Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Cpt.Caveman

Garmont Ferrata

Recommended Posts

What's the deal from this shoe. I've heard only one good comment and no bad specifically about it.

 

I have some garmont sneakers but a boot is different in make and design. Heard from a positive source that some of the older designs were not that good for multiple reasons.

 

Who's got a pair and for how long? Discuss. wazzup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have had mine for only two trips so far and think they are fine

 

one point that i do not like is that material that attaches the tongue to the boot is lycra type material and is not waterproof, even put some sort of nickwax stuff on it.

 

they toes are kinda cramped, but should work out in the end.

 

and the foot bed sucks.

 

tho over all a good boot for washington.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Towers which are very similar. The toes are definitely cramped but very comfortable. I hate the GoreTex liner and think the leather Ferratas might be a better idea. The liner just makes my feet wet from sweat unable to get out when it is hot and no gradient across the liner (which is pretty much when I wear them). But they are great for low 5th class stuff. They work well with aluminum crampons on steep snow too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik said:and the foot bed sucks.

 

Have you ever found a shoe with a decent stock footbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve owned the Garmont towers for about a year. I bet the Ferrata’s would be better. The shoe came highly recommended to me and I for one thought is was a let down. I’ve had the stitches blow out 3 times on the toe box section that connects the gore-tex to the leather. Also, the gore-tex does not keep your feet dry for long and wears quickly. I paid $220 for these boots and if I had to do it again I wouldn’t give over a hundred bucks. They are just not worth it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimL said:

I’ve owned the Garmont towers for about a year. I bet the Ferrata’s would be better. The shoe came highly recommended to me and I for one thought is was a let down. I’ve had the stitches blow out 3 times on the toe box section that connects the gore-tex to the leather. Also, the gore-tex does not keep your feet dry for long and wears quickly. I paid $220 for these boots and if I had to do it again I wouldn’t give over a hundred bucks. They are just not worth it.

 

 

THanks TimL that's PRECISELY along the lines of the skepticism expressed to me by a bud in the industry of climbing gear about Garmont.

 

I'll pass.

 

bigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three trips in mine. Baker, Bluberry Hill and just got back from the bugaboos.

 

-Tounge material is not water proof

-Does not have a raised heel making downhills a bit dicier

-Toe is not cramped, just get a bigger pair

-Not super warm

-Climbs well

-soft enough to smear, but still stiff enough

-I am questioning thier durability

 

Overall a good cascades boot. 8 out of 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate gtx shoes. first of all the seams usually leak. secondly in any conditions other than totally wet outside your feet get sweaty real fast and hence wet.

 

seems like a method of promoting trench foot. if i want sweaty feet i wear plastic boots, better performance. goretex is usually only a method of adding $100 to the price tag of a shitty approach shoe to attract the gaper market. matches the seattle sombrero the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not interested in the gore tex as I am the ruggedness and multi use. I think the shoe I am looking has no claim to gore tex.

 

bigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hakioawa said:

 

-Toe is not cramped, just get a bigger pair

 

hmmmmmmmm...

 

i guess i should have gone with the heel slipping instead of the smashed toes?? you can stretch a shoes body to some extent, you cannot make it smaller, only compensate with padding.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cpt.Caveman said:

Im not interested in the gore tex as I am the ruggedness and multi use. I think the shoe I am looking has no claim to gore tex.

 

bigdrink.gif

 

 

zamberlan calanques is a little bit heavy for carrying up rock routes but otherwise rox. climbs alpine up to 5.8 fine so on many routes you will not need to wear rock shoes and carry approach shoes. more like a super light low top leather boot, than a hiking shoe. i would compare it to the lS trangos but not as spendy or as teched out.

 

you can get em at MEC or anyway you could last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a pair of Ferratas a month or so ago. I've used them on the approach to the Widowmaker Arete and on the North Ridge of Nesakwatch Spire, with no complaints. Comfortable when hiking, and felt good when climbing.

 

Haven't tried them with crampons yet, but taking them to the Bugs in a few weeks.

 

So far, I give them a thumbs_up.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been fitting boots for a few years now - I'm damn picky so it took me close to 9 months to pick these boots out.

Fit comments - Toe box and forefoot nice and wide - esp around the "bunion" zone. Heel is a little more narrow but has a nice pocket to keep heel slip to a minimum. Stiff but still climbs well. Leather breathes well but the boot is definitely not H2O proof. Insole (as in every boot) sucks - I put in a set of blue superfeet so as not to effect the lift in the heel cup much. You can try them on @ Marmot Mountain over in Bellevue. Trip test - No sh_t - I took them out of the box and put them on at the Snow Lakes trail head (they'd just been picked up that day) 4 days later, with 35,000 feet of elevation change going up and down between snow lakes and Prusik etc the boots rocked. No durability issues so far but long term is still TBD

I'd say make sure the fit is right (most important) and go from there. These came highly recommended to me from a bud that guided for Exum in the Tetons for a bunch of years.

 

Other boots tried: Sportiva Trango S - Light, stiff but more narrow and funky heel fit for me. KAyland Multitraction - narrow all around but seemed to me to be a great climber - stiff as well but heavier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik said:

hakioawa said:

 

-Toe is not cramped, just get a bigger pair

 

hmmmmmmmm...

 

i guess i should have gone with the heel slipping instead of the smashed toes?? you can stretch a shoes body to some extent, you cannot make it smaller, only compensate with padding.

 

 

I know this from experience. I got a pair that felt just right in the store. Lost my two big toenails on Baker. I took em back and got 1/2 a size bigger. No heel slippage and a roomy toe box now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×