Zamberlan 4000 Eiger Ice boot...

 

A few years ago at Winter OR I stumbled across a boot company called Zamberlan.  Honestly I can't remember if I had heard of them prior.  May be in Europe some time but I simply don't remember now.  Friend Jonathon Miller and fellow guides at the show really liked their Zamberlan boots and tried in vain to get me hooked up with Zamberlan that winter,

 

Mammut Eiger Extreme Nordwand TL Boots

Mammut sez:

"Despite a complete range of technical features, this full-gaiter boot is the lightest in its category, making it a perfect fit for the Eiger Extreme range."

Weight is not the end all for even a weight weenie like me.  But since it is the very first comment of the online Mammut description I'll address that.

Everyone draws a line some where....

If you haven' read this and the research behind it you should.

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-weight-of-your-footwear-is.html

I draw a line at cold feet and heavy boots.  Admittedly that is going to be a balancing act generally.  

While I was in the Alps a friend who was on the way to Chamonix asked me, "should we bring doubles?"

At that point in my own trip I had been handed my ass time wise and by the cold on two separate climbs that by guide book and my "sitting at my desk standards" should have been easy...to the point of casual.  They weren't and I was cold.  Luckily for me I never had cold feet.  But then I didn't have to spend the night out either as clearly I would have if  I had been required to do so.  One climb was in dbl boots, Spantiks in fact.  The other was in Scarpa Ultras.

So of course I suggested they bring dbl. boots.  And of course they didn't.  It worked out fine as the weather warmed up in the couple of weeks it took for them to show up in the valley and get on something big.
When they did climb, they climbed fast which helps :)

Snell's had several dozen pairs of the Scarpa Guide in stock but only 3 pair of the Ultras available.  No Ultras in my size or I would have bought a second pair as they aren't available in NA and easily replaced.

I've already reviewed the Ultra.  This is a revisit to that topic.

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/09/scarpa-phantom-ultra.html

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/12/phantom-ultra-vs-trango-extreme-gtx.html   

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/11/scarpa-phantom-ultra-and-scarpa-phantom.html

Weights are of a one boot in a size 45.


La Sportiva Spantik 3#.05oz / 48.05oz/ 1362g
La Sportiva Baruntse 3#2.5oz / 1503g
La Sportiva Batura 1st gen. 2#7oz / 1106g
La Sportiva Batura 2nd gen 2#11/ 43oz/ 1219gm
La Sportiva Nepal Evo 2#10.5oz / 1205g
La Sportiva Trango Evo Extreme GTX 2#3oz (35oz) / 992g
Scarpa Phantom Ultra new 2010 model 2#3.5oz (35.5oz) / 1006g
Scarpa Phantom Guide new 2010 model 2#7.5oz / 1120g
Scarpa Phantom 6000 new 2010 model 2#10oz/1190g

I've been trying to high light the gear I used and really liked in Chamonix this winter on the blog and will continue to do so as time allows.  I took 3 pairs of "big boots" on this trip.  The Ultra the lightest of the three.  It fits my feet very well and most importantly it dries easily.  They dry faster than either my new Baturas or my Scarpa Guides. Part of that is the insulation and inner boot body and part of it is the OurDry liner I suspect.  Now both the Guide and the Ultra are using OutDry.  My early Guides are Goretex.  Not sure what is in the Batura. But the Batura is warmer than either Scarpa single boot.

I had intended to climb in only the BD Sabertooth crampons with these boots as they offer the best fit with the addition of Petzl bales.  But it bacame obvious pretty quickly that I had chosen the wrong crampon for the hard ice conditions we experienced early on.  (more on that choice of horizontal or vertical front points in a later blog)  Not a big deal normally but the Ultra (and its stable mate the 6000) are not the easiest boot to  fit a crampon to.  Here is why.  The sole profile on the toe of the Ultra boot.  By far the most narrow toes on a technical boot from  the Industry to date.

Ultra and a new Batura side by side here.

I find the Petzl crampons or at least crampons with Petzl front bails seen to fit the Ultra the best.  So I started using a pair of Dartwins in the rock hard ice gullies.  The fit isn't perfect but it works well enough and you aren't likely to loose a crampon as a buddy of mine did in Spantiks and Sabertooth crampons in the middle of a a tight mixed chimney.  Annoying that, at best.

 

No real point to this blog other than to say how much I like and used the Ultra this winter.   November through April it has been my go to boot.  It fits me well and climbs good enough.  Not the support of a Nepal Evo or Spantik but they are lighter than either by a fair bit and warm enough.  More support and warmer than the Trango Extreme.  And I consider all of the boots mentioned some  of the very best available for alpine ice climbing.

All the boots I mentioned are obviously excellent boots.  No surprise of  the boots I climb in and have pictured above that I would like one pair better than the rest.  They all climb well so it eventually comes down to fit.  The Ultras fit me the best..even better by a fair margin than the Scarpa Guides.

Down side of the Scarpas?  They aren't very durable to date.  Which is why I would have bought a second pair in Chamonix.    I like them enough and know they aren't going to last long.  The inners are coming apart on both pair of my boots, new Guides and Ultras.   And I have had friends collapse the toe box on the new Phantom Guides.  Scarpa NA wanted nothing to do with the obvious warranty issue.  Thankfully the UK importer took care of the problem with a complete refund.

Nov.

                                                                        

                                                                            Dec.

For Jan. it was Spantiks in Canada and during Feb in Chamonix as well.  March was a toss up between singles and dbls.

If nothing else writing a bog post like this reminds me I have gotten some good climbing in this winter season. Nothing spetacular by any count but it was fun ;-)

La Sportiva Batura

The NEW 2011 La Sportiva Batura!

It may look the same, but trust me, it aint!

Above:  Jack Roberts in the 1st generation Batura climbing Curtain Call in 2010.     

La Sportiva makes two of the most popular and highly technical  alpine single boots on the market, the Nepal Evo and the Trango Extreme ExLt GTX .  Both are truly benchmarks in current technical alpine/ice footwear.  I and many others get an exceptional fit and performance in either of these La Sportiva boots.   The Batura is a bit heavier and a good bit warmer than the Trango Extreme.  And now a bit heavier  and still a bit warmer than the Nepal Evo.   So the Batura is in heady company here.  It is easily slotted into the La Sportiva mountain boot line, between traditional single boots and heavier double boots.

La Sportiva Spantik 3#.05oz / 1362g
La La Sportiva Baruntse 3#2.5oz / 53oz 1502g
La Sportiva Batura 1st gen. 2#7oz / 39oz, 1105g
La Sportiva Batura 2nd gen 2#11/ 43oz 1219gm
La Sportiva Nepal Evo 2#10.5oz / 42.5oz/ 1205g
La Sportiva Trango Evo Extreme GTX 2#3oz (35oz) / 992g

More here on weights
http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/04/weights.html


The Batura is state of the art technology in a stiff soled, flexible upper cuff and warm mountain boot.  What is not to like here?

Before I answer that question, a couple of comments before I get in to the gist of this Batura review.

I think the Batura style boots (boot with a built in insulated gaiter) have the most potential in cold weather alpine climbing of all the boot designs currently available.  The "best design" might well evolve into a super thin dbl boot or new technology (OutDry for example) might allow the single boot design to finally live up to the task of multiple days out with no worry of accumulated moisture.in the boot.  I don't know.  But I do think the boot manufactures are on the right track.  La Sportiva, Zamberlan, Scarpa and Kayand all have similar styled boots available now.  

The new 2011 Batura

At the moment my two favorites are the current version of the La Sportiva Batura and the Scarpa Ultra. And while close to being prefect for my needs, neither are perfect, as of yet.  So you are about to read a detailed and very specific commentary on my thoughts of the Batura.   It was and is a very good boot.  The potential is so  great I think it worth the effort in being very specific in my critic and comments.   My comments to follow might sound harsh out of context.  So think about the next sentence before you decide just how good or bad  the Batura is.

High praise?  The Cold Thistle blog's opening picture is a pair of  Batura on my feet for the 2nd ascent of Blue Moon, IV WI4 R M6 5.8    At the time the climb was a good challenge for me.  It was no accident I chose to climb in the the Batura on "Blue Moon".

I started climbing in the original La Sportiva Batura in 2007.   I used the same pair of boots off and on until I sold them last winter (2009/2010) while they were still in decent shape and lots of life left in them.  They had held up well and no issues on the zipper or boot for that matter.   But I have not been kind in my previous reviews of the Batura.  All the while having specifically chosen the Batura for some of my best winter climbs in the last couple of years.  Some quite cold, where a double boot would have been more appropriate,  And not even a hint of a cold injury in the Batura let alone cold feet.

I had hoped La Sportiva would have done it better for fit and comfort the first Batura go around.  The previous Trango Ice series of boots certainly gave La Sportiva the back ground and insight to get it right on the Batura.   I bet my $550 cash on La Sportiva getting it right the first time in fact.

I wouldn't have made the effort to get another pair of Baturas recently or do this review if  La Sportiva had not chosen to make a few significant changes to the 2011 Batura     Changes for the better, imo.  Having spent the last  6 months in the 3 Scarpa, Phantom series of boots,  the Ultra, the Guide and the 6000, I can make some easy comparisons.

Worth stopping here for a moment I think and discussing design in general.  Often times I look at several products from differing companies built for a singular purpose.  It might be boots or crampons or ice tools for example.  Three different categories of gear and all very specific and highly technical.  Making direct comparisons of similar items makes it is easy to see things that get missed.  Sometimes it is durability.  Some times it is fit.   Some times you just have to wonder why they stopped "there" instead of finishing the project.  Or may be they thought the project was finished.  It might be a pair of boots, a crampon design,  ice tool, or a pair of pants.

Classic example?  I looked at a British's climbing company's new lwt belay jacket the other day.  Amazing jacket.  Primaloft 1, Pertex shell, nice long arms, perfect cuffs and a generous helmet compatible hood.  One internal zippered pocket and two unlined outside pockets.  Unlined to be lighter and absorb less moisture.  Beautiful jacket that I'll never buy.  Why?   No zippers and no other way to close those two outside pockets.  What were they thinking?       

It happens a lot on anything you want to look at and compare in detail.  Even boots.

Back on task.  Here are the previous Batura reviews and comments:

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/04/la-sportivas-batura.html

The comparison post below is rated 2nd for all time hits on the Cold Thistle blog!  A comparison I don't believe is valid now with the newest model is now available.

Comparison here:

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2010/04/scarpa-phantom-guide-vs-la-sportiva.html

While still an issue just not as much, thankfully.  One way to address the soft ankle support issue.

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2011/01/added-support-for-la-sportivas-soft.html

If you are buying new boots now, make sure you don't get just  the new zipper and the old boot internally!
Which is exactly what the boots shown in the picture below are, a new zipper and the old boot.  There is a BIG difference between that boot and what I am now reviewing.

The main reasons I think the Batura is worth another look?

The new zipper is nice, incredibly so compared to the previous yellow YKK toothed version.  This one looks to be a small, continuous coil, YKK that has taped seams on the inside and a decent seal on the outside.  But it is only water resistant.  Water proof maybe in perfect laboratory conditions where nothing flexs the zipper. No where close to being water proof once you move the zipper around a bit..  Great over size slider and pull strap though.  At least the zipper moves up and down very easily.  That should no longer be a zipper failure point.  The Scarpa TZip is pushing the definition and seems fairly "water prof".  The TZip has been what everyone seems to have measured reliability by to date..  I've never felt a zipper "ooze quality".  This new zipper on the Batura does.  It remains to be seen just how reliable it really is.  The small coils worry me.   But I would expect a distinct improvement on durability and water resistance over the original YKK.  Why La Sportiva didn't just buy the T Zip for this project still baffles me.  But that isn't the reason, the zipper is trivial in my mind.  I didn't have any issue with the first one but almost everyone else certainly seemed to.

I think the change making the Batura worthy of another look and detailed review is the major redesign of the lace system, heel pocket and a totally new boot tongue.  All three of which greatly improve the over all fit.  Heel lift is totally eliminated now even with my funky feet and super skinny ankle volume.  I had to come back and add this part because I hadn't yet stuck my hand inside the boot and felt around.  These boots have the biggest, specifically built heel pocket I have ever seen in a mtn boot.  And I have seen a lot of mtn boots!   The pronounced heel pocket is comfortable on my foot so far.   No track record on the heel pocket  but gotta say it sure impresses me.  The fit, because of the new heel pocket, is incredible.  The tongue is noticeably thicker, better articulated at the ankle and much more comfortable.  The old wear pattern on the sides of the  previous boot's tongue is also reinforced now.

La Sportiva says the Batura is built on the Nepal last.  It may be true but you couldn't prove it by me.  I find th Batura much tighter in the heel now and much bigger in the toe box than the Nepal Evo.  I found the original Batura had a bigger toe box as well.   The bigger toe box makes for a warmer boot I think.  I certainly have room to roll my toes and wiggle them around to keep them warm or warm them if chilled.
More room in the toe box is a big advantage over the Nepal Evo I think.   It feels like the Batura was designed specifically for cold weather climbing......with the appropriate attention to detail and build quality.

The more I wear and use this boot the more impressed I become.  I am not easily swayed because of my experience with the first generation of Batura.

.  

The fit is really important to me.  This version of the Batura really delivers there.  The Batura has also gained a bit of ankle support on the forward flex by adding the extra and well spaced eyelets.  Which were really needed imo.

The advantages the Batura has over the Scarpa Phantom Guides/Ultra are worth listing;
Not all are obvious to first inspection let alone 1st use.  It took 6 months to come to these conclusions. 

Batura advantages:
Much better crampon fit (and it is a biggy as almost anything snaps on perfectly)
Better and slightly taller gaiter
More comfortable top gaiter closure
slightly better Achilles ergonomics on the cuff design 
Much stiffer mid sole
Laces that stay tight first try
A stronger and reinforced toe box
Better boot/ankle protection from crampons
Slightly larger external volume should mean a warmer boot

But the Batura is at least 3oz (7.5oz on the Ultra) per boot heavier than the Guide.
And it is built like a truck. It can afford to be "better".

Above:  Check out the new positions of  the five cuff  "eyelet" on the ankle and upper cuff compared to the previous version pictured on the right below.  Basically 4 eyelets where there were only 2. before.  And they are all better positioned and more comfortable on my skinny ankles and shin.

The previous picture is the newest Batura.  In the picture above compare how the lock lace has been moved down, another lace eyelet added above it.  The metal speed lace on the original Batura have been replaced with a lower profile and less intrusive fabric "eyelets".  The actual lock lace eyelet is lower profile and way less likely to bite my (your?) ankle in use.  As the previous one did occasionally on my foot.

You might wonder why, if I like the Scarpa Ultra and the Scarpa Guide so much, why would I bother playing the Batura again.  Easy answer.  The first being, crampon fit.  Yes you can get a crampon to fit the Guide but it takes some effort.  The Ultra and 6000 take more than a little effort and some serious desire with a bit of trickery thrown in to get a perfect fit.   The Batura has a more rigid sole that the Scarpa Phantom boots....any of the Phantom boots.   Another major advantage on steep ice.  From my experience with both brands of boots I also prefer the gaiter on the Batura.   That is not an opinion easy to come by.    The Batura gaiter seems to breath better in really cold conditions and is easier on the back of your calf and Achilles tendon once tightened.  The Batura cuff  is ergonomically better cut for Achilles tendon relief.  Seemingly trivial but I also find the Batura gaiter easier to tuck my pants into instead of using a pant leg over them as a gaiter.  Not so trivial if you want a smaller profile on yo r lower leg.   And lastly the reinforced toe box on the past Batura seems much more durable and reliable than the Scarpa toe box.  The Scarpa Guide toe box is rapidly gaining a  reputation for collapsing on water ice from the pounding they take.
 
Tucking your pants into the Phantom line almost guarantees wet feet as the tight elastic gaiter stops evaporation from the boots cuffs.  For me the condensation and freezing only gets worse in really cold weather.

 
By the numbers you can see the Batura is 99g or  3.5 oz heavier per boot than the Scarpa Guide.  More than a fair trade for a slightly stiffer boot sole, toe box and a softer cuff if they fit your feet.  3.5 oz heavier than the Scarpa Guide or 7oz heavier per pair.  As I mentioned the volume is slightly larger than the Guide.  And the boot is a bit heavier (115g or 4.2oz)  than the 1st generation design.  I would expect the Batura to be a slightly warmer boot than the Scarpa Guide simply by volume alone.
 
What I am looking at is over all weight and thickness of the mid sole on the La Sportivas as a comparison..  "MIDSOLE: 8-9mm "

By the numbers?
 
TRANGO EXTREME GORETEX

WEIGHT: 35oz- 992g - Gore-Tex® Insulated Comfort Footwear INSOLE: 9mm insulating Ibi-Thermo MIDSOLE: 6-7mm HP3 SOLE: Vibram® Lavaredo (Sticky Supertrek Rubber)

NEPAL

WEIGHT: 42oz 1205g - leather with high-abrasion resistant fabric/ Vibram® rubber rands LINING: Gore-Tex® Insulated Comfort Footwear INSOLE: Insulating Ibi-Thermo 9mm MIDSOLE: 8-9mm TPU/ PU inserts/ SBR Aircushionion resistant fabric/ Vibram® rubber rands LINING: Gore-Tex® Insulated Comfort Footwear INSOLE: Insulating Ibi-Thermo 9mm MIDSOLE: 8-9mm TPU/ PU inserts/ SBR Aircushion SOLE: Vibram® with Impact Brake System

BATURA EVO

WEIGHT: 39oz 1106g - Elastic Corduraynamic™ with water repellant membrane UPPER: High tenacity nylon/ Insulated anti-dragging felt/ Insulated PE/ Insulating aluminum layer LINING: Polyamide Thermic layer/ Mesh INSOLE: Insulating Ibi-Thermo 9mm MIDSOLE: 8-9mm TPU/ PU Inserts/ SBR Aircushion SOLE: 8-9mm TPU/ PU Inserts/ SBR Aircushion


The real numbers on weight?

La Sportiva Batura original version 2#7oz / 39oz, 1105g
La Sportiva Batura 2nd gen 2#11/ 43oz 1219gm
La Sportiva Nepal Evo 2#10.5oz / 42.5oz/ 1205g
La Sportiva Trango Evo Extreme GTX 2#3oz (35oz) / 992g

SCARPA Phantom ULTRA new 2010 model 2#3.5oz (35.5oz) 1006g
SCARPA Phantom GUIDE new 2010 model 2#7.5oz (39.5oz) 1120g

The Batura is going on 5 years old this winter.  That is a long time to leave any technical boot in today's market place unchanged.  Obviously La Sportiva has sold thousands of them world wide.  That isn't luck.  The Batura is a  good boot...just not yet a great boot.  It is a good step closer though imo.   But I'm glad La Sportiva is still invested in the idea and continues to improve upon it.  The technology and basic design have huge potential.

Here is some of what I have learned in those 5 years on the Batura.   The old zipper wasn't very reliable and certainly wasn't water proof.  Both of those issues the new water resistant YKK zipper should have solved.   The original Batura had a reputation of  "eating your feet".  Foot cramps were a common complaint.   I suspect that was because of the fairly rigid sole, not enough rocker (although La Sportiva did try on the rocker) and the really soft ankles.  The soft ankle will let us walk a long ways in some pretty stiff soled boots.   I suspect the soft ankle is making your foot do things it normally would not be doing.  My theory anyway.   Lots of ankle flex and a virtually rigid sole makes a great mixed boot.  But if La Sportiva would only add a little additional ankle support, you would have have a great alpine boot as well with little loss on hard mixed.  

The Batura excels in this kind of mixed terrain.
photo courtesy of Daniel Harro

If the mixed is going to be very difficult (as in modern mixed and bolts)  most will have a fruit boot or a lighter pair of mtn boots like the Trango Extreme on anyway. 

Durability is always an issue with fabric boots.  La Sportiva 's Batura answer for crampon durability, lots of heavy rubber reinforcement on the fabric at the instep of the boots.

For what ever reason, four of us stopped using the Batura after the onset of some serious foot issues last fall.  Which happened to co inside with the NA release of the new Scarpa Guides, thankfully.  Used Batura were turning up in numbers on Ebay.  The foot issues were not something any of us had ever experienced before.  Neuromas and bone spurs were common with this boot on my and other Batura owner's feet.   I have not had the same issue with the Scarpas.  My foot issues have almost totally disappeared while climbing in the Scarpa Ultras.  May be it is just the better insole that Scarpa provides but I would hate to think it was something that simple.  Insoles are easy to replace.

I am not a biomechanical kinesiologist.  But my guess is the extra flexibility of the mid sole and the added ankle support of the Scarpa Guide and Ultra is what saves your feet. Again only my guess here but something is defiantly happening with these only slightly different combos of stiffness, sole rocker and support between the Scarpa boots and the La Sportiva boots.    The flex in the Scarpa sole allows your foot to more in a more natural way when walking.  I suspect the extra support in the ankle limits the stress on the foot as well.   Down side to that is I would rather climb on a rigid sole for ice and  alpine.  I don't  have huge concerns on how well a climbing boot "walks".     With any 45/46 size boot all have a little flex.  Some just less than others.

The new Batura has substantially more rocker in the sole than the original version.  I noticed it immediately in the few few steps I took once in the boots.

While my photos with the yard stick shows 1 1/8" for rocker on the Batura and  1 1/ 4"on the Scarpa Ultra,  the soles are enough different that the extra 1/4" of rocker and how I measured it is questionable.  But even then that is only 1/16" per foot.    The Batura actually feels like it has more rocker than the Ultra.  All the while the Batura is stiffer in the sole by a good bit and about the same now compared to the Scarpa Guides for ankle support. 

Batura shows 1 1/8" rocker.

Ultra shows 1 1/4" rocker.

Scarpa Ultra, super thin (and light weight) lugs on the left, the Batura with full depth lugs on the right.

Scarpa Ultra's uber sticky and low profile Vibram® MULAZ sole on the left.   On the right the Batura's  IBS is a sole born from the collaboration between La Sportiva and Vibram. The sole presents a new treading system, the IBS or Impact Brake System which was designed by La Sportiva and developed by Vibram to reduce impact on hard terrain.   I am thinking, a lwt weight and super sticky rubber may have been a better answer :)

The old plastic Kolfach Ultras double boots were totally rigid boots with a good amount of rocker built into  the sole and some reasonable ankle support front to back.   I spent some time in my old Koflachs recently just as a comparison.  I have walked may miles in those boots and never had foot issues.  Shin bang...sure.  But my feet were generally happy.  The Kolflachs climbed rock and ice well enough.   And we all like "happy feet".

The next couple of months of climbing should give me an idea if any of the internal changes have made the Batura a more comfortable boot on my feet.   But I already know they are a much better boot for me than the previous generation.   Have to say I am pretty stoked at the end result.   The test will be my opinion 90 days from now.  I'll report back my findings here..   But so cool to have multiple pairs of perfectly fitting crampons again!

More details of the Batura and a Scarpa Ultras as a comparison.   What you don't get from the pictures is the obvious better build quality of the La Sportiva.   Which to be honest, surprised me.

 The toe's sole profile is the reason crampons fit the Batura so much better than the Ultra.

The Climbing Sweater?

The German-Austrian expedition in the best kit of the day on Nanga Parbat, 1934.

One of the things I have recently realised is there is a big difference between a belay jacket and a bivy jacket designed specifically for climbing. It has only been with in the last couple of seasons that I have actually seen jackets that I consider real belay jackets. The difference to me is a belay jacket is something light enough that you can really climb hard technical ground in after freezing your ass off on a cold belay and NOT get way over heated and "fried" by the end of the pitch.

I still own a bivy jacket. The kind of jacket you would use with a half bag to bivy in ( or bivy in just the jacket) or on Denali for extra warmth with a light bag. But something you'd only climb in on the type of days you really shouldn't be out at all. Windy and cold summit days on Denali or Rainier in winter type of days. I have never used a jacket of that weight any where else.

A belay jacket you'll put on earlier and take off later and then realise you can use it to dry things out as you climb and still not over heat. Your own heat management will be more efficient because of it, if the design and materials are up to the task.

Using my terms, once you start climbing in a true belay jacket, the "bivy" jacket won't see much use. I wouldn't take a jacket that heavy to Denali now. And for many things you might start thinking 1/2 pound of well designed stretchy synthetic insulation might well be be really useful to climb in during some really cold weather...say alpine stuff in Canada's winter.

Kinda a heavy weight hoody (using the benchmark Patagonia R1 Hoody as a reference) with wind protection....more like a belay sweater? To coin a new label.

But really just a climbing specific, sweater.  By definition a very breathable and windproof garment with enough warmth to avoid adding a belay jacket for climbing generally.

I've not seen a garment to match that description till just recently. Although Ueli Steck mentioned a similar garment that he used when soloing the McIntyre/Colton last winter. While a great piece for climbing, Mountain Hardwear's original answer was the "Compressor Hoody". But the commercial version wasn't as light weight as what I was looking for. The Compressor Hoody makes a good outer layer and a great belay jacket, just a little too warm to climb in all the time.

The more I climb the more I go back to clothing ideas that have been used for the last 75 years or more.  The "climbing sweater" is one of them.  If you are trying to get to the bare essentials for weight and warmth hard to beat a thin base layer, a insulated layer, wind shell and finally your last bit of insulation, the belay jacket,  when it is required.

I generally us a R1 hoody or a lwt Merino wool sweater as a base layer but if it is cold enough I'll had a light weight layer of wool or synthetic under that.

The insulated layer for warmth  can be the original soft shell, a simple wool sweater.  Or it might be a boiled wool Dachstein sweater as pictured in the 1934 picture above.

More likely today it will be some sort of pile in the thickness, wind resistance and breath ability you require,  a wind shell combo with pile or a  lightly insulated soft shell.   I've use a similar systems myself until recently.

In the last few years I have almost totally stopped using pile insulation and soft shells in the mtns as an insulation layer.

I am back to using light weight wools sweaters or instead of a heavy wool sweater or pile I have switched to either a down or a synthetic layer that I would consider "sweater" weight.  By the looks of what is available today it seems I am not the only one.

Arcteryx Atom Lt used in cold (-20/-25C) climbing conditions.

As a comparison here is what the weights are of several pieces of clothing I use all the time for winter climbing.  Could be a day ice cragging in Bozeman or a full on winter day in the Icefields's at 10K feet or higher.

Belay sweater, insulated shell or just a sweater, your call and your label.

Arcteryx Squamish pullover XL 5.6oz  (pure wind shell)

Modern technical sweaters:

Patagonia Nano Puff  sweater 1/2 zip  large 11.5oz •60 gm/m² prima loft 1 insulation

Patagonia Nano Puff  Hooded sweater large 13.5oz •60 gm/m² prima loft 1 insulation


Arcteryx Atom LT Hoody large 14.3 oz •60 gm/m² Coreloft™ insulation

Arcteryx Atom Hoody LT XL  15.6 oz •60 gm/m² Coreloft™ insulation

Patagonia Down Sweater Hoody XL 15.6 800 fill

Patagonia Down Sweater XL 14.6 800 fill

EB 1st Ascent  Downlight Sweater XL 14.4 800 down fill

EB 1st Ascent Downlight Hoodie 1/2 zip XL 15.4 800 down fill

light weight insulated jackets as a comparison
Mtn Hardware Compressor Hoody 19.8oz (Primaloft)
Arcteryx Atom hoody SV 19.0oz
Patagonia  micro puff  Hoody 22 oz  (Primaloft)
Arcteryx Gamma MX Hoody XL 24oz (Polartec Power Shield soft shell)

I've been using an Arcteryx Atom LT Sweater now for a couple of seasons.  It is  10oz lighter than a soft shell MX Hoody and more water resistant from my experience.  Big plus is it also breathes better.  This winter simply because of the comfort and warmth of down clothing I have started using the Eddie Bauer Downlight series of sweaters and the Patagonia Hooded Down Sweater.   The use of down insulated clothing while ice and alpine climbing as base layers is clearly questionable.  And generally they are not very durable.

Some quick photos to see the sweaters used in combos.  Below: Here in -20C temps, no wind, with a Atom LT and a Compressor Hoody used at a belay stance.

Below: Colin Haley using the Patagonia Nano high on Denali while soloing the Cassin.
http://colinhaley.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html

Below:Atom LT again in -20 temps and windy conditions.  Atom Lt over a R1 Hoody and a  Arcteryx Squamish pullover.  Just enough insulation if I kept moving.

Below: Same set up again but climbing slowly and cold shaded belays.  Perfect combo with the hood down for the temps which were around -10C.

Below: R1 Hoody here with a Polartec Power Shield Arcteryx Gamma MX Hoody, temps again a balmy -10/-15C with the hoods going up and down as I climbed.  No question the Gamma MX is the most durable of the "sweaters" under discussion.   It also weights in at 10oz more.

Below: This a combo for really cold weather (-15/-20C) I used for climbing a couple of years ago. On top of a R1 hoody again is  a med weight hooded  pile pull over jacket, and a Patagonia "Puff" pullover over that.  What I am using now is as warm but again half the weight.  By the time I retired my Puff  it was mostly held together by duct tape.  Warm, but not all that durable.

I would never recommend any of these sweaters in a down version for serious climbing.  Although I have to say I am using mine there on more and more occasions knowing full well just how worthless they are when wet from the environment or just as likely from perspiration while working hard.  Poking holes in a synthetic  sweater is bad enough.  Even worse with down gear.  It will happen if you are using them for ice or alpine.  Plan ahead. 

A synthetic belay jacket can dry a down sweater out pretty quickly with body heat alone but it still a huge hassle.   Best to know what will work or won't for your own use/project before getting into these too deep..

Besides Patagonia and Eddie Bauer, Mtn Hardware, Rab and Arcteryx are making similar products made with down or synthetic insulation.

If nothing else the "sweater" in any insulation material is another option you'll want to be fully aware of in your winter clothing system.

The following are comparison pictures and comments of the current sweaters I am using.  Most of it relates to the down versions with a few comments and pictures for the Arcteryz Atom LT.

 


Above: Blue jacket in this picture is the Patagonia Down Hoody,  the gold Jacket a Eddie Bauer Downlight Sweater.  Cuffs are virtually the same.

Above:  Again Pata and EB..pocket comparisons.  Same/same.

Above:  First major difference.  Both down versions are simple sewn through baffles. The Patagonia version (red) has a full front lining that adds some warmth and wind proofness.  The EB front lining (tan) only covers the lower torso behind the pockets.

 Above: Another small difference is the Patagonia version has a draw string at the waist.  EB version elastic only.

Above: Sewing quality is same/same form what I can see.

 Above: Patagonia's hooded version in blue.

 Above: Eddie Bauer's sweater collar in gold.

Above:  Eddie Bauer's Hooded version in a dark blue.

Above:  Arcteryx's Atom LT hood in lt blue with a red zipper pull.

 Above: Atom LT's (in blue) •Polartec® Power Stretch® with Hardface® Technology in the
stretch side panel vents in the side of the jacket.  High tech climbing gear here imo.  I really like it for my own use.  It is a bit of technology that can be down right nippy in a cold wind though.   The Atom SV is a very similar jacket but warmer and heavier with 100g fill (instead of 60g)  without the very breathable stretch side panels.  But it is very breathable in the under arm area with less insulation there.  More of a full blown jacket than  sweater though.   It is a bit warmer than the Atom LT but doesn't breath as well because of it.    Look for a update and comparison on the Atom SV and Atom LT in the near future.

Above:  Cuffs, L to R, from the EB, Pata, Arcteryx.  Again the Atom LT does it a bit better imo.

Above:  For those that wonder...between Patagonia and Eddie Bauer..800 fill down.  It is the good stuff.  Virtually the same weight jackets but the Eddie Bauer jackets show a lot more loft when measured side by side...almost twice the loft.  Which at best is still only 2 inches!   Patagonia Nano much less.  EB has 25% more down fill in any size sweater.  3oz for Patagonia to 4oz in the Eddie Bauer in a medium size men's.


 
Above:  The baffles size on the Patagonia garment are also smaller, so more sewn through seams and over all less insulation because of it.  Patagonia really needs that full front lining to be in the same category for warmth as the Eddie Bauer versions.

Finally, while I like the pull overs and they are very warm for their weight it limits their use a bit.  For example I use any insulation over my light weight sleeping bags when required.  I generally try not to sleep in every piece of clothing I own because it gets to confining.  A full zip sweater can add some insulation over the top of my bag.   While a pull over sweater can be used in the same manner it is much less likely to stay in place.

All of these patterns are very simple and easy to reconfigure.  If anyone at Eddie Bauer is listening...I'd like a full zip hoodie asap !

Retail on the Patagonia Down Hoodie is $250

Retail on the Patagonia Down Sweater is $200.

Retail on the Eddie Bauer Downlight Hoody is $189

Retail on the Eddie Bauer Downlight Sweater is $169

Sale prices?  Patagonia is difficult to find on sale.

Eddie Bauer is almost easy to buy at a factory story discount. 

http://blog.firstascent.com/2010/12/25/update-from-dave-morton-in-k2-base-camp-part-6/

-30 and snowing.. less than 16oz.....Jan 2011