Lundhags Boots

[Door to door]

Would anyone offer a comparison specifically between the Lundhags and the Alpina Alaska? Which boot, the guide or the expedition offers similar support?

[randoskier]

I have the exact same question. I have been skiing the Alpina Alaska for three or four seasons and they have increasingly pinched my toes in the toe-box (they are sized one-up from my normal boot size). This season I will to switch to another NNN BC boot, one with more room in the toe-box, but I want to retain the good characteristics of the Alaska which otherwise I liked a lot.

Would that boot be the Guide or the Guide Expedition?

I am leaning towards the Guide as it looks like a significant weight reduction over the Expe. I also tour long distances, and powering turns is not a big criteria. I ski with Yeti-gaiters (over-boots) so the lower boot height is not an issue.

Not wanting to confuse matters- but do Alfa boots have a large toe-box?

[corlay]

Not wanting to confuse matters- but do Alfa boots have a large toe-box?

I'm pretty sure I've read here,
that a big toe box is one of Alpha's oft noted characteristics?

[lilcliffy]

Would anyone offer a comparison specifically between the Lundhags and the Alpina Alaska? Which boot, the guide or the expedition offers similar support?

The Guide BC offers very similar support to the Alaska BC- both in terms of sole stability and ankle support.
The Guide BC/XP offers more support than the Alaska XP- both in terms of sole stabilty and ankle support.

The Expedition offers more ankle support.

[lilcliffy]

I have the exact same question. I have been skiing the Alpina Alaska for three or four seasons and they have increasingly pinched my toes in the toe-box (they are sized one-up from my normal boot size). This season I will to switch to another NNN BC boot, one with more room in the toe-box, but I want to retain the good characteristics of the Alaska which otherwise I liked a lot.

Would that boot be the Guide or the Guide Expedition?

The Guide BC has similar support and flex to the Alaska BC- the Guide BC has a significantly wider and larger-volume toe box, while still have a form-fitting heel and ankle.
The Expedition has a much larger toe box than the Guide.

Not wanting to confuse matters- but do Alfa boots have a large toe-box?

Depends on the model- the Guard/Vista and Kikut (I don't have personal experience with the Skarvet) have a large and volumous toe box- the Skaget and the Free do not.

[randoskier]

This season I will to switch to another NNN BC boot, one with more room in the toe-box, but I want to retain the good characteristics of the Alaska which otherwise I liked a lot.

Would that boot be the Guide or the Guide Expedition?

The Guide BC has similar support and flex to the Alaska BC- the Guide BC has a significantly wider and larger-volume toe box, while still have a form-fitting heel and ankle.
The Expedition has a much larger toe box than the Guide.

Not wanting to confuse matters- but do Alfa boots have a large toe-box?

Depends on the model- the Guard/Vista and Kikut (I don't have personal experience with the Skarvet) have a large and volumous toe box- the Skaget and the Free do not.

Thanks Cliff, I think I will order a pair of the Guides. Are they pretty true to size? I have been skiing the Alaska in 45 (my street size is 10.5,/28.5). I wear a heavy Norwegian wool sock and a thin wool liner sock. I reckon I will try the 45 first (returns are not so costly within the EU).

[lilcliffy]

@randoskier
Yes, Lundhags lasts are true to size-
the length of my Lundhags are consistent with the Alpina Alaska BC-
but, I know a number of people that have had to size-up with the Alaska BC that would probably find would not be necesary in the Lundhags.

[Woodserson]

It's way to hot outside so naturally I'm wearing extra thick wool socks and playing with my Lundhags.

Last winter I did a fair amount of XCD inbounds at some gentler resorts with Lundhag Guide BC and 200cm Asnes Otto/185 Madshus M62. My friend skis with MT51 and Expedition Guides and I was so smitten with the tall ankle I bought a pair. I love how ridiculous he looks with his 205cm MT51s.

PXL_20240209_153021754.jpg

PXL_20240209_152420846.jpg

The boots arrrived this week and the the comparison of the two began right away, and as it has been noted, they are quite different boots in terms of last.
I am a 47euro (12.5-13 US, closer to the 12.5 but with a Morton's Toe- second toe longer than the big toe), narrow heel, wider forefoot, I love Salomon shoes (47) and Scarpa T2ECO (30.5) and TXPRO (30.0 largest size available in the legacy boot). 47 Alaska but with a leaner sock. Scarpa fits me perfect, no need for any fiddling with the liners or shells. I don't even bake them.

The 47 Lundhag Guide BC fits me very well, good heel pocket, lots of room in the toe-box, but my toes are just brushing against the end. @Musk Ox (who's fault this all is) assured me my feet would settle in and he is correct, at first I feel like I'm at the end but soon afterwards the boot fits great. I use a normal lightweight ski sock with cusion from DarnTough. I really like the downhill capabilities of this boot, and the XC capabilities as well. It's a great boot and is now my favorite boot, like Musk Ox said it would become. I did want a a little more insulation though, and I coveted the higher cuffs for sweet downhill schralping. My friend was sending it on the MT51s and I obviously credited his boots over his innate skiing skills.

The 47 Expedition Guide BC is significantly more voluminous. I needed to up the sock size to Darn Tough Medium weight and I think even Heavy weight would be better. I definitely need to get my heel slightly forward in order have the boot bend at the correct place on my foot. I do not think sizing down to 46 would work, because with the medium weight sock it's almost a perfect fit. But I'm definitely tempted to try the 46 if not for the cost/transAtlantic shipping situation and the getting stuck with a too small boot. If I ever get to Scandiland I'm trying them all on! The extra volume comes in overall width as well as length-- even though the BC sole is the same length the way the leather meets the sole expands the interior length. Take a look at these two pictures, overhead and side-by-side. Notice on the profile picture how the leather come almost straight out of the sole on the Expedition while the Guide is almost swept back. This make a significant difference in interior length!

Notice how the Guide on the right is more form fitting and looks more like a foot than the EG on the left which looks like a ball of rubber with a foot inside of it. You can't even see the BC sole on the EG like you can the Guide.

PXL_20240707_010420460.jpg

PXL_20240707_010322138.jpg

PXL_20240707_010219578.jpg

My summertime thoughts are that the Expedition Guide is going to be a good boot for long, cold missions. But for XCD and inbounds skiing, I'm willing to bet the Guide, with the snug fit, will deliver more downhill control, despite having a shorter cuff. The overall lack of tightness/snugness on my low-volume foot in the EG is noticeable. I'm playing around with the idea of trying Xplore this winter, and I think I'll start with the Abisku Explore (low cuff) solely for the downhill focus.

A note on volume, my friend has a very weird foot with high volume, some people have noted they have a tough time getting the instep into the boot-- he did too and cut the liner. This solved his problem and he absolutely loves the boot for his weirdo hobbit feet. It's definitely the best ski boot he owns in terms of fit.

I have received my new Lundhags from Outdoor Buddies in Sweden.
I ordered a 46 Expedition BC as I think my 47 EBC are too large. This was a gamble.
I ordered a 47 Abisku Xlpore (low cuff)

Some updates:

The Expedition BC 46 fits perfect vs the 47. So I needed to size down in the Expedition from my otherwise ubiquitous 47 size in all other boots across all brands.

The Abisku Xplore 47 fits exactly like my Guide BC 47. Same size across binding types. Using this logic I am certain the Expedition Abisku would fit me in a 46 as well.

[randoskier]

Why are Lundhags and Alfa boots so expensive?

Lundhags are not made in Sweden anymore, they are made in low-wage Portugal. Alfa is not made in Norway anymore it is made in low-wage Romania.

Ditto Asnes- made in low-wage Czechia not Norway. Devold? not Norway but Lithuania.

All these companies have shifted their production from high wage Scandinavia to low-wage countries and have not passed on a dime of savings to their consumers.

[Door to door]

Just got a pair of BC Gudes in the mail and have had a chance to wear them inside the house. Unfortunately I need to go a size up. My foot measures 28cm long and I went with a size 44 which measures at 299mm. The last is well fitted and though I had good room for my toes to wiggle it was a snug fit at he mid foot to the degree that I didn’t really need my laces mid foot. If I was just using them for ice skating I would probably stick with the size but I’m pretty sure the next size up will be correct. I wear a size 45 LaSportiva running shoe and a 45 Alpina Alaska. I found the sizing chart on the back of the box correlates very well with my normal US men’s shoe size, 10.5/11.5. The size chart puts 10.5 right on the upper edge of 44. Also the sole length is for the last of the boot, my 44 insole measures 285mm so the liner thickness should be accounted for. Otherwise very positive first impression of these BC Guides and I’ll be buying the next larger size when I’m able to sell these 44 and recoup some of the cost.