Mountaineering boot break in

[shankldu]

Anyone have any experience with them, I get that they are supposed to be stiff , and why but they dont bend at all and I cant see how I could walk on anything but deep snow or a rockface.

[eddief]

I went backpacking in a new pair o boots. About 10 miles of hiking the first day. Next 3 days spent in one place walking around in flip-flops cuz the blisters were so bad I could not bare to walk anymore in my boots. Good way to get to know the inside of .25 mile diameter circle over a few days in the Sierra.

[verticaldoug]

Anyone have any experience with them, I get that they are supposed to be stiff , and why but they dont bend at all and I cant see how I could walk on anything but deep snow or a rockface.

The boots need to be rigid for crampons. If you aren't using crampons, you probably can use less boot.

[TheEnglish]

True mountaineering boots are designed to work with crampons and therefore have little to no flex in the last. If you are doing glacier traversing, you will need this stiffness. If you are not planning on donning crampons swap out the boots for something else that fits your needs. Depending on approach, some folks carry their boots until the glacier/snow. There are some good approach show options out there. Modern boots require less "break-in" time because they aren't made of full grain leather, but plastic and synthetic materials that can flex right away (the uppers that is).

[gasman]

Modern boots should fit well from the start. They may need some modification by a good boot fitter but like others said if you are using crampons there should be no flex in the soles.

[redir]

If you are talking about plastic boots then forget about it. Leather ones should take a couple hundred miles.

[commonguy001]

What are you going to be using them for? I'd only buy as much boot as I needed for the purpose.

[martl]

Modern boots should fit well from the start. They may need some modification by a good boot fitter but like others said if you are using crampons there should be no flex in the soles.

this. I notice most people, espeially those with little experience, typically chose too heavy a shoe for the occasion. I understand that one wants to avoid ending up in the middle of nowhere with a sprained ankle (and loking like a fool), but if you are somewhat sure-footed, a lighter boot is always more comfy to wear. I know hardcore mountaineers who do the approach walk to their 7000m-summits in better sneakers, heavy boots in the backpack to use when they are needed, but not before that. Takes a bit of experience, though.
I did somemajor Himalayan trecks (Snowman in Bhutan, great Zanskar cross etc) in quite lightweight Trekking boots.

[11.4]

Yup, as stated above. Serious mountaineering boots are designed for edging. Good crampons tend to take care of themselves even on more flexible boots. Your boots should have some amount of rocker to the sole to help with a walking gait, but heavy mountaineering boots don't make much more concession than that. There's a little bit of toe flexibility but not much. The rest is a steel or plastic plate for complete stiffness and for protection.

Old rules said to wear a heavy boot for backpacking. That ruined more feet and calves. Those boots tended to be European, tended to be very narrow, and rigidity was the price one paid to avoid torn seams, loss of stability, and various kinds of foot damage. Nowadays there are great boots that have forefoot flexibility but have a broader stance and much more stability, both between foot and insole and between outer sole and the ground. The old thing about protecting your ankles came about because the old boots were notoriously unstable and needed the bulk and stiffness to protect you. I still have a couple pairs of those boots in the closet and can assure you they didn't do half of what a basic mid-weight backpacking boot can do today. Look at good boots in the range of a Lowa Renegade or Zamberlan Vioz. You'll be a lot happier.

[Louis]

I was somewhat surprised that the Danner Mtn Lights I got a few years ago really aren't that light. However, they had essentially no break-in period - fine from the start.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71jKaNcCKpL._UX500_.jpg

[AngryScientist]

to echo the above, not mountaineering per se, but hiking: used to use heavier hiking boots for any tromping around in the woods. these days, actually using robust trail running shoes for light duty hikes. what a difference having a lighter pair of footwear makes on fatigue at the end of the day.

[11.4]

I was somewhat surprised that the Danner Mtn Lights I got a few years ago really aren't that light. However, they had essentially no break-in period - fine from the start.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71jKaNcCKpL._UX500_.jpg

Yup. Good observation. There are definitely some mountaineering boots that take a looooonnnng time to break in. I had a pair of Scarpa Eigers that took most of a year, with many breaking-in-related injuries along the way. The big Goodyear-lasted Zamberlans, however, are if anything beefier, but fit right out of the box. The rocker is sufficient that they are overkill but still easily wearable for a 20 mile day hike or three or four days with 80 lbs on the back.

One thing about the heavier mountaineering boots is that if you're carrying a heavier load (I used to a NOLS instructor and carrying 80-110 lbs was the norm), most of the lighter boots will simply compress and fail quickly. It takes a solid boot like a mountaineering boot to hike with loads like that. Thankfully most of us don't have to, and technology has lowered that load somewhat. But I still do an occasional mudder and train with a pack that weighs out, including water, at 65 lbs. If I do that in anything with Reebok printed on it, the shoes are toast in a few workouts.

[redir]

The last real pair of mountain boots I had were Scarpa's too and they were fantastic. Once they broke in they felt like wearing a nice shoe. I still have them after about 15 years 5 of which saw some good use in Mexico and western US/Alaska. For every day back packing like the Appalachian Trail the trend towards light weight made a lot of sense. Picking up heavy boots over and over again on long hikes causes a lot of wear and tear on the body.

[sevencyclist]

I got a pair of Limmer Mid-weight and have done about 70 miles on them over 4 months. Still breaking in about 2-3 miles at a time. The first 10 hikes was rough because my heels were sliding a little bit and had blisters on both sides. Now the insides have settled in, the heels are not sliding as much.

The outside remain stiff and I expect them to soften up just a bit over time, but am trying to rotate my ankles a little more to get the softness going.

[martl]

The last real pair of mountain boots I had were Scarpa's too and they were fantastic. Once they broke in they felt like wearing a nice shoe. I still have them after about 15 years 5 of which saw some good use in Mexico and western US/Alaska. For every day back packing like the Appalachian Trail the trend towards light weight made a lot of sense. Picking up heavy boots over and over again on long hikes causes a lot of wear and tear on the body.

Its a matter of how your feet are shaped,really. Italian Shoemakers like Garmond or Scarpa build narrower shoes, some Austrian or German manufacturers like Meindl use wider lasts. I myself have tiny feet and a Hanwag women's shoe works well for me. For hiking, nothing beats a Salomon X ultra. Good grip and feel like no weight at all. They don't last, though - no such thing as a free lunch i guess.