EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why not Rear Entry Boots ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why not Rear Entry Boots ?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
So after reading a few funny posts on here I was wondering, Why did Rear Entry Boots Die Out ??

I'm not a boot expert so I'm not sure what the positives and negs of the two are..

All I know is that When I first started skiing, I rented a pair of rear entry boots (yes the 10$ rentals) but they were soooo easy to put on.. I loved it..

Boots Are a PAIN to get on... it's such a hastle.. why did they stop the old school boots ?

....
post #2 of 11
Modern skiing is based a great deal on lateral movements. The old rear entry boots were from a time were forward pressure was applied to the skis, to pressure the front of the skis and unweight the back. Rear entry boots have a seam down both sides of the boots which flex and move when pressure is applied, where as a modern front entry boot wraps the leg and foot in support, and are solid on the sides to tranfer pressure, lateraly, to the ski edge.
post #3 of 11
You don't get the same feeling with a pair of rear entry boots.
Your foot don't get close enough to the shell as with a pair of overlapping boots.
You need to get as close as possible to the boot to be able to performe with todays equipment.
post #4 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtremity View Post
.. why did they stop the old school boots ?

....
Overlap is old school.
post #5 of 11
This thread discusses a new rear entry boot http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?p=656838
post #6 of 11
Actually, what was wrong with rear entry boots was specific designs that were bad. The very first Solomon designs were good, but then they got progressively worse as they couldn't leave well enough alone. Some of the last designs were truly horrible (the one-buckle series, for example).

Saying that "You need to get as close as possible to the boot to be able to performe with todays equipment." is silly. That is only true if a tight shell is the only way to hold your foot in place -- i.e. if it is an overlap design. The genius of good rear-enty designs was that they were an engineered solution to the problem of connecting a skier to the ski, rather than something designed by analogy to a leather hiking boot.

And since they had separate mechanisms for separate functions, they could be stiffer laterally than fore-aft.
post #7 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
Actually, what was wrong with rear entry boots was specific designs that were bad. The very first Solomon designs were good, but then they got progressively worse as they couldn't leave well enough alone. Some of the last designs were truly horrible (the one-buckle series, for example).

Saying that "You need to get as close as possible to the boot to be able to performe with todays equipment." is silly. That is only true if a tight shell is the only way to hold your foot in place -- i.e. if it is an overlap design. The genius of good rear-enty designs was that they were an engineered solution to the problem of connecting a skier to the ski, rather than something designed by analogy to a leather hiking boot.

And since they had separate mechanisms for separate functions, they could be stiffer laterally than fore-aft.


Yup this nails it.

SALOMON rear entrys...at least the 9# series were great boots. The key was that back buckle....but it was patented....other manufactures could copy the "rear entry" concept, but not the buckle that made them work...hence other manufacturers only offered them in the beginner/intermediate range, and some tried, unsuccessfully to offer them in higher performing boots...this just gave rear entrys a bad name....much worse then Salomon rear entrys deserved.

Anlison's comments, reflect the marketing spin given by other manufacturers, but does not reflect reality at all. Remeber, Marc Giridelli won the World Cup title on Salomon rear entrys! Sure he was paid to ski in them....but hey...he still won! If you can win a world cup title in them, they obviously did not lack performance.
post #8 of 11
Quote:
Modern skiing is based a great deal on lateral movements. The old rear entry boots were from a time were forward pressure was applied to the skis, to pressure the front of the skis and unweight the back. Rear entry boots have a seam down both sides of the boots which flex and move when pressure is applied, where as a modern front entry boot wraps the leg and foot in support, and are solid on the sides to tranfer pressure, lateraly, to the ski edge.
Very true. I remember graduating from the SX 93's (That did fit my foot well) to some yellow Rossie Course's (also with a great fit). They were so laterally stiff that I fell on the first several turns that I attempted. I took me a while to get used to their responsiveness.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Anlison's comments, reflect the marketing spin given by other manufacturers, but does not reflect reality at all. Remeber, Marc Giridelli won the World Cup title on Salomon rear entrys! Sure he was paid to ski in them....but hey...he still won! If you can win a world cup title in them, they obviously did not lack performance.
Point is that this says more on Marc's ability to perform rather then the boots he had, he switched eventually to overlaping boots, why?
Because the rear entrys didn't perform well enough.
I'm not saying that overlaping boots is the right stuff but rear entrys as they looked isn't working as good as overlaping boots do.
Eventually someone will come up with a better construction.
But you still have the issue that the shell is connected to the ski and you have some "fluff" between your foot and the shell, and you should have the skies right to the boons in terms of feeling and not a lot of "fluff".
post #10 of 11
Speedskiers digs them.
post #11 of 11
One of the main problems with the rear entries, especially the upper level boots that were very stiff, was that they didn't allow enough ankle flexion to keep you centered on your skis and had a tendency to push you to the back seat. They would only flex forward to a certain point and then "hit bottom" too soon.

As others said I don't think it was a function of them being rear entry, but the design that was at fault. I think the stigma that was caused by that made manufacturers shy away from rear entry designs due to marketing purposes.
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 not Rear Entry Boots ?