Rossignol measure mondo size differently than other boot manufacturers, and that they therefore count the 26-26.5 as a 42 cm size boot, while normally a 26.5 mondo (cm) size would be 41.5 cm, and therefore the 26.26.5 shell of a Head would be be 41 cm? These links seem to indicate that:
https://www.scarpa.com/DownloadPdf?data ... SIZE_CHART
http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/hero-wor ... ml?b=31599
http://www.the-raceplace.com/How-to-Siz ... s/6326.htm (Head's measurement chart)
For instance; 26.5 (42 EU) cm Rossi ZB = 27 cm Head B3 (42 EU); 25.5 mondo size Rossi ZB (40.5 EU) = 26.0 Head B3 (40.5 EU). Do any of you know if this is accurate?
In the liners, my right foot had about 7 mm to to the liner's big toe (11-12 mm from 4th toe, no space from the fifth toe or laterally), while my left had 2mm maybe from the big toe, 0.6-0.7 cm from 4th toe [biggest part], no space from the fitfh or laterally. Both were measured unweighted, so weighted the distance would be about 0.4-0.5 cm less (arch collapse).
Arch length, for additional information purposes, is 18,5 cm (left foot) and 18 (right foot) ca - i.e I have true-to-size toe characteristic, or at the very least relatively close to it (maybe, maybe half a mondo size smaller relative to foot length).
Should I go for a pair down? Ask for two 25.5s and grind the toe area for my left foot? Or, as I suspect, is the boot just not well suited for my feet - going down 1.5 cm rather than 1 cm (26.5 and 25.5 have a wider margin than the other sizes) would mean the last probably reduces more than 1 cm, maybe 2 cm? Not sure I could take that, would have even more pressure on 5th metatarsal and the right foot's lateral ankle at the very least. ATM it's right at the limit.
One thing that worried me about the Rossi boots is the fact that it seems the lateral cuff is higher than the medial - ie the boot should have rotational properties. Can anyone else confirm this? Given the previous information, do you think a Dobermann WC 130 (Edit: going from pictures, this too has a higher lateral cuff, can't believe it!) / Head B3 RD (Head's the only brand I've seen with higher medial cuff) are better fits? Do you have other suggestions I should take a look at?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Other bootfit and compatibility evaluations:
1. Instep-heel volume: high point of foot to heel: 26.5 cm both feet. Correlate well with foot length, so a medium volume. It's quite tall, but relatively thin. Inside the boot, the instep feels tight but good (locked in).
2. Ankle rivet height: medial rivet set lower than lateral. 8,8 cm versus 9.2cm. Isn't this very unusual for race boots? I read Harald talked about 1 or 2 manfucaturers prefering the rotatory setup even with their race boots -- is this Lange and Rossignol by any chance? The other properties of the boot (neutral stance, 12 degrees forward lean [think it's a little more vertical than the Head boots], boot board with a slight forefoot varus angle [1 mm difference) suggest it also has quite a bit of lateral properties.
3. Ankle rivet's foreaft position, measured in distance from middle of the boot's back: medial rivet (7.5 cm) ahead of lateral rivet (7.2 cm). Good for lateral properties - slight outward tracking.
4. The lower part of the shell extends precisely to the bottom of the second upper buckle. Not sure if this is "high" or not, if it thus constitutes as a lateral or rotatory quality. Seems somewhere in between to me?
5. Cuff: tipped 1" degree to the lateral side. Cuff fit seems good - centered in the middle both laterally and fore/aft when subtalar angle is neutral, with minimal to no internal rotation when standing on both feet. The knuckle test had my hand stop mid-way, while a finger to each side of the shell with my foot indicates quite even pressure to both sides of the cuff - slightly more pressure on the lateral side. There is a bit of ankle articulation on my right foot when balancing on one foot. A proper footbed should require little or no cuff adjustment, or canting, to get the center of the knee tracking over the second toe/center of the boot. With the standard footbed, though, particularly the right tibia moves a little more towards the medial cuff when standing on one foot. I'm able to go from LTE to BTE continuously and quickly. Quite amazed how much better balance I got just off snow in these boots than in my old.
6. Boot board: hard, unstable and allows for co-contraction and proprioception. 1,3 cm front; 2.5 cm back; toe-to-heel length 25,4 cm. Boot board angle? Also have to take into consideration that the slope the boot board is built into is downward sloping from the toe, which means the foot's angle in the boot will be lower than the boot board indicates.
7. Boot's ramp: Higher big toe forefoot (forefoot varus) and neutral hindfoot. Compatible with my feet, I also have forefoot varus and the neutral hindfoot should in theory help with the pronation of my hindfoot. Even so, I experience some pronation on the right foot, which leads to internal rotation up the kinetic chain (femur and pelvis). This first becomes evident when standing on one foot, pretty much unnoticable on two feet.
8. Ramp angle: the weight is a bit more on the ball of the feet naturally than I would like for an even pressure distribution from heel through midfoot to toe. Getting the pressure slightly more back for even distribution requires a more upright stance and a little more pressure towards the back of the cuff. Still, the ankle is locked in well and it's far better than on other boots I've tried.
9. Tracking / cuff canting / subtalar angle: The right foot rotates inward of the middle of the boot - knee is not aligned over the center of the boot when flexing (on one foot) [center of knee does not track over second toe].
Additional info:
In the shop I was trying on a similar model, the Rossignol SI 110 (100 mm last), in both 25.5 and 26.5. In the 26.5 The smaller of the two, the 25.5, felt a lot quicker laterally, but my toes had to curl up a bit. Probably ok on the right, since it was the first try and your toes are supposed to at least touch the toebox (which it doesn't in the 26.5 model), but I'm afraid the fit will be too tight for the left foot which is half a size bigger (there's already a bit of pressure on the 5th metatarsal, navicular and toes in the shell). Again, should I ask for a 25.5 size, or would you recommend switching to Head B3, Nordica Dobermann Wc EDT 130 / [insert other narrow boot model]?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Alignment analysis of foot, ankle, tibia, femur and general footbed tips:
Medium foot arch.
Neutral pronation / supination: equal wear and tear on shoes inside / outside of sole. Tibia tuberosity / CoM tracks over the third toe.
Range of subtalar motion: neutral subtalar angle my nautural stance on flat surfaces. I.e. neutral position where the ankle is strongest is with no difference inside / outside heigh or material density/rigidity of the footbed. Any tests I can do to check how much motion there is? I would guess I - with a medium arch - have quite normal subtalar range motion, and would need a footbed made of medium dense/rigid material - so that pressure can be applied to the boot's sidewall (support) without losing too much range of motion in the ankle (accomodate)?
Forefoot varus / forefoot valgus and forefoot / hindfoot relationship: I tried testing this myself, but I'm really not sure. Seemed a few changes in subtalar alignment or tibia / knee support when doing it seated drastically changed the angle, hard to do by myself. I'll update this once I get someone else to assist. For the time being, I'll say I'm pretty sure I have a small tendency towards forefoot varus (standing on one foot and lifting the other as in a run consistently gave this angle). This seems to be consistent with my normal-to-high arch, my experience of the femur / tibia internally rotating because the hindfoot pronates in the boot when standing on one foot.
Calcanal angle: In line with the part over, the hindfoot seems to pronate slightly while the tibia moves to the lateral side, seen with the heel / achilles angle tilting medially while the tibia angles outwards. If I supinate the foot, I get a really big angle both in the heel and forefoot, which is probably a good indication that I have forefoot varus and hindfoot pronation in my stance.
Getting these angles right is crucial for co-contraction and having a functionalkinetic chain. I have taken multiple photos and videoes for these measures, if any trained eye think that would help assessing footbed?
Tracking : internal rotation of femur related to forefoot varus and hindfoot pronation. No tracking on bare feet.
In-boot tracking: Tracking inward on right foot in boot. For some reason center of mass seems to track towards the big toe on the right foot in boots when standing on one foot. Video coming up.
Dorsiflexion: More than 10 degrees. Probably about 20-25 degrees, somewhere within the normal range.
Lastly, how are the sidas custom footbed as an alternative to HHs solution, if any of you have any experience with those? I know its material is standardised, but seeing as I have a normal arch height, seemingly neutral pronation / supination and subtalar range of motion, maybe that is less of an issue for me than for those with more extreme foot properties?
I'm hoping to get into one of HHs Hintertux camps next year, but meanwhile I want to take some measures towards improved alignment.