BOOTS 2.0

[pokkis]

9 hours ago, Tanglefoot said:

Me neither, but it would make for a very streamlined boot if someone could figure it out.

Hi Pokkis, I am intrigued by this whole Backland subculture. Does this mean that you use the Backlands for other purposes than just split boarding?

I use them for off piste riding nwith my Swellpanic, dont have split board. Boots are shorter than soft boots, and same length as my UPZ.

Friend of mine rides with them on piste with his Swoard but i prefer more stiffer UPZ for carving.

[philw]

17 hours ago, Tanglefoot said:

My thoughts around attaching to the sides of the boots were that the tensile load paths of current hard boots are arranged in a rectangle that is only 70 mm wide and around 300 mm long. I just don't think you would choose to attach the bindings to the extreme ends of a long, narrow boot if you did not have the ski boot heritage.

I agree that lateral flex is often desirable, and especially with flatter angles. Hopefully, lateral flex can be incorporated in the binding, rather than in the boot / binding interface. 

I'm not sure you mean "tensile". The F2 race bindings take a lot of force without problems if they're set up correctly. You could of course take those forces on the side, but I'm finding it hard to see what the benefit would be, and you have a mechanical disadvantage, not that I think it would be critical.

My own angles are 45 parallel. Perhaps you are assuming significantly steeper angles, although I note that mono-skiers also use toe-heel bindings without problem.

I take your point about "heritage", but I think the fact that our feet tend to be inserted into everything from windsurfer straps through rear-entry-boots to shoes in a toe/heel manner may have something to do why we tend to build things this way.

The only advantage I can see would be reduced boot/binding length, which (a) I don't need; and (b) you could also achieve by putting recessing the binding under the boot or other approaches.

--
As a backland person, I'd be more interested in a snowboard-specific binding which maybe made use of the existing structure of the soles of that type of boot. They have some stuff in them for the uphill people, and maybe that'd be fun to make use of. I guess I'm thinking that ideas like the Phantom Link Levers are where I'm expecting hard booters to gain performance in the future. 
 

[Tanglefoot]

Lots of good thinking going on here. This whole Backland / touring boot discussion is really interesting. I will definitely strap my own touring boots to a wide board next winter and give it a go.

[1xsculler]

On 7/12/2019 at 1:28 PM, Tanglefoot said:

Lots of good thinking going on here. This whole Backland / touring boot discussion is really interesting. I will definitely strap my own touring boots to a wide board next winter and give it a go.

The Backland boot idea interests me too.  Please remind me about some of the more promising brands/models.

[Jack M]

On 7/11/2019 at 3:16 PM, Tanglefoot said:

Did you ever try the Burton Physics bindings?

No, I had moved on to Bombers by the time the Physics came out. 

[scottishsurfer]

speaking of making them nicer to walk about in wouldnt having a flex point around the toe section of the boot similar to what telemark boots make them much nicer to walk about in?

[wrathfuldeity]

A noob as to alpine boards but a split boarder at Baker...but a definite convert to Atomic Backland boots (non carbon) for both split riding, solid inbound riding...and only experimenting/exploring alpine boards.  The Backlands took abit of tweaking the liners and only heat moulded the shells 1x and no other diy mods to the shells.  They fit perfectly like slippers, easy to walk/hike/tour in.  It only takes a flip of the heel/cuff lever to go from walking/touring to ride mode; and there is no need to adjust the buckles (at least for moi).  Often buckle the boots on in the morning and they stay that way all day...no need to loosen the buckles at lunch (both for BC touring and resort riding).  Anyway once I got these boots dialed, have not been tempted to even put on my softies (32 focus boas)....which I loved.  The Backlands are lighter, easier to get on/off, slipper comfortable all day...and the PERFORMANCE IS OUTSTANDING!!!  Splitty or solid resort board riding is instantly more responsive, assured and confidence enhancing.  Within 3 inbound runs on my solid resort boards (non alpines) were cruising groomers at 60+mph which was about 10mph faster than I was doing in the softies.  Unfortunately at Baker, we don't have really high speed groomers to really open up the throttle even more. 

Back to boots.  I think a wider sole/footprint might be interesting...just to get some more sq inches on the snow and wood. However it seems that it would likely add weight.  OTOH with at least the Phantoms (split bindings) and using the "One Binding" pucks on solid boards along with the Spark Dyno DH binding plates...a wider boot foot print does not seem needed.  Anyway for my purposes...mainly BC splitty, I like the less weight and the small foot print actually works pretty good for kicking and stomping holes in the crusties.  As for Backlands, I like a stiff boot, infact part of the reason for going to the Backland was because I could not find a softboot in my size (mondo 24) that was stiff enough.  I find riding with out the tongues works just right for forward and lateral flex...actually should try using the tongues for a couple of runs.  Just to clarify, I have the non-carbon Backlands (women mondo 24), however now that I've spent a season using these, I don't think there would be much of an issue going to the carbon cuff.  Take this all with a shovel of salt when it comes to alpine boards (only got to spend 2 days this past spring on alpine boards with the Backlands).

Edited July 24, 2019 by wrathfuldeity

[pow4ever]

bumping threads related to Atomic Backland AT boot.

[scottishsurfer]

As a little tease i got to try these on today. I dont have the time at the momment but ill post my thoughts on them at some point tonight.

Edited September 28, 2019 by scottishsurfer
I'm an idiot

[Pokolikrat]

How tall  are they compare to regular Deeluxe? Please some input. Blue Tomato have them on pre order for “just” $590. I would like to try them, what will be most likely problem in States, before dumping 6 hundred. They looks like nice for resort ridding. Climb in these with classical harbor sole if pretty much impossible or very danger. Too bad they are not build on AT sole. That’s why I like Scarpas and Dynafits. Much better for not just climbing but regular walking.

[Mr.E]

They look interesting, but I'm not sure what a softer upper boat does? I've never spoken to anyone about hardboots where the cuff was the concern.  For most it's trying to get the lower dialed? I'd love to hear actual fit/ ride impressions.

[Lifeform]

can you compare weight, how stiff are they compared to Malamute or Driver x

do they feel durable and will not brake in after 50 days, what is your opinion

[scottishsurfer]

Ive only ever tried on regular deeluxe 425s once that a friend of mines has but from memory there roughly same about the same height as my franken van softboots which are taller than my head ski boots.

I like the concept of the ground control boots and i think they would be great in powder/chopped up snow where the extra flex in the upper would be benefical or riding a softer board that you might over power in now hardboots. The Upper feels like it has a fair amount of forward lean built in with no way to adjust it due to its softboot style contruction, forward flex is from the shell flexing and distorting rather than an ankle pivot on traditional hardboot/skiboot again similar to a softboot. In terms of flex these feel like a mid to stiff flexing softboot with a stiff sole on the 1 to 10 scale id put them at  7. The softboot construction is i feel is also likely to be this boots downfall sadly I doubt very much that upper will retain its stiffness any longer than a single season of riding.... Now for a £470 boot its to little but the fact the forward flex is from the outer shell deforming i feel its inevitable. If they were say between 230 to 250 theyd be a much much more inticing prospect but at such a high price there is no way im getting a boot that wont last out a year. For refernce my franken vans i get roughly two years(10 hours+ a week in a snowdome when not on a mountain) out of them and they clock in at 180-220 when ive bought them. they are fairly light weight, heavier than a soft boot but not by much and a fair bit lighter than a hardboot/skiboot. I don't know the mondo size but what i tried on was a US11/UK10 and it felt a little loose around the ankle/heel. If i was to get them id probably drop to an US10.5/UK9.5. They only had the 10 in the store as supposdly the uk owner of tsa sent them to scottish branch to see what i thought of them. I might get to try them on a board at some point but to be honest unless im offered a trial id feel pretty bad about riding them with no intention what so ever to buy.

[b0ardski]

I'm thinking the biggest advantage of the Hybrid boot would be a standard stepin system with indestructible bindings. But if that upper only lasts 1 hard season, the 225s with a flexy liner will give a similar feel and 5x the durability for the same cost and no boa cable to replace when they inevitably break.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by b0ardski

[John Gilmour]

Well now that a binding manufacturer and good friend has no more financial interest in this, I can say something.......

The best binding, is no binding at all. Not in the way we think of a binding currently.

We are used to binding plates, levers, straps buckles.

garbage. Dead weight. Ugh.

The points of interface on the board must be minimal in size and weight and allow for easy board stacking. I , for instance liked the ability to have one pair of Catek carriages and multiple discs. But even then the discs weighed a lot. It has to be more minimal.

I started riding hardboots before there were highbacks and only made the original soccer shin guard highbacks prototype NOT for myself , but for others that refused to pay for hardboots and insisted on using construction boots just to try the boards on the inevitable frozen granular and hardpack. I figured they would swap to my Koflach Valluga lite randonee boots, but some just never wanted to give up convenience cost  and perceived comfort vs control .

I love comfortable softboots. But I hate the clunky size, the fact that I go through 1-3 pairs a season, and the fact that they suck for kicking in steps plus most weigh a lot.

Current hardboots have always annoyed me. I have used ski touring boots which are too soft for alpine because the taller calf fit of the hardboots and the restrictive flex killed my fun.

So how could we get what we want? A lightweight, durable, warm, comfortable boot, that can work for both alpine freecarving and all mountain riding and well EVEN freestyle? A boot with adjustable flex without affecting fit. A boot that offers the benefit of a softboot outer wrap but without the down force pressure , a boot that fits to the riding surfaces of our feet ( which is often not just the soles of our feet BUT ALSO the edges of our feet) a boot that has a custom insole mold not just for the  bottom of our feet but also for partially the tops of our feet ( this doesn't happen ENOUGH with heat molded liners BTW which are not under enough  pressure ) 

Back in the  1980's Damian Saunders tore it up in freestyle in Koflach Albonas ( a slightly firmer hard shell randonee boot I rode for many years) and those are more than  twice as heavy as today's lightweight touring boots. They were slightly heavier than the older soft boots. Tom Burt ABSILUTELY killed  it in Back country powder in hard boots. I think these riders would not have the performance they had in the soft boots of the day. I do think that some of today's soft boots are firmer than the hard boots they rode back then .

Well the good News is a plastic boot can be nearly as light as a pair of old air Jordan's. certainly 1/2 the weight of most current stiffer soft boots and almost 1/4 the weight of a set of Raichles.

Also I believe the attachment interface should not be on the board but on/in the boot.

I envisioned a smart interface , so you can snap into snow shoes, or crampons, go telemark mode, snowboard or ski and the thing you step into and the attachment points dictate release or non release. Certainly you want release of boards and skis when you pull your avalanche bag rip cord. But you probably don't want that to happen if you are wearing crampons in a slide  which you might need to get out of where you end up in a slide.

Yes molds are VERY expensive. But some parts can be 3D printed, some could even be CNC machined. 

 

I thought you might be able to 3D print a mold and then sputter coat it with metal internally to cut down on cost for small production runs. To make molds more cheaply and experim not more cheaply . I even looked into how sail makers create curved sails out of flat materials to see if we could,design a boot with flat strips and ultrasonically weld  those into 3D prototypes.

I also think dedicated snowboard only boots should be partially asymmetrical for goofy and regular footers. This should be adjustable for your binding angles.

I never cared for the way the intec heels  rode. I preferred regular lever plates. In part because I don't think the attachment pints should be symmetrical . I think they should work with the way we exert forces on the board and the way our feet pivot naturally within our boots. I think there of an axis of longitudinal rotation within our boots which may not be exactly longitudinal .and I think it is offset relative to the typical longitudinal axis of the heel. Burtons new step on has it in the center of the heel, which IMHO feels better than the inter or fintec, but I still am not feeling like it is optimal right down the center.

i also believe that the padding in the boots should not be uniform and should use durometers more suited to forces brought to bear.

 

too late to type more.  Zzzzz

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by John Gilmour

[b0ardski]

I wanna say something but you already said it

[Spiny Norman]

https://www.wildsnow.com/28218/sneak-peak-phantom-slipper-splitboard-boot/

[philw]

Two brand new hardboots in a couple of seasons, although the Mountain Slope is a rework of something old, so this one's the real deal. Probably too soft for the likes of me, but even so, good to see.

[b0ardski]

nice, everything we want except step in.

so $3k now for state of the art split board set up, 4k by the time you add accoutrements.

Gone are the days of dirtbags w/DIY boards escaping the crowds.

powder specific boots will be too soft for most alpiners

[Mr.E]

On 8/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, philw said:

Two brand new hardboots in a couple of seasons, although the Mountain Slope is a rework of something old, so this one's the real deal. Probably too soft for the likes of me, but even so, good to see.

 

Err- sort of? This is clearly a reworked Atomic. I'm guessing he's bringing in shells and doing all his normal Atomic upgrade mods on a direct to consumer platform. It's cool, and I'm not taking away from it at all, but it's not really a new boot.