Forums Boots Fitwell Backcountry Viewing 20 posts - 201 through 220 (of 240 total) ← 1 … 10 11 12 → Author Posts October 23, 2014 at 6:19 pm #652478 Jason4 443 Posts Aside from the normal hardboot rhetoric Barrows points out some very important issues that should be considered when looking at the Fitwell boots. They are heavy and they don’t allow for any rearward ankle movement. Ride hard my friends! Or soft. October 23, 2014 at 9:25 pm #652479 barrows 1490 Posts @jason4 wrote: Aside from the normal hardboot rhetoric Barrows points out some very important issues that should be considered when looking at the Fitwell boots. They are heavy and they don’t allow for any rearward ankle movement. Ride hard my friends! Or soft. Exactly. To reiterate: I do not care what equipment any rider chooses to use. As stated many times, I think it is great that with the Fitwells, soft boot riders have a high quality, made in Italy, boot, as an alternative to the standard, Asian produced, glorified sneakers, which are ordinary soft boots. I think Fitwell would be well advised to add rearward flex to their boots in the future, and hope that they do so, I would also like to see them shave off at least 6 ounces per boot, such that the weight is more comparable to the burlier soft boots available. We have seen with mountaineering boots, through careful choices of materials and design, the weight can be quite low without sacrificing durability or performance: for example the La Sportiva Spantik, and similar double mountaineering boots. A full Vibram soled boot will always be a little heavier, but Fitwell could still lose at least some of the weight. October 24, 2014 at 6:49 pm #652480 Zude 367 Posts We are talking about products right? Not each other mothers. :scratch: Some of you guys take this shit way to seriously. I think we can compare soft to soft as well as hard to soft without getting out panties in bunch. <This sentence screams for some creative and crude interpretation. October 24, 2014 at 7:52 pm #652481 splitchank 97 Posts :bananas: :disco: :drool: :bananas: :disco: :drool: :bananas: :disco: :drool: October 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm #652482 HikeforTurns 1113 Posts Should we have a sing-a-long? (check the sick spine line at 0:06) [youtube:1whyi0kg]L0MK7qz13bU[/youtube:1whyi0kg] October 25, 2014 at 5:21 am #652483 Zude 367 Posts Mmmmmm November 2, 2014 at 12:46 am #652484 BGnight 1382 Posts I bought the first generation of Fitwells via an Italian site and with customs and shipping I paid less than $550. Now I see you can buy them on their U.S. site for $635?!! 😯 That’s outrageous. As much as I like my boots, there’s no way I’d pay this as I find it mandatory to replace the stock liner with an Intuition Luxury liner (the best liner evarrrr!!…and they work amazing with this boot) and these cost $200 so you’re talking an $850 set up! You really are only buying them for the shell and they should give us the option of only buying the shell too. So if you want my opinion, these boots are not worth $635 (before tax) November 2, 2014 at 1:43 am #652485 HansGLudwig 601 Posts $850 bucks for a boot which requires modification? Sheesh BGKnight! For that kind of money you could get a hard boot which would give you more rearward flex, better touring performance, and (I think I read somewhere when compared with binding weight) is lighter than any soft boot setup. 😆 Be sure to bookmark Splitboard.com's Recent Activity page... http://splitboard.com/activity-2/ November 2, 2014 at 9:00 am #652486 splitn2 125 Posts Hey guys, so here is some perspective, out of all NZ customers only one is running Intuition liners in his Fitwells – because he had a pair in his old Deluxe boots he was retiring and they are well moulded to his foot. All the others are running the stock liner. I’m not mentioning sales numbers but I can say is that its a tiny percentage….. So although a small %age might choose to swap the liner and may have an absolute need to like BG has, like a lot of people do with a lot of boots on the market they may choose to spend more $$$ to customise their liner, most don’t need to nor bother. That said I am all for taking feedback to Fitwell on anything relating to the boot if its well justified. Any questions or ideas guys drop me a note and I’ll gladly take it to Fitwell for consideration. cheers Rich Richard Harcourt WWW.SPLITN2.COM New Zealand Splitboard Equipment Specialist Spark R&D | Fitwell Backcountry / Freeride | SPLITN2 Custom Splitboards e: email@example.com p: +64 3 3266585 November 2, 2014 at 6:35 pm #652487 barrows 1490 Posts Intuition makes the best moldable liners, period. Any boot which is trying to be a high performance option for backcountry riders (skiers or boarders) should come with a custom Intuition liner, purpose built to fit that boot. Scarpa does this, for an example… I really wish Dynafit would go this route, but they do supply liners made by Palau (in the TLT6 CL), which are pretty good. It would suit Fitwell to skip the stock liner, and source a custom liner from Intuition to include with their boots. November 3, 2014 at 6:33 pm #652488 BGnight 1382 Posts I agree with Barrows on the intuitions. Fitwell with an intuition inner BOA would be ideal for me. Regardless, they need to team up with intuition and give people options. Of course, I already own a pair now and won’t need to worry about this for at least 4 or 5 years as the shell should last a long, long time 😀 I have a lot of buddies ask me about them and it’s hard to recommend them to people who aren’t going to be doing a lot of mountaineering type objectives. I’m excited about what is down the road as far as more fitwell type boots popping up on the market at a reduced weight. With new/lighter airbag systems, lighter splits, snazzier interfaces (magneto & prime), gecko skins, carbon fiber poles, etc… things are just getting more fun for us gear heads! Wait, why are there not CARBON FIBER VERTS YET???!!! November 3, 2014 at 8:26 pm #652489 Jason4 443 Posts Production costs on CF Verts would be insane. I thought about making my own but I didn’t get beyond thinking about it. The tooling costs would be higher than buying a pair of BGT Ascent Plates which would be my choice over Verts. November 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm #652490 BGnight 1382 Posts Thread drift: it’s funny cuz a long time ago I really wanted to invent something similar to the BGT plates. They are intriguing. And according to specs they are over a full pound lighter, per pair, than verts. However, I never bring crampons and verts(plates) on the same trip. Too redundant. And the BGT plates alone don’t look like they’d bite very well into the slope compared to verts. For that reason I’m not sure I’d ever use those if I had them. That’s just too much bulky crap to carry. The plate/snowshoe I envisioned has crampon teeth built into the toe. I’d like to get a hold of some carbon fiber and someone that could tool my own custom design. Something with a carbon fiber body and an aggressive metal, claw toe would be ideal. I actually might chop off the back 1/4 of my verts since I don’t really think it does anything. November 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm #652491 Jason4 443 Posts A light aluminum crampon weighs under a pound per pair so you could potentially combine an aluminum ‘pon with Ascent Plates for the same weight as the Verts but more flexibility in that you could use the ‘pons alone or combined with the plates. November 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm #652492 Zude 367 Posts Whats the foot-print difference between plates and verts? Sorry for the drift, I can’t wait to drift!! November 6, 2014 at 1:34 am #652493 Method 151 Posts @bgnight wrote: I agree with Barrows on the intuitions. I’m just revelling in this softboot/hardboot love/tender/romantic moment. :grouphug: 😀 November 10, 2014 at 3:09 am #652494 Skijor AK 33 Posts I posted this in a different thread but maybe it would be better to ask here: I know I am :deadhorse: but I want to be sure! Fitwells are an expensive purchase, after all. How did you all know what size to order from Fitwell? I would describe my feet as size US 10.75 My actual foot is 283mm (if I measured it accurately) In some snowboards boots I wear 11, some I wear 10.5 (even in the same company). My current soft boots are Forums in size 11. My Osolo mountaineering boots are 10.5. I don’t know what Fitwell size to get! Their chart ( http://fitwellboots.com/sizing-chart/ ) doesn’t match up with any other mondo charts ( http://www.skibootsizingcharts.com ) ! Have you guys gone off of Fitwell’s sizing chart? Anyone willing to help? Thanks! November 10, 2014 at 9:29 am #652495 FloImSchnee 291 Posts To get a feeling for the relation this might help: I usually wear shoes and boots with size 11.5 and sometimes 12, and Fitwell’s size 300 “fit well”. November 11, 2014 at 1:38 am #652496 cameron 29 Posts @Skijor AK wrote: I posted this in a different thread but maybe it would be better to ask here: I know I am :deadhorse: but I want to be sure! Fitwells are an expensive purchase, after all. How did you all know what size to order from Fitwell? I would describe my feet as size US 10.75 My actual foot is 283mm (if I measured it accurately) In some snowboards boots I wear 11, some I wear 10.5 (even in the same company). My current soft boots are Forums in size 11. My Osolo mountaineering boots are 10.5. I don’t know what Fitwell size to get! Their chart ( http://fitwellboots.com/sizing-chart/ ) doesn’t match up with any other mondo charts ( http://www.skibootsizingcharts.com ) ! Have you guys gone off of Fitwell’s sizing chart? Anyone willing to help? Thanks! Fitwell’s Mondo sizing is very different from any other Mondo sizing that I know of. I would go off of their chart as their Mondo sizing runs really small. Just for reference… I’m usually a size 12US and my Fitwell BC size 305 mondo fit perfectly. Cam November 11, 2014 at 1:57 am #652497 firstlight 721 Posts Size 10 US normal shoe 285 Fitwell Adam West www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au www.splitfest.com.au www.snowsafety.com.au www.mrbc.com.au www.backcountryglobal.com www.alpinefirstaid.com.au Viewing 20 posts - 201 through 220 (of 240 total) ← 1 … 10 11 12 → You must be logged in to reply to this topic.