Why so heavy?

[Joe D]

I don’t get why hardboots are so damn heavy. I’m at REI today, lifted up a Garmont 4-buckle ski boot, which was much lighter than either of my boots. It seemed pretty stiff, too, just from hand-flexing it.

My Oxygen’s are 5.5lbs each, the Raichle’s 6.5 lbs each. What gives?

And I know, apples-to-oranges, but I picked up a riding buddies Northwave soft boots, and could not believe how light they were. Both of them together were much lighter than just one of my boots.

Any reason why hardboots could not be as light – at least as the Garmonts? Anybody a believer in the UPZ Superlights?

[Gecko]

Which could be part of the reason that people use alpine touring boots for carving. I would be the reason it that there isn't enough sales to warrent the R&D look how long it tok Deeluxe to change their buckles

[D.T.]

Garmont does not make a traditional ski boot. They were likely AT (alpine touring) boots, made for backcopuntry excursions where weight is critical. I would bet that they are great for skiing backcountry terrain/conditions, but would suck horribly if loaded/flexed like someone riding hard on plates. I would say that flex and durability are the reasons for the "heavy" boots.

[sic t 2]

Yeah, I wish there were a lighweight, low profile (bottom of foot to top of board) boot. And modern version of the old burton race plates (low profile, light weight and simple). I really don't understand the concrete shoes either. Nor the skyscraper high bindings that make the whole situation worse. I'll deal with a bit more board width to stay low on the board. But still have the steep angles and lateral rigidity ( that is the most distinguishing difference between hard and soft riding anyway ).

Someday the next generation equipment will arrive.

Sic