Thread: AT boots vs alpine

There seems to be an increasing number of people using AT boots for every day skiing and this looks kind of sweet. I have a few questions if I may

1) Can AT boots handle hard charging on field skiing? (I realize this is boot and set up dependent, but can it be done?)
2) Are folks dropping cliffs with AT boots? - is it enjoyably or sketch?
3) how much tweaking is needed to an AT boot before it's at it's best for down hill skiing?

I know a lot of this has been covered in part or in kind in many different threads but I couldn't find this answered properly.

Ta,

AT boots can ski anything.

The real question is, Can YOU ski anything in AT boots?

Some folks can and love em and some swear they need 130 flex plug boots to ski anything above a 15 degrees slope.

I love skiing in my AT boots. I find the forward flex gives me more freedom in how I utilize my balance. Super comfy too. I don't really "huck" but take the occasional 10 footer from time to time. I don't think I'll ever go back to Alpine boots.

factor, radium, skookum/typhoon are all very viable options according to everything I've been reading on here.

this question has never ever ever been asked

I've got the Black Diamond Factor which is basically a full on alpine boot with a walk mode. I'd do anything I would do in my everyday resort alpine boot.

The answer to 1 through 3 will depend entirely on who you ask. It varies from a hearty yes to a blustery no

If you like soft alpine boots like the flexon, yes.
If you like stiff alpineboots like - say - dobermann -, most likely no.

the biggest reason for me to keep a pair of alpine boots around is price...my AT boots were expensive and I want them to last as long as possible. I got my 130 Langes for a little over $200 at a bargain basement sale a few years ago and its a whole lot cheaper to put in a day or wear and tear inbounds on those boots than on my AT boots. I think if I skied my AT boots in bounds and backcountry I'd be burning through a pair every other season.

And here I was trying to find the one (pair of) boots quiver. Damn you and your unassailable logic!

I also have the Factors and they can handle any thing, I'll keep my alpine boots though because I put the Dynafit soles on my Factors.

Originally Posted by AsheanMT

AT boots can ski anything.

The real question is, Can YOU ski anything in AT boots?

Some folks can and love em and some swear they need 130 flex plug boots to ski anything above a 15 degrees slope.

I love skiing in my AT boots. I find the forward flex gives me more freedom in how I utilize my balance. Super comfy too. I don't really "huck" but take the occasional 10 footer from time to time. I don't think I'll ever go back to Alpine boots.

I agree with the above statement 100%

Originally Posted by CG

I'll keep my alpine boots though because I put the Dynafit soles on my Factors.

Is changing the soles too much of a hassle on these? Worth knowing...

Originally Posted by srsosbso

Is changing the soles too much of a hassle on these? Worth knowing...

One boot was a real quick change, the other was a bit more of a hassle, the rubbery sole material under the arch was a little over molded and had to be trimmed so the toe would fit. Other then that it was no problem.

Originally Posted by CG

I'll keep my alpine boots though because I put the Dynafit soles on my Factors.

Originally Posted by CG

Other then that it was no problem.

So are you hanging on to the alpine boots because they ski better, or to save wear and tear on the factors, or because the changover is too time consuming (how long does it take, anyway?) or because your alpine boots match your outfit, or something else I can't think of? I'm thinking seriously of these factors, so I'm curious.

I agree with CG that the sole change is quick and after the first time it's even quicker. I'm keeping my other boots such as my megarides for super long tours and my alpine boots cause I'm in boots nearly everyday of the season so I find switching boots actually helps my feet. The factor is by far the closest thing to a one quiver boot I've owned or tried on. The only thing that would concern me is that unlike the front at block that bolts into threads the rear screws just go into plastic, which confused me when I switched them cause I read here that they didn't. After a ton of switching that may become a problem.

Originally Posted by snoop

unlike the front at block that bolts into threads the rear screws just go into plastic.

SERIOUSLY? WTF? Jeez, imagine that BD engineering group conversation.

"Hey, we should make sure these bolt into t-nuts for longevity."

"Ya. Good idea. Hey, let's just do it on the front though. Just, you know, because."

"Okay, well, that's kind of a design compromise. But what the hell, lets charge extra for the AT blocks while we're at it."

Christ, this could be a deal breaker for me...

Not real sure why they did that, as I was bummed and confused when I switched them. It wasn't a deal breaker cause I won't switch that often if ever. I wouldn't let that discourage you to much. I personally don't do this but wasn't there just a whole discussion on how you can run a lugged at sole in alpine bindings and still have similar release qualities?

I think the formal testing indicated the actual DIN range would vary by up to FOUR from how it was set, and that is IF the binding has a toe height adjustment. Kind of marginal. Here's the link.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...lpine+bindings

Originally Posted by srsosbso

I think the formal testing indicated the actual DIN range would vary by up to FOUR from how it was set, and that is IF the binding has a toe height adjustment. Kind of marginal. Here's the link.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...lpine+bindings

fer fucks sake man it was one test done years ago

The test was done in 2004. And results would differ if tested today because...?

Originally Posted by srsosbso

So are you hanging on to the alpine boots because they ski better, or to save wear and tear on the factors, or because the changover is too time consuming (how long does it take, anyway?) or because your alpine boots match your outfit, or something else I can't think of? I'm thinking seriously of these factors, so I'm curious.

Keeping the alpines because I have some old race skis and resort skis I break out every so often and the binders are set for those boots.

As for the bolts they only keep the sole from sliding off, from what I've been told you could have the bolts removed and you will be able to get back to the car, the soles ride on a rail system molded into the boots.

Ya, I've seen photos of the rail system, seems solid. Just hate the idea of threading screws in and out of plastic over the long haul. Maybe I wouldn't change them that often, though I have at least a couple of pairs of skis with alpine binders on them.

Originally Posted by srsosbso

results would differ if tested today because...?

the sample size was 2 and 1 of them worked fine to me

changing boot soles sucks

Ya, I hear ya about both. However, though the test was of limited scale, it does confirm what one would conclude theoretically- ie. that a vibram sole is going to interfere with the function of a binding that counts on the boot SLIDING out laterally. I think if the test had flown in the face of theory it would need to be of a larger scale. Anyway, given your skepticism, maybe someone else has access to the testing machine and could expand the inquiry. In the meantime, given that it fits with common sense, I'd be loathe to ignore it. It's not for no reason that scarpa went to the effort of making a vibram sole with an AFD plate built in.

Switching soles may suck, but, for me, tearing my ACL or sustaining a spiral tib/fib fracture would suck more.

I just noticed that the OP is in New Zealand. Remember that everything in the southern hemisphere is the opposite of what we've said here.