Foot Function posts

THE MECHANICS + BIOMECHANICS OF PLATFORM ANGLE – PART 13

The  article that follows was published on June 18, 2010 on an internet group called EPICSKI.  I have revised the article to improve clarity and consistency with the technical terms used in the THE MECHANICS + BIOMECHANICS OF PLATFORM ANGLE series of posts.

The Birdcage Experiments

 by David MacPhail

In the summer of 1991 a science team Steve Podborski and I had assembled to develop a new ski boot conducted pioneering studies on the Blackcomb summer glacier with a device we affectionately named the “Birdcage.” The purpose of the studies was to test my hypothesis of the mechanics and biomechanics of platform angle as it pertains to skier dynamic stability and the basic premise of my hypothesis that explains how  GRF acting on the inside edge of the outski is extended out under the platform of the ski. The Birdcage is shown in the photo below.

Birdcage

The Birdcage was fit with 16 sensors each with its own channel as shown in the legend below.

Specific mechanical points of the foot, in particular the ends of the eccentric torque arm, connected to specific points of the rigid structure of the Birdcage while leaving the remaining areas of the foot substantially unconstrained. The object of the experiments was to study the effects of specific forms of constraint applied to key mechanical points of the foot we had previously identified on skier balance as it pertains to steering and edge control. The experiments also included tests that studied the effect of interfering with specific joint actions. The experiments were designed in accordance with a standard scientific protocol; one that standardized conditions from test to test while varying one factor at a time.

For example, to study the effects of cuff forward lean angle on specific muscles, the range of rotation of the cuff was kept the same from test to test while the initial angle at which the cuff was set was varied from test to test. The cuff was fit tightly about the leg so as to reduce to a minimum any effects of movement of the leg within the cuff. Other aspects of the test such as position of the heel and ball of the foot in relation to the centerline and inside edge of the ski were kept the same.

By using such test protocols the firing sequence of specific muscles and their effect on dynamic stabilty could be studied. This data could then be used to determine the sequence of events and relationship steering to edge platform angle control. It was discovered that by varying the conditions that affected the firing and effectiveness of the soleus muscle, it could be played like a musical instrument. For example, if the cuff angle were set too erect the soleus muscle would make multiple attempts at the start of each loading sequence to try and get COG over the head of the first metatarsal.

Our primary tester for the experiments was Olympic bronze medallist and World Cup Downhill Champion Steve Podborski. Steve is shown in the photos below having the Birdcage adjusted to his foot and leg.

The cable coming from the rear of the device is connected to a Toshiba optical drive computer (remember, this is 1991) that Toshiba loaned us in support of our program. The biomedical engineer and the Toshiba computer are shown in the photo below.

Since telemetry was too costly and less positive we used a 1200 ft cable that linked the Birdcage to the Toshiba computer set up in a tent. Although the technician could not see the skiers being studied within a short period of time he could easily analyze their technical competence in real time by assessing the incoming flow of data from the sensors fit to the Birdcage. This was even more remarkable considering that the technician had no background in skiing, ski teaching or coaching.

The testers wore a harness to keep the cable from interfering with their movements. A chase skier ensured that the cable remained behind the testers and did not pull on the testers. Of interest is the fact that I was unable to elicit any interest in the results of the Birdcage study

As far as I know a study of this nature had never been done before and to the best of my knowledge a similar study has never been repeated since the Birdcage experiments. The Birdcage remains one of the most sophisticated analytical sports devices ever conceived even by todays’ standards. The Birdcage research vehicle is the barefoot minimum standard for the ski boot.

THE MECHANICS + BIOMECHANICS OF PLATFORM ANGLE: PART 7

On January 12 of this year I started a new direction for The Skier’s Manifesto with a critical examination of the mechanics of platform angle after concluding that this issue and its effect on dynamic stability is the single most important factor in skiing. The platform is the portion of the stack of equipment between the sole of a skiers foot and the base of a ski. I started my discussion with a review of some of the typical technical terms associated with platform angle mechanics.

In my last post, I examined rotational force applied to a ski. I noted that in the technical terminology of skiing this is referred to as steering. I identified a number of inconsistencies, ommissions and errors pertaining to steering that I will expand on in this post.

Platform Paradoxes

Technical discussions on steering typically show a ski rotating like a propeller about the center of its long axis. In my last post I demonstrated that the source of the rotational force or steering is the femur rotating in its joint with the pelvis and applying rotational force to the foot its lower (distal) end at the tibia.

The graphic below shows the axes of rotational force (steering) applied to a ski through the foot/ski boot interface by the leg. I’ve used a large ski boot and a short ski to illustrate the effect of the location of the axis of rotation.

Technical discussions of steering don’t always mention the source of steering force let alone show its location. In addition, no explanation is offered that would explain how a ski can rotate about its center like a propeller.

The graphic below shows a ski with the running center of the long axis with approximate location of the axis of rotation indicated. In this example the axis of rotation is approximately 11.5 cm behind the running center (C). On my own skis, the axis of rotation is approximately 13.5 cm behind the running center for my 335 mm ski boot.

When the ball of the foot is located on or close to the transverse center of the long axis of the running surface of a ski the axis of rotation will move progressively towards the shovel as a foot gets shorter and move progressively towards the tail as a foot gets longer. No one seems to mention this even though it raises a number of signficant issues, among them the effect on the edge hold and carving characteristics associated with platform dynamics.

Where is the Force Applied?

Technical discussions of platform mechanics typically don’t show or even mention the location of the force applied to a ski by the weight of a skier. Since the weight of the body is transferred to the foot from the lower end of the tibia the weight tends to be transferred to the foot close to the heel.

Some discussions of platform and steering mechanics even suggest that a skier should feel their weight under their heel when steering the skis. This would place the applied force on the transverse center of a ski, behind the center of the long axis and offset from the inside edge where it will create a torque or moment arm that will degrade platform mechanics.An analogy of the mechanics of rotational force applied to a ski by rotation of the leg is a vertical shaft (leg) rotated by a force with an arm (ski) projecting outward from the shaft.

As the arm gets longer the distance the end of the arm travels for every degree of rotation of the shaft will increase.

  1. How will increasing the length of the arm effect the application of force applied to an object by the end of the arm distant from the shaft given a rotational force (torque) of a fixed magnitude applied to the shaft?
  2. How would reducing the effective length of the arm acting on a ski affect platform mechanics, in particular edge hold and carving characteristics?

There is a way to reduce the effective length of the arm acting on the ski. Elite skiers can do it. This will be the subject of my next post.

THE MECHANICS OF PLATFORM ANGLE: PART 5

In my initial posts on the mechanics of platform angle I demonstrated the physical impossibility of making a ski carve an edge into hard pistes at high platform angles with the snow by a skier aligning opposing applied and reaction forces with the vector perpendicular to the transverse plane of the platform of the outside ski. The reason for this is that the component of shear or slipping force will progressively increase as the angle of the applied force Fa becomes increasingly aligned with the plane of the surface of the snow as shown in the examples in the graphic below.

In my previous post I said that a reader who commented on Part 3 correctly stated for a ski to hold and carve at high platform angles required two separate forces acting on the transverse plane of the platform; one force oriented at 90 degrees to the plane and a second force oriented parallel or 180 degrees to the transverse plane with the vector acting into the surface of the snow. I ended my post by asking the reader what the source of the 180 degree force was.

The graphic below shows the answer. Elite skiers can make the outside ski of a turn hold and carve at very high platform angles because they are able to apply two separate forces in a coordinated manner. The reason I say ‘able to apply’ is that many factors can severely limit or even prevent the coordinated application of these two forces; the most significant factor being interference from the structures of the ski boot with the associated coordinated joint actions of the foot and leg.The graphic above is for the purpose of illustrating the source of the 180 degree force acting on the transverse plane of the platform. As such, the graphic  is not accurate because it shows the plantar (sole) plane of the foot oriented on the transverse plane of the platform. The actual mechanics and biomechanics are much more involved. I’ll start to explore the various factors in my next post.

WHY TRYING TO COPY HIRSCHER AND SHIFFRIN’S MOVES DOESN’T WORK – PART 4

A central premise in skiing, especially in ski teaching and coaching, is that skiers and racers can learn to ski like the best by observing and copying them. Hence, articles and videos that talk in nebulous terms about good balance, an athletic stance, pressure control, steering, edging, extension, separation etc. as elements that, when blended together, will enable skiers and racers to ski like the Hirschers and Shiffrins of the world. If a racer who has undergone training in the system is not competitive or worse, suddenly becomes uncompetitive, the racer is typically blamed for not being strong enough or not pushing themselves hard enough or not taking enough risk or some other factor. In the end, the responsibility for lacklustre performance is conveniently assigned to the racer.

Ski boots are rarely considered a factor. So long as the boots are comfortable that is the only thing that matters. To suggest otherwise is to blame the equipment. This flies in the face of my experience. But until the skate study (1.) I had no reliable way of measuring and thus comparing performance.

The two pressure studies done in 1998 by the University of Ottawa with elite ski instructors provided an opportunity to compare the results of the studies to those of the 2012 skate study that I modified skates for. This study was also done by the University of Ottawa. Of the three studies:

  • One 1998 skier pressure study used three highly skilled ski instructors (CSIA level IV)
  • One 1998 skier pressure study used six internationally certified Canadian ski instructors.
  • The 2012 skate study used five competitive skaters.

The 1998 study with the six internationally certified Canadian ski instructors provided Peak Force data that I could use to compare to the Peak Force data obtained from the 2012 skate study.

As I pointed out in my previous posts, skating and skiing are similar in that they both depend on the ability of the participant’s neuromotor system to create a foundation of dynamic stability across the skate blade or the inside edge of the outside ski prior to being able to effectively apply force to the ice blade or ski edge. The existence of dynamic stability across the skate blade or inside edge of the outside ski enables the neuromotor system to regulate fore-aft stability in what is typically referred to as skater or skier balance.

Peak Force

Peak Force is the highest force applied in an Impulse Force

In the skate study skaters performed forward skating sprint starts in each skate (OS and NS) for a total of 6 trials each. As would be expected with competitive skaters Dynamic Stability as represented by Peak Force was very close among the skaters in their Own Skates as shown in the graphic below.

But when the highest and lowest Peak Forces of the competitive skaters were compared to the highest and lowest Peak Force of the internationally certified Canadian ski instructors the difference was much greater; approximately 125% for the skaters and 300% for the ski instructors. The researchers noted this significant variance and suggested equipment could have been a factor. But that aspect was not investigated.

Peak Force Improvement

It would seem logical to assign sole responsibility for such marked differences to inferior muscle strength or improper training. Muscle strength and training are definitely important factors. But their contribution to overall performance is dependent on the ability of a competitor to create dynamic stability and quickly acquire a position from which they can effectively apply force to a skate blade or edges of a ski. These factors, in turn, are dependent on a functional environment in the footwear for the physiogic function of the lower limb.

As shown in the graphic below, when the same skaters switched from their Own Skates (OS) to the skates I prepared (NS) there was an immediate and statistically significant improvement in mean Peak Force of approximately 190%. Even more significant is the fact that the Peak Force of skater number 4 (the lowest of the four skaters) increased by approximately 252% changing the skater’s ranking from #4 to #1.

Impulse Force Improvement

An Impulse Force is a high force of short duration that causes a change in momentum.

When the skaters switched from their Own Skates (OS) to the New Skates (NS) there was an immediate mean increase in Impulse Force of approximately 216% as shown in the graphic below. Even more significant, the Impulse Force of skater number 4 (the lowest of the four skaters in their Own Skates) increased by approximately 276% raising skater number 4 to almost the same level as skater number 3. Meanwhile, an increase in Impulse Force of approximately 224% raised skater number 2 to almost the same level as skater number 1. In other words, the New Skate was literally a game changer that resulted in a leveler playing field for the four competitive skaters.

Center of Force (CoF) Variance: Where Races are Really Won

The most significant effect of the New Skate (NS) was on what is called Center of Force (CoF) Variance. Center of Force Variance is the amount of forward movement of the Center of Force within a fixed unit of time to the position on a skate blade or ski edge where force can effectively be applied.

The graphic below shows the Center of Force Variance of the four competitive skaters in their own skates (OS).

The graphic below shows the Center of Force Variance of the four competitive skaters in their Own Skates (OS) compared to the Center of Force Variance in the new skates (NS). When the skaters switched from their Own Skates (OS) to the New Skates (NS) there was an immediate mean increase in CoF Variance of approximately 172% as shown in the graphic below. Skater number 4 experienced the largest increase in CoF Variance (approximately 241%) that changed the ranking from #3 to #1.

An increase in the variance of CoF results in increased control during the stance phase of forward skating.

The graphic below shows what would happen if only skater number four were provided with New Skates (NS) while the other 3 competitive skaters continued to use their Own Skates (OS). Think of the red dashed line at 1.20 as the finish line of the CoF Variance race. It should obvious who will win and who will have the advantage at every turn.

The Score for Skater Four

Skater number four experienced the following improvements in the New Skates (NS) over their Own Skates (OS)

  • Peak Force – 252%
  • Impulse – 276%
  • CoF Variance – 241%
  • Mean improvement – 256%

The improvement in the three metrics was immediate and, based on my experience with skiers and racers, probably immediately reversible simply by having the competitive skaters revert to their Own Skate (OS) format.

Few forms of athletics place as high demands on the footwear used in their performance as alpine skiing. It (the ski boot) functions as a connecting link between the binding and the body and performs a series of difficult complex tasks. (2.)

To paraphrase Dr. Emily Splichal:

A skier is only as strong as they are dynamically stable.

In my next post, I will discuss the implications of the skate study and associated performance technology and metrics for the future of skiing, especially ski racing.


  1. A Novel Protocol for Assessing Skating Performance in Ice Hockey – Kendall M, Zanetti K, & Hoshizaki TB – School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Canada
  2. Ski-Specific Injuries and Overload Problems – Orthopedic Design of the Ski Boot –  Dr. med. H.W. Bar, Orthopedics-Sportsmedicine, member of GOTS, Murnau, West Germany

WHY TRYING TO COPY HIRSCHER AND SHIFFRIN’S MOVES DOESN’T WORK – PART 3

Superior Dynamic Stability (Equilibrium) has always been the single most important factor responsible for the dominance of the World’s best skiers. It enables racers like Hirscher and Shiffrin to literally free fall, maximally accelerate under gravity then precisely land on and lock up the edges of their outside ski, establish a line and project their body towards the next gate in milliseconds and initiate a new free fall. Maximization of Dynamic Stability is crucial for a skier to set up a dynamically stable foundation in the outside ski to stand and balance on so they can establish the strongest possible position from which to generate the internal forces required to oppose the external forces acting on them.

Both skating and skiing are susceptible transverse instability manifesting as wobble oscillation (chatter) across the pivot formed by the skate blade or inside edge of a ski underfoot that challenges skater/skier Dynamic Stability. A number of quantifiable metrics are reliable indicators of the presence and degree of Dynamic Stability.  A key metric is Peak (maximum) Force.

The graph below shows the peak forces of 4 competitive skaters in the 2012 University of Ottawa skate study in their own skates (OS) and the skates I prepared (NS).I have added green bars for the elite skiers with highest and lowest peak forces from the 1998 University of Ottawa pressure study for comparison purposes.

Of interest is the fact that the peak force of one of the elite ski instructors is almost 3 times the peak force of one of the other elite ski instructors.  Given the small variances in peak Forces of the 4 competitive skaters in their own skates and the significant increase in peak Force seen in the skates I prepared (NS) it is reasonable to assume that some factor or factors are limiting the performance of the competitive skaters and one or more of the elite ski instructors in the 1998 study. The researchers recognized this in the 1998 ski pressure study (1.)

A factor that was not controlled during data collection was the equipment worn by the subjects. The skiers wore different boots, and used different skis, although two of them had the same brand and model of skis and boots. It still has yet to be determined if that factor had any effect on the results. A point that all the skis that the subjects used had in common is that the skis were all sharp side-cut skis (also called shaped skis). Another equipment variation which may have affected in-boot measurements, is that some subjects (n=5) wore custom designed footbeds, while the other did not. 

A 2017 pressure study on giant slalom turns (3.) notes several limitations to the use of pressure analysis technology fit to ski boots to record pressures during skiing.

The compressive force is underestimated from 21% to 54% compared to a force platform, and this underestimation varies depending on the phase of the turn, the skier’s skill level, the pitch of the slope and the skiing mode. 

The use of the term underestimated is out of context. When fit to a ski boot, pressure analysis technology records the plantar pressures imposed on the pressure insole. The researchers clarify this with the statement:

It has been stated this underestimation originates from a significant part of the force actually being transferred through the ski boot’s cuff.

In other words, interference with the application of plantar pressure by the structures of the ski boot is negatively affecting the ability of skier to create a foundation characterized by Dynamic Stability under the outside foot of a turn.

As a result, the CoP trajectory also tends to be underestimated along both the anterior-posterior (A-P) and medial-lateral (M-L) axes compared to force platforms.

As I will show in my next post, CoP trajectory is limited by the structures of a skate or ski boot, not underestimated by the pressure analysis technology which is only the messenger in the scheme of things.

Although a static physical environment is not the same as the dynamic physical environment associated with skating or skiing, pressure data captured on a force platform in a controlled laboratory setting can provide valuable baseline data on L-R symmetry that could explain the asymmetry seen in the large differences in the 1998 ski pressure study (1.) as shown in the table below.

What the pressure data is really showing is a L-R imbalance of Dynamic Stability.

Australian therapist and skier, Tom Gellie, posted on L-R pressure asymmetry on September 30 2018 on his FaceBook page, Functional Body.

Dynamic equilibrium is the most important aspect of skiing. Everything else is subordinated. Every aspect of skiing from equipment to technique should be assessed on its impact on the processes of Dynamic equilibrium. Ski design in particular needs to be analyzed especially as it pertains to sidecut geometry since it dictates the point where ground reaction force occurs and ground reaction force is fundamental to the initiation and maintenance of the processes of Dynamic equilibrium.

– M. Mester: keynote speaker at the first annual science symposium on skiing

……. to be continued in Part 4.


  1. ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURES UNDER THE FEET OF ELITE ALPINE SKI INSTRUCTORS – Dany Lafontaine, M.Sc.1,2,3, Mario Lamontagne, Ph.D., Daniel Dupuis, M.Sc.1,2, Binta Diallo, B.Sc.: Faculty of Health Sciences1, School of Human Kinetics, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Anatomy program, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada – 1998
  2. ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURE UNDER THE FEET OF ELITE ALPINE SKI INSTRUCTORS – Dany Lafontaine, Mario Lamontagne, Daniel Dupuis, Binta Diallo, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada – 1998
  3. Influence of slope steepness, foot position and turn phase on plantar pressure distribution during giant slalom alpine ski racing: Thomas Falda-Buscaiot , Frédérique Hintzy, Patrice Rougier, Patrick Lacouture, Nicolas Coulmy – Published: May 4, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176975

 

WHY TRYING TO COPY HIRSCHER AND SHIFFRIN’S MOVES DOESN’T WORK – PART 2

In previous posts I discussed the two studies (1, 2) done by the University of Ottawa in 1998 that analyzed pressure under the feet of elite alpine ski instructors

The pressure data from the study that used 6 elite alpine ski instructors found maximal (peak) force ranged from a high of 1454 Newtons to a low of 522 Newtons. The graph below compares the peak force seen in pressure data captured from the 4 competitive skaters in their own skates from my last post to the highest and lowest peak force seen in pressure data captured from the 6 elite alpine ski instructors used in the 1998 University of Ottawa study.

In consideration of the fact that the researchers commented that force-time histories revealed that forces of up to 3 times body weight can be attained during high performance recreational skiing it is interesting that the peak force of one of the 6 elite alpine ski instructors in the study was less than the lowest peak force of one of the 4 competitive skaters in the 2012 University of Ottawa study while the highest peak force of one of the 6 elite alpine ski instructors in the 1998 study was almost twice the highest peak force of one of the 4 competitive skaters in the 2012 University of Ottawa study.

A significant challenge in attempting to conduct foot pressure studies with alpine skiers is the variability of the slope and environmental and piste conditions. Test conditions and variables, especially ice, can be tightly controlled in the conditioned environment of an indoor skating rink.

Although the studies did not provide pressure data that compared peak and average pressures for different ski instructors, the peak forces from one study reached up to 30 newtons per square centimetre.

In the spring of 2012 I was asked to modify a number of pairs of the same brand and model of a hockey skate for use in a study that would compare metrics derived from pressure data captured from a competitive skater’s own skates to the same metrics from data acquired  from skates I had modified. I saw this as an opportunity to document the effect of modifications made to hockey skates based on the principles of neurobiomechanics described in my patents and this blog. When I speculated that the metrics derived from the pressure data might show improvements as high as 10% (i.e. 110%) I was told that the study was unlikely to result in more than a single digit improvement of approximately 2% or 3%.

I modified the pairs of skates in the shop in the garage of my home near Vancouver. The modifications were general in nature and made without the benefit of data on the feet of the test subjects. No modifications were made after I shipped the hockey skates to the University of Ottawa. I was not involved in the design of the study protocol or the actual study. I was hopeful that the study would produce meaningful results because it would have implications that could be extrapolated to alpine skiing.

The graph below shows the highest peak force in Newtons recorded for each of the 4 competitive skaters in their own hockey skates (blue = OS) and in the hockey skates that I modified (red = NS). The improvement was immediate with little or no run in period in which to adapt. The percentage improvement for each skater is shown at the top of each bar.

The mean (i.e. average) improvement was approximately 190%. The only factor that improvements of this magnitude could be attributed to is improved dynamic stability resulting from an improved functional environment in the skate for the foot and leg of the user.

……. to be continued in Part 3.


  1.  ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURES UNDER THE FEET OF ELITE ALPINE SKI INSTRUCTORS – Dany Lafontaine, M.Sc.1,2,3, Mario Lamontagne, Ph.D., Daniel Dupuis, M.Sc.1,2, Binta Diallo, B.Sc.: Faculty of Health Sciences1, School of Human Kinetics, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Anatomy program, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  2. ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURE UNDER THE FEET OF ELITE ALPINE SKI INSTRUCTORS – Dany Lafontaine, Mario Lamontagne, Daniel Dupuis, Binta Diallo, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

WHAT’S YOUR PQ? [PERFORMANCE QUOTIENT]

After my disastrous experience in 1977 with the mythical Perfect Fit with Crazy Canuck, Dave Murray (.1); one that transformed Mur from a World Cup racer to a struggling beginner, my work on ski boots became focussed on removing instead of adding material and making room to allow a skier’s foot to assume its natural configuration in the shell of the ski boot. As I improved the accommodation of a skiers’ neurobiomechanical functional requirements in the ski boot, skier performance improved in lockstep. I was merely reducing the structures of the boot that interfered with performance to enable a skier/racer to use the performance they already had.

Fit: The Antithesis of Human Function

Fit, by it’s definition of joining or causing to join together two or more elements so as to form a whole, is the antithesis (def: the direct opposite) of enabling the function of the human foot and lower limbs as one of the most dynamic organs in the human body. Fitting a ski boot to the foot and leg of a skier, especially a racer, equates with imposing a disability on them (2.). Although I didn’t realize it until I read The Shoe in Sport and learned of the barefoot studies done at the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Calgary, my work on ski boots had transitioned from Fitting (disabling), by adding materials to liners to fill voids between the foot and leg and shell wall, to UnFitting (abling) by removing materials from liners and expanding and grinding boot shells so as to accommodate the neurobiomechanical functional requirements of the foot and leg of a skier.

But the big breakthrough for me came when Steve Podborksi won the 1981-81 World Cup Downhill title using the dorsal constraint system (Dorthotic) I developed and later patented. The Lange boot shells the device was used in had the least constraint of any ski boot I had ever worked with. The instantaneous quantum leap in Steve’s performance compared to the same shell using a conventional liner raised the question of how could a skier’s maximum performance be achieved and was there a way to compare to a skier’s performance in different ski boot/liner configurations to an optimal reference standard?

A reliable indicator that my un-fitting was trending in the right direction was that skiers consistently found that skiing became easier. For racers, coaches would typically report that the racer was skiing better. Improved race results served as further confirmation of my efforts. But these indicators were subjective. I wanted a way to not just measure performance with quantifiable metrics generated from data specific to the activity, I wanted to be able to compare the same metrics to a reference or baseline standard that represented the optimal performance of a skier or racer at a given moment in time. Without a way to measure and compare performance there is no way of knowing how a ski boot is affecting a skier or racer and especially no way of knowing how close they are to skiing at their maximum level of performance. I wanted to develop a skier Performance Quotient or PQ.

Definition of Quotient

  • Mathematics: – a result obtained by dividing one quantity by another.
  • a degree or amount of a specified quality or characteristic.

A skier Performance Quotient would capture baseline metrics from a skier’s performance in a ski boot that provides the optimal functional environment for the foot and lower limbs to the skier’s peformance in different ski boots including a skier’s current ski boot. The ski boot that provides the optimal functional environment for the foot and lower limbs would be designated as 100%. If the same metrics captured in a different ski boot were 78% of the reference standard, the skier’s PQ in the ski boot would represent a PQ of 78% against a possible 100% or 78/100.

Raising the bar of skier/racer function with body work and/or conditioning will raise the PQ. But it cannot close the PQ gap created by the performance limitations of the interference with neurobiomechanical function caused by their ski boot. Nor can trying harder or training more intensely overcome the limitations of a ski boot. Assuming 2 ski racers of equal athletic ability and mental strength, the racer with the ski boot that enables a higher PQ will dominate in competition. The only way to improve a skier’s PQ when it is less than 100% is to improve the functional environment of the ski boot.

In current ski boot design process, manufacturing and aesthetic considerations override skier functional requirements. An innovative approach to the design of the ski boot is needed. This is the subject of my next post.


  1. IN THE BEGINNING: HOW I GOT STARTED IN SKI BOOT MODIFICATIONS, May 12, 2013 – https://wp.me/p3vZhu-y
  2. LESS REALLY IS MORE, May 13, 2013 – https://wp.me/p3vZhu-N