Lundhags Boots

Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.
mca80
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:24 pm
Location: Da UP eh
Ski style: Over the river and through the woods
Favorite Skis: Nansen, Finnmark, Kongsvold, Combat NATO, Fischer Superlite, RCS
Favorite boots: Crispi Bre, Hook, Alpina 1600, Alico Ski March, Crispi Mountain

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by mca80 » Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:42 pm

How to size them? I like my new Crispis in 40, the Alpina 1600 are a little snug in the forefoot and would be better at 40.5, but I fear my heel would slip in 41, my old (80s? 90s?) Crispi Mountain are 40 but I can only wear a thin sock and I think a 41 would have worked, and Alico Ski March is a UK 7 wide. Measuring my feet and using Lundhags guide puts me in a 41.

User avatar
Musk Ox
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:53 am
Location: North
Ski style: Bad
Favorite Skis: I am a circumpolar mammal
Favorite boots: Hooves
Occupation: Eating lichen, walking about

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by Musk Ox » Wed Feb 28, 2024 2:49 am

mca80 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:42 pm
How to size them? I like my new Crispis in 40, the Alpina 1600 are a little snug in the forefoot and would be better at 40.5, but I fear my heel would slip in 41, my old (80s? 90s?) Crispi Mountain are 40 but I can only wear a thin sock and I think a 41 would have worked, and Alico Ski March is a UK 7 wide. Measuring my feet and using Lundhags guide puts me in a 41.
I think the Lundhags measuring tables can be trusted if you measure your feet.

You can always chat with them – the customer service is basically like something out of the late 1800s.

I emailed them when I was getting replacement rubbers on my hiking boots. In the end they gave me a like-for-like replacement for my old, discontinued last (the 'Opti' last) so I didn't get the new sizing. I specifically asked them about the sizing when I thought I was getting a new last, as the sizes were so different and the old fit was so good for me. The word from the mothership in my case was 'you've measured correctly, trust the tables' and I'm inclined to trust their customer service.

Lifting heels has never been an issue in my ski boots with the liner and two pairs of socks.



User avatar
DPO777
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:00 pm
Location: Canada
Ski style: Cross Country, BackCountry, Out the back door Country
Favorite Skis: Karhu XCD GTs, refurbished wood top unknown skis from the 80s bought during an Alberta Snowmageddon
Favorite boots: Made in Italy 75 mil 3-Pin Alico leather boots. Put to rest Crispi leather boots.
Occupation: Retired now upgrading older ski stuff to more modern technology

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by DPO777 » Thu Feb 29, 2024 7:26 pm

lilcliffy wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:08 pm
Big, big tour in my Lundhags today-
30cm of soft fresh snow over more than a metre of multilayered base-
over 25k- overhill and underhill-
not a breath of wind, not a snowmachine, not a harvester to be heard-
nothing but me, deep snow, forested hills, moose (all over the place), fisher, lynx, otter, barred owl, snowshoe hare, and red squirrel.
210 Combat NATO + Lundhags Expedition BC- wow-
if I had to have one set up for my local BC touring this would be it:
PXL_20240128_194345267.jpgPXL_20240128_231136276.MP.jpg
Wow so I take it you still had snow from your last blizzard out there and didn't get all the rain. We lost everything here in Ontario and the last park trails that were open at Arrowhead closed up tight and threw away the key.

Tuesday was T-Shirt and plus 10, Wednesday was plus 8 at noon then strong winds came in and dropped to minus 10 by 5:00, snowing but wasn't sticking and just blowing away to next town. Then last night we got blowing and snow for maybe about 2" over bare grass. Last year never used the rock skis out till April 1 ski outing. Will definitely be using old rock skis out back today. Plus 17 slated for Monday !

Are those Nato skis the old Karhu made version that was selling for ridiculously cheap on Ebay and such or are those the Asnes version?

So your order went OK on those Boots? I noticed that the shipping was very reasonable on the boots from Varuste and they are randomly running their sales campaigns again. Guides are going for $275 CAD. No Duty on boots from there I think just the taxes and brokerage. Do you remember what you got nabbed on Brokerage? Boots like that and the Alfa boots from Canadian retailers like La Cordee you can add 200-300 onto the Varuste sale prices.

https://varuste.net/en/p75992/lundhags-guide-bc-nnn-bc

Using the size guide on their site that I think you posted showing the add 2 CM to your foot length (assumedly an adjustment for the liner) seems to end up with the same EUR size as you would normal wear by foot length alone.

This foot sizing and web info and charts can warp and bend a few brain cells. There seems to be a lot of discrepancy across the board especially with the EUR/US/MONDO conversions varying from 1-1.5 CMs on foot length and 1-1.5 foot sizes. To add to the frustration or brain heating is the different brands seem to have their own interpretation of fit to foot length and width with their labeled sizes.

On that Lundhag Chart adding the 2CMs seems to still fall short on the actual US foot size when comparing to their Last Length/EUR boot size on there chart.

sizeguide-shellboots W_M-2024-en.jpg
Lundhags site size Chart

I find in general the Nordica Ski Boot size chart seems to be close with regards to the EUR/US/MONDO conversion.

Nordica chart_men.JPG
Nordica Men
ski boots600.jpg
My Footski Bones
Nordica chart_women.JPG
Nordica Women
ski bootsW600.jpg
Better Halves "Sasquatch" Foot

I think my wife's foot needs a wide men's boot like the Alfas or the Lunhags. The women's boots tend to be narrower.

So just to confirm you are stating in your case the your regular EUR size of 42 would be a EUR 42 as well with the Lundhag boot regardless if their chart falls a bit short on the US conversion? Otherwise stick with the EUR/MONDO sizing of your actual foot.

In the old days you wouldn't even think about ordering boots without trying them on. And you were spending under a $100. Now we are taking a chance on $300-$600 boots from miles away without a test fit. Better odds than the lottery I guess if you read a lot of reviews here on TT on fit.

Keep on skiing while you still have the white stuff !

Yesterday no skiing here :shock:
windy wednesday.jpg
Windy Wednesday
Today just enough cover for a short rock ski run. Have some new bindings to mount so hope snow is back soon.
Thursday Cover.jpg
Thursday Snow Cover



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4133
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:23 pm

Lundhags EU sizing is consistent-
286mm=42EU

The UK sizing conversion on their site is correct-
286mm=42EU=8UK

The US sizing is incorrect.
......
A 42EU Lundhags is a 9USM in terms of the last length-
286mm=42EU=8UK=9USM
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4133
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Mar 02, 2024 4:34 pm

@mca80
Guide BC vs Expedition BC:
PXL_20240302_211040516.jpg
Boot height:
Guide BC→ 21cm
Expedition BC→ 25.5cm

The Expedition liners are thicker, warmer, and more absorbent.
There are two different liners avaialable for the Expedition last-
the standard- without a tongue;
and the "pro" with a tongue.
PXL_20240302_211623298.jpg
Interestingly- my Abisku Expedition XP came with the Pro liner- the Expedition BC came with the standard liner.
Both liners fit the Expedition.

I am not aware of a "pro" liner for the Guide.
........
I have never seen the Expedition BC/XP for sale at Varuste.
I bought mine at Outnorth- great price and very low shipping cost (lower shipping cost than Varuste).
.......
The Guide definitely has a trimmer, "performance" fit through the foot-
The Expedition is much larger volume throught the foot.
Based on the description of your foot (width-volume), you might need to "size-up" in the Guide...
What length last is recommended for your foot length from the Lundhags sizing guide?
...........
Both boots have a stiff stable midsole.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



mca80
Posts: 963
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:24 pm
Location: Da UP eh
Ski style: Over the river and through the woods
Favorite Skis: Nansen, Finnmark, Kongsvold, Combat NATO, Fischer Superlite, RCS
Favorite boots: Crispi Bre, Hook, Alpina 1600, Alico Ski March, Crispi Mountain

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by mca80 » Sat Mar 02, 2024 5:58 pm

Thanks @lilcliffy. My foot is 255mm so using their +2cm I would be 275, so I suppose size up to the 279 vs size down to 273 right? Makes sense I guess, some boots I can wear a 40 others I would need a 41. The problem is if the added length results in a looser fitting heel and/or oddly positioned toe creases.

At 21 the Guide is about 1.75cm taller than my Alpina 1600 which, if it is stiffer in the ankle, should be pretty good for a skating boot. Given the choice, which would you skate in?

For DH on skis I think the liner with tongue might be preferable, eh?



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4133
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by lilcliffy » Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:49 am

mca80 wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2024 5:58 pm
At 21 the Guide is about 1.75cm taller than my Alpina 1600 which, if it is stiffer in the ankle, should be pretty good for a skating boot. Given the choice, which would you skate in?
I get a better fit through the ankle-calf with the Expedition- therefore, personally prefer the Expedition in all contexts.
Also- see comment below↓
For DH on skis I think the liner with tongue might be preferable, eh?
I don't know if the tongue liner inherently improves downhill skiing performance-
but, I do get a better fit with the tongue liner- so that trumps everything.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by Woodserson » Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:41 pm

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.



User avatar
fisheater
Posts: 2553
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Ski style: All my own, and age doesn't help
Favorite Skis: Gamme 54, Falketind 62, I hope to add a third soon
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska, Alico Ski March
Occupation: Construction Manager

Re: Lundhags Boots

Post by fisheater » Sun Jul 07, 2024 7:53 pm

Hey Woods, if your friend is skiing an MT 51 at the resort please extend my Fisheater kudos to him! I am impressed!

My only experience with wool felt liners are with Sorel boots probably 40 years ago. I didn’t really appreciate them even for putting miles on chasing after rabbits. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact they would be a good liner for a ski boot, even solely for XC use. I’m not doubting you guys, it just doesn’t align with my personal experience.

I am interested, however at the current amount of time I put on my BC boots, it’s going to be years before I need to replace my Alaskas.



Post Reply