A tall, supportive & soft flexing boot?

[Rodbelan]

Since my last post, I am asking myself which boot would fit the bill... I mean the Rod... In the 75mm realm. Would that be a T2 Eco or a Black Diamond Push? I've heard that Crispi has nice soft flexing boots too... CXP I think;not sure. What's your thoughts, experiments...? Thanks.

[Crowbar]

FWIW: The old Garmont Syner-g is a pretty soft boot. I like to use them with Intuition pro tour liners and a power strap. The boot cuff is pretty low (3 buckles), but the liner is a bit taller than the boot and provides a little more support, especially when used with a power strap.

[lowangle al]

I love my T-2 ecos, soft enough for kick and glide tours and can handle my biggest skis on a powder day. I wouldn't consider them as being tall though.

[James]

The only boots I would consider tall and suportive are the T-Race and Crispi Evo and they are not remotely flexible. So I guess it might depend on your definition of tall and supportive. I think the Scarpa boots fit a bit taller and more snug at the top of the cuff then the Garmont boots. So do the Evos but I don't know about any of the Crispi 75 mm boots.

I would also say that I don't think anyone on this planet has a foot that would fit both a T-2 ECO and a Black Diamond boot.

[Dostie]

Consider BD's Seeker. Tall, and the softest flexing tele boot in their line up. Softer than T1 in the bellows, more like T2, but with a T1esque cuff.

[Valdez Telehead]

Or the Garmont Kenai … works around here, light, tours great. I really like the soft flex for telemarking and its stiff enough for stems and p-turns. Minimalist straps with special features for smoother transitions. If I had to replace these 4th season boots, it would probably be with the same. A good skier can drive these boots fine. Not sure a "taller" boot cuff would improve touring comfort. I tried the Push a few years ago and it was too stiff. The Seeker looks sweet.

[godwin916]

I will preface with I have big feet and am pretty light weight (150 lbs). I was skiing the Scarpa T2X and switched last year to BD Push. I found the BD push to have a taller and more supportive feel than my T2X and I believe the result of the added support gave me more leverage to flex the boot better. This has given me the feeling that the BD Push feels softer than the T2X. I really like the BD Push for the nice smooth flex and feel of a stiff boot in all the other places. FWIW, cheers.

[Quadzilla]

Ive had a bunch of teleboots always looking for the holy grail. Anyway, The BD Push is a little softer than the T1 in the bellows. For me it was a resort only boot due to the fact that they are way heavy. Still it needs a stout binding like a HH ect ect. Sold those. The CXP is a good boot with overall softness, It is in the same class as the older three buckle T2, It would work with a lesser telebinding. Sold those too when I got T2 Ecos. T2 Ecos is a great 75mm boot IMO, has almost the power of a three buckle T1 with reduced weight and better range in the tour mode. IMO, needs a moderately active binding like a 01 or X2. Right now and in the future I will keep the T2 Ecos, power, light weight and good BC teleboot for Vector BC's/X2.

[riser3]

Since my last post, I am asking myself which boot would fit the bill... I mean the Rod... In the 75mm realm. Would that be a T2 Eco or a Black Diamond Push? I've heard that Crispi has nice soft flexing boots too... CXP I think;not sure. What's your thoughts, experiments...? Thanks.

How about the one in the given class that fits? Seriously.

[Dostie]

How about the one in the given class that fits? Seriously.

Indeed. Describe your foot. How's the width? B-C-D-E-EE? What about your instep. No, not your arch, the top of your foot above the arch. That determines the roof of a shell that best fits your foot.

Think of it as approximating the description of a 3D shape (your foot) with a simple rectangular box (LxWxH). Length gives you the shell size. LxW determines the Area your foot takes up. Height (the instep) determines the Volume (LxWxH) of the boot needed. To put it in boot fitting parlance, a C or D width usually translates to a 100mm last width. E or higher means 102mm or more. Instep height is the one very critical component that is NOT well documented, but good boot fitters know whether a Crispi, or Scarpa, BD, or Scott (Garmont) is the best fit for a given foot. IME, Scarpa's work well with average to low volume (low instep) feet (but wide). Crispi works okay with average to high volume feet (still wide), and the same seems true with BD. Scott (Garmont) used to be good with wide (E+) feet, but that changed with the Radium and Voodoo shells to be good for narrow to average (B-C-D) width feet, but high volume (high instep) feet. YMMV and having a good boot fitter can make a world of difference.

[riser3]

I wish someone would make a ski boot with a 110mm last (including the toe-box dammit), high volume, high instep, high arch and a D width heel cup. Adjustable forward lean starting at 10 degrees would be nice, not an ankle busting 14 or 16. A good boot fitter can only do so much. I have very abnormal feet.

[airinwrite]

I wish someone would make a ski boot with a 110mm last (including the toe-box dammit), high volume, high instep, high arch and a D width heel cup. Adjustable forward lean starting at 10 degrees would be nice, not an ankle busting 14 or 16. A good boot fitter can only do so much. I have very abnormal feet.

Maybe you should try on some Scarpa NTN boots, they sound like what you describe and are the most comfortable ski boots I ever owned.

[BillyFromTheHills]

Nice Boots' !!!

[Dostie]

I wish someone would make a ski boot with a 110mm last (including the toe-box dammit), high volume, high instep, high arch and a D width heel cup.

D-width heel cup? Crispi has the least amount of sculpting to hold your heel down and should accommodate wide heels. High arch usually means a custom footbed. High instep=high Volume >> Scott or Crispi. Nobody makes a 110mm width tele boot. Depending on where your metatarsals line up with the bellows you might be able to punch a little extra width. Not likely, but maybe. You sound like one of the few people who should probably be in an oversized boot to allow for extra width and height. The benefit? Lots of toe wiggle room. However, my guess is you haven't found a good boot fitter to help you find the right boot.

[riser3]

D-width heel cup? Crispi has the least amount of sculpting to hold your heel down and should accommodate wide heels. High arch usually means a custom footbed. High instep=high Volume >> Scott or Crispi. Nobody makes a 110mm width tele boot. Depending on where your metatarsals line up with the bellows you might be able to punch a little extra width. Not likely, but maybe. You sound like one of the few people who should probably be in an oversized boot to allow for extra width and height. The benefit? Lots of toe wiggle room. However, my guess is you haven't found a good boot fitter to help you find the right boot.

Narrow heel, requiring a lot of sculpting to hold it in place especially when considering a 6E ball of foot and toe box. That nobody makes a 110mm boot was sorta my point. I'm in a 29 Garmont Excursion which I find to be too long and not wide enough. And due to the "loaf" shaped foot they expect, it hurts my foot when I buckle it tight enough to hold my heel in place. I have thick meaty feet but they are not loaf shaped. However, none of this really helps my neighbor to the North, Rod, who started this post.