How do you hike back-country with alpine boots?

I know nothing about hiking for turns and don't know if I'll every do it but I'm curious how it works.  I see there are backpacks where you A-frame your skis and carry some extra gear.  But what do you do about your boos?  

 

Assuming you have regular down-hill alpine boots, I assume you can't hike in them.  Do they go on your pack too?  I haven't seen any pack that would hold both skis and boots and having walked into the lodge with my Transpak full boots and gear, I'd think it'd be quite a load.

 

FIrst off, most distances are covered by skinning on your skis with your boots on.  Not many people use regular alpine boots.  Either Alpine Touring boots that have rockered (curved) soles and a cuff that releases for back and forth flexing, or telemark boots which have the same features and a flexible bellows at the ball of the foot.   Both tend to be lighter than regular alpine boots too, and have lugged soles.  

 

But you can put your boots in the bindings of your skis on your pack if you want to hike in hiking boots or shoes.  It's heavy, but I've done it:

 

KInd of sucks though.  But it's better than walking long distances in ski boots on dry ground.  Generally most distance is covered by skinning with your skis on, or sometimes booting (climbing) on the steeper parts.  Booting steeper parts in ski boots is easier than it is walking distances on flats...for certain values of easier.  

 

But, now that i try to explain it, the whole thing is kind of stupid.  

So that picture then his how'd you hike from Pinkham Notch up to the base of Tucks?  (not that I'm planning to do that any time soon) I didn't think about just clipping the boots into the bindings.

There are a couple of products like the Alpine Trekkers that allow you to skin up using alpine boots and bindings.  It is a rather heavy device that clicks into your bindings and hinges, and then your boots click into that so you have a free heel for climbing.  When you get to the top you take if off, put it in your pack, and just click into your regular alpine setup for skiing down.

 

If you are hiking with only alpine gear you are carrying your boots.  A good pair of AT boots when unlocked is fairly comfortable for hiking or climbing (even on rock) with their Vibram soles, and is obviously the lightest and most comfortable way to go.  Carrying alpine skis boots and bindings on your back gets to be a drag pretty quickly.

 

Yup.  Did it Wednesday -- and once you can't skin up the trail, that's how most people do it.  But, as mentioned, its heavy - w/alpine boots and skis + crampons & basic supplies and not too much else (well, too much water) my pack ended up close to 50lb & I was much happier once I put the boots on for the trip up Hillman's.

 

Btw, if you want to do it this year, do it soon ar not at all!

 

That's how I did it for years at Tux. I'd hike up in hiking boots, with skis on pack, boots clipped into bindings, and plastic bags over boots in case of r@!n.

Once at Hermit Lake, you can change into your ski boots on Hojo's deck, or not change until reaching the bowl, depending on conditions of the hiking trail.

Since I've gotten my AT setup, I now hike up in the AT boots, saving 14 pounds off my back. This also makes the transitions (if there are any) easier, either hiking/skinning up, or skiing/hiking down, since there's no boot change.
 

AT boots, though a bit on the warm side compared to hiking boots, are surprisingly comfortable for trekking. And they better be, because they suck for skiing. But it's the only way to go. Carrying alpine boots on your back blows.

I've hiked up to 10km in my Adrenalines with skis and 20kg pack on back and that was bad enough.  Couldn't imagine doing that in alpine boots.

 

How do you hike back-country with alpine boots? In answer to the OP, if wearing them, slowly and not very far.

This has all gotten a lot worse with the advent of modern ski boots (but the actual skiing is improved by them). Back in the leather boot days I hiked  up to Tuckermans every weekend in my ski boots and up the mountain too. Having to carry another pair of boots really sucks. I hope I live long enough to see the development of a decent AT boot that is not also a compromise as a downhill ski boot.

 

 

Over the next few months, as long as you wear your seatbelt, look both ways when crossing the street, and don't get a terminal illness diagnosis from your doctor, then I think you're all set:
http://www.wildsnow.com/1663/dynafit-titan-boot/
http://www.wildsnow.com/1810/dynafit-titan-ski-boot-review/

Looking both ways and buckling my seatbelt. Gad they are ugly aren't they? Looking forward to hearing how well they work.

When I did my trip about a month ago I started with the skis a-framed on my pack. Then taking the velcro straps on my boots I fastened them together. Then I hung them on my pack with the straps wedged between the skis and the top of my pack so a boot hung down on each side of the pack. Once we hit decent snow it was time to take the hiking boots off put the ski boots on and skin up the rest of the way using AT bindings. The hike out I just kept the ski boots on. I guess it depends how comfortable you are in your boots. I work all winter in mine so hiking around in them does not bother me that much.

FWIW, if I was going to go to Tucks when there was no skiing below HoJo's, I'd pack my boots, keeping my skis low on the pack (to avoid overhead branches in places) and hike with good stiff soled hiking boots.

A nice way to get up to Tuckerman Ravine is to skin up the Sherburne Trail. It is direct and less crowded. Just go early enough to miss descending skiers. If the snow doesn't go all the way down to Pinkham, you can cut over to it at a few places where the hiking trail approaches the ski trail.

Telemark gear is the most comfortable way to address long hiking sections with snow and/or no snow. Skiing performance is (arguably) fine, too. Tele gear is generally lighter than alpine and on a par with randonee, both boots and bindings. If you go with a tele or a back country specific ski, that will be lighter than an alpine ski, too.

The Auto Road works as nice access (driven, not hiked ;o)) when it opens. There is a lot of skiing in Great Gulf that is easily accessed from the trail head about 1/2 mile below the summit. Don't forget Gulf of Slides, too. The ski trail is easy to skin up and you'll totally avoid the crowds.

And this is just the East side of the mountain.

Just thought I would post up a picture of how my backpack was setup today,



The boots hang just fine off the sides of the pack. My shovels handle makes a perfect hanger.

Thats why i got a tele setup. Boots are great for walking. You just have to get good on teleskis before you go into the BC

I don't think this rule really holds in all circumstances.  When the pack weight gets too high it becomes a matter of back and shoulder discomfort as well as how much weight you have to move up the hill.  At that point it feels better (at least in my experience) to switch some of that weight to your feet - sure, your legs work harder lifting the boots for each step than they would carrying them on on your back, but its easier on the rest of your body, and in my case the legs are better able to take it.

I agree with Alpinord.  As someone who has done quite a bit of hiking on rock, dirt and snow both carrying skis and boots and with AT boots on my feet, I prefer to skip the hassle and extra weight and just go with wearing my AT for the entire endevor.  My new AT boots are only slightly heavier than my hiking boots, and you don't want to be hiking in funky terrain with a heavy pack and light wimpy boots, so personally I favor my AT boots for the climb/hike. The new ones are getting pretty light, and with heat molded liners are almost as comfortable had my heavy duty hiking boots..  If you are kicking steps in the snow, IMO AT boots are the only way to go.

I just don't like wearing tele or AT boots on dirt/rock and try not to do it for long.  I'd rather carry a pair of low-cut hiking shoes (lighter, less bulk than hiking boots)  and use those for any significant length of non-snow hiking.  As soon as the snow gets semi-continuous, or nearly so, I put the ski boots on.

I've wondered about the 1 lb on foot = 5 lbs on back theorum - I'm not sure it holds in all cases.  cometjo makes a good point.  

On a recent trip to ski the Skillet glacier on Mt. Moran my partner forgot hiking boots.  We had a legendarily tough 1.5 mile bushwack through boulders and deadfall to get to the snow.  Wearing his good ol' AT boots, his shins looked like they were abraded by a pumice stone and scorched with a torch after the hike out.  I suffered carrying my boots on ly back, but not as much as he did.
http://picasaweb.google.com/sangredecristo/MtMoran609

Awesome photo journal!

It really boils down to:

• how comfortable are your boots to hike in
• will the weight on the pack be a problem both in sheer weight and in maneuverability
• how long will you be in your boots off snow

We might all have a different answer given a different hike/tour. Even the same approach can be handled differently based on presence or absence of snow.

The best scenario is to have your hiking boots and make the decision at the trail head.

Kind of like do you wax or skin a long flatish approach? Wax might slip a little when you don't want it to, but it will glide more easily and weighs less on your feet.

Another conundrum: to sledge or to pack?

All these decisions we have to make for our sport!

MR

I wasn't really thinking of it as multi-day trip with winter camping.  Given the parameters of Bob Lee's trip, that much hiking, with that big of a pack in that kind of terrain would definitely warrant consideration of regular hiking boots.

Bob, I enjoyed your pictures.  Looks like it was a real adventure, and some wild skiing.

Thanks!  It was a very cool trip, and (mandatory Bob Peters reference follows) I ran into Bob Peters in the Jackson supermarket.  


Well, yeah - I was just thinking back to the most recent episode of ski boot hiking regret and I guess that was a somewhat overstated case even though it was just 1.5 miles.  Still, hiking for any distance in the boots requires an evaluation like MastersRacer outlined so well above.  

Hence the value of a quality and properly fitted pack.  Not features you will find in a day pack, but good full size packs will have a belt/harness which takes the weight off the shoulders and puts it on the hips.  The shouder straps effectively only act as stabilisers for the pack.  This also lowers the load bearing centre of gravity making it easier to walk/climb with heavier loads.

Well, that's true...up to a point.  I'm using well-fitted Osprey skiing and climbing packs with great suspension and belts - the Switch and Exposure series.  But at some point - if there are ice tools and crampons and skins and clothing and water and kits and possibly rope and pro - the extra weight of boots dangling on the side doesn't carry that well.  And in the woods I often bang the boots on trees which is a PITA.  But I digress - a good pack makes all the difference, but all things being equal I have found myself wondering about the 1lb=5lb theorum. 

All that stuff dangling..... must be what they call swing weight .


More seriously, I have two of the smaller Osprey Switch packs 16 & 40+5, but neither of them are anywhere near as good as my pack for extended trips, a Macpac Ascent XPD.

I have tried the hike-in wearing my Adrenalines and ended up with blisters on the arch of my feet making for a painful rest of the trip. So now, if I'm going to have a hike before throwing on a pair of skis & skins, I'll bolt the ski boots to the pack and wear low cut Scarpa boots, comfortable, warm, waterproof and light as.

Waaaiiit a minute - what were we talking about?    Good one - point taken.  

Dang, didn't think of that

I really hope those comments about tele gear are just joking around.  I mean, if making tele turns is a big priority, and you're willing to put up with all the disadvantages, then fine, use tele gear.  But otherwise, if you care about efficiency and safety in the backcountry, then get a Dynafit-based setup.  (Or the new G3 Meetu binding.)  And if you think a flexible toe is a big plus, then get the Scarpa F1 or F3, or even the new Dynafit DyNA.  (I've used the F1 and F3, and find the bellows to be a bit helpful, but I'm not overwhelmed by it.)

 Yeah Jonathan, they were just joking around. Nobody who cares about efficiency and/or safety would Telemark in the backcountry!

 I've fixed it for you:
"Nobody who knows about Dynafits and cares about efficiency and/or safety would Telemark in the backcountry!"