G20 front point length / toe bail position
|
|
|
1 vote for middle. I can't remember if that horizontal point is supposed to help with snow or with mixed climbing stability, but I like to have that thing sticking out a bit. |
|
Middle hole. |
|
|
|
The dreaded answer.. “it depends” For mainly fat ice - more point, no worry about leverage since you can drive it home into the ice for security. For thin ice and drytooling - less point, less point sticking out will have less leverage on your boot. You can stand more comfortably with shallow placements, toeing in while dry tooling steeps is also easier |
|
Just for more voting opportunities. Back hole for sure on pure ice. Maximum depth is the advantage of the G20’s. |
|
More importantly is the position of the secondary points. Better stability and foot/body position if they secondary points align with the front of the boot +/-. |
|
How strong are your calfs? I go back hole on my G22s for water ice climbing. |
|
Chris Mwrote: You probably need to use 21cm screws just to reach the ice with those tuning forks sticking out that much, lol. |
|
Put it in whatever hole feels best for you. |
|
Ive cycle through all 3 but most of the time i just stick to the middle hole. |
|
Sam Klingerwrote: We're still talking about crampons... right?? |
|
This is an interesting thread. I mostly focus on the length of the secondaries with regard to the toe bail position. I think most of the time that results in the toe bail set back in the third set of holes. Maybe I should try moving them forward? I know that with my Darts I seem to get less calf fatigue than with my G20's but I have also had my feet pop more often with the Darts in ice. |
|
NateCwrote: Personally, I’m not intending for secondaries to do any more than kiss the ice for some stability perhaps. Definitely don’t want them out there for penetration. Like AlpineJason said above, Just about even with toe is fine. Your heel should be slightly dropped to engage secondaries. I try to “place” my frontpoint more than kick it, and stay relaxed with heel low to avoid calf pump on longer climbs so I really prefer less rather than more sticking out front. (Actually I’m just try to sound cool, and the real reason is that I’m a klutz and shred the shit out of my pants legs the more shit sticks out. ;) |
|
Mark Pilatewrote: I've always set mine up with the idea that if the secondaries are behind the toe of my boot, they often will not be able to engage for stability and lead to more calf fatigue. I've always set my bails such that I can ensure the secondaries are ahead of the toe. I think Will Gadd has put some info out there around this idea as well. I can't recall where I remember hearing him say it as well. |
|
Thanks NateC. I found an article in Will Gadd's blog from 2015 that describes secondary point placement: "...The secondary points should protrude just slightly past the front of the boot if the bail is adjusted properly, and fully engage the ice when solidly placed with the sole of the boot level. Some people think this “forward” placement will lead to calf fatigue, but it’s not how long the points are but how solidly the secondary points get into the ice that controls calf load. If you’re just standing on sketchy front points then you can’t “relax” at all onto your forefoot where the secondary points take the load… It’s not about just the front points, half the stability comes from the secondary points!" https://willgadd.com/a-simple-fix-frontpoints-and-tibialis-anterior/ |
|
Middle or rear hole, that front hole position on the OP's boots would make ice climbing fatiguing (w/o the secondaries in play). This a perfect place to do an A/B comparison ice bouldering with each pon configured differently. It often amazes me how much different pons and set-ups climb differently. |
|
After two days, the verdict is Middle hole |
|
Not so fast… I think it falls more firmly under “it depends”…and more often than not, that means front hole. Let’s analyze the reality of the situation: To justify going back from the front hole, it means you need to fully penetrate into the ice up to your boot toe almost every kick and thus also kick in 3.5 points vs 1 into the ice. The angle and distances for front/secondary geometry is the same for all hole choices, so…given that the secondaries are only even engaging at all only for lower angle, fat ice (that allows deeper penetration and your heel not to not drop at too steep an angle to engage secondaries) it would be suboptimal to use anything but front hole for thinner, steep, or mixed ice since it adds approx 6 to 12 extra pounds on your feet/calves for each hole back respectively. So, to maximize energy/muscle conservation, the fatter, easier the ice, the further back. The steeper, thinner, or mixed the ice, move your foot further forward. |
|
For ice climbing, the Will Gadd article is the most accurate. Anyone arguing with that information should be doubted strongly. I doubt anyone one here has as much mileage as he does. And that’s going to generally mean the furthest back hole for toe bail position IME. For general mountaineering, the protruding points may get in the way for some, so I could see setting the bail more forward in this setting. |
|
Mark Pilatewrote: I completely agree with your logic, but my feet definitely felt better on steep ice in the middle hole, even with a few stemming moves with just my front point on rock. |