J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by Trencher

You might look at off the shelf footbeds like Superfeet. Properly supported feet will really help your skiing. Some knowledgeable help choosing the right type, make, size is strongly advised. You may have an issue with cutting them to size. If you always rent the same type of boot, use the original innersole as a guide. You may have to fiddle around a bit to get the footbeds in exactly the right position in the boot (especially if they have been trimmed a little small).

BTW Someone needs to design a prosthetic with spring loaded rotation at the ankle, maybe even inversion/eversion. Aside from ankle rotation being useful in the moguls, it is impossible to angulate at the knee without some rotation at the ankle.

I read your post on another forum, where someone suggested a skwal. I was going to suggest a skwal or alpine snowboarding. I've given a lot of thought to a somewhat similar situation. As an adaptive instructor, I work with a young student who suffered a stroke at birth. One side of his body is very much weaker. He does very well on skis, but as he progresses, the asymmetry becomes more apparent. In his case as a young teenager, the effort to be symmetrical when skiing is beneficial to his physical development. At the same time I want to introduce him to snowboarding, because left/right symmetry is not an issue on a snowboard.

It would be desirable to have symmetry in movements on a monoski, but that would mean limiting your movements left and right, to the restrictions imposed by your prosthetic. Unlike my student, I would suggest that there may be little benefit in your struggling to monoski symmetrically. The skwal or alpine snowboarding may let you enjoy alpine sport as pretty much an equal to those on similar equipment. Alpine snowboarding has a forwardish stance, and uses hard boots (more like ski boots) and plate bindings. Riding a skwal is very much like water skiing, with a very forward stance. Some people use poles with skwals. There tends to be more rotary movement of the rear legs in both these sports, so a prosthetic forward set up may work best.

Unfortunately, as you have no doubt discovered, the term monoski has been co-opted by the adaptive ski community to replace the term sitski. This was to differentiate a sitski with one ski, from a sitski with two skis... a bi-ski. The term used now for what was a monoski is monoboard.

As was also mentioned on that other forum, monoboards haven't gone the way of the dinosaurs just yet. There are several new small manufacturers making monoskis with the same new technology that is seen in modern skis. If you go that route, it would be very worthwhile finding a modern monoboard. Just as you wouldn't want learn to ski on 1990s skis.

Good luck with the endeavor anyway.

Ranchero_1979 wrote:
I my mind I tend to see that all from the perspective of where my feet are in relation to body and constant need to pull them back. As long as my arms are in front of my body then being forward is purely my feet underneath me which can be corrected at each turn.

So that's the interesting part. We can't constantly pull the feet back; it's not a static position that creates the tip pressure. At the start of a turn, we can pull our feet back relative to mass of our upper body, engaging the tips of the skis. By mid turn, we relax the pull back, and balance on the whole outside foot. This is especially pronounced in short turns.

Thanks for the more expansive post SwingBeep.

Often when people say they liked this ski or that ski, it has a lot to do with the different stand heights of the bindings, putting them into a better skiing stance. I think generally there is a reticence by instructors to bring up "set up" in lessons, preferring to focus on drills. The best (Longer) instruction courses will often look at boot set up on day one, because it is such a limiting factor.

A good boot fitter is the first place to start, though there are limitations. To a great degree, a boot fitter is only as good as the feed back they get from the client. The problem for most skiers is, what should a good set up feel like, if they have never experienced it before?

Some of "my" cues for knowing the set up is right for me are,

Statically in a good stance (with skis on) - Starting with my shins lightly engaged with the boot cuffs, and weight evenly distributed along the length of my feet, any movement forward (straightening knees/moving hips forward/raising arms forward will both increase cuff pressure on shins and move weight pressure to the balls of my feet.

Skiing slowly - If I pivot in a neutral stance, the pivot point on the skis is under my feet. If I use the movements described above to move forward, the skis will pivot at a point forward of my toes.

Skiing faster - I am able to allow the skis to move forward as the turn progresses, while still maintaining shin cuff contact. At transition, pulling the feet back both firmly engages the shins, and moves the balance/weight point to the balls of my feet to start the new turn.

The tendency for intermediate skiers to get in the back seat as the skis move forward in a turn is often I think an effect of poor set up. The result from instructors has been the cry to get forward, get forward, get forward.

I'm not a believer in lifting your toes to get forward, as you are left balancing on your heels and shins.

I've experienced your frustration Broom. Maybe the most crucial factor in fore/aft balance is boot set up. The combination of ramp angles from the boots and binding, together with the forward lean and flex of the boot cuff needs to be just right, if you are to keep your body just where it needs to be throughout the turn. All the drills in the world won't change that limiting factor.

I first heard about the rotational aspect of head injuries in motorcycle accidents back in the eighties. It was referred to as the onion effect. I think the concern then was the friction between the helmet shell and the road surface. I wonder if the trend of snow sports helmets having peaks and other projections/sharp angles increases the chance of increased rotational forces during impacts with snow.

Anyway, I replaced my old helmet with a MIPS after a fall last season.

Derek, I have similar dimensions. I bought two pairs of Marmot Refuge pants last season. Although listed as a 32" inseam, they don't look overly long with ski boots. I do fold the bottoms up for walking around in shoes though. My main concern was finding a pair of pants that didn't look like the elephant flares I used to wear in the seventies. Wide baggy pants seem to accentuate the length issue. North Face pants come in three lengths if you can find them.