Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:29 am

[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.
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby jbotti » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:42 am

I will try to simplify things for you (which clearly you have a hard time doing for yourself!) A smaller boot is always better. (PERIOD, END OF STORY). Having said that whether the next size down will work for you comes down to how much snuggness/tightness your foot can and will handle. Toe room really isn't a consideration because you can add 5-7mm easily in an plug boot by grinding and if you went to punching you can add a full centimeter. I ski in a boot that I fill up completely (meaning there is no room behind the heel when I do shell check). We add 5mm of room to the toes ( and grind 2 other spots and I am good to go). Its a glove like fit especially after adding a foam liner. But... many people will not be able to tolerate as tight a fit as I ski with, in fact the majority of skiers will be in some amount of discomfort with this tight of fit. I have no problem in Montana where it is cold and very dry but when I ski in Tahoe with warmer temps and much more humidity, I have some amount of discomfort past the first 90 minutes (alleviated some be wearing ultra thin socks which get me through the day but its bad when I forget to grab the thin socks).

For you, there is only one way to know and that's try the boot and see if you can make it work. Judging by what HH and Diana have told me the statistics are around 70-30% against (meaning about 30% of skiers can handle a boot that tight). To me (again knowing that I am in that 30%) the Lange boot sounds like it fits you perfectly but you may find that it is too tight to wear all day. Ultra thin socks will help. The liner will pack out some and the race liners don't have a lot of padding so they are petty lean to begin with.

As for getting in an out, yes get a hot gear bag. It just makes it so much easier to get into the boot each morning and it saves you that extra energy needed to cram yourself into a tight boot. Save that for your skiing.

If you have arches and aren't flat footed, a footbed (that supports your arch) will shorten your foot some as well and will reduce your need to grind the toes as much. Adding toe room is never bad as it doesn't affect fit really in any way except for saving your toes.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby theorist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:02 pm

gaku wrote:Two surprises: ... 2. How easy it was to flex - I thought it would be a lot stiffer!


I tried the Lange ZB (same shell as Rossi) and also found it more flexible than I would have expected. A bit too soft, actually -- I think I would need the ZC.

gaku wrote: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.


I measured the zeppa with a digital inclinometer, and got within a few of tenths of 3 degrees. Inserting the bootboard into the shell only increased the zeppa by a few more tenths (~0.3 degrees).
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:48 pm

theorist wrote:
gaku wrote:Two surprises: ... 2. How easy it was to flex - I thought it would be a lot stiffer!


I tried the Lange ZB (same shell as Rossi) and also found it more flexible than I would have expected. A bit too soft, actually -- I think I would need the ZC.

gaku wrote: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.


I measured the zeppa with a digital inclinometer, and got within a few of tenths of 3 degrees. Inserting the bootboard into the shell only increased the zeppa by a few more tenths (~0.3 degrees).


Theorist, I haven't tried it outside with a cold shell yet, but yeah, I certainly expected it to be stiffer - particularly since it's such a narrow and and relatively low-volume boot. Still, I don't think I am at the level where I should consider anything stiffer than a 130 yet (I can insert another screw for 140 flex, after all, if it later proves to not give adequate support).

Thanks for the measurements, excellent! I couldn't find any tool to measure angles (they're all left up at the cabin), so I measured difference in height with cm front and lateral ends to get an idea. The zeppa is where the bootboard is inserted, right? Did it at least feel like it sloped downward to you, too, before you used the inclinometer?


BTW:
I'm curious about the lateral / rotary boot and their properties. Would like to understand better which factor is the most important for the overall netto effect.

For instance: The rossi / lange ZA-ZB-ZC have lower medial rivet / cuff hinge than the lateral. The same goes for the Nordica Dobermann. Yet all of these boots, at least the Dobermann, are boots I've always considered as "lateral" boots because of their upright stance (12 degree cuff forward lean) and low ramp angle (3 degree is way less than HH's 7 degree ramp angle to indicate a rotatory property of the boot). The Rossi boot also had a forefoot and rearfoot varus, which is another lateral quality and suits my foot well. Even if these other 3 indicators of a lateral / rotatory boot point in the direction of it being a lateral boot, maybe the most important indicator (rivet relative height) point in the direction of it being a rotatory boot. I also wonder if the inside shell is quite low compared to the Head (ends at the bottom of the 4th buckle), which is the 5th checkpoint in HHs rotatory / lateral boot test? It certainly doesn't go all the way up to or above the cuff as described in expert skier 1.

I've only got to test this ZB (extensively), and to some degree the Head Raptor RS 130. The later had all the signs of a lateral boot. What are your opinions - is the ZB a good PMTS boot despite the rivet - ie, the other boot properties negate the effect a lower medial rivet has on lateral transfer of energy to the ski?

Is the Nordica Dobermann, a staple in the world cup circuit, also a rotary boot? I just can't believe that, even though the medial cuff hinge is lower. So far the only WC boots I've seen that don't have the old-school lower medial rivet are the Head and Dalbello boots. http://www.dalbello.it/uploads/drs130-f ... ng?76289cf. Not sure about Fischer.

In that regard, could Dalbello DRS WC (flex 150-140-130?) be a try? I've heard it's a bit heavier / bigger than the other WC boots, and it comes with zero lateral inclination, but it seem to be the only one along with Head to have a equal or higher medial rivet. It also has a 93 mm last which seems appropriate.
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby theorist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:31 pm

gaku wrote:Thanks for the measurements, excellent! I couldn't find any tool to measure angles (they're all left up at the cabin), so I measured difference in height with cm front and lateral ends to get an idea. The zeppa is where the bootboard is inserted, right? Did it at least feel like it sloped downward to you, too, before you used the inclinometer?

What are your opinions - is the ZB a good PMTS boot despite the rivet - ie, the other boot properties negate the effect a lower medial rivet has on lateral transfer of energy to the ski?

In that regard, could Dalbello DRS WC (flex 150-140-130?) be a try? I've heard it's a bit heavier / bigger than the other WC boots, and it comes with zero lateral inclination, but it seem to be the only one along with Head to have a equal or higher medial rivet. It also has a 93 mm last which seems appropriate.


Hi gaku. No, the zeppa is the angle of the bootboard (though sometime people use "zeppa" to mean "bootboard"). So again, I measured about 3 degrees when outside the shell, and a few tenths more when inserted in the shell. Yes, I did feel a downward slope.

I can't comment on the implications of rivet position, but it's my understanding that HSS is fine with the ZB as a lateral boot.

The DRS WC (93 mm) should also be a good lateral boot, but I've no idea how it fits. It's supposed to have less forward lean than the current DRS Scorpion (98 mm), and Dalbello says the lateral foot offset is gone as well. [Next year they're replacing the Scorpions w/ new 98 mm boots that are supposed to have the WC's geometry: the DRS 90/110/130, and the DMS 110/130; the two models have identical shell shape, but the DMS is black, and has removable cant plates.] I'm not sure where you're located, but Dalbello USA told me neither they nor their dealers have any DRS WC's left. BTW, I tried a 2013 95 mm Scorpion in an S flex (which is supposed to be equal to a 130) and found it a bit softer than my 2013 Scorpion SR 130 (though stiffer than the Lange ZB). Further, Dabello says their flexes are now softer (for equal flex specifications) than they used to be.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:34 am

Interesting, Theorist. So you'd say Nordica Dobermann, Lange/Rossi ZA-ZB-ZC, Dalbello Drs, and Head B3 RD are all good lateral boots for PMTS skiing?

Update:


The bootfitter is sending me a Lange ZB 25.5 (didn't have any Rossi 25 shells left). Apparently, both the 25 and 26 shells are 92 mm, and there's no difference between Lange / Rossignol (not even the liner) but for design preferences. If all goes as planned I'll have new boots to ski this weekend, ready for the children' slope to practice. :lol:

I have a chance at ordering the Dalbello through a local ski shop, but I'd have to pay 90% of the cost if it doesn't fit, or sell it on ebay, not taking that risk. The Lange ZB should be here in 3-4 days. If that doesn't fit, I might consider going for it.
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:54 am

jbotti wrote:I will try to simplify things for you (which clearly you have a hard time doing for yourself!) A smaller boot is always better. (PERIOD, END OF STORY). Having said that whether the next size down will work for you comes down to how much snuggness/tightness your foot can and will handle. Toe room really isn't a consideration because you can add 5-7mm easily in an plug boot by grinding and if you went to punching you can add a full centimeter. I ski in a boot that I fill up completely (meaning there is no room behind the heel when I do shell check). We add 5mm of room to the toes ( and grind 2 other spots and I am good to go). Its a glove like fit especially after adding a foam liner. But... many people will not be able to tolerate as tight a fit as I ski with, in fact the majority of skiers will be in some amount of discomfort with this tight of fit. I have no problem in Montana where it is cold and very dry but when I ski in Tahoe with warmer temps and much more humidity, I have some amount of discomfort past the first 90 minutes (alleviated some be wearing ultra thin socks which get me through the day but its bad when I forget to grab the thin socks).

For you, there is only one way to know and that's try the boot and see if you can make it work. Judging by what HH and Diana have told me the statistics are around 70-30% against (meaning about 30% of skiers can handle a boot that tight). To me (again knowing that I am in that 30%) the Lange boot sounds like it fits you perfectly but you may find that it is too tight to wear all day. Ultra thin socks will help. The liner will pack out some and the race liners don't have a lot of padding so they are petty lean to begin with.

As for getting in an out, yes get a hot gear bag. It just makes it so much easier to get into the boot each morning and it saves you that extra energy needed to cram yourself into a tight boot. Save that for your skiing.

If you have arches and aren't flat footed, a footbed (that supports your arch) will shorten your foot some as well and will reduce your need to grind the toes as much. Adding toe room is never bad as it doesn't affect fit really in any way except for saving your toes.


Hey J-bot,

Thank you for the clarificiation slash simplification. A lot of helpful stuff in there, scoping in on the important stuff. The post is a bit all over the place, I know. I wanted to address the main points about alignment and bootfit in the Expert Skier 1 & 2, in case anything stood out. Figured it was better to include too much than too little for those who want to help (believe me, I was groaning when I hit "submit" on this thread starter; :oops: ).

Your comment made me go for ordering the 25.-25.5 size shell. I think I belong in that 30 % you referred to - as I once mentioned, I used to be a hockey player, I've basically grown up with curled toes, cold feet and initial numbness. You grow up having to almost masochistically like the feeling. :roll:
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:06 pm

gaku wrote:Interesting, Theorist. So you'd say Nordica Dobermann, Lange/Rossi ZA-ZB-ZC, Dalbello Drs, and Head B3 RD are all good lateral boots for PMTS skiing?


Have anyone tried all, or a couple of, these models? What were their different characteristics on-snow? Anything that stood out to you?

I've heard a few complain about Lange's geometry (heel), is this still the case? If so, I'm assuming it relates to the Rossignol plug boot as well, and has to do with a slim heelbox?
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby jbotti » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:56 pm

In the end fit trumps everything else. All these models in say a 26 or a 27 will have different boot sole lengths and some will be a large 315 (like Nordica) or a short 313 like Head. It doesn't matter that the Nordica might have some better feature or preferred geometry, I can't ski that boot because it doesn't fit my foot (315 too large, the 305 is too small). So to some degree skiing/demoing different boots will not produce the result you and others might be looking for because fit cannot be great in all of them and every skier will notice the performance difference between a correctly fitting (tight or glove like) boot (versus one that is too large if only slightly) more than most of the other features or geometry. Boots are not skis (which everyone can try and have the same basic experience as everyone else).
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby theorist » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:13 am

gaku wrote:Interesting, Theorist. So you'd say Nordica Dobermann, Lange/Rossi ZA-ZB-ZC, Dalbello Drs, and Head B3 RD are all good lateral boots for PMTS skiing?

I am not an official source for such a determination. But based on what I've read or heard from official PMTS sources, yes, they're all good lateral boots for PMTS skiing. Going forward, if you are wondering whether a particular boot is acceptable for PMTS, you might first try using this forum's advanced search function for that boot, filtering it to posts from those who are official sources (h.harb, SkierSynergy, Max_501, etc.).
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby Hobbit » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:45 pm

Regarding the boot bag -- I use it and I swear by it, but there is the other side of the story. While it makes it so easy to get in the boot it would make it much harder to get out on certain boot models. People said that the new Raptors are much better in this respect. The bag makes the plastic softer and when you tighten the clips on the warm boot it fits much closer to the foot shape. With my older Head Raptor 130 RS boots I got caught a few times on the cold days unable go get out of the boot period. I just had to drive home and let it warm up -- good thing it was my left foot :)
User avatar
Hobbit
Site Admin
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:45 am

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby Max_501 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:19 pm

Hobbit wrote:Regarding the boot bag -- I use it and I swear by it, but there is the other side of the story. While it makes it so easy to get in the boot it would make it much harder to get out on certain boot models. People said that the new Raptors are much better in this respect. The bag makes the plastic softer and when you tighten the clips on the warm boot it fits much closer to the foot shape. With my older Head Raptor 130 RS boots I got caught a few times on the cold days unable go get out of the boot period. I just had to drive home and let it warm up -- good thing it was my left foot :)


Very true! I've gotten stuck in my Raptor 150s because I just can't get the darn things off on cold days!!! I can always get out of my Dobbie 130s but sometimes it hurts like heck.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby CO_Steve » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:32 pm

I thought today was going to be one of those days. High around 5 and I was skiing a lot of leftover pow that was knee deep at times. We I got back to the car I remembered what was coming.
I got them off, had to help Pam with hers. There's a point where you know it's going to hurt, and then there's times you're just not getting out period. Turn on car heater and sit for a while.
User avatar
CO_Steve
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:32 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby theorist » Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:59 pm

Same issue with my Scorpion 130's (the older model, before they introduced the flexible panels at the throat to ease entry/exit). Fortunately all my resort stays since I've gotten them have been ski in/out, so I just sit in front of the gas fireplace in the condo for about 15 minutes while I work on my laptop. The fireplace is powerful -- it can rapidly heat the entire condo -- so I'd hate to think how long a car heater would take. There are also three things I do that help: (1) I do a race exit, which keeps my feet from being torn up; (2) I anchor the boot down by pressing the toe of the other boot or liner into the top of the boot's back; and (3) I turn my foot sideways (arch up) as I exit -- this corkscrew motion seems to help a lot.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: Boot properties and fit, New Rossignol ZB boots

Postby gaku » Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:39 pm

theorist wrote:
gaku wrote:Thanks for the measurements, excellent! I couldn't find any tool to measure angles (they're all left up at the cabin), so I measured difference in height with cm front and lateral ends to get an idea. The zeppa is where the bootboard is inserted, right? Did it at least feel like it sloped downward to you, too, before you used the inclinometer?

What are your opinions - is the ZB a good PMTS boot despite the rivet - ie, the other boot properties negate the effect a lower medial rivet has on lateral transfer of energy to the ski?

In that regard, could Dalbello DRS WC (flex 150-140-130?) be a try? I've heard it's a bit heavier / bigger than the other WC boots, and it comes with zero lateral inclination, but it seem to be the only one along with Head to have a equal or higher medial rivet. It also has a 93 mm last which seems appropriate.


Hi gaku. No, the zeppa is the angle of the bootboard (though sometime people use "zeppa" to mean "bootboard"). So again, I measured about 3 degrees when outside the shell, and a few tenths more when inserted in the shell. Yes, I did feel a downward slope.
Have you tried the Rossi ZB as well? I Just got the Lange ZB 140 and the bootsole under the removable bootboard didn't feel the same - I can't remember what, but I'm pretty sure the pattern for the hindfoot is different than on the Rossi, maybe also the forefoot. Does this have something to do with Rossi's patented sensor inside technology (bring owned by the same Company, one Would think not), and be a detaljer where the Shells deviated slightly? I also think the Lange ZB is more neutral in the forefoot, less accomodating for forefoot varus than the Rossi ZB. It's vern too long sine I teste the Rossi to confirm, but could that be possible. Or are sources still saying the shells are identical in all aspects? If the latter is the case, can gong down a size (the Rossi were 26; lange 25) incur suck a different respons?
gaku
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:36 pm

Next

Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests