Forums Boots Fitwell Backcountry
Viewing 20 posts - 181 through 200 (of 240 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #652459
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    TLT5TLT6TLTTLTMYBALLSANDCOCKARTICULATEDMODSWITHROTATINGCUFFSZOMGITSALMOSTLIKEIMREALLYSNOWBOARDINGIFIPROPERLYMODIFYTHESESUPERDUPERPLASTICTHINGYSIM SKINNINGSOWELLEVERYONETHINKSSOATLEASTIHOPETHEYDOMYSKIERBUDDIESARESOIMPRESSED

    #652460
    russman
    689 Posts

    @friedmst wrote:

    I still wanna know if anyone has done much cramponing in fitwells. How do they climb compared to mountaineering boots? Would you use them as your only climbing boot? For long hikes, I’ll probably use approach shoes anyway.

    I’ve done extensive high angle ice climbing and glacier slogging in the Fitwells. Last summer, I climbed the DC route on Rainier in them, while I left my spiltboard at Camp Muir (I was tagging along with my Climbing Ranger buddies, and they aren’t aloud to ski / board above 10K while on the clock). Walking in them on the glacier was just fabulous. There’s actually more ankle support than a normal mountaineering boot, and I found my lower legs didn’t get as beat up in them as I do in my traditional mountaineering boots.

    After that trip, I did a climb and snowboard of the Edmonds Headwall on the North side of Rainier. Once on the route itself, its a sustained 3,000 feet of 45-55 degree snow / ice. Climbing it was just fantastically fun! In those boots you can still use french technique, but the ankle support allows you to avoid ankle fatigue, and when you’re doing thousands of feet of hybrid French / German technique (front pointing) these boots also allow you to avoid calf burn. As I said, climbing the route was amazing…. Snowboarding back down? Well, the boots were fine, but the route itself was terrifying, as it has a near infinite degree of exposure and objective hazard.

    Two weeks after that Edmonds HW climb / ride, BGnight and I with 2 buddies climbed the North Face of the NW Ridge on Mt. Adams in the Fitwells. That route is also a sustained 3-4K vertical foot line that cruxes at 55 degrees, and when we were there it was NOT in snowboard shape, rather, it was a full on ice climb. We did the route in simul-solo style, and in any other boot, there’s no way in hell I would have felt comfortable. Its truly an amazing sensation being thousands of feet in the air, on a 55 degree firm snow face, UN-ROPED. There just isn’t any room to make an error, and having full confidence in your crampons and tools is critical. Anyway, BG and I decided not to snowboard back down because the route was in such shit shape, but our skier buddies did scrape their way down (fucking idiots! LoooL).

    Overall, my experience is that the Fitwells are an amazing general mountaineering tool. As for snowboarding, they ride “very” well. Other boots I have ride “exceptionally” well, but for the overall package, these boots are incredible.

    They are a bit heavier than running one of the lightweight AT boots, but not too bad.

    For more Fitwell knowledge, ask my buddy Zach Clanton (Zclanton on here). He’s been living in Alaska for the past two years doing expedition after expedition, and he swears by them at this point.

    #652461
    philip.ak
    679 Posts

    Lol @BG

    Great detail, russman.

    #652462
    christoph benells
    717 Posts

    @russman wrote:

    For more Fitwell knowledge, ask my buddy Zach Clanton (Zclanton on here). He’s been living in Alaska for the past two years doing expedition after expedition, and he swears by them at this point.

    well russman,

    i was on the glacier with zach this may and did some shredding with him. -edited- it was clear to all who cared that the tlt’s climbed better than fitwells.

    there is no comparison to the climbing capabilities of fitwells to tlts. the dynafits win hands down. anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain misinformed.

    oh, and if you think rearward flex is a sham you’re a kook too.

    #652448
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    I don’t think anyone has ever claimed fitwells climbed steep snow better than TLxQ5’s. I’ve always known that as a fact. They have advantages for sure. Just not on the DOWN. I’d love to have a solid, plastic narrow toe with straight sole for the up. The fitwell has the stiff sole we all need, but the toe is still wider than AT boots and the toe curves upward. And sounds like Zach’s deal could have been with his comfort zone as well as boots. I don’t know how the same person could be more gripped with fitwells + crampons vs AT boots without crampons. I don’t think I would.

    #652463
    Anonymous
    76 Posts

    Hello,
    The Fitwell Backcountry snowboard boot is available in the US at http://fitwellboots.com
    You can also order from the entire Fitwell product line with some amazing alpine, big wall and canyoneering boots and as well as approach shoes.

    Here is the current Fitwell product catalog:
    http://www.fitwellsrl.it/commons/include/php/resourceFilePublic.php?id=15935

    Stay tuned for some US magazine reviews!

    Todd Anders Johnson
    US Sales and Marketing|Fitwell Boots and Shoes
    PO Box 3068|Breckenridge, CO 80424
    todd@fitwellboots.com|http://www.fitwellboots.com

    #652464
    FloImSchnee
    291 Posts

    Interestingly – I both own Fitwells as well as TLT5s – I can sidehill on steeper and harder slopes with the Fitwells (in Spark Blazes LT) than with the TLT5s. (would have expected the opposite)
    I have more sidehold and better edge placement with the Fitwells.

    This however might be related to (a) I haven’t got a lot of experience with the TLT5s yet, and (b) I’m using Voilé Mountain Plates with standard pins, that have more play than the LT-Spark-Pins.

    #652465
    Jason4
    443 Posts

    You need to pair any AT boot with a Dynafit style toe piece to take full advantage of the touring abilities of an AT boot. I used the voile plates to tour on before I got my toe pieces and they pretty much suck.

    #652466
    russman
    689 Posts

    @christoph benells wrote:

    @russman wrote:

    For more Fitwell knowledge, ask my buddy Zach Clanton (Zclanton on here). He’s been living in Alaska for the past two years doing expedition after expedition, and he swears by them at this point.

    well russman,

    i was on the glacier with zach this may and did some shredding with him. I’m not trying to bag on anyone, (who could talk shiz on zach? he’s a great guy, a ripper and the BEST splitboard photog out there) but he was gripped on climbs with his fitwells and crampons while me and ryan (riding tlt-5’s) cruised up the slopes with NO crampons.

    there is no comparison to the climbing capabilities of fitwells to tlts. the dynafits win hands down. anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain misinformed.

    oh, and if you think rearward flex is a sham you’re a kook too.

    I’m not sure I’m going to agree on this one…

    I’ve climbed in ski boots (back when I skied), and also done a ton of ice climbing in both plastic mountaineering boots, as well as traditional leather climbing boots. For me personally, I like how the Fitwells “move” on your feet (for climbing and riding). For me they climb as well or better than any normal mountaineering boot, and although they won’t kick steps into hard snow without crampons like AT boots will, they do pretty darn well. If you can climb vertical water ice in a boot, shit man, its good enough!

    Also, regarding you comments about climbing steep ice faster than Zach in his Fitwells: When BG and I were on the North Face of Adams last summer, BGnight climbed the route twice as fast as our two skier friends in their AT boots; And I’ll point out that our skier friends are two VERY elite athletes. One is Louie Dawson (son of Lou Dawson) and he CRUSHES, and the other is our friend Adam Roberts, who is known for doing double days on Mt. Shuksan and skiing lines so steep you couldn’t even stick a fly to the wall…. Anyway, BGnight kicked both of their asses on that day, and just FLEW up the face, front pointing on hard ice for over 3,000 feet. So, the argument about “who’s boot climbs better”, is relatively moot in my opinion. Its more about the individual athlete.

    As for Kooks, WE ARE ALL KOOKS. This website has become such a shit-talking festival, its difficult for me to feel motivated to post anymore. Instead of constant attacks on everybody’s character and preferences, just let people be stoked on what they’re stoked on!

    #652467
    christoph benells
    717 Posts

    Sorry russman,

    Not trying to personally attack anyone. This is after all a website about splitboarding, in the end it’s all fun.

    Ill smoke it wit ya bro.

    #652468
    Jason4
    443 Posts

    Russman-
    Don’t get discouraged, you’re one of my favorite mountain kooks!

    Fitness will trump the firmness of boots on any given climb.

    #652469
    splitboard.gr
    2 Posts

    Hello to all from Greece,
    I wanted to ask a question on the fitwell backcountry boots,
    are they like the most common snowboard boots of the market that riders tend to buy smaller size numbers because the boots are getting “bigger” and “roomier” by the use …. ?

    We just got some pairs from Italy and we have a fitment questions on if we have choose right size or not ….

    for example my big toe on my right foot is on the limit and i have some contact on walking, when i bent my knees its pretty good ….
    so will they “open” a size or half ? or i will have problems hiking ?

    thanks

    #652470
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    I would expect Fitwells to climb very well in most situations, after all, they are made by a climbing boot company! But they do have two drawbacks in terms of climbing performance: one is the weight, they are much heavier than a TLT5/6 (see boot weight thread), and extra weight on the foot takes a lot more energy over the course of a long day, or week, in the mountains. Second, the lack of rearward flex is a liability in some situations, anytime one is scrambling on flat or downhill ground, especially if it is uneven. For example, if scrambling a ridge traverse to a line over rock is involved, it is important to be able to articulate the foot, otherwise things get awkward fast. For those who prefer the extra weight and bulk of a soft boot set up, it is too bad that Fitwell has not (yet) incorporated reward flex.

    As far as boots like the TLT5/6 go in terms of climbing performance, well, they are the standard for ski mountaineers all over the world and were developed with such use in mind. There are also alpine climbers who use the TLTs specifically for doing alpine climbs, because they climb very well, and allow one to ski efficiently on the approach to longer less accessible routes.
    It is important to understand that the TLT5/6 is a much better climbing boot than most AT boots, as it has a much smaller footprint, fits closer to the foot, and is much more precise in climbing performance than any other AT boot I have ever had on my feet. It rock climbs really well for example.

    #652471
    shredgnar
    643 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    I would expect Fitwells to climb very well in most situations, after all, they are made by a climbing boot company! But they do have two drawbacks in terms of climbing performance: one is the weight, they are much heavier than a TLT5/6 (see boot weight thread), and extra weight on the foot takes a lot more energy over the course of a long day, or week, in the mountains. Second, the lack of rearward flex is a liability in some situations, anytime one is scrambling on flat or downhill ground, especially if it is uneven. For example, if scrambling a ridge traverse to a line over rock is involved, it is important to be able to articulate the foot, otherwise things get awkward fast. For those who prefer the extra weight and bulk of a soft boot set up, it is too bad that Fitwell has not (yet) incorporated reward flex.

    As far as boots like the TLT5/6 go in terms of climbing performance, well, they are the standard for ski mountaineers all over the world and were developed with such use in mind. There are also alpine climbers who use the TLTs specifically for doing alpine climbs, because they climb very well, and allow one to ski efficiently on the approach to longer less accessible routes.
    It is important to understand that the TLT5/6 is a much better climbing boot than most AT boots, as it has a much smaller footprint, fits closer to the foot, and is much more precise in climbing performance than any other AT boot I have ever had on my feet. It rock climbs really well for example.

    Wow! Sign me up! There must not be any downsides to these magnificent SKI boots you are endorsing! Glad you set the person who last posted in this thread in JUNE straight. Boy, you really taught them a lesson.

    Barrows, wouldn’t it be great if there was a few hardboot threads for you to post in?

    #652472
    acopafeel
    134 Posts

    barrows… I have to say I will never try hardboots, simply because of your relentless spewing of fruitboot schmeng. I’m impressed by your motivation to fight the fruitboot battle (not really though) – I would need some serious cake ($$$), in order to care enough to offer my un-welcomed opinion, over and over (and over) again.

    The information is out there… people can look into hard boots vs. soft boots at their own desire. Really, no need to drop an unsolicited hardboot turd into every boot conversation. To the casual observer, it’s rather abrasive.

    For all the effort you put forth to promote fruitboots, sleep tight knowing that you’ve lost one to the cause. I guess i just “prefer the extra weight and bulk of a soft boot setup.”

    This is my first internet rant ever?! feels good.
    thanks barrows! 😀

    #652473
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @shredgnar wrote:

    @barrows wrote:

    I would expect Fitwells to climb very well in most situations, after all, they are made by a climbing boot company! But they do have two drawbacks in terms of climbing performance: one is the weight, they are much heavier than a TLT5/6 (see boot weight thread), and extra weight on the foot takes a lot more energy over the course of a long day, or week, in the mountains. Second, the lack of rearward flex is a liability in some situations, anytime one is scrambling on flat or downhill ground, especially if it is uneven. For example, if scrambling a ridge traverse to a line over rock is involved, it is important to be able to articulate the foot, otherwise things get awkward fast. For those who prefer the extra weight and bulk of a soft boot set up, it is too bad that Fitwell has not (yet) incorporated reward flex.

    As far as boots like the TLT5/6 go in terms of climbing performance, well, they are the standard for ski mountaineers all over the world and were developed with such use in mind. There are also alpine climbers who use the TLTs specifically for doing alpine climbs, because they climb very well, and allow one to ski efficiently on the approach to longer less accessible routes.
    It is important to understand that the TLT5/6 is a much better climbing boot than most AT boots, as it has a much smaller footprint, fits closer to the foot, and is much more precise in climbing performance than any other AT boot I have ever had on my feet. It rock climbs really well for example.

    Wow! Sign me up! There must not be any downsides to these magnificent SKI boots you are endorsing! Glad you set the person who last posted in this thread in JUNE straight. Boy, you really taught them a lesson.

    Barrows, wouldn’t it be great if there was a few hardboot threads for you to post in?

    Not attempting to “teach them a lesson”, just giving my opinion that I would expect the Fitwells to generally climb very well. Guess I cannot please you, too bad. The downsides I pointed out are just facts, there is nothing subjective about them, and they are not opinions, weight is just a fact, and that the Fitwell does not allow for rearward flex is also just a fact. As I said before, I still think the Fitwell is the best choice for those who rather not switch to a hard boot system, and I am glad that splitboarders have this option. I hope that Fitwell addresses the rearward flex in a future boot revision.

    #652474
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @acopafeel wrote:

    barrows… I have to say I will never try hardboots, simply because of your relentless spewing of fruitboot schmeng. I’m impressed by your motivation to fight the fruitboot battle (not really though) – I would need some serious cake ($$$), in order to care enough to offer my un-welcomed opinion, over and over (and over) again.

    The information is out there… people can look into hard boots vs. soft boots at their own desire. Really, no need to drop an unsolicited hardboot turd into every boot conversation. To the casual observer, it’s rather abrasive.

    For all the effort you put forth to promote fruitboots, sleep tight knowing that you’ve lost one to the cause. I guess i just “prefer the extra weight and bulk of a soft boot setup.”

    This is my first internet rant ever?! feels good.
    thanks barrows! 😀

    I have not lost anything, I still get to ride the absolute best equipment for me. Unfortunately, you seem to have lost something, and that would be an open mind. I have no interest in convincing anyone to ride anything, the only interest I have is to share my experience and the facts with others, if that offends you in some way, I feel sorry for you. I am certainly not affected by your opinions, no matter how ill-informed they may be.

    #652475
    philip.ak
    679 Posts

    @bcrider wrote:

    Barrows,

    I appreciate your contributions to this forum from the bottom of my splitter heart but you’re starting to remind me of the Mrs in this thread. She always has to get the last word too. 🙂

    Let it go brother. It is what it is.

    Amen

    #652476
    FloImSchnee
    291 Posts

    Barrows, I really like and learn a lot from your postings, but please keep them in the hardboot related topics.

    #652477
    shredgnar
    643 Posts

    Barrows,
    That is very interesting information. Perhaps you could start a thread about it where you could discuss it with other like minded individuals. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to snowboard in snowboard boots, not robot boots.
    Sincerely,
    Shredgnar

Viewing 20 posts - 181 through 200 (of 240 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.