Norwegian welt vs the rubber rand

[lowangle al]

Maybe rand is the wrong word. I'm refering to a boot like the Transnordic, where the stiff rubber of the sole extends up the upper. I'm saying it's a better connection of upper to sole than a welted boot.

[paulzo]

I suspect that in the end, if you had truly comparable boots in both types of construction, and skied them comparably, by the time the norwegian welted boot got as broken down as your are, the glued on sole would fail by cracking behind the pins. Unless those soles have some reinforcement in that area, it's just rubber and eventually it will fail from all the flexing at that point. Good for you , for skiing enough for long enough to really wear out those boots!

[lowangle al]

Paul, that's a good point that both boots will probably degrade over time, but how about when both boots are new out of the box.

Let's assume the pivot/hinge point between the upper and the sole on a welted boot is below your foot (at the top of the footbed). Compare that to the Transnordic, where the sole has stiff sidewalls that go above the bottom of your foot, this raises the hinge point adding to leverage. Add to this that the internal plastic cuff reinforcement may overlap the sidewalls of the sole. This would spread the pressure over a larger area eliminating a specific pivot point.

The Norwegian welt may be the best way to attach a sole to a boot, but is it the best for controlling a ski?

[paulzo]

Well, my guess about what would happen in the long run is predicated on having two boots that start out about the same. So my answer is inherent in that.
But anther way to look at this is what the future holds - and my guess is the future does not hold much in the way of 75 mm boots, at least Norwegian welted ones. Who would spend effort developing a new boot with that construction? it's only usable for 75mm versions. Makes much more sense to do what the manufacturers are doing; design a boot that they can glue any sole on - NNN-BC, Xplore, or 75mm. So the question may be moot, in that finding two roughly equal boots to compare may be the challenge going forward.

[GrimSurfer]

That’s a good point @paulzo

[lowangle al]

52C4F55E3366.jpeg[/attachment]

Looking at the photo of Fischer boot you can see that the sole extends up the side of the boots. You can also see that the plastic reinforcements are integrated into the sole, spreading out the force when leaning the boot over. I think this is a great benefit over a welted boot

It’s very obvious to me that this will make the Fischer boot much more capable getting a ski on edge. I really felt this with the transnordic but attributed it to its extra height.

I think the more modern boots can potentially be much better than the old school leathers when it comes to control. Add to this that the old boots are heavier, bulkier and generally stiffer around the ankle. Unfortunately this extra stiffness of the old boot doesn’t translate to added edging capability.

[paulzo]

I fully agree that the wrapping the rubber of the sole up onto the upper gives a theoretical advantage in the transfer of forces from the upper to the sole - all other things being equal. My point is that all other things are generally not equal. If you had the upper of a brand new version of an asolo Extreme, configured without the outward flange of leather for the Norwegian welt, but instead turned under so it could accept the glued on sole; and IF that glued on sole had the same nylon midsole built into it that the Extreme and similar Merrell boots had (see the purple line in your photo of those nice old Merrells), and assuming the glue is capable of maintaining the bond , then I think yes, that construction would be stiffer - at least it would stay stiffer over time. But I don't know what sort of reinforcement those molded soles have built in - I suspect there is none, it's all just Vibram rubber - but I could be wrong. It may be that the Transnordics have uppers as stiff as an Extreme, I don't know, haven't fondled them. I think we basically agree on most of the theory here, I'm just pointing out that the realities of the currently available boots may not reflect the theoretical capabilities of the two different constructions. So that in effect, the weak links ends up in different places in the different boots, I.E., the broken in leather of the old Norwegian welted boots vs. the less reinforced duckbill on the newer soles.

[paulzo]

By the way, fun discussion! Feeds into my favorite jones of thinking about what the boot companies SHOULD and COULD make if only they would.
Thanks Al, and Happy New Year!

[lowangle al]

Happy New Year to you too Paul.

For sure all else isn't equal. The substantial cuff on Extremes or Ultras let me get pressure to the tips for driving the ski. The transnordic is very weak at this but is excellent in applying lateral force. I think a stiffer tongue might be all that is needed to correct this.

I think that the technology from making skate boots with their plastic reinforcements for lateral stiffness is what is needed in a telemark boot. They just need to combine that with the good qualities of the old heavy leathers.

I like the Transnordic because of its height, but it is a cheap boot and feels so. I paid more for my Merrills almost 40 years ago so that's to be expected. I would like to try a high quality boot like the Alfa Free for the explore binding to see how it compares.

[paulzo]

I would love to hear what the folks at Alfa think about putting a 75mm sole on the Frees. After all, once they make the upper, they can glue any sole they want onto it.