Leather Boot Reviews

[DavidBillstrom]

Those 'worst ever' TeleBreeze's are on ebay right now for a few more hours... new, never used:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/302223029461

[Woodserson]

PAGING FISHEATER!!!

[KrystalK]

Hi, everyone. For sole stiffness, can i use below one to test it? I am very interested. I only know safety shoe can use below to test its stiffness before sole flexing. https://www.unuo-instruments.com/shoe-b ... ss-tester/

[bgregoire]

That is hilarious!

[lilcliffy]

Wow!
I have wondered how boot/shoe makers test and measure sole stiffness...
I wonder how much a machine like that costs?

KrystalK-
Welcome! Are you a boot maker? How much does this machine cost?!

[Genoah77]

However on the flipside / descent they have very little sole stiffness. This may be somewhat of a limiting factor for it's ability to drive a ski. I don't really know.

Sole flex is a delicate balance- especially when it comes to NN-75mm. As you notice, the degree of stiffness in a sole's flex does have an effect on downhill performance- it also impacts XC kick and glide performance. Obviously, EVERY Nordic boot must have an effective metatarsal flex in order to allow a natural stride- the natural flex of the Nordic stride is THE defining characteristic of Nordic skiing. Having a completely free Nordic stride is obviously more important when XC skiing than it is in a telemark turn- but boot flex is obviously essential to be able to pressure the rear/trailing ski in a telemark.

With a leather NN-75mm boot- sole flex is basically entirely determined by the stiffness of the sole.

With NNN, flex is determined by a complex of both the boot sole-flex and the resistance in the "flexor" or "bumper" integrated into the binding. You can use flexors with different degrees of stiffness in order to regulate resistance.

Because freedom of movement is so critical to truly efficient XC striding- one can easily assume that having no resistance offers the highest performance in terms of kick and glide.

But- a certain degree of boot-binding resistance actually increases kick and glide performance- as long as it does not prevent/restrict range of motion.

Having a balanced degree of resistance in the boot-binding flex effectively transfers force downwards into the ski. Therefore, a boot-binding that has no resistance when striding transfers very little force downwards into the kick zone of the ski. A boot-binding that has balanced degree of stiffness/resistance will trasnfer much more power downwards into the kick zone of the ski.

In a telemark turn a certain amount of resistance also transfers force down into the ski- which is particularly important on the rear ski as the heel is lifted. The addition of a heel cable greatly increases resistance and power transfer down into the ski.

Without some resistance- the only downward force of the skier is his/her weight.

A balanced degree of sole stiffness offers more support and stability while striding as well. This is just as important while backcountry skiing as it is when backpacking over highly variable terrain.

A boot with a very soft sole-flex is going to have very little break-in time- this seems to be a valuable selling feature in this day and age. I personally see this as a VERY negative attribute of a new boot. Soft-flexing boots just get softer with age, and I don't find the mid-sole lasts very long. I have become so dissatisfied with the out-of-the-box-soft-flex of current backpacking boots that I have begun to purchase full-on mountaineering boots for heavy-duty hiking and backpacking. The mid-sole of the Scarpa Kinesis I last bought only lasted a year. I have replaced them with the Scarpa Wrangell- which was MUCH stiffer out of the box- it has broken in beautifully and mid-sole seems like it is going to retain its stability for many years to come.

The current generation of NN-75mm leather/composite BC-XC are very soft flexing- right out of the box. I really don't like this. I tested the 75mm Alaska before I bought my NNNBC- at the time was still on the fence about NNNBC. I could not believe how much more powerful and stable the NNNBC Alaska was compared to the 75mm. The only difference between these boots is the sole. (Of course how they perform is also a product of the binding).

Do you need a complete range of motion to efficiently stride? You sure do- but a little stiffness and resistance doesn't necessarily reduce your range of motion.

Last winter, my friend in Ontario was trying to decide between the Alaska NNNBC and the Alaska NN and sent me these photos- he was worried that there was too much resistance and stiffness in the NNBC version for efficient XC skiing.
NNNBC binding resistance 01.jpg3pin resistance 01.jpg

The two photos illustrate that he can move the 75mm much further before encountering any binding resistance. The Alaska NNNBC is stiffer, more powerful and more stable- this is a function of both the sole flex and the resistance in the binding.

The Alaska NNNBC is currently they only leather Nordic boot that I own (I actually have a pair of Alico Snow March in the mail...).

The Alaska NNNBC is incredibly comfortable; has a soft flexible upper and a moderately stiff flex. In my experience, it offers a perfect balance of stability, power, and flexibility for BC-XC skiing- it is a dream backcountry striding boot.

Soft-flexing 75mm boots also allow a skier to get away with an elongated stance- because, they can still pressure the ball-of-foot, even when their rear heel is lifted very high in that elongated stance.

An elongated stance in a stiffer flexing boot leads to a lot of difficulty pressuring the ball of foot on the rear ski. Therefore, in my limited experience, a stiffer flexing boot requires a more compact stance in order to flex that rear foot, and pressure that rear ski.

I recall that Love Johnny did a really cool experiment with Alpina Alaska boots; he had them in both BC NNN and 75 mm. He felt that the BC NNN were way stiffer for turning and ALSO better for kick and glide. Cool experiment. How does the Alpina Alaska compare to a stiff-soled Garmont, or a clapped out leather flopper Merrell? What is that sole stiffness like?

I don't know how to compare the sole-flex between different BC-XC boots without them being compared in a test. I do know that there is a wide range in stiffness though- even through the boot line of a single manufacturer. For example; the Alpina BC1550 and BC1600 have a significantly softer sole flex than the Alaska BC does. Reports suggest that the Rossi BCX10 has a stiffer flex than the BCX6 (which I own). The Fischer BCX6 (older grey version) that I own has a sole flex that is very similar to the Alaska BC in my estimation.

In the NNNBC platform, Rotteffella manufactures all of the outsoles- but, the boot manufacturer designs and manufactures the midsole.

Mike's test of the Svartisen BC vs. the Alaska BC suggests that the Svartisen BC is even stiffer! But- his Alaskas had some miles on them...I wonder how the sole flex of these two boots will compare once he has the Svartisen broken in?

I prefer the stability and power that a moderately stiff offers. I will gladly take the time to break in a pair of boots to retain that stability and power.

How are your Wrangells holding up, lilcliffy? I'm looking for boots for SAR use and saw your review of the Kinesis on MEC! You are omnipresent...and your boot knowledge is omniscient!

[lilcliffy]

Hey Genoah77!

My Wrangells are amazing. But I eventually had to accept that they are truly a mountaineering/work boot- the sole is VERY stiff, and I suspect that they have a full-length shaft. They are amazing boots, comfortable, supportive, reasonably light, warm, waterproof. I have used them primarily as a field/work boot for forestry field work (I don't get to the true mountains in recent years). I certainly have walked thousands of kms in them and really don't mind the sole stiffness- especially if I am carrying a heavy load. I would think that the sole-stiffness would be too much for most hikers...

I did end up making a significant mistake with the Wrangell by using them with my Hoks and a universal binding. The universal binding I have flexes just behind the ball-of-foot- the BOF is fixed to the biinding. With boots with soft, flexible soles- this is not an issue. While the ankle support of the Wrangell was amazing on the Hok- the ultra-stiff sole- combined with the universal binding casued extreme heel-lift. I was out for several hours doing fieldwork and ended up with severe heel blisters and even tore through the inner liner on my left boot!!!

(As an aside- I have some vague memory of recommending the Wrangell with the universal binding to someone on this site- I feel bad about this. I have searched for that post a couple of times to try and retract that recommendation!)

So- in summary- the Wrangells are amazing- but they have a true modern, ultrastiff sole.

As another note I have just recently bought a new pair of Kenesis Pros- they have been updated since my first pair. The midsole is stiffer, and they are lighter somehow...I am hoping that they are more durable than my first pair. They remain the best hiking-backpacking boot I have ever tried!
(I will update my review on MEC!)
Gareth

[lowangle al]

Nice looking boots LC.

[Genoah77]

Thanks My friend has the new pros and likes them too. I might have to get steel or composite toes, but if not, I will take a look at both pairs!