Alan Trick

The website isn't very clear, but it says 26 liters.

It's on the MEC website at the moment.

Next in: "And I bet you thought the Mark Twight thread was dead".

I think I've heard that SideLock had a more finicky fit. While it's not exactly a safety issue with the right boots, it could be if you're using it with boots that don't fit. I also could be a marketing issue. I've never actually seen them for sale anywhere besides the internet.

Huhh, maybe it's just the heat molding, but they feel super tight. How are you supposed to fit into the Performance boots if you buy them online?

Thanks guys, I ended up going into a store (instead of online) and trying out some boots. It turns out the TLT5 Performance is more narrow than the other TLT5 boots (and the ZZeus boot too), more like the Dyna Evo line, I think. I got a TLT5 Mountain boot which fits how I'm used to. Not quite as fancy but still suites my needs as a ski mountaineering boot.

I've been using Dynafit Zzeus boots for a year now and they fit me perfectly. The other day I ordered some new TLT5 Performance boots in the same size, only to find out that they fit quite differently. The main problem is that they're too narrow. I really like these boots, and I'm tempted to try a size or half a size larger; however, that would result in a bunch of space in front of my toes. Has anyone ever skied in boots like that? Do blisters become a problem?

Yeah, that pretty much nails it.

So does food and water.

+1. Mark is just being sloppy here. You can call 02 equipment, or you can call it aid, but cheating is just ridiculous. Nobody goes up Everest with 02 canisters hidden in their jacket, furtively sipping on them, hoping nobody will notice. Aid usually isn't 'cool', and sometimes it's artless overkill (like building a bold ladder beside a beautiful crack), but it is not dishonest. Mark is just using this term to try and lump these guys with people like Lance Armstrong who made a living off being dishonest. His analogy is bad and he should feel bad.

Wearing a La Sportiva for me is like wearing a brand new rock shoe, only you have to walk in it for hours on end, and it never gets better. Edit: typo

Based on previous posts by Alpinistica on this website, I suspect this is a strange form of marketing.

What is ideal in the Cascades will be quite different than what is ideal in the Rockies. We get a lot heavier snow on the coast and as some others have noted, if you're buried more than 2m from the surface, you're pretty much toast anyway.

If you only carry 15L of gear in the Scrambler, it will probably hold up better than if it's stuff to the brim. Also, the Bullet is nice as long as you don't need an ice ax.

I can assure you that the Cierzo won't take much of a beating. The Scrambler is probably a bit better, but I wouldn't expect it to hold up like some of the heavier stuff.

Is there a good way (apart from experience or other people's experience) to determine what a boots intended use is? I've never seen a mountaineering boot labelled "don't use this for bushwhacking". I only know from here-say that certain boots (like the Trangos) will fall apart quickly.

As far as I know, boot manufacturers make very few solid claims about durability. This leads those of us who are not that familiar with the products to come up with guesses.

I have a bit of sympathy for Jake in that I often find it very difficult to find information about what sorts of beatings gear can actually take. The information from most manufacturers is darn near useless. For example, if I was to get a boot like the Baruntse, I would have expected that since it is a mountaineering boot it would be able to handle a reasonable crampon stabbing. I am not a fabric scientist and I only have the very vague "This is awesome and you can do anything with it" marketing to work off of.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Spend enough time in the mountains and your bound make that mistake at least once.

That's a fine sentiment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it; however, I've also found that a GPS can be a lot faster to use than a map/compass combo, especially if you're retracing a recorded track. And, since speed is safety, I think a GPS for typical use is not a bad idea. Of course, this isn't an excuse to not practice orienteering skills.

Dead reckoning is a difficult skill to use in a whiteout on a glacier. For those of us who are mere mortals, estimating the length of our steps to a high degree of accuracy is quite difficult. With dead reckoning you have to be extremely accurate because every error adds on to every other error. Also, it's one thing to be lost as in "I don't know where I am within 1km" and another thing to be lost as in "I don't know where I am within 10m". I don't know Mt. Hood, but some peaks require a much more precision than a typical topo map will convey.

See http://www.mountainproject.com/v/fs-3-snow-pickets-mountaineering-in-the-cascades/107887728 They already discused this at length. Originally it was 37 a-piece, now it's 50 for the lot.

I'm not quite sure what he's suggesting, but commercially sold leashes are not rated to support weight. If you want to use the ax as an anchor do that, the best option is a sling/cord/webbing. Each has their own advantages.

I'm a relatively new climber so I'm not terribly familiar with wrist leashes but from my experience, the wrist leash restricts blood circulation to the hand and so while using them to support weight can work, it doesn't work very well. The best thing to do, if you're getting tired, is to just sit back and use the rope (put in a screw if necessary). It works better and it's safer. These days, leases are largely used to prevent tool loss (which can be a nasty problem). Wrist leashes aren't all that great for that purpose because they limit your freedom do do things like switching hands or placing a screw.

You'll probably find 5.6 in boots to be a bit tricky, particularly if you haven't climbed outdoors before. Probably the most difficult part for you, will be the class 4 though. If you're used to climbing with a rope, going without, even on super easy rock, can be a bit unnerving. The rating system is quite imprecise (for good reasons) and has been the subject of many great debates. If nothing else, it provides climbers with plenty of idle chit-chat.