Skier Balance posts

PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SKI BOOTS

As a segue to my post on Turntable Power and how it cantilevers ground reaction force acting along the running surface of the inside edge of the outside ski, I have decided to post the discussion on the problems with existing ski boots from my US Patent 5,265,350 with associated international patents. The patent was issued on November 30, 1993 (24 years ago) to me as the sole inventor and assigned to MACPOD Enterprises Ltd. (Toronto).

The objective of US Patent 5,265,350 and subsequent patents filed and granted to MACPOD was to identify problems with existing ski boots and offer solutions and a functional criteria for advancing the state-of the art going forward. Some of the problems noted and solutions offered, apply to footwear in general.

The final paragraph raises the issue of the limitations of conventional ski boots in terms of accommodating and enabling biomechanically generated forces such as torque from the mechanical force transfer points of the foot to the structure of the ski boot.

The following material is verbatim from the text of US Patent 5,265,350.


Problems with Existing Ski Boots

Existing footwear (ski boot design) does not provide for the dynamic nature of the architecture of the foot by providing a fit system with dynamic and predictable qualities to substantially match those of the foot and lower leg. 

Although somewhat vaguely stated, a generally accepted theme has arisen over the years, one of indiscriminate envelopment and “overall restraint” applied to the foot and leg within the footwear. The stated position of various authorities skilled in the art of the design and fabrication of footwear for skiing is that the foot functions best when movement about its articulations is substantially prevented or restricted.

To serve this end, inner ski boot liners are usually formed around inanimate lasts or, alternatively, the foot and leg are inserted into an inner liner within the ski boot shell and foam is introduced into a bladder in the liner so as to totally occupy any free space between the foot and leg and the outer ski boot shell. The outer shell of the footwear is closed around this inner envelopment forming an encasement with which to secure and substantially immobilize the foot and leg. This is considered the optimum and, therefore, ideal form of envelopment. The perspective is that the physiologic structures of the foot are inherently weak and thus, unsuited for skiing. Enveloping the foot within an enclosure which makes it more rigid is thought to add the necessary strength with which to suitably adapt it for skiing. The reasoning being, that the foot and leg now having being suitably strengthened, can form a solid connection with the ski while the leg, now made more rigid, can better serve as a lever with which to apply edging force to the ski.

To some degree, the prior art (existing ski boot design) has acknowledged a need for the ankle joint to articulate in flexion. However, the prior art has not differentiated exactly how articulation of the ankle joint might be separated from the object of generalized and indiscriminate envelopment and thus made possible. Therefore, the theme of prior art (existing ski boot design) is inconsistent and lacks continuity.

The only disclosure known of a process wherein the separation of envelopment of the foot from articulation of the ankle joint is contained in U.S. Pat. No. 4,534,122, of which the present applicant is also the inventor. This material discloses a supportive structure (i.e Dorthotic) wherein restrictions to flexion of the ankle joint are essentially removed, support being provided from below the hinge of the ankle joint.

In keeping with the theme of indiscriminate envelopment and overall restraint, the following structures are generally common to all footwear for skiing disclosed by prior art (existing ski boot design):

(a) a continuous counter system which surrounds the foot and provides for the process of envelopment;

(b) an arrangement of pads or padding with which to envelope the foot;

(c) a substantially rigid outer shell which encases the structures employed for envelopment;

(d) an articulation of the ski boot lower outer shell and the cuff or cuffs which envelope the leg of the user, usually accomplished through a common axis or journal;

(e) a structure to brace and support the leg since prior art considers the ankle joint to be inherently weak and in need of support; and

(f) some form of resistance to movement of the cuff (shaft of the ski boot).

The prior art (existing boot design and boot fitting procedures) refers to the importance of a “neutral sub-talar joint”. The sub-talar joint is a joint with rotational capability which underlies and supports the ankle joint. The sub-talar joint is substantially “neutral” in bipedal function. That is to say that the foot is neither rolled inward or rolled outward.

If the foot can be substantially maintained in a neutral position with the arch supported and with a broad area of the inner aspect of the foot well padded, there will exist a good degree of comfort. Such a state of comfort exists because the foot is not able to roll inward (pronate) to a degree where significant mechanical forces can be set up which would allow it to bear against the inner surface of the boot shell. In effect, this means that initiation of the transition from a state of bipedal to a state of monopedal function, is prevented. This transition would normally be precipitated by an attempt to balance on one foot. If the foot is contained in a neutral position, traditional supportive footbeds (arch supports) are quite compatible with the mechanisms and philosophies of the prior art.

Problems arise when the foot is attempting a transition from a state of bipedal stance to monopedal stance. If the transition to monopedal stance or function can be completed without interference from the structures of the ski boot, all is fine and well. However, if the transition is allowed to proceed to a point where the mechanics associated with the monopedal function can establish significant horizontal forces, and the further movement of the foot is blocked before the transition can be completed, the skier will experience pain and discomfort at the points where the inner aspect of the foot bears against the structures of the footwear. This is the situation experienced by a majority of the skiers with prior art footwear. It is at this point where arch supports, if employed, also begin to cause discomfort. It should be noted that it is the normal tendency of the foot to pronate when weight bearing on one foot.

Footbeds (arch supports) may work in conventional boots (which traditionally do not allow natural biomechanics or movement of the foot to occur), but in a boot which accommodates and supports natural leg and foot articulation and function, arch supports can be detrimental.

When the foot attempts to pronate inside the ski boot, it is often the case that the ankle bone will come to bear against the inner surface of the boot shell. When contact of this nature occurs, pain and other related complications usually result. Since the consensus of those skilled in the art of ski boot design and modification is that pronation or the rolling inward of the foot is detrimental, and, thus, undesirable, provision is not made to allow for such movement. Rather, the structure of the footwear is intended to resist or even prevent it.

Thus, the problem with existing footwear arises due to the dynamic nature of the architecture of the foot. When the wearer is standing with the weight equally distributed between left and right feet so that the centre of mass of the wearer is manifesting itself in the centre between the feet, the architecture of the wearer’s foot assumes a specific configuration. As the wearer begins to shift his weight towards one foot so that the other foot bears proportionately less weight, the wearer’s centre of mass moves over the medial aspect of the weighted foot so as to assume a position of balance. In order for this movement of the wearer’s centre of mass to occur, the architecture of the weighted foot must undergo a progressive re-alignment. Existing footwear does not adequately anticipate this re-alignment of the architecture of the foot and thus such footwear inhibits the wearer’s ability to assume a balanced position.

A further problem with existing footwear is the fact that longitudinal relative movement between the foot and the footwear may occur. This happens, for example, when the forefoot/midfoot section of the foot is not adequately restrained under certain conditions, such as when flexion is occurring between the lower leg and the foot. Such longitudinal relative movement contributes to the disruption of biomechanical reference points associated with the dynamics of the ski and, in addition, results in a delay in the transmission of force between the leg and foot and the footwear.

Yet a further problem with existing footwear for skiing, in particular the rear entry type, relates to the obstruction of the leg in forward flexion. A relatively freely flexing gaiter or cuff (i.e. shaft) is necessary in order to permit the posterior muscle groups of the lower leg to modulate external force exerted on the footwear. This requires that the axis of the footwear be allowed to rotate so that small degrees of flexion/extension occur at the foot with the lower leg being relatively passive and that large degrees of flexion/extension occur as coordinated ankle, knee and hip flexion. The construction of the prior art requires flexion/extension to occur primarily at the knee and hip joints which is disadvantageous to the user.

While some types of rear entry boots do disclose gaiters or cuffs which provide a degree of relatively free flexion, there remains numerous problems, the most serious of which is the fact that the device employed to secure the foot of the user exerts, in addition to the downward directed force on the foot, a simultaneous rearward directed force on the leg which acts to resist forward flexion in spite of any free hinging action of the cuff. The result is an interference with the physiologic function of the foot and leg of the user.

Yet another problem resides in buckle or overlap type footwear. In order to provide for entry of the foot of the user and for resistance to flexion, plastic materials are employed for the outer shell which have flexural qualities. This is necessary in order to facilitate the aforementioned requirements. Plastic materials by their very nature tend to resist point loadings by a relaxation of the material at the point where stress is applied. This characteristic creates serious problems for two reasons. First, the teaching of this application is that force must be applied and maintained only to specific areas of the foot and leg of the user while allowing for unrestricted movement of other areas. The application and maintenance of such force by flexible plastic materials in the structures of prior art is necessarily difficult, if it is possible at all.

Second, the plastic materials in relaxing under the application of stress assume a new shape by moving into void areas. Thus, the probability is great that the plastic material will change shape so as to inhabit the very area required for the uninhibited displacement of the structures of the foot and leg. The result of these limitations is interference with the physiologic function of the user.

Top and rear entry footwear for skiing and skating necessarily have interior volumes greater than that required by the wearers foot and leg, particularly in the area over the instep, in order to accommodate entry. This additional volume makes the incorporation of structures designed to provide accurate and consistent support to specific areas necessarily difficult and ineffective. This results in reduced support for the foot and leg.

Another problem with conventional footwear relates to the flexion of the lower leg relative to the foot. It is desirable to provide a degree of resistance to such movement to assist in dampening movement of the mass of the skier relative to the ski resulting from, for example, a velocity change due to terrain changes and to assist the user in transferring energy to the ski. Adjustment of such resistance is desirable in order that the user may compensate for different physical makeup and different operating conditions. In present ski footwear, sources of resistance for such purpose are poorly controlled and often produce resistance curves inappropriate for the operating environment (i.e. temperature) thereby adversely affecting the balance and control of the user and creating a need for additional energy to be expended to provide correction. In many applications, resistance is achieved by deformation of shell structures thereby resulting in reduced support for the user’s foot and leg. If indeed provision is made for adjustment of flex resistance in the instances cited, it is very limited in terms of ability to suitably modify resistance curves.

Torque Transfer and The Turntable Effect

Yet a further problem relates to the efficient transfer of torque from the lower leg and foot to the footwear. When the leg is rotated inwardly relative to the foot by muscular effort, a torsional load is applied to the foot. Present footwear does not adequately provide support or surfaces on and against which the wearer can transfer biomechanically generated forces such as torque to the footwear. Alternatively, the footwear presents sources of resistance which interfere with the movements necessary to initiate such transfer. It is desirable to provide for appropriate movement and such sources of resistance in order to increase the efficiency of this torque transfer and, in so doing, enhance the turning response of the ski. 

In my next post, I will discuss Turntable Power in conjunction with the Over-Centre mechanism.

NABOSO SURFACE SCIENCE INSOLE UPDATE

In June of this year, I posted on my beta testing experience with NABOSO surface science, small nerve, proprioception stimulating technology (1.).

Recently, I received the consumer version of NABOSO called NABOSO 1.0 shown in the photo below.

NABOSO 1.0 has a tighter grid than the NABOSO beta version I have been testing. The pyramid-like texture is also smaller.

The photo below shows NABOSO 1.o on the left and NABOSO beta on the right. The photo was taken before I trimmed NABOSO 1.0 to fit my shoes. 
Here is the information that came with my pair NABOSO 1.0 insoles.

I use both NABOSO 1.0 and NABOSO beta in my Lems Primal 2 and Xero Prio shoes. I immediately sensed better balance with the tighter grid of NABOSO 1.0. But I found it interesting after going back to NABOSO beta, after a period of time in NABOSO 1.o, that NABOSO beta felt more stimulating. Based on this subjective experience, I think there may be some advantage to switching back and forth between different texture grids. Hence my interest in the new NABOSO 1.5.

NABOSO 1.5 can be pre-ordered now for a reduced price of $30 US at orders@nabosotechnology.com

Disclosure: I do not receive any form of compensation from NABOSO or Dr. Emily Splichal. Nor do I hold any shares or have any financial interest in the company. The sole benefit I derive from NABOSO is to my feet and my balance and the efficiency of my movement.

I will be testing NABOSO insoles in my ski boots this winter in conjunction with toe spreaders starting with NABOSO 1.0. I will report on my experience in a future post.


  1. http://wp.me/p3vZhu-27v

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: CLOSED CHAIN OUTSIDE LEG ROTATION

A recently published study on foot pressure data acquired during skiing (1.) recognized that compressive force pressure data acquired in skiing is underestimated by 21% to 54% compared to pressure data acquired on a force platform in a controlled environment.  The underestimation varies depending on the phase of the turn, the skier’s skill level, the pitch of the slope and the skiing mode. The paper states that other studies have stated that this underestimation originates from a significant part of the force actually being transferred through the ski boot’s cuff (to the ski). 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.

In conclusion, these studies have highlighted a major contribution of different factors to the nGRF applied throughout a turn, such as the foot’s position during a turn (inside vs. outside), the CoP A-P (front to back) displacement, or precise loading of different foot sole regions.  Unfortunately, these results have been studied separately.

There is a lack of continuity across the various positions in skiing and, in particular, a lack of a model with which to explain mechanisms such as balance on the outside ski and open and closed chain internal rotation of the leg and foot in conjunction with progressive inclination and G force loading on it as the skier crosses the fall line in the bottom of a turn. The associated mechanics and biomechanics represent a new paradigm requiring new thinking and new insights. Existing text-book explanations are not sufficient to explain these mechanisms.

Open Chain Whole Leg Rotation vs. Closed Chain Rotation

Rotation of an unloaded (non-weight bearing) lower limb is relatively straight forward when there is a small angle at the knee. As resistance to rotation of the foot is progressively introduced with increasing weight imposed on it, the kinetic chain begins to close. As it closes, the points at which the foot transfers torque to the walls of rigid shell footwear such as ice skates and ski boots starts to emerge as an issue as does the loading of the foot created by the weight of the body imposed on it and the position of COM in relation to the foot.

In order to tension the biokinetic chain and trigger the two-phase Second Rocker, COM must be aligned over the foot as shown in the grahic below.  This alignment requires that the leg adduct (move towards the center of the body) approximately 6.5 degrees. To bring the 3 points of the tripod of the foot into contact with the ground, the foot must evert (sole turn outward) the same amount. Eversion is accompanied by a corresponding torque coupled 6.5 degrees of internal rotation of the leg as shown in the left hand figure in the graphic below (see my post – OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP). The bipedal figure on the right shows adduction, eversion and internal rotation as 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 for reference. The monopedal figure on the left shows the changes in adduction, eversion and internal rotation as 6.5 – 6.5 – 6.5.

 

The alignment of COM with the foot can be achieved by moving COM laterally as shown by the arrow emanating from COM in the Monopedal figure or by moving the foot medially as shown by the white arrow or through a combination of the two movements.  The act of positioning COM over the outside foot (Getting Over It), sets in motion internal rotation of the outside leg and eversion of foot into the turn. This engages an over-centre mechanism between the platform of the ski and the inside edge underfoot.

The over-centre mechanism results in an alignment of the resultant force R forming an angle with the transverse aspect of base of the ski that is slightly less than 90 degrees. In order to Get (COM) Over It (the foot), it is essential that the outside leg is not only able to adduct and rotate internally as the foot everts, but to achieve this configuration without delay in order to set up the over-center mechanism. The problem for the majority of skiers is that the objective of most boot fit systems and boot-fitting procedures is to support the foot in a neutral configuration. Eversion of the foot is a component of pronation. Impeding or preventing pronation, restricts or even prevents the required amount of eversion.

Closing the Kinetic Chain on Whole Leg Rotation

Open kinetic chain leg/foot rotation with the foot unloaded (not bearing weight) is relatively simple. But the mechanics and biomechanics begin to get complicated when resistance is progressively introduced that starts to close the kinetic chain as happens when the outside ski is rotated across the path of the skier in the fall line in the bottom of a turn.
The graphic below shows a foot supported on a platform with 2 points of resistance (FR) applied to the platform opposite the 2 points of application of the moments of force, ML (green) and MM (red). The forces tangent to the arc of the moments of rotation are shown as FT.
When the weight of the body is progressively shifted to one foot (i.e. Monopedal Stance) and the foot everts, the talus (shown in gray in the graphic above) moves inward towards the center of the body and shifts slightly rearward as evidenced by the corresponding movement of the inside ankle bone.  This is easily seen when moving from bipedal to monopedal stance on a hard, flat surface while barefoot.In order to effectively transfer torque from the foot to the platform, the forefoot and ankle and knee joints must be fascially tensioned. This requires that the big toe (Hallux) be aligned on the anatomical axis (dashed line) and the forefoot fully splayed. This stabilizes the heel and head of the 1st metatarsal (ball of the foot).  Torque from internal rotation of the leg will be transferred to two discrete points adjacent the Load Counters mounted on the resistance platform.

Removing the resistance force FR from the inner (big toe) aspect of the platform provides insights to what I refer to as the Turntable Effect that is associated with internal rotation of the leg and eversion of the foot that creates an over-center mechanism. The turntable rotation is shown in light yellow. The effect will vary for different structures of the foot depending on the location of the center of rotation of the platform under the foot.

The location of the blade of an ice skate on the anatomical center of the foot has been used to explain why it is easier to cut into a hard ice surface with a skate compared to the edges of a ski. But the real reason it is easier is because ice skaters use the Second Rocker, Over-Center, Turn Table Mechanisms as shown in the graphic below. The skate is positioned under COM. It can be readily seen that the skater is not using the inner aspect of the shaft of the skate to hold the skate on edge.

In my next post, I will discuss the progress of emerging CARV and NABOSO technologies after which I will continue with my discussion of the Mechanics of Balance on the Outside Ski.


  1. Influence of slope steepness, foot position and turn phase on plantar pressure distribution during giant slalom alpine ski racing: Published: May 4, 2017  – Thomas Falda-Buscaiot, Frédérique Hintzy, Patrice Rougier, Patrick Lacouture, Nicolas Coulmy
  2. http://wp.me/p3vZhu-29n

THE SKI BOOT FLEX INDEX INSTABILITY PROBLEM

It has been known for decades that an unbalanced moment of force or torque will be present on the outside ski when the center of pressure of the load applied to the ski by a skier is acting along the center of the transverse axis of the ski where it is offset from GRF acting along the inside edge. Ron LeMaster acknowledges the existence of an unbalanced moment of force on the ouside ski in both The Skier’s Edge and Ultimate Skiing (Edging the skis). LeMaster states in Ultimate Skiing;

The force on the snow is offset from the center of the skier’s and creates a torque on it that tries to flatten the ski.

Ron didn’t get the mechanics right. But he correctly shows the unbalanced torque acting on the ankle joint. LeMaster tries to rationalize that ice skates are easy to cut clean arcs into ice with because the blade is located under the center of the ankle. While this is correct, ice skaters and especially hockey players employ the Two Stage Heel-Forefoot Rocker to impulse load the skate for acceleration. Hockey players refer to this as kick.

In his comment to my post, OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP, Robert Colborne said:

…..In the absence of this internal rotation movement, the center of pressure remains somewhere in the middle of the forefoot, which is some distance from the medial edge of the ski, where it is needed.

The load or weight of COM is transferred to distal tibia that forms the ankle joint. This is the lower aspect of the central load-bearing axis that transfers the load W from COM to the foot. What happens after that depends on the biomechanics. But the force will tend to be applied on the proximate center of the stance foot. This is a significant problem in skiing, (one that LeMaster doesn’t offer a solution for) when the ski is on edge and there is air under the body of the ski. The unbalanced torques will move up the vertical column where they will manifest at the knee against a well stabilized femur.

But this unbalanced torque creates another problem, one that is described in a paper published in 2005 by two Italian engineers (1.) that describes how this load deforms the base of the boot shell.

The Italian study found large amounts of deformation at mean loads of up to 164% body weight were measured on the outer ski during turning. The paper suggests that the ski boot flex index is really a distortion index for the boot shell. The lower the flex index, the greater the distortion potential.

For the ski-boot – sole joint the main problem is not material failure, but large amounts of local deformation that can affect the efficiency of the locking system and the stiffness of the overall system.

Values of drift angle of some degree (>2-3°) cannot be accepted, even for a small period of time, because it results in a direct decrease of the incidence of the ski with the ground.

My post GS AND KNEE INJURIES – CONNECTING THE DOTS (2.) cites studies that found that knee injuries are highest in GS in the shortest radius turns where peak transient forces are highest.

As shown in Figure 2a FR (sum of centrifugal and weight forces) and F GROUND (ground reaction force) are not acting on the same axis thus generating a moment MGR that causes a deformation of the ski-boot-sole system (Figure 2b) leading to a rotation of the ground reaction force direction. The final effect is to reduce the centripetal reaction force of the ground, causing the skier to drift to the outside of the turn (R decreases, causing the drift event).

An imperfect condition of the ski slope will emphasize this problem, leading to difficulties maintaining constant turning radius and optimal trajectory. The use of SGS ski-boot in competitions requires a particular focus on this aspect due to the larger loads that can be produced during races.

I have added a sketch showing that the moment arm M R created by the offset between the F Ground and F R is in the plane of the base of the ski where it results in an Inversion-lateral rotation torque.

The importance of sole stiffness is demonstrated with a simplified skier model…..…ski boot torsional stiffness with respect to ski longitudinal axis in particular is very important as it deeply influences the performance of the skier during turning…. A passage over a bump or a hollow may generate a sudden change in ground reaction force that may lead to a rapid change in the drift angle delta. The ski boot must be as stiff as possible going from the lower part of the boot to the ski (i.e. lower shell-joint-sole system)

As explained in the method section using the simplified model, values of some degree cannot be accepted, even for a small period of time, because the skier stability and equilibrium could be seriously compromised especially when the radius of curvature is small. A non perfect condition of the ski slope will emphasize the problem, leading to big difficulties for maintaining constant turning radius and optimal trajectory.

This excellent paper by the two Italian engineers concludes with the following statements:

Authors pushed forward the integration of experiments and modeling on ski-boots that will lead to a design environment in which the optimal compromise between stiffness and comfort can be reached.

The possibility of measuring accurately the skier kinematics on the ski slope, not addressed in the presented study, could represent a further step in the understanding of skiing dynamics and thus could provide even more insightful ideas for the ski-boot design process.

I first recognized the shell deformation, boot board instability issue in 1980, at which time I started integrating rigid structural boot boots into the bases of boot shells I prepared for racers. The improvement in ski control and balance was significant. The instability of  boot boards associated with shell/sole deformation with 2 to 3 degrees of drift at modest loads of up to 164% body weight has significant implications for footbeds.


  1. AN INNOVATIVE SKI-BOOT: DESIGN, NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND TESTING – Stefano Corazza 􀀍 and Claudio Cobelli Department of Information Engineering – University of Padova, Italy – Published (online): 01 September 2005 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3887325/
  2. http://wp.me/p3vZhu-zx

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: THE ROCKER/TURNTABLE EFFECT

The Two Phase Second Rocker (Heel to Ball of Foot) described in the previous post is dependent on inertia impulse loading. A good discussion of the basics of inertia and momentum is found in Inertia, Momentum, Impulse and Kinetic Energy (1.)

Limitations of Pressure Insoles used in Skiing

A paper published on May 4, 2017 called Pressure Influence of slope steepness, foot position and turn phase on plantar pressure distribution during giant slalom alpine ski racing by Falda-Buscaiot T, Hintzy F, Rougier P, Lacouture P, Coulmy N. while noting that:

Pressure insoles are a useful measurement system to assess kinetic parameters during posture, gait or dynamic activities in field situations, since they have a minimal influence on the subject’s skill.

acknowledge limitations in pressure insoles:

However, several limitations should be pointed out. 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.

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

Forces transferred through the cuff of a ski boot to the ski can limit or even prevent the inertia impulse loading associated with the Two Phase Second Rocker/Turntable Effect. In addition, forces transferred through the cuff of a ski boot to the ski intercept forces that would otherwise be transferred to a supportive footbed or orthotic.

Rocker Roll Over

In his comment to my post, OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP, Robert Colborne said:

In the absence of this internal rotation movement, the center of pressure remains somewhere in the middle of the forefoot, which is some distance from the medial edge of the ski, where it is needed.

Rock n’ Roll

To show how the Two Phase Second Rocker rocks and then rolls the inside ski onto its inside edge at ski flat during edge change, I constructed a simple simulator. The simulator is hinged so as to tip inward when the Two Phase Second Rocker shifts the center of pressure (COP) from under the heel, on the proximate center of a ski, diagonally, to the ball of the foot.

The red ball in the photo below indicates the center of gravity (COG) of the subject. When COP shifts from the proximate center to the inside edge aspect, the platform will tilt and the point of COP will drop with the COG in an over-center mechanism.


A sideways (medial) translation of the structures of the foot away from the COG will also occur as shown in the graphic below. The black lines indicate the COP center configuration of the foot. The medial translation of the foot imparts rotational inertia on the platform under the foot.

Two Phase Second Rocker: The Movie

The video below shows the Two Phase Second Rocker.

Click on the X on the right side of the lower menu bar of the video to enter full screen.

The graphic below shows to Dual Plane Turntable Effect that initiates whole leg rotation from the pelvis applying multi-plane torque to the ski platform cantilevering reaction force acting along the running edge of the outside ski out under the body of the ski. A combination of over-center mechanics and internal (medial or into the turn) application of rotation of the leg from the pelvis, counters torques resulting from external forces.


  1. http://learn.parallax.com/tutorials/robot/elev-8/understanding-physics-multirotor-flight/inertia-momentum-impulse-and-kinetic
  2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176975

 

 

 

 

WHO NEEDS FOOTBEDS? NO ONE

There are some who can benefit from footbeds or orthotics and some who do actually need them. But these groups are the rare exception. And they are unlikely to be skiers.

Orthotics. The pros / cons of orthotics in today’s society!

In a recent YouTube video (1.), Podiatrist & Human Movement Specialist, Dr Emily Splichal, explores the concept of orthotics and their role in today’s society. Dr. Splichal doesn’t pull any punches when she says:

“…..I have been through the conventional podiatric school and been fed pretty much the bullshit from podiatry of how every single person needs to be in orthotics, that our foot is not able to support itself without orthotics……if we do not use orthotics our foot is going to completely collapse  and you are going to lose your arch…….”

“……Our foot is designed to support itself. If we actually needed orthotics, we would be born…..we would come out of the womb, with orthotics on our feet.”

Meantime, The Foot Collective  asks (2.) Are you promoting weak feet?

  • Anything you use for artificial support at the feet (footwear with arch support & orthotics) your brain takes into account and accommodates for it.
  • That means if you provide your foot support your brain shuts down the natural arch supporters to reduce un-necessary energy expenditure.
  • Stop using support to help with pronation and understand why your feet pronate in the first place – because they are weak.
  • Strong feet = strong foundation = strong body.

The Real Source of Support for the Arch

Ray McClanahan, D.P.M. offers a perspective on the issue of Arch Support in his post on the CorrectToes blog (3.)

Are Custom Footbeds and Orthotics better than stock insoles?

In his post of August 20, 2017, Custom Foot Orthotics; No Better Than Stock Insoles (4.), Rick Merriam, of Engaging Muscles, explores the issue of orthotics in depth.

Prior to being told that supportive insoles are the way to go, I think it’s safe to say that all of those people didn’t know what they didn’t know.

The erroneous assumption that every skier needs footbeds or orthotics was made at a time when little  was known about the function of the foot and lower limb, especially in late stance. I was one of those who didn’t know what I didn’t know when initially when down the ‘the foot needs to be supported in skiing’ road up until I realized what I didn’t know and took steps to acquire the requisite knowledge.

Footbeds; is anyone checking what they do?

In 2000, I formed a company called Synergy Sports Performance Consultants (5). Synergys’ product was high quality information. One of my partners, UK Podiatrist, Sophie Cox, was trained by Novel of Germany and was one of the few experts in the world at that time on the Pedar system. Synergy did not make and/or sell footbeds or orthotics. Instead, we checked the effect of footbeds on skier performance. We performed a quick footbed check for a minimal fee of $20 using the sophisticated Novel Pedar pressure analysis technology.

Synergy was one of the first companies in the world to use the Novel Pedar pressure analysis system synchronized to video to acquire data on skier performance and analyze the captured data.  The Synergy team with diverse expertise studied the effect of ski boots and custom insoles on skier performance and identified functional issues in the body that needed to be addressed. It was a common finding that custom footbeds were significantly compromising skier performance, especially the ability to create the necessary platform under the foot on which to stand and balance on the outside ski.

Synergy offered a comprehensive 5 Step Performance Program that started with a footbed check. A key component was item 2., the Biomechanical Check.

With increasing recognition of the negative effect of most footwear on the user and criticism of the unproven claims made for footbeds and orthotics coming hard and fast, credibility in skiing is rapidly going downhill. It is time for proponents of custom insoles for ski boots to support their claims with solid evidence, especially evidence supported with data acquired during actual ski maneuvers. The technology to do this has existed since at least the year 2000.


  1. https://youtu.be/CIRf9WHmMXI
  2. http://www.thefootcollective.com
  3. https://www.correcttoes.com/foot-help/articles-studies/arch-support/
  4. http://www.engagingmuscles.com/2017/08/20/custom-foot-orthotics/
  5. DIGITAL SALVATION FOR THE SOLE [BACK TO THE FUTURE] –  http://wp.me/p3vZhu-24g

THE MECHANICS OF EDGE CHANGE

Comments made by followers of my blog suggest that significant confusion exists 0n the meaning of terms and representations of mechanics, biomechanics and physics used in typical explanations of ski technique and ski mechanics. In particular, there appears to be confusion between pressure and the representation of point forces.

Pressure is a physical force applied to an object that is distributed over the surface of the object.

Center of Pressure or COP is the point center of ground reaction force opposing a corresponding center of applied force acting on a object supported on the ground or a stable surface that acts in the capacity of ground in terms of providing a source of reaction force.

Torque or Moment of Force results from an offset between the centers of opposing physical forces acting on either side of an object.  This offset results in a torque or moment arm that tends ti create rotation about a center. When one force has a greater magnitude than the other force, rotation of the object will occur around the point of rotation.

Why typical balance explanations of skier balance are wrong

Balance in skiing is often depicted as a simple alignment of opposing point forces, usually a resultant force R acting in opposition to a snow reaction force S. The mechanics that make the edges of a ski grip are often shown as a simple alignment of opposing forces acting a single point on the edge. Explanations of this nature are physically impossible. What the authorities in skiing seem to conveniently be ignoring is the fact that pressure is applied by the snow along the entire running surface of the edge in contact with the the snow while an opposing area of pressure applied by the weight of the skier is acting on the body of the ski with an offset between the two centers of pressure. The authorities in skiing also seem to conveniently ignore what is arguably the key even in establishing a platform under the outside ski for the skier to stand and balance on, edge change.

Mikaela Shiffrin’s Get Over It drill on the Burke Mountain YouTube site makes a good segue to an explanation of the Mechanics of Edge change in the my next post – https://youtu.be/Bh7KF49GzOc

Bridget Currier is the model every skier should aspire to. She perfectly executes what I call the skimove. The skimove engages the external forces at ski-flat/edge-change to drive multi-plane torques acting about her outside ski into the turn while setting up a solid platform under her outside foot for her to stand on. Magnificent! This video should have at least a million views.

My comment from 2 years ago

Note carefully Currier’s stance in balance on her new outside ski, in particular, the angle of her torso with the snow. This is key to loading the ball of her outside foot.

Note carefully Shiffrin’s comment to move forward onto her new ski and how she used to think the movement was a lateral (sideways) move.

Most important of all – Patient Initiation. The reason? Shiffrin and Currier, don’t tip their outside ski on edge. They rock it on edge with a rocker impulse loading mechanism. The sequence is Rock, Roll n’ Rotate then Rotate the outside leg.