Broken Black Diamond Stainless Crampons

This isn't a new issue, or a surprise for folks that have kept up with the stainless Black Diamond crampon discussion. Two different friends have sent me pictures over the past two weeks. Each of them was using different BD crampons, but both of them had broken crampon forefoot pieces. Another friend broke a center bar after only two days of use. He's been using the old chromoly center bars ever since.

If you are using BD crampons make sure you are checking high stress areas for small fractures. You might be able to catch the break before it becomes a failure while you are leading.

It's pretty clear that BD's design or construction is flawed. I've hung on to an old pair of Sabretooths, and they are far more durable than any of the new BD stainless crampons I have. They also fit my big feet better than the newer, smaller crampons (actually, if anyone has old Sabretooths in good shape I'd be willing to buy them!).

The BD stainless crampons are really nice, but the "stainless" spiel seems like marketing hype. I've had a few pairs now, and they seem much less durable than chromoly crampons. Between shorter frontpoints, a smaller footprint under foot, and the use of stainless BD must be saving a bundle of money in materials. I would like to see them go back to chromoly personally.

Googling "broken black diamond stainless crampons" yields a pretty large amount of information about broken crampons. It's worth a look if you have the time. Climb safe out there, and remember, gear doesn't last forever. Check your kit routinely.

Rick Kraft's Stingers. 1 yr old, Rick is a big guy, this
is to be expected.

Erik Eisele's Sabretooths. A few seasons old. Erik is
a smaller guy, who's light on his feet - not the person
you'd expect to break gear.

Ozone as a Summit Pack

Simple, no frills climbing packs are hard to come by. Yes, it's true, manufacturers like to add bells and whistles, claiming they've improved upon timeless highly functional designs. Every time I try a pack from one of the big packmakers - Black Diamond, Mountain Hardwear, Gregory, Osprey, etc, I am inevitably drawn back to my Cold Cold World packs. It's hard to say why, except that simplicity reigns supreme when it comes to climbing packs.

For the past year I've been using a custom Cold Cold World Ozone pack. Randy made it for me with a slightly longer torso, floating removable lid, and external ax attachments. The pack is constructed of 500d Spectra grid fabric which is light yet very durable. It originally came with a spindrift collar also, but I opted to slice to collar out. This makes repeated packing at the crag a bit easier. The spindrift collar makes good sense when you use it only in the mountains, where the extra volume is nice to have, but hinders packing the bag efficiently time and again (common during a day of cragging).

During the last year I've also used a few other packs - a CCW Chernobyl, an MEC Alpinelite 30, and a BD Speed 30. They are all nice bags, but every time I return to the Ozone. It's my favorite bag and I'm constantly scheming about how I can improve this pack or increase it's carrying capacity by just a little bit without adding a long spindrift collar.

I'm headed to the Bugaboos later this summer and I'm going to take a few different packs with me. Here's my current dilemma - I'd like to take a few different packs with me. The terrain there varies quite a bit. There is a long, backcountry approach which requires that one carry and expedition-sized pack. There are long rock routes where you descend back to your pack at the end of the day. These routes will require something in the 15L range that can easily be worn while climbing 5.9-5.11 rock. There are also carry over routes. On these routes you bring your kit - ice axe, crampons, and all of your rock rack up the route because you'll descend in a different place from where you started. A minimalist pack in the 30L range seems appropriate for routes like this (like the Beckey-Chouinard from Applebee camp in a day).

To me it sounds like I'm going to need 3 different packs. The two smaller packs need to be packable. There aren't many 30L-ish packs that stuff down small, are highly functional, will carry a load well, and are durable. At first, even my Ozone seemed like it might be hard to bring along even though it might be the best 30L option.

So, the other day I dismantled the pack. I took out the foam pad and my makeshift frame. I then stuffed the entire body of the pack into the lid. Bingo! My favorite pack fits into it's lid like many other lighter, less durable summit packs. The foam will easily slide in the frame of my expedition pack, and I'm sure I could just use part of a foam sleeping pad instead.

There was extra space in the lid still. You could probably stuff a 1000d ballistics Ozone into it's lid too. So, one of the simplest, most durable packs is also a great summit pack.

For more information about the Ozone check out Randy's site here

Approach Shoe Comparison and Review: Scarpa Crux and La Sportiva Boulder X

Readers of my other blog, Bigfoot Mountain Guides, know that I have really big feet (size 15), that they are quite narrow, and that I'm really particular about footwear and climbing gear in general. As a climbing guide, footwear needs to be sized properly for both climbing and hiking. It's hard to find footwear that bridge the gap between the two. Most shoes climb well, or they hike well. Very high end approach shoes seem to be built mainly for climbing.

I've worn most approach shoes that are made up to size 14, and there are only a few that are truly utilitarian. Two recent offerings from the big italian climbing footwear makers stand out - Scarpa's Crux and La Sportiva's Boulder X. At the cliff, from the look of things, these two appear to be the most popular approach shoes, and for good reason. They're both well-constructed, nice looking and reasonably priced at roughly $99.

On paper, these shoes seem nearly identical. However, after wearing each shoe to the cliff I've noticed substantial differences. I feel these differences deserve some explanation, and I think making this information available will allow others to make an informed decision about which shoe to buy. Additionally, reviews without comparisons to other similar products always seem less useful. Without further ado, here we go.

Construction

One of the interesting changes in approach shoes at this pricepoint ($100) is the transition from proprietary dot-tread climbing shoe rubber outsoles to molded Vibram rubber outsoles with a more hiker-friendly tread pattern. Both the Crux, and the Boulder X have Vibram soles, whereas their predecessors had stickier, thinner, dot-tread like soles. The Vibram sole is thicker and less sticky, meaning that both of these shoes don't climb as well as past iterations of the same shoe. For the Crux this was the Quest and the Espresso. For the Boulder X this was the Cirque Pro, and the classic Boulder. For what it's worth I'd prefer to have a durable upper with really sticky, thin resole-able soles. I'm guessing these companies are catering to the crowd that uses these shoes more for the approach and less for climbing afterward.

Overall, the Crux and the Boulder X are designed with similar fabric, similar foam, and similar soles. The seem nearly identical to the untrained eye. After wearing each shoe for a while though, the "feel" of each becomes noticeable.

The Boulder X above and the Crux below. The difference in
width between these shoes is obvious from this perspective

The Crux's feel softer everywhere. The suede leather upper is softer, The foam underfoot is also softer, and the rubber rand is less substantial. The Boulder X, on the other hand, feels rigid, boxy, and stiff. The foam is firm, giving the shoe a hiking boot like feel. The one piece suede upper, thick padded tongue, rigid rand, and Mythos-style lacing system give the Boulder X's a "glued to your foot" feeling.

Ultimately,  this means your foot stays put, like a climbing shoe, in the Boulder X. They don't breathe well, and the toes can feel a bit crammed in the typically narrow Sportiva toe box. The Crux, on the other hand, with it's softer feel, acts like a running shoe or sandal. They're roomy in the toe box with wiggle room for the toes and plenty of space down the length of the shoe.

Fit

I wear a size 48 in both the Crux and the Boulder X. I have the green Superfeet in both shoes. At Rock and Snow I also tried a pair of Crux's in size 47. I don't think I could fit into a pair of Boulder X's in size 47. This alone clearly illustrates the difference in fit between the shoes. The Crux's are roomy. I can slip into them, I can wiggle my toes, and I can wear them all day without worrying about a little foot pain. If I don't lace them tightly they feel too loose. They have the typical, wide straight fit common to most Scarpa footwear. Again, the Crux's fit like a broken in running shoe - they are soft and roomy.

Width at the heels is greater in the Crux too. Crux on right

The Boulder X is narrow. I'm in my second pair of them, and they take a long time to break in. For a few weeks when they're new they almost feel too tight. I want to take them off by the end of the day. They make my feet hot. I almost don't need to lace these shoes, yet I can walk around in them and they remain on my feet. The Boulder X's fit like a climbing shoe.

Performance

In the end, this is all that counts. If a shoe doesn't do what you need it to do and do it well, it's not worth having. I've worn both shoes for work and play for at least a few weeks now. I wear them to the cliff, and I like to guide and climb easier routes in my approach shoes too. If possible, it's nice to guide everything easier than 5.6-5.7 in them. So, in a way, I suppose my criteria are: all day "wearability", good performance on moderate climbing, adequate support, and reasonable durability.

The Boulder X, on the right, is a narrower shoe, placing
more of your weight over the big toe. This helps make
this shoe a better "climbing" approach shoe

The performance of these shoes is what separates the wheat from the chaff. There are pretty noticeable differences between the two shoes - one is a reasonably good performer, the other, uninspiring. Below are my observations and opinions. Be forewarned - I have strong opinions (and I detest the mediocrity that's so pervasive everywhere today) when it comes to certain gear items, and approach shoes are one of those items.

The Crux's works fine for trail approaches, and with a lightweight pack they seem fine. I can climb easy stuff on a toprope with them too. For serious climbing, or schlepping heavier loads they just don't work though. I've already rolled my ankle once in them (on a flat, soft trail), and the shoe edge rolls when you try to stand on small edges with them. While smearing, or walking on slabby rock my foot slides to the outside edge of the shoe. It feels like my foot is going to slide off the shoe. This has been disappointing, and leaves me feeling like the Crux (which I think is the nicer looking shoe) has a really limited range of uses. With softer padding you can feel everything underfoot also. If the shoe climbed well this would be a good quality, but in such a mushy uninspiring climber this bad. In general, I feel like Scarpa dropped the ball with these shoes.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm on my second pair of Boulder X's, which have been available a bit longer than the Crux. They are the most durable approach shoes I've owned, and the leather upper is burly. The full-wrap toe rand keeps your toes in place (good, but sweaty on warm days) and keeps the toe box from stretching much. A few years ago I hiked into the Absaroka Range in Montana with a pair of the Boulder X's. I was loaded with four days of food, camping equipment and climbing gear. The 18-mile round trip was fine. My toes felt a bit cramped in the shoe, but I experienced no blisters, had no serious soreness and never rolled my ankles. They hike well, and feel more like a boot than a sneaker. When it comes to climbing, the Boulder X's are a step down from their predecessor, the Cirque Pro. Additional foam underfoot and a Vibram sole detract from this shoe's climbing performance. Despite these changes, the shoe is stiff and reasonably sticky. It edges well provided the edges aren't too small, and it smears well enough, but not as well as a pair of Five Ten Guide Tennies (they have the stickiest rubber I've ever seen but are very soft). I like climbing in the Boulder X's. I'll lead most Gunks 5.7's in them as long as the crux doesn't involve too much technical footwork. Still, as climbers they don't compare favorably to the old Cirque Pros or the Scarpa Gecko Guide's. I could comfortably lead many Gunks 5.9's wearing either of those shoes.

Conclusions

Which shoe you choose is going to be based partly upon fit and mostly upon what you're planning to do while wearing the shoes. If you have a wide foot, the Boulder X may not fit at all. I suspect though, the even if your foot fills out the entire Crux, they will still feel mushy and have a collapsing edge while climbing. I will continue to wear my Crux's for toprope group days and around town, but I won't be buying another pair of them. My Boulder X's, despite feeling less comfortable for casual use, will get used heavily this summer for guiding at the crag and in the mountains. I'll be taking them with me to the Bugaboos and putting a strap-on crampon on them for crossing the small glaciers there. I don't like wearing them longer than I have to, but I feel safer using them for climbing. I'd like to resole a pair with sticky rubber too, to see if they work really well for climbing afterward. 

It should be pretty clear at this point that I prefer the Boulder X to the Crux. It seems like most people will agree. Still, the best way to get an idea which one you should buy is by doing your homework. Read reviews online and visit your local climbing shop to try stuff on before making any decisions for yourself.