Is Rear-Entry Really bad? Was->Re: Ski Boot
James Bond 007
Well, I don't race, and only ski probably 15 times a year, but
I have been skiing about 28 years, can and will ski anything from
steeps to moguls, at any speed, and I will never go back to
standard boots. Just the nonhassle of getting in and out of
my rear entries is worth every penny I paid for them. Performance
wise, never noticed much difference either way. Unless you are
a racer trying to get every extra second out of your equipment, or
you want to look just like your favorite racer, I can't see any
reason to buy conventional boots. I guess style always wins out
in the end though, to each their own.
JJR
Jeremy Gilbert
I think the whole debate comes down to one thing: how do you ski? The
guy who so humbly named himself James Bond 007 has been skiing for quite
a while. I've only been skiing 15 years, but that's because I'm only
20. Chances are very great that James learned to ski on leather boots.
I knew someone who still skied on leather boots until about 5 years
ago. He is used to having the feel of skiing in a pair of tennis shoes.
I, on the other hand, am an extremely agressive skier. James says he
skis at any speed, but I'd bet that at some of the speeds I ski, he rear
entry boots would give out and any slight error in balance would cause a
fall. On the other hand, I ski in racing boots and I actually use
slight variances in balance to go faster. Have you ever watched a
slolom race in slow motion? If you look carefully, you'll notice that
the skiers lean forward at the initiation of their turn and as they
turn, the lean back onto the tail of the skis. The leaning forward
engages the edge into the snow and the leaning back motion shoots the
racer forward to the next gate. Even without gates, you can use this to
your advantage, provided you have stiff enough boots and strong enough
legs to handle the tourque.
James skis like a recreational skier, and an older one at that. I'll
bet that he has physical limitations that don't allow him to ski like
racers do. Not that he's broken. As a result of his skiing style, he
is probably injury free. Myself, on the other hand, am a prime
candidate for ACL repair in both knees before 30. That's something I'm
looking forward to.
Personally, I wouldn't go near a pair of rear entries--or mid entry for
that matter. I'll stick with the racing gear. For the record, I'm not
interested in style when I ski. I'm more interested in skiing fast and
having fun than wondering how those people on the lift like the way I
look. At my speed, I'm not worried about picking up snow bunnies on the
way down.
--
Jeremy Gilbert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| http://www.cs.montana.edu/~gilbert/ gil...@cs.montana.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- End Transmission --
Ignatius G. Rigor
The first thing I thought of when I read Gilbert's take on rear-entry
was that the boy has too much undisciplined testosterone flowing through
is veins. Gilbert probably not only skis fast, but drives a beefed up
Camaro floored all the way up the pass.
Dennis, if you want a predictable flex from a front entry boot, try
Raichle! While they are stiff laterally, they tend to be softer flexing
forward than most advanced/expert boots.
Ignatius
Good Ol' Ed
Dennis Summerbell wrote:
>
> In article <329292...@cs.montana.edu>, gil...@cs.montana.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > I think the whole debate comes down to one thing: how do you ski? The
> > guy who so humbly named himself James Bond 007 has been skiing for quite
> > a while. I've only been skiing 15 years, but that's because I'm only
> > 20. Chances are very great that James learned to ski on leather boots.
>
>
> > I knew someone who still skied on leather boots until about 5 years
> > ago. He is used to having the feel of skiing in a pair of tennis shoes.
> >
> > I, on the other hand, am an extremely agressive skier. James says he
> > skis at any speed, but I'd bet that at some of the speeds I ski, he rear
> > entry boots would give out and any slight error in balance would cause a
> > fall. On the other hand, I ski in racing boots and I actually use
> > slight variances in balance to go faster. Have you ever watched a
> > slolom race in slow motion? If you look carefully, you'll notice that
> > the skiers lean forward at the initiation of their turn and as they
> > turn, the lean back onto the tail of the skis. The leaning forward
> > engages the edge into the snow and the leaning back motion shoots the
> > racer forward to the next gate. Even without gates, you can use this to
> > your advantage, provided you have stiff enough boots and strong enough
> > legs to handle the tourque.
>
> and previous related threads have argued that the main advantage of front
> entry is increased lateral support. This is also the line that is taken in
> all of the "technical" notes released by boot manufacturers that I've
> read: rear entry = comfort and convenience; front entry = performance due
> to increased lateral support.
>
> This has always seemed strange to me for two reasons:
>
> 1 I haven't skied in a modern boot (modern = last twenty years) that
> appeared to be defficient in lateral support. Some were better than
> others, none were bad, and all were perfectly adequate for my grade of
> skiing (advanced-expert recreational, ie equal or better to 98% of other
> skiers).
>
> 2 I did notice enormous variability in flex pattern and in forward and
> rear support and I consider that predictable progressive behaviour of the
> boot during forward flexing is much more critical to good accurate skiing
> and control of turning than minute differences in the degree of lateral
> support. Your point is fine, but even ignoring gains of hundredths of a
> second in a gate, any competent skier with a feel for the snow uses the
> motion that you describe in controlling each and every turn. One can
> perhaps sum it up in the elegant Austrian phrase "bend ze knees".
>
> BUT, here we part company. Recently, my rear entry Salomon Equipes being
> past their prime I went out to try on boots. It was a very depressing
> experience. As I expected there were basically only front entry boots
> available in a suitable flex stiffness. Having followed this endless
> thread I was not surprised to discover that the boots were basically fine,
> particularly they all had good lateral support (even an intermediate boot
> with an advertised flex strength of 70). However set an edge and put a bit
> of weight FORWARD and suddenly the world is a different place. These boots
> are so unpredictable! I guess the problem lies in the complex geometry of
> two overlapping sides and a floating tongue. Front entry boots must be the
> Cobblers equivalent of the Astronomers Three Body Problem.
>
> Dennis
>
> Dr D. Summerbell, NIMR, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA.
>
> email: d-su...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk
> Tel: +181 959 3666 X2366
> Fax: +181 913 8527
And I thought this was just another tastless rsa sheep joke!
Good Ol' Ed
Buttdwag, where are you?
Daniel Easa
A soft forward flex is fine for skiing out west, but back here in the
north east a good stiff but makes a big difference. I changed from
front to rear entry 4 years ago and I wont go back.
Nelson Ho
Speaking strictly performance, rear entry boots just can't compare to
overlap designs.
Rear entry is great for comfort, easy of getting in/out, and must
easier walking around in the lodge. Many more recent hi performance
rear entry boots also ski great. But for the pure sake of banging out
hard, carved turns that require a lot of stiffness (forward, rearward,
and lateral), immediate response and high sensitivity to input, no
rear entry boots can come close to today's overlap designs.
It all depends on what your preferences are. You don't buy a beach
cruiser if you want to win a mtn bike race, do you?
dbo...@hq.nasa.gov
In article <d-summer-261...@mac134.nimr.mrc.ac.uk>,
> Why? People keep SAYING this, nobody gives any data.
>
> Dennis
>
> Dr D. Summerbell, NIMR, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA.
There are, in my opinion, two valid technical criticisms of rear entry boots.
1.) They are too upright. If you stand on them in a comfortable tall
stance you will be too far back on your skis. About 90% of skiers are
too far back on their skis. Those in extreme "toilet seat" positions are
usually in rear-entry boots. It is especially important with modern skis
that have wide shovels to properly pressure the front of the ski early in
the turn. To do so you must get forward.
2.) When pressured forward a good overlap shell boot provides a nice
smoothly progressive resistance as it bends. Rear-entry boots don't,
at least not nearly as well. It is a consequence of the design.
I have watched this thread for quite a while and I know that Dennis and
many others like their rear-entry boots. If you want high performance
from them you should be aware of the consequences of the design. You can
overcome some of this with heel wedges and ramps to lift your heels.
When an instructor asks you to ski on one ski they are probably looking at
your fore-aft balance not your ability. The secret is; if you are too far
back you will carry the lifted ski with tip high. It's a dead giveaway. A
good skier could hide it perhaps, but if you don't know this trick and don't
compensate you will signal to the instructor whether or not you are too far
back. There are even instructors who are too far back. I didn't think I
was until I read Warren Witherell's "The Athletic Skier" and did various
exercises in his book. Then I experimented with heel wedges under my boot
liners until I got it right.
Two outrageously opinionated observations:
I always though it was dumb to accept an inferior boot just to save 60
seconds putting it on in the morning.
If you really want comfortable ski boots there is only one answer
_TELEMARK_.
Denis Bogan, PSIA Alpine & Telemark
Annandale, VA
ale2
In article <57ft45$2...@centauri.hq.nasa.gov>
dbo...@hq.nasa.gov writes:
> There are, in my opinion, two valid technical criticisms of rear entry boots.
>
> 1.) They are too upright. If you stand on them in a comfortable tall
> stance you will be too far back on your skis. About 90% of skiers are
> too far back on their skis. Those in extreme "toilet seat" positions are
>
> usually in rear-entry boots.
Seems like a rear-entry boot could have any geometry that a front entry
boot could so the problem of proper geometry could be fixed.
> It is especially important with modern skis
> that have wide shovels to properly pressure the front of the ski early in
> the turn. To do so you must get forward.
>
> 2.) When pressured forward a good overlap shell boot provides a nice
> smoothly progressive resistance as it bends. Rear-entry boots don't,
> at least not nearly as well. It is a consequence of the design.
Seems as it is just a matter of making a better rear-entry design, but
then i have spam and eggs for brains %^)
Bond
Rear entries too upright? Causes sitting back?
Does anybody remember back in the early seventies when
the "jet skiing" technique was so popular? Back then, when all
the ski magazines were touting this technique, they recommended
getting boots with the most forward lean, to promote sitting back,
and to add more leverage to the back of the ski. My Saloman rear
entries don't seem very upright to me, and even has an adjustment
to increase or decrease forward lean.
It has plenty of other adjustments that I never had in my conventional
boots, for instance an adjustable forefoot you lower to hold your foot
tighter to the sole, a cable that pulls your foot back tightly against
the heel, a sliding forward stiffness lever, not to mention the closure
cable adjustments. Once you set them, you can forget them, as they
stay the same til you change them, unlike conventional boots, where
each time you put them on, you waste time adjusting the tension on
8 or more buckles.
Nothing like the easy on, click two buckles (one for each), and
out the door and ski, ease, of rear entries.
JJR
ale2
In article <19961127162...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
skif...@aol.com writes:
> But first keep in mind what a ski boot's #1 job is...a transmitter of
> energy.
force not energy, energy in one form is force times the distance over
which the force acts.
ale2
> But first keep in mind what a ski boot's #1 job is...a transmitter of
> energy.
Force and torque not energy?
skif...@aol.com
Ok, one more voice in the fog.
The two main limitations for rear entry are the ones that are inherent in
their design.
But first keep in mind what a ski boot's #1 job is...a transmitter of
energy.
straps around the liner, the farther away from the shell you pull the
foot...
Second, the hinge in back is symetrical and is designed to allow the back
door to open up to facilitate entry and exit, or standing around playing
video games in the lodge.
The hinge in a well designed overlap ski boot is where your ankles hinge
so the boot biomechanically follows what your foot and lower leg do......a
MUCH better
transmission of energy, so your skis turn with more control and less
effort.
End of clinic, thanks for listening, by the way all this is just hokum if
you do not have a good bootfitter at your disposal to help apply all this
to your particular foot,
so stumble in to a ski specialty shop near you and take off you socks.
Skifastr-
Manuel Prazeres
On 27 Nov 1996 08:39:36 GMT, d-su...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk (Dennis
Summerbell) wrote:
>
>> >
>> > 2.) When pressured forward a good overlap shell boot provides a nice
>> > smoothly progressive resistance as it bends. Rear-entry boots don't,
>> > at least not nearly as well. It is a consequence of the design.
>>
>
>This is one piece of propaganda thats clearly not true. Apart from comfort
>and convenience, the one thing that GOOD rear entries do really well is to
>provide smooth, progressive resistance when applying pressure forward.
>
>Just go and look at some boots. Rear entry boots have very simple front
>areas. They're not involved in the closure mechanism and the engineer can
>concentrate entirely on the control of the flex pattern. Once correctly
>fitted the geometry is unchanging and flex pattern is predictable. In
>contrast overlaps are complicated, unstable and have variable geometry
>(the geometry depends on how you do up the clips and even on how
>accurately you get your foot into the boot).
>
>Dennis
>
>Dr D. Summerbell, NIMR, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA.
>
>email: d-su...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk
>Tel: +181 959 3666 X2366
>Fax: +181 913 8527
Dennis,
here's my humble (and very lenghty) attempt at explaining why an
overlap boot usually provides better skiing performance then a
rear-entry boot.
Side Issues
1) first of all if you are arguing for better fit as in comfort,
there is no reason why better comfort is provided by overlaps.
2) as you indicated above rear entry boots do not necessarily result
in different skiing geometry, such as sitting-back. The reason why
skiers with rear-entry boot seem to be sitting back is usually because
rear entry boots have higher heel cups then overlaps. The heel
relative to the toes is usually higher in a rear entry. In some
models the forward lean or part of it is accomplished by raising the
heel (as in a high heel shoe). The need to accomodate the closing
mechanism for the rear flap of a rear-entry boot, often under the
heel, is usually the reason for this.
3) forward flex is usually 'better', more consistent, etc. on
rear-entry boots just as you mentionned above. This is a Side Issue.
If the majority of skiing done is running skis fairly flat then
forward flex as it relates to smoothing out uneveness in the terrain
would be an important issue. Most skiing and certainly performance
skiing involves angular movement.
Main Issues
1) overlap boots have a lower shell which is essentially independent
(relative to a rear-entry) of the upper sheel or cuff. The idea is
that in the same way the middle of your ski is stiff so as to provide
a stable platform, an overlap boot's lower shell can be easily made
stiff (or softer) to provide the required 'feel'.
2) the 'feel' of a rear-entry is more 'mechanical' as opposed to
'anatomical' on an overlap. Many rear-entry boots rely on cables, foot
plates, etc., to constrain foot movement. An overlap has a lower shell
which can be closely molded to the shape of your whole foot. The heel
cup and ankle area is one of the most critical parts for fit in skiing
foortwear. In a rear-entry boot the heel cup sits, for lack of a
better word, in an unstable or constantly moving area of the shell.
3) the MAIN reason for better skiing performance from an overlap is a
very consistent lateral stiffness. Not because they can be made more
stiff or less stiff then a rear entry boot, but because the control of
lateral 'flex' is the more important criteria in performance skiing.
The issue of forward flex is secondary.
Overlaps provide a tube which is 'wrapped' around the lower leg which
maintains a consistent 'feel' and set flex in the lateral movements
required for performance skiing. Movement in the upper cuff on an
overlap does not (relative to a rear entry) affect the stability of
the foot and especially the heel on the bottom shell.
On a rear-entry boot, side flex can vary tremendously (relative to an
overlap). The connection on a rear-entry between the back flap and the
front shell is the weak part. On angulation, that connection tends to
open up and flex, creating a changing flex pattern AND more
importantly requiring further lateral movement of the leg to obtain
the required angle AND lateral stiffness.
It is when going 'edge-to-edge' that rear-entry boots are weakest in
performance compared to overlaps.
Combine this with the fact that the foot is more affected by the
lateral forces on the upper shell, futher instability is inherent in
the rear-entry design. This tends to take away from the 'fine-tuning'
required to be done by the ankle. Of course all of this affects the
ski at the most critical skill required for fine tuning a turn radius.
It is also more of a problem when the snow is hard and icy.
Other
Remember reading many years ago when rear-entry boots came out
(actually Olin had a model out some years before) and Marc Giradelli
was sponsored by the vendor. Unfortunetly I doubt that I can find the
source of this info, so this is heresay. When Marc skied giant slalom
(GS) he tapped 2 steel bars to each of his boots, one on each side.
When he used them for slalom (SL) he tapped 4 steel bars to his boots,
2 on each side, one towards the front and one towards the back.
Other point to make is that there is such a thing as TOO MUCH lateral
stiffness. About 20 years ago, Trappeur and Koflach had overlap race
boots which had vertical steel shanks in them. Trappeur Killy (?) had
an external steel frame and Koflach had a spring steel shank which was
also used for flex which was inside the shells. many skiers complained
they were too "unforgiving" when angulated.
Hope this helped.
Manuel Prazeres
Petri Havanto
In article <d-summer-261...@mac134.nimr.mrc.ac.uk> d-su...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk (Dennis Summerbell) writes:
> > Speaking strictly performance, rear entry boots just can't compare to
> > overlap designs.
> Why? People keep SAYING this, nobody gives any data.
Actual data is really sparse, at its best, in this area. It would seem
to make a sort of sense, anyway. Look at it this way.
When you shut your conventional front-entry boot the volume inside the
boot gets smaller and the walls of the boot move closer to the
foot. This will, most likely lead to more precise interaction of the
boot and the foot. It can, of course, cause pain if the boot fits poorly.
In the case of rear-entry, if I understand correctly, the foot moves
backwards slightly when the boot is closed. That seems to say, further
away from the front of the boot, which means looser
foot-boot-interface. Possibly more comfortable.
Bottom-line? Who knows. If it fits, it's fine, if it does not, one can
possibly get a little bit better performance with rear-entry, at a
cost in comfort.
Personally, only rear-entries I have used were Salmon 91 Eq's. They
hurted like hell. Moving to foamed front-entries was my choice. Solved
the problem.
Enough babbling,
Petri