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.

WHAT SHOULD A SKI BOOT DO?

After Steve Podborski won the 1981-82 World Cup Downhill title using a revolutionary dorsal fit technology I developed for his ski boots in June of 1980, he proposed that we become partners in a venture to develop a new ski boot that would do for every skier what the dorsal fit system had done for him. In exchange for my creative efforts, Podborski would fund the venture up to a point after which we would try to raise funds from investors for the project.

If I accepted Podborski’s proposal (which I eventually did), I knew the we faced significant hurdles. After giving the proposal a lot of thought, I accepted Steve’s offer. Steve and I became partners in a company called MACPOD Enterprises Ltd. While I had identified some of the pieces of the puzzle, I didn’t yet know the answer to the question what a ski boot should do. But I knew that when the time came to raise money I would need to provide investors with convincing evidence that I knew the answer to this question.

Podborski’s success lent credibility to the project. But his credibility was based on his subjective assessment supported by his race results. To be credible, a ski boot design based on principles of science would need to be supported with data from actual skiing maneuvers that could generate meaningful, quantifiable metrics for such things as balance and ski control. When the metrics were compared to the same metrics from data captured from the same skiers using conventional ski boots, they would need to unequivocally demonstrate superior performance of the MACPOD ski boot. I had to come up with a format that would satisfy potential investors that the new ski boot MACPOD would develop would be at least as good, if not better, than the system Podborski used to win the 1981-81 World Cup Downhill title. Whatever format I came up with had to be capable of allowing investors who skied to ski in it.

In 1992, MACPOD raised money from investors to fund the first phase of the venture. The pressure was on.

The single variable assessment protocol

The factor that convinced Podborski of the merits of my dorsal fit system was the comparison test he did against identical Lange boot shells fit with conventional Lange liners.

After rupturing his ACL testing skis at the end of July in 1980 Steve went to France 2 weeks before the opening downhill race of the 1980-81 World Cup season at Val d’isere to be with the team to support them. He had not planned on skiing, let alone racing, because he had been told by his doctors he was out of commission for the 1980-81 World Cup Downhill season. But Podborski had brought 2 pair of identical Lange boot shells to France with him just in case. One pair had the untested dorsal fit system with only the upper cuff of a Lange liner mounted on the boot shaft. The other pair had conventional Lange liners.  The only difference between the boots was the fit system; the classic single variable assessment protocol.

The graphic below from my US Patent shows a conventional tongue format (20) in FIG 3 (prior art) compared to my dorsal fit system (30) in FIG 5. The shin component (31) is like a conventional tongue.

On a whim, Podborski decided to see if he could ski in the boots with the dorsal fit system. He was amazed to find that he could ski well with little pain in his partially healed, reconstructed ACL. But when he tried to ski in the boots with the conventional liner he could barely ski.  I found this interesting because the impetus for the new fit system was my hypothesis that dorsal loading of the bones of the midfoot might reduce strain on the knee by dampening decompression of the arches resulting from perturbations in ground reaction force due to asperities and undulating terrain. A conventional liner could not be used because it would have interfered with the interface of the lower shell overlap closure on the upper surface of the dorsal fit system required to apply force to it. Fig 9 below from the patent shows how the overlap of the shell applies force to the upper surface of the dorsal fit system. The buckle closures allow the force, which should be minimal, to be regulated.

The ability to compare the dorsal fit system against a conventional liner system on the same day and in same conditions made the superiority of the dorsal fit system apparent. The unprecedented improvement in performance with no run-in period or special training program strongly suggested that the improvement resulted from reducing factors in conventional ski boots that limit or degrade human performance. This experience caused me to undertake a critical analysis of the functional requirements of the human system for skiing. This exercise opened the door to the possibility of technologies that would integrate external appendages such as skis and skate blades with the human system, what I later came to term Bio-Integration.

Bio-Engineering

If structures of ski boots, ice skates and cycling shoes can limit or degrade the human performance of the user it also became apparent to me that it might be possible to modify the function of the feet and lower limbs that would make it specific to activities such as skiing, skating or cycling and even potentiate neuromuscular function. I termed this concept Bio-Engineering. I didn’t realize until 1991 that the dorsal fit system used principles of Bio-Engineering.

The graphic below is the pressure image of the right foot of an elite cyclist showing the forces applied by the foot to the sole of the shoe on the pedal spindle at 3 o’clock in the stroke sequence at a low cadence with a moderate to high load on the crank. The cyclist is wearing a conventional rigid sole cycling shoe with no arch supports, wedges or other accessories.

Red is highest force. Dark blue is the lowest force. Forces were recorded with a Tekscan F Scan system fit to the shoe.

The highest force is applied under the ball of the great toe and the great toe and to a lesser extent, the second, third and fourth toes. The dashed line shows the approximate location of the pedal spindle which is the source of resistance/reaction  force. This pressure pattern is typical of elite cyclists. Ideally, the highest force should be applied across the width of the pedal spindle by the heads of all five metatarsals. Note that aside from the high pressure patterns on the ball of the foot and toes 1 through 4 the pattern is diffuse across the heads of metatarsals 2 through 5 and under the heel.


In my next post, I will show a pressure pattern of the same foot in the same position with a technology that Bio Engineers the foot and lower limbs and discuss the significant differences.

IN THE BEGINNING: HOW I GOT STARTED IN SKI BOOT MODIFICATIONS

I originally published this post on May 12, 2013. This is a revised and edited version.


Before I started ‘tinkering’ with ski boots in 1973, I didn’t just read everything I could find on the subject of fitting boots, I devoured every bit of information I could find on the subject. The assumption I made at that time was that the experts in the field not only knew what they were talking about, but that they also had the requisite knowledge and understanding of the underlying principles to back up their positions with applied science and/or research. Based on this assumption, I started modifying ski boots by doing all the things the experts recommended such as padding the ankle to ‘support’ and ‘stabilize’ it in the boot shell and cuff and adding cants between the soles of the boots and the skis to make the skis sit flat on the snow. But the big breakthrough for me came when I started making footbeds to support the foot.

Within a year I had gained expertise in my craft to the point that skiers from all over Canada were starting to seek out my services. In  response, I started a company called Anatomic Concepts. Soon, I was spending most of my free time working on ski boots. But while I was helping a lot of skiers ski better, none of what I was learning or doing was helping my own skiing. I was still struggling after switching from low-cut leather boots to the new stiff, all plastic boots.

The (Un)Holy Grail

Despite the inability to solve my own problems, my thinking remained aligned with conventional thinking right up until my experience with Mur and the ‘Holy Grail’ of ski boots; the perfect fit of the boot with the foot and leg of the skier.

In 1977, Roger McCarthy (head of the Whistler Ski Patrol), whose boots I had worked, on introduced me to Nancy Greene Raine in the Roundhouse on top of Whistler Mountain. The timing was perfect. Racers on our National Ski Team were having boot problems. They needed help. It was a classic case of me being in the right place at the right time. Nancy recruited me, flew me to Calgary at her expense and introduced me to the National Team and Dave Murray. She set up a working arrangement with the team, one in which I was completely independent. Nancy also introduced me to Glen Wurtele, head coach of the BC Ski Team. At Wurtele’s request, I began working on the boots of members of the team.

I started working on the boots of NAST (National Alpine Ski Team) racers with Dave Murray; ‘Mur’ as he was affectionately known. My thinking at that time vis-a-vis the need to immobilize the foot and achieve a ‘perfect fit’ of the boot with the foot was aligned with the approach of the  ‘experts’ in the  field. Mur didn’t live far from me. When I was working on his boots, he seemed to spend more time at our home than his. Because of my ready access to Mur, I saw an opportunity to achieve the Holy Grail of skiing with a fit of the boot with the foot so perfect that the foot was for all intents and purposes rendered rigid and immobile and united with the structures of the ski boot.

To achieve this lofty goal I spent the better part of 2 weeks working for hours every night carefully crafting a matrix of heat formable 1 mm thick vinyl around Mur’s foot and leg and the shells of his boots with my inserts inside the liners of the boot. When Mur finally confirmed he was ‘loaded, locked and ready’ he went skiing to test the results. I waited for the inevitable confirmation of success and certain celebration that would follow. But after what seemed like an eternity, instead of the expected good news, Mur called to tell me that he could barely ski with my perfect fit. He had little or no balance or control. The Holy Grail had reduced a world class skier to a struggling beginner. I didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that the industry had to be way off track especially in view of the recent publication of Professor Verne T. Inman’s seminal book, The Joints of the Ankle.

After this experience I knew that there was way more going on than I understood. I started learning about human physiology, in particular, about the mechanics, neuralbiomechanics and physics of skiing. I started asking hard questions that no one in the industry seemed to have answers for. And I started going off in a very different direction from the one the industry was acquiring increasing momentum in. If the perfect fit could impose what amounts to a severe disability on one of the world’s best skiers I could only imagine what such indiscriminate constraint was doing to the average recreational skier. It could not be good. For me it certainly wasn’t.

A major turning point came for me in 1988 when a husband and wife radiology team who had heard about my efforts to try and develop a ski boot based on anatomical principles presented me with a copy of a medical text called The Shoe in Sport published in German in 1987. This seminal work contains an entire chapter dedicated to The Ski Boot. I discuss the issues raised about the design and fabrication of ski boots by international experts in the articles in chapter on The Ski Boot in my most viewed post to date; THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT POWER STRAPS (1.)

The Root of Misinformation

Unfortunately for skiing, the relevance and significance of the knowledge contained in The Shoe in Sport was overshadowed by the publication in 1971 of the book, the Biomechanical Examination of the Foot, Volume 1 by Drs. Merton Root, William Orien, John Weed and Robert Hughes. The book lists what the authors call their “Eight Biophysical Criteria for Normalcy”. These criteria, which have since been challenged and shown to be largely invalid,  were claimed to represent the “ideal physical relationship of the boney segments of the foot and leg for the production of maximum efficiency during static stance or locomotion”.

A key component of the biophysical criteria was that a bisection  of the lower third of the leg be perpendicular to the ground and the subtalar joint rest in neutral. Root described neutral as occuring when the subtalar joint was neither supinated or pronated.

In order to be considered normal, a foot had to meet all eight biophysical criteria. The effect of this criteria, which was arbitrary, was to render the majority of the feet of the world’s population abnormal and candidates for corrective interventions. Although Root never stated, implied or suggested it, his neutral sub-talar theory appears to have been misinterpretated in the ski industry to mean that the foot functions best in static ski stance when its joints are immobilized in neutral (sub talar).

In recent years, Root’s Sub-Talar Neutral Theory has come under increasing challenge with calls to discontinue its use (2.).

Conclusions
Taken as part of a wider body of evidence, the results of this study have profound implications for clinical foot health practice. We believe that the assessment protocol advocated by the Root model is no longer a suitable basis for professional practice. We recommend that clinicians stop using sub-talar neutral position during clinical assessments and stop assessing the non-weight bearing range of ankle dorsiflexion, first ray position and forefoot alignments and movement as a means of defining the associated foot deformities. The results question the relevance of the Root assessments in the prescription of foot orthoses.

The results of the wider body of evidence have the potential to have profound implications for skiing in terms of the application of Root’s Subtalar Neutral Theory as putting the foot in the most functional position for skiing by supporting and immobilizing it in neutral (subtalar).


  1. https://wp.me/p3vZhu-UB
  2. https://jfootankleres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13047-017-0189-2

ISOMETRIC STANCE MUSCLE TENSIONING SEQUENCE

Tensegrity

Tens(ion) + (Int)egrity 

The optimal ramp angle, as determined by the dynamic ramp device, is based on a stance predicated on the principles of Biotensegrity.

Fascial continuity suggests that the myofascia acts like an adjustable tensegrity around the skeleton – a continuous inward pulling tensional network like the elastics, with the bones acting like the struts in the tensegrity model, pushing out against the restricting ‘rubber bands: Tom Myers, Anatomy Trains (1.)

A ski stance based on the principles of bio-tensegrity must be learned and rehearsed in a step-by-step process. It is neither natural or intuitive although elite skiers and racers such as Shiffrin and Hirscher appear to have acquired the elements of Biotensegrity. Assuming a group of racers of equal athletic ability, the odds will favour those whose stance is based on Biotensegrity.

In a ski stance based on bio-tensegrity, tension in the arches of the feet extends to from the balls of the feet to the palms of the hands holding the poles.

  1. Start by standing barefoot on a hard flat floor or surface in a controlled environment such as your home. Where possible, use the same surface and place to rehearse the stance. If you have constructed a dynamic ramp assessment device, use this with the top plate set to level.
  2. Stand upright at attention. You should feel most of the weight under your  heels and less weight across the balls of your feet. This is normal. The fore-aft weight distribution is actually 50-50 heel to forefoot. But because the weight of the body is spread across the balls of the feet and along the outer aspect behind the small toes, more weight is sensed under the heels. Stand so your weight is distributed equally between both feet.
  3. Relax your hamstrings (in your thighs) and let your torso drop towards the floor.  Your knees will move forward as they flex and your ankles will dorsiflex. Your ankles should stop dorsiflexing on their own when the front of your knee caps are aligned approximately over the balls of your feet. This is the point where the tension in your soleus (calf muscle) peaks with the tension in plantar ligament of your arches. You should feel about the same pressure under the balls of your feet as you feel under your heels. But it should feel as if the circle of pressure under your heels has gotten bigger and your feet are more connected or integrated with the floor. I call this ‘rooted’ because it should feel as if your feet have sunk into the floor.
  4. While keeping your upper body erect, move slightly forward in the hips. You will quickly reach a point where you start to become unstable and feel as if you would fall forward onto your face if you moved farther forward in the hips. When you get to this point your big toes should press down on the floor on their own to try stabilize you. This is the forward limit of stability.
  5. Now move rearward in the hips until you start to feel the same instability. This is the rearmost limit of stability.
  6. Now bend forward from the waist. Do not curl your back. Bend from the hip sockets for the thigh bone (femur). This movement is actually thigh flexion. Lift your thigh to get the right feeling. As you bend forward from the waist, your buttocks will move rearward and upward as your ankles and knees straighten.  Reach forward with your arms as if you were going to hug a large barrel in front of you. Make sure the palms of your hands are facing each other with fingers curled and pointing towards each other.
  7. Find the place where your arms and head feel neutral to your spine. As your arms come into position you should feel your abdominal core and muscles in your back acquire tension. Slings Isometric stance
  8. Experiment by moving forward and rearward in the pelvis. As you move forward in the pelvis the pressure should increase under the balls of your feet. But you should not feel unstable. If anything, you should feel stronger and more stable. You should feel as if the weight of your head and shoulders is pressing your feet down into the floor.
  9. Increase the bend at your waist while keeping the pressure on the balls of your feet and heels until the top of your head is down by your knees. You should still feel very strong and stable in the feet. This is the lowermost limit of waist flexion.

Once you have acquired a kinesthetic sense of the bio-integrity of foot to hand tension, a sense of stability while pulsing the torso vertically up and down over the feet confirms a state of bio-tensegrity.

The photo below is of simple model I designed and constructed in 1993 to illustrate the basic concept of bottom up Biotensegrity and how the degree of passive tension in the plantar ligament of the arches of the feet and the vertical biokinetic chain is driven by the compression from weight of COM stacked over the foot.

The graphic below shows the continuum of tension from the balls of the feet to the opposite shoulders through the mechanism of the oblique posterior sling.

In my next post I will discuss what I term the NABOSO Effect.


  1. https://www.anatomytrains.com/fascia/tensegrity/

NABOSO: FIRST SKI TEST RESULTS

I finally got a chance to test Dr. Emily Splichal’s surface science small nerve stimulating NABOSO insoles (1.)

Naboso (meaning “barefoot” in Czech) is the first-ever small nerve proprioceptive material commercially available in the health and fitness industry. The skin on the bottom of the foot contains thousands of (small nerve) proprioceptors, which are sensitive to different stimuli including texture, vibration, skin stretch, deep …

As I typically do, I used a one on one test protocol with a NABOSO 1.5 insole in my left ski boot and my normal insole in my right boot. The results were nothing short of amazing. There was almost no difference in the feeling under the sole of my left (NABOSO) foot compared to the sole of my right (normal insole) foot. The NABOSO Effect (as I call it) in my left ski boot was nothing like the effect I experience in similar tests in my Xero Prios or Lems Primal 2 minimal shoes. You’re probably wondering why I was amazed if NABOSO was no better than my normal insoles. The fact that I felt little difference told me that something was seriously wrong with my ski boots.

The first thing I suspected was that there was too much ramp angle (aka zeppa) in the boot boards in my Head 335 World Cup boots. I can’t recall what the factory ramp angle. But I lowered the heel a lot and the reduced ramp angle seemed to work well compared to the original ramp angle. As a reference, the boot board zeppa angle in the Head RD boot is 4.0 according to Head literature. The zeppa in recreational ski boots can be as much as 7 degrees. Since 1978, I have known that too much boot board ramp angle can cause significant balance and ski control issues for skiers. But I had no way of accurately determining what the optimal zeppa angle should be. What appears to work well for one skier does not necessarily work for another skier. Zeppa is a crap shoot, a good guess, a lottery. A few skiers win the zeppa lottery. But most skiers lose. I decided that I had to find an accurate way to determine the optimal personal zeppa angle for skiers and especially racers.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I had a need to know situation. In my next post I will describe the Dynamic Ramp Angle assessment  device that I designed and fabricated and the incredible results that happen when zeppa angle is in the optimal range and the NABOSO Effect kicks in. Prepare to be shocked by the results. I was. I am still in shock. If the results hold up, optimal boot board ramp angle will be a big miss for the ski industry.


  1. http://nabosotechnology.com