EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why did mid-entry boots fail?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why did mid-entry boots fail?

post #1 of 43
3/16/12 at 1:58pm
Thread Starter 

Mid-entry boots came out during a time when I was living in FL and not really staying fully up-to-date on boot technology since I was happy with my Flexons.  Lately I've been thinking more and more about what kind of boot design can give you the performance and fit of a race-inspired 2-piece shell with the convenience of a 3-piece shell.

 

Last Saturday I was booting up in the lodge and the guy next to me was putting on some old mid-entry Salomons.  I chatted with him a bit and he let me check out his boots.  Many of you may recall that the mid-entry was introduced as a hybrid design between the rear entry boots and standard 2-piece 4-buckle front-entry designs.  So they have normal buckles on the instep and forefoot, but the rear spine of the boot is hinged and the buckle system (at least on the Salomon) is almost like a Flexon, but wrapped around the rear of the cuff instead of forward around a tongue.

 

It looks to me like this design could be made to work - providing ease of entry while still having some of the strong points of a standard 2-piece front entry.

 

So what happened?  Why did they fail?

 

 

Reply
post #2 of 43
3/16/12 at 2:01pm

I had a pair of those Salomons, and they were actually pretty hard to get on and off.

Reply
post #3 of 43
3/16/12 at 2:08pm
Does anyone have pic or link thry can post. I cannot picture the boots you are referring to.
Reply
post #4 of 43
3/16/12 at 2:10pm

Don't know about the mid entries but if you're looking for 3 piece boots look atDalbello Kryptons and Full Tilts-modeled on the Flexons (which my wife is still skiing with).  A lot of very serious skiers seem to like them, a lot of stiffness options.

Reply
post #5 of 43
3/16/12 at 2:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Don't know about the mid entries but if you're looking for 3 piece boots look atDalbello Kryptons and Full Tilts-modeled on the Flexons (which my wife is still skiing with).  A lot of very serious skiers seem to like them, a lot of stiffness options.


Ye hath little knowledge of the Noodler. wink.gif

 

Given that you haven't been around for long and only have 78 posts that's certainly understandable.  Search on the recent Flexon pics thread and I think you'll see that I'm well acquainted with 3-piece shells.

 

Reply
post #6 of 43
3/16/12 at 3:30pm
Noodler, one of my favorite ski boots ever was the 1985/86 era San Marco AXR & AXS. They were light, very anatomically correct for my skinny foot, heel, ankle and lower leg, and skied great. When I returned to skiing 15 years later San Marco was absent and boots like the AXR/AXS were nowhere. I wish I knew what happened to them and why they didn't work.

I believe the Salomon SX-90 and -90E of that era failed because of the distant feel of the shell (no real sense of what the shell was doing or where it was) despite the cable & plates system's success in making your foot very stable inside the boot. They also had a horrible flex pattern -- they didn't flex at all!

Most of the mid-entry and rear-entry boots that I tried on in the 80s had really poor ankle fit and heel hold. They seemed to be designed for occasional skiers who were beginners and low intermediates.
Reply
post #7 of 43
3/16/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

Does anyone have pic or link thry can post. I cannot picture the boots you are referring to.


I had these - they were not easy to get on

Salomon_Integral_Equipe_9.0.jpg

Reply
post #8 of 43
3/16/12 at 4:28pm

Same reason lots of stuff in skiing fails....or succeeds.  Public perception. 

 

 

 

Reply
post #9 of 43
3/16/12 at 5:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Same reason lots of stuff in skiing fails....or succeeds.  Public perception. 

 

 

 



I constantly sit here in awe at the complaints people have about ski gear that are only relevant during the time between you pull in the lot, and when you get on the lift. I don't think about how hard my boots are to get on or off, I think about how excellent they perform actually skiing. Then again i go back to all the arguments saying that people here are not common. We are actually skiers. Not people who occasionally just go skiing.

Reply
post #10 of 43
3/16/12 at 5:50pm


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Noodler, one of my favorite ski boots ever was the 1985/86 era San Marco AXR & AXS. They were light, very anatomically correct for my skinny foot, heel, ankle and lower leg, and skied great. When I returned to skiing 15 years later San Marco was absent and boots like the AXR/AXS were nowhere. I wish I knew what happened to them and why they didn't work.
I believe the Salomon SX-90 and -90E of that era failed because of the distant feel of the shell (no real sense of what the shell was doing or where it was) despite the cable & plates system's success in making your foot very stable inside the boot. They also had a horrible flex pattern -- they didn't flex at all!
Most of the mid-entry and rear-entry boots that I tried on in the 80s had really poor ankle fit and heel hold. They seemed to be designed for occasional skiers who were beginners and low intermediates.


Yeah, beginners like these guys

legend-of-aahhhs-slide.jpg

Reply
post #11 of 43
3/16/12 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Noodler, one of my favorite ski boots ever was the 1985/86 era San Marco AXR & AXS. They were light, very anatomically correct for my skinny foot, heel, ankle and lower leg, and skied great. When I returned to skiing 15 years later San Marco was absent and boots like the AXR/AXS were nowhere. I wish I knew what happened to them and why they didn't work.
I believe the Salomon SX-90 and -90E of that era failed because of the distant feel of the shell (no real sense of what the shell was doing or where it was) despite the cable & plates system's success in making your foot very stable inside the boot. They also had a horrible flex pattern -- they didn't flex at all!
Most of the mid-entry and rear-entry boots that I tried on in the 80s had really poor ankle fit and heel hold. They seemed to be designed for occasional skiers who were beginners and low intermediates.


ROTF.gif  Case in point.

 

The Salomon rear entrys were great.  There was a reaons they dominated the market.  Too well, thou, as it created a whole host of knock-offs.  The "copies" didnt work because Salomon had patented all their internal cables sytems (namely the heel one which made them work), so without that, as the copies were, they sucked.

 

The Salomon ones were great thou, Marc Giredelli won the overall WC title on a pair, Scott Schmidt established "extreme skiing" on a pair...to name a few....but yeah....public perception, went sour, and they died.

 

I loved Grizzeled perceptions thou - no heel hold?  the salomon rear entry had the best heel hold of any boot!, they didnt flex?????????????/ WTF?  These had the most adjustable flex ever, and could be made super soft, too super stiff!

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Same reason lots of stuff in skiing fails....or succeeds.  Public perception. 

 

 

 



 

Reply
post #12 of 43
3/16/12 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post


 


Yeah, beginners like these guys

legend-of-aahhhs-slide.jpg


Dont forget all the WCers that skied in these too.

 

Reply
post #13 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post


I had these - they were not easy to get on

Salomon_Integral_Equipe_9.0.jpg


 

That has to be the fugliest thing I have ever seenroflmao.gif

 

 

Reply
post #14 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


 

That has to be the fugliest thing I have ever seenroflmao.gif

 

 



You think you hate the way they look..wait till you ski them!

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #15 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:29pm

Would could say there is a new crop of "mid entry" boots that are skiing fantastic.... 

 

Tecnica Cochise Series

 

Tecnica-Cochise-image1.jpg

 

Lange XT series

 

LANGE_XT130-web.jpg

 

 

These are the modern SUVs to the station wagons of the 80's. wink.gif

 

 

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #16 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:33pm

How do you figure those are mid-entry? Maybe the Nordica Sportmachine (which I think is already gone) would count.

Reply
post #17 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

How do you figure those are mid-entry? Maybe the Nordica Sportmachine (which I think is already gone) would count.



Cuff opens to the rear for easy exit and entry...how do you define what the purpose of the mid entry boot was? 

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #18 of 43
3/16/12 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

When I returned to skiing 15 years later San Marco was absent and boots like the AXR/AXS were nowhere. I wish I knew what happened to them and why they didn't work.
 


San Marco is still around.  It is called Head Ski Boots.

 

As for the AX boots.  I have a vague idea what they look liked, but why they were discontinued, I do not know.

 

Dennis

Reply
post #19 of 43
3/16/12 at 7:19pm
Remember the Nordica Syntech series? I had a pair of the gold F9's complete with pump up tongue. I know why they didn't survive...they sucked. They were a glorified rear entry book. The Rossignol and Lange design from them mid 90's seemed more effective but I never skied a pair.

Oh yeah I actually use to kind of want a pair of those hideous pink Salomons.
Reply
post #20 of 43
3/16/12 at 7:28pm

The only rear entry boots I've ever owned were Hansons.  I have an idea, how about bringing back these mid entry boots?

33ceb36e_scott+boots+new.jpg

 

Reply
post #21 of 43
3/16/12 at 7:43pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post


 


Yeah, beginners like these guys

legend-of-aahhhs-slide.jpg


you are mistaking professional skiers being compensated for using a product with, well... a good product.

 

Reply
post #22 of 43
3/16/12 at 7:46pm

i wanted the F9 air pump system so bad, i skied on the F6 with no heel stabilzation for years.  Really taught me to keep my shins and weight forward on the tongues.

 

Reply
post #23 of 43
3/16/12 at 7:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

 


you are mistaking professional skiers being compensated for using a product with, well... a good product.

 


This was always the line.  But "they are paid to ski in them".  Well true, they were....but they still did, what they did....meaning the facts are, these boots did not hinder performance as the detractors claimed.  Wether paid or not they skied at a level that 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the world could only dream of.  Were these great boots?  Absolutley.

 

Reply
post #24 of 43
3/16/12 at 9:00pm

I have the distinction of having used every evolution of the Salomon rear entry boots to the Integral model and beyond.  Salomon did have, without a doubt the best skiing rear entry boot on the market and protected what made them work with patents galore.  When down sized and a few small modifications were made they skied quite well.  While working for Salomon for a few years it became apparent to me that all the imitators marketed their rear entries, which really really sucked, as their comfort and convenience models and their two piece architectures as their performance models.  This made it difficult for Salomon to come into a shop or clinic and tout their rear entry as a true performance boot when the other six reps who were just in that shop are telling the kids on the floor otherwise.  The perception became, performance = 2 piece, comfort/sport = rear entry.  

 

I remember a National sales meeting we had in Aspen where we tested everyone else's rear entry models against ours.  We sat in the resturaunt at the top of Ajax mountain and tried on each model making initial fit evaluations then skiing down the mountain and evaluating the skiing performance.  I remember to this day the absolute worst skiing boot I have ever skied, the Nordica Syntech rear entry!  That thing won the "out of the box fit" evaluation but when I skied it the boot flexed rearward more than forward.  I could actually do telemark turns with the boots!  It didnt' flex forward worth beans and was like hitting a wall which instantly pushed you into the back seat.  Nordica sold a shit load of those boots though because they fit great in the shop.  I can only imagine how many skiers gave up the sport because of that boot?  You could pick them out of a crowd because they would be hovering in the back seat all the time.

 

I believe Salomon reached the performance limitations and the marketing limitations of the rear entry design and decided it was time to move on and we went from Orange boots to PINK boots with the intro of the Integral, a three piece design which had an even shorter life span.

Reply
post #25 of 43
3/16/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

I have the distinction of having used every evolution of the Salomon rear entry boots to the Integral model and beyond.  Salomon did have, without a doubt the best skiing rear entry boot on the market and protected what made them work with patents galore.  When down sized and a few small modifications were made they skied quite well.  While working for Salomon for a few years it became apparent to me that all the imitators marketed their rear entries, which really really sucked, as their comfort and convenience models and their two piece architectures as their performance models.  This made it difficult for Salomon to come into a shop or clinic and tout their rear entry as a true performance boot when the other six reps who were just in that shop are telling the kids on the floor otherwise.  The perception became, performance = 2 piece, comfort/sport = rear entry.  

 

I remember a National sales meeting we had in Aspen where we tested everyone else's rear entry models against ours.  We sat in the resturaunt at the top of Ajax mountain and tried on each model making initial fit evaluations then skiing down the mountain and evaluating the skiing performance.  I remember to this day the absolute worst skiing boot I have ever skied, the Nordica Syntech rear entry!  That thing won the "out of the box fit" evaluation but when I skied it the boot flexed rearward more than forward.  I could actually do telemark turns with the boots!  It didnt' flex forward worth beans and was like hitting a wall which instantly pushed you into the back seat.  Nordica sold a shit load of those boots though because they fit great in the shop.  I can only imagine how many skiers gave up the sport because of that boot?  You could pick them out of a crowd because they would be hovering in the back seat all the time.

 

I believe Salomon reached the performance limitations and the marketing limitations of the rear entry design and decided it was time to move on and we went from Orange boots to PINK boots with the intro of the Integral, a three piece design which had an even shorter life span.


I remember those, they had the clear plastic covers over the buckles...buckles that didn't do anything. You are right, the boot didn't flex. At all. 

 

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #26 of 43
3/17/12 at 8:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post



I constantly sit here in awe at the complaints people have about ski gear that are only relevant during the time between you pull in the lot, and when you get on the lift. I don't think about how hard my boots are to get on or off, I think about how excellent they perform actually skiing. Then again i go back to all the arguments saying that people here are not common. We are actually skiers. Not people who occasionally just go skiing.


It's about logistics sir, logistics.  Most likely you never run into situations where you would be better served by an easy on/off shell.  There are areas where I ski that don't work well for booting up in the lodge.  Unfortunately I cannot do the parking lot dance and manage to get into my ZipFit liners and my Raptor shells.  Yes, I have a heated bag, but that's not the issue.  The issue is that I must put on my liners outside of the shells (as is typical with most race boots).  The balancing act to get the liner on and into the shell while standing up and being unable to put your foot down on the ground isn't much fun.

 

If you could get the high performance of a race inspired 2-piece without the problems of entry/exit wouldn't that just be ideal?  I honestly believe that if a manufacturer could solve this nut they would be hugely successful.

Reply
post #27 of 43
3/17/12 at 8:04am
Thread Starter 
 
 
 

Thanks Phil - I guess I really need to check these out further.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Would could say there is a new crop of "mid entry" boots that are skiing fantastic.... 

 

Tecnica Cochise Series

 

Tecnica-Cochise-image1.jpg

 

Lange XT series

 

LANGE_XT130-web.jpg

 

 

These are the modern SUVs to the station wagons of the 80's. wink.gif

 

 



 

 
Reply
post #28 of 43
3/17/12 at 8:13am
Thread Starter 

Phil - since you jumped into the thread, I'd be very interested in your interpretation of what happened with the mid-entry design in the market.  Was it basically a case of the design only being marketed as a low-mid performance option?

Reply
post #29 of 43
3/17/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Phil - since you jumped into the thread, I'd be very interested in your interpretation of what happened with the mid-entry design in the market.  Was it basically a case of the design only being marketed as a low-mid performance option?



I think as much as anything it was a inefficiency and a disconnect between the foot and the ski. I do think that the "mid" boots were kinda like the "mid" skis, they were an industry created segment (even to a point K2 created a "stretch" series that split the mids a traditional length skis). As far as the two boots I referenced above, technically, are they "mids"? that can be argued but what ever you call them, they have a great foundation of design and a walk/hike features that work plus as a nice side benefit, they are easy to get on and off.

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #30 of 43
3/17/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post



I plus as a nice side benefit, they are easy to get on and off.


How easy are we talking? I have ZERO dorsiflection, so I can't get in a traditional 2 piece boot.  I use Kryptons with an Intuition liner and need to get into the liner first, then the shell.  I would be interested in a better fitting lower, but easy entry.  Might just wait till next year's Kryptons are available, to have both.


 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why did mid-entry boots fail?