Mounatineering Boots and Tech Fittings

DannyUncanny wrote: Oh I thought you meant attaching a tech hardpoints to the overboots, and then connecting your self to the skis through that. You still haven't explain how you get tech bindings on your mountaineering boots in the first place, which is what this whole thread is about.

Taylor-B. wrote:I'm not exactly the brightest crayon in the in box.

just saw this old thread.  I have been wanting inserts in my mountaineering boots for years.  I ski backcountry in my old la sportiva k3 boots and love it.  I have been using old silveretta cable bindings and though they work well they are a bit of a pain in the ass.  I love skiing in leather boots as I can just let my ankles do all of the subtle adjustments.  And I dont have to lean back in my boots in powder to keep my tips from diving.  Its always balanced (if your in balance) if that makes sense.  Plus the feel on the snow cant be beat.  I would love it if la sportiva came out with a boot like that.  Hey if you want a tester for the concept I would be happy to help.  Wonder if this 3 year old thread will get another look.

Long time shop employee, tech binding user and mountain boot user: The first issue is the lack of a truly rigid sole in a mountain boot. Scarpa took the tech fitting from the heel of the NTN telemark boots due to the inconsistent release that a flexible sole creates. The length of the boot sole varies as the boot flexes, thus the release is often premature. I have seen lawsuits and threats of lawsuits over boot and binding interfaces. Another concern is that folks already come in with a super light boot/binding/ski combo that they have busted pushing it beyond its intended usage. The inevitable would be someone pushing a mountaineering boot in a ski setting. I would encourage folks to check out the Arc'teryx procline ski boot. I climbed WI4 in it this winter and didn't notice a significant difference from my Batura's. 

I have to admit, I'm still surprised that none of the specialized climbing companies haven't tried updating the silveretta binding. Lighter weight or more of a crampon-like interface. Not meant to be a rando binding, specifically for glacier skiing with mountaineering boots. I would think there would be a market for that, especially around spring Alaska season, or Baffin Island?

I bought the Arcteryx Proclines.  Does exactly what I think most everyone here is trying to do, plus it skis downhill.

For all around winter mountain recreationists it's worth the money.  Maybe it's a bit much if you will only skin up glaciers or only skin up to ice climbs, but for real they are some impressive boots.

wish they had a wider last though

Shawn Eno at Extreme Footwerks in Idaho Springs, CO has the tools and glue to get the job done.... all you have to do is spend the money to make it happen:) 

Wish the Procline had fit my foot. The arch/instep of the Procline is really flat. I went with the Atomic Backland Carbon instead, which fit better and has a number of design similarities to the Procline (same parent company, apparently).

Ben Stabley wrote:

Wish the Procline had fit my foot. The arch/instep of the Procline is really flat. I went with the Atomic Backland Carbon instead, which fit better and has a number of design similarities to the Procline (same parent company, apparently).

Same problem, same solution. First gen backland carbons without boa. Replaced tongue with split tongue (like tlt7) from skimo.co. Works great as a moderate ski alpinism boot. It’s my main backcountry skiing boot and I’ve also lead WI4+/M4+ in them and followed WI6/M6. I’d happily push. Them into WI5/M5 leads just haven’t had the opportunity. The key is the low cuff which is also the reason they’re not the best ski boot in their weight class, but neither is the procline. The low cuff offers a better rom though, including laterally.

Sorry for the necrobump but the issue remains relevant and the solutions are still viable. The new boa based carbon is likely just as good in these applications and the old carbon design still exists in a non carbon cuff version. 

I have the Procline.  Great climbing and surprisingly not awful at skiing.  

What's really strange is that it fits my foot (which is kind of wide and high volume.)  The stock liner was not a good fit, but with a soft, light Palau  race liner they're great.  

The Fischer Traverse Carbon is also a pretty decent climbing boot (but not as good as the Procline.)  

Mark R wrote: Interesting comment in the coldthistle link comments "I sawed off the sole of some old ski boots and drilled holes for crampon wire bails to it. This way, I have a dynafit compatable system, but I didn't have to alter my climbing boots, as they clip into the "bindings" just like a crampon."

I tried something similar, but the soles of the boots had zero torsional stiffness once the toe box was removed (I could twist/fold it in my hand with very little pressure). I'd be surprised if it would be able to hold a boot with toe/heel bails.

I think an easier idea would be modifying (i.e. removing all the teeth and attaching tech fittings) to an old pair of rigid crampons. The toe fitting would probably be doable with minimal heroics, but the heel fitting would take some creativity. I salvaged the toe/heel fittings from the boots I mentioned above, but I really like the idea of using ski boot toe/heel blocks, since you can probably just mount those to whatever you're mounting to the boots (old crampons, a piece of C-channel, or whatever).