Slipper-like on the approach and talon-like on the ascent.
- Scarpa Ergo Fit allows for increased forward ankle mobility while climbing and controls lateral range to protect your ankle in rocky, rugged terrain
- A lightweight TPU midsole is thicker directly underfoot and thinner at the toe and heel to support comfortable approaches
- The Total Traction sole and the Pro Fibre insole have enough flexibility for long approaches but maintain enough stiffness to support Crampomatic crampons
- This stiff but slightly forgiving Pro Fibre insole matches the midsole flexibility and allows a small degree of longitudinal flex for comfort
- Upper cuffs use integrated gaiters to lock out the snow and trail debris
- Item #SCR0149
- Q & A
Out of the box and onto the mountain
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
- Fit: True to size
- Size Bought: 47
I purchased these boots for a climb up Mt. Rainier via DC. Having worn them only a handful of times before setting out, I was nervous. Come to find, they were incredibly comfortable. Hammering the pace and climbing with speed, these boots posed no restrictions. Good fit, good feel, easy use with crampons.
Great boots, just not for my feet
- Familiarity: I returned this product before using it
- Fit: True to size
- Size Bought: 13
These boots are bomb proof. The build quality was beyond excellent, they are warm and stiff enough to ice climb well below freezing. The toe-box was nice and wide. The lacing system was pretty slick and allowed for several different zones to vary the tightness as they are laced.
The only reason I sent them back is because they were too wide in the heel. I have EXTREMELY wide feet across the toes (bunions to boot) and so I had to order an extra size up to get the width I needed, but they ended up being too sloppy around my heel. The inside of the uppers also has zero padding, so if you have bunions like me, they just rub against hard leather.
I wanted these boots to fit, but they just didn't work for my foot. They are incredible boots and I would definitely recommend that people try them as an option. It's just all about that fit!
I settled on a pair of La Sportiva Nepal Cubes, they fit a little narrower in the heel and had the toe room I needed, plus are padded, so they fit like a dream. If you have wide feet like me, I'd try these Mont Blanc's first, and if they don't fit, try the Nepal Cubes!
Mendenhall Glacier, Juneau, AK . Comfy and warm boots.
Good fit warm toes
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
- Fit: True to size
Warm and dry boot that does well on vertical ice. They feel a little bit narrow but overall I'm happy with the fit. I haven't had any issues with the heel pocket (a problem people have mentioned before).
I bought a size 42 in this boot
Size 10 Moccasym
Size 41 Mythos
Does the job on 14'ers & Vertical Ice
Ultimately, choose a boot based on what fits your foot. If this one fits, grab it!
I've worn the Scarpa Mont Blanc on everything from easy walk-up 14ers (Quandary in CO), to ice-routes in Ouray, and on Matterhorn's Liongrat. The boot climbs surprisingly well on steep rock, confidently locks you in to step-in crampons, and is comfortable enough to spend days in.
I haven't worn the boots in weather colder than 25 degrees - as others have mentioned, you might want a double boot if that's what you're shooting for. If it's a bit warmer, this is a killer boot.
Pros: Reasonable price (if you can find it on sale), comfortable, secure welts for fitting step-in crampons, seemed amazingly waterproof.
Cons: Could be lighter, probably not the best boot for really cold climate mountaineering.
Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX Boot - Men's
Didn't fit my foot
While it felt good at first, I found that the heel slipped and the toes jammed in size 46. At 45.5, the heel was okay, but the toes jammed still. Maybe your foot will fit.
I went from a pair of 10 year old Koflach boots that didn't fit me to these. Needless to say I was amazed. The climb very well and they are warm enough (knock on wood).
Everywhere you go people talk about the La Sportiva Nepal EVO GTX. Too bad they are for narrow feet. I tried the scarpas because they have a wider toe box. With aftermarket footbeds these things are so comfortable. My past hiking boots have destroyed my feet and caused nerve damage between my toes. thank god for a company that gives a wider option and great quality to go along with it. I am very happy with these boots.
Climbing French Tech WI 2+
Climbing WI 2+
Pretty good, but some flaws
I've had these boots for about 2 years now and have done many many trips of all sorts in them. Not saying it will happen to you, but here is my experience with them.
-Didn't really seem to have a break-in period, they were always comfortable. have NEVER gotten a blister in them
-Very waterproof, no issues and I've crossed streams in them with my feet fully submersed
-Accommodate a wide foot well
-climb ice decently
-Not super warm. I have been worried about getting frostbite while guiding on Mt. Shasta in windchill around -20F (but I do tend to have colder feet) I've had them in a windchill of about -35F but wouldn't do that again!!
-the leather seemed to dry out pretty quickly, but doesn't effect the quality or performance
-Doesn't seem to have a super-snug heelcup. (I wish it did so that you could front-point a little better with crampons)
Overall its a good boot. As far as full on winter mountaineering i would not go with it. For general summer use for things like the cascade volcanoes and such, it works pretty well. Still you sometimes get those freak days in june/july where it can be super cold and these work in that, but do not excel. For an ice/mixed climbing boot, again, they work, but aren't the best in the market.
I've beat the crap out of them, and they're still truckin'. I wear about a size 9 and got these in a 42 which is a bit too small (my toes go numb midway through the summer guiding in these)
bottom line: Good boot, not great, probably some better ones out there for the pricetag
Perfect CO Mountaineering Boot
I've now climbed about 12,000 ft and 24 mi in these boots. Finally getting them dialed in. Laces needed to stretch, material needed to stretch, etc... They are extremely durable and waterproof. I've been comfortable down to a windchill of -20 F with a liner sock and heavy wool/silk combo hiking sock. Soft snow check, trail hiking check, kick steps check, microspikes check, mixed rock/snow check. I've sized my crampons on them but haven't had a chance to wear them together yet. The stock insole seems pretty solid. However I may add some gels to hold my heel in a bit better. I'm a standard US 10.5 in all shoes. I bought the 44.5 so I would have room for liners and/or two pairs of socks. I also have fairly wide feet. This size was perfect.
Scarpa Mont Blanc
Getting ready for some ice climbing in Provo Canyon
If La Sportiva Nepals doen't fit you well this one likely will if you have a wider, high volume foot. Pretty much a copy of the tried and true and spectacular Nepals...the Scarpa version is every bit as nice of an all around leather mtn boot. Winter or summer, durable, climbs anything well and a bit cheaper than the Nepal. May be not Number 2 ;-) Let your feet decide. Sole is a tiny bit softerth an the Nepals for steel ice but still stiff enough.
I used these boots all winter for ice climbing and a little mountaineering. These suckers are warm. A little overkill for the low elevation mountaineering I did, but not so much that I was bothered by them. Great sole for hiking on rocks, snow and ice. My black diamond sabertooth and cyborg crampons both fit great. The sole is nice and stiff for kicking steps in steep snow as well as ice climbing.
Great Boot!! Good out of the box.
So far, so good. I have had these for about a month now, and they were good right out of the box. They didn't need too much break in, and they are very strong and very warm. With synthetic wool blend socks these boots have done well for me in 0-10 degree hikes. My feet didn't even notice the cold.
The only fall back for me personally on these boots is i have a more long a narrow foot, Scarpa runs a little better for wider feet. They still fit well and seem to be great overall. We'll see as i continue to put miles on them and move into some very long hikes/mountaineering.
Highly recommend these!
Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX
Scarpa has always been my favorite winter/summer boot, these are no exception. My Cerro Tore's lasted longer than any boot I've had before. At first I thought I ordered the wrong size and then realized they were shipped with two foot beds in each boot. Time will tell if they deserve 5 stars.
I got these for Adams and Rainier (summer ascents). I had done Rainier previously in plastic double boots and my feet weren't feeling the best. I bought these so I could train/break them in during the 6 months before the climb.
The boots were perfect for the goal. My feet did not have any issues when climbing in these boots with a full pack in the 6 months prior to Adams/Rainier. On Adams and Rainier (done one after the other in 5 days) my feet did not have any issues. The boots were warm, easy to climb in, and comfortable. There is no question in my mind what I would wear on any future expeditions of similar nature. I plan on doing Rainier in the winter and McKinley next summer. I will likely use double boots for those.
Excellent Boot For A Bigfoot!
Since Dec. '08 I've been looking for a mountaineering boot that fits my 12 inch by 5 inch foot.
I've finally found this boot! The Scarpa Mont Blance in Euro 48.
The first thing I noticed when I laced up the boot was the way the laces cinched up at the top of the ankles. Rather than having the lace-eye at the side of the ankle, the Mont Blanc has them at the top. At first it looked like it would provide little use but when you cinch up the laces it actually provides, IMHO, twice the leverage/lacing ability than the side lace-eye. Also, the material around the upper ankle really allows for flex of the foot.
The second thing I noticed was the room in the tow box area. Looking from the top of the boot it is easy to see that the boot is a much higher volume boot than most because of the much more rounder/blunt toe box area (Front of boot)than most other mountaineering boots.
The third, and most surprising, thing I noticed was how nice and snug my heel fit in the heel area. My LS Glacier EVO and Scarpa Summit GTX were size Euro 47 yet my heel floated much more than in my Mont Blanc 48! With the lace-cinching set up and how the heel fits, this boot really fits snug around. I replaced the thin laces with thicker laces.
The insulation is just like the Summit GTX: Thick and abundant! I would say it has approximately a third more than what the LS Nepal EVO has.
Having put approximately fifteen city-miles in them, these boots feel as close to custom-made as one can get for an off-the-shelf boot. My toes don't feel tight yet don't slide forward; Surprisingly, my heel fit very snug for such a large boot (Ideally, I wear a US 12 6E and these boot are a US 14); I have enough room to wear a thick sock combo and still not have my toes feel squished.
Compared to the LS Nepal EVO, the Mont Blanc is built a little more sturdier; which I'm sure means more weight.
A really helpful amenity is the nylon loops on the back of the boot and on the 'twin tongues'. It helps hold the boot open when you slide your foot in.
Are there any cons? The only thing I can think of is; The Mont Blanc doesn't have triple-stitching in the exterior heel area like on the Summit GTX. However, a rubber rand (Grey band) covers much higher on the boot heel area.
Also, I wish the Mont Blanc were 'Penn State' blue like the Manta GSB and not the 'Boise State' Mango Orange :) !
I wear size 14 shoes and bought size 14...
I wear size 14 shoes and bought size 14 Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX boots and they are the biggest mountaineering boots I can find anywhere, and yet my big toes still are touching the end of the boot when I'm walking on flat ground. I'm concerned I'll end up with sore toes on long descents. Is there a way to lace them so they'll hold my feet into the back of the boot or is there a bigger Mountaineering boot available ANYWHERE?
You're not going to get that out of your laces. You can get some relief in the heel lift dept, but it's just not going to happen with that much toe bang. Your size 14s are too small. You'll end up with bloody toes, no nails and possibly nerve damage. It's not just going to be descents either, you'll get hammered when you kick in on ascents or climbing ice. Unfortunately, your 48s are the biggest size Scarpa makes in the Mont Blancs. That sucks. You need to go up at least 1/2 to a full size, depending on your sock combo. The only two models Scarpa makes that goes up the 1/2-full size larger you need (EU 49-50) are in the Kinesis Pro or the SL Activ, both heavy backpacking boots, not mountaineering boots. As you know, it's tough to find that big a shoe. Wish I could be of more help and a whole lot more optimistic, but man, the bottom line is that you're going to be in miserable agony if you don't size up. There's just only so much you can do with laces and stop-gap fixes in a boot that's too small to begin with. Sorry.
Are these being cleared out of inventory...
Are these being cleared out of inventory or are more sizes on there way? I would be a US 11.5-12.
I currently have a pair of these on sale size 12. http://www.geartrade.com/item/328831/scarpa-mont-blanc-ice-climbing-boots-for-sale Check them out if you are interested. Used for 1 season but were a bit too big.
How do these compare to the La Sportiva...
How do these compare to the La Sportiva Nepal Evos in terms of warmth and comfort? Which one is more recommended for winter hiking and mountaineering? Also, how is the fit on these, I wear a size 13 US Mens, would a size 47 fit me ok?
I can speak in terms of fit, the Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX are much wider in the heel and toebox. The La Sportiva Nepal Evos run much narrower.
Most of those I know that use this tend to get a 1/3 or 2/3 size bigger than their typical shoe size (EU sizes convert to thirds in US sizes).
Like the poster before me said, these fit a bit wider than the la sportivas, so that may translate to better comfort depending on the size/shape of your foot. Both are excellent mountaineering boots, each have both heel and toe welts for fully automatic (step in) crampons and full shanks, so they are extremely stiff. For winter mountaineering, these may be a little on the chilly side since they are single boots. In terms of warmth, the Evos and the Mont Blancs will be about the same, but I personally think they are better for something like summer mountaineering in the cascades. Winter might require double boots or over boots/super gaiters.
I'm trying to decide between the Mont...
I'm trying to decide between the Mont Blancs and the Triolet Pros. My main goal is to climb in the Cascades and the Winds this summer and fall on routes involving glacier travel and moderate rock. My understanding is that the Triolet Pros would be best for this.
The catch: I'd also like to do some easy ice and alpine climbing this winter -- it sounds like the Mont Blancs would excel for those purposes.
My questions: will I hate the Mont Blancs on 10 mile approach hikes in 70 degree weather? Or are the Mont Blancs really just a nicer boot with a touch more insulation that won't kill my feet in fair weather?
Note: I've tried on a handful of boots now and Scarpas are by far the best fit for me.
Thanks in advance for any insight.
Yes, you'll be hating life after a mile or two in 70 degree weather. I'd definitely opt for a lightweight approach shoe in that scenario.
IMHO the Mont Blancs are best used in ice/snow. They are way too heavy, inflexible, moonboot-ish to use on any non-winter terrain for any sustained amount of time. That said, they are the only mountaineering boots I've found that fit my wide clown feet. My ankles are relatively narrow and heel lift is a problem despite various lacing configurations. Getting a perfect fit continues to be a work in process, and I'm determined to get it right.
If I had to dump another chunk of change on some boots, I'd go with the Scarpa Charmoz; they seem a like a compromise between a three season boot and the Mont Blanc.
Planning to climb 7,134m Hi, I'm planning...
Planning to climb 7,134m
I'm planning to climb 7,134 metres (23,406 ft) peak, Lenin Peak in Pamir mountains in July/August and was wondering if these Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX are gonna be warm enough?
Or I should go for PHANTOM 6000 or PHANTOM GUIDE or SPANTIK or BARUNTSE?
But if I wore the Mont Blancs with Neoprene Wading Socks, how cold/warm will it be??
And what crampons would you recommend, I'm currently looking at BD Sabertooth.
Thank you all.
Phantom 6000 will be a better bet, although if you're climbing technical stuff, the Guide would serve you a little better. Don't skimp when it comes to your feet. If you consistently get cold feet, something like the Spantik might be the best choice of all.
As for crampons, I've heard of some problems with the points deforming under body weight on a couple pairs of the Sabertooths, so beware of those. Grivel G12 crampons are a favorite for a lot of climbers, and the Petzl Lynx seems like the new classic. Thing is, you need to get crampons that fit your boots really well, or else you could be in trouble, so don't buy them online. Buy your boots first, then go into a store and fit as many as you can. The best crampons will basically stay on your boot with just the toe bail attatched, and not the heel. If there's no store nearby, buy a couple pairs online, fit them, and return the ones that don't fit perfectly.
Thank you James!
A lot of useful info there. Yeah, from quick internet research Petzl Lynx seem to be like a very versatile and a winner. Will check out local stores and see if they have them in stock to try with different boots.
Regarding the boots, it's just that I already have the Mont Blancs, but never went above 4,500m so not sure how 7,000m will feel like.
Also, it might be an off-topic question, from Scarpa website both the MONT BLANC GTX and the PHANTOM GUIDE have the same last: AG, so it would be reasonable to assume that if MONT BLANC 42.5 fit me, so should the PHANTOM GUIDE? or should i go a 1/2 size bigger/smaller?
Thank you again!!
Question from aspiring mountaineer... I'm...
Question from aspiring mountaineer...
I'm looking to start doing some winter camping and mountaineering. In all likelihood, I'll do very little ice climbing. I plan to mostly climb California 14er's, Colorado 14er's, Rainier, Mexican Volcanoes, and Cotapoxi. If I can handle the altitude and cold well, I would love to someday climb Aconcagua and Denali. I know that I'll need a double plastic boot like the Scarpa Inverno on Aconcagua and Denali, but which boot would be a better as an all around mountaineering boot on the mountains mentioned above and all of the training in between? La Sportiva Nepal EVO GTX or the Scarpa Mont Blanc GTX? Something else? Assuming the fit works, I'm leaning towards Nepals since I see them recommended by numerous reputable guide companies. Thoughts?
Try them on and see what fits, the Nepal and the Mont Blanc are made on different last so they will fit different feet. Other than that they are extremely similar boots. Fit is the most important factor in selecting mountaineering boots.
Hi Mat, I leave a few miles away from Aconcagua, right in the middle of the Andes. You don't need a Scarpa Inverno to go to Aconcagua, unless you do the South face, the Polish glacier, or do it in the winter time... You can go with a double plastic boot, but they are kind of heavy...
Agree on the fit factor. I bought the Scarpa because I have a fairly wide foot. I've been very happy with them in very similar conditions.
Fit is most important. Your feet will be more comfortable and warmer in something that fits well. Fit changes by brand so try them all on, and dont forget to try them on with the socks you plan on using. Don't try to guess what the fit will be like with mountaineering socks on, take the socks with you. Wear them around the store for a long time, walk every isle. Definately spend alot of time finding the right boot. Never look at the price tag until you've found the boot that fits.
How should I decide between these kind of...
How should I decide between these kind of boots or plastic ones? Thanks!
LoL you should ask a better question. Plus show us another picture to match what you are talking about so we my better serve you.
for example Scarpa Inverno..? Koflach Degrees? I mean, this technology can be used as an alternative of plastic boots? Or they are suposed for different uses?
So yeah, where/how do want to use these? Mont Blanc vs. Inverno is an discussion based primarily on where & when you are heading and what you are doing while there...
So I've had these boots for a little while...
So I've had these boots for a little while now, and loved them until yesterday. I used them to climb Mt. Hood twice, Mt. Adams once, and then took them up Mt. Rainier this weekend. Going up they were great and we made great time, but coming down my toes began to hurt. By the time we got to Muir they were hurting pretty bad, and by the time we got to Paradise they were killing. I had blisters galore over several toes and some discoloration below my big toenails. I've never had any issue with them until yesterday and don't know what to do next. I am normally a sz 10, went with the 10.5's. I have noticed a little bit of heel lift when going up, but not much at all and it doesn't rub enough to cuase blisters. Any idea what I can try to make these work for me? I don't want to have to go through that again, and I don't want to be stuck with an expensive pair of boots that kill me on the way down. Thanks all.
My wife went through the same problem with a snowshoe trip last year, so many ups and downs, that she blackened her big toenails on both feet, they have since fallen off, which yours probably will too. What happened is that with the downwards step, you are putting too much pressure on the toe, which is quite normal, the trick here is to keep your toes from grinding up inside the toe box and causing these issues. Try tightening the ankle area more to keep your heel down in the boot, and try to wear only one pair of socks.
can anybody compare these to the kayland...
can anybody compare these to the kayland m11+. warmth, volume and sizing comparison.
Sorry I can't compare directly, but these are pretty darn warm. I wore these all last year winter mountaineering and ice climbing. I'll be using these on Rainier this summer. The sizing chart is pretty spot on. I wear a 11.5 in most shoes and bought the 11.5 - 12 size equivalent and it fits great with thick wool socks.
I am signing up for Rainier next year in Sept but will will be using the previous model being the Scarpa Summits. Anyone know if this is sufficient or better to use a double boot on Rainier?
i wore a pair of these on Rainier in early June for 5 days and was plenty warm. temps stayed in the 20's and summit day was in the teens. i wear a 9 boot and bought these in size 43 and it was spot on for size with really heavy socks.
@Gould, re: "I am signing up for Rainier next year in Sept but will will be using the previous model being the Scarpa Summits. Anyone know if this is sufficient or better to use a double boot on Rainier?"
The Summit should work fine on Rainier in September. I wore Summits while slopping around Rainier in August and had no troubles at all from the boots.
A similar use boot overall to the Mont Blanc, albeit the older design of the Summit has a "fatter" collar above the ankle. I like the fit of the Mont Blanc GTX better as I find it is easier to snug up and keep a good fit/tension. Temperature wise, they are just about equal. I'm normally on the warm side and have had the Summits easily remain comfortable, for me, down into the 15F range. Love the Vibram soles on the Summit, had no trouble with them clogging up with slush or snow when the crampons were off.
Definitely take some time to put some miles on the Summits if you haven't already to make sure you know if/where you get hotspots. I cracked off ~75 miles in mine before they felt really good and got past hotspots on my heels.
I also recommend getting better insoles (Scarpa's insoles are pretty "meh") and less stretchy laces to aid in keeping the Summits properly tensioned to prevent slip in the heel.
Overall Scarpa Summits are a great boot, especially if you scored a pair at a reasonable price on closeout. Hard to beat for overall comfort, usability, and toughness.
Double boot setup is usually overkill on Rainier IMO (especially in the warmer months), but definitely a safe option for those without much experience in that environment.
Hope this helps...
Hey guys. Live in Australia so can't try...
Hey guys. Live in Australia so can't try on. I wear a US 11.5 in Asics running shoes and Salomon trail running shoes. Just wondering what size you would recommend? Thanks for your help.
I would go size 45
I wear between 46 and 47 in Scarpas, probably 47s in these, and I take 13s in Salomons. So yeah, try a 45.
I wear an 11.5 usually, sometimes 11, occasionally 12. I wear a 45.5 in the Scarpa Charmoz (which is a different last than the Mont Blanc.) Scarpa says 45.5 is = 11 2/3 U.S. sizing. I have tried the Mont Blanc in 45 and 45.5. I think if you usually want more toe room (length) get the 45.5, otherwise the 45.
sizing question, If i wear a size 10 in a...
sizing question, If i wear a size 10 in a street shoe what size should order these boots in? Keeping in mind i wear smartwool phd heavy cushion and a 3 mm neoprene ankle booty (to keep my heel locked in). Thanks in advance.
You'll probably want to try on the 43.5 and 44. Also in my experience the Mont Blanc has the best heel hold of any boot I've tried so you may not need the neoprene booty.
I would say the 44 or 44.5 to avoid toe bang. Try both on with a pair of custom insoles and go kick practice kicking in the store. You'll know which one is better for you based on how many toe kicks it takes before you feel the front of the boot.
Hello, well, too much info make me rather...
well, too much info make me rather confused! So, are these boots stiffer than the Nepals or not? Are they warmer? Could they be "safely" used in temps down to -25C (without a VB sock, or maybe i ask too much!)?
Overall, which boot is "best", except the general rule "fit is key".
I would say the would be comparable in stiffness to the Nepal. They both have fully rigid insoles to accept fully rigid crampons. These do have goretex duratherm insulation in them so hey will keep your feet toasty. As far as -25c i cannot comment since all sorts of variables play into this.. I do know that i have been pretty cozy in some cold weather in Colorado . They will fit a touch wider than the Lasportiva
They won't go down to -25C. I would say -18C is the min temp rating for these without overboots. If you need -25C, look to the Scarpa 6000 Guides, or a plastic boot like the Omegas.
Trying to find the right ice climbing shoe...
Trying to find the right ice climbing shoe but having difficulty figuring out sizing. I regularly wear 10.5 street shoes and my rock climbing shoes (testa rossa) are 41-41.5. Also, I keep reading about people and wide feet and I have normal to slender feet. Was this boot made for people with wider feet?
Hi Lorenzo. You'll want to try on a 44 and/or a 44.5 depending on your sock choice. Also the Mont Blanc does a good job of fitting people with wider feet, but we've also seen plenty of happy customers with average feet in this boot. The boot was designed with a brand new last and a great lacing system to fit a wide range of feet.
I've had this boot for a couple of weeks now and have mostly been using them for vertical ice. I LOVE them. I have climbed in a couple different La Sportivas and these are my favorites so far. I have a fairly girly foot and they still fit great.
How technical are these boots? I'm after...
How technical are these boots? I'm after a new pair of ice climbing boots, for vertical ice, and British mixed climbing. I've read that these boots aren't highly technical (including on the Scarpa website www.scarpa.co.uk), so would I need to go for the Phantom Guides instead?
I don't fit LS Nepals, as my feet are ever so slightly too wide.
The Mont Blanc is equivilant to the LS Nepals in both warmth and performance. The Phantom Guide is built on the same lower platform which offers plenty of rigidity for front pointing. The boot I'd recommend for you is the the Jorasses Pro which is just as stiff under foot but is lighter and more nimble for difficult mixed moves.
Which crampon best fits this boot? doing...
Which crampon best fits this boot? doing vert ice & long approach.
In general most fully step in crampons will fit this boot, but it is always good to try as there tends to be a lot of variance in toebail and heel bail dimensions among all the crampons. I personally am using the Petzl Dart Leverlock (not the sidelock) and the Black Diamond Sabertooth Clip
Sizing help? According to the Scarpa sizing...
Sizing help? According to the Scarpa sizing chart, my size ought to be 44.5. Does anyone with experience in this boot know if these sizes are accurate?
My foot is a 10.5D according to the Brannock Device; I wear an 11 in Salomon XT Wings, 11 in Vasque, and typically an 11 in most dress shoes/casual wear/outdoor shoes.
I have bunions on both feet, making my feet significantly wider at the toes than the heels. I tried the La Sportiva Nepal Evo GTX in 44 and it was just a bit too narrow on my left foot, and just a bit too short on my right foot (with SmartWool Mountaineering socks on, and the included liner).
Any thoughts!? Thanks in advance!
I'd think a 44.5 would likely be your size. I fit mine at the same size as my Brannock size but because of your specail feet a half size up would probably fit better. According to my chart a US mens 10.5D translates to a Euro 44 so I think your on the right track with a 44.5
Sizing help needed! I wear a 42.5 Acopa...
Sizing help needed!
I wear a 42.5 Acopa climbing shoe, a 44 Nike Free running shoe, a M40 Vibram 5-finger, and a Salomon 43.5 trail shoe. I have a narrow heel, and wide foot for my size (usually wear EE or 2EE in dress shoes).
Anyone in that range and able to provide some feedback on a good size selection(s)?
so a question would you consider your self to be a US 10.5 ? if so I would tend to steer you to a 43.5 . Shout back with your US size and we can hone it in for you
Well, using a Bannock shoe size gauge I'm an exact 9EE. I consider myself a 9.5 (42.5), and I usually wear a 9.5/10 in boots (with boot socks)
I have wide, flat feet. I wear a 13.5 in...
I have wide, flat feet. I wear a 13.5 in asics running shoes, width 4E. I wear some asolo powermatics (wide) for my normal backpacking boots, but am doing some higher peaks in the himalayas this fall and need some mountaineering boots.....any ideas on a pair that will come close to fitting?
Is that UK 13.5 or US 13.5?
If it's UK 13.5 then it's really is US 14.5.
If you're US 13.5 then I would probably start with La Sportiva Baruntse because they run in Euro size 48, 49, and 50. The reason why I suggest this boot is because it's a serious non-plastic double-boot that's in your size and I'm WAG'ing you're either a size 49 or a 50.
The down side: They're $600!!
My foot measures 12 inches by 5 inches and I wear a Euro 48.
You and I are in the 5 percentile of the shoe/boot world.
13.5 US, and thank you for the recommendation! although $600! ugh, that's a pretty big chunk of change. funny how being in %5 makes the price of my shoes jump up %75.....
Since you're going to the Himalayas, I wouldn't be above getting the Millet Everest because you're going to some serious elevation not to mention a serious primitive part of the world. Also, Millet sizes up to a US 15.
Remember the saying: It's easier to keep warm than to try and rewarm.
If your feet get cold up there, it's going to be hard trying to rewarm them.
I'm getting a wicked hard spot/pressure...
I'm getting a wicked hard spot/pressure point where the Achilles meets the heel when walking uphill in these boots. It feels like a screwdriver jamming into my skin back there. Anyone got any boot tricks to help with this? Will it go away with break in? They are great boots in every other respect, maybe they just don't fit my heel properly and that's that.
Had a similar problem in the La Sportiva Nepals this winter. I kept going thinking it would break in but wound up getting a bad case of tendonitis starting in early Jan. I took Rx anti-inflammatory drugs, wore flip flops al winter and iced every day for 8 weeks. I still can't wear boots or most shoes. May want to look at another boot
It sounds like your heel is not seated enough in the boot. The heel is lifting up.
1) Try an after market footbed.
2) Tighten your laces a little more.
3) Double up on the socks.
I have the same problem as you do in regards to heel lifting. Experiment with different combo's of the above-mentioned.
I get some discomfort in my Summits as well. I don't know if my heel is seated too much, or not enough. If I lace them up tight and push (or pull) the heel down into the heel cup, then I get the worst discomfort. If you think about the flexing action; with you heel pushed way down deep in the heel cup, and the boot flexing while stepping into an incline, the boots' tendency is to push or bury the heel hard into the heel cup. I have tried this with pretty good results: lace a bit more loosely than normal, use liner and hiking/trekking sock. I feel heel slip with this method, but at least my heel isn't being jammed into the hard cup. On descents, lace tighter so foot will not slip forward. My boot is still relatively new and seems to be getting better .. break in!
The heel pressure I was feeling in my Summits have all but gone away. I achieved the best fit by tinkering around with socks, insoles and lacing. In the end, I'm using wool liners and light to medium weight wool sock, orange superfeet and lacing that I would describe this way: From the Toe to the nylon loop, I laced the boots really loosely. I'm lacing the "top half" of the boot tight. This combination of socks, insoles and lacing has given me the best comfort on long, up-hill slogs.
I think I've finally got my Mont Blanc dialed in regarding my heel seating properly:
I double sock, except on the outer sock I cut the tow box out just behind the first metatarsal head (Big toe knuckle). This set up really locks my heel in well.
Is the Mont Blanc GTX as insulated as the...
Is the Mont Blanc GTX as insulated as the Summit GTX?
Not insulated, uses Gore membrane and an integrated snow gaiter to stay dry.
Actually Dakka they are insulated. According to the link you posted they use a "Gore-Tex Insulated Comfort Footwear" liner. Here is the link to Gore's site that explains the insulation levels and options:
Thanks Ian for the link!
I should have defined what I meant by 'insulation'.
And according to the link it looks like it is insulated similar to the Summit.
Yes, the Mont Blanc is insulated with GoreTex Duratherm, just like the Summits. The Mont Blanc is replacing the Summit, so same type of construction 3-plus mm leather with Pro Fiber mid sole for small amount of flex. Good for mixed climbing and general mountaineering. I have worn my Summits in temps around 0, so expect the Mont Blancs to have similar warmth. Mont Blanc is a bigger volume boot.
Bigger volume boot; Meaning for dudes with larger feet or for someone who wants to bulk up on sock-layers/combos?
I ordered mine in size 48 because I have wide feet (12 6E). And my Summits are 47 but anything beyond a med. thick sock is too tight.
Yes, more volume to accomodate more foot shapes. Also, the larger volume would handle more (or thicker) socks and/or after-market footbed. Having said that, I would definitely try them on if possible with the socks and footbed that you would normally use.
Thanks for the reply, Jefe!
Hopefully these boots will fit better than my Summit GTX.
I'm slowing "dialing in" the fit of my Summit. I'm using the Orange Superfeet, with a liner and medium thick hiking sock, then playing with different lacing techniques. Also, the boot is breaking in more, so I'm starting to feel really comfortable with the boot. I like it!!