Norwegian welt vs the rubber rand

[lowangle al]

Hey, I didn't think of that. They've probably done extensive marketing research and discovered that 75mm skiers are cheap bastards that would never spend 800 bucks on a boot. I would like to check them out though, and the explore binding.

[lowangle al]

Since boots are a current topic right now I thought I'd bring this up. What I have noticed is that the weak link in traditional Norwegian welted boots is where the boot upper meets the sole. While my Merrill leather boots are old and well used the cuff is just as stiff as the day I bought them. They did soften in the toe area but still have a stiff flex because they have brand new soles on them. What I have noticed is that the boots have very little lateral stiffness when getting a ski on edge. When I try to get weight on my edges by leaning my ankles I can see the upper of the boot pivot on the sole. This isn't giving me any more pressure on my edges than I can get by weighting either the "big toe/little toe" side of my ski. I would think that a brand new pair of welted boots might be better, but if they soften with age and resoling doesn't help, you now have a boot that doesn't have the control it once did.

Comparing the old leathers to my Transnordic, with the rand that goes part way up the upper, there is a big difference in the amount of leverage I can apply to the edge. A big part of the reason is that the cuff is higher, but I think it' also has to do with the interface between the upper and the sole.

I know the advantage of being able to resole a Norwegian welt is a big one. But even after getting new soles are the boots like new? I don't think so. This probably won't matter at all to someone who isn't placing a high value on downhill performance, they probably won't even notice.

So the question is; Does a boot with a rubber rand have better downhill performance than a similar boot with the Norwegian welt. I think it does, especially over time, but many of you guys have a lot more experience with different boots than I do. Any opinions?

Here is some follow up to my "light" boot experience this season. After skiing almost 90 miles touring for turns this winter with leather Merril Ultra boots, a telemark boot from the eighties, I was looking forward to using my Fischer Transnordics because they are more laterally stiff. I was expecting, (hoping) that after getting my light boot mojo back that it would be a good experience. I was hoping that their superior lateral stiffness would somehow offset their weak forward flex.

To sum it up, I found that the soft forward flex of the Transnordic could not be overcome, and like my first impression of the boot I couldn't get any pressure to the ski when flexing my ankles. What I found was that the forward flex of a boot has to be stiff enough to get some pressure on the tongue of the boot that can be transfered to the ski. It doesn't need to be a lot of pressure, but you need enough to at the very least "feel" the ski. To me this boot is just a laterally stiff xc boot and isn't even in the xcd class. Flexing your ankles and what it does for your skiing is critical for downhill control and without the pressure in generates you'll never get as stable as you could with it.

Lateral stiffness, a torsionally stiff sole and good support in the back of the boot does not make a telemark boot . You need that pressure from your flexed ankles for downhill skiing. The boot will still work without it, but will be lacking in stability and will need more input from the skier to turn the skis.

This may not be something a beginner would feel, but after using ankle flexion to drive skis for over thirty years, when you don't have it you miss it.

The boot works real well for P turns if you like riding in the back seat. If anyone remembers the videos from the naked skier in Norway, he was in the back seat all the way.