Softboot hardboot project.

[John Gilmour]

I had an idea for a boot but it might seem like heresy, I was thinking that a way to cut down on the amount of molds needed....

Of course multi cavity molds have been done (Still $$$)... but let's say you wanted to make a part that had some basic flex characteristics (I'm sure AG B will have good input here as he has seen so many parts).

So Let's we are willing to accept that hardbooting race board carvers will never be more than on average 3-6 people at any US resort on a typical cay.

So the total amount of units is small. less than 200-300 pairs per year.

- odd aside in 1983 I became an importer of the Koflach Valluge lite randonee boot... hoping that hardboots would become popular... despite a few very enthusiastic snowbaorders ont eh East Coast (there was NO FREESTYLE back then, it was mostly powder and resort freeriding...jumping was STRONGLY DISCOURAGED at east coast resorts whether on skis or snowboards..making kickers would get your ticket clipped. For the most part...snowboarding was just chinese downhill. SOOOOOOOO you would figure that hardboots would serve this icy (poor grooming and bad snowmaking existed at the time... horrible yellow frozen granular- and the boards NEEDED lots of edge pressure because the sidecuts weren't even radial.) So given a true need for hardboots, a significant visible performance increase, and snow conditions and riding styles PERFECTLY SET UP to have the HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEMAND FOR HARDBOOTS...... I sold about 2 pairs a year.

The SOLE reason... high cost. (not even comfort because Sorels were clunky and hurt so much with existing bindings). People would rather use $79 Sorels. The price point we have to compete at is $175- $225. Maybe offer a high end model for $350.

Back to the original train of thought...

So to make this… you’d have to reduce the number of molds made..and perhaps have a bit more hand labor per boot.

So lets say you made an asym top cuff… and you made 3 sizes and of those 3 sizes you could take the smallest one and water cut an extra size out of it. And take the second size and water cut two smaller sizes out of it, and of the last one water cut it and make 2 sizes out of that.

That would give you 8 possible different cuff sizes.

You try to use an existing lower boot mold…and perhaps some existing lasts for the inner boots…. Or my preference is to make a combo heat molded non moldable liner.. ie the top is higher density not heat moldable foam and the lower is heat moldable.

OK… so this might be expensive… it is also possible….

That….

Because soft boots are getting SO much firmer… you might be able to make a hardboot in softboot clothing..

WHAT???? You Say??????

Well realistically the K2 YETI was a pretty stiff step in soft boot (K2/Shimano system developed by the Bicycle guys) . And it suffered hugely by not having an articulating cuff..

But it does show that you can make a very stiff boot using soft boot materials.…

I think … in fact…. We could make a sufficiently stiff softboot for hardboot riding…. And perhaps have it weigh in at 1/2 or less than 1/2 the weight of existing hardboots. It would still have all the hinge mechanisms and walk ski mode of a hardboot- but the currently IMHO superior inner heel retention systems of the top soft boots- and better cushioning (airbags). Also it would be easy to make these asymmetrically flexing. They would be warmer too…. Remember the recent post about a guy having one hardboot wth a boot cover and one without… ? Well this hardboot in softboot clothing would essentially be similar to a hardboot with a cover. There would be plastic inserts.. perhaps even a batten system.

There have been other hybrid boots before….. notably I think one by Nordica.. (epic fail…..name please??? someone?…… it came out about 1991) but that was before anyone could make a decent soft boot.

This time it could be done right.

[b0ardski]

I have the Nordica SBHard & SBSsoft.

The lower shell is the same mold but the SBS is a much softer plastic and easily deformed. The HB style inner liner, laces onto a cuff sewn onto the lower shell with a gaiter for an outer cuff, which gives very, very little support in any direction. Perfect for Noboarding.

The SBH is an AT boot with lateral flex on the hinge and a lower tongue for more forward flex.

A hybrid between the two, slightly stiffer plastic than SBS mated to SBH style cuff would be the perfect freestyle/powder boot for plates.

Here's an incomplete vid to illistrate the difference.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif="" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="4" class="inlineimg" width="400" border="0" height="267">27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000">

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="intl_lang=en-us&photo_secret=0eb64e7b0c&photo_id=5147084419" width="400" height="267"></object>

[b0ardski]

I had K2 Skylords with the highback on the boot and ankle strap but the flex and response of my 123s was superior in every way. Not having a hinged cuff doesn't flex the way my ankle does.

[John Gilmour]

I think ALL boots should have articulating cuffs. I also think that a soft boot without an articulating cuff.. is a design with a flaw.

I certainly do not want a boot like the SBS.... not for carving race boards..

1. I would like a hardboot with the weight of a soft boot

2. The support/flex/progressive flex of a hardboot.

3. The warmth of a soft boot, the IMMUNITY to temperature changes in regards to flex like a soft boot.

4. The cost of a soft boot.

5.The walkability of of a soft boot.

6. The precise turn initiation of a hardboot.

The SBS perhaps meets # 3 and sort of #5- but not the others... which is why we don't see designs like that.

But I don't want another heavy clunky hardboot.

I want a full boot wrap that feels like part of my body- that makes me feel bionic instead of a slightly off balance robot.

I want to be protected.. which in hardboots- hitting moguls and chop..I am not. And on ice in soft boots I am not...

I think that a non distorting bottom (hard plastic) is good.. I think that temperature dependent plastic top cuffs are bad.

I think that distorting (Crushable) lower boot bottoms (ie. soft boot bottoms) are bad.

I think that hardboot cuffs that cause shin bang in choppy snow..are bad.

I think the current soft boot highback interface.. is lousy.. and offers too many inconsistencies in terms of different flex of the binding and boot and how they interact.. Its like trying to get a good frequency response curve from speakers where the tweeter and woofer overlap... but each have radical dips within the overlap zone (crossover slopes).. The chance of getting an effective "Flex match" between a softboot binding and a softboot.... is slim. Very very very slim. The less a rider has to compensate for his gear's shortcomings... the better he will ride.

But putting all the flex adjustments within the boot (A single interface)... has a much better chance for success... but again... you likely have to have multiple cuffs (in a box) for a person so they can get it dialed.. or at least be able to follow a chart to pick the right cuff for their weight and riding ability. (Yes I know that hard boot bindings will have flex too- but the flex of an F2 binding it isn't as wacky as say the flex of a softboot highback or a ankle strap... not even close.)

The trick... is to blend the cuf to the lower in terms of flex and not to have an abrupt change in flex or stress riser.

[Dog Pound]

Do you remember the Raichle 121/snowboarder? I recall them sliding on smooth metal where the cant adjuster is on most boots. This gave them a little lateral movement. I would love to buy an updated version of these. Specifically if it kept the full vibram sole but shortened the length a bit. The number of boards that can be ridden with plates seems to be growing but our boot selection remains extremely limited.

[John Gilmour]

I hope there are better material choices out there than Vibram which has been around for over 70 years and is just tire rubber..

Its like.. it made a name for itself and everyone thinks it is hte best choice...when in fact there could be better materials for our uses other than hiking boot materials.

For instance ....even if we stayed with rubber... why use older tire compounds? Why not use the rubber with canola oil that Nokian uses in its Hakkapelliita tires..and why not use some of the same siping technology in the middle of the boot sole (not near the edges where it could tear). Personally I hate walking in hardboots and slipping all over the place...(yes I know they are better than ski boots but a long cry from softboots)

certainly if we have a hardboot- the sole can't be as squishy as a soft boot. But

or can it???

What if there was an internal "quasi-floating spine" of hard plastic within the boot. That way the boot could flex somewhat normally when walking (to a degree) but when riding... the system to the shell could be totally rigid.

More thoughts to come...

[Beckmann AG]

I also think that a soft boot without an articulating cuff.. is a design with a flaw.

If you want to build a boot that accommodates all stance configurations, regardless of utility, and sell boots on a periodic basis, it's not a flaw; rather, a design consideration.

If a concern wants to build a boot for a niche market, functionality based on biomechanics is the easy part. The hard part is designing for end users who wish to ride in a manner that is largely ignorant of such things. Ultimately, the latter criteria will trump the former in order to remain commercially viable, and you will be left with what you currently have.

To be a better rider, one needs better boots. Better boots, however, require a better rider.

I want a full boot wrap that feels like part of my body- that makes me feel bionic instead of a slightly off balance robot.

More accessible than you might think...

[John Gilmour]

If you want to build a boot that accommodates all stance configurations, regardless of utility, and sell boots on a periodic basis, it's not a flaw; rather, a design consideration.

LOL...so true.. Why its the American way... don't just plan for obsolescence - design it right in from Day one.

...... Commercially viable isn't so much the criterion... just quality... even if it is just done for a season or two. It would ultimately be cool if such boots were designed that could be produced at another point in time according to machine code. But heck...that is a lot easier for bindings than for boots.

....I'd like to think of a boot that comes with parts so it can grow with you.. as you get better you add things to it..and there is a logical progression that is outlined. The money... likely would be in replacement liners. Or perhaps in entire replacement cuffs.

More accessible than you might think...

....hmm wonder when I'll be in Maine next.

[John Gilmour]

Totally awesome video BTW... and the SBH is a few durometer points softer than its brother the Nordica TR-9

I have the Nordica SBHard & SBSsoft.

The lower shell is the same mold but the SBS is a much softer plastic and easily deformed. The HB style inner liner, laces onto a cuff sewn onto the lower shell with a gaiter for an outer cuff, which gives very, very little support in any direction. Perfect for Noboarding.

The SBH is an AT boot with lateral flex on the hinge and a lower tongue for more forward flex.

A hybrid between the two, slightly stiffer plastic than SBS mated to SBH style cuff would be the perfect freestyle/powder boot for plates.

Here's an incomplete vid to illistrate the difference.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif="" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="4" class="inlineimg" width="400" border="0" height="267">27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000">

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="intl_lang=en-us&photo_secret=0eb64e7b0c&photo_id=5147084419" width="400" height="267"></object>

I loved the SBH/TR-9 Nordicas... they were just needlessly heavy. If they could fix that (and the price)... they would have a hard boot for the masses.

[Beckmann AG]

Not a soft boot, but...

Something like this, with a foamed or lace-up liner, and a spinal flex control, matched to the right board, might work nicely.

http://www.garmontusa.com/921026211.html

The unconventional overlap probably won't split, the lasting is anatomically correct, and the ramp angle is sane.

[John Gilmour]

Yes this is conventional... and likely a decent freeriding freecarving boot..

Looking though to make something that addresses so many shortcomings in boots.

I wouldn't be saying this... but I am amazed at the boot quality coming out of the softboot market..

32 makes an unbelievably light boot for its flex pattern.. I don't see why we can not reap the same benefits.

[tufty]

The unconventional overlap probably won't split, the lasting is anatomically correct, and the ramp angle is sane.

You forgot to mention "but they are horribly uncomfortable and fragile". The unconventional overlap leaves a pair of rivets pushing into the arch of the foot (personalised footbeds help a little with this) and all the moving parts break as soon as you fart in their general direction.

[Beckmann AG]

Looking though to make something that addresses so many shortcomings in boots.

I wouldn't be saying this... but I am amazed at the boot quality coming out of the softboot market..

32 makes an unbelievably light boot for its flex pattern.. I don't see why we can not reap the same benefits.

Based on what I have seen in recent years, I think a motivated handful of paper wasps could spit out a better product...

Granted, 32, DC, and a few others are doing some interesting things with the BOA closure system, but as few shells are anatomical, the improved closure system amounts to more strapping tape on a cardboard box.

If you want a better softboot, take your list of features and the closest production boot to a laid-off Italian bootmaker with a suitcase of cash. Let his/her disgust/passion fuel the project, and sooner or later you will have what you want. Decide in advance what stance angles you want to ride, so the boot might articulate in accord.

If you have the wherewithal and the interest, I'm sure something can be arranged.

You forgot to mention "but they are horribly uncomfortable and fragile". The unconventional overlap leaves a pair of rivets pushing into the arch of the foot (personalised footbeds help a little with this) and all the moving parts break as soon as you fart in their general direction.

Not mentioned due to my boots fitting, not failing. Lack of 'comfort' goes along with a more anatomic last, particularly if it does not match your own foot.

What parts failed on yours, and after how many days use?

Speaking of BOAs, bonus point for the 'Python'.

[dano]

I have the Nordica SBHard & SBSsoft.

The lower shell is the same mold but the SBS is a much softer plastic and easily deformed. The HB style inner liner, laces onto a cuff sewn onto the lower shell with a gaiter for an outer cuff, which gives very, very little support in any direction. Perfect for Noboarding.

The SBH is an AT boot with lateral flex on the hinge and a lower tongue for more forward flex.

A hybrid between the two, slightly stiffer plastic than SBS mated to SBH style cuff would be the perfect freestyle/powder boot for plates.

Here's an incomplete vid to illistrate the difference.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif="" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="4" class="inlineimg" width="400" border="0" height="267">27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000">

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=71377" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="intl_lang=en-us&photo_secret=0eb64e7b0c&photo_id=5147084419" width="400" height="267"></object>

Cloning the nordica SBH with beefier hardware and optional BTS would be a GREAT place to start.

I'm on my 3rd NOS pair and just love the comfort and performance tweakablity you get just by adjusting the tightness of the closures.

They are much also much lighter than any raichle or burton shells I've tried and much better for hiking.

[b0ardski]

Other improvements would be a shorter base sole length, lateral lockout on Both sides of the cuff, soft & hard tongue, Micro adjust buckles a little better tread pattern/material and Intec compatible.

[tufty]

Not mentioned due to my boots fitting, not failing. Lack of 'comfort' goes along with a more anatomic last, particularly if it does not match your own foot.

What parts failed on yours, and after how many days use?

Buckles (4 times so far), one walk adjuster (clipped it climbing a pylon and it disintegrated), both ankle pivots on one boot ripped out, the inner one took a load of shell with it and KOed the boot. Sadly, they were replaced with a new pair of the "updated" model, which is showing signs of doing the same. Yeah, my boots are paid for by the resort. No, I don't have a choice.

The first pair lasted a season and a half, so 120 or so days with maybe an hour skiing per day.

Fit is personal, of course; I only managed to make mine tolerable with the addition of 3rd party footbeds and a pair of volume reducers to lift the arch of my foot above the rivets. A lot of the people I work with have the same problem, to the point of not being able to wear them for more than an hour or so. Seeing the damage the rivets did to the liners of my first pair, though, I can't say I think it's a good design.