Should/could hard boot soles be even shorter?

[Gunnar]

I think so because; shorter shell = lower binding angles = more freedom in the hips, and more pressure on the edges.

[Mike T]

Not if it means building more lift into the boot. When I look at say a T700, it is obvious that the foot would need to be even higher off the board in order to bring the sole length in. I'd rather not see that personally. But, I am sporting size 25 boots (and even fiddled with going down to a 24 but ultimately decided against it). I might be singing a different tune if I big feet. No problem getting angles in the high 40's / low 50's on most of my boards... all except the skinny little Madd.

[Dan]

Disclaimer: what follows is idle, uninformed speculation, but: do you think that using Intecs at the toe as well as the heel could yield overall decreased shell length?

[KingCrimson]

Like Physics with speed hooks. You could ditch the toe ledge on the boot, and make the heel more compact (or just scoot it forward to recess it) and get rid of that ledge too. But you couldn't slap crampons the boots for those May hikes for 300 foot slush "stashes" :(

Afterthought: Burton DID stop making those before they stopped making plates in general, anyone know why?

[Jack M]

With the board tilted up to 60 degrees or higher, the sole length has little to do with it. Overall shell length is the deciding factor, and a properly fitted boot is already minimized for that.

Now, I think if shells were shaped more like Birkenstocks or Keens, people could use shorter boots.

[Gunnar]

With the board tilted up to 60 degrees or higher, the sole length has little to do with it. Overall shell length is the deciding factor, and a properly fitted boot is already minimized for that.

My thought was that the overall length and the sole length follow together.. But you nailed it below..

Could you change the thread title to: Should/could hard boots Overall shell length be even shorter?

Now, I think if shells were shaped more like Birkenstocks or Keens, people could use shorter boots.

That exactly what was on my mind, when I came up with the question! I don't know why I didnt ask for that instead .

I walk around in Keens and Crocks all the time. And all my shells ends up looking like them, after a few years of blocking.

I think it would make a big difference on angles, because it would matter most on the rear boot, where the shells now have a lot of unused space on the outside of the toebox.

[Gunnar]

Not if it means building more lift into the boot. When I look at say a T700, it is obvious that the foot would need to be even higher off the board in order to bring the sole length in. I'd rather not see that personally. But, I am sporting size 25 boots (and even fiddled with going down to a 24 but ultimately decided against it). I might be singing a different tune if I big feet. No problem getting angles in the high 40's / low 50's on most of my boards... all except the skinny little Madd.

I wish i had your feet! Im on 27-28, and alot of duck in my walking stance , and close to 45-0 on softboots.

How high bindings do you ride on?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

70/65 . Mondo 29 . waist width 18cm

None of that free-style wanna be fat boards and low angles for this guy!!;)

[tex1230]

if you're looking for shorter sole length, go UPZ. Mine are about 1cm shorter in the same size vs Heads. (But jack is right - sole length has little to do with my angles)

[pokkis]

Why you wnat shorter sole length? if you want more shallow angles, take wider board.

Anyway speculating that someone would do any new boots is overkill with number of us. And as long Deeluxe makes boots, all is fine, except some colors they make really suck

[Jack M]

I don't think we'll ever see Birk-shaped hardboots or skiboots. Our market isn't big enough, and I think skiers would have boot-out issues with such a wide boot.

[boarderboy]

= more off-slope injuries. Period!

BB

[Mike T]

I wish i had your feet! Im on 27-28, and alot of duck in my walking stance , and close to 45-0 on softboots.

How high bindings do you ride on?

F2 Race Ti, and TD2 and TD3 Standards. The toe bail size is an issue on the Bombers unfortunately. I would prefer all my bindings be less high off the board...

[energyrail]

sorry for digging up an old thread but it is kind of what I've been thinking about for awhile now. UPZ are the shortest sole length but that doesn't really matter to me now. Are any boots shorter than others in overall length. my 27 upz's look long overall but that could be just a visual trick with the short sole length. mind you I might be able to fit my 27.1-27.3 feet into a 26.

[boarderboy]

who, this past Monday, spent his first on-slope time in two years, I'd have to say (even more emphatically than last year) NO!!

To the vast majority of younger and/or more active/fit hardbooters I'll admit my thoughts are irrelevant and probably not applicable. BUT

48 hours ago, I stuffed my feet into Mondo 30 Burton Boilers after riding AT's exclusively for the last five years. I also rode my 171 Burton Coil, never having previously ridden anything longer than a 164 Alp.

The results,in spring-condition Possum Pouch mashed potatoes, were disastrous... (more gravy, please...). Terrible front knee pain, excruciating left foot pain, and floundering around in 12+ inches of Appalachian mush in those low-footprint boots was just plain embarrassing! I did manage a fair number of legitimate, non-skid front and backside carves, but Jeeezus did it hurt.

Never say never, but absent plenty of cash and easy access to a great boot fitter, I suspect my future lies in lightweight, easy-walking, very-low-lean AT boots, even with the attendant shortcomings for boarding. Might even have to try (stiff) softies again, so I can switch out midday and work different muscles.

Hats off to any of you who can deal with shorter footprint hardboots. I'll watch your pure carves with great envy!!

BB

[trailertrash]

I am in a 24 now and fitting a 23 on TD's can be a pain. If boots get even smaller I think the bindings may need some tweaking.

[BlueB]

Hell, no!

UPZs are the problematic boots with their quazi-short length. All they've created is a boot that's out of balance in toe-heel direction, too small (even in the reasonable sizes) to fit onto TDs, and heel block that's dificult to get into standard bails.

As long as the toe/heel blocks do not project beyond the toe/heel boxes the boots are fine. Even my ski Dalbellos meet that standard.

If anything, the slanted undercut should be ditched from the hard boots, for mor AT type of design. Speaking of which, they should have the Vibram soles too. And plastic changed to something lightweight. Hang on, it already exists... AT boots!

[energyrail]

ya upz's are goofy but they fit my feet, almost to wide up front.

My question is are upz's any shorter in overall length than other boots? Or are all three in production hard boots going to probably give you the same stance angles if they are all the same size. within a degree or two. Or maybe no one has ever measured.

Where does one buy a head stratos? Just try some head ski boots on and order from the ski store? Or is it that simple?

[energyrail]

Are head boots still being made or are they just using up old stock?

That is the impression i'm getting here. doesn't have them on the website.

what is the deal will we be down to two company's shortly?

[NateW]

UPZs are the problematic boots with their quazi-short length. All they've created is a boot that's out of balance in toe-heel direction, too small (even in the reasonable sizes) to fit onto TDs...

I have been riding with size-27 UPZs and TD2 stepins for about three seasons now with no issues. I did so today, in fact. :)

[Wun]

Are head boots still being made or are they just using up old stock?

That is the impression i'm getting here. doesn't have them on the website.

what is the deal will we be down to two company's shortly?

just off the top of my head, bomber has 'em. looks like they have 27s in stock too, if you're serious.

[Corey]

My question is are upz's any shorter in overall length than other boots?

I own one pair each of size 27 Deeluxe 700T and UPZ RC-10 boots. The angles end up being the same, but the parts that hit the snow are different.

My angles are 61-ish front and 55-ish rear on 20cm waist width boards. On both the rear step-in toe-bail is the first part to hit the snow in toeside turns. On Deeluxe the rear heel hits first on heelside. On UPZ the front cuff a little above the ankle pivot hits first. That surprised me as I run 6 degrees higher on the front foot!

I also think the bevels are silly as other parts of the boots hit once you get higher edge angles anyway. If you never tip the board up past 45 degrees then bevels are handy, but most people can do that pretty early on in their time on an alpine board.

[Ronin42]

Is it just me or do the UPZ (in the standard bail) are much harder to "find" the rearbail. Like Boris my Carvex or my new/old Nordicia SBH bootsaremuch easyer to find the rear bail. Plus I think UPZ removes material from the heel to get the shorter sole length but then I think they have the higest rate of busted heels also.

I have not seen "ski" boots bust the heels as often.

.02

[heroshmero]

I also think the bevels are silly as other parts of the boots hit once you get higher edge angles anyway. If you never tip the board up past 45 degrees then bevels are handy, but most people can do that pretty early on in their time on an alpine board.

That's a good point. The beveling doesn't really seem to increase clearance because you have to set the angle/bias so that the whole boot is "inside" the edge of the board anyway.

[MUD]

Coming from a 29.5 person.......

I like the UPZ setup. The nice thing about getting the soles in is when you boot out it is "softer" The round edge of the heal hits instead of binding pieces which can be rather abrupt.

Anything shorter however and I think It would just be marketing, not that UPZ is not already doing that...