Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Crispi Lofoten 75 The Crispi Lofoten 75 boot is an excellent light-weight leather Nordic backcountry touring boot. The fit and flex is similar to my Crispi Svartisen BC. The sole-flex is similar- if not a little softer- than the moderately-stiff Svartisen BC. It feels noticeably heavier than the Svartisen BC (though it would be more fair to compare the weight of the Lofoten BC.)

Summary:
• 3-pin, 75mm (NN) Vibram outsole
• Moderately-stiff mid-sole
• High-quality split leather outer
• Full-wrap protective rand and toe and heel caps
• Instep strap

Like the Svartisen- the Lofoten has no shape/padding/memory foam in the heel and Achilles area of the boot. This makes the boot prone to heel-lift problems.
With ankle booties, and thick mountaineering socks I have taken up enough volume to reduce heel lift and eliminate heel blisters.
As expected- this boot does not have as much ankle support as the Svartisen.
So far I really like this boot. I have been using it with my Åsnes Storetind on moderate terrain and soft snow- a good match.

Gareth, I am very pleased to know conditions are ideal for you to start writing reviews. Would you mind comparing Lofoten 75 to the Alaska BC in terms of fit and the ability to transfer power to the ski.
From just my perspective I am wondering if this is a boot that would allow me Alaska BC type performance when I feel like I would enjoy the comfort and touring performance of that boot. When my downhill pursuits become more technical I could utilize a more powerful boot.
While I enjoy my NNN-BC gear, I am wondering if a boot of the class could offer that NNN-BC XC performance, with the option of employing a beefier 75 mm boot for more difficult descents.

fisheater wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:33 pm

Would you mind comparing Lofoten 75 to the Alaska BC in terms of fit and the ability to transfer power to the ski.

The Alaska BC has a significantly stiffer and more stable sole than the Lofoten 75. (My limited experience with the Alaska 75 is that it is similar to the Lofoten 75).

While on the one hand- the Lofoten 75 is softer and potentially "easier" to flex and pressure the rear/uphill ski in a telemark turn- it does not have offer the torsional stability and power transfer of the Alaska BC.

(As another comparison- how would you compare the sole flex-stability of your Alaska BC to your Ski March boot?)

I personally find the Alaska a MUCH more comfortable boot than either of the Crispi boots I own (And my Alfa even more comfortable than the Alaska). I have to do quite a bit of after-market customization in order for the Crispis not to destroy my ankles...It probably would have been smarter to buy an Alaska 75 or an Alfa 75...I wanted to try something different (and the Lofoten was on clearance.)

From just my perspective I am wondering if this is a boot that would allow me Alaska BC type performance when I feel like I would enjoy the comfort and touring performance of that boot. When my downhill pursuits become more technical I could utilize a more powerful boot.
While I enjoy my NNN-BC gear, I am wondering if a boot of the class could offer that NNN-BC XC performance, with the option of employing a beefier 75 mm boot for more difficult descents.

I like the instep strap on the Lofoten..Though I am not sure that it offers more support or power transfer than a boot with a better lacing system than the Lofoten (e.g. Alaska; Alfa).
If the Lofoten fit your foot shape- better than it does mine- I think you would love this boot.
On the other hand I do not think that it is a "better" boot than the Alaska 75.
If the Crispi 75 is better than the Alaska 75- it would only be a function of durability...
I have seen three pairs of Alaska 75 duckbills crack and/or delaminate now...
I am hoping that the Crispi 75 is more durable than the Alaska 75...

And- on that note- Woods reports that his Antarctic- with welted sole- is not as supportive and downhill-capable as his Alaska 75...
SO- if you want a 75mm more XC-soft boot than the Alaska BC- perhaps the Antarctic is the best option?
Personally- I was looking for similar support-stability to the Alaska- and wanted try something different- which is why I bought the Lofoten. BTW- if the Lofoten had not been on clearance, I probably would have bought a Svartisen 75 instead.

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:37 pm

And- on that note- Woods reports that his Antarctic- with welted sole- is not as supportive and downhill-capable as his Alaska 75...

I would like to read more about Woods opinion. I mostly ski the Crispi Sydpolen and have a hard time believing this would also apply to the Sydpolen...

The main issue here, with the 75mm platform is the Thermomolded Vibram sole, which is quite generic. The current versions we see on boots now are relatively soft and lack torsional rigidity. The norwegian welt technique allows a boot manufacturer to customize the rigidity of the sole in a way that cannot be done with thermomolded soles (without severely compromizing on other aspects anyways).

Given this flaw, of the 75mm THERMOMOLDABLE sole, I'm thinking this is mainly why the various tops models you are testing and mentionning here Lilcliffy all feel similar in this respect, and somewhat "inferior" to NNN-BC.

If you had an extensive collection of norwegian welted boots to test and compare, I'm willing to bet your pespective would be different!

different result w/ the Antarctic here. Maybe the sole flexes more but the upper is far more supportive than the Alaska was for me. This could be my weak ankles.

For anyone wanting to do BC skiing with a 75mm sole I would recommend the Antarctic above all the other boots. The leather upper is more supportive and conforms to the shape of your foot better. The durability of the old-school 75mm welted sole is light-years ahead of the thinner glued 75mm sole. I skied many, many days on my old size 47 Antarctics and gave them to a friend who is now skiing them and loves them.

I don't know what to tell you guys. I just ski much better on my Alaska 75's than on my Antarctics. They flex smoother, more in line with my foot, and are just delivering more performance. I know the Antarctic has the Norwegian welt and has the thicker sole and should be more durable, but it's just not working for me, and I've had them for what, 4 years now? more? I didn't realize how sloppy my skiing was in those boots until I put on the Alaska's this winter. One day I went out, skied my FT62's for three runs, then swapped boots. Night vs Day. There's something the way the taller cuff, even though it is supple, just pulls everything together when I drive my knee forward and the heel comes up. Even though the Antarctics are full leather they never really bent correctly over my toes and the crease would dig straight into my big toe knuckle. Ow! No problems with the Alaskas.

I'm sold on the Alaskas. And, actually, I'm really sold on the 75mm version of the Alaska. I just swapped my NNN-BC's for Rott ST's off my Ingstads so I can ski my 75mm Alaskas on them. I wouldn't have done that if my only leather 75mm boot was the Antarctic, I would have kept them NNN-BC so I could use my Alaskas, but now I want to use my 75mm on the Ingstads. Think about that. It's like a flow chart where all roads lead to the Alpina Alaska 75mm.

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:14 pm

I just swapped my NNN-BC's for Rott ST's off my Ingstads so I can ski my 75mm Alaskas on them.

Revelation of the year and its only the end of January!

I totally understand you not liking a toe knuckle cruncher boot. Top of the list of priorities is a boot that fits, well sized and is comfy. Your take on the Alaskas is inviting, but my Sydpolens are soo comfortable, no crunch.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:14 pm

I don't know what to tell you guys. I just ski much better on my Alaska 75's than on my Antarctics. They flex smoother, more in line with my foot, and are just delivering more performance.

Alaska are great made-in-Europe leather boots, it sounds like they fit & support your feet better. This is why we need 4-5 companies making different leather boots - because everyone's feet & biomechanics are a bit different. I'm thrilled to see the offerings of NNNBC and 75mm boots expanding in the last couple years.

Merrell used to make leather boots with an "American" last vs. European in the Scarpas. I think most people will find one particular boot or company's boots work the best w/ their feet. My friend w/ the Antarctics just told me, "god I love these boots but they're so HEAVY" I was laughing & informed him those were the lightest of all my XC ski boots.

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:14 pm

I don't know what to tell you guys. I just ski much better on my Alaska 75's than on my Antarctics. They flex smoother, more in line with my foot, and are just delivering more performance. I know the Antarctic has the Norwegian welt and has the thicker sole and should be more durable, but it's just not working for me, and I've had them for what, 4 years now? more? I didn't realize how sloppy my skiing was in those boots until I put on the Alaska's this winter. One day I went out, skied my FT62's for three runs, then swapped boots. Night vs Day. There's something the way the taller cuff, even though it is supple, just pulls everything together when I drive my knee forward and the heel comes up. Even though the Antarctics are full leather they never really bent correctly over my toes and the crease would dig straight into my big toe knuckle. Ow! No problems with the Alaskas.

I'm sold on the Alaskas. And, actually, I'm really sold on the 75mm version of the Alaska. I just swapped my NNN-BC's for Rott ST's off my Ingstads so I can ski my 75mm Alaskas on them. I wouldn't have done that if my only leather 75mm boot was the Antarctic, I would have kept them NNN-BC so I could use my Alaskas, but now I want to use my 75mm on the Ingstads. Think about that. It's like a flow chart where all roads lead to the Alpina Alaska 75mm.

Woods my brother, you are killing me! The Alaska 75 is not on my radar. I read reports of duckbill failure. I ski an Alaska BC, it’s a great boot and system. However for me I think the limit is skinnier skis. Bottom line my life is good, two systems for different skis. ..., but what about my skis that I want to tour on lighter than my Ski March boot? What if I want a stiffer boot like the Ski March to ski spring trails with challenging downhills. That couldn’t work in my mind until now. Yes, I have been interested in both the Rifugio and the Antarctic, but it was interest. I could not imagine my only 75mm leather the Ski March offering kick and glide performance of my Alaska BC. Now you write that you swapped out the Ingstad to 75 mm???
You are absolutely killing me. Did I mention my Alaska BC fit as though they are custom made for my foot?
I was happy and content. Alaska BC offer a more secure connection than Alaska 75. Two systems, although there may be advantages to one system. I now have a sense how men felt when they learned that the sun did not journey across the sky daily, but rather it was only a phenomenon of Earth’s rotation.
I am going outside to do my snow dance. My soul should be sufficiently mournful. The heavens may look down upon me with generous mercy. Don’t be surprised if reports of snowfall in southern Michigan make international news reports!

fisheater wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:00 am

Woods my brother, you are killing me! The Alaska 75 is not on my radar. I read reports of duckbill failure. I ski an Alaska BC, it’s a great boot and system. However for me I think the limit is skinnier skis. Bottom line my life is good, two systems for different skis. ..., but what about my skis that I want to tour on lighter than my Ski March boot? What if I want a stiffer boot like the Ski March to ski spring trails with challenging downhills. That couldn’t work in my mind until now. Yes, I have been interested in both the Rifugio and the Antarctic, but it was interest. I could not imagine my only 75mm leather the Ski March offering kick and glide performance of my Alaska BC. Now you write that you swapped out the Ingstad to 75 mm???
You are absolutely killing me. Did I mention my Alaska BC fit as though they are custom made for my foot?
I was happy and content. Alaska BC offer a more secure connection than Alaska 75. Two systems, although there may be advantages to one system. I now have a sense how men felt when they learned that the sun did not journey across the sky daily, but rather it was only a phenomenon of Earth’s rotation.
I am going outside to do my snow dance. My soul should be sufficiently mournful. The heavens may look down upon me with generous mercy. Don’t be surprised if reports of snowfall in southern Michigan make international news reports!

Oooh before you get all ramped up on your snow dance, I am not using my Ingstads for long distance K&G travel, but ups and down where tele gear would be overkill. There is definitely some overlap between the FT62 and Ingstad here, but I'm not going to be crossing long lakes with the Ingstad, I'd be doing that in my MT51's and NNN-BC...