Mountain Project Logo

G2 SM vs. Spantik

Original Post
Bogdan P · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 353

Does anybody know if the La Sportiva G2 SM is warmer than the Spantik? La Sportiva claims it is, but I find this incredibly hard to believe. The G2 SM has maybe half the insulating material of the Spantik, and the sole on the G2 is thinner, so I'm calling shenanigans. Does anybody know to the contrary from personal experiencing or from observing these in the field?

Sorry if this topic is redundant, but I've searched the forums, and everything else I've seen so far involves replies from people without any experience with the G2 quoting La Sportiva marking material, or people who got the G2 and say it was good enough for what they did (without any indication of whether or not the Spantik would have been equally good).

I'm looking to buy a double boot. My intended use case are technical alpine routes in Alaska, the Andes and (in the winter) the Alps, and ice routes in the Canadian Rockies. My current boots are the Phantom Techs, and they're not warm enough for some days in Hyalite or the Canadian Rockies. I don't know how they would hold up in the alpine arenas mentioned, since I don't have any experience there yet, but I imagine it may be colder.

AlpineIce · · Upstate, NY · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 255

I wore my G2 SMs last season a few times.  I also own Phantom Techs & wear them ninety-percent of the time.  When I did wear my G2 SMs, it was below 10ºF or so and I was in Baxter State Park in Maine attempting the Cilley-Barber route up Mt. Katahdin.  We were there for five days or so.  I think I wore them once or twice on single digit temps while cragging in the Adirondacks in northern New York as well.

I can't compare them to the warmth of Spantiks as I've never owned Spantiks, but I can tell you that I never had cold toes in the G2 SMs. They were plenty warm while climbing WI4, maybe a bit of WI4+ and some alpine ice while on my trip to Mt. Katahdin. We climbed at exposed elevation (for the east coast) at around 5,000 feet with sustained winds.

G2 SMs are pretty light and nimble for double boots.  I read something online recently that Spantiks are better for higher peaks where technical climbing is minimal & G2 SMs are better for routes/peaks where technician climbing is the main means of travel to the objective; think belays vs. no belays.

jdejace · · New England · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 5

If you don't get the answer here (IMO difficult question given variables unless somebody brought both boots out on the same day specifically for testing, which seems unlikely), you might try calling La Sportiva. A real human answers the phone and I found them helpful. They're actually in Boulder. Maybe you can cut through the marketing speak.

Barring that, the Spantik is proven in Alaska over years. It's the safe bet but the G2 might climb better so I see your dilemma.

drewdogg2112 · · halifax, MA · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 20

I went back and forth for a long time about getting the G2, or the Baruntse due to the warmth vs weight issue. My toes get cold quick from old frostbite incident. I ended up going for the G2 because they are so light weight. I used them all last season in New England and it was a COLD one. I love them. Never had an issue with cold toes, they are super light, climb very well, and I am just really happy with my decision. Ive never worn the spantiks, they didn't fit me well when I tried them on. Hope this helps at all. 

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "G2 SM vs. Spantik"

Log In to Reply