Ultimate alpine TOURING boot?

Lots of good comments and info. Thanks everybody.<br><br>I accept some of the blame for the thread drift, since I started talking about walkability (on foot), when I'm really interested in tourability (on skis). Like other folks, I normally switch to tennis shoes if I have to walk more than a couple miles on foot. (If I'm in normal AT boots, I switch even sooner.)<br><br>For a long time, I did nearly all my backcountry skiing in mountain boots and Ramer bindings. Over the past ten years, I've done more trips in AT boots (after getting a more comfortable pair) and two years ago I finally switched to Dynafit bindings. (To Matt: I highly recommend the TLT4 boots.) <br><br>But I found that I missed the ultra-tourability of my old mountain boots, particularly for "flow days" where you're more interested in covering distance than ripping turns. Not for all trips, just for some trips. That's why I've been tinkering with a pair of Mountain Lites (MLTs) this season.<br><br>One thing I find interesting about this discussion is that I feel like a visitor from another planet. Hardly anybody has much experience skiing in low-cut boots anymore. So, hardly anybody appreciates that they really do tour better. And most people have never taken the time to adjust to them, so they think they are horrible to ski in. I feel differently, but I suspect there's no point in trying to convince anybody. But it's fun to question the conventional wisdom about what alpine touring is about.<br>

But I found that I missed the ultra-tourability of my old mountain boots, particularly for "flow days" where you're more interested in covering distance than ripping turns.

<br><br>I have a good "ultra-tourable" setup for days where I'm not interested in "ripping turns": SNS-BC Solly Raid boots (they're pretty burly for the bar-compatible type boots but they've been discontinued, I believe next season Solly will introduce a new burly bar-style boot), Fisher Outbounds and SNS-BC bindings. I've heard rumors that the poster sb has skied some pretty significant things (Glacier peak traverse?) in his Raid boots, maybe he can comment here.<br><br>I enjoy "nordic touring" days where you just cover a lot of distance (ala your MP race) but it's hard to find time for such days in-between lift skiing, alpine touring and skating.

Ok, from what I read on this thread, I will probably learn very quickly (in my first hike with Garmonts) that I will want to carry them on my back for the hike <br><br>What do you AT people recomend for hiking. Sneakers just doesn't cut it for my feet.<br><br>Also, I appreciate all the comments on the light and more flexible boots that have appeared here. Being new to the sport, I am very happy with the performance of the boots I have, but in recognizing that there is probably far more control in these boots than what I will need on much of the terrain that I ski, I may end up getting one of the more flexible boots. <br><br>Alan

It also has occurred to me that one of the drawbacks of climbing boots used in AT bindings is that the climbing boot cuff is purposefully designed for lateral ankle flex. At least enough flex to still allow reasonable flat-footed crampon technique. This is great for side slabbing or other non-direct ascents of steep hard snow slopes. Unfortunately, this foot position is directly counter to what is required to obtain sustained edge control on those very same slopes with skis and it certainly compounds the problem of gaining control of the skis during descents in snow conditions that might easily redirect the skis away from the intended direction.<br><br>The problem with what I see with Lowell's design in his drawing is that tightening what amounts to be this flexible and low cuff does not necessarily increase its stiffness. At least in my climbing boots that seems to have diminishing returns. This flexibility seems to be the bigger problem than the height of the cuff.<br><br>What about the side stringers used in the dynafits? Do they not add both lateral and fore/aft stability? If this is the case, then a moderate height cuff with side stringers that are user detachable (that is allowed to float freely, but left in place) at either the top or bottom might be the ticket. A simple reversible wing nut with a collapsable wing could make the attachement easy to handle and very beefy. I am assuming that these boots sans the stringers would be very flexible to tour in. They might be the boot to start with when doing boot modification.<br><br>Regarding the thread drifting to walking issues, I think the drawing with a bellows implied comfort in walking as a feature of the design. Almost everyone I have talked to who has AT and tele experience suggest that AT gear has the edge in touring/climbing efficiency over tele gear. One big reason seems to be the bellows "sink" during the stride, but I wonder also how much that is really do to the need for extra energy to flex that bellows....

I believe the reasons most people familiar with both contemporary AT and tele gear cite for AT being more efficient are weight and the free-hinging nature of AT bindings. The number of people who have skinned uphill in flexible AT boots with a bellows is actually quite low (limited to F1 users) but at $595 it is an expensive experiment if you end up not liking them.

The problem with what I see with Lowell's design in his drawing is that tightening what amounts to be this flexible and low cuff does not necessarily increase its stiffness.

<br><br>True. On the other hand, I've never had much trouble with a lack of lateral support, even in Scarpa Invernos which are quite soft.<br><br>As I've mentioned already, I'm doing my current experiments on a pair of Dynafit Mountain Lites. These boots use the same lower shell as the TLT4. This lower shell is actually quite a bit stiffer laterally than a normal mountain boot. That's because the flanges that extend above the ankle, along the sides, are beefier than on a normal mountain boot. I find that this has two advantages. The first is lateral support, obviously. The second--somewhat surprising--is that when you tighten up the cuff, the boot has a stiffer forward flex than a mountain boot. In my experience, stiffening the forward flex is the key to shifting from tour mode to ski mode in mountain boots. When I'm skiing right, I'm constantly getting feedback from pressing into the tongue of the boot. (Rear stiffness is not really an issue. Getting in the back seat is simply not allowed.) The foreward flex doesn't have to be real stiff, but the feedback has to be there. The Mountain Lites feel pretty good in this respect.<br><br>I believe that the "locking stringer" design you described is incorporated into the new TLT Race boot that was mentioned earlier in this thread. Perhaps that's the boot I should have started with, if I could have found a pair. But I suspect that it would take a lot of hacking to give them as much fore-aft freedom of movement as I've got using the Mountain Lites.

What do you AT people recomend for hiking.  Sneakers just doesn't cut it for my feet.

<br>I've been using trail runners, specifically the Salomon XA Pro II (although Salomon has some newer models now). Very light, yet surprisingly supportive. Worked great on the long draw approaches this past July to the Interglacier and Russell/Flett.<br>Drawbacks are:<br>-- not much side protection when accidently banging feet up against big rocks; and,<br>-- prone to getting soaked in wet/muddy conditions. (An xcr version is available, although given the low cut, probably would get wet anyway.)<br>

I also use the Salomon XA Pro with a low, stretchy gaiter, they work great. Decided against the XCR version, as once they fill up with water the membrane will be working against you - the mesh ones just drain out and feel dry in about 5 minutes.<br><br>BTW, the XA Pro II's are at Sierratradingpost for $59 now . . . (but they are blue)

Thanks for the advice on the light hikers. I don't mind wet feet so much, unless they are swimming in water, I hardly notice till I take off the shoes. I like the fast drying feature. I will check them out, even the blue ones!<br><br>Alan

I use heavy sneakers. I don't worry about moisture, I just carry my ski socks in my pack until I put on my boots, so I can splash through bogs and posthole through snow without worries. If my feet get too cold, I'll just switch to my boots. <br><br>Sneakers have always worked fine for me, even with a big pack and rough terrain. My stiff (for these types of shoes) Montrails even work great with strap on crampons, perfect for alpine rock with a glacial approach.

One idea for hiking (not mine, but a good one worth sharing) is to use your laceup boot liners, like on my Garmont tele boots, that you use as mukluks, but have them covered with NEOS overboots. This would of course work with sneakers or trail runners as well.<br><br>This running shoe/ NEOS combination is also the preferred setup for sprint and mid-distance mushers.

Dave,<br><br>What is NEOS? I'll look it up. Been getting out with the dogs much?<br><br>Alan

Hey Alan, all this bemoaning the weather yet I've been able to ski and sled from my doorstep for about a week or so. Thats all changed now of course! But then there's wheeled rigs to train with. Life is good!<br><br>Do AT boots have laceup liners like the tele boots? If not this might be moot.<br><br>www.overshoe.com/

Dave,<br><br>My boots do not, however the strap on the NEOS instep might be enough to secure the setup.<br><br>Of course on our side of the mountains, we don't usually get anything at sea level.<br><br>Alan

I've been reading through this with interest- a couple years ago I bought the MTL's for easy tours and summer skiing- have used them for climbing and snow shoeing too. I tried to make them stiffer, used a thermafit liner, straps and looked into a buckle; but never did. I was looking at my TLT Pro4 boots yesterday, same lower boot and buckle mounting point. I used to have the older version of the TLT that Jan has and wondering how he skis the big slopes in them- they were great for touring; but not very stiff toward the back and less forward.<br><br>I also have pair of Garmont Mege Ride for alpine skiing and patrolling at Alpental. I think they tour pourly; but ski pretty good; but almost always use the Pro 4's.<br><br>I'm planning to try to get the Pro 4 buckles for the instep and use a quick lace system for the uppers. They are light, comfortable and walk pretty good, and ski allright. From my perspective the summer turns aren't the big turns anyway- friends going for a hike with some skiing tosed in there for a bonus.<br><br>Maybe I'll have a version of the Ultimate Alpine Touring Boot?

I also have pair of Garmont Mege Ride for alpine skiing and patrolling at Alpental.  I think they tour pourly

<br><br>Rickster, exactly which characteristics of the MegaRides do you find makes them tour poorly? Is it the height? Do the cuffs not have as much range of movement as the TLT4Pros? They aren't significantly heavier, 6.8lbs vs 6lbs for the pair. And by touring, you're talking about on-snow touring, not hiking right? It seems like in this thread the term touring has been used interchangeably with hiking, I think we should make distinction between the two.<br><br>I really wish I could demo a pair of F1s, anyone know where I could (I'm doubtful this is possible, except maybe at the BD store in SLC?).<br>

<br>I come from the telemark side rather than the AT side of the discussion but the concerns are pretty much the same. One of the original strong attractions of the telemark system was how much better the boots were for both touring and hiking as opposed to the mountain boots I used for AT. This advantage, of course, has been nearly completely lost in newer generations of plastic tele boots (and the bindings they require). So we're left with most of the disadvantages of the tele system and few of the advantages. This is not progress.<br><br>The Salomon BC system is one way I've tried to keep mobility in a touring outfit. This has been my favorite ski system since it came out. The binding is seemingly bombproof and tours almost as well as a classic track skiing setup. When the boot is down, the rail is in the groove and the system is as laterally strong as any other binding system. The boots are strong enough to control skis up to Tua Heliums (72 mm waist). Technique has to adjusted a little to accomodate the wimpier boots ( 2 footed parallel, for example) but this is not hard. Modern skis are so active that they very much reduce the demands on the boots compared to what was needed in the old days. I have become used to (dependent on, actually) having a nearly free ankle fore and aft. I think this does not get in the way of good skiing and is safer and much more comfortable for touring and hiking. Wider skis that the Heliums are, I think, ruled out, but they certainly aren't necessary for enjoyably skiing the Cascades (please feel free to disagree). Unfortunately Salomon has dropped the ball on this by discontinuing this year any high level BC boots - supposedly they will bring something back next year. If they could see the light they could produce a very satisfactory backcountry boot, one that was light, strong, mobile, waterproof, durable (no exposed external stitching)...or just encourage Garmont to stick a Salomon sole on an Excursion.<br><br>Of course, Excursions can be used in a simple 3-pin binding. The result is not bad, but could be better; the 3 pin binding is simply not the equal of the Salomon one. Nevertheless this system is capable of high level skiing with a wide range of skis - there is plenty of edge control, and it is comfortable for touring.

sb, I use heliums with the Voile 3-pin cable and it sounds like I am getting about the same level of performance as you are on the the BC system. My boots are the leather Asolo with 2-buckles added. Also, sounds like you are skiing with the same level of compensation for softness in the system, which really impresses me about either your technique or the boots.<br><br>I find this skiing to be very pleasant and intend to continue to do it where appropriate (for me). Maybe you can start a thread on these bindings, because I have seen little on this subject, gotten very little info from dealers on the utility and appropriateness. If it performs as you say, then it would probably shed lbs off of my tele setup. (My boots are pretty heavy and get even heavier when wet!).<br><br>I still have hope that AT gear I have will allow me to ski slopes that I know just would be too much effort to enjoy on my light gear. However, being new to the sport I fear that I may have gotten boots with a tad more support than necessary and therefore less tourable than I desired. (My wife is going to kill me!) This thread has been very informative but in the end I need the opportunity to tour to know for sure.<br><br>Alan

There's nothing wrong with having 2 (or more!) outfits for different kinds of trips - one touring oriented, another maybe more downhill capable, one SNS BC or NNN BC or 3 pin , the other AT. With modern skis the techniques needed are not so different as they once might have been. Perhaps new threads are in order for several topics; how much control is needed to handle backcountry problems, how much boot, how much ski, and what kind of freedom of motion is o.k. (I'd say fore and aft, Lowell perhaps would not), and what kind is forbidden (lateral ankle motion?). Then we'd be clearer about what to demand for our sport.

There is some great discussion going on here on the relative merits of varying degrees of support needed for skiing vs the weight and limited range of motion favored for climbing/touring. Its interesting to here how some folks gravitate toward more support while others can and do get by with much less. Not to mention sb and others who can make a valid argument of the free heel persuasion.<br><br>I first got interested in touring through the telemark turn and spent many years only skiing freeheel (many thanks to sb's book and others for early inspiration...) Recently I picked up AT and now tour with a fixed heel AT rig and work and downhill mostly freeheel with much heavier equipment. Still love the free heel turn in a full range of flavors. Full circle evolution??<br><br>Anyway - I still have a 3-pin snowfield touring rig but rarely use this for turns in difficult snow - although I love the lightness and stride offered. I find that my older Dynafit TLTs, while not as stiff as tele T1s offer comparable control downhill but are night and day ahead for touring. <br><br>For me - some amount of aft support is desired, even though as Lowell has pointed out, modern skis can be turned with an upright nuetral stance. Just load them up and watch them come around... I don't think I'm necessarily always in the back seat, but... I guess mostly its a security blanket for when things go bad. Maybe its from years of parallel skiing freeheel without being able to fully load up the tips due to lack of heel piece?<br><br>As for sb and touring more difficult snow with SNS BC and others - my hats off to you... Personally I just feel the light AT route is a more efficient way to travel light and fast AND enjoy a variety of downhill challenges.

There's nothing wrong with having 2 (or more!) outfits for different kinds of trips - one touring oriented, another maybe more downhill capable, one SNS BC or NNN BC or 3 pin , the other AT.

<br><br>Exactly. In my case, I prefer both outfits to be alpine touring gear. The long tours that I want to do are rugged enough that I feel more comfortable in a climbing boot, but I'm sure other people could get by in nordic style boots.<br><br>I like keeping my gear collection relatively simple, so for many years, the only thing that distinguished my touring outfit from my downhill outfit was the boots. When I switched to Dynafit bindings for my downhill outfit, that was no longer true. So this thread describes my efforts to come up with a touring boot for my Dynafit system, to get back to my preferred, simple setup.

I received some TLT buckles from LifeLink and got Dave Page to install them on my Mountain Lites. The boots now look just like in my drawing (page 1) except without the toe bellows. Eager to try them out, I cruised up to Alpental for a shakedown.<br><br>They work great. The buckle really solves the problem I was having with a loose fit around my foot. The quick-cinch upper adjusts quickly over a big range and does not slip while skiing downhill. I think the boots are a winner. They tour very well and ski just fine. I had no trouble hop-turning down International on crusty, chunky snow. I carried my Jet-Stix along, but didn't bother using them. I'll save them for a powder day. <br><br>The snowpack was excellent for Alpental ... in August. Except for a stream crossing about 1/3 of the way up, I was able to skin up and ski down all the way from parking lot to summit. But it was very skimpy on the lower part. There's virtually no snow anywhere on the drive up from Seattle, so it's pretty amazing you can ski at all up there.<br><br>Maybe I'll take a picture of the modified boot and post it. Since I don't own a digital camera, it may take a while...

Wow - neat Lowell! Any idea how much the boots now weigh?

Any idea how much the boots now weigh?

<br><br>Using my wife's cheap kitchen scale, they seem to be about an ounce lighter (per boot) than my TLT4s. (I measure 2 lbs. 14 oz. per boot, but this is a really poor scale.) The TLT4s have a thermofit liner, but the MLTs do not. I'm currently using the liners from an old pair of Scarpa Invernos in them. With the buckles installed, I might go back to using the stock MLT liners.<br><br>So, I guess that means they're light, but not dramatically so. But lightness is not really the point. Tourability is.<br>

Lowell, very interesting, thanks. But do you think they really tour (i.e., skin) that much better than the TLT4? My understanding was that the lower/softer/flimsier upper cuff on the MLT (relative to the TLT) was more for climbing, rather than skinning. With the TLT4 in tour mode and the top buckle completely open, doesn&#8217;t that provide sufficient range of motion for skinning?<br>And the buckle you retrofitted in just on the lower shell, right, to get a better fit? The wrap-around upper cuff still has just laces, but you *decreased* the height of the rear cuff behind that?<br>(Sorry for so many q&#8217;s, but kinda hard to envision w/o a pic.)<br>BTW, I&#8217;ve heard that swapping in a typical thermoflex liner unfortunately hurts the skiing performance significantly, since it doesn&#8217;t have the same rigidity as a traditional sewen liner.

Jonathan,<br><br>You might want to go back and read some of the previous posts in this thread and, particularly, look at the drawing on page 1.<br><br>As I think I explained previously (maybe not) the key difference between my modified boot and a TLT4 is the ability to flex the ankle backward (i.e. point your toe). This is a very real difference when you are touring on low angle terrain. It makes no difference when you are climbing steadily. I appreciate this difference on ski traverses and cross-country tours.

Yes, I did, but I just wanted to clarify what is still on the wish list vs. what has actually been implemented (which appears is everything but the bellows - pretty hard to retrofit that!).<br>I never really thought about how much the rear cuff on the TLT4 (even when fully unbuckled and in walk mode) interferes with a full xc stride, but then again, it has to be a drawback compared to my Salomon Raid, and even more so compared to a xc classic race boot (which would be the ultimate benchmark for tour-ability). Sounds like what you've achieved with the rear cuff interference is something roughly halfway in between the TLT4 and the Raid.

Dynafit MLT users, how is the MLT as a mountaineering boot? For french pointing, front pointing, walking? I don't really care how they ski. I am wondering about getting a pair so I can use my dynafit binding mounted touring skis as approach skis and save weight over a set up with my plastic mountaineering boots/silveretta binding/touring skis. I would stay away from the MLT's if they compromised mountaineering perfromance relative to my Lowa Civetta plastic boots.

Dynafit MLT users, how is the MLT as a mountaineering boot?  For french pointing, front pointing, walking?

<br><br>With the modifications described in this thread, my MLT's walk about as good as my Scarpa Invernos. They probably don't flat-foot as well because the ankle is stiffer laterally. I have not used them front pointing yet but they should be fine for that. I took the MLT liners out and put my Inverno liners in. They walk better that way because the MLT liners have a spoiler.<br><br>If you're planning much rock climbing or scrambling, they may not be the best choice because you may gouge up the Dynafit sockets. The sockets would also be a hindrance if you ever tried to jam the toe of the boot in a crack or something--they might be slippery.

ajjenkin took some video last Tuesday while we were skiing at Mt Baker. I was giving my customized MLTs another try. Due to my dialup connection (sloooow) I haven't looked at it. But Tony suggested I post it here to illustrate skiing in mountain boots.<br><br>www.angelfire.com/folk/ajjenkin/DSCF1657.AVI