# Boot Weight



## Greg (Nov 20, 2007)

Is this something you ever consider? I'm replacing my Volkl AC3s due to their (perceived) excess weight, but It seems a bit futile considering the weight of my boots.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 20, 2007)

Greg said:


> Is this something you ever consider? I'm replacing my Volkl AC3s due to their (perceived) excess weight, but It seems a bit futile considering the weight of my boots.



Why do you think I ski with AT boots all the time? They weigh half as much as alpine boots. And my Adrenalins are heavy as AT boots go. They're plenty stiff where it counts and I have never liked a boot with poor fore and aft flex. I like to use my ankles when I ski.

I have always believed that ski boots are excessively heavy.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Nov 20, 2007)

AC3's are heavy as hell.  There is nothing perceived about that...It's a fact.  My only complaint about them.


----------



## marcski (Nov 21, 2007)

I think boot weight definitely matters.  As important as ski weight.  If you're a dynamic skier the weight of your equipment plays a large roll in how tired you'll get skiing.  I think my next boots will definitely be a pair of AT boots.  This is esp true as they are getting beefier each year.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 21, 2007)

Man, don't even get me started on boot weight. One thing that sucks about having big feet is having to shoulder more boot weight than the average skier (the upside is stupid cheap discounts on close out sales on binders and boots because few people have a large size). My 30.5 mondo X-Wave 10s weight in at 15+ pounds. My AT G-Rides are considerably lighter but not a great skiing boot so I stick to alpine when lift serviced. 

Currently, I am evaluating other options and using AT for front/back side use combined with exception of groomer/bump only days on which I would pull out the X-Waves. New Dynafit ZZero may be the ace in the hole, can't wait to try a pair of those. Until then, damn my boots are heavy  Binding systems certainly add a ton of weight and having a flat mounted ski definitely helps in the weight category. A lot of overcoming weight through practice and muscle build up has been my only method of fighting the sluggish effects of heavy boots. At least until I land a good combo AT boot that works well both on the up and the down. When my X=Wave 10s need replacing, I might end up going with something like the new Axon or Shamen which are a downhill boots masquerading as AT.


----------



## Marc (Nov 21, 2007)

Boot weight is not as crucial as ski weight because the skier is close to the axis of rotation.  The further from the axis of rotation, the more penalty weight is because of its large moment arm and higher angular inertia.  That's what lay skiers refer to as "swing weight."  Unless you're doing a lot of hiking with your boots, the weight is not nearly as important as ski weight in terms of turnability.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 21, 2007)

Marc said:


> Boot weight is not as crucial as ski weight because the skier is close to the axis of rotation.  The further from the axis of rotation, the more penalty weight is because of its large moment arm and higher angular inertia.  That's what lay skiers refer to as "swing weight."  Unless you're doing a lot of hiking with your boots, the weight is not nearly as important as ski weight in terms of turnability.


I can tell you do not have size 14 feet. :dunce: For turnability, what you say may be true but boot weight is a significant contributor to fatigue which also effects turnability. Same ski with different weight boots skis markably different.


----------



## Marc (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> I can tell you do not have size 14 feet. :dunce: For turnability, what you say may be true but boot weight is a significant contributor to fatigue which also effects turnability. Same ski with different weight boots skis markably different.



This is true on both accounts, I've got 9 1/2 size feet there, sasquatch.  Boot weight certainly will contribute to fatigue although considering the prices of skis compared with boots, if weight reduction for performance sake is your goal, the skis are easily the first place to look, and most definitely, as Greg said, is not futile to reduce the weight of your skis without getting lighter boots.  Lighter skis will be immediately noticeable, much more so than lighter boots.


----------



## awf170 (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> My 30.5 mondo X-Wave 10s weight in at 15+ pounds.



:-o:-o:-o My whole setup is only 18 pounds.  I don't think I could even lift my feet of the ground while skiing with those things on.


----------



## KevinF (Nov 21, 2007)

The only times I've noticed the weight of my boots has been when carrying them from the car to the base lodge and when hiking with them on (i.e., Mittersill, hike-to terrain out west, etc.).  I've never noticed the ski + boot weight while actually skiing though.


----------



## lloyd braun (Nov 21, 2007)

Greg,

I ski the Saloman Falcon 10 for its fit and performance, but what I realized quickly is that it is considerably lighter than most other boots on the market. You should give it a look-see

Lloyd

http://lonelyplanet.altrec.com/shop/detail/31551/


----------



## Marc (Nov 21, 2007)

awf170 said:


> :-o:-o:-o My whole setup is only 18 pounds.



Including you?


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

If you start looking into it most of the weight is in the bindings.  AC3 are not that heavy.  It the binding attached to them.   

unless you are bootpacking all day long the weight of the boot IMO never plays a role.  

The AT boots that people are talking about get the crap beat out of them in resorts. They are not meant to be beat up that much.  I would rather boot pack with my alpine boots with the extra weight and get the performance out of them vs the lighter at boot with its wishy washy feel.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67, take a look at the latest upper end stiff AT boots. To suggest all AT boots have a wishy washy feel is not accurate. There are many AT boots that are stiffer than most Alpine boots now, unreal.

I still maintain people suggesting boot weight is negligible do not have big feet and thus the difference between a heavy boot and light weight boot is negligible. For me, the difference between my Alpine and AT boot is 5 pounds which is as much as some Apline boots weight in smaller sizes.

The motion binding systems, such as the AC3, definitely are a huge amount of weight. As mentioned before, a flat mounted ski is much lighter than a motion system. Bindings have become damn heavy. Weight of ski is also a factor and certainly swing weight is an issue. But skis begin equal, boot weight can be significant, not just on the up hill but also skiing. If you are railing groomers, you will never noticed. If you are bumping all day or doing advanced terrain that requires jump turns and advanced ability, boot weight will certainly be a factor and higher boot weight does contribute to fatigue and lowers performance later in the day. Not saying it is more significant than binding or ski weight, but certainly a factor, especially all other things being equal.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67, take a look at the latest upper end stiff AT boots. To suggest all AT boots have a wishy washy feel is not accurate. There are many AT boots that are stiffer than most Alpine boots now, unreal.

I said it wrong.  I dont care what AT boot you get if you are a charger you are going to wreck them inside the ropes.  

.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 21, 2007)

That is untrue for the stiffer end of the spectrum. AT Boot manufacturers are currently beefing up their lines considerably to the point that several AT boots are stiffer than Alpine. JimG has made the Garmont Adrenelines work inside the ropes and that is two boots down from Garmonts stiffest. Lots of AT people (chargers) are looking for boots to do both touring and skiing at areas. Personally, I think too much emphasis has recently been put on ultra stiff AT boots. Look at the specs on the Garmont Shamen (no tour mode!) or Scarpa Tornado. These boots are meant for in bounds use inside the ropes.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> That is untrue for the stiffer end of the spectrum. AT Boot manufacturers are currently beefing up their lines considerably to the point that several AT boots are stiffer than Alpine. JimG has made the Garmont Adrenelines work inside the ropes and that is two boots down from Garmonts stiffest. Lots of AT people (chargers) are looking for boots to do both touring and skiing at areas. Personally, I think too much emphasis has recently been put on ultra stiff AT boots. Look at the specs on the Garmont Shamen (no tour mode!) or Scarpa Tornado. These boots are meant for in bounds use inside the ropes.




My buddy speant 700 or so bucks on the Adrenelines last year and they are shot.  . By Feb of last year he went out and bought a pair of Nordicas.   If you could build a lighter AT boot that had all the performance of a alpine boot then why would they continue to make alpine boots?


Not looking to argue but heck what esle is there to do.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> That is untrue for the stiffer end of the spectrum. AT Boot manufacturers are currently beefing up their lines considerably to the point that several AT boots are stiffer than Alpine. JimG has made the Garmont Adrenelines work inside the ropes and that is two boots down from Garmonts stiffest. Lots of AT people (chargers) are looking for boots to do both touring and skiing at areas. Personally, I think too much emphasis has recently been put on ultra stiff AT boots. Look at the specs on the Garmont Shamen (no tour mode!) or Scarpa Tornado. These boots are meant for in bounds use inside the ropes.



BTW both those boots are new for this year i believe.


----------



## Marc (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> My buddy speant 700 or so bucks on the Adrenelines last year and they are shot.  . By Feb of last year he went out and bought a pair of Nordicas.   If you could build a lighter AT boot that had all the performance of a alpine boot then why would they continue to make alpine boots?
> 
> 
> Not looking to argue but heck what esle is there to do.



How does one go through boots like that?  Run them over with one's car?


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

You get to much play in them.  Like Jim G stated he likes a little play in his boot.  Probably like most uf us like a little play in our pants but most proficient skiers dont want that.


----------



## cbcbd (Nov 21, 2007)

I got some Garmont Endorphins late last season and will be using them this season in and out of bounds... very stiff and tour all right for such a stiff heavy boot (I get no blisters with them so I can't complain). My new Rossi B2s are setup for those and I'm contemplating using them with my Z9s, although I think they might be a little too hefty for the boot (actually, my ankles).

Met another guy who's a Sugarbush regular who's also using the Endorphins for Alpine no problems - he has some mega rides for long tours though.

So far I like them a lot and fit my feet very well. IMO, unless you're downhilling and GSing everywhere a lighter setup overall feels so much free-er.

And seriously, how do you wreck boots?


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 21, 2007)

Endorphins and Tornados were both available last year. Shaman and the Tornado Pros are new this year, IIRC. The Adrenalin is certainly a lot more AT than Alpine and I would not consider it to be a good boot for in bounds. But you were basing your comments on the entire AT lines based on the Adrenalin which does not take into account two levels more stiff of AT boots and was an over broad statement. I am of the opinion that a two boot solution is best and that the holy grail of AT boots (just as good in bounds as out of bounds) has not yet been found. But both Garmont and Scarpa offer AT boots that would go well in bounds but suck on the tour.


----------



## awf170 (Nov 21, 2007)

Marc said:


> Including you?




18.5 including me.  19.5 if you also include my hair.


----------



## Marc (Nov 21, 2007)

Ahahaha... damn dirty hippie hair.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Endorphins and Tornados were both available last year. Shaman and the Tornado Pros are new this year, IIRC. The Adrenalin is certainly a lot more AT than Alpine and I would not consider it to be a good boot for in bounds. But you were basing your comments on the entire AT lines based on the Adrenalin which does not take into account two levels more stiff of AT boots and was an over broad statement. I am of the opinion that a two boot solution is best and that the holy grail of AT boots (just as good in bounds as out of bounds) has not yet been found. But both Garmont and Scarpa offer AT boots that would go well in bounds but suck on the tour.



The endorphines were the best you could get last year.  They did not hold up in bounds.  Overboard? may be, most people probably would not know the difference.  I would be pissed though if I was in a shop talked to the boot guy and he told me these things would hold up in bounds.  

The two newer more alpine like at boots are out this year the jury is out.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 21, 2007)

*....*

$.01 worth.....
 If anyone gets an AT boot with Garmont's G-Fit thermo liner, the liner is notorious for having a ton of everything in the heel & achilles area...so much so that it'll wreck that great alpine fit that one can easily get with a little shell-modding.  My Head alpine liner works like a charm in my Endorphins, that with a little forefoot shell stretch makes for a  terrific fit..  We'll see how long they last...the lower weight and walk-mode are really good enough for me...can't argue with the climbing Vibram, have some Dukes but also have the Solly STH 16s...which are simply the best skiing clamps I've ever had my boots/feet in, not to mention lighter...which I think would be the nicest on the wider pow/crud skis.  With the walk-mode I don't think the Trekkers would seem half the battle they are with no walk-mode.
BTW *riverc0il*...I did the online buy/return-thing with Zzeros but *Not* the carbons(sigh), nice but Dynafit's last is just too narrow for me however I *DID* like their liner's design, ordered a pair..due to arrive in a week or so...a little less material than the G-Fits...especially around heel area...seems like they'd fit a wider forefoot easier...and had more of an alpine design & feel to them...really like them.
The AT-tongue is a marketplace...most boots now come with two(except Endorphins [and Adrenalins??]...but mine seem fine for me), but most Raichle-style tongues will fit without much problem...adding a little more stiffness if desired.

$.01
_other_Steve_


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> If you start looking into it most of the weight is in the bindings.  AC3 are not that heavy.  It the binding attached to them.
> 
> unless you are bootpacking all day long the weight of the boot IMO never plays a role.
> 
> The AT boots that people are talking about get the crap beat out of them in resorts. They are not meant to be beat up that much.  I would rather boot pack with my alpine boots with the extra weight and get the performance out of them vs the lighter at boot with its wishy washy feel.



Top of the line Garmonts like the Adrenalin and then the Endorphin are far from wishy washy I assure you.

Perfect for bumps and trees.

For me anyway. I use the Adrenalin and love them...I'm on my second set of liners. Steve, you would like the Endorphin alot.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> My buddy speant 700 or so bucks on the Adrenelines last year and they are shot.  . By Feb of last year he went out and bought a pair of Nordicas.   If you could build a lighter AT boot that had all the performance of a alpine boot then why would they continue to make alpine boots?
> 
> 
> Not looking to argue but heck what esle is there to do.



How much does your friend weigh?

I weigh 190.

I'm thin and tall and the Adrenalin is perfect for me.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> You get to much play in them.  Like Jim G stated he likes a little play in his boot.  Probably like most uf us like a little play in our pants but most proficient skiers dont want that.



I said I like to have some flex at the ankle...you know, to balance?

I did not say I like play in the boot.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Endorphins and Tornados were both available last year. Shaman and the Tornado Pros are new this year, IIRC. The Adrenalin is certainly a lot more AT than Alpine and I would not consider it to be a good boot for in bounds. But you were basing your comments on the entire AT lines based on the Adrenalin which does not take into account two levels more stiff of AT boots and was an over broad statement. I am of the opinion that a two boot solution is best and that the holy grail of AT boots (just as good in bounds as out of bounds) has not yet been found. But both Garmont and Scarpa offer AT boots that would go well in bounds but suck on the tour.



They tour for convenience only which is what I wanted since I don't live where you do. You are correct, they are not comfy tourers. but they work just fiine.

They are the most comfortable ski boot I've ever had, the very best foot pressure distribution ever.

And for what I ski at Hunter, they're great.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

bigbog said:


> $.01 worth.....
> If anyone gets an AT boot with Garmont's G-Fit thermo liner, the liner is notorious for having a ton of everything in the heel & achilles area...so much so that it'll wreck that great alpine fit that one can easily get with a little shell-modding.  My Head alpine liner works like a charm in my Endorphins, that with a little forefoot shell stretch makes for a  terrific fit..  We'll see how long they last...the lower weight and walk-mode are really good enough for me...can't argue with the climbing Vibram, have some Dukes but also have the Solly STH 16s...which are simply the best skiing clamps I've ever had my boots/feet in, not to mention lighter...which I think would be the nicest on the wider pow/crud skis.  With the walk-mode I don't think the Trekkers would seem half the battle they are with no walk-mode.
> BTW *riverc0il*...I did the online buy/return-thing with Zzeros but *Not* the carbons(sigh), nice but Dynafit's last is just too narrow for me however I *DID* like their liner's design, ordered a pair..due to arrive in a week or so...a little less material than the G-Fits...especially around heel area...seems like they'd fit a wider forefoot easier...and had more of an alpine design & feel to them...really like them.
> The AT-tongue is a marketplace...most boots now come with two(except Endorphins [and Adrenalins??]...but mine seem fine for me), but most Raichle-style tongues will fit without much problem...adding a little more stiffness if desired.
> ...



This is my 4th season on the same Adrenlins.

Second set of liners. No heel play at all. NEVER crank my buckles down.

You need a better boot fitter.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 21, 2007)

And all it proves is that different things work for different people.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 21, 2007)

*...just a little work = great fit for me*

Hi JimG...
Those G-Fits just seemed to add bulk in places where my feet didn't appreciate it...  Love the Dynafits...as well as my non-bulky alpine liners.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 22, 2007)

bigbog said:


> Hi JimG...
> Those G-Fits just seemed to add bulk in places where my feet didn't appreciate it...  Love the Dynafits...as well as my non-bulky alpine liners.



Kind of went off didn't I?

I assume you tried those G-fits on out of the box. Pretty uncomfortable until you heat them and get the thermal fit.

My Adrenalins were extremely tight until I had them fitted.

So I guess now I understand where you were coming from.


----------

