LWT boots from Scarpa and La Sportiva? 2025

 

The late, Ueli Steck, in the lwt alpine footwear and crampons of his design 

"Sometimes they are approach shoes.  Sometimes they are runaway shoes?"   J. Lind

One of my first real climbing adventures back in the early '70s was walking in for a couple of hours to a moderate technical rock climb.   Back then 2 hours from the end of the road seemed like a serious trip.  We carried moderate sized packs, dress in wool knickers and heavy leather boots for the bit of steep, hard snow we would traverse along the way.   

As the years went by, I made that same trip many, many times from early Spring and lots of slushy snow to the first snowstorms in the Fall.  By Fall I wished a couple of times that I was somewhere else as we navigated by memory huge talus fields of slippery granite boulders, wishing I was somewhere else.

40 years pasted in a blink of the eye.  Where we had grand adventures all kitted up to tackle any alpine adventure turned in afternoon larks for the walk in.  No more heavy leather boots more likely just runners of one sort or another, shorts, a cotton shirt and different levels of success and entertainment.  All that eventually lead to a forgotten pair of runners and reluctantly walking in with only a pair of flip flops on my feet.  Doable and really not much of a strain much to my surprise. Good for a laugh now!

One trip does stand out in retrospect from the mid to late '70s.  As we were slogging up hill and occasionally post holing into my crouch in the wet Spring snowpack, a couple of locals were running out the same trail, lightly clothed and wearing tiny day packs.   What really impressed me was one of guys was wear a pair white, with green strips, Adidas Rom.  A lwt leather court/running shoe if I remember correctly.  They stopped for a moment to chat, and I just had to ask!  What is up with "the runners" in all the snow?  Turns out he was also kitted up in some of the first Gore-Tex sox.  I just had to laugh.  I was sure THAT would never work! Little did I know.   

Since then, without Gore-Tex sox, I have worn typical runners to 21K feet on Aconcagua with ease in good weather.  And may times worn runners to 11K' on Rainier from mid-July to early Sept.    

Not far from that "first adventure" hike is another opportunity for a few days out for fun.  This one is a day along ridge traverse for most, that can be done either going north or south.  Just a bit of technical climbing on the ridge line going either way.  But a very fun approach to start either line is up a good bit of 4th class rock of the small granite dome call the "Beehive" for the shape of feature.

The fun starts right at the dome's edge.  Enough 4th class rock you sure don't want a misplaced step.  And a place a comfortable pair of rock shoes might really be appreciated for the first 15 minutes of so.  And again, if you miss the easiest way up the dome a few minutes later.

A few decent climbers have found their trusty "approach shoes" really weren't all that good on this particular "approach".  My first trip ended up forever changing the fit of my pair runners.  So much slab climbing literally turned he shoe on my foot.   They were OK that day out but never the same again.  Sticky soles but not enough support on the upper to take that abuse of 1000' of easy 4th class slab climbing most of it splayed out or side hilling.  Dually noted for the future. 

I don't remember what shoes I used the second time out and going south.   But I would have remembered if I had wrecked another pair of shoes. 

The 3rd time I went old school, which worked out almost perfectly for the entire day.  But as much fun as an old school rock shoe was for the short technical bit of traverse if really wasn't the ideal footwear.   A decent running with sticky rubber and good support would be better, I think.  Lots of good approach shoes out now that can do 2 of the three.  Want to add crampons?  Typically, we all came up short until recently.   But none of the shoes I've been in have been able to do it all at even a mediocre level.  On occasion I imagined such a shoe but never though anyone would market it.  I always thought they would be way too specialized to ever make a profit on, even in my wildest imagination.

More to come.......

You know you are on to something fun in a hiking 'boot', when the first time you touch rock, you wonder, "how tight/small can I fit these things and still walk all day in them?!"

   

DPS, Movement, La Sportiva, Black Crow ski, 102mm to 107mm under foot, from '24/'25

My preferred touring and everyday ski width (touring and lifts) until this winter has been just under 100mm.   98mm and 95mm more often than not.   But I also know the advantages of a wider ski (up to 138mm under foot)  in the right snow conditions.   The skis in this comparison are what I have been using in the 102 to 107 range to date and my thoughts on the manufactures and ski designs.  As always YMMV (your milage may vary). 

I'll be adding my impressions here on each ski, as my ski season winds down and I get time over the next few weeks. 

The short version?  The most succinct differences in how this batch of skis performed for me was generally defined by turn radius, and the amount of rocker on each skis.  Again, for me, the more rocker in the ski, the shorter the ski seems to ski.  The less rocker the more a ski seems to ski to the length it measures. What does surprise me is weight didn't make a big impact on how much better or worse the ski performed.  But weight was clearly noticeable to me as the conditions deteriorated.  Swig weight on your feet does matter.   Good snow conditions generally make any ski stellar.  For me, bad snow conditions are sure to make an unruly ski more apparent and a stellar ski design easily noticeable.

Charlie Bosco ripping Black Crow  Atris, on the Valley Noire. 

Black Crow 

Nevis Freebird, 173.4cm, 102mm, 19m, 3# 10.3oz / 3# 9.4oz  

Corvis Freebird, 176.2cm, 107mm, 21m, 4# 2.4oz / 4# 2.80oz

 

 La Sportiva 

'23 Tempo, 179cm,  103mm, 18m, 3# 14oz / 4#

'25 Tempo, 179cm,  103mm, 18m,   3# 3oz / 3# 4oz

Skinning on the '23 version of the Alps Tracks 106.

Movement 

'23 Alps Tracks, 177cm, 106mm, 19m,  3# / 3# .02oz. 

'25 Alps Tracks, 178cm, 106mm,  21.5m,  2# 14.5oz / 2# 14.oz

I bought both the older model and the newer model Alps Tracks late last season. And it was an internet comment that really got me wondering just how much different the new version might be from last year's version.

But frankly what I was really looking for was the widest ski I could find that was @ or under 3# per ski.  The Dynafit Denali's had simply spoiled me @ 98mm under foot and 2# 12oz per ski at 176cm.  The Denali will ski literally any snow condition I can ski.  Even as It is not an easy one to  replace no matter what anyone wants to say about the latest and greatest.

Gear reviews | Dynafit Denali | PowderGuide

The big indication they were different is the turn radius.   The '23 version is @ 19m.  The newer version is at 21.5m.   Less rocker on the '23 106 and more rocker on the '25 106 than the original  Denalis.  And that is pretty indicated how each Alps Tracks would ski.  The '23 holds an edge better, and is more stable everywhere.  The '25 is more playful and even with a 21.5 radius still quick under foot.   Both are very light weight and a pleasure on the ski track or on your back.

"Who prefers a more precise ski?" That would be me, thanks ;) And without a doubt '23 106 is a very precise ski. I was able to ski some of my best runs of the year (technically most difficult for snow and terrain) on the '23 version of the 106. I really like the ski. Being mounted online which is pretty far forward helps that ski IMO. No question the older ski, even in a 106 width, is scalpel in bad snow and on steep terrain. I can't say enough good things about the ski. Either version is way more solid than it should for the weight at speed. The newer version is surfier, and releases a lot easier. The older version, because it has an almost flat tail and little rocker reacts better at some speed. You need to be on top of that ski. If you are, the ski will pay dividends for sure. This year's model? It is mounted 2+ cm back from the previous ski. Which had me concerned when I was mounting. But, in for a penny in for a pound on Movement's skis. A bit more rocker was added to tip and tail on the '25 version. A hand flex test tells me the tail is a bit softer as well. Overall, I'd say the new ski is a little softer over all as well.  Not a noddle but softer than the previous year. Frankly none of those changes were giving me high expectations over last year's Model. Turns out there really are times a ski company improves a ski, instead of just changing the top sheet. Almost but not quite dramatic in the 106's comparison. I've skied slush, powder, some nasty mank, both wet and dry in both. Loved the newest 106 everywhere I have skied it. May be a bit more than the earlier version. I simply love the newest version.  Really a fun ski to skin with and even better to carry. I've skied some glare, spring ice and some hard freeze-thaw, in bounds, spring ice. None of that was any fun but the skis managed well enough. This is a very, very forgiving ski. Much more forgiving than the previous version of the 106. I like them both. But the new version just takes less effort and is simply more fun for me to ski. In the world of lwt 100+ touring ski, both are outstanding pieces of engineering. I was wondering if I would ever find a ski as light as, or lighter than, the Dynafit Denali-Dhaulagiri series? I have no doubt in my mind that I found, better skis than either, which is saying a lot for width, weight and versatility. And that is saying something in my book. I grew up on old school Rossi GS skis from the 80s. Boards you could rip around on at 35 or 40 mph with not too much effort. My Slopes phone app says the 106 is good for 35mph, no issues, and big smiles ;)  Pretty much 40mph being my max on any ski on a typical day of lift skiing. I typically like making lots of turns these days. But really fun to have a ski that seems capable of doing both without having to tightly crimp your toes in either venue. This makes a really fun ski for me!

DPS 

'25 Kaizen, 179, 105mm, 18m, 4# 2.7oz / 4# 2.3oz 

This is an interesting ski that I had high hopes for.  They cost a pretty penny and then some, so I was expecting something rather magical.   

The first weekend I took these out it was 10F at the base of my local mountain.  Cold and clear enough that my feet would eventually get cold (seldom happens to me during lift skiing), Eventually my entire body got chilled in the subzero temps.   And that took me several days to recover from.  So it really was cold.

Typically, I would have stopped skiing in those conditions.  But the one reason I kept skiing was how much I was enjoying the  Kaizen105s.   

The conditions were cold and hard snow,  more wind packed chalk that hard packed groomed conditions.  Not yet ice but within a few days of the typical freeze, thaw cycles we get, it would be.  But this day, on this particular kind of snow these skis were pretty incredible.  No speed limit for me, at the end of the day my computer said 46mph.  As fast as I likely ever ski.  35 is closer to typical if not 30mph.   During all that the skis felt solid and really easy to turn.   I like to make turns.  But these were easy enough to  simply let them rip in a bit in GS style skiing.  

I was impressed with the ski, and not just by the money I spent on them.  It is sometimes hard to convince oneself that the dollars invested really are worth the end result.  I suspect I am not the only one who has had second thoughts after a rather opulent purchase that has one questioning their own choices. 

So after one day of skiing and around 40' vert feet I was pretty sure I liked the Kaizen 105.

The question was how much?   I had a planned 6 week trip to Europe.  I really didn't want to bring a huge quiver of skis this time around.  I just wanted to ski with the least about of luggage and the most amount of fun.  My first pack was 3 pair of skis.  I decided that was too much weight, so which two pair would I bring?

I don't remember now if I had another day on the Kaizens or not.  Probably not if I can't remember it.   But somehow, I decided that the Kaizen, and a pair of 98mm underfoot lwt touring skis would suffice for this trip.

Literally the first run in France that season was a run down the Petit Envers in heavily wind effected, bottomless snow.   Not perfect conditions for me, while unacclimatised and not particularly fit for skiing at 3,500 meters.

Frankly I am still not sure if the skis helped me that day or were a hinderance.  Either way the skiing was pretty incredible.

To be fair,  being unacclimatised and not particularly fit, is a terrible way to get honest feedback on any ski no matter the conditions.   

As the trip progressed, I got better at both.  And skiing where I like the most out of Chamonix, I skied on the Italian and French side of the glaciers about twice a week if not more. 

That would include some of the worst snow conditions I have encountered in my lifetime, literally.  The kind of snow that has your partner, the better skier between you, crying.  And may be just a little bit, me wanting too.  It was bad at times.  Really bad.

The good stuff!

For may be half of those runs, looking for skiable snow I was on the Kaisen.  The other half the lwt 98cm under foot.   There are advantages to both skis in terrible conditions.  You just have to be able to take advantage of the ski.  For the kind of skiing, I really like?  I think, but don't actually know, that the touring version of the Kaizen might have been the best of both worlds, the Pagoda Tour CFL 105.  I am not sure I will get to test that theory but may be.  After all the Tour version is made for just the sort of nonsense, I really like to ski in Europe but seldom get a chance here to get that kind of milage in similar conditions. 

That said, as I type this, at the end of August '25, I am not disappointed in my Kaizen purchase.  I had some incredible days skiing the Kaizen on velvet corn, spring snow, powder and chopped up powder in France and Italy at the resorts.  Really fun days where the Kaizen made me a better skier than I actually am.  I am hoping my choice of the Kaizen will prove itself here at home this season and impress me even more than it did on that first day out last Feb.  

I did get to ski enough actual ice on this ski to know I'd rather have a narrower ski.  "Duhhh"....he says.  For really hard snow there are any number of more user-friendly skis.  The Pagoda 90 comes to mind from DPS easily enough.  But most decent skis in the 90mm under foot will make a 105 seem unpleasant, I think.  There are limits at least for me as to just how "one quiver" a ski might be at 105 under foot.

 

Leashes again? Really?!

 "I want to retain my ski.  Way, way less worried about unknowingly skiing in avi terrain."

 DB,  May -11-2014

Cold Thistle: Straps or brakes?

Since I wrote that I have spent a lot more time watching grass grow and shoveling manure than skiing.  And even less time skiing terrain that I actually worry about loosing a ski.  But I still do fall down on occasion, even on easy terrain while simply skiing on piste.  Or as we know it here in NA "at a ski area" as "on piste".

In that 11 year's time, I have seen some things and heard even more.   One of the best and most astonishing to me was putting on my skis in the parking lot getting ready for an easy hour plus tour into a hut.  I am seldom willing to spend the money for a guided trip, so this was a rare occasion for me.  But I was looking forward to the skiing the terrain, spending time in the American version of a hut (a yurt in this case) if for no other reason than there are so few huts s here to choose from.

Anyway, back to the parking lot 2 years ago.  A guide walked by and told me, rather bluntly, to remove my ski leashes, as "We don't allow them for safety reasons."  My first thought was....."WTF?  Really?" but I bit my tongue and complied.  Stashing my leashes in my pack.  Obviously, there will be no discussion with der leader.

The trip was uneventful and easily forgettable other than that conversation.   The proposed "extreme ski week" turned into a basic skimo class for ice axe self-arrest and how to move on steep terrain with your newly acquired crampons and the guide's suggested 45cm ice axes. 

What I did find amusing, when looking at what was an inspiring, and technical ski decent across the valley was the story of the 1st decent a few years earlier by the then owner of the guide school.  Turns out he took an inconsequential fall on the lower section of the face and then the resulting 15 mile ski out, on one ski.  Funny to me that no one thought that an opportunity to rethink "what was allowed". 

Sometimes people learn slowly...very slowly.  And have lots of time to reconsider their decisions.  Sometimes you don't.

This Spring while skinning up to the col on the shoulder of the Grand Montet, I watched a ski go by us, doing Mach 1, into a crowd of skiers on piste below us.   An expensive day out or could have been for any number of folks.  The loss of a ski hopefully the least of it.

Then there is the current published thought, from a good many IMGA guides, that brakes are better everywhere.  Better only because you are safer, with your skis and leashes, less likely to trap you in an avalanche.  Mind you it is the same fellows that don't recommend an air bag because they aren't warranted in "normal skiing".  But avalanches are normal skiing?  Saying nothing at all of skiing in crevassed terrain and the likelihood of a fall into a crevasse might well mean a lost ski. 

Always happy to have the conversation about avis while winter climbing or doing patrol work and tossing bombs.  Seen lots of avis in both.   I try to stay out of avi terrain while doing "normal skiing".   Conversations about helmets, air bags, beacons, and leashes seem appropriate to me even today.

10 years ago, there weren't the amount of tech bindings being skied in resorts in Europe compared to the numbers now. An even fewer in most of North American currently.  Tech bindings on full size alpine skis even more rare.   And when you do see them, almost always with brakes.

In Europe on the other hand, I saw as many brakes on touring skis and I saw skis, with neither brakes, or leashes.  The skiers using the always available option of locked toes.   I've skied a lot on locked toes and race heels.  I have always used leashes on that set up as well.  Redundant no doubt but I like the added security of always retaining my skis, if I can do my part.   Even while not liking I have to bend over and clip the leash to my boot.  It seems so uncool and slow having to do that.

Skiing off  Punta Helbronner @ 3,462m in Italy, April of '25.  A Blue Ice, Choucas harness, on me and stainless cable leashes, with a mini 

biner on my skis.

Not anywhere I want to lose a ski.   Below?  On crevassed terrain, 7 miles from a decent coffee.

Warm feet? Do I want a Double or Single boot?

 Or maybe better asked, "How to avoid this?!"

This is the Internet.  So, the following is basically a "rinse and repeat" of earlier info posted prior.

I'll get to the boot question in a minute.  But if you have never had cold feet, feel free to skip this one.  Cold feet have been a reality for me since my very first outdoor endeavors, literally starting in the 3rd Grade!   That was a long time ago and I have learned to manage cold feet for the most part, even after some serious chemo induced neuropathy, but warm feet are still an ongoing process, decades later.

I can barely remember now, crying from the pain in my feet as a 3rd grader, and twenty years later the pain of having to walk off Mt Rainier in cold mid-winter condition in only my socks.  My feet swollen and frost bit from a bad bivy on top of Liberty Cap and unable to wear my boots once my feet unthawed.

I like technical gear and those discussions.   But let's start this conversation with some basics that have little to do with the gear you buy.   This part is free, just needs to be installed on your hard drive, located between the ears, and is worth more than any pair of boots.

Been a while since I have made a serious blog post.  But if you can make use of the search function here, in the content are some comments on staying dry to stay warm. 

It took me a long time to figure out a lot of my cold feet issues are/were caused by wet feet.  I now suspect my feet naturally perspire more than the next guy's.

VBL socks and antiperspirants can help there.   I have used both to good effect.  I have climbed a lot in some very cold conditions, (-40C and elevations up to 22,000ft ).   I've only had minor frost bite once, that winter in Mt Rainier in 1976.   

Bottom line on wet feet?  If your socks get wet from sweat your feet will eventually get cold.  You can protect the insulation in your socks with a VBL (but they tend to slide around some) or by using a good dose of rub-on antiperspirant.    I like antiperspirant and a thin sock, relying in the boot for insulation.

More on the boots shortly.

You need to know the source of the problem before you can solve it, right?   So, no wet feet!

That is a good start.  A number of reasons I can now list as to why I froze one of my feet on Rainier.  All, but one, were trivial mistakes by a rookie.    The same mistake, most make, is the culprit almost every time.

Dehydration.

Get dehydrated and tired in cold weather and you are very likely to become a frost-bite victim.  Simple as that.  Both dehydration and physical exhaustion are pretty much a part of winter alpinism.  Do your part.  Stay hydrated, and go out physically fit.

Fitness?

No one wants to be a mouth breather.  And not everyone is Colin Haley.  If you can climb as fast as Colin, you might get up the Cassin, unharmed, in single boots.  If you plan of belaying all the mixed pitches and stay a couple of nights out on the Cassin, best to take a good pair of double boots and enough fuel (which means bringing a stove) to stay hydrated.  

Colin wasn't the only one on the mtn that year (2018) in singles.

"5) Better gear.
Compared to my previous attempts, my crampons, ice axes, helmet, umbilicals, and clothing were all lighter weight. Also, this time I carried single boots rather than double boots, and no stove."

Cassin Ridge Speed Solo – Skagit Alpinism (colinhaley.com)

Common sense once you figure it all out.

The black set of toes above?   Not mine thankfully.  And I wasn't on that particular climb.  But it was one of the coldest nights I have spent in the mountains sitting in a tent below them. They had an open bivy.  Temps lower than the climber and his gear were prepared for.  But I'd guess it was the dehydration and wet feet (from hard climbing all day) that were the real culprits.   It wasn't fitness or a gear issue IMO.   

Look closely at any climbing frostbite injury and very likely something similar will jump out as the cause.

Cigarettes?   Not an uncommon suggestion. Nicotine is indeed a vasodilator.  Best to do some more reading on the subject if that is the answer you prefer.   I'll stick with dry feet and a better water intake :)

"Vasodilators dilate arteries and/or veins. This results in increased blood flow and lowered blood pressure. Vasodilators are commonly used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension) and heart conditions."  

"Hello friends with terrible toe circulation, have any of you tried a full double boot and found it to be significantly warmer than a lighter tech option?" BM

Not an uncommon question.

Still, I don't think it is the right question on how to solve "cold feet".

Good hydration, dry feet, and right up there, as the "most important" basis for warm feet, is boot fit. If the boot doesn't fit well you are simply screwed from the get-go.

Almost everyone will find one brand of boot a better fit than another brand of boot. The boot you may have your heart set on (and your pocketbook) may be the worst boot for your feet. A smart buyer will use the Internet and their credit card to order in every boot that you think will do the trick and rug test them all for fit. Simply return what you know won't work and sort the rest in the comfort of your own home. The results may surprise you.

Dry feet? Check.

Manage your fluid intake? Check

Perfect boot fit? Check

The perfect boot? Ya, not so much ;)

A few have used fruit boots on Polar Circus. No need really, as the climbing isn't all that difficult. I've used double boots there several times in cold weather and really light weight tech boots there in nice weather and Spring conditions. 8hr suffer fests in the cold or 4hr romps under blue skies. Pick your poison for the boot and the conditions.

But that is what alpine and ice climbing are all about, right?

A lot of difference between "perfect" conditions and a bad day out.

Photo is from a few winters back. A bunch of us were trapped on top of the Midi in a storm. Notice what the locals are wearing for boots. I was the only one waiting for the tram the next morning, in single boots. And very glad I didn't have to spend the night in the loo again in singles.

Technical ground in double boots? Sure. But every ounce on your feet eventually adds up to pounds on your back.

If I can stay warm, I will always choose a lighter boot. The cost of the wrong choice may be steep.

"You must ask yourself, is it $1000 total, or $100 per toe?"  JJ

Last but not least.  How many pair of boots do you own?   For a long time I owned a pair of mtn boots and a pair of rock shoes.  It was all I could afford.  

These days I own 4 different pairs of mtn boots.  All sorted by weight and warmth.  Overdone?  Sure.  But having warm and dry feet, and the least amount of weight/bulk on my feet makes the $ spent per toe worth it to me.

My "old" double boots (the Scarpa 6000 I wrote about below) are still working fine. But there are a few new ones I'd love to try.   But up front, the boot needs to fit your foot and your use, not mine.  Good luck!

Cold Thistle: True Love!.... Scarpa 6000 mods

Cold Thistle: Why a double boot?

And finally, all viable, modern options, to extend your comfort level of your own boots.

Lenz socks

Thermrup insoles

chemical toe warmers

FS Dynafit Blacklight boots size 29.

 FS New (unworn/unmolded/hang tags intact) Dynafit Blacklight boots, size 29, $600 shipped CON US. Venmo or Pay Pal if you pay the fees. Neat boot. Lighter and stiffer than a TLT6P Just not a good fit for my feet.