--0-951611698-1073335988=:29754
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Thanks for the review on the boots, Griss. Good, firsthand comparative information is something that not all of us can afford to get, so it's helpful to get it from someone who has the ability and is willing to take the time to write it down.

Just in case you're still feeling insecure about skiing on equipment that's "too good for you", here are two other things to add to your rationalization mill: 1) If you're only buying boots every 10 years, think about the cost on an annualized basis. Also, 2) realize that you will only be skiing around on "leading edge" equipment for maybe 10 or 20 percent of the time that you will be skiing on the boots.

Besides, if people are so concerned with whether or not someone has "the cred" to ski on particular equipment, they need to spend time thinking about more important things!

Get what fits, what's comfortable, and what makes you happy!

Chris C.
SLC, UT

Griss wrote:
"Ira Edwards" wrote in message
...
Also remember that the Rossignol boots are lighter than the Carbon boots,
cost over $100 less and have thermo Adjustable fit. this allows them to
break in to the shape of your foot (have a shop tech mold them for you,
they
can be remolded if you choose not to buy them...) and gives you great
warmth
through bertter circulation. due to the molding, they fit a fairly broad
rang of feet, but fit is key and definitely go withthe boots that fit YOUR
feet, not what the masses say are the best boot...

Thanks Ira. You're right on. I looked at the Rossys that a friend has,
talked to him about them, and was very interested. But there's none
available locally right now. I was actually quite interested, but not
interested enough to go the mail order route.

Warning: Long analysis and personal experience follows, for those that are
interested. I'd also like to know if anyone else is this OBSESSIVE about
fitting boots. I always go through this and really can't help myself.

I'm currently in the Salomon system in my striding gear, but was willing to
change to NNN if necessary for best fit. My main goal is to improve the
overall stability and support, and especially downhill control. I'm
replacing what was more or less, near-top of the line, IIRC, 10+ years ago
when they were just a low cut boot - no ankle collar, relatively flexible
sole. I want a "more or less" top of the line boot and can afford it. I
decided that, while cost is important, fit is more important and if it cost
me an extra $100 to get that, so be it. I ski several times a week for 5
months a year so it's easy to spend the extra money. I'm just a guy who
skis a lot, has pretty good classical technique, races enough (mid pack at
best) to motivate me, and really enjoys high performance gear. Gear lasts
me forever. My current boots are still in excellent shape and have been used
a lot. All of the following is based on actually bringing a pair of each
boot home and wearing them for a couple of hours a couple of times (morning
and evening). I was able to do this because I paid for them up front with
the understanding I could do this inside the house.

It boiled down to four boots / three brands available locally (in top end
striding boots): Solomon (both Racing 9 and Carbon), Alpina CL (NNN), and
Sportful (Model ?? - top of the line competition model - SNS profil sole).

Local retail costs we

Alpina and Sportful ~$180
Salomon 9 ~$230
Salomon Carbon ~$330.

Sportful: I looked at the top of the line racing model. It looked like an
excellent quality boot with excellent features. Has an adjustable heel
snugger. Has a fairly stiff sole, but I thought not as stiff as the
Yellow/Black Salomons, but stiffer than the Alpinas (they were in different
stores, so I'm not real sure about that). Has a substantial velcro ankle
cuff. I looked real hard at it and tried on the available pair that was
close to my size. Unfortunately, the 43 was a little too big/sloppy and
there was not a 42 available to try. I suspect it would have been too
small. I probably could have made the 43 work with different insoles,
really snugging down the heel, etc. but didn't have to. I do strongly
recommend looking at this boot if anyone is in the market for a SNS boot. I
really think it's a "sleeper".

Solomon: The yellow/black (Racing 9) and the grey (Carbon) are definitely
built on different lasts and have different characteristics. Both are
excellent boots with excellent features. Both have adjustable heel snugger.
The 9 has a fairly substantial velcro ankle wrap. The Carbon has a slip-in
lycra-looking ankle cuff. The Carbon seems to be narrower in a given size.
The 9's fit me in a 42 2/3, but felt a little sloppy in the next size up, 43
1/3 (even using heel strap). The Carbons were too small in the 42 2/3, but
felt good in the 43 1/3. The 9's that fit best gave me an uncomfortable
spot on the bottom of the ball of my left (larger) foot when flexing. The
Carbons that fit best felt much more comfortable in that area. The arch and
heel on both felt fine. The Carbon has a much more flexible sole. The 9
has the stiffest sole of any that I tried. I thought that the 9 felt like
it had the best ankle support of any I tried, but that could be an illusion
because of the way the ankle cuff is built. Of course, the Carbon is
"lighter" and costs $100 more.

In fact, I purposefully AVOIDED trying the Carbon at first because I'm not a
dedicated racer and didn't want to spend the extra $100. To be honest,
another reason I avoided the Carbon is that, although I ski a lot and am a
pretty good with my classical technique, I'm not a super strong skier and
really would feel sheepish about traipsing around on leading edge boots, and
being passed by many, many people on less expensive and much older gear.

Alpina: This is also an excellent boot. The sole is very flexible. The
arch seemed a little higher. The toe area of the boot seems a bit more
roomy and the arch seemed a little higher than the Salomon. I have a fairly
flat foot, so this isn't necessarily good. This boot, in walking around in
it, seemed lighter and more "slipper-like" than the Sportful and Salomon 9.
The quality is top notch, although I didn't like the ankle cuff design as
well as the Salomon and Sportful (Alpina: zipper - something to fail
eventually; others: velcro - which won't fail and would be easy to replace
if it did). It also didn't have an adjustable heel snugger, but that didn't
seem to be a problem. The 43 fit me well, the 42 was too small.

At this point, I hadn't tried the Carbon on and it came down to the Salomon
9 and the Alpina. Both fit OK, but the Alpina seemed more comfortable over
all, after obsessing over it for a few days. The Alpina's arch was a little
high, but the Salomon felt uncomfortable on the ball of the left foot when
flexing. Probably both problems weren't insurmountable, but the ball of the
foot thing bugged me much more and had the potential of actually hurting. I
came THIS CLOSE to buying the Alpina and changing my two pair of striding
skis over to NNN.

Then two things happened.

1. I went out for a long ski on my old gear with a good friend, and far
better skier. He reminded me that for the amount I ski, I was foolish to
avoid trying the Carbon simply because it costs more. He agreed that the
weight and other possible performance features were probably nothing to pay
for (for me), since all options would be a satisfactory improvement. But,
he (and others on this newsgroup) reminded me that the Carbon did in fact
have significant structural differences than the 9 - mostly in the last and
the sole flex, and therefore it is not simply a racier version of the 9. He
also reminded me of many FAR less important things I've spent $100+ on.
And, AS WE ALL KNOW (but need to continually remind ourselves), the BOOT IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BY FAR.

2. Although the lower cost of the Alpina was NOT an important
consideration, I also realized (DUH!) that the $150 I'd "save" by going with
the Alpina over the Carbon, would be eaten up by replacing two pair of SNS
bindings with two pair of NNN, local prices. It would actually cost me $20+
more to go with the cheaper boot. I repeat, the cost was not the factor in
the Alpina, it was the most comfortable to that point. But remember, cost
WAS a factor in avoiding the Carbon to that point.

So I tried on the Carbon, as above, and felt it gave me a little better fit
than the Alpina. The arch felt a little better. The sole felt much more
flexible than the Salomon 9 (more like the Alpina) and didn't give me the
uncomfortable spot. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Alpina would be
warmer, but that's not a consideration to me, even though I live in a very
cold climate. I bought them, and saved some money to boot in a round about
way!

I know I'll be a little sheepish about skiing around on these "leading edge
racing boots". Believe me, I'm REALLY NOT thinking I'm buying free speed. B
ut they are very comfortable and I know without a doubt I'll get my use and
enjoyment out of them once I get over this "stigma". I won't look
ridiculous on these things, technique-wise, just an old slow guy.

I skied an easy 15 km tour on the new boots the other day and they passed
the test. I would say they are much better in all respects over my old "low
cuts", but are HUGELY (!!!) better in down hill control when cornering.
Like I said, I'm not a really strong skier, but am relatively good at
downhill, and love going fast and in control down hill and around corners.
I don't know if it's the better ankle support (after all, it's not a whole
lot of support given by a lycra cuff), or better torsional rigidity of the
sole - I suspect that's mostly it. I also suspect I'd have found the same
thing with any of the other options I looked at.

As for warmth, yes, they definitely LOOK like they won't be as warm as the
others I tried on. However, my old boots are VERY minimal and I truly think
these new ones will be as warm. From the ankle cuff alone, they will
probably be in fact warmer. And I always have the overboots.

Anyway, there ya go.

Did I ask, is anyone as obsessive about boot fit as I am??

Grissy







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
--0-951611698-1073335988=:29754
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

DIVThanks for the review on the boots, Griss.  Good, firsthand comparative information is something that not all of us can afford to get, so it's helpful to get it from someone who has the ability and is willing to take the time to write it down./DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVJust in case you're stil feeling insecure about skiing on equipment that's "too good for you", here are two other things to add to your rationalization mill:  1) If you're only buying boots every 10 years, think about the cost on an annualized basis.  Also, 2) realize that you will only be skiing around on "leading edge" equipment for maybe 10 or 20 percent of the time that you will be skiing on the boots.  /DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVBesides, if people are so concerned with whether or not someone has "the cred" to ski on particular equipment, they need to spend time thinking about more important things!/DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVGet what fits, what's comfortable, and what makes you happy!/DIV
DIV /DIV
DIVChris C./DIV
DIVSLC, UTBRBRBIGriss >/I/B wrote:/DIV
BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid""Ira Edwards" wrote in . ..BR> Also remember that the Rossignol boots are lighter than the Carbon boots,BR> cost over $100 less and have thermo Adjustable fit. this allows them toBR> break in to the shape of your foot (have a shop tech mold them for you,BRtheyBR> can be remolded if you choose not to buy them...) and gives you greatBRwarmthBR> through bertter circulation. due to the molding, they fit a fairly broadBR> rang of feet, but fit is key and definitely go withthe boots that fit YOURBR> feet, not what the masses say are the best boot...BRBRThanks Ira. You're right on. I looked at the Rossys that a friend has,BRtalked to him about them, and was very interested. But there's noneBRavailable locally right now. I was actually quite interested, but notBRinter!
ested
enough to go the mail order route.BRBRWarning: Long analysis and personal experience follows, for those that areBRinterested. I'd also like to know if anyone else is this OBSESSIVE aboutBRfitting boots. I always go through this and really can't help myself.BRBRI'm currently in the Salomon system in my striding gear, but was willing toBRchange to NNN if necessary for best fit. My main goal is to improve theBRoverall stability and support, and especially downhill control. I'mBRreplacing what was more or less, near-top of the line, IIRC, 10+ years agoBRwhen they were just a low cut boot - no ankle collar, relatively flexibleBRsole. I want a "more or less" top of the line boot and can afford it. IBRdecided that, while cost is important, fit is more important and if it costBRme an extra $100 to get that, so be it. I ski several times a week for >5BRmonths a year so it's easy to spend the extra money. I'm just a guy whoBRskis a lot, has pretty good
classical technique, races enough (mid pack atBRbest) to motivate me, and really enjoys high performance gear. Gear lastsBRme forever. My current boots are still in excellent shape and have been usedBRa lot. All of the following is based on actually bringing a pair of eachBRboot home and wearing them for a couple of hours a couple of times (morningBRand evening). I was able to do this because I paid for them up front withBRthe understanding I could do this inside the house.BRBRIt boiled down to four boots / three brands available locally (in top endBRstriding boots): Solomon (both Racing 9 and Carbon), Alpina CL (NNN), andBRSportful (Model ?? - top of the line competition model - SNS profil sole).BRBRLocal retail costs weBRBRAlpina and Sportful ~$180BRSalomon 9 ~$230BRSalomon Carbon ~$330.BRBRSportful: I looked at the top of the line racing model. It looked like anBRexcellent quality boot with excellent features. Has an adjustable
heelBRsnugger. Has a fairly stiff sole, but I thought not as stiff as theBRYellow/Black Salomons, but stiffer than the Alpinas (they were in differentBRstores, so I'm not real sure about that). Has a substantial velcro ankleBRcuff. I looked real hard at it and tried on the available pair that wasBRclose to my size. Unfortunately, the 43 was a little too big/sloppy andBRthere was not a 42 available to try. I suspect it would have been tooBRsmall. I probably could have made the 43 work with different insoles,BRreally snugging down the heel, etc. but didn't have to. I do stronglyBRrecommend looking at this boot if anyone is in the market for a SNS boot. IBRreally think it's a "sleeper".BRBRSolomon: The yellow/black (Racing 9) and the grey (Carbon) are definitelyBRbuilt on different lasts and have different characteristics. Both areBRexcellent boots with excellent features. Both have adjustable heel snugger.BRThe 9 has a fairly substantial velcro a!
nkle
wrap. The Carbon has a slip-inBRlycra-looking ankle cuff. The Carbon seems to be narrower in a given size.BRThe 9's fit me in a 42 2/3, but felt a little sloppy in the next size up, 43BR1/3 (even using heel strap). The Carbons were too small in the 42 2/3, butBRfelt good in the 43 1/3. The 9's that fit best gave me an uncomfortableBRspot on the bottom of the ball of my left (larger) foot when flexing. TheBRCarbons that fit best felt much more comfortable in that area. The arch andBRheel on both felt fine. The Carbon has a much more flexible sole. The 9BRhas the stiffest sole of any that I tried. I thought that the 9 felt likeBRit had the best ankle support of any I tried, but that could be an illusionBRbecause of the way the ankle cuff is built. Of course, the Carbon isBR"lighter" and costs $100 more.BRBRIn fact, I purposefully AVOIDED trying the Carbon at first because I'm not aBRdedicated racer and didn't want to spend the extra $100. To be
honest,BRanother reason I avoided the Carbon is that, although I ski a lot and am aBRpretty good with my classical technique, I'm not a super strong skier andBRreally would feel sheepish about traipsing around on leading edge boots, andBRbeing passed by many, many people on less expensive and much older gear.BRBRAlpina: This is also an excellent boot. The sole is very flexible. TheBRarch seemed a little higher. The toe area of the boot seems a bit moreBRroomy and the arch seemed a little higher than the Salomon. I have a fairlyBRflat foot, so this isn't necessarily good. This boot, in walking around inBRit, seemed lighter and more "slipper-like" than the Sportful and Salomon 9.BRThe quality is top notch, although I didn't like the ankle cuff design asBRwell as the Salomon and Sportful (Alpina: zipper - something to failBReventually; others: velcro - which won't fail and would be easy to replaceBRif it did). It also didn't have an adjustable heel !
snugger,
but that didn'tBRseem to be a problem. The 43 fit me well, the 42 was too small.BRBRAt this point, I hadn't tried the Carbon on and it came down to the SalomonBR9 and the Alpina. Both fit OK, but the Alpina seemed more comfortable overBRall, after obsessing over it for a few days. The Alpina's arch was a littleBRhigh, but the Salomon felt uncomfortable on the ball of the left foot whenBRflexing. Probably both problems weren't insurmountable, but the ball of theBRfoot thing bugged me much more and had the potential of actually hurting. IBRcame THIS CLOSE to buying the Alpina and changing my two pair of stridingBRskis over to NNN.BRBRThen two things happened.BRBR1. I went out for a long ski on my old gear with a good friend, and farBRbetter skier. He reminded me that for the amount I ski, I was foolish toBRavoid trying the Carbon simply because it costs more. He agreed that theBRweight and other possible performance features were probably not!
hing to
payBRfor (for me), since all options would be a satisfactory improvement. But,BRhe (and others on this newsgroup) reminded me that the Carbon did in factBRhave significant structural differences than the 9 - mostly in the last andBRthe sole flex, and therefore it is not simply a racier version of the 9. HeBRalso reminded me of many FAR less important things I've spent $100+ on.BRAnd, AS WE ALL KNOW (but need to continually remind ourselves), the BOOT ISBRTHE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BY FAR.BRBR2. Although the lower cost of the Alpina was NOT an importantBRconsideration, I also realized (DUH!) that the $150 I'd "save" by going withBRthe Alpina over the Carbon, would be eaten up by replacing two pair of SNSBRbindings with two pair of NNN, local prices. It would actually cost me $20+BRmore to go with the cheaper boot. I repeat, the cost was not the factor inBRthe Alpina, it was the most comfortable to that point. But remember, costBRWAS a factor in a!
voiding
the Carbon to that point.BRBRSo I tried on the Carbon, as above, and felt it gave me a little better fitBRthan the Alpina. The arch felt a little better. The sole felt much moreBRflexible than the Salomon 9 (more like the Alpina) and didn't give me theBRuncomfortable spot. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Alpina would beBRwarmer, but that's not a consideration to me, even though I live in a veryBRcold climate. I bought them, and saved some money to boot in a round aboutBRway!BRBRI know I'll be a little sheepish about skiing around on these "leading edgeBRracing boots". Believe me, I'm REALLY NOT thinking I'm buying free speed. BBRut they are very comfortable and I know without a doubt I'll get my use andBRenjoyment out of them once I get over this "stigma". I won't lookBRridiculous on these things, technique-wise, just an old slow guy.BRBRI skied an easy 15 km tour on the new boots the other day and they passedBRthe test. I would say !
they are
much better in all respects over my old "lowBRcuts", but are HUGELY (!!!) better in down hill control when cornering.BRLike I said, I'm not a really strong skier, but am relatively good atBRdownhill, and love going fast and in control down hill and around corners.BRI don't know if it's the better ankle support (after all, it's not a wholeBRlot of support given by a lycra cuff), or better torsional rigidity of theBRsole - I suspect that's mostly it. I also suspect I'd have found the sameBRthing with any of the other options I looked at.BRBRAs for warmth, yes, they definitely LOOK like they won't be as warm as theBRothers I tried on. However, my old boots are VERY minimal and I truly thinkBRthese new ones will be as warm. From the ankle cuff alone, they willBRprobably be in fact warmer. And I always have the overboots.BRBRAnyway, there ya go.BRBRDid I ask, is anyone as obsessive about boot fit as I
am??BRBRGrissyBRBRBRBRBRBR/BLOCKQUOTEphr SIZE=1
Do you Yahoo!?br
a href="http://search.yahoo.com/top2003"Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
/a
--0-951611698-1073335988=:29754--