Would There Still be a Market for Rear Entry Boots

[Goose]

Goose, you keep explaining exactly why rear entry boots disappeared... then you seem to (virtually) scratch your head, wondering 'why' they went away. I don't understand.
Trying to sell a ski boot by saying "it's not that good, but it's good enough for YOU" is... not a good business plan. I wish it was, but it isn't.

I have been saying that Dodge should have built a carbon rear entry boot, not a carbon 'plug' boot since they introduced their boot. I am correct about this, but no one listens to me.

Yea well, I don't have any favorite view per say, and am sort of unsure and crossed trying to figure out just how good or poor they truly were (or would be again) for "most" skiers. I also dont have any real facts but only from experience and from what I recall and/or have read up on then and now. And so that's why my thoughts seem a bit crossed perhaps. I find the topic interesting enough and Im never afraid to question from any angle and even second guess my own thoughts in order to arrive at conclusions or to continue interesting discussion. No harm , I hope.

But one thing I do question (and perhaps is what you cant understand why I do or seems contradicting to you) is did they go away because they truly were not that good or because among the best skiers in the industry didn't prefer them? Imo there is a big difference between top performers vs expert resort recreational skiers and certainly also anyone of less ability. And imo you can indeed have something that may not be good enough for the top percentile in the sport while still being perfectly capable enough for the resort recreational expert at the same time. That imo can make sense (in any business, not just ski equipment) and certainly be in a business plan. It only takes reasonable thinking on behalf of the consumer. Though that part to be fair may be the hardest part. Or great marketing from the manufacturer.

 

[DanoT]

Goose, you keep explaining exactly why rear entry boots disappeared... then you seem to (virtually) scratch your head, wondering 'why' they went away. I don't understand.
Trying to sell a ski boot by saying "it's not that good, but it's good enough for YOU" is... not a good business plan. I wish it was, but it isn't.

I have been saying that Dodge should have built a carbon rear entry boot, not a carbon 'plug' boot since they introduced their boot. I am correct about this, but no one listens to me.

IMO Goose's explanation of the demise of the rear entry boot is flawed. He essentially blames it on high level racers and pros dislike of the boots but he overlooks the fact that these high level skiers have access then and now to factory technicians who are capable of doing crazy mods to boots. It would not surprise me if on occasion there are racers skiing in non sponsored boots that were made to look like sponsor's boots.

Goose also overlooks the fact that the higher level skiers are more able to compensate for different equipment quirks or deficiencies. So a ski instructor may adapt to the pro deal Salomon rear entry boot, only to watch his/her student struggle with them.

So, as I said in my post #17, it was ski instructor associations giving feedback as a unified voice to the manufacturers that got the rear entry boots killed, not racers and pro skiers although they may have disliked them as well.

 

[cantunamunch]

I have been saying that Dodge should have built a carbon rear entry boot, not a carbon 'plug' boot since they introduced their boot. I am correct about this, but no one listens to me.

What?

IMO Goose's explanation of the demise of the rear entry boot is flawed. He essentially blames it on high level racers and pros dislike of the boots but he overlooks the fact that these high level skiers have access then and now to factory technicians who are capable of doing crazy mods to boots. It would not surprise me if on occasion there are racers skiing in non sponsored boots that were made to look like sponsor's boots.

Goose also overlooks the fact that the higher level skiers are more able to and compensate for different equipment quirks or deficiencies. So a ski instructor may adapt to the pro deal Salomon rear entry boot, only to watch his/her student struggle with them.

So, as I said in my post #17, it was ski instructor associations giving feedback as a unified voice to the manufacturers that got the rear entry boots killed, not racers and pro skiers although they may have disliked them as well.

Don't forget that, around the same time, there was also an explosion* in overlap boot materials. Multi-point injection. Bi-injection. New resins, including ionomers like Surlyn and block polymers like Pebax. So all of a sudden engineers and product developers and line managers are given new toys to fix overlap boot problems - they ain't gonna fight through pushback to keep an alternative product in a completely parallel development pipeline.



(Yes, that was a Tecnica joke)

 

[Goose]

IMO Goose's explanation of the demise of the rear entry boot is flawed. He essentially blames it on high level racers and pros dislike of the boots but he overlooks the fact that these high level skiers have access then and now to factory technicians who are capable of doing crazy mods to boots. It would not surprise me if on occasion there are racers skiing in non sponsored boots that were made to look like sponsor's boots.

Goose also overlooks the fact that the higher level skiers are more able to compensate for different equipment quirks or deficiencies. So a ski instructor may adapt to the pro deal Salomon rear entry boot, only to watch his/her student struggle with them.

So, as I said in my post #17, it was ski instructor associations giving feedback as a unified voice to the manufacturers that got the rear entry boots killed, not racers and pro skiers although they may have disliked them as well.

that's fine , I don't doubt what you say. I only posted the things Ive managed to find and/or remember. Its only a relay of info and not a dictatorship. I didn't think I came off that way as I believe I stated that it was only something I was made aware of.

But its easy to believe that has some truth to it because whenever anything in sport is approved and used or disapproved by the pros or top dogs it does have a trickle down effect to the masses who are also interested. That's just the way we humans work. Did some of that happen here? IDK but it could have and is what I recall reading about somewhere is all I ever really said. You may be correct too and didn't say you weren't

 

[Uncle-A]

I owned two pairs of Hanson boots in the '70's. I went from the low cuff "intermediate" dark purple boot to the "advanced" high cuff orange boot. The last generation after those were terrible and a completely different boot then all prior models which had a bladder molded via injected wax. We had to keep a can of silicon spray in our boot bag to use when booting up. I'm not surprised someone else's boot didn't work for you.

The model my friend had was not a wax fill it was a flo fill boot the wax was gone by the time I was able to try his boot.

 

[cantunamunch]

But its easy to believe that has some truth to it because whenever anything in sport is approved and used or disapproved by the pros or top dogs it does have a trickle down effect to the masses who are also interested. That's just the way we humans work. Did some of that happen here? IDK but it could have and is what I recall reading about somewhere is all I ever really said. You may be correct too and didn't say you weren't

If by 'here' you also mean 'rec.skiing.alpine' , then maybe. Opinion forming on rear entry boots much predates browser-based forums like Epicski or here.

 

[Goose]

If by 'here' you also mean 'rec.skiing.alpine' , then maybe. Opinion forming on rear entry boots much predates browser-based forums like Epicski or here.

"here" meant in general at the time of the demise of the boots. Perhaps I should have said "there" or "then"
Outside of that Im not really sure what the rest of your post means.

 

[François Pugh]

I remember shopping for boots back in the day, early 1980s if I'm not mistaken (my memory isn't as good as I remember it was). At that time the top of the line Solomon rear entry boot was well regarded as far as I could tell. I tried on a pair of red ones as a demonstrator rental, SX91 or SX92 maybe. It seemed as if the system of cables were attempting to distort my feet so that the boots would fit, instead of the other way around. I ended up with a pair of custom foamed four buckle overlap boots; the other way around won out. A friend of mine bought some SX9? Solomons and he was quite happy with them.

I think @cantunamunch has it right; the standard race boots were just too good to compete against and the trickle down (win on Sunday, sell on Monday) was a big factor in the demise of rear entry boots.

The fact that a lot of those rear entry boots were made with self-destructing plastic probably also aided their demise. The plastic used in those old 4-buckle overlap boots I ended up with is still solid!

 

[Muleski]

Back in the early 80s Salomon was quite liberal about giving Sx90s to instructors and coaches. There were even Peugeot pro series racers on them. They skied as well as many other boots of that era.

Fitting was key, no surprise.

I was actually in that pipeline at the time. I had a number of pairs of them. The orange SX90E's had a lot of experimenting going on with them. Messing around with flex, ramp angle, etc. My last pair had a foam liner. My memory was that they actually skied pretty well, but weighed as much as a VW.
I the had a few pairs of the red/white SX91E. That boot as I recall skied very, very well. Much lower volume, better adjustments, the flex adjustment worked. I had one pair with a foamed liner, but the stock liner worked fine for me.
The guys working for Salomon spent a lot of time getting the right for me, but I recall being told that I had a "good foot" for the boot. size 10, D-E width, pretty full volume. High arch {fine with a footbed}, pretty high instep. Relatively wide heel, and a good sized calf... not thin, not huge.
So... the adjustment on the top of the instep didn't need much. As a result, I did not have a lot of space, or any, between the liner and the shell. Or no sensation of that. Nor did the device to pull the heel back back into he heel pocket need to be cranked way down.
I also think the length of my foot was really good for that shell.
My brother has a very different foot. Narrower, smaller, much less volume, narrow heel, low instep, smaller calf. He felt that the stock boot and liner just felt odd. The space between the foot and shell thing. He, too, had one with a foam liner, and that fit, but he felt the boot was physically huge. Did not last long in them.

I was later told by a boot guy working for them that my foot was similar in size and shape to Giradelli. I presume that a lot of the design took his foot into account, is maybe there is a grain of truth in that.
At any rate that boot worked. There were enough changes to the next boot, however subtle, that they felt odd.

Plus, every single guy that I skied without that point was banging the "rear entry boots suck" drum, so I guess I drank the Kool Aid and went back into a Lange. Good foot for a Lange of that generation, too.

I have been saying that Dodge should have built a carbon rear entry boot, not a carbon 'plug' boot since they introduced their boot. I am correct about this, but no one listens to me.

I'm interested in this one, too. Who have you been saying it to, and who's not listening. Pretty sure that Dave D. and Bill considered a lot of things when coming up with the design. Not like Dave, in particular did not have an enormous amount of experience in the boot business.

My sense is that is clearly a market for a rear entry boot. A agree with @Philpug's comments. They could be great rental boots, and great beginner boots, IF the flex is worked out, so that they can teach the right movements to use a modern ski.

My parents both had the boots late in their ski careers, and loved the convenience of entry. Booting up at the car. Taking them off when grabbing coffee or lunch. That stuff. Which is of zero interest to me, yet. Check back in about 20 years......

 

[Goose]

I remember shopping for boots back in the day, early 1980s if I'm not mistaken (my memory isn't as good as I remember it was). At that time the top of the line Solomon rear entry boot was well regarded as far as I could tell. I tried on a pair of red ones as a demonstrator rental, SX91 or SX92 maybe. It seemed as if the system of cables were attempting to distort my feet so that the boots would fit, instead of the other way around. I ended up with a pair of custom foamed four buckle overlap boots; the other way around won out. A friend of mine bought some SX9? Solomons and he was quite happy with them.

I think @cantunamunch has it right; the standard race boots were just too good to compete against and the trickle down (win on Sunday, sell on Monday) was a big factor in the demise of rear entry boots.

The fact that a lot of those rear entry boots were made with self-destructing plastic probably also aided their demise. The plastic used in those old 4-buckle overlap boots I ended up with is still solid!

I don't know if anyone ever mentions the plastic in the rear entries being worse. But (I think) just that the plastics at the time on any boot were not what it is today. Not so sure that applied only to rear entry but I could be wrong.

 

[Philpug]

I don't know if anyone ever mentions the plastic in the rear entries being worse. But (I think) just that the plastics at the time on any boot were not what it is today. Not so sure that applied only to rear entry but I could be wrong.

I have seen many broken Nordica 980/981/982's, Salomon Propulse, Tecnica TNS/TNT's and other 4 buckle boots. It was age and not the design.

 

[bbinder]

I wonder....what about inflatable inners on rear entry boots? Would that then create all the hold needed and maybe fix other issues. Not exactly new tech and probably would have ben done already if it didn't have issues of their own.

I owned a pair of Nordica Trident boots. These were rear entry with inflatable bladders — I found that the hold was not great...

 

[bbinder]

I overheard a guy in my local ski shop bemoaning the lack of rear entry boots. Apparently, he was an engineer and felt that it would be “cheap and easy” to devise a battery operated internal fitting mechanism that could be controlled by your phone. Sounds great. I invited him to come up with a design and market it. He more or less implied that the market was too small and that it wasn’t worth his time. Guess he doesn’t want those rear entry boots badly enough.

 

[François Pugh]

I don't know if anyone ever mentions the plastic in the rear entries being worse. But (I think) just that the plastics at the time on any boot were not what it is today. Not so sure that applied only to rear entry but I could be wrong.

Probably more to do with the type of plastic used than the design of the boot.

It's been a while since I looked at it, but IIRC, in order of increasing resistance to aging polyester-polyurethane, polyether-polyurethane and polyamide have been used in ski boots. I don't know what was used when, but the plastic used in my antique overlap boots, which I used on the last day of skiing last season, seems to have lasted much longer than the plastic used in my wife's rear entry boots, bought at a later date, and that fell apart in a parking lot about 20 years ago. It could just be ski boot makers reserved the better plastic for the better boots, and over time, the better boots were not the bulk of the rear entry boots.

 

[DanoT]

I'd love to see Scott reintroduce their boot from the '70s, only with modern durable plastic.

 

[Frankly]

I was breaking late 70s early 80s quality race boot plastic every season back in the good old days. I had wicked strong legs from racing but I suspect the real reason was their stupid design with triangular “flex” slots cut down each side. Perfect place to crack....

Those old dog boots* had similar dumb designs. Later as they got more sophisticated they used different layers, thicknesses, and types of plastic to create flex.

*Dog boots = rear entry

 

[cantunamunch]

Probably more to do with the type of plastic used than the design of the boot.

It's been a while since I looked at it, butt IIRC, in order of increasing resistance to aging polyester-polyurethane, polyether-polyurethane and polyamide have been used in ski boots. I don't know what was used when, but the plastic used in my antique overlap boots, which I used on the last day of skiing last season, seems to have lasted much longer than the plastic used in my wife's rear entry boots, bought at a later date, and that fell apart in a parking lot about 20 years ago. It could just be ski boot makers reserved the better plastic for the better boots, and over time, the better boots were not the bulk of the rear entry boots.

This is probably going break some lurkers' brains but there is also such a thing as free radical scavenger chemicals that are deliberately added to engineering plastics. And that's just one of the several types of stabilizers. For all we know your antique overlaps had enough chelated nickel to make two dollars in change. Or enough titanium oxide screener to supply a beachful of tourist noses.

 

[neonorchid]

The model my friend had was not a wax fill it was a flo fill boot the wax was gone by the time I was able to try his boot.

Yeah those last generation flo-fill Hanson boots were terrible. I tried a pair on at the local shop and went with a traditional 4 buckle overlap boot. Nordica 980 or something in the 900's, I don't remember.

 

[cantunamunch]

My sense is that is clearly a market for a rear entry boot. A agree with @Philpug's comments. They could be great rental boots, and great beginner boots, IF the flex is worked out, so that they can teach the right movements to use a modern ski.

My parents both had the boots late in their ski careers, and loved the convenience of entry. Booting up at the car. Taking them off when grabbing coffee or lunch. That stuff. Which is of zero interest to me, yet. Check back in about 20 years......

Stuff it - let's go whole hog on this. Lets ask for a Technica Squadra or Nordica Polaris - in CF with a modern liner.

 

[crgildart]

What were the professional boot fitting options for the rear entry boots? I remember the Hanson wax packets, pretty simple self service. I don't recall much in the way of opportunities to add on professional fitting, foot beds, etc. Could it also be that the high end sales staff pushed boots they could add fittings and footbeds on to when selling and that hurt the sales of rear entry to high end customers? I get that intermediate and beginner rec skiers aren't likely to go for those enhancements, but if the best rear entry boot didn't offer those additional revenue sources for shops I can see why upper level customers would be steered away from them in to plug boots.