Cassin Alpinist Tech

These crampons look pretty sweet, but the internet seems to have very few real reviews on them. Anybody here using them?

I use the cassin alpinist often, I think they are awesome. We demo them at the rental shop I run in Portland, they are perfect for steep alpine ice, technical mountaineering, etc. I haven't tried the tech ones with vertical front points, but we sell them, and I pick em up all time thinking how sweet they would climb. The rigid design is confidence inspiring. They may not be the lightest or smallest packing, but they are sturdy as heck.

The few pairs in our rental fleet have had a ton of use, still going strong. I'd take em on any climb, and most recently used them on Peak 11,300, Mt. Barille, and Mt. Dan beard in May.

christoph benells wrote: I use the cassin alpinist often, I think they are awesome. We demo them at the shop I run Portland, they are perfect for steep alpine ice, technical mountaineering, etc. I haven't tried the tech ones with vertical front points, but we sell them, and I pick em up all time thinking how sweet they would climb. The rigid design is confidence inspiring. They may not be the lightest or smallest packing, but they are sturdy as heck.

The few pairs in our rental fleet have had a ton of use, still going strong. I'd take em on any climb, and most recently used them on Peak 11,300, Mt. Barille, and Mt. Dan beard in May. 

Where is your shop in Portland? Any shop that demos crampons deserves a visit. I’ll be in Portland for business next month. 

Next Adventure in Portland, Oregon.

Saying "demo" was a little misleading. We don't demo all of the models we sell (would be cool though!). We rent mountaineering packages and our upgraded "Technical Alpine Pakcage" includes a full auto crampon, which we have a mix of the cassin alpinist, bd sabertooth and cyborg.

We have all the good stuff though and a whole basement full of used gear where you can find some real gems at cheap prices, also trade in gear for store credit. Stop by and say whats up! Im in the rental/repair shop downstairs.

christoph benells wrote: Next Adventure in Portland, Oregon.

Great climbing, mountaineering, outdoor shop. Keep up the good work!

I think it will be a few months before I can give mine a real world review, but being a huge fan of the Blade Runner, the Alpinist Tech is exactly what I was looking for as an alpine complement to the Blade Runner.

For those that haven't seen this, this vid is probably the best explanation that I have seen from a rep highlighting a new product and how it fits into an existing line, excellent job Brett Merlin! It's long but worth watching the whole thing, lots of good info at the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd2ZmoyBjYw

Doug Hutchinson wrote: I think it will be a few months before I can give mine a real world review, but being a huge fan of the Blade Runner, the Alpinist Tech is exacting what I wanted as an alpine complement to the Blade Runner.

For those that haven't seen this, this vid is probably the best explanation that I have seen from a rep highlighting a new product and how it fits into an existing line, excellent job Brett Merlin! It's long but worth watching the whole thing, lots of good info at the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd2ZmoyBjYw

Have you managed to get up and down any of the routes with shittier rock/ice quality here with them?  That is my main concern about going with monos out here.  It's hard for me to be certain if they would be better or worse than my dual points haha.. (I use Sarkens, which look very similar to the Alpinist Pro.)

Chris - I am not sure if you are aware, but these 'pons first appeared in stores about two weeks ago, they are new this season. So, no I haven't used on anything yet. I bought them to use on alpine water ice where a longer approach would make BladeRunners less than ideal. I am making an assumption that the secondary horizontal front point will help in softer ice and snow, but just guessing now.

Chris C. wrote:

Have you managed to get up and down any of the routes with shittier rock/ice quality here with them?  That is my main concern about going with monos out here.  It's hard for me to be certain if they would be better or worse than my dual points haha.. (I use Sarkens, which look very similar to the Alpinist Pro.)

Not sure what specific routes you're talking about, but I've been using Snaggletooths for PNW alpine climbing for the past 2 years and they're awesome on routes up to WI4+/M5.  I don't feel like the monopoint is an issue at all.  Sarkens are the worst crampon I have ever used, so any reasonable crampon is probably an upgrade.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Not sure what specific routes you're talking about, but I've been using Snaggletooths for PNW alpine climbing for the past 2 years and they're awesome on routes up to WI4+/M5.  I don't feel like the monopoint is an issue at all.  Sarkens are the worst crampon I have ever used, so any reasonable crampon is probably an upgrade.

Hahaha fair enough.  I also have Snaggletooths but my girlfriend usually taken them.  Im not really worried about using the monos for technically aggressive stuff, that's what they excel at really.  I'm more wondering about the looser mixed volcanic rock or rhyme stuff that I've encountered- Hood would be a good example. From the photos, it looks like the Snaggletooth has a very wide point compared to the Alpinist Tech. 

Chris C. wrote:

I'm more wondering about the looser mixed volcanic rock or rhyme stuff that I've encountered- Hood would be a good example.

One of my partners used G20s on Skylight (M5) and West Ridge (M4) on Illumination, and a different partner used G20s on DKH in thin early season conditions with a short mixed start (M3?).  I've used G14s configured as monos on a bunch of similar stuff.  In each case the crampons were certainly not the weak link.  I think G20s are a poor alpine crampon for a few reasons, but none of them are due to the quantity or area of the front points (rather, lack of antibotts, poor walking on hard ice, less points in play in pied troisième).

I think that any modern crampon can outclimb what we are capable of, especially on moderate terrain like we're talking about here.  It might matter more on some WI6/M8 horrorshow (I wouldn't know).

I have the Alpinist Pro and like it for vertical ice but I haven't looked into the differences between those and the Alpinist Tech yet.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

One of my partners used G20s on Skylight (M5) and West Ridge (M4) on Illumination, and a different partner used G20s on DKH in thin early season conditions with a short mixed start (M3?).  I've used G14s configured as monos on a bunch of similar stuff.  In each case the crampons were certainly not the weak link.  I think G20s are a poor alpine crampon for a few reasons, but none of them are due to the quantity or area of the front points (rather, lack of antibotts, poor walking on hard ice, less points in play in pied troisième).

I think that any modern crampon can outclimb what we are capable of, especially on moderate terrain like we're talking about here.  It might matter more on some WI6/M8 horrorshow (I wouldn't know).

Thanks, Kyle.  That's good feedback to hear!  

Some fit notes for those looking to purchase these:

I recently purchased these and will be returning them do to boot compatibility issues - it seems to be an otherwise excellent, light crampon.

I had issues fitting this to size 42.5 La Sportiva G5 boots, primarily in the heel. The (for lack of a better term) guardrails on the heel are too widely spaced, and the lack of adjustability (3 fixed positions) in the heel bail compounds the problem - ultimately I couldn't get the heel slop out of the boot fit.

A couple other notes - these aren't a very asymmetric fit and the link bar is integrated into the heel piece so it is not replacement. Additionally the toe bail is quite narrow - these may be a good thing or bad thing for your boots, but I thought it was too narrow (compared to the stock Stinger bail) for the G5s.

I also fitted the new Petzl Darts, but had similar heel slop issues due to the lack of (ANY) adjustment available in the heel bail.

Since the action is heating up in the the new Dart thread, it's time to bump this one, because these are the two new crampons that every well equipped alpinist should be ogling this season. I finally got a chance to unbox and geek out on the Alpinist Techs. It’ll be a month before I really go ice climbing, but I dry tooled a few pitches in them, walked around in them in ski boots on a glacier, and tried to simulate a little vertical ice by climbing some ice in a stream bed. So basically, anything I say about their performance now is akin to carpet testing a ski boot and then extrapolating how it skis (which is another favorite pastime of mine, along with half the dudes on TGR).

TLDR - the Techs feel and fit great, dry tool really well, I haven't climbed proper ice in them so can't speculate on that yet, and are so similar to the new Darts that someone really needs to do a side-by-side field performance comparison.

Fresh out the box after installing the anti-balling plates:

 
Some pictures below of a portion of my sharps quiver. I bought the Techs to fill the hole between the BD Snaggletooths and the BladeRunners. Weight-wise and based on the relative size and position of the secondary points, the Techs appear to be just what I needed (or, just really wanted but was able to quickly turn into a need). Left to right, back to front - Blades, Techs, Snaggles:
 
Measured Weights:
Snaggletooth: 863g/pair
Bladerunners: 1009 g/pair
Alpinist Tech w/o anti-balling plates: 808 g/pair
Total weight with anti-balling plates: 921 g/pair
Anti-ballling plates only: 113 g/pair

To throw the two leading competitors into the mix (which I don’t own and have not weighed):
Older Petzl Dart – claimed weight 737 g/pair (no anti-snow plates, not modular, front point not replaceable)
Petzl Dart 2019 – claimed weight 820 g/pair (now modular with anti-snow plates, assume claimed weight is in monopoint configuration)
Grivel G20+ claimed weight = 862 g/pair (note there is no antibott plate on the front of this crampon, and this crampon seems so specialized, it may be in its own category)

And yes, each company uses a different name for the plates underfoot.

The Techs come without the anti-balling plates installed (mostly I assume so they can claim their weight is only 808 grams). No hardware is require to install the plates but I would plan on 20 minutes and some heavy manipulation with a flat head screw driver, not something you want to do in the field.
 
The toe bails on the Techs are noticeably lighter and thinner diameter than the bails on any other crampon that I have owned. I have never broken a toe bail but if there was a crampon to carry a spare, it might be these. Since it is thinner and more flexible, I could actually remove and reposition it with just my hands and not the typical use-a-sling-for-leverage-while-standing-on-it maneuver. The bail also has a smaller radius curve compared to the BladeRunners so will fit snugger on boots with a narrower toe profile. Techs top and BladeRunner's bottom (rearward most hole on Techs, front postion on the Blades so these pics are apples to oranges and don't illustrate well that the Tech bail is indeed narrower):

Both bails fit my Size 43 Phantom Techs well (note how much "Tech" I have in my kit - for the rest of the post "Tech" refers to the pons only). If there is play with the BladeRunners bail on the toe of your boots, the hack is to buy a pair of the Tech bails and put on the BladeRunners (according to the rep in the vid I linked to a few posts above). However, my hack is to use the BladeRunner toe bail on the Techs so they will fit ski boots. The Tech bail is a little small to fit my ski boots properly (the poor fit does not come across well in this pic). Tech bail on top, Blade bail below.
 
The Tech straps were just long enough to go through the retainer ring/strip on the BladeRunner toe bail (boots shown are 296mm BSL). Note that the Techs don’t have the ring/strip on the toe bail, a trend that seems universal for techy crampons these days.

It is interesting that the new Dart and the new Techs are similar in many ways, most noticeably the identical price and orange color (Tech on left, new Dart on right):

If I had to guess, the secondary points on the Darts are maybe a tad more aggressive (raked forward) compared to the Techs (seems like Petzl moved the secondaries forward on the Dart compared to previous models based on pics, which is a big improvement IMO), but the Techs have a much larger front piece in general with more points below the forefoot. It is also interesting that the Darts and G20+ were redesigned to be modular and now have replaceable front points, but the Techs are one solid front piece.

Compared to the BladeRunners, new Darts, and G20+; there are no parts/bolts holding the front of the Techs together, so theoretically there should be less play in the Techs (not that I noticed any with BladeRunners) and the lack of parts means that the Techs can be made lighter than otherwise.  

The biggest performance difference between the BladeRunners and Techs will be due to the size, position, and number of the front and secondary points. The BladeRunners have huge, aggressive secondary points, in addition to the large mono front point and the two other, smaller front points, which make them very stable on vertical ice (five points if configured mono, or six if configured dual, into the ice!), but walking and dry tooling is more awkward/challenging. Conversely, the secondary points on the Techs are a little smaller and further back. This translates to the Techs being better at dry tooling (based on a few pitches, the Techs felt superb on rock, as good as or better than any crampon I have dry tooled in) and walking around in, and theoretically better on snow due to the shovel-style, horizontal second front point; but this all will likely translate into being less stable on vertical ice. It did feel that I had to drop my heel more with the Techs to engage the secondary points compared to how I remember the Blades feeling (but it is super premature for me to speculate on this now), and I am not sure if I may end up moving the toe bail farther back to get the secondary points more in the action. I used the Techs with the bail in the middle position (middle pic) which is roughly equivalent to the most forward position on the BladeRunners (bottom) when comparing where the secondaries are relative to the front of the boot.

The Techs have three positions for the toe bail, two for the rear bail, and three heel throw height settings (but no micro adjustment on the heel throw); and have a micro-adjustable linking bar allows for fine-tuning the fit (which the Dart also has).

The Techs come with a heavy and over-designed crampon pouch. I didn’t weigh it but would guess it could be 10x heavier than the new Petzl ultra-lite 50g Pouch (the Pouchette!) underneath - which is a true gearhead’s dream and something anyone that has read this far should immediately run out and buy.

The Techs worked/walked fine on fall glacier ice but I assume I will still use something like the Snaggletooth or Sabretooths for any winter/spring/summer Cascade/glacier adventure just because I prefer a horizontal front point for the easy and soft stuff. However, the secondary shovel-style (horizontal) front point on the Tech (which is also on the G20+) is a nice addition and may make the Tech a better all-arounder compared to the Dart. For pure, steep waterfall ice, I assume the BladeRunners will continue to be the crampon to beat - if your wallet and feet can afford their heaviness.

Anyone in the market for a new, techy mixed and alpine crampon should look at the Techs and new Darts. My fondness for the BladeRunners and XDreams (and great dislike for the performance of the Petzl Lynx on vertical ice, ugh) have made me a Camp/Cassin fanboy. But now that Petzl has gone to all modular, interchangeable crampon system, and made the secondary points more aggressive (I assume, based on pictures); Petzl’s crampons have become much more appealing. I am interested to see which one of these two becomes the winner in this category, or will probably be Coke vs Pepsi. They are very similar in so many ways and identical in price, but the modular nature of the Darts is enticing for those that don’t want to own a quiver, or want to trick out their pons by replacing the rear with a lighter aluminum unit held on by only cord (enter the LeoDart, so cool!).

OK, enough extrapolating for now, I reserve the right to contradict everything I just wrote after I really use them. Phew.

Doug Hutchinson wrote: I bought the Techs to fill the hole between the BD Snaggletooths and the BladeRunners

Doug, what is the type of application where you see the need for a different crampon to fill the gap between these two?  I ask because I have a similar crampon fleet (Snaggletooth and G20) and I have trouble thinking of a scenario where one or the other isn't pretty much the right tool for the job.  Perhaps lack of antibott plates on the G20 being the biggest possible gap (for steep ice objectives with snowy glacier approaches, for example the Polish Route* on Colfax).

(*Which, for the record, I am not strong enough to climb.)

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Doug, what is the type of application where you see the need for a different crampon to fill the gap between these two?  I ask because I have a similar crampon fleet (Snaggletooth and G20) and I have trouble thinking of a scenario where one or the other isn't pretty much the right tool for the job.  

Good question. However, your G20s are closer to the Alpinist Techs, so you have a better two crampon quiver and can stop shopping now. 

I spent a season in the Canadian Rockies and used the Snaggletooths 90% of the time, up to WI5+ and use to think they were the one crampon to rule them all (and probably spewed that sentiment here several times). Then, I switched to the Phantom Techs from a pair of Kayland M11s boots and the Snaggletooths just didn't climb as well on the new boots. Later, I started to notice that I did not like the Snaggles in hard or brittle ice. Since you mention Baker/Colfax - I first didn't like the Snaggles on the North Ridge of Baker, a route that I assumed they would have been made for, since the ice step crux was rock hard, 200-year-old glacier ice and I was kicking really hard to get penetration. Last Fall, I climbed the Cosley-Houston under cold, hard, juvenile ice conditions and again I felt I had to try too hard to get the Snaggle's horizontal front point to penetrate, and still never felt that stable on the new ice. But, I don't want to carry the BladeRunners way the hell up there. So basically I wanted a crampon for harder ice routes with a long approach (like Colfax) so enter the Alpinist Techs. And, while we are on the subject, I think the Polish Route is the best/king ice line in the PNW.

Thanks Doug.  That all makes sense, I fully agree about the difficulty in getting good penetration with horizontals (even the mono on the Snaggletooth), which is especially an issue on hard and highly compressed glacier ice.  I too climbed the Cosley-Houson last year in Snaggles, they were not ideal on the short ice crux but on the flip side seemed like a really good compromise for the overall route and approach/descent.  Compromises...

If the G20s had an antibott available, they'd probably be a better contender for this type of use.  They were previously one of the best monos on the market, but with the updated Dart (antibott available) and Alpinist Tech (antibott available) coming onto the market, I'm not convinced they'd be my first choice if I were in the market again...

Kyle Tarry wrote: If the G20s had an antibott available, they'd probably be a better contender for this type of use.  They were previously one of the best monos on the market, but with the updated Dart (antibott available) and Alpinist Tech (antibott available) coming onto the market, I'm not convinced they'd be my first choice if I were in the market again...

Totally agree! My G20s are getting pretty beat, I think the new Darts will be my choice for a replacement.

Stooooked to climb some ice with you again this year!

Doug - thank you for such detailed write up!!!!

Does the flat frontpoint aid in stability? I'm just trying to figure out why Cassin didn't use a more traditional sharp and serrated frontpoint?