Modern Boots versus "Old" Boots

I, too, ski in boots that are 20 -30 years old. (Nordica NR960).  I am very happy with them. However, many have told me that I would be amazed by new boots that were fit by a good bootfitter. I am not too sure. As I ponder the issue it seems to me that maybe all these people that are now amazed with new boots after seeing a good bootfitter are making a comparison to their old boots that, most likely, were just purchased at a shop and not properly fitted by a bootfitter. It seems that it could be the bootfitter and not necessarily the new boots.  Just wondering outloud.

I'm dreading the day my old SX92 Equipe 92 R Foam's die. The fit like a glove, on-the-fly flex adjustment and ski great from the ankle. I keep my Lange's in the car for the inevitable day. When that happens, I may have to pony-up for a new pair of foamed boots.

That on-the-fly flex adjustment is a little discussed advantage modern boots lack.

I find I like them most of the way stiff on ice and all the way soft otherwise. 

Skiing has changed drastically since the 1980s when the SX90, 91 and 92 were designed.  Skis have also changed.

 

If you wish to ski the same skis as then using the same technique the old Salomons will probably work to the same extent they used to.

 

However ...

 

Lateral movement in boots is vastly more exagerated with skis since the mid 1990s and technique on groomed slopes and racing has changed completely.  A boot that concentrated on forward flex patterns is not as good for todays equipment. 

 

The Salomon rear entry SX series did not have a lot of control over foot fitting - by that I mean below the ankles and foreward (not expressed properly I know).  A modern boot should fit the soles of your feet, forefott width, ankle width,e tc.. to the best extent possible.  There just wasn't that much adjustability to the Salomon.

 

One final comment - with modern skiing techniques on groomed trails there is a lot of emphasis on angulation from ankes, knees and hip joints.  The SX91 does not allow for a lot from the ankles and actually feels like a cast on your foot.

 

I skied Tecnica for years (TNT, TNT AVS, TNT Explosion 10, Icon) and since then some Head boots.  None of the modern boots flex in the same manner as the old SX series Salomons - including Salomon.

 

Note that I ski an old pair of SX91 Equipe once per year on Retro Day with my old Atomic ARC 203cm SL skis.  The skis are from 1993 and although obsolete are far less so than those boots.  They are awful!

 

Go to a decent bootfitter and they should be able to recommend and find a boot that actually fits your foot and lower leg.

 

Mike

Sounds like a pretty big investment with no guarantee that I'll be happier in the end.  Seeing as I have a ton of fun every time I go out in the old reliables, I think I'll just keep on keeping on.  Maybe, when they give up the ghost, I'll give in and try a new pair rather than rooting around for someone selling a lightly used pair of 25 year old boots.

 

Hi mdf! I got your PM this morning but EpicSki wouldn't let me PM back because I haven't posted enough on the forum lately or something.  Thanks for remembering!  Yes that black buckle/cable thingy is exactly what I need and I would DEFINITELY use it.  I'm still not happy with the fit and comfort of my new Dalbello boots.  In fact if you are getting rid of the boots I would love to have both buckle thingies because if the one side broke the other side might not be far behind.  Let me know your price and shipping costs.  I can pay you via PayPal or mail a check.  I will email you my address as soon as Epic lets me PM!   I'll post another comment or two here to meet their demands I guess...

Here's a second post for Epic.  How's the weather in Boston?  predicting a good NE ski season this winter?

Here's a third post...maybe they will let me PM you now.

PM's exchanged.  I'm sending him his cable thingy. 

Thanks mdf!!

I have to say something here because I do still ski in an old pair of SX91E's and I love them. I have been using them with my Atomic Sweet Daddys in as much off-piste as I can find. They are a very well-designed boot: not sloppy, nor do they fit like 'a cast on your foot'.  It seems there is always some wart out there that likes to slam whatever-it-is (you can lead a horse to water...) Yet, the SX91E is the perfect boot for me -- for good reason. The cable -- super-micro adjustable from the rear buckle -- that runs over the front of the ankle inside the boot makes perfect sense: holding the heal down and toward the rear of the boot. This boot is easily adjusted to exactly how I need it to be -- on the fly. It can be made as stiff as I need it to be -- even for mashed potatoes -- and there is still room to make it stiffer! Also, just as important, is the ability to release the top buckle without completely detaching it is yet another perfect feature: for skinning it up the hill, walking, standing, or even hanging out in the lodge for awhile. I do not see anything out there that has all the features I enjoy now with the SX91E. It seems that most boots available now are concerned only with buckles that clamp the front of the foot and the area above the ankle. Dalbello seems to be the only boot that secures at an angle that makes any sense similar to the SX91Es (but seriously Dalbello, chains?)
I don't know why Salomon doesn't still make it. I've demo'd some other rental boots but I'm convinced that Salomon has turned its back on a great design (or great design period -- really, pleather spats and rivets? C'mon!) I certainly do not look forward to the day when I'll have to pay for what is sure to be less of a boot!

Not so much the 91, but the 92/93, even more adjustable. There IS a market for the boot amongst oder recreational skiers. As far as the chains on the Dalbello (IL Moro only), it is a bling thing.  

 Besides the SX series had nothing on the Nordica Polaris...

I had a pair of the Solly SX 92 's. My complaint about them was they felt like I was standing in high heels . Always felt to me like the boot didn't have a heel pocket and the heel was elevated in the boot.  Nothing easier to get on and off though.

Yes boot technology has advanced but not as much as skis. Boots are a very personal thing considering they're the one item that wraps your foot and leg and everyone has different feet, so finding a pair that fits well is a keeper.
Material fatigue is an issue with older equipment and Nordica had isssues with that back in the 80s when people would litetally rip out of their boots with the sole still clamped in the binding. Lasts have improved greatly but you're still sticking your foot into a hard plastic shell so might as well have something that fits your foot right. So if your old boots do it better than new ones then stay with the old. Eventually, however, they will need to be replaced so it wouldn't hurt to try new stuff to see how they firt. Ok  I think I've rambled on too long.

I have a duplicate pair of my boots sitting in my basement, just waiting.  Its possible they were stored in high temps before I got them, but they look pretty darn new.

 If you want to use the same technique you did back in 1986, by all means stick your old rear entry boot. However, if you are interested in using a more modern, tipped up on edge high in the turn type of technique, then a new four buckle boot is a much better choice. 

I wouldn't expect you to be a bootfitter if you did not believe that.  Nonetheless, overlap with buckles is a brain dead mechanical design.  I don't doubt you can get wonderful results, but isn't the fact that it takes an incredible amount of expertise to get good results an indictment of the basic design?

But Phil -- they still aren't overlap 4 buckles boots.  Get with the program!

I'd say it's more of an indictment of the flawed, non-standardization of the human foot.

but hey what do us boot fitters know.......

bring back rear entry boots...would make my life so easy

In engineering and architectural design, many know that the weakest point is at the connectors; which would be at the joints, the bolts, the welds, or say the buckles in boot design. Maybe this maxim is not true in all cases, but design that uses the inherent properties of the material to make it work correctly rather than the connectors, is usually stronger and better design. It also tends to look somewhat minimal in comparison and more attractive. 
Many rear entry boots do (or did) try to meet this design technique. Four-buckle boots do not. With today's advancements of material technology, it just has to be -- I am hoping -- only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back to better-designed boots than what is out there now.

OMG, space boots, or perhaps crime fighting boots! :D

Even though this is just a rhetorical question, I'll answer it anyway.  You know how to fix the boot designers' mistakes.

that is a very good point, well made

Well it seems so obvious that the old rear entry boots of the 80s were not only superior to the new junk that is made with overlap, etc... but also getting pretty rare and hard to find.

Given that the new boots are not as good and sell for over $400 and that the old rear entry SX series is so much better I am willing to part with the Salomon SX91 Equipe size 28.5 boots I have for a mere $450 ....

It is quite a deal .....  and I only use them once a year anyhow with my modern Atomic ARC SL 203 and Salomon 997 bindings ....

I'd say that you are correct in concept: less parts = more good    but you have the less/ more part all wrong. A 'traditional overlap' boot has two primary parts, a clog and a cuff, the inherant property of the plastic is what defines the performance of the boot. Rear entry boots all consist of multiple parts, often a lower clog, a 'front cuff' and a 'rear cuff' used to close the boot, along with two pivot points, one for the front cuff to move with the ankle and one for the rear of the boot to open/ close... then there is 'fitting adjustments' and 'flex adjustments' to make the boot actually work. This means that the rear entry boot is a tangle of cables, plates and hinges. The overlap boot uses four simple buckles to close the two piece shell around the skier's foot and a hinge at the ankle to lock those two pieces together. The plastic itself provides the 'fit' and the 'flex'. So I agree with your premise but feel you are 100% wrong in understanding what you are actually saying.


Please tell me you don't design bridges in ski country...

Depends upon the material being used. If you are connecting something like timber for example and need to obtain high strength at the  connectors and maybe moment resistance for example then you would normally choose a different, stronger material like steel for connectors and then distribute the stress over plates with bolted fastenings not unkike what is done with ski boots. the fact is modern ski boots are made of cheap plastic which does not sustain high concentrated loads well and so you have connections made with riveted aluminum widgets to reinforce points of high load and spread out the stresses.

Important info for skiers from Holland, the land of wooden shoes.

WOW...an argument that rear entry boots are superior?  Have I just entered the twilight zone or stepped back in time to 1988? 
I've gone through the progression...from and overalap as a kid, into rear entry as a teen...even spent half a season at Squaw skiing in a rear entry boot before I was lucky enough to blow them up and get a store credit which I used to buy a pair of Lange XRI's and have never looked back.  Along the way I've worked in shops for 15 years, boot fitter, cped, etc...and converted many a SX91/92 or Nordica 997 lover back into a 4 buckle overlap...and the only complaint I ever heard was "they aren't quite as easy to get into as my old rear entry" or "I can't just flip the back open when standing in the lift line" but every one of those guys (they all seemed to be older guys) were glad they made the switch. 
The problem with a rear entry is the basic premise of the fixed shell.  You've got a fixed shell that is not adjustable, so you've got many voids between your foot and the shell (bad energy transmisson) on a higher end rear entry you had some gizmos to fill up that void space...heel cable, instep adjustment, even an achillies adjustmen...in an overlap shell, as you tighten the buckles down, the shell OVERLAPS and much of the void space is eliminated, your foot is closer to the shell and the energy is transmitted more effectively.  The big seam right down the side of the leg on a rear entry isn't very effective for transmitting energy to the edge either!  But pay no attention to the boot fitters on here who have spent decades doing this...keep rocking out in your SX91 equipes...