Lundhags Boots

[havuja]

does anyone here use these boots with 3-pin bindings?

Just last night skied mine with both Rotte 3pin with cable and Nato M98. Better kick and glide with 3pin as expected, best support with 3pin +cable.

I got my Guide Expedition BC's on a bargain 2 yers ago. Found them one size too big, but have not sold them due to thinking they make excellent extreme cold boots. Last night was tinkering with the fit, and got it right. Now that they fit me and having tried them with 3pins, I must say that it is a true pity that one cannot rely on them with 3pins. The sole is very flexible, which makes them the best k&g 3pin boot I ever tried with a huge margin (no experience with Alaskas or other true softies), but somehow the package manages to feel supportive with pins only, let alone with cables. Very smooth, very flexible, but firm support.
This far had used them with M98s/Rivas, and they do perfectly ok on flats and downhill, apart from the squeak, for utiltarian use. 3 pin cable just makes them shine as ski boot.

Boot sole structure is something new to me. The sole is very thin for a 75mm boot. It consists of a thin outer sole, and an eva (?) midsole. Eva layer starts roughly 8cm behind the tip of the duckbill, upper part of the duckbill being rubber and glued to the outsole. Is it a common structure? Does not raise confidence on their durability with 3pins. I suppose that it would be much stronger if made out of a solid piece of rubber instead layers with eva. The sole could even be a mm or two thicker, I am sure that it would develop a good flex over time as these are boots to last possibly decades. Of course the eva midsole has a function on thermal insulation too, but I would not see losing that as problem. In fact i added a 6mm hd eva insole inbetween the shell and inner bootie, still plenty of room for the toes.

So, in short. No, I do not think they can take prolonged 3pin action, but I truly hope they could. I have the Xplore version coming in soon, but promise to buy two pairs of 75's if they are made 3pin compatible. They are the kind of boots I want to grow old with

[lilcliffy]

They are the kind of boots I want to grow old with

I truly get this.
I may end up exclusively using Lundhags boots for all of my touring and fieldwork- in all seasons...
I am not about to get rid of all of my other leather boots; but at the moment my Lundhags are the only ones I would consider repairing and/or replacing.

[randoskier]

How do you get these boots in north america?

Varuste had the Guide on sale for 211 EUR a couple of weeks ago and the Abisko for 250 EUR. The market is too small in the US for fjellski equipment.

[Woodserson]

@lilcliffy Since you have both the Guide and Expedition, does the length change or just the volume? I'm really enjoying my Guides but I talked a friend with very weird feet to get them and after some back-and-forth went for the Expedition with the "Wide" fit as opposed to the "Regular." They fit him fantastic. My feet are less volume and the Guide is good but I'm very jealous of his Expedition boot and think I would like a pair. Mostly for the extra insulation. Would you say the Euro length size stays the same regardless of models?

This is all @Musk Ox fault btw

[lilcliffy]

@Woodserson
So great to hear from you mon ami!

The length of the Lundhags lasts are consistent.

The Expedition is definitely larger volume than the Guide-
HOWEVER- the heel-ankle-achilles of the Expedition is just as contoured and fitted- I get just as snug and perfect a fit here.
I have skinny foot, and certainly the Expedition seemed over-the-top at first- but, I quickly got used to and now love the room.
The upper of the Expedition actually fits me better than the Guide-
I may have a skiiny foot and ankle- but I have a comparitively thick calf.
The 42EU Guide is as short as I could possible wear- but the upper-most circumference is such that when I lace them up I am essentially bottomed out...
By comparison- when I lace up the taller Expedition, the upper most circomference is on my calf and I can dial-in a perfect snug lace-up.
To sum-up- not only is the Expedition warmer- it fits me better (depsite having a medum-width, low-volume foot).
It is my end-of-life boot.
I don't actually need anything else.

[Musk Ox]

This is all @Musk Ox fault btw

I'll happily accept the blame for this.

[mca80]

@lilcliffy, could I trouble you to possibly measure the height to the top of cuff of both Guide and Expedition?

Also, which would be better for ice skating? I would think Expedition due to higher cuff, but only if its stiffness is significant. Unfortunately I waited too long on Expedition at Varuste and all that's available is Guide, so I may just wait if the Expedition would be much better for skating.

Additionally, one more request. I used some twine to take measurements--I was wondering how the circumfrence around your ankle, just above the knobby bone, compares to foot length. Mine are equivalent, so not sure how that factors into tightening up the cuff on the Guide vs Expedition. As you said, the latter you could get much more taut due to large calves--which I also have, especially since I have been bicycling a little this winter (wtf?!?). But I also want it tight around that part of the ankle.

Further considerations: my foot is very wide in the front third, from just behind toes to tips of toes, and finding boots that don't feel crushing is hard; the volume, going over instep from heel corner to heel corner is significantly longer than my foot length; yet I think at the heel itself it is normal at most--I do know some boots that provide enough width also have issue with heel lift in my experience.

I really don't need or want the additional warmth of the Expedition though, although I am guessing it may add to the stiffness? At least it's wool so it should wick sweat and breathe--my feet get really, really warm after 10 minutes or maybe 15 of activity and once warmed up will stay so unless I stop and sit for like 30 min. Unfortunately the first 10 min outside when its single digits F or less kinda sucks, but that's just how my feet work--I don't wear insulated winter boots if doing any walking and I prefer these very old leather 75mm with no insulation for xc skiing precisely because of that. Only time for mukluks or pac boot is if I am just sitting, or ice fishing or splitting wood or the like, not hiking/skiing.

Anyway thanks for your help.

Also, if anyone else wants to chime in, looking for the best nnnbc boot for nordic skating, so needing stiff sole and stiff ankle support laterally. Ankle stiffness limiting range of motion front and back probably won't be good, although maybe not bad?

[Musk Ox]

@lilcliffy, could I trouble you to possibly measure the height to the top of cuff of both Guide and Expedition?

Also, which would be better for ice skating? I would think Expedition due to higher cuff, but only if its stiffness is significant. Unfortunately I waited too long on Expedition at Varuste and all that's available is Guide, so I may just wait if the Expedition would be much better for skating.

I skate with my Guides and they're really, really nice, @mca80. I mean a real pleasure. I can very happily recommend them. I know a lot of this is personal preference, and it sounds like you really like high cuffs strapped nice and tight, but I honestly don't think the height between the two would make an enormous difference on the ice. For me, at least. If Guides were the only option I vote you the pull the trigger!*

I should also say that I have a very large 'knobby bone' on one ankle (big bony accretion after a bicycle accident) and I can't remember this being an issue for tightness. It can get a bit sore breaking boots in sometimes, but my skiboots are very nice and comfy.

*I, of course, would say this.

[mca80]

Thanks, @Musk Ox. I actually don't know if I prefer a higher cuff for skating, or xc downhill for that matter. This is my first year on nordic blades after a lifetime in hockey skates, which are obviously stiff all over including the ankles. My first time skating nordic was a shocker but I got accustomed to it within an hour. So far I have only skated with Alpina 1600 which is slightly less stiff than Alaska and a bit shorter, but not a floppy nnnbc boot by any means. That said I think more support laterally in the ankle would be preferred, i.e. I can stand and roll my ankle somewhat in the 1600, but cannot do so in a new pair of Alico Ski March which at least new are a very very stiff leather boot (and maybe will soften too much in time).

I also don't have any real experience with a taller cuff for xcD. I was able to use Crispi Bre once this winter which has a taller but not terribly stiff section around the ankle compared to the Crispi Nordland and old (80s?) Crispi Mountain. I thought the Bre would be better for dh support and xc with a pack or long tours due to the height, but I actually "feel" better with the lower cut Mountain, especially if it's just touring on flats or gentle.

So basically, you don't think the added height is that big a deal for skating? What about for telemark turns, as I would probably also use a stiffer boot like one of the two Lundhags to power Kongsvold when we have deep enough powder.

[Musk Ox]

e.

So basically, you don't think the added height is that big a deal for skating? What about for telemark turns, as I would probably also use a stiffer boot like one of the two Lundhags to power Kongsvold when we have deep enough powder.

No, I really don't, personally.

I'd prefer a taller shaft on my boots for deep snow on Kingsvolds, though! I see your conundrum!