Scarpa Phantom Ultra and Scarpa Phantom Guide updates

I got an email pointing out a mistake I made identifying the "Phantom Ultra" as a "prototype Phantom 6000" in Jon Griffith's photo of Steck on le Droites. Thanks for the heads up Will!


Way beyond the sales hype. Jonathan Griffith's photo of Ueli Steck soloing the Ginat on Le Droites early in 2010 in the super lwt version of the Phantom single, the "Ultra". Weight is down around 1600g in weight per pair for a 42, where the Guide is 1800g and the 6000 is 2000g in that size.





This boot is not currently available in North American but is in Europe and England. The over all weight is getting down to an ounce or so of the more traditional, bench mark, fabric "silver bullet" boot, La Sportiva's Trango Extreme Evo Gortex. With a full boot gaiter and better insulation the Ultra offers much more protection in nasty, wet, cold conditions. And most importantly once wet, dries faster than the Trango in my experience. The Ultra, by the numbers is 3.5 oz lighter in my size 45 and $30/40 LESS expensive than the Phantom Guide if you can find it. 3.5 ounces per boot in a size 45. Or another 7 ounces or 198g for the pair.

Part of the weight savings is using the thinner and lighter sole/mid sole system also used on the Phantom 6000 and noted in that review earlier. Lacing inside the Ultra is the same system that is used in the Guide. Slightly different material on the Ultra's inner boot for insulation and a different gaiter material for reinforcement and durability with crampons than the Guide. I get a better fit in my Ultra than my Phantom Guides. That could simply be the difference in specific boots though not boot models. The Ultra seems to dry faster as well. Again could be a subjective call but the inner boot materials are different between the two very similar Scarpa Phantom boots.

While making inquiries about these boots, Scarpa NA and several retailers who stock the Ultra in

England gave similar replies:

"Re: The Ultra,

Boot is less stiff and less warm than the Guide. Sole is very fragile. Sole is not as durable as the Guide. Only the Guide is available in 1/2 sizes."

Me thinks they protest too much. As neither "less stiff or less warm" is true from my experience. No retailer wants to carry such a specialised alpine climbing boot in a full size run which would sell directly against the Phantom Guide even if the Ultra is $40. less expensive. I might even swallow the "less durable" issue with the boot soles as they are a lwt version also used on the Phantom 6000. Not a boot I'd use on a lot of rock but might well be a nice advantage to drop another half pound off your feet on alpine ice and mixed routes where you'd be wearing 'pons anyway.

But the sole issue is important. The Ultra and the 6000 come with a new super low profile and I think sticky rubber sole. At least they seem as sticky as the La Sportiva sticky rubber available on some of the Trango series. Which is saying a lot. And it wears quickly. Has to be sticky the way I can walk boulder fields with them. The Vibram® Mulaz outsole, has an edging platform in the toe area and is the newest, super sticky, "Supertrek Rubber". The rear sole profile of these two boots is a vast improvement over the Spantik sole where you can collapse the foam mid sole when you flip up your crampon lever locks if you get carried away on how tight you want your crampons. "No can do" on the Ultra or 6000. Well done Scarpa! But the front of the sole is a super low profile toe area. I have yet to manage a perfect front crampon bail fit (and am using Petzl bails) to keep the crampon in one place. It isn't dangerous mind you just annoying. But don't let anyone tell you it is a great fit, it isn't without some real effort. My 'pons end up off center from French technique and a decent gap on the inside of the toe bale. If anyone has an answer to that let me know will you? And it is something the crampon manufactures will need to address sooner than later because the new low profile Scarpa sole profile is a really good improvement over all I think. The lighter weight sole profile boots (Ultra and 6000) are much easier to walk in than even the Guide. Of the 3 boots by far the Ultra fits my feet the best and is the easiest to lace for a good fit. Even though all three boots use a similar lace system and the Guide/Ultra system is exactly the same.

BTW, both the Ultra and 6000 boots I got this year came with Primaloft and a Outdry tag. There may be the reason they seem to dry faster and get less wet than my Guides but I am only guessing. Too limited on data to go any further. By the Spring of 2011 all three are suppose to be all lined with "Outdry" at Steck's suggestion, replacing the time proven Gortex liner.

Here is Scarpa's 12/20 response on a reader's 6000 query:

"Many thanks for your email. The Phantom 6000 has never been manufactured with a goretex lining so there will be no change in the way that this is produced over the foreseeable future. Check out the product review:
http://www.scarpa.co.uk/Products/Product.asp?ProductId=125

The waterproof membrane that it refers to is Outdry."

Not a huge amount of added info but I use the Mtn Hardware gloves that if believed are again Steck's designs and lined with Outdry all of last winter and was happy with them. Obviously someone knew a bit about climbing in the design process. I've not seen Goretex in a glove system do as well. OutDry seems to work exceptionally well. I have intentionally totally soaked Mtn Hardware gloves and only got the leather palms wet (which take forever to dry) and my hands have stayed bone dry inside the glove.

If the boots only do so well.

The gaiter? Between the La Sportiva Batura and the Phantom gaiter surprisingly the La Sportiva gaiter is better imo. It breathes better and is easier to fit with pants tucked inside. I found the Guides gaiter beginning to fully iced up internally and begining to give me cold wet feet as the c mlted lower in the boot in th cold windy conditions (-7C and lower) in the Canadian Icefields last week. Moisture from my perspiration wasn't getting out of the boot fast enough. In the same place and temps the Batura was solid, warm and dry for the most part. Easy fix is just wear the pants over the boot (Steck photo above) which keeps everything unfrozen and the boot breathing better. But I liked the Batura's option of doing either pant in or out. That option removes material from the bottom of the leg. Less chit to snag a 'pon on.

Iced up inner gaiter on a Guide that is now soaking my sox.

I have not seen a lot of feedback on these boots and used them just a bit myself so take my comments with a grain of salt here.

This boot has been out a full year on climber's feet. Scarpa's professionals I believe..at the very least some very good climbers, most all European and British bad asses. I try a lot of different boots and don't always climb in what I really like because of it. My feet are difficult to fit as well. But I actually buy my own boots so this isn't some hype I am spewing for a "gift". And in this case it took a buddy making a big effort to actually get me a pair from Europe because they were unavailable to me in any easy manner here.

I have one pair of Guides and one pair of Ultras so the comparison may simply be between different boots not between different models. The Ultra seems to have a bigger toe box and a narrower heel fit. The inner boot materials are different. A closer and more comfortable fit for me with the Ultra. Out of the box they walk well and climb well on steep water ice. More than enough ankle support for long bouts of alpine ice. I hardly noted the boot on my foot which is a good indicator to me just how much better they fit than the Guide and the difference the new mid sole makes walking.

I don't have a huge experience base in the guide or the Ultra...way too early for that but I do have enough boot experience to make these comments. I was having a huge case of buyer's remorse on the Ultra as even I can't justify $500 for a 7 oz difference over a pair of Guides that are easy to procure and try on locally. But it only took me a few minutes just trying the Ultra on indoors to know there was a difference enough for my foot and worth the effort Will went through to get them to me...Thanks again Will!

Walking and climbing in them just reinforced that first over all impression.

A caution. Few modern mtn boots can be laced as tightly and securely as the newest Phantom line....all three of them. It is easy to have operator error and over tighten the boots on the lower or upper and cut off circulation. For me to want to mention that fact in a boot review should give you an idea of how easy it is to do. This boot series is exceptional but like any gear you will need to learn what works and what doesn't for you. The Dyneema laces, btw, are nice. You won't be breaking them...ever.... I suspect.

"SCARPA announced they have teamed up with OutDry in order to make my all time favorite technical mountaineering boots even better. OutDry's waterproof breathable technology will appear in SCARPA's Phantom Collection for Spring 2011.





Both SCARPA and OutDry worked with renowned alpinist and speed-climber Ueli Steck on the design of the new Phantom Collection. Steck wanted a technical mountaineering boot with improved waterproofness that would cut down on the boot's "wet weight" while climbing in wet snow conditions.

OutDry is currently used in gloves from Mountain Hardwear and footwear from Lafuma among others. OutDry uses a three-dimensional laminating technology to adhere a windproof and waterproof breathable membrane to the inside of the outer most layer of shoes, boots and gloves. The permanent membrane bond creates a flawless fit with no folds, seams or the requirement for seam-sealing tape.

The waterproof breathable membrane will be laminated directly to the inner side of the K-tech boot upper on the SCARPA Phantom technical mountaineering boots. The use of OutDry in the boots also allows the addition of Primaloft for increased insulation qualities.




OutDry will be featured in all the new SCARPA Phantom styles including the Phantom 6000, Phantom Guide and the Phantom Ultra."

By the numbers:
THE ULTRA
Features:
Multilayer uppers:

S-Tech outer fabric

Waterproof membrane

3D Mesh insulation

Felt reinforcement

Wicking mesh lliner

Dyneema Laces with Fast Lock

Sole:

Lightweight TPU crampon inserts allowing full crampon use

PU shock absorbing inserts in the heel and forefoot for added comfort

Vibrams Mulaz Outsole

High density microporous midsole

Pro Fibre XT insole provides proven stiffness with enough flex to ensure approach comfort

Last:

AG

Weight:

1600g pair of 42

Sizes: 37-48




THE GUIDE
Features:
Multilayer uppers:

S-Tech outer fabric

Waterproof membrane

Eva + Aluminium support and reinforcement

Felt reinforcement

Primaloft

Dyneema Laces with Fast Lock

Sole:

Lightweight TPU Midsole with variable thickness for walking comfort

PU shock absorbing inserts in the heel and forefoot

Vibrams Total Traction sole

Pro Fibre insole provides proven flex characteristics

Last:

AG

Weight:

1800g pair of 42

Size: 37-48 including half sizes

Colour: Orange



Read more and make your own comparisons:

http://www.scarpa.co.uk/Products/Product.asp?ProductId=124

http://it.scarpa.net/prodotti/high-altitude/phantom-ultra/


http://www.thegearcaster.com/the_gearcaster/2010/08/scarpa-teams-with-outdry-for-phantom-collection.html#ixzz10iCmi1aH

Will's photos:

The Ghost?

Make sure to dbl click for full screen effect!

BD grassroots athlete Jesse Huey on The Real Big Drip (M7 WI 6), Canadian Rockies from Black Diamond Equipment on Vimeo.

The Black Diamond Serac Crampon

Serac-Neve combo on a pair of the super light Scarpa Phantom Ultras. Total weight of 'pon and boot in a size 45 is an incredible 3lb. 1 oz.

If you have followed the blog it is quickly obvious that I really like the Black Diamond Sabertooth for my own climbing. But in the recent past I have spent a lot of time climbing in the Grivel G12.

I had for the most part ignored the Black Diamond Serac. Couple of reasons for that. The biggest was Black Diamond's advertising program. The Serac is generally $10 to $20 cheaper at retail than the Sabertooth and from first impression I thought intended for and limited as a general purpose "snow" crampon.

It really isn't, although it will certainly work in that role. Most any crampon will. The differences are really subtle between the newest stainless versions of the Sabertooth and the Serac. The most obvious is the first set of down points. The Sabertooth has as "normal" length set of down points which gives them an abnormal 12 points down. The Serac has the more traditional, bigger style front down points that are angled to support the fronts on soft ice or just as likely snow covered ice. The Serac and most every other crampon will give you 10 points down to work with. The Serac is more like the G12 or other similar Euro designs that came out of France and Italy in the early '70s with 8 points down on moderate terrain. It is a simple design that works anywhere.

On the Serac both the rear two sets of points on the heel and foot section are wider than the Sabertooth. It was described to me as a 4x4 option for descending in snow conditions. Those 4 rear points (2 back of heel and 2 back of foot) offer more support and are less likely to skate out in soft snow conditions than say a Sabertooth heel. But it is subtle. Very subtle.

Weight wise the Serac is .6oz heavier, as in 6/10ths of an ounce heavier per crampon. Or 1.2 .oz per pair heavier. The Serac is also carrying a little extra untrimmed "fat" on the crampon under the bots. If BD was thinking ahead it they would reprogram that computer a tiny bit and trim the 4x4 down to Baja race weight with no loss of strength or durability, then add a Neve heel. Put me down for a pair of those will you BD? 'cuz after climbing some early water fall ice in that combo I can say they rock! You'll loose some durability and security over time while walking on hard ice with aluminum crampon heels but little of either on steep terrain. It is easy to get the Serac or Sabertooth under 13oz per side if you strip them down and add a Neve heel.


As the word gets out and climbers rig that crampon combo themselves, the usefulness of a light weight traditional crampon will already have been proven.

Depending on where and what kind of snow and ice conditions you might encounter I find the option of crampon point design at the very least entertaining. It is nice to have options but in use there really isn't much of a difference in performance between the two designs. The only place the Sabertooth will always excel is with its 12 points down as opposed to any other crampon that has 10 full size "working" points.

Like every other 'pon in the world the Serac has 10...which beats the slow bus with 8 on some of the most popular technical 'pons. The rear points have some added width on the Serac that are likely worth that extra .6oz if you are as klutzy as me walking down hill.

Both the new Sabertooth and the Serac have a another new design feature that turned up in these two particular crampons that is not in the current Cyborg or any of the past Black Diamond models. The very best technical ice crampons are rigid. It is the better design. You can argue that point but it will still be fact. Not many rigid designs are still available. To add some rigidity to the Serac and Sabertooth, BD tightened up the connecting bar interface so there is less play between forefoot and heel piece. Once I noticed the added rigidity on the Sabertooth I suspected the redesign on the connecting bar was one reason the Sabertooth climbed so well on vertical ice. Same advantage on the Serac. I noticed it. The 'pons felt more like rigid crampons than previous version I have used.

For pure ice I have always found the stiffest boot and the most rigid crampons are the easiest to climb in. Terrible to walk in though. Go to the extreme on either and you can loose some rigidity and still have a good technical combo. Stiff boot, semi rigid crampon (say Spantik and Dartwin) or soft boot and a rigid crampon (say Batura and a Rambo). There are reasons to go both ways.

Stiff boots are great on 50/60 degree endurance alpine ice. Soft cuffed boots are easier to walk in and generally better on hard mixed.

BD had made the Sabertooth and the Serac slightly more rigid. Both climb steep water ice very well. I'd use either on water ice, alpine ice, neve or snow of any difficulty anywhere on the planet.


A edited version of this review was posted on rockandice.com. Link below.

http://www.rockandice.com/articles/gear/ice-climbing-gear/article/883-black-diamond-serac-vs-sabretooth





Sabertooth-Neve combo on a pair of Spantik dbl boots

Screw sharpening?

This one is by request... Black Diamond's version of how to sharpen an ice screw.

Guy Lacelle.... a fitting tribute

"La vie de Guy Lacelle" Official Trailer from chris Alstrin on Vimeo.

Remember to be careful out there this winter.

"Home Field Advantage"

Montana locals schooling two of the visiting Oregon boys on "Home Field Advantage" just moments after the first ascent.

This climb and the photo has everything that I love about modern mixed routes. Bolts, natural pro, an obviously attentive belayer, and a sky pilot who is truly leashless!

How does that old saying go John? Something about, "One in the hand?"


The amazing action photo (and FA)  is by the legendary Montana ice hardman, Pete Tapley. Make sure you dbl click the photo for full effect. And please respect Pete's copyright.



John pitching and Brian catching. Bird Boy John Frieh's training blog has a link here on C/T.










And John again, just saying hello after another test of those angel wings :) Craig Gyselinck's photo

Stainless steel crampons?

The last time I mentioned this subject it caused a minor shit storm. So much so the head of hard goods from BD joined the thread on an Internet web site where I made the original post.

Bill Belcourt's comment:

"I am not going to get into what type of stainless BD uses because it took a long time to figure out. There are differences that add up to more than just corrosion resistance but it was not obvious from just looking at the numbers (as they are very close). You never truly understand a material until you make the product you want to make out of it, and start testing it. Sometimes you get lucky and get performance beyond expectations, and then spend the rest of your time trying to figure out why it happened. Turns out there are many factors that contribute to wear. Here is a small clue but I'm saying no more.....http://www.alloysteel.net/english/techlib_factors.asp

Someone please fix that link for me.....thanks

Bill"


For the record I like and climb in BD stainless crampons. I actually think the new Sabertooth is the best all around crampon currently available. That is not something I say lightly and it has *almost* nothing to do with being made of stainless.

But the most recent BD ad just drives me crazy. Part of it is highlighted below.

"UPGRADE TO STAINLESS
huge weight savings: up to 226g (8oz) per pair"

Excuse me? Steels (stainless or chromoly) in general weigh the same. The BD designs have changed for the better and by using LESS material, BD has been able to cut weight on their crampons.

I have seen so many misquotes and misinformation on stainless steel used in crampons...including the newest published BD crampon reviews I thought it time to get the real info down in print.

Stainless is not lighter than chromoly. If you use the right steel and heat treat, the only advantage of stainless is corrosion resistance, and lack of final coatings required for field use.

Stainless steel is more expensive as a raw material. Substantially so.

Back to crampons. Bill Belcourt says in his BD crampon video..."the new stainless crampons are lighter by DESIGN". That means that the design of the BD crampons has changed. Lighter heel levers, no paint, slightly shorter stainless spikes or the loss of a set of screws on the bots. It all adds up to a better "design" but it has nothing to do with stainless being lighter than chromoly or being able to use less of, or a thinner material (they didn't) because of the change to stainless.

As an easy example the old (2008) Cyborgs weigh 42.2 oz. The new stainless (2010) Cyborg weights 39.4 oz. That is a 2.8 oz difference. .6 oz of that weight loss is in the new rear levers.
All the stainless points are shorter (3 to 5mm shorter) which is the majority of the 2oz left per pair on the Cyborg's weight loss but paint is some of that as well.

I really like the new stainless BD 'pons. Some good improvements in design and a big improvement by going stainless I hope. But for the end user the majority of that is simply cosmetics.

But lets give the credit where it is do...it wasn't stainless that made a lighter crampon, it was the design team at BD. Just more flash and more at stake in the stainless commitment.

More:

Quote:
"I'm not trying to say that SS is better or worse. I'm just looking for a fair comparison of material properties"

My first post was simply an attempt to clarify that stainless wasn't any better or worse than chromoly as a base steel. It shouldn't be a point of discussion let alone argument between us or Grivel and BD. Obviously some rivalry and market share wars going on there to get the spew of propaganda and media misinformation. The alloys and heat treats you choose are what is important within the definitions of stainless and chromoly. I posted the 2 generations of detailed Cyborg weights to make that point.

If you want the discussion to go farther than that it is easy to fine any manner of alloys, stainless or chromoly, that can be made into an incredible (however you want to define that) crampon. Just pick a super alloy, stainless or non.

The problem with the "super alloys" is the price of the steel, the difficulty working/machining it and getting it to market at a price point the consumer base can bear. But with the right choice in alloy there really can be some magic happening.

No one is making a "super alloy" crampon with the possible exception, if you believe their hype, of Camp's Nanotech @ $255. retail. Using the term "super alloy" for Camp's 'pon as we would in my industry would be faulty labeling. It is simply another stainless. Might be a good choice in alloys but no magic to be had there. When you make weight comparisons between models make sure you understand comparing cookie cutter frames (very strong for their weight) to solid frame crampons. Each manufacturing style has distinct end user advantages and disadvantages.

more here:
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheettext.aspx?matguid=bdaa2ce0e0d7426aac6b8a7daad50a8e

Good reading here:
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=438

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superalloy

Source of much of the steel I use

http://www.cartech.com/products.aspx

For the price point and the advantages of stainless, plus the advantages of durability in the SPECIFIC stainless ALLOY BD chose I think they have an exceptional product at a great price point.



Quote:
"I'm just looking for a fair comparison of material properties"

Good luck with any company (manufacturing from steel) telling you the actual alloy and heat treat they are using so we could all look it up and make a side by side comparison from the steel charts.

"correct me if I am wrong but if you are going through crampons fast due to wearing the teeth short...you're either doing something wrong or are one badass mofo who has earned the right to bitch about the difference between metals"

Brand loyalty?

Brand loyalty, in marketing, consists of a consumer's commitment to repurchase or otherwise continue using the brand and can be demonstrated by repeated buying of a product or service or other positive behaviors such as word of mouth advocacy.[1]

Brand loyalty is more than simple repurchasing, however. Customers may repurchase a brand due to situational constraints (such as vendor lock-in), a lack of viable alternatives, or out of convenience.[2] Such loyalty is referred to as "spurious loyalty". True brand loyalty exists when customers have a high relative attitude toward the brand which is then exhibited through repurchase behavior.[1] This type of loyalty can be a great asset to the firm: customers are willing to pay higher prices, they may cost less to serve, and can bring new customers to the firm.[3][4] For example, if Joe has brand loyalty to Company A he will purchase Company A's products even if Company B's are cheaper and/or of a higher quality.

more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty


A climbing partner and I were out training yesterday. Like everyone I suspect, we eventually got around to discussing gear. When the topic of gloves came up I mentioned 2 specific MH gloves. Josh mentioned he liked OR better.

I climb in a OR Vert more than any other glove, so fair enough.

Which made me think about brand loyalty. I first thought I didn't have any brand loyalty....no matter what you you might think by reading the blog.

Then I rethought that idea this morning before I started writing. Of course I have brand loyalty. But I don't suggest brands when I talk gear. I suggest specific models from specific brands. The difference is subtle but important.

An example? I love my La Sportiva Trango Extreme Evos. But for several reasons I think the Batura is one of the poorest mtn boot designs available currently. And I have climbed in both boots a lot to come to that opinion. Good brand, with easy examples of one bad and one good product for my use. But La Sportiva boots may not fit you. Good brand for me generally because the boots will fit...but they may be not be a good brand for you because they don't.

How useful a specific model of that brand is to you is something totally different yet.

Truth is I just want to go climbing!

So when it comes to brand loyalty I am swayed by the guarantee and over all quality from my own experiences. Eddie Bauer, Outdoor Research, Mountain Equipment Coop, and REI sway me because I know they will take care of anything they sell. No questions and no hassle. North Face, La Sportiva, Kayland and a few others you had better get ready to take a cold bath if my personal experience is anything to rely on. Their customer service can be a little..shall we say...lacking.

There is so much amazing gear available from boots to clothing to hardware.
Don't get stuck on brand names. Look for features, your and other's experiences to find gear that will work the best for you.

I own and mix and match crampons from Grivel, Black Diamond and Petzl. Any one of the manufactures could do "something" better imo. My favorite Frankenstein 'pons are only slightly better than what you can buy off the shelf from any of the three. But I know enough now that most anything can be done better if you look at it critically and know what the intended use will be. So I look at making anything better for my own use. Sometimes it is hard or next to impossible for what ever reason. Sometimes it takes only a few minutes and some imagination.

I don't think MH is any better than OR, but I have found two MH gloves I like better than anything OR currently offers. But I will still use my OR verts the majority of time. MH is no longer so easy to get a warranty replacement on a "life time" warranty. OR? Still stellar customer service.

It is a individual item thing not a brand name thing. But it pays to look at both.

"It is fun until it isn't"...great tribute to good people.

Crampons...Mono points/ Dual points

Two 2 winter's ago, I was scratching my way up a couple of pitches of moderate mixed at the end of a long walk.

I kept thinking at the time just how really hard the same two pitches would have been in my "other" gear.

The "other" gear would have been dual horizontal front points, much more supportive boots and a set of ice tools that would likely be much more appropriate for the majority of the climb.




Climbing on the last two pitches wasn't very hard, but consistent, and maxed at M 4 or 5. Way more rock climbing than ice. As there just wasn't much ice to be had beyond some nice scabs plastered here and there. So the tools were hooked on rock and the mono points set in a combination of rock or ice. Vertical granite cracks and blocks were abundant so it was easy to slot the single front point. The ice placements I did get for my feet typically sheared out with only the one set of points for support and I ended up on rock anyway.

When it came to climbing the last 30m of the open book it was all rock. Even with the best gear for that particular job it was difficult enough for me. With my "other" gear it may well have been more than I bargained for.

Daniel Harro photo



My point? In this instance a set of Nomics and Darts matched to the easy ankle flex in the older La Sportiva "Ice" made a lot of sense. No question the combo of the three made the climbing much easier. Funny how it turned out as I wasn't worried about the climbing just wanted easy boots to make the 15 mile hike in and didn't want to carry much weight. Turns out all three were a good choice on a iced up rock climb.

I used a similar thought process on another climb last winter were I took a set of Dartwins. 2000' of ice this time, most of it moderate WI4 or less. Two things I noticed besides having a lwt weight set of foot wear. ('pons and Trango Extreme Boots)

The first was the vertical front points of the Dartwins sheared through a lot on the warmer ice.

By mid day it was becoming irritating how careful I had to climb because of it. I would have much preferred a set of BD Sabertooth crampons at that point. And stripped they would have been even lighter than the Dartwins. (which come stripped)



Darts alone on this particular climb, that day, would have REALLY sucked in comparison to either the Dartwin or Sabertooth. I would have been forced to do a lot of French technique on the mono point Dart that is already notorious for having loss a set of down points. More akin to roller skates at that point than a set of Sabertooths.

In the world of ever more specialised equipment it pays to really look at what you are using, when, why and where.

I saw a comment earlier today where a very good climber was forced while following to aid and French free 30 meters of difficult rock, the same 30m that the leader had freed with mono point 'pons. The reason it wasn't freed was climbing on dual front points. The dual point 'pons simply couldn't be slotted into the finger crack.

For the remaining 500m of easy alpine ice that they simu climbed above the finger crack the Darts would have been fine and no real disadvantage over the dual points.

Another point recently made to me. If you weigh 150# in full winter kit it is a lot less likely you'll be shearing vertical front points than if you weigh in at a full 200# plus kit. I'm no fly weight. Never have been and realise I putt more stress on my gear because of it so I tend to notice the small things a little sooner where others might not.

I am comfortable with both styles of 'pons in my quiver but I also look at where I want to use them and why. If I had to chose I would ditch the monos.

Favorites!

Two of my all time favorite videos.

I learned much about technique from "Bonfires" as I stared to climb leashless. Truely one of favorite alpine ice/adventure videos even today. And it really reminds me of my short time in Nepal bitd. I love the soundtrack. Make sure you dbl click for the big screen and full value./



And this one? Pretty much the gear and style of climbing I am most familar with...just done 10K miles east of Scotland and no one like Chouinard and Jeff Lowe up there intentionally shoveling snow down on me :)

Leashless?

I suspect for the majority of those that will read this, it is preaching to the choir.

If not it is worth rethinking your game plan.

Originally there were some pretty strong opinions as to why leashless climbing was not an advancement in ice climbing. Held some of those same opinions myself in the past.

1975 Terrodactyl and a 2009 Nomic

The advancement in tool design with specifically engineered additional hand support has changed all of that.

The added option of an umbilical makes it even easier to transition to leashless with little risk.

At least two manufactures (Grivel and Black Diamond) are now producing umbilical systems that make loosing a tool *almost* impossible even if you do drop one or just as likely leave them at the last rap station. If you are interested take a look at the umbilical blog posted earlier.

Leashless climbing is easier. You are able to shake more often and it is much easier to do so, prolonging endurance and pushing the pump farther out. Your hands will be warmer because of it and you can use less effort to grip the tool because your glove system can be much, much lighter for the warmth required. All this adds up to climbing faster and reducing the strength required to do so.

The umbilicals, if you decide to use them, offer a mobile self belay. Leashless climbing is here to stay. It is a much better climbing system on hard ice and mixed as long as you are taking advantage of the newer tools specifically designed for leashless climbing. You have many really great tools to chose from today.

Black Diamond Fusion II over layed on top of a Petzl Nomic

Ice tools... part two

I get more questions on ice tools and boots that anything else from the blog. Most of them on private email. Probably better that way as I am very biased on what I like to climb on. But I recognise my opinion is just that, an opinion. Guys like Bjørn-Eivind Årtun, Ueli Steck, Colin Haley, and Raphael Slawinski can climb just about anything that takes a tool and it isn't going to matter what tool. That should tell you a lot about the level of the modern technology that is available today.

That short list has two Petzl sponsored climbers and two Black Diamond sponsored climbers. Besides the benefits of being sponsored I'd bet you'll find they all really like the tools they are climbing on.

Call it the "Excalibur" syndrome. Get up a climb that was hard for you and your chosen tool will become "Excalibur", the magical sword that won't allow defeat. That happens to most everyone :)

There are going to be few who can remember doing Grade 5 ice with a wooden shafted, curved tool ace axe reading this. But it is possible. Now the tools generally mimic each other and the performance is so similar that the differences are simply in the small details.

The tool manufactures that I give any credit to at the moment are Simond, Petzl, Black Diamond and Grivel. Although I have a buddy, Carlos Buhler who is involved with E-tools which also should be included. More on them here: http://www.e-climb.com/ Of those mentioned, lately I have only climbed on Black Diamond's and Petzl's tools enough to comment.

I'm only talking technical tools, so easy enough to break them down into to several categories. And a few of these can easily over lap either category as the designs blend and merge to come up with even more useful technical tools. Ideally each generation builds on the previous design work of the previous tools available. Or at least it should.

General technical tools:
Quark, Viper, Cobra

Ergo shaped dbl grip tools:
Nomic, Fusion, Ergo, Reactor

Between the newest tools, boots, clothing and ice screws there really isn't any great challenge on pure ice today. It is safer and easier in every way to climb thick water ice today than it was even 10 years ago. Go back farther and it simple is not the same game.

The reverse curved picks that Simond (and Gordon Smith first used) introduced to the world in the late '70s with the Chacal have been improved and strengthened. Angles have changed a bit but that pattern is the only technical design in use today.

Jump ahead 30 plus odd years now and looking back from my own perspective. I think three design improvements have really changed how we climb. Those are picks tough enough to dry tool on, the bent shaft with huge clearance and the 2nd ergonomic grip.

My "hint" here is if you have yet to try a tool with all three features, don't put it off. The best are a big improvement on difficult technical and make climbing both mixed and ice much, much easier..

"The newest tools all mimic each other and the performance is so similar that the differences are simply in the small details."

Black Diamond's technical tools change slightly in the angle of the pick to the shaft in every model, with increases starting with the Reactor @ 28.5, then Viper @ 30.5, Cobra @ 31, Fusion II @ 32 and Fusion I @ 33.5. Thickness of the grip also changes with the steeper tools having slightly smaller grips for more precision. How those numbers compare to Petzl is a guess in many ways. Shafts may be exact copies of each other, and are for angle, but at what angle the picks attach to the shaft is an other matter all together. How the pick design changes between Petzl and Black Diamond is another issue. As I said the differences are subtle.

Subtle, and how that matters, is the reason a carpenter's framing hammer can be bought in 2 ounce increments, from 18 oz. to 32 oz. The details really do matter.

I look at actual details on these tools. Some of the details I can feel while climbing, others I can not. Pick design and pick angle I can. Most can. It may not matter to someone else but I can tell the difference between tools and between companies. Take away the bias and again, most can. Common to see a specific tool become the cherished object of desire during a beginner ice climbing class. There may be a reason for that having nothing to do with brand names.

I'm no longer a flat bellied stallion, so I look for the tools that make climbing easier for me.

That said the details don't matter to every one. Classic example. A pet peeve of mine is crampon fit. I know good crampon fit. At one time everyone who wanted to climb steep ice knew what a good crampon fir was because you had to fit the crampons yourself. The crampons could be fit as they were totally adjustable. Then along comes the clip on versions. Great idea that has seen its ups and downs.

I have 5mm of slop on the toe of a Dart and a new Scarpa Phantom Guide. That isn't going to change from a pair of Scarpa Phantom Guides and a pair of Darts between Seattle and London. I find that fit marginal at best. You have to really crank the heel levers and be very careful centering the boot when you click them shut on a lever lock to get them secure and centered.

In public a well respected British Guide living in Chamonix differed with my opinion and found the same fit, "good". While another poster on the UKC forum finds the fit between a 45 size Guide and the Dart "perfect". Obviously not an issue for them. Marginal at best for me, if I can move the crampon on the boot by hand after you flip the lever lock. Which I can. Moving a technical crampon like a Dart by hand and having 5mm of slop to do it I find total crap. But then it is only a "detail".

The "Devil's in the details". So I try to be attentive as to what I pass on here.

Technical Hammers Revisited.

More new leashless gloves.

The last two winters some of my favorite climbing gloves have been by Mountain Hardware.


Specifically a $50 "go to" glove for me, the "Torsion" (or it's kissing cousin the OR Vert). The Torsion isn't totally water proof but works great on steep technical ice unless it is really wet. For colder conditions or a lot of water I have been using the OutDry lined "Hydra" which is a stellar technical glove and cheap for what you get I think, at $100. It is warmer than the Torsion but still light enough to climb hard in. It is an exceptional pattern for technical climbing leashless. More details on both of these gloves back a ways in the Blog. Worth the extra click if you are are looking for gloves.


The new gloves to me....









Just picked up two of Mtn Hardware's glove styles that are new to me and I think worth checking out. Although prices have obviously gone up. Both are again lined with OutDry. Which seems to really work better than Gortex in similar styles. And both are leather reinforced in the heavy wear areas. The "Pistolero" as a light weight, mostly leather, highly technical glove that will replace my Torsions I think by the feel of them @ $100. And a slightly warmer version of the "Hydra", with a removable wool/synthetic liner, the "Typhon" @ $130.00

I get to look at a lot of gloves locally with REI, Mtn Hardware, Feathered Friends and Marmot all having good size retail stores local to me . These two models from Mtn Hardware are some of the best I have seen for my own use. Gotta like Mountain Hardware's life time warranty as well when you are dropping C notes for a single pair of gloves likely to get trashed in less than a season.


Fit? I wear a XL in most every glove. And it needs to be a generous XL. Hydra is fine in the XL, maybe a little loose. Pistolero is perfect, same slightly loose fit. The Typhoon is a little tight, maybe the same sizing pattern (I'd bet $ it is) as the XL Hydra but the wool/synthetic liner makes them a little tight. I may be wrong on the sizing because the next two pairs I mail ordered don't fit tight even with the wool liners. The glove build pattern however is not the same. The Hydra still has less seams and less bulk because of it. Looks like enough improvement on the Hydra durability wise though with the dbl thickness leather wear pads and leather finger tips to risk it and pay the extra $30. if you are going to do a lot of raps in them. The wool liners aren't worth the extra $30 to me. But I was thinking a really light polar fleece liner would work better and seems similar to the close fit as my BD liners in the Hydra.

I tried on 3 pairs of each to make sure I got the biggest pairs and all seem the same in size.

If I wore a Large and wanted a warmer glove than the Hydra the XL Typhon would rock :) But a XL Hydra would as well with a light weight liner of your choice and save $30.

There are a few minor improvements and the extra leather reinforcement in the palm and fingers on the Typhon. But the Typhon's build pattern is way more complicated and a bit more bulky. Are the changes worth the extra $30.00 compared to the Hydra for you? It is a toss up for me but it has convinced me to use the Typhon as my cold weather rap glove and save the Hydra for climbing when I can.

I'll write more once I get to use them as intended.

More of the game from last winter.

Game on!

Mt. Cromwell Elzinga/Miller in a day from alpinesummits on Vimeo.

Eiger Nordwand from caroline george on Vimeo.

Ice tools...part one.

right..Hafner, first day on borrowed Nomics

I have been putting this post off for a long time. There are many great tools out there in the market place and I am simply biased on what I use and how they work for me. I know that. But magic is magic and I hate to ignore it as it can just as easily come back to bite you in the ass. Or so I believe :)


Pure ice at "almost any angle" can be climbed fairly well with just about any old club with a good size nail through it.

The old Choiunard wooden tools and McInnes Terrodactyls come to mind. With the two or something similar having climbed many of the early Grade V and VI Canadian, European and Alaskan ice climbs.

I do admit I have now having climbed stuff steeper than "almost any angle" that I could not have climbed with a club and nail. All with less effort. Bravo to the newest tools!

Let me back up a bit though.

I remember bugging a buddy of mine about taking a curved shafted tools on big technical route on the South Face of Denali. At the time it had yet to have a second ascent. For as much easier terrain low on the route and true slogging up high I thought it a mistake. Although he ended up taking a moderately curved tool, the original BD Cobra, and a straight shafted tool CF BP as his pair I wasn't convinced it was a good idea.

My buddy on the other hand..simply said to me, "open your mind."

I did notice he didn't take two Cobras on that trip though :) We both were going to expand our minds on the new tools and going leashless soon enough.

So as you can see it took some time and effort for me to change from a straight shaft to a curved, high clearance shaft tool.

My first experience with a high clearance tool was with the original Quark. For me it was a radically shaped shaft coming from straight tools or even the moderately bent lower grips that were more common. For the time the huge clearance that the Quark offered seemed like a a futuristic ice tool never destined for general use. I used the Quark with leashes for a couple of winters before the grip rests came out. With a leash it didn't seem any better than many of the tools that came before it, the Quazars or Chacals or early Cobras. It was easier to get out of the ice. Big improvement but that was pick design not shaft design. I wasn't climbing enough or hard enough to really take advantage of any new advantage any new tool offered while leashed.


My first day leashless trying to remember how to climb ice.


Adding the now common grip rest shed some light on the revolution that was to come with tools specifically designed to be leashless.

My experience with leashless came after not climbing for a couple of full seasons. Then jumping back in, I spent a week in our old haunts in the Canadian Rockies. The first day on leashes. The second day leashless and not really happy with the idea. Frightening actually for many reasons. Biggest one was using the wrong glove system. The first half of the third day back on leashes and during that day I pulled my leashes off and have never gone back. I also got a thinner glove. Big help! But it really didn't take much to convince me. Even without totally understanding (and far from it) it was obvious to me leashless has some huge advantages. I could live to learn live without.

It did take some time to sort out how to use a leashless tool and the gloves appropriate for them but that all came with time. The entire time most climbers were still arguing that leashes were still better on difficult terrain. There were a few that realised it was actually the faster and easier method to climb.

It was obvious even on pure ice at a moderate level of difficulty that leashless had some huge advantages, being warmer one of them. The other making climbing easier and less tiring. You could shake out at your leisure any time. No more totally blown forearms. I have used umbilicals since the '70s so dropping a tool was never a fear. Surprising to me I was a instant convert.

So for me leashless was a huge revolution in ice climbing. Not the tools so much as the added freedom, strength and warmth of being leashless. Then I climbed on a pair of Nomics at Hafner.

It was the second winter the Nomic was out. I was coming off a recent distal bicep surgery and was over weight and weak. Add to that being.seriously old school, I seldom intentionally touched an ice tool pick intentionally to rock. Let alone crank on a pick stuck in rock. All the "new" mixed made little sense to me. But encouraged to do just that with a Nomic, it not only opened my eyes to a new style of climbing rock but also just how easy difficult ice could be by just hooking placements and not actually swinging.

The Nomic, as weird as it looked, climbed like nothing I had ever experienced. It was an instant jump in my previous climbing ability, while still weak and fat. The ice grades that I had done with some real effort in the '80s I was repeating now with less strength, with ease. Truly amazing to me that gear (the new screws and clothing were obviously a big help too) had made such a difference.

I was so impressed with the Nomics that I started taking them anywhere there might be ice to climb. And interesting enough my bet payed off. I was now climbing mixed stuff harder than anything I had done previous and again with less effort.

The high clearance shaft allows a high dagger position that is best used to cover moderate alpine terrain quickly. In tight mixed (or vertical ice) being able to match on the shaft of a single tool allows fewer placements. The double grips on the Nomic really began to shine for me. And they hooked so easily. I cut my swings on a pitch in 1/2 no matter what the terrain




And I seldom missed a shaft spike in the alpine.

Last season, the newest 2nd generation Black Diamond Fusion showed up. BD delivered a very similar tool in performance as the Nomic. It came with a hammer and spike already attached. Smart guys at BD. The Fusion pretty much eliminated the weakness of the Nomic design. Each has subtle advantages over the other I think.

Petzl followed up this year with a hammer, adze and new pommel for the Nomic. And 2 complete new tool designs based on the Nomic followed. Again the newest tool, the 2nd gen. Ergo, is a very radical shape. The Ergo's shape has yet to be proven but I think it might be much better than first impression, just as the Fusion, Nomic, Quark and Cobra were before it.

New tools and crampon designs aren't done by a long shot....more to come in near future!

Old school, New school.... 24 years of Alpinism.

The Croz Spur, winter 1987, Christophe Profit and the Simond Chacal/Barracuda.



The Croz Spur, fall 2009, Will, Jon with the Nomic and Cobra.

Croz spur with Slovenian start- Grandes Jorasses from Jonathan Griffith on Vimeo.