or Connect

Good for high volumn, pronated feet. (i.e. This is the anti-matter Lange XLR/Banshe/Comp)

aarrkk
Posted · 730 Views · 8 Comments

Pros: Good for wide feet.

Cons: Bad for narrow feet.

Good for high volumn, pronated feet, i.e: This is the anti-matter Lange XLR/Banshe/Comp but still very good for people with wider, flatter, lower arched feet who needed or wanted a stiffer boot. People with these issues often had abrasion against the boot tongue from the inherent shin rotation that happens with these feet (tibia rotation with knee flexsion), and the Salomon's fitting system addressed this.
(I tried them on, and they don't feet my narrow supinated low-volumn foot. So that is why I've owned three pairs of Lange performance boots. But I did fit these to many peoples feet, when I then at the time was a boot fitter at what was Canada's largest ski shop.)

8 Comments:

It's worth noting that these boots are far too old to be safely used at this point. 
Could you please explain what makes them unsafe now.
The reason most ski shops won't touch a boot of this vintage (i.e. mount them with modern bindings) is that they do not have the now internationally accepted DIN profile for the shape, curvature and hieghth of the boot heel and toe lug.
Also the plastics degrade to the point that they start to shatter. Remember about 15-20 years ago when ski areas were littered with shards of yellow plastic as everyone's Nordica Bananas exploded over a couple year period. The newer ones are better but I've cracked shells as recently as 5 years ago.
 
I have duck feet (9.5 EEE with skinny ankles) and this boot (I actually had the slightly softer SX90) was a revelation. It was the first boot I ever skied in that held my heel down without painfully smashing my forefoot. It was also the only rear entry boot that was hinged AT the ankle rather then below it like nearly all the other rear entrys. I would have loved for Solomon to have continued to develop this concept but all the poorly executed RE out there killed the market.
I won't argue about the plastic degrading but all Salomon alpine boots were manufactured within the "DIN" standards
Another great thing that the sx91 and sx92 had but they didn't pursue unfortunately was the removable boot lugs with the ability to adjust canting up to 3 degrees and still retain the DIN standard. No boot grinding or plating to adjust cants. Just pull the lugs off and swap them.
 
I suspect there were other issues with the design but they should have developed it when they had it.
@Wolfski - the DIN standard for alpine bindings changed since this boot was made. This boot was made under the 1991 revision of DIN/ISO 5355. 5355 was revised again in 1997, 2005, and 2015. The 1991 and 1997 revisions are no longer valid, meaning the earliest valid revision of DIN/ISO 5355 is 2005. Any boot built before 2005 is not compliant with the current DIN specifications. 
 
So simply put, the SX91 was built to DIN specification of the time, but it is no longer compliant with current DIN specs. 
@freeski919 I've been out of the business for a while and I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the clarification.
So the strange looks I get on the slopes are for my boots as well as my skis and heck let's not forget the 757 bindings