Ultimate alpine TOURING boot?

Lots of good comments and info. Thanks everybody.<br><br>I accept some of the blame for the thread drift, since I started talking about walkability (on foot), when I'm really interested in tourability (on skis). Like other folks, I normally switch to tennis shoes if I have to walk more than a couple miles on foot. (If I'm in normal AT boots, I switch even sooner.)<br><br>For a long time, I did nearly all my backcountry skiing in mountain boots and Ramer bindings. Over the past ten years, I've done more trips in AT boots (after getting a more comfortable pair) and two years ago I finally switched to Dynafit bindings. (To Matt: I highly recommend the TLT4 boots.) <br><br>But I found that I missed the ultra-tourability of my old mountain boots, particularly for "flow days" where you're more interested in covering distance than ripping turns. Not for all trips, just for some trips. That's why I've been tinkering with a pair of Mountain Lites (MLTs) this season.<br><br>One thing I find interesting about this discussion is that I feel like a visitor from another planet. Hardly anybody has much experience skiing in low-cut boots anymore. So, hardly anybody appreciates that they really do tour better. And most people have never taken the time to adjust to them, so they think they are horrible to ski in. I feel differently, but I suspect there's no point in trying to convince anybody. But it's fun to question the conventional wisdom about what alpine touring is about.<br>

But I found that I missed the ultra-tourability of my old mountain boots, particularly for "flow days" where you're more interested in covering distance than ripping turns.

<br><br>I have a good "ultra-tourable" setup for days where I'm not interested in "ripping turns": SNS-BC Solly Raid boots (they're pretty burly for the bar-compatible type boots but they've been discontinued, I believe next season Solly will introduce a new burly bar-style boot), Fisher Outbounds and SNS-BC bindings. I've heard rumors that the poster sb has skied some pretty significant things (Glacier peak traverse?) in his Raid boots, maybe he can comment here.<br><br>I enjoy "nordic touring" days where you just cover a lot of distance (ala your MP race) but it's hard to find time for such days in-between lift skiing, alpine touring and skating.

Ok, from what I read on this thread, I will probably learn very quickly (in my first hike with Garmonts) that I will want to carry them on my back for the hike <br><br>What do you AT people recomend for hiking. Sneakers just doesn't cut it for my feet.<br><br>Also, I appreciate all the comments on the light and more flexible boots that have appeared here. Being new to the sport, I am very happy with the performance of the boots I have, but in recognizing that there is probably far more control in these boots than what I will need on much of the terrain that I ski, I may end up getting one of the more flexible boots. <br><br>Alan

It also has occurred to me that one of the drawbacks of climbing boots used in AT bindings is that the climbing boot cuff is purposefully designed for lateral ankle flex. At least enough flex to still allow reasonable flat-footed crampon technique. This is great for side slabbing or other non-direct ascents of steep hard snow slopes. Unfortunately, this foot position is directly counter to what is required to obtain sustained edge control on those very same slopes with skis and it certainly compounds the problem of gaining control of the skis during descents in snow conditions that might easily redirect the skis away from the intended direction.<br><br>The problem with what I see with Lowell's design in his drawing is that tightening what amounts to be this flexible and low cuff does not necessarily increase its stiffness. At least in my climbing boots that seems to have diminishing returns. This flexibility seems to be the bigger problem than the height of the cuff.<br><br>What about the side stringers used in the dynafits? Do they not add both lateral and fore/aft stability? If this is the case, then a moderate height cuff with side stringers that are user detachable (that is allowed to float freely, but left in place) at either the top or bottom might be the ticket. A simple reversible wing nut with a collapsable wing could make the attachement easy to handle and very beefy. I am assuming that these boots sans the stringers would be very flexible to tour in. They might be the boot to start with when doing boot modification.<br><br>Regarding the thread drifting to walking issues, I think the drawing with a bellows implied comfort in walking as a feature of the design. Almost everyone I have talked to who has AT and tele experience suggest that AT gear has the edge in touring/climbing efficiency over tele gear. One big reason seems to be the bellows "sink" during the stride, but I wonder also how much that is really do to the need for extra energy to flex that bellows....

I believe the reasons most people familiar with both contemporary AT and tele gear cite for AT being more efficient are weight and the free-hinging nature of AT bindings. The number of people who have skinned uphill in flexible AT boots with a bellows is actually quite low (limited to F1 users) but at $595 it is an expensive experiment if you end up not liking them.

The problem with what I see with Lowell's design in his drawing is that tightening what amounts to be this flexible and low cuff does not necessarily increase its stiffness.

<br><br>True. On the other hand, I've never had much trouble with a lack of lateral support, even in Scarpa Invernos which are quite soft.<br><br>As I've mentioned already, I'm doing my current experiments on a pair of Dynafit Mountain Lites. These boots use the same lower shell as the TLT4. This lower shell is actually quite a bit stiffer laterally than a normal mountain boot. That's because the flanges that extend above the ankle, along the sides, are beefier than on a normal mountain boot. I find that this has two advantages. The first is lateral support, obviously. The second--somewhat surprising--is that when you tighten up the cuff, the boot has a stiffer forward flex than a mountain boot. In my experience, stiffening the forward flex is the key to shifting from tour mode to ski mode in mountain boots. When I'm skiing right, I'm constantly getting feedback from pressing into the tongue of the boot. (Rear stiffness is not really an issue. Getting in the back seat is simply not allowed.) The foreward flex doesn't have to be real stiff, but the feedback has to be there. The Mountain Lites feel pretty good in this respect.<br><br>I believe that the "locking stringer" design you described is incorporated into the new TLT Race boot that was mentioned earlier in this thread. Perhaps that's the boot I should have started with, if I could have found a pair. But I suspect that it would take a lot of hacking to give them as much fore-aft freedom of movement as I've got using the Mountain Lites.