or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apex ski boot - Page 10

post #271 of 283

Here is my review of the Apex MC3 boot. 

post #272 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918 View Post

OK. So my boots just got here. Very quick shipping.

I've got the boots on. Just kind of letting them warm up and letting my feet get used to them. Dialing in the BOAs gradually. They are pretty easy to walk in but the sole is still flat so they're not like a sneaker. Not yet. There are a couple of extra little doo-dah's in the box so I'll have to read up.

The 'frame' (?) length is 341mm. I hope they will fit into my bindings. 

More to follow.

In case you're wondering, I got the boots and chickened out. Can't send them back if I wear them outside. Can't decide what to do unless I wear them. Dilemma!

Not sure how much is involved with getting into/out of the exoskeleton. Guess I should put some skis on the carpet and try them out.

Now I'm thinking about an AT boot that will work in an alpine binding or trying a boot with a 'walk' feature. Any suggestions?
post #273 of 283

Plenty of current boots have walk modes these days. As do AT boots.

 

If you have a lot of skis, the remount costs could add up. 

 

What type of skier would you say you are? If you don't charge the mogul runs, then the boot will probably work for you.

 

This is certainly one time I'd say demo before buy. It isn't like this is a boot someone will snatch up used in like new condition if you don't like it.

post #274 of 283
I have the MC2
I skid Snowbird for 5 days two weeks ago.
I just skid my third day straight in them at Deer Valley.
These are the most comfortable boots I have ever had. I do put warders above my toes in the shell and it keeps them toasty.
I skid them in steeps and bumps hard pack and ice.
They perform very well. I skid for 20 years in stiff Langes and I love these things.
All my friends want them now.
Love stepping out of them to go for lunch.
Lots of Nai Sayers out there. Not sure what kind of skiers they are but I would consider myself and my buddies pretty hard core and we have no problem rippingnitnup in these boots.
I did have one moment when the boa system froze up and I could not get the boot off. It freed up 10 minutes later and all is fim
now.any questions I am happy to help answer.
post #275 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918 View Post


In case you're wondering, I got the boots and chickened out. Can't send them back if I wear them outside. Can't decide what to do unless I wear them. Dilemma!

Not sure how much is involved with getting into/out of the exoskeleton. Guess I should put some skis on the carpet and try them out.

Now I'm thinking about an AT boot that will work in an alpine binding or trying a boot with a 'walk' feature. Any suggestions?

Yes, the soles are flat and a little stiff, but much more flexible than any hard shell boot.  I wore mine around the house for a few days before wearing them outside.  But I think that after you spend a day wearing them on the slopes, you won't be sorry and there won't be any question of sending them back.

 

If the skeletons are in the skis, you just need to lean forward and your boots pop right out.  Be warned, no snow brakes so they can just slide down the mountain with you running after them!

 

It is unlikely your new Apex will fit in your old bindings without adjustment.  Hold the old boots against the new ones, they'll be bigger, especially if your last bootfitter put you in a smaller boot.  Mine were considerably bigger so the shop had to remount the bindings.  And only 2 of my skis had bindings "on the list" so that they could be remounted.

 

After 15 days on mine this year, I'm thinking a pair of MC2s or MCXs next year might give me something to swap with - let one pair dry out while wearing the other.  Never had to worry about that before! 

post #276 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondguy View Post

Yes, the soles are flat and a little stiff, but much more flexible than any hard shell boot.  I wore mine around the house for a few days before wearing them outside.  But I think that after you spend a day wearing them on the slopes, you won't be sorry and there won't be any question of sending them back.

If the skeletons are in the skis, you just need to lean forward and your boots pop right out.  Be warned, no snow brakes so they can just slide down the mountain with you running after them!

It is unlikely your new Apex will fit in your old bindings without adjustment.  Hold the old boots against the new ones, they'll be bigger, especially if your last bootfitter put you in a smaller boot.  Mine were considerably bigger so the shop had to remount the bindings.  And only 2 of my skis had bindings "on the list" so that they could be remounted.

After 15 days on mine this year, I'm thinking a pair of MC2s or MCXs next year might give me something to swap with - let one pair dry out while wearing the other.  Never had to worry about that before! 

I don't think anyone mentioned the brake issue before but generally you wouldn't be on the slope so its probably a minor concern.

Most of my skis have system bindings. I haven't looked to see if they will adjust for the Apex yet.
post #277 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918 View Post


I don't think anyone mentioned the brake issue before but generally you wouldn't be on the slope so its probably a minor concern.

Most of my skis have system bindings. I haven't looked to see if they will adjust for the Apex yet.


Yep.  Other than my newer skis, the one set of I have have system bindings so they could be adjusted.  They're old and shorter.  I use them for early season "rock" skis and for the VERY few occasions I think I might want a shorter set to try moguls again.

post #278 of 283

I own the MC-X boots and I love them.  I am 6' 4" and weigh in at 240.  Ski on MX-78 and Motive 95's.  No more numb toes, no more fighting to into my boots and my feet stay dry all day.  Kept my Salomons 110's as well so went to Tyrolia Attack 13 demo bindings in order to be able to use both boots.  There is a significant difference in sole size (335 vs. 372(Apex)) so had to go to demo bindings, but I really like the Attack 13 demos.  I prefer the Apex's to the Salomons.

post #279 of 283

I'm not a bootfitter, but I was an engineer back in the distant past and this is my own supposition, but maybe it will start a discussion with some of the bootfitters following this thread.  Think of this when comparing Apex with hard shell boots.  In any shoe, you need to have the shoe hug your foot to keep the heel from moving up and down.  I said hug, not clamp on.  In regular shoes or boots, limiting heel movement is important to keep from getting blisters.  In ski boots, it's important for that, but also to control the ski.  In a shoe, you limit heel movement when you tie your shoelaces.  You're kind of clamping the shoe down to the bottom of your foot.  If your shoe gets sloppy, you tighten it up.  So far so good.

 

Now, in a hard shell boot, the volume of the boot is fixed.  Tightening down the buckle across the top of your foot doesn't really do the job, especially if the shell is really hard.  It has some effect, but not much.  Since the shell volume is essentially fixed, the bootfitter needs to do a lot of other stuff.  They can give you heel lifts and other stuff, but most frequently, they do this.  The bootfitters will sell you a boot a little smaller than you need so that your foot actually arches up to fill the space in the hard shell.  Then the boot buckle doesn't have to work as hard to close up that space.  Here's the problem with that.  The anatomy of your foot really isn't made to do that.  It's my opinion, but I think that's why nearly everyone's feet hurt in hard shell boots.

 

Here's where I think Apex is most different and why it's important that boot fitters have to think differently with Apex boots than with hard shell boots.  With Apex, the Boa system lets you easily reduce the volume of the boot.  It limits heel movement and also side to side movement in the toe box.  Like tying the laces in a standard shoe, you are able to close down the boot to the foot rather than make the foot bend up to meet the boot.  And the skeleton is a lot easier to meet the boot and hold it in place.  I think that's why they don't want you to get in a boot a size smaller.  It's not necessary.  The foot is snug in the boot with the Boa and the boot just has to be held snug in the skeleton.  Clamping and foot contortion is not needed to fill an artificially determined volume. 

 

Thoughts?

post #280 of 283

I don't agree with your second paragraph. Properly fit boots accommodate the shape and volume of your foot so that your foot retains its natural shape within the boot. A properly fit boot doesn't bend or arch the foot. It lets the foot find its natural position, frequently with the help of a custom foot bed.

 

Being fit in a smaller shell size typically indicates that the previous boot was simply too large. It is much more efficient and effective to increase volume in a boot by reshaping the shell with heat and grinding than to reduce volume by adding padding.

post #281 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondguy View Post
 

The bootfitters will sell you a boot a little smaller than you need so that your foot actually arches up to fill the space in the hard shell.  Then the boot buckle doesn't have to work as hard to close up that space.  Here's the problem with that.  The anatomy of your foot really isn't made to do that.  It's my opinion, but I think that's why nearly everyone's feet hurt in hard shell boots.

 

 

I've never heard of a competent fitter selling someone a boot that's so small that the foot has to curl up to fit. You are right that with a smaller (properly fit) boot the buckles don't have to be cranked. The problem with cranking the buckles on a boot that's a size too big is that the buckles don't make the boot shorter--so rather than having the structure of the boot control the foot, you squeeze the foot with the buckles to hold it in place. I don't know where you get the idea that most people's feet hurt in hard shell boots. Mine don't. My wife's don't. My kids' don't. My friends don't. And when people do have foot pain from their boots it's usually because the boots are too large so they have to crank the buckles. 

 

About my son--he has the same size foot as me but skis in a size smaller boot. When he was on patrol he would be in his boots up to 11 hours straight, without unbuckling and with a lot of boot packing as well as skiing, with no pain. And the fit is so good that he skied all day on a particularly steep, icy WROD without noticing he hadn't buckled the boots. (His boots were fitted by Starthaus, although they were good out of the box with a footbed and booster straps. The heat moldable shells didn't need any molding.) My boots on the other hand, but weren't perfect until I replaced the liners with Intuition Power Wraps.  

 

One caveat--there are two ways to make footbeds--weight-bearing and non-weight bearing. Normally when you stand your foot flattens and lengthens. With a footbed made to fit the non-weight bearing foot (which is the kind I have) the lengthening and flattening is prevented so the foot is shorter and higher at the instep. It's the footbed that does that, not a too-small boot. And it isn't painful or un-anatomic. With that kind of foot bed your ideal boot might be a little shorter and a little higher volume top to bottom. However, the purpose of the foot bed is not to accommodate the foot to a different size boot but to stabilize the foot within the boot and improve performance. The change in fit is incidental.

 

The point is not to convince you to go back to hard boots, but to simply point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the hard shell design and that lots of people get the performance they want from them without suffering. You seem to need to justify your choice by making claims against hard boots that are simply wrong, which makes me wonder if you are really as happy with your boots as you say you are.


Edited by oldgoat - 2/24/15 at 12:37am
post #282 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

I've never heard of a competent fitter selling someone a boot that's so small that the foot has to curl up to fit. You are right that with a smaller (properly fit) boot the buckles don't have to be cranked. The problem with cranking the buckles on a boot that's a size too big is that the buckles don't make the boot shorter--so rather than having the structure of the boot control the foot, you squeeze the foot with the buckles to hold it in place. I don't know where you get the idea that most people's feet hurt in hard shell boots. Mine don't. My wife's don't. My kids' don't. My friends don't. And when people do have foot pain from their boots it's usually because the boots are too large so they have to crank the buckles. 

 

About my son--he has the same size foot as me but skis in a size smaller boot. When he was on patrol he would be in his boots up to 11 hours straight, without unbuckling and with a lot of boot packing as well as skiing, with no pain. And the fit is so good that he skied all day on a particularly steep, icy WROD without noticing he hadn't buckled the boots. (His boots were fitted by Starthaus, although they were good out of the box with a footbed and booster straps. The heat moldable shells didn't need any molding.) My boots on the other hand, but weren't perfect until I replaced the liners with Intuition Power Wraps.  

 

One caveat--there are two ways to make footbeds--weight-bearing and non-weight bearing. Normally when you stand your foot flattens and lengthens. With a footbed made to fit the non-weight bearing foot (which is the kind I have) the lengthening and flattening is prevented so the foot is shorter and higher at the instep. It's the footbed that does that, not a too-small boot. And it isn't painful or un-anatomic. With that kind of foot bed your ideal boot might be a little shorter and a little higher volume top to bottom. However, the purpose of the foot bed is not to accommodate the foot to a different size boot but to stabilize the foot within the boot and improve performance. The change in fit is incidental.

 

The point is not to convince you to go back to hard boots, but to simply point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the hard shell design and that lots of people get the performance they want from them without suffering. You seem to need to justify your choice by making claims against hard boots that are simply wrong, which makes me wonder if you are really as happy with your boots as you say you are.

 

And I love my boots.  I'm not doubting the hard shell design.  My wife loves hers but then she's one of the easy fit people and buys based on what matches her skis.  I like solving problems and I guess I'm trying to figure out why I (and tons of others) have so much trouble with the other design.  Is it the design?  Is it the traditional method of fitting?  In this case, I'm looking at fit.  I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why, in a hard shell boot, you're always down sized.  I'm a 27.5.  But in a hard shell boot, I've always been put in a 27, and once in a 26.  That extra centimeter (or 2) of length has to go someplace.  You can only pack into the liner so much, and that takes time.  So what IS the reason for the practice of always downsizing a hard shell boot?  It sounds like, in your case, you're using the foot bed to prevent flattening the foot when non-weight bearing.  You're using the footbed to keep the foot in a naturally flexed position.  And that naturally flexed position is a size smaller in the boot.  OK. 

 

What's wrong with the flatter foot?  The only time you're not in a weight bearing situation is on the lift or airborne.  Aren't my foot muscles and the foot geometry more natural in the weight bearing position?

 

Stabilization.  I understand that and it's vitally important in skiing to maintain a good leg, foot, boot, ski connection.  But it sounds like you're using the footbed or something else to hold the foot in place in the boot.  But if the boot is able to conform to the foot, rather than making the foot go to the boot, doesn't that sort of eliminate a lot of the grinding and heating and punching you have to do in a hard shell?  Seriously, I'm trying to get a better understanding.

post #283 of 283

Good bootfitters aren't down sizing, they are right sizing. You don't want excess volume. A properly fit boot doesn't cramping the toes. In fact they should be able to move freely. I went from a 27.5 to a 26.5 and my toes don't jam into the front of the boots, ever. I was in a boot one size too large by choice because I couldn't afford a new boot at the time nor the fitting. Ironically, I did hit the front of my boot with my toes in my old 27.5 because my foot wasn't securely held in place by the liner and boot, regardless of buckle adjustment. I'm glad I upgraded this year because my foot is much more comfortable in the smaller boot with its foot hugging fit. I'm in a Fischer Vacuum RC4 130 (pro, I believe). It is the best fitting boot I've ever had. Period.

 

@pondguy, I think that what you are illustrating with your description of hard shell fit is that there are so many poorly fit boots out there. It is unfortunate. The Apex does make comfortable fit easier to come by but it does come at a cost in performance. I am speaking from the POV of a past and present ski racer that has tried poorly fit hard shell boots, properly fit hard shell boots, leather boots, Scott boots, leather telemark boots, plastic telemark boots, AT boots and the Apex.

 

I think we can all agree that a ski boot needs some degree of stiffness to perform. Leather boots just don't cut it these days. A hard shell boot provides that stiffness in the shell, the Apex in the exo-skeleton. We can also agree, I believe, that a boot needs to fit the foot well to provide adequate performance. It needs to prevent slipping/movement of the foot within the boot and to transmit directions from the skier to the ski.

 

Hard shell boots require displacement of the hard shell through grinding and punching to accommodate the foot's eccentricities. The Apex doesn't require that as the soft boot conforms to the foot and interfaces with the exo-skeleton for support without applying pressure through the entire liner. The hard shell boot interfaces with the liner everywhere whereas the Apex's contacts in liner in fewer places making the need for proper adjustment outside the liner much more critical with the hard shell boot than the Apex. It also accounts for the hard shell boots ability to more readily transfer movements of the skier to the ski.

 

The Apex has a comparatively thick liner which compresses more and has more give more than a hard shell boot liner. This is a primary reason the performance of an Apex is not as high as that of a hard shell boot. There is more give in the Apex liner than in a thin conformable hard shell boot's liner. Actions of the skier are transmitted with more immediacy and precision with the hard shell than the Apex. This is good for high end performance. It is may be only a 10 - 20 % difference, but it is there.

 

Quote:
But if the boot is able to conform to the foot, rather than making the foot go to the boot, doesn't that sort of eliminate a lot of the grinding and heating and punching you have to do in a hard shell?

 

Certainly, but a hard shell can be made to fit the whole foot with precision, albeit with more help from a boot fitter, and the hard shell does, in my experience at least, provide a higher level of performance. I enjoy the added performance and the fit of a well fit boot can attain all day comfort that the Apex indubitably provides. The Fischer Vacuum fit and performance, however, is nonpareil.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion