new scarpa boot guess

[iBjorn]

To sum up rumors, details from interviews with Scarpa representatives and filed patents - the Scarpa boot will be:
-A Maestrele class boot at approx 1500g
-It will have non-standard tech heel inserts for a new version of the Meidjo AT heel
-It will have adjustable flex at the toe bellow through insert plates

[jtb]

I hope those of us who already have the current Meidjo heel can swap heel inserts. I like the idea of adjustable bellows stiffness. As cesare pointed out above, TTS would benefit from a stiffer bellows than NTN bindings that support the ball of the boot even after lifting it off of the ski.

[xmatt]

I was hoping for less than 1500g but I really like the thought of adjustable bellows stiffness, the more I think about it. Imagine going with really soft bellows on a rolling approach, and then swapping in stiffer bellows before a technical descent. Or at least just swapping bellow stiffness when going from sidecountry skiing to touring. Plus, while I have some opinions about what I like in bellows stiffness (I think I generally like soft bellows), it would be great to do a direct comparison and really see what works best.

[jeff_er_why]

I like the new tele alpine norm (NTAN) proposed by bobby, all that would need is a colab between Scarpa and Pierre @ Meidjo. It would be great to convert my current Meidjo Alpine heel but I doubt it would be that easy and I understand (as a mountain biker) that new standards drive up sales, increase innovation and open the floodgates to tinkerer frustration and internet rants.

I like the idea of a non-tech heel and I've even considered it with AT heels like the Marker Kingpin or Fritschi Tecton. The thing is it needs rollers for easy lateral release and springs for vertical plus a "walk/tele mode" that slides the heel forward and back, not the toe like with the Shift. The 2 pin system makes this lighter and simpler so I imagine that's the way to go.

I'd want a Fritschi Xenics heel with no lateral springs and a shift plate to slide it forward and back. The fore and aft fex helps with preventing prerelease (into tele mode) when the ski flexes.

As for my guess/wish on the Scarpa boot, I see them going the Maestrale w/ no Alpine heel route and hoping for something w/ adjustable flex or that is stiffer.

[tele.skier]

My point about matching the cuff stiffness with the stiffness of the scaffo has to do with getting the whole boot to have a single, matching flex characteristic between it's 2 parts. Having consistent flex qualities gives the boot better sensitivity and more predictable feedback. The prophet was a good example of an out of balance boot. I tried to like it but it had a stiff cuff and a very soft bellows. It felt like an alpine boot that someone cut the toe off and reattached with a hinge. It was just harder to use the boot's resistance to flexing to stay well balanced because the soft bellows allowed the boot to hinge so readily in rough terrain.

I've also felt the exactly opposite mismatched flex characteristics, where a low boot cuff that didn't have a long lever length was combined with a very stiff lower scaffo. The lower stiffness didn't translate into a boot with greater leverage because the smaller cuff didn't have enough lever length to collapse the bellows easily, without loading up a large amount of pressure on a short amount of cuff (and the skier's shin) The boot felt like a high top sneaker in a block of cement. (That boot was the crispi shiver/rando)

To Chez's point, I know the original premise of NTN was that the binding activity level would combine with the boot bellows stiffness to give an adjustable feel to the system. The Prophet was certainly the boot to either prove or disprove that "theory". After the prophet hit the market and people bought them, ebay was flooded with them as everyone who paid retail for them tried to sell them to recoup some of their money. I bought my used Prophets from a member here, then I sold them to another member here for cheap, and he later told me that he hated them and sold them to someone else... My conclusion is that the NTN premise of the binding's spring tension compensating for the softness of the lower scaffo is just that, it really doesn't work all that well to rely on the binding to stiffen the boot. It's better to get the lower boot stiffness in a usable range of resistance, rather than make it soft and hope the binding tension compensates for that softness. If you have all the leverage/stiffness qualities of your boot along with the tension of the binding in the same range of resistance, it enhances the sensitivity of the system in that range. If components are mismatched, the system loses sensitivity.

If you wanted to clean your ears with a Q-tip, you wouldn't grip the Q-tip with the arm of a backhoe for many reasons, but primarily the backhoe has so much leverage that it couldn't have the sensitivity in the range necessary to work gently where it wouldn't easily drive the Q-tip into your brain. I know that's not a great analogy, but I'm trying to make my point clear about why having everything in the same range of leverage enhances the sensitivity of the levered object which makes it work better because it's sensitivity is tuned to the best working range.

My hope for the new touring boot is that Scarpa won't try to make it too stiff to please resort skiers, nor too soft of a bellows like the prophet. I always thought the Tx was just about perfect in terms of flex. It was a little bit soft where you could feel the whole boot shape distort if you drove it powerfully, so it was not a boot that would last many seasons if it was used to ride the lifts regularly. As a touring boot, it was just about the right stiffness to ski backcountry snow without being "weak".

Then Scarpa needs to make it lighter with some ground breaking cuff articulation in walk mode! Yeah, I'm dreaming....

[bauerb]

hmmm. I have an old pair of TX Comps NTN, and an old pair of Crispi 4 buckle 75mm...I have a Dremel. maybe at some point these boots end up on my workbench for some surgery...

[chamonix]

tele.skier
I actually liked my Prophets.
But two problems; the liners packed out too quickly, and then (with no instep buckle) my foot would slide forward and got horrible toe bang skiing steep terrain in Fernie.

[Paul Lutes]

A three-boot line up (F1, Maestrale, Freedom) would be genius, but if they have to go with two, I'd scrap the Freedom (Tx Comp). The slalom racers could start Frankensteining their own boots.

Oh no you didn't ........
I'll carve all your hearts out if the comp goes away. I don't race/bang gates but I live for the hard carve.

[cesare]

Another part of the reason people hated the Prophet was its exceedingly narrow and low volume forefoot. Why Garmont invested in such a poor fitting last when they were previously known as the best fitting boot for the widest range of feet is beyond comprehension. Scarpa went the other way and their narrow last was nowhere near as extreme. Now Scarpa is the best fitting boot with by far the biggest distribution channel and Garmont/Scott is on the ropes. Fewer good fitting choices is bad for the sport, but I doubt Scott is going to do anything about it.

[dschane]

Soft boots, stiff binding works for me.

Amen.

I'll carve all your hearts out if the comp goes away. I don't race/bang gates but I live for the hard carve.

Seems unlikely, but if it does, it won't be because of the preaching here. I'd guess it would be because having a tech option is becoming integral to future telemark gear improvement.

[tele.skier]

tele.skier
I actually liked my Prophets.
But two problems; the liners packed out too quickly, and then (with no instep buckle) my foot would slide forward and got horrible toe bang skiing steep terrain in Fernie.

You always chime in with how much you love your prophets,... this time you left out that they made your toenail fall off as I recall from past comments you made.

Every time I explain WHY those boots are "not a good design", You respond with "how much you like them". I make an argument about "design and function"... and you tell me "how you feel".


I made these same arguments on Ttips forum, and you made the same non-arguments in response. Along the same vein of the prophet's flawed design arguments, I made arguments why the Txpro bellows was a little bit soft for the leverage power of the cuff. Originally most people reacted in the forum just like you continue to do now, that "they liked their Txpro's". Slowly over time, more people skied the Txcomp with it's stiffer bellows and felt it was more well matched to the scarpa 4 buckle design which both boots share, Now, it's common to hear Txpro skiers say that the bellows of their Txpro is a bit too soft... If you ski enough different gear, you get a better understanding of the subtle qualities of the different boots out there. That's one of the reasons I differ to Dostie for confirmation of many of my opinions and theories. He's skied a wide variety of gear over decades of production. I admit that he and I are friends and he shares many of my opinions about gear designs,... and technique too. He's one of the most knowledgeable people in telemark to ask a gear design question. I put him on the spot to ask him to chime in regarding my opinions because he's a ski industry media guy and he's supposed to be reporting on the gear, and not always giving his personal criticism... I don't have that limitation.

We've both been on forums for a long time. I respect your contributions over the years, but I would ask that you make a good argument as to why the principle of "having a consistent flex characteristic across the whole boot" is wrong, rather than not address my criticism and say, "But I like it".

Hope you are all doing well.

[xmatt]

tele.skier, I never skied Prophets, but I do think I like a softer bellows. Of course, I have not had the opportunity to try the same boot with varying bellows stiffness and everything else the same, though maybe that will be possible with the new Scarpa boot. But let me try to explain why I think it makes sense to like soft bellows and a stiff cuff, especially using the kind of technique you espouse. Stand in a tele boot. Now, start flexing the boot forward. You can vary your weight between "forward" and "down", and it is possible to find a position where your weight is mostly "down" so that the bellows are only slightly flexed but you have your full weight driving through the front of the cuff into the ankle. That's what I am emphasizing: into the ankle. Done right, one can just rest in this position against the front of the cuff, and it takes very little muscle effort. With stiff bellows, this is still possible, of course, but with soft bellows this positioning allows you to get as much weight on the rear ski as desired, while still being able to moderate the tip pressure as desired too for variable snow.

Also, of course, a stiff cuff has the advantage of improving side-to-side (i.e., edge) control. You could build a boot with a stiff upper but a very flexible ankle. That I think would not work well, it would be hard to balance. So, I am saying that I think the cuff and ankle flex should be balanced, but bellows can be soft.

But this is just my feeling, and I think it's just theory until I can keep all variables the same except bellows stiffness. And perhaps I would find the Prophets too unbalanced, but I feel like the TXP is balanced.

[tele.skier]

tele.skier, I never skied Prophets, but I do think I like a softer bellows. Of course, I have not had the opportunity to try the same boot with varying bellows stiffness and everything else the same, though maybe that will be possible with the new Scarpa boot. But let me try to explain why I think it makes sense to like soft bellows and a stiff cuff, especially using the kind of technique you espouse. Stand in a tele boot. Now, start flexing the boot forward. You can vary your weight between "forward" and "down", and it is possible to find a position where your weight is mostly "down" so that the bellows are only slightly flexed but you have your full weight driving through the front of the cuff into the ankle. That's what I am emphasizing: into the ankle. Done right, one can just rest in this position against the front of the cuff, and it takes very little muscle effort. With stiff bellows, this is still possible, of course, but with soft bellows this positioning allows you to get as much weight on the rear ski as desired, while still being able to moderate the tip pressure as desired too for variable snow.

Also, of course, a stiff cuff has the advantage of improving side-to-side (i.e., edge) control. You could build a boot with a stiff upper but a very flexible ankle. That I think would not work well, it would be hard to balance. So, I am saying that I think the cuff and ankle flex should be balanced, but bellows can be soft.

But this is just my feeling, and I think it's just theory until I can keep all variables the same except bellows stiffness. And perhaps I would find the Prophets too unbalanced, but I feel like the TXP is balanced.

Right,... YOUR force is flexing the ski by pushing DOWN.... But although your inertia may be caused by a downward force of gravity, you are still moving FORWARD across the snow. Because of that, as you encounter terrain it exerts a resistance force (due to friction) on you, which resists your forward momentum. Were it not for the slippery nature of snow, that momentum/resistance force battle would induce the forward rolling of YOU... That force is applied to your skis when you are moving and your resistance to that rotation inducing force is how you keep your balance in telemark and it takes a few different forms.

#1 is separating your feet front to back so your center mass is behind the point about which you would rotate (at the binding) where you are better able to resist that rotational force.

#2 is having some binding activity to resist the tendency of your boot to rise as you fall forward. This heel retention force helps you balance your mass center and give you a usable felt range of resistance while raising the level of force input from friction on you to a point where friction with the snow usually gives way before you can't resist rotation due to friction. (The classic example of warmed up snow being unskiable because it grabs your ski like flypaper is a good example of the rotational force becoming extremely powerful due to that rare occurance when snow is not weakest link in the chain of forces)

#3 is to have some boot leverage to use along with some binding activity to induce the ski to overcome friction with the snow rather than induce rotation into you.


The quality of the boot leverage I'm talking about isn't about having the MOST leverage for the sake of having the most powerful connection to the ski.... I'm talking about having a Cuff and bellows flex that MATCH in their range of stiffness... SO, the boot has a more consistent feel in it's sensitivity...

AND SO,... If you want a stiff cuff boot with a stiff flexing lower bellows, and add a powerfully active binding to that, It's going to feel like standing with blocks of cement on your feet if you are a beginner on the bunny hill,... But if you are some heaviweight Bada$$ skiing the double black diamonds and you drive your skis powerfully, the high energy range of your effort can match the sensitivity range of all that powerfully stiff gear, so that stiff gear can have sensitivity in that much higher range of driven force. It follows that conversely if you are that beginner on the bunny slope with that high performance gear's quality, it has a sensitivity beyond a beginner's ability to feel because the range of force he uses is no where near the range that the boot and binding need to bend them. So there's a correlation between the force of input and the stiffness also.

AND SO ALSO,... Any boot in any range of stiffness, benefits from having it's components have a consistent flex quality to it's construction because a single terrain irregularity that causes a momentary shift in position means that the skier with the Stiff cuff/soft bellows boot has to find that "sweet spot" again where he's balanced over the most easily flexed pivot point of his boot and pressuring his cuff. Where as, the more consistent flexing boot may have both cuff and bellows under the same amount of pressure, so it has a better sensitivity to the boot's flex as long as the boot is designed to work in that range of force.

A perfect example is; I have the original orange evo boots of death and I have Scarpa tx's. There's a huge difference in their stiffness and I can drive the Evo's like a mad man and the boots are solid and give good feedback when I am skiing aggressively. If I try to do the same thing with the Tx's, they just twist and distort because they aren't stiff enough to work as a lever with that greater force... So the stiffness characterizes the leverage range that every boot works well in.

It's simply my belief that the best boot design is NOT a like a pair of Txpro design, where you get a stiff cuff for power and a softer bellows for touring. My belief is that you can't mix the qualities of a powerful boot with the qualities of a touring boot and get a powerful resort boot and a great touring boot. I think telemark touring boots and telemark resort boots are best handled as 2 pairs of boots. One optimized for touring with a softer feel to it, and one optimized for power delivery that is stiff and has great leverage. The different working ranges of force they both deliver doesn't seem possible in a single boot without there being a compromise in that boot's ability to have good sensitivity in that wide of a range... and probably a few other incompatible features.

This idea about the flex quality of the lower boot defining it's usage, has led to the discussion of some way of having an adjustable bellows flex quality in lower boot design, which has not happened yet and may never happen, but it acknowledges the idea that there is a certain quality that a boot's bellows flex imparts to the boot which dictates it's range of sensitivity...

AND that's why I am so critical of the prophet design. It supposes that the binding's spring tension can change the characteristic of the lower boot flex, and I have found that not to be true. *There were other things that were not good about those boots, but the very soft bellows and the theory of the binding helping the bellows stiffness fit into a different range of force was something I just thought was wrong and did not work in practice on the prophets. I thought matching the bellows stiffness to the cuff leverage gave all boots a better sensitivity, albeit only in the range of stiffness that each boot is made for. I didn't see a way to make a good single tele boot that would be better than 2 specialized boots for touring and resort use...

The way I see it,... Scarpa unintentionally screwed us by giving us 3 boots to chose from, instead of 2. Because so many people chose the middle boot feeling that was the safest choice to do a little of everything that Scarpa didn't pursue the better path of an optimized touring boot for tele and a dedicated resort boot. That's all ancient history that I've complained about since Scarpa announced that the Tx was being eliminated... and the saga goes on...


** the short version is that I think that a boot with a consistent flex gives better sensitivity which makes it easier to feel and adjust to the changing pressure that the ski feeds back to the skier. (kind of like having a better performing suspension for a vehicle)

[chamonix]

tele.skier
I said I liked the Prophets. Not skiing on them now; just my TX Comps with Outlaws. Well my Wailer PURE3 still have Freedoms, I bring them out for the big snow days.

For touring, I've gone all Dark side. AT

[xmatt]

Any updated rumors for the Outdoor Retailer show in January? The suspense is getting to me....