More on the Spantik by Jesse Huey and Mark Westman...

Mark and Jesse on Denali's summit ridge after their quick ascent of the Slovak route, June 2010.

(Jesse is off to China so this picture was stolen from his face book account but seems appropriate here)



MOST everyone recognises the La Sportiva Spantik as the current "gold standard" in technical dbl boots.

I had originally asked Mark Westman and Jesse Huey for their comments/insights on the Spantik as I was doing a review for the new Scarpa 6000 and I like to make comparisons. Both Mark and Jesse were gracious enough to offer their thoughts on the Spantik. But then it seemed dumb on my part to bury their comments in a review on the Scarpa 6000. Thought better of it.

If you don't recognise their names take a look at that video of the Slovak route on Denali again. Both these guys have been ripping it up in the alpine for some time. I write, sitting on my ass......these two guys actually climb.... a lot!

Many thanks for allowing me to post your comments here guys! Hopefully it will help someone else down the road. And FWIW...just my opinion after a short review but I'd bet the Spantik makes a way better ski boot than the 6000.




Here is the straight story from two guys in the thick of it.

Jesse said:

"So my opinion on the Spantiks... well for one until the new Scarpa boots came out, I was under the impression that they were the best double boot out there balancing warmth, weight, and ability to climb technical terrain. That said, and not to say that any specialized alpine boot out there, was designed for skiing, these boots wrecked havoc on my feet skiing to and from our climbs... It was certainly an oversight to not properly put blister pads BEFORE the ski in where I thought I would get them. All that aside though, they climb anything you will find in the mountains incredibly well. I think it would be challenging to climb anything in the M8 category with them because of the weight and volume. The new Scarpa 6000 boots made me think about ditching the Spantiks... People capable of climbing M10 could absolutely do it in these boots (I normally use the silver sportiva trango's - fruit boots are the lamest thing I have ever seen). The low volume/light weight really surprised me. I am under the impression that the Spantiks are (probably) a hair warmer, which is certainly a concern for climbing in cold climates, where in Alaska this year on the SAR team, we saw no less than 50 people come through our med tent with frostbite. So all that said, I like my Spantiks, blisters and all, and will be taking them to China as my climbing boot. If I were to start all over though and had to buy a new pair, I may be leaning toward the Scarpa's but still haven't had a chance to try them out so cant say if they have a good fit or not.

A few things about the spantiks you could note: they are 700$ and have parts that cost 0.25$ that when they fail, your boots are hooped... I have seen this at least 3 times on out of the box spantiks.

The boot takes wear pretty quickly. The shells are durable enough, but I recommend seam gripping literally everything on them to preserve their life and making sure to change your laces often enough so that they don't break on a climb, which I have found out the hard way...."


Mark said:

"Spantik...I guess I don't nitpick gear too much, for me usually it either works or it doesn't. Having said that...

The downside: Jesse and I both got HUGE blisters from skiing uphill in these boots. First it happened on the patrol. These eventually healed but then we just got a fresh new set while approaching the Slovak on skis. While just climbing, I don't think we would have gotten them- as you know, skiing uphill especially with a sled as we has en route to 14 on our patrol often results in blisters. At least for me it does, my feet have always been susceptible.

Anyway that's about the only performance criticism I can muster and it might have happened with lots of other boots for all I know. I have fat feet and fallen arches and these were otherwise very comfortable. I summitted on the buttress and the Slovak without any sort of gaiters or overboots and my feet were warm (June 2nd in cold temps and wind, and June 23rd in warm windless weather). My feet did get extremely cold in our mid route 31 hour push but we were dehydrated and very tired so we didn't have much reserve to fight anything at that point.

The boots climbed steep ice and mixed really well and felt less "clunky" than the Nupste's, which I used for the previous five years.

I do have one substantial gripe about the design details: the plastic hooks on the speed lacing system of the inner boot are really chintzy, and I busted one off the very first time I put them on and had to send them back for warranty replacement. But sure it'll happen again. Also, the Velcro closure at the upper end will wear out in another season or so. Pretty cheap bullshit materials for a $700 boot. In addition, the little round grommet that you secure the outer laces around on my boots is already coming loose after 2 months of use, it still works for now but I'm
sketched enough that it might fail (leaving me no great options for securing the laces) that I probably will be sending these back again for warranty. So I do think these 50 cent parts being used for the execution of crucial functions of the boot is not a great feature."



---

The Scarpa Phantom 6000 review

IT'S BACK! (finally) The 2.5# dbl boot! The Scarpa Phantom 6000

I know, I know, it only took 30 years but we are finally back to a double boot that excels on technical climbing and that weighs in at a svelte 2# 10oz in my size 12 (46) feet. (Poetic license and a cleaner intro on the 2.5# since my size 12s won't make that number. )

I can drop a full pound off my size 12 feet by using these boots!
That is 6.5 off my back by the theory. But do they fit? And how do they climb?

If you missed my previous bitch fest blog post I had been laughing at how both Sportiva and Scarpa...and any one else in the business for that matter...had not yet equaled let alone duplicated the warmth, climbing ability and weight of the 1980 Kolfach Ultra @ 2# 10oz with an Aveolite inner boot. Kinda sad that even though the boots were now in the $700 range. (Buyer hint: wait, be patient and hunt around. If you do not unusual that you can buy any of them on sale for $500 or less. The 6000 went on sale for $70 off retail before I even got the review written! The Internet price for a pair of Spantiks can be as low as $500 from what I have seen.)

Boot weights (Euro size 45 or 11.5/12 US)

La Sportiva Spantik 3# .o5oz
La Sportiva Baruntse 3# 2.5oz

La Sportiva Batura (winter single boot) 2# 7oz
Kolfach Ultra w/Aveolite liners 2# 10oz (vintage 1980)
Scarpa Phantom 6000 2# 10oz

Scarpa Phantom Guide (winter single boot) 2# 7.5oz


I am told the newest boots have sex appeal galore, technology that may or may not work and fit that could go from perfect (and just as likely from reports I get) to dismal.

At the risk of repeating myself here let me back up once again. Super Gators were very good in cold weather. Plastic boots for the most part negated their use and when required out came the neoprene full over boots as the temps dropped. Never the best answer for technical climbing because of crampon fit/or no fit many just do without and risk the cold injury.

The old Phantom 6000 and the Spantik addressed the issues in different ways but basically boots that did not require another add on gaiter to keep your feet warm enough up high and out in the cold.

After seeing the newest versions of the synthetic double boots I have long thought that to gain the warmth we all generally need the boots have gotten too big physically and the fit hasn't gotten any better compared to the older leather double boots.

My preference would be a dbl boot with slightly less volume than the Spantik or the Baruntse, equally as warm and all the while dropping some weight in the process. A warm dbl boot suitable for hard technical climbing made of modern material should be able to get under 2 and 1/2 pounds in my size 12s. With a over-all outside volume closer to the old Koflach and Asolos would be well received by many needing a warm dbl boot. The most modern technology and materials should be able to make a boot of that volume, warmer and lighter that the earlier plastic boots.

One stainless Sabertooth, no bots with Petzl bails 14.2 oz
One Phantom 6000 2# 10oz

Total weight per combo is 3# 8.2oz.

That number betters my 30 year old gold standard of 3# 9oz. of Kolfach Ultra and Chouinard hinged with straps.


Add the need for a real gaiter and different sox weights for the Kolflach and the actual weight savings is even more, or what would have been 9oz or more per foot in my 45s. And a big advantage in climbing ability and warmth with the new Scarpa 6000.

Among other things the over all volume of the boot should give us a clue on the warmth of the boot but so does the quality of the insulation, how dry the insulation stays on the interior, sole insulation and what is keeping the exterior upper dry and clear of snow.

Dbl click on the picture and take a look at the Guide on the right and the 6000 on the left in the picture. The mid sole and lugs are thinner on the 6000. Heel has less material as well. The mid sole on the 6000 is totally different between the two models of boot.


The synthetic materials allow the current boot builders to keep the outer shells dry. But until now a gaiter of some sort is usually required. Several older leather single and dbl boots have had attached gaiters, San Marco, Fabino and Trappeur comes to mind off hand. Scarpa has taken the 8000m technology of a fully integral gaitor that One Sport invented in the '80s and added it to lighter weight boots while making them warmer yet.

The Scarpa Phantom line obviously has a built in, insulated outer/super gaiter that is sealed with a water proof zipper (the TIZIP) and a button snap closure in an elastic top. It is not Scarpa's first zipper rodeo. This is 2nd and maybe 3rd generation on their gaiter and zipper for the Phantom line. And they have continued to made improvements. This version is stout. Stout enough that La Spotiva copied them and are now using the same brand "TIZIP" water proof zipper for their Batura. Simple and effect. But it is still fabric and a zipper so not terribly durable in comparison to some of the old school style boots, a Nepal Evo or Scarpa Mt. Blanc as examples. Scarpa also wisely includes the special TIZIP zipper lube for its maintenance.

Let me discuss durability a bit. Many of the very best cold weather boots do two things to eliminate weight and make the boots warmer. They use a hard foam insole/midsole to help insulate from the ground up. They also make the lug pattern and sole as thin as possible, again to save weight. Scarpa uses both techniques on the 6000 and I think to good effect on this boot.

Neither technique adds durability to the boot. Put a fabric gaiter/outer surface on the boot and you have to start thinking high performance as a cost for long term durability. The nylon material used won't shed a crampon or a sharp rock for that matter. For a boot that will generally be used with crampons and on snow and ice the majority of time they should last "long enough". But they won't last as long as some of the newest synthetic dbls available. Baruntse comes to mind as the the more durable boot of the three discussed here. In my size the cost of durability is an extra full pound on my feet. But is there a difference in warmth between the Scarpa 6000 and the La Sportive flag ship, technical, dbl boots? That observation will have to wait till December I suspect. But it is going to have to be really cold (-20C and below) to feel a difference is my thought on it. If anything I have learned from using Primaloft 1 garments that thickness of the insulation these days doesn't always give you a relative idea of how warm the garment might be in actual use. And the Scarpa 6000 uses Primaloft to insulate the outer boot. Hope for the best....plan for the worst and know your own limitations when it comes to cold feet.

The Scarpa 6000 is a lower profile and more sensitive boot than the Spantik or the Baruntse. The sole and ankle flex are somewhere between the Spotiva models. Defiantly not as stiff of flex as the Spantik...more akin to the Baruntse. It will be a great technical boot on hard terrain and stiff enough for the endless 60 degree alpine ice suffer fests IF you are accustomed to the newest flexable fabric boots. It is better compared to the La Sportiva Batura and the Scarpa Phantom Guide single boots for volume and weight. You can get an idea by that comparison on how they will be on mixed :)

Hard for me to talk about any boot without making comparisons. My current dbl boots are the Spantik, Baruntse and now the 6000. By far the worst fitting inner boot for me is the Spantik. The best is the easily heat formed Baruntse inner boot. The new 6000's inner boot is obviously intended to be a VBL inner boot worn with only a thin sox. The Velcro seals the inner up tightly. Not sure about the extra bumps on the inner boot though and comfort long term. The entry system also makes it a bitch to put on and take off the inner. That entry and the surface finish of the foam inner makes it hard to get in and out of the shell as well. The Spantik's inner is fairly traditional and a lace up. My experience is that the Spantik's eyelets are not durable on the inner or outer boot. The Baruntse has a more modern lace system on the inner. Hard to break or have a failure in that inner boot. The Baruntse is the easiest of the three to use and the most durable. It is the inner I think the Spantik should have been delivered with. It fits better and is lighter in weight. The lace system more closely mimics the Spantik shell system as well but no durability issue. Nice that my Baruntse inner will fit any of the 6000 outer boot. IMO the Baruntse inner is the best of the three for fit and ease of use. It weighs only 1/2 oz more (@6 oz) than the 6000's inner (5.5oz). The Spantiks' inner boot weights 9.0oz.

6000's Velcro sealed, VBL inner boot, and removable foam insole

The 6000's inner boot? Sadly nothing good to talk about here imo. The inner is a bitch...really a bitch... to get into. Part of that is the majority of the inner boot is unlined closed cell foam. Yes, unlined foam. Bare feet and most sox will stick to the foam trying to put them on and take them off. This inner wouldn't last me one 3 week Alaska trip. I would shred it in short order even while trying to be careful. I don't doubt it is very warm......and high tech.....but durable it ain't going to be. And that 44 size insole? Yes my 45s came with a 44 size insole in the inner boot. And the inner boot fits like a 44 as well. My guess? By the fit with this inner boot in place is the 6000 will fit one full size too small. I had actually ordered a 46 the day these arrived just to cover the bases...played with my Baruntse inner boot in the outer boot and decided the 45s would NOT work for me. I ended up with a 46s. The 45 Guides fit OK although a bit narrow in the toe.

There is really only one reason to climb in a dbl. boot. It isn't the warmth generally. Get the right single boot and keep them dry inside and out and you can deal with some terribly cold temps. The problem is doing it day after day and keeping your boots dry in and out and unfrozen. A dbl. boot is the only thing that will allow you to keep your boots dry on the inside because you can dry them in your bag at night as well as keep them from freezing. So the added warmth is great but the real reason is dry boots. Dry boots and dry sox means warm feet. No one actually enjoys climbing in double boots (any of them) ...they are all huge and they are all heavy. But way less stress in the cold mountains...with a good double boot.

Of the three boot shells the Baruntse is the only traditionally laced outer boot. Simple and effective system to get a good fit in that boot. Very durable and reliable. From my limited experience if you have problems with fitting boots the Baruntse is the boot most likely to fit. Still it can take 3 men and a boy to lace them tight enough. The Spantik has a lace system you either love or hate. I can't get my ankle tight enough without some serious effort. Too much effort in really cold conditions where the system should make things easier. Sper thin laces are rough on your hands. Inner and outer eyelets are fragile. I personally went through three pair of Spamtiks before having a "solid" pair now. Because of the lacing issue I end up with heel lift in the Spantik if I am not extremely careful adjusting the laces. Get tired and cold and not adjust the boots perfectly and I'll get heel lift going up and toe bump going down in the Spantik. So I am on the hate side of that discussion. Boots do climb well though....so I have used them on things that are cold and challenging for me.

The 6000 has an interesting lace system. My old Koflach inners were a slip on with only a Velcro strap across the top locking the tongue in place. On the 6000 you lace the outer shell to one eyelet above the angle and it locks with a mechanical lace lock...sweet system btw and very easy to use even cold or tired from what I can see so far. (see the pictures for details on the lock) By far the easiest of the three outer boots to lace tightly. It really is trick and so far if my Guides are an example the lock system is durable/reliable as well. Above the lace system is a single Velcro "power band" strap that closes the rest of the outer shell. It also controls just how stiff the boot will be and how much heel hold down you'll have by how tight you wrap that strap. Easy to go over board on either lace system and really crank the 6000 down, till it is way too tight. For me that says I'll be able to get it tight enough in the mountains when required. And it is really easy to do. A lot less toe bump or heel lift as the end result. I'm stoked on that! Velcro does wear out...but not quickly and it will be easily replaceable on this strap. But there is a lot of Velcro (1" x 4") and I suspect the boots will be toast before you have to replace the 1" x 4" hook and 1" x 4" loop that mates up on the "power strap".

Toe bump? Generally toe bump is either a too small of boot or not a tight enough boot. When I first tried the 6000 on I had just gotten off a 5 mile ridge traverse with another couple of miles of walking so I had some pretty swollen feet. I thought the sizing was at least a full size too small. Turns out I wear a 45 from Sportiva and a tight 45 in the new Scarpa Guide and a 46 in the 6000.

As I reviewed this post I was looking at the pictures and noted that the insole of the inner boot that I have flipped over in the picture above is marked "44". Sneaky bastards......... When I first pulled the 6000 out of the box it took me 10 seconds flat to figure out I didn't like the Scarpa inner boot so I didn't look at it very closely or try to get a decent fit in it. I just stuck my "go to" Baruntse inners in the shells..thinking I was set. The 6000's actual inner boot and the shells are both marked 45. But common in the dbl boot arena to not offer true half sizes and cheat on the sizing in general. My thought? Bastards! Trust no one, try the boot (any boot) on in person, verify your exact size with the liners and sox you intend to use.

Frankenstein? Both the Spantik (more so) and the Baruntse make me feel like I am walking on stilts. I gain almost a full inch in height. I am willing to put up with that because I know that the sole insulation is much of what keeps your feet warm in really cold conditions with crampons. It doesn't help my technical climbing though. You'll feel the difference on the 6000 and if you look at the photos you'll see the difference...almost a 1/2" less in sole thickness between the Spantik and the 6000 in some areas on the sole. I measured anywhere from .25" to .45" difference in total sole thickness between the two.



One of the interesting details I found on the 600 is the sole. No only are the lugs smaller and less of them than the single boot, Phantom Guide, but they have a totally different sole pattern. La Sportiva has taken good advantage of this idea as well. Where I really noticed it was in the La Sportiva Trango Series. They use sticky rubber and a technical sole pattern that can really enhance rock climbing.

The 6000 is on the left again. Check out the toe rubber on the 6000 compared to the full lug pattern on the Guide. I would have thought it would be reversed. But I am not complaining! A dbl boot that will out climb a single boot? And only 3 oz heavier? Hard to believe actually. Even ditching the original liner I am happy enough with the obvious advantages and fit of the 6000 shell that I will be using them next winter and spring. The real question is how will they hold up over a full years use? Check back for an answer on that one.

Crampons?

A good fit on the 6000 with the BD Sabertooth 'pons, BD asymetrical connecting bars and Petzl front bails.

Bill Belcourt @ Black Diamond is a smart guy, who climbs hard. He also oversees the climbing hardware dept. @ BD. So while were were both "wowed" by the weight of the 6000 at last winter's OR show he was wondering then about how the super low profile Scarpa soles on the new Phantom line would work with the BD crampon bindings. Rightfully so imo. The Phantom guide seemed to pose little problem with my hybred BD Sabertooths useing Petzl front bails and a the BD asymetrical connecting bar. But the 6000 is a jump on even the Guide's sole profile....as in a thinner and smaller profile toe. My BD Sabertooths do still work OK but my Patzl Darts and Dart Twins don't fit well at all...surprizing as I had understood Ueli Steck (Petzl sponsored) had some involvement in the boot design. So plan on having some time/effort/possible new parts for your crampons if you decide to go to the newest Scarpa boots.

Close up photo of a terrible fit, stock Petzl Dartwin 'pons on the front of the 6000.

Sabertooth with the optional aluminum Neve' heel and the asymetrical bars.

And as of tomorrow my goal will be to own only two pair of dbl boots. I''ll let you guess which two.

Scarpa's spiel:

And be sure to note the one year warranty

"Give your foot a warm and sturdy platform to help you crush your next winter ascent when you lace and zip it up inside the Scarpa Phantom 6000 Mountaineering Boot. This fortress of warmth features a built-in zip-up gaitor for sealing out the skin-searing cold and a waterproof liner so your feet stay dry even on slushy snowfields in late May.

•The tough S-tech upper’s rubber rand holds up to the abuse any frozen mountain dishes out
•Toe and heel plastic rands secure your crampons as you begin a climb into the heavens
•Waterproof liner is beefed up with a layer of EVA foam and heat-reflective aluminum to keep the warm air inside
•Insole and midsole cushion your steps while staying sensitive enough to feel each foothold before you take the next
•Vibram Mulaz outsole grips the rocks and snow as you approach the icefall
•Ergofit System stretches in the ankle for a dynamic fit for aggressive ice climbers and mountaineers
•Removable Mountain Lite liner lets you dry the sweaty liners in your sleeping bag on longer expeditions to keep them fresh and unfrozen

Material:
Shell: S-Tech (Cordura w/ 10% elastane)
Lining:Waterproof-OD, Lorica, 5mm EVA, heat-reflective aluminum
Removable Liner:Yes Sole:
Insole: Pro-Fiber XT;
Midsole: PU, microporous EVA;
Outsole: Vibram Mulaz
Crampon Compatible:Yes, very low profile toe welt
Lacing:Lace-pull on lower boot, single strap velcro closure on upper boot
Zip-up gaitor
Weight:[Pair, size 42] 4lb 6oz (2000g)
Recommended Use:Ice climbing, alpine climbing, mountaineering
Manufacturer Warranty:1 Year

The Slovak, Denali 2010

Well done guys!
And a great video.

BD grassroots athlete Jesse Huey reports on his ascent of Denali's Slovak Direct route from Black Diamond Equipment on Vimeo.

http://vimeo.com/13835595

Or copy and paste the link above.

Immersion foot?

In the last couple of weeks I have been asking my buddies what they have been up to. With all the nasty weather over most of the Western states and into Canada no surprise many of us are still trying to ice/alpine or even "winter" climb of sorts.

So while frost bite is less of an issue outside of Alaska in spring. Immersion foot is not and the injury is more serious than you might first think.

"Immersion foot occurs when feet are cold and damp while wearing constricting footwear. Unlike frostbite, immersion foot does not require freezing temperatures and can occur in temperatures up to 60° Fahrenheit (about 16° Celsius). The condition can occur with as little as twelve hours' exposure."

FWIW I suspect mild immersion foot injuries (the ones with no visual injury) are very common in the summer and winter alpine climbing communities but unreported and generally unrecognised for what they really are.

How easy is the injury to sustain? I came off a 24hr c2c winter climb and on the walk out decided I was tired enough a nap on the trail was in order. Something I had done before many times in the past winter or summer. I wasn't particularly dehydrated (but likely more than I realised), hungry or cold but with the early start from home, the drive, the approach, the climb, the decent and then the walk out I was pretty worn out and had by then been up for 30+ hrs. So a quick nap seemed a luxury. I laid down on my pack to keep me off the ground and figured as usual when the cold woke me up I'd finish the walk out with a bit more energy. The cold did wake me up as expected. So I got a 20 or 30 minute nap. And with in a few minutes of walking I was warm again and life seemed better. But what I hadn't noticed till then was I still had damp feet from breaking through some water ice earlier in the day. Took longer than expected while walking to the car for my feet to warm up, but they did eventually warm up. When I got home I took a hot shower and hit the sheets for a few hrs before I went back to work. When I finally stepped back into my shop I noticed the front half of both feet were numb. Because I kept climbing all winter it took a full 8 months for that to totally disappear and my feet are very susceptible to re injury. (front of my feet go numb) Now re injury can happen by just a few hrs of cold feet sitting at the computer early in the morning barefoot. Or wearing tight rock shoes in cool conditions and not moving, like a hanging belay for example, can do it as well.

Another example? I spent most of my first Alaskan expedition wiggling my toes every night for a hr or so before I fell asleep in my lwt bag if we weren't actually out climbing. I'd count the toe curls until I fell asleep. By the end of that trip I had numb toes but no frost bite injuries. I'd bet now I had a classic case of Immersion foot.

Not a lot is out there for the care of Immersion foot incurred in a climbing situation. Two friends I talked to about the injury said they had "frost nip", a third thought he had "nerve damage". But the symptoms are nearly the same. And almost everyone I know who has spent time out winter climbing has had either Immersion foot or Frost Bite. I suspect the basic treatment to heal the injury (nerve damage, Immersion foot, or moderate Frostbite-blisters) is also the same, keep your feet warm, clean and give yourself time to heal the injury completely without re injury.

What we miss is Immersion foot can easily lead to very serious re injury and less resistance to cold injuries in general.

So how do you know you have it? Many of us have always thought of it as "frost nip" but it generally is not. Immersion foot is serious damage to your nerves and circulation in the foot. And frost bite will be the freezing of tissue. But Immersion foot may have almost no outward sign of injury. Frost Bite most defiantly will. A good thing many of us are beginning to recognise there is an injury with Immersion foot by incorrectly naming it "frost nip". Your feet or at least the toes and forefoot become numb with Immersion foot. Get a good enough case of Immersion foot and even your once comfortable but tight rock shoes will now not fit and worse yet re injure you feet on a typical spring day and you don't have to have cold feet while it happens .

The other culprit that leads to Immersion foot is abuse, same reason the rock shoe scenario is so hard on their past winter's injury. Get on some hard and continuous alpine ice with a tight fitting boot and it is very easy to pound you feet and toes into submission with nerve damage. But sometimes it is hard to tell nerve damage from Immersion foot. Keeping your feet warm and dry once out of the mountains is your best chance of healing your feet quickly and getting back outside in comfort.

Besides making an effort to treat your feet better and wearing a warmer climbing boot this time of year with all the bad weather, what can you do once you have a good case of Immersion foot?

My answers to date: wear very warm shoes in the house or office so your feet sweat. Keep your feet dry even if you have to change socs several times a day while doing little or nothing. It will heal the nerve endings faster if your feet are warm. But avoid doing nothing once you are out of your boots. Walking seems to speed healing. Pounding out mileage I am not so sure about once you get into the "abuse of feet" distances. Watch how warm/dry your feet stay if you are riding a bicycle for training. Remember you only have to get to 60° Fahrenheit (about 16° Celsius) before damage can re occur. After the first incident with Immersion foot your feet will be damaged easier the next time. The amount of time between the first injury and the next exposure can make a difference as well on how you heal and your next case of Immersion foot. While your feet are still numb stay out of tight rock shoes. And most importantly avoid getting your feet cold again for any reason while they are still numb. The more time between exposures to cold the better.

As a side note to make the point. Have you ever heard of older people having "poor circulation" in their feet and them always being cold? Remember that Immersion foot can be experienced at 60° Fahrenheit. Many, many cases of "poor circulation" as we age are simply reoccurring Immersion foot events until the person has suffered permeate cold damage to their feet.

Why the weight of your footwear is important?

My apologies for not first putting the previous post on a 3# boot/crampon combo into context. The study cited below is worth a look if you find this subject interesting. The first quote is from this web page:

http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/gear/clothing.html

I have only looked at the boot weight info on that web page because it is old info I wanted to share and have not read the rest of the page so as always "buyer beware".

"Keep in mind that for every 1 lb of footwear, it's like carrying an extra 6.4 lb of weight on your back." [Authors: S. J. Legg a; A. Mahanty - This study was conducted in part fulfilment of an MSc in Human and Applied Physiology, London University 1982. Published in: Ergonomics, Volume 29, Issue 3 March 1986 , pages 433 - 438]

'Ergonomics' is a widely distributed journal, owned by 616 libraries in US and CAN, according to the WorldCAT. Many research universities have it available. 'Ergonomics' is published by the Ergonomics Research Society. They do government funded, peer reviewed, research worldwide, on fatigue, industrial and medical ergonomics, flight simulators, body armor, etc.


"Shoe Weight, runners 28oz, boots 70oz (my Trango extremes are just over 32oz per boot or 64oz)
Equiv. work for this Weight on you back, runners=11.2 lbs, boots=28 lbs"

I found from guiding that most folks are hard pressed to carry 25% of their body weight day in and day out. That means a 200# man gets 50 lbs in their pack. A 120 # woman 30 lbs in hers. Plus what ever they are wearing. If you want to stay healthy get under that number. Try doing hard technical climbing and it is even less. 20% for a "big" load or 40# for a 200lb man.

Sure you can carry more but you'll pay for it one way or the other.

A typical dbl boot and technical crampon in my size will be around 12 lbs on your feet per pair or 76 lbs on your back. Now you can see why I want to cut my boot weight to 6lb for the pair or what adds up to 38 lbs.

But as John implied in the previous post's comments if the crampon and boot combo you chose doesn't make your climbing easier you should look for a better combo and stop worrying about the weight.

As much as I like them I no longer climb in Dartwins because I found them too unstable on easy terrain. The weight drop of the "sport" style crampon is not worth the extra effort required for me to use them no matter how light they are.

So I work at getting my boot/crampon combo as light as possible. But I also work at getting all my gear as light as possible. I will not sacrifice weight for performance. Durability? Sure, depending on the economics involved sort out. 5 extra .oz on your feet is worth a full 2 lbs on your back. Think about what 2 lbs is worth in your pack?


I could loose extra body weight by the pound and worry less about the weight of my gear. But there are climbers out there who have no extra body weigh to loose. Those are the climbers who can best take advantage of lwt gear.

Or as a couple of my buddies like tell me when I start fixating on gear weights, "Just train harder and it won't matter." But in reality everything matters.

Same reason we train, watch our diet and buy the best gear possible. It is all in the details and it all matters.

3 lbs?

3 lb 4 oz per foot, Scarpa boot and Black Diamond crampon combo, in a size 45.


Not a dbl boot but more than a single boot.
Not a full steel crampon but at least the front half is.
Not 3 lbs but we are getting closer.

3lb 9 oz is the steel crampon, true double boot, gold standard in a size 45. Sadly that is a 1980's Kolfach Ultra, Evolite liner, strap-on steel, hinged Chouinards.


Spantik, Baruntse liner, Stripped Sabertooth with a aluminum Neve heel, Petzl front bail, size 45. 3lb 10oz. Make it an all steel Sabertooth with your custom Spantik and you have a 4# combo per foot. A 6# combo with a stock set of Cyborgs.
6lb 4oz with factory Spantiks and Cyborgs.

Only a 1/2 lb per foot to go.
Why does this have to so hard?
Is anyone paying attention?

Nomic Hammers?

Blatant commercial spiel here..so be warned.

This is something I have been doing commercially but generally under the radar for the last 3 years all the while trying to get Petzl to do it themselves. The new Nomic will offer a hammer as an option.

I'll also be making this hammer as a retro fit for all the newest tools and the new picks this coming winter. But no reason to sell your old Nomic. Most of the newest features can be upgraded into your current Nomic including the better umbilical attachment point and hammer.

First experience with the new lower grip pommel is it will also retro fit with a little effort.

This hammer is lighter and better balanced than Petzl's new hammer for the Nomic. I cut new factory picks to fit my hammer. Spare picks for these hammers can also be easily made from the older style (pre winter of '10/'11) Quark picks and a few minutes on a grinder. Nomic pick weights are 62grams. The CT hammer is 34grams. The Petzl Nomic hammer is 65g.

La Sportiva Baruntse revisted

With the volcano in Iceland nixing my plans to climb in Chamonix earlier this spring I had some time and money on my hands and no place I really wanted to go. That is a dangerous combination!

Daniel Harro's email last month and pictures of the work done on his Spantiks got me thinking.

The Baruntse gives my foot a great fit and offers a full length, rigid, nylon midsole so it front points very well. I like the support, lacing and cuff better for my foot than the Spantik. The over all warmth of both boots I suspect is very comparable with similar upper design and materials.







The obvious advantages of the Spantik is it has a foam midsole for extra warmth on top of a carbon fiber midsole used to cut weight and add rigidity. The other thing Sportiva used in the Spantik design is a very thin Vibram sole to also lower the weight.

After seeing what cobbler Dave Page of Seattle did to Daniel's Spantiks by adding a Nepal midsole and big block Vibram sole it got me thinking. Wrong direction for Daniel's Spantik imo by adding the weight of a Nepal sole/mid sole and duplicating the Baruntse combination, but how about going the other way and dropping a few ounces?

I took my Baruntses down to Dave Page's one afternoon and described what I wanted. Dave pulled out a couple of different Vibram sole options. I had brought along a accurate electronic scale to see if the weights "added up". And sure enough, it looked like a resole with the "proper" La Sportiva Vibram would drop 4oz per boot and add more insulation under foot while doing it. ( I didn't think the added insulation was needed but..if it goes with a weight drop why not?)

I ended up with a Baruntse that weights in at 2# 15.5oz compared to the factory Spantik at 3#.05oz. A total of 1.5 oz difference. Spantik has a 26mm mid sole at the ball of the foot and my lwt Baruntse has a 25mm midsole thickness in the same place.

Original La Sportiva factory, size 45, weights:

Spantik 3# .o5oz
Baruntse 3# 2.50oz

semi custom boot weights:

Spantik with a Baruntse liner 2# 13.5oz
Baruntse w/inner and lwt sole 2# 15.5oz

I ended up dropping only 3oz per boot but I did gain some sole insulation as well. The new lug pattern has a sold toe areas and will be better for pure rock climbing. Certainly more cushion in the boot now, both in the sole sole and heel. Down side? The Vibram soles are thinner so they won't last as long on hard surfaces. Same durability issue on a Spantik as well. But the Baruntse has more surface area being used on the newer sole.

.

Factory Baruntse and a Trangpo Extreme GTX in size 45



I like climbing technical ground in the Baruntse better than in the Spantik so it is a win/win for me. And even with the resole I am still almost $200 under the Spantik retail. Would I do it again? Cost was $78.00 for the resole. No real reason to do it other than curiosity on my part to see what kind of weight loss I would come up with. But if I wanted to take the Baruntse on a cold, technical Denali route, I would do it again in a heart beat. No question it is less weight and a warmer boot now. Warm enough to leave the over boots at home above 17K.....may be :)

This is an modification that would cost La Sportiva nothing in production and it would offer us one more option for dbl boots.

Factory sole..

Baruntse with a lwt, La Sportiva factory resole added.

Real weight?

Some times even I wonder just how important tracking you gear weights really is.

If you wonder as well take a quick look at what I used on Polar Circus in '08 and what I used on the same climb in similar conditions in '09, '10  and  '11.

pack-CCW in ballistics nylon 2#6oz
boots-Nepal Evo 2#10.5oz
screws-12 -12cm Helix 60.7oz
belay parka-Mtn Hardware Compressor Hoody 19.8oz
soft shell-Arcteryx Gamma MX Hoody XL 24oz
pants-Arcteryx soft shell Bib large 30.3oz
helmet-Grivel Salamander 13.7oz
crampons-Grivel G12 full bot 35.6oz

total weight in 2008 16.5#

pack-CCW Ozone, custom, 20" back, Spectra 1#9oz no lid
boots-Trango Evo Extreme GTX 2#3oz
screws-8 -12cm Helix 40.8oz
no belay parka
hard/soft shell-EB Frontpoint XL 18.5oz
pants-Gamma Lt large 12oz
helmet-Petzl Meteor III 7.9oz
Dartwin 1/2 bot 30.5oz

Total weight in 2009 10.6#

How does that relate to effort in the real world? In '08 we climbed the route as fast as I ever have with a partner. In '09, with more comfort and significantly less effort than I have ever used on the climb and not actually trying to climb any faster than normal we almost cut that time in half! And in very similar conditions.


Even better I didn't add the weight savings of my gloves, harness, 'biners or inner layers all of which added up quickly as well for an additional significant weight savings. So my take is; it really is worth paying attention to what you buy and carry.


It is always a learning experience. The system I last used in warm conditions?

pack-REI Flash 18L 9.2oz -
boots-Scarpa Phantom Ultra 2#3.5oz +
screws-8-13cm BD Express 38.4oz -
Arcteryx Squawmish XL 5.6oz -
pants-Gamma Lt large 12oz =
helmet-Petzl Meteor III 7.9oz =
Stainess Sabertooth stripped/Neve heel 25.4oz -

Total weight 8.2#

And what I used in -30C temps early last winter?

CCW packs 1# 9oz

Spantiks 3#.05oz / 1362g

screws-12 -12cm Helix 60.7oz

Atom Lt Hoody 14.4oz / 429g

NWAlpine Salopettes 21.6oz / 612g

helmet-Petzl Meteor III 7.9oz =

Vertical front point crampons 39.4oz / 1116g

EB down pull over 15.4 oz / 455g


14.5#






Close ups of the upper tiers on Polar Circus.

The Dream? The Adventure!

I don't know what climbing, specifically alpine climbing, means to anyone including myself. I can no more tell you why climbing is so important and good for me than I can tell you how the universe was created or what "life" is.


But I know it started as a dream, a wish for adventure and a ability to comprehend what I saw in nature as something more than just special.

No matter what I climb, the type of terrain or how much I enjoy the moment it is all related to being in the mountains eventually and alpine climbing.

I get teased sometimes about my obvious boot fetish. Couple of things happened recently to bring me back to the original "dream", cold feet and why my desire of wanting to climb so badly.

The boot fetish is based on the reality of spending a lot of time out doors as a young kid. My parents hunted, fished and skied. Of course all that slowed down when they had kids..at least until we (the kids) could walk. And by walking I don't think we had to be able to walk far before we were off on their adventures. From my childhood I remember three things from those adventures, cold feet, how I liked heights when everyone else got scared and how much fun it was to be in the snow.

So the boot fetish should be easy to understand. I had cold feet from day one!

In the late 1950's the lookout shown above was the first place I remember seeing, and others talking about, climbing. I can remember my Dad walking with me out to the lookout and back hand in hand on that set of stairs. I was in the 2nd grade. Imagine my surprise to find out the Needles had its, "first recorded technical climbing is April 1970, Fred Beckey, Dan McHale, Mike Heath climbed the South Face of the Warlock, an 8 pitch climb rated 5.9." That ascent is of course a a full ten years after me seeing climbers in the Needles.

The view of the Needles from the lookout.


That was 50 years ago and I still get a thrill remembering the journey. It was another 10 years before I was to actually climb. But not because of a lack of desire. As I aged I remembered the thrill of that simple visit to the Lookout and the awe I had for the guys climbing on the rocks.

Learning to ski held my attention as did dirt bikes, basketball, football, bicycles, guns, knives and swimming. In the late '60s and early '70s our high school library carried a French magazine called "Paris Match" and even though I was taking French I couldn't read much of it. But, my Oh my, the pictures! Rene Desmaison made me WANT to be a alpine climber. Add a subscription to National Geographic my Grandmother gave at Chrismas every year since I was born (really, since I was born) and how could I not WANT to climb :)


" Readers of Paris Match read his dramatic reports and a radio audience measured in millions shivered with him during a live broadcast caught in a storm on the north face of the Grandes Jorasses......

In the 1960s when many of the so-called “last great problems” in the Alps were being addressed, Desmaison played a leading part in solving them. One attempt on the unclimbed Central Pillar of Freney, high on the Brenva face of Mont Blanc, became a France v Britain race. A team including Chris Bonington, Ian Clough and Don Whillans had a day's lead and were attempting the difficult overhanging crux of the climb when a group led by Desmaison appeared, attempting the same pillar by a nearby line. Bonington recalled that the corner crack they were trying to climb was too wide for their pitons but too small for the protective wooden wedges they were carrying. A request to the French for suitable gear met a firm and not unreasonable “non”, as the same gear was needed on their own route. Bonington and Whillans persevered, overcame the crux and dropped a rope to the rest of their team which the French then asked to use to ascend the difficult pitches. The rope was left, but seemingly failed to find a mention in French accounts of the climb.

Desmaison's closest brush with death came in the winter of 1971 attempting a new route on the Grandes Jorasses. With Serge Gousseault, a newly qualified Chamonix guide, the two climbers became trapped by violent storms sweeping the mountain face. After six days of slow, difficult climbing the weather had closed in. They reached a summit cornice, an overhanging lip of snow and ice, only a short distance from safety but were unable to move, hanging from pitons in a festoon of ropes. Rescue helicopters twice arrived above them but failed to understand Desmaison's signals for help. On the 12th day Gousseault froze to death and it was two days later that Desmaison, near death himself from cold and dehydration, was air- lifted to safety. Two years later he returned and completed the climb, once more arriving on the summit in a storm. "
René Desmaison, French mountaineer, guide, author and film-maker, was born on April 14, 1930. He died on September 28, 2007, aged 77

So between Desmaison and Gaston Rebuffat, another French Alpinist with a penchant for photography, writing and good climbs I was hooked long before I ever owned an ice axe.

Skiing, when I started, most still used leather boots. And the boots could be used for walking as required as well as skiing. Not cutting edge technology by any means even then but a whole lot of fun. Not a lot of difference between skiers and climbers then from my limited perspective.

Then while in high school our family moved to a little town just east of Mt. Adams. From our new home you could see Mt Hood, Mt Adams, St Helens, and of course Mt Rainier!

Now I just had to learn how to climb mountains! Of course I had no clue just how much mountains and climbing would come to influence the rest of my life.

A duplicate of my first "climbing" boots, age 14. Army surplus, alpine troop, ski and mtn boot. Bought in Lewiston Idaho with paper route money shortly before seeing Mt. Hood up close for the first time.

That was my start. Yours?

Scarpa Phantom Guide vs the La Sportiva Batura

New:  2/15/2011...here is an update on the newest 2011 Batura worth looking at, as the Batura has some significant changes for the better.

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-2011-la-sportiva-batura_14.html

As always a caveat. My foot isn't your foot. Some will find the Batura a much better boot for them than the Guide. And some will find the Guide a better fit and boot for them than the Batura. I really like and believe in the potential of a "super gator" style boot for cold weather climbing. I don't think of either of these boots as being perfect. Despite both companies best effort to date either boot is too heavy for their warmth imo.

The La Sportiva Batura in my size 45 weights in at 2lb 7oz per boot. The Scarpa Phantom Guide in a size 45 weighs in at 2lb 7.5oz. Both should be closer to the 2lb they advertise.

As a comparison in size 45 both the La Sportiva Trango Exteme Evo GTX and the Nepal Evo GTX offer similar warmth while admittedly differing levels of protection. The Trango weight in at 2# 3oz, the all leather Nepal Evo at 2# 10oz.






I have intentionally updated the previous La Sportiva Batura review to put it on the same page as this review and the comparison of the Batura along side the newest Scarpa Phantom Guide.

In many ways these two boots are very old school. Basically light weight single boots with a short, Peter Carmen style "super gator" permanently attached as noted in the Batura review. It was a system that allowed us to use a lighter weight boot that climbed better technically and still have enough warmth to use the system in Alaska during the spring if you didn't go too high and winter in Canada if it didn't get too cold.

Lots of "ifs" in that statement but it worked without cold injuries, generally. Still there are places cold enough that a single boot just is not enough and enough cases of frostbite from those using Super Gators and good single boots on cold, difficult routes many quickly realised double boots were a better answer. Lucky for us Koflach came out with the Ultras about that time and then dominated the market for cold weather technical climbing for the next 20 years.

The flip side to that is both the Phantom guide and the Batura are chock full of high tech materials and technology.

But let me address a couple of things first that should be mentioned about fabric boots (both the Scarpa and La Sportive here are "fabric" boots) that are important.

"Mountain Guide and Scarpa consultant, Brian Hall emphasises that the Phantoms won't last as long as traditional leather and plastic mountaineering boots, but the sort of climber who uses them is after maximum performance regardless of cost..."

Nice of Mr. Hall and Scarpa to so easily admit that fact. La Sportiva on the other hand doesn't bother to mention it at all. No matter just how true it REALLY is. The majority of time I have spent in boots over the last 10 years has been in fabric boots. The exceptions have been the newest Nepal Evo and the older, blue Scarpa Frenzy. Both fully rigid soled, leather boots and both build stout for technical climbing and to last.

It would take me multiple years to wear either leather boot out and you would go through several resoles before you did.

Admittedly I have a hard foot to fit and am rough on boots because I have skinny feet in a size 12 US and weight in at 200# on a good day. Add a pack and gear to that and easy to be pushing 225# plus while climbing when all geared up.

There are times I prefer some extra ankle and forward support to ease the calf strain of the leverage on a big foot and my climbing weight. I've not found a technical, all fabric boot that will do that yet, short of the very best dbl boots, like the Phantom 6000, the Baruntse or Spantik.

And the kind of support and warmth a double boot offers isn't always needed let alone desired.

In Chamonix the previous versions of the Scarpa Phantom 6000 and the Phantom Light had the enviable reputation of being extremely durable compared to the Batura (which broke zippers and had wear issues on the fabric) or the Spantik (which broke laces and eyelets.




The La Sportiva all fabric Trango series of boots have lots of complaints on sole wear and fabric durability. All complaints I originally chose to ignore. While I love the original sticky soles of the Trango Evo series, the durability and support of the Trango is dismal even after just a little use. I basically wore a pair of Trango Extreme Evo GTX boots out in 3 months of ice climbing on just the weekends! That is CRAZY and expensive!

So while I am willing to put up with a reputation that matches "the sort of climber who uses them is after maximum performance regardless of cost" I am not willing to buy a new pair of boots every 6 to 9 months no matter how high the performance.

If you want a boot to last from today's choices, buy a leather boot. The Nepal Evo and the Scarpa Mt. Blanc are exceptional, lwt, technical leather boots. If you don't want to buy new boots every year I'd strongly suggest buying leather.

I feel the Super Gator/single boot idea is worthy of support. Most of my hard climbing has been done in one form or another of that combination up to and including the Batura the last couple of winters.

The original Scarpa Phantom Light, Scarpa's previous model to the Phantom Guide.

So let me get into the Batura / Guide comparison so you can see what I think are the real differences are.

The Batura has lots of things going for it and some faults as well to fit me correctly. And I really do wish the Batura did fit me correctly.

Batura's faults for my foot and fit:

Loose ankle cuff that doesn't tighten on my skinny ankles.
Not enough padding or width in the boot tongue for comfort or support
Hard to lace lower
Not enough lacing on the upper cuff and what is there is poorly placed and designed
Poor seal on the gaiter
Not enough support side to side and forward on the cuff
Terrible, super soft ankle flex, with almost zero support
Hard to keep dry inside and hard to dry out

An additional lower boot eyelet at the ankle and a third set of upper cuff lace hooks make the Phantom Guide different from the Batura. With the addition of a more substantial and well padded tongue all combine to offer more support in the ankle with no loss in flexibility.

The excellent sewn on gaiters of both boots are virtually the same height when snugged as they generally would be in use.

The lower lace system on the Phantom Guide also offers a lace "pull" that greatly increases the ability to tighten and just as importantly, untighten, the lower boot in use.

The Phantom Guide allows me to make my crampons one click smaller for size but mandate the use of a asymmetrical center bar for a proper fit.

The advantages of either boot?


Short integral gaiter.
More water resistance and warmth that a typical leather/fabric boot because of the full coverage gaiter
Flexible cuffs that allow for easy walking and good flexibility to rock or mix climb
Rigid soles for full clip-on crampons
Warm enough for all but the coldest temps



In my size 45 the insole is slightly longer on the Phantom Guide while the over all volume is slightly less on the outside than the Batura. The Phantom Guide is a more trim, lower volume boot and closer fitting boot than the Batura on my foot which makes rock and hard mixed easier.
The issues the Phantom guide solves for my foot.

ankle cuff will tighten on my skinny ankles.
Good padding and width in the boot tongue for comfort or support
easily lacing lower
upper and lower boot have enough eyelets for a proper fit
Good seal on the gaiter
Good support and progressive flex on the ankle

Goretex and Primaloft 1 should help keep the boot dry and help dry the boot once wet

One of the down sides to the Batura is the insulation inside the boot gets wet in use from sweat. And more importantly the Batura then becomes extremely hard to dry out in the field. The P-Guide on the other hand has a removable Primaloft 1 inner sole and the boot is also insulated with Primaloft 1. From my other experiences with Primaloft I know it dries faster with body heat than any other insulation I have used. Primaloft 1's insulation value and warmth is way out of proportion to the thickness used. Add to that a Goretex liner in the Scarpa P-Guide. Both Primaloft and Goretex should offer distinct advantages of the Scarpa over the La Sportiva in staying dry both from your body's moisture and the outside elements.













I've yet to had the opportunity to use this boot in very cold weather but I would expect the P-Guide to be a warmer boot than the Batura. Not a lot warmer mind you, but warmer and certainly easier to dry out in the field.


Easier to get in and out of the P-Guide and the laces lock my heels in much better. In general the S-Guide just fits me better over all. There isn't a lot more support in the ankle on the S-Guide than the Batura but what is there is noticeable and more comfortable for me. Certainly a lot less heel lift on the S-Guide no matter how you chose to tie the boot compared to the Batura.

I am still trying to wrap my head around how comfortable it is to walk in both these boots. Much of alpine climbing is spent on the approach. So walking is important. Although I will generally give up that comfort for the support of a heavier boot. This winter I used a La Sportiva Trango Evo Extreme on a number of long approaches and water fall climbs including no approach but some good ice on a quick ascent of Polar Circus.


















Because of the ridiculiously easy ease of access I use ascents of Polar Circus a a testing ground for a lot of gear. Never thought I would enjoy a really light weight set of boots on a climb of that length. But there is enough walking to take advantage of a boot like the Trango, Batura or Phantom Guide. The longest stretch of front pointing is easy terrain on the approach pitches. You never climb more than 100m of steep ice in one session before getting a ledge or snow again up higher.


So for climbs like that or road side cragging on things like Curtain Call, Nemesis or even Slipstream I think any of these soft and lwt fabric boots are great. Just pray you don't have to spend a cold, unplanned night out in them. Because without some serious preventive measures most will have wet feet at the end of a long day in these boots. The full gaiter covering these boots keeps them drier and warmer for longer days walking and climbing but I'll repeat myself, they are not a replacement for a dbl boot. If they were only more durable they might well be good as summer alpine ice boots. Hopefully I'll be able to give a follow up on how the Phantom Guide holds up in those conditions.




















Thankfully both Scarpa and now La Sportiva are using the T-ZIP for better water resistance on the gaiter and better durability. Scarpa has long used the T-ZIP on their previous generations of Phantom boots and have an enviable reputation.