Would There Still be a Market for Rear Entry Boots

[Uncle-A]

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.

Unlike today, back than the manufactures put good foot beds in boots.

 

[Philpug]

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.

Salomon had a foam version of the SX92 Race, in fact Salomon included many advanced fitting tools for these boots. But for the most part, it was the internal mechanisms that did the fit. But there is where some of the problems were, all of these mechanisms were used to get the foot further away from the shell creating the disconnect that RE boots were known for,

 

[mdf]

The Soloman boots had engineering-style fit adjustments. The footbed base had an arch support piced that could be attached in mulitple places. The posts on the bottom of that base had height adjustments for up to 2 degrees of canting. There was a slot on the frame behind the heel liner where a small clip could be placed for a tighter grip around the achilles tendon.

These "fit kit" pieces did not come with the boots. Presumably the boot fitter had an assortment. I only know about them because I've found various ones in different used boots.

 

[Goose]

Salomon had a foam version of the SX92 Race, in fact Salomon included many advanced fitting tools for these boots. But for the most part, it was the internal mechanisms that did the fit. But there is where some of the problems were, all of these mechanisms were used to get the foot further away from the shell creating the disconnect that RE boots were known for,

I wonder though as it has me curious. How would that part ever truly be fixed? I suppose (nowadays) different design, shapes and materials of the shell and especially the inners could possibly close that gap better but seems never truly do it. But in addition via the same modern tech.... I question/wonder perhaps securing the foot/ankle/etc may also be done much better in general even further creating a better feel and unit where as it may only be something noticeable (as for being any real negative) to a rather smaller percentage of better recreational performers. Perhaps (if done well enough today) even some of them wouldn't even mind the "hypothetically" would be now very minimal sacrifice vs having the practicality. But are we there yet? I suppose a manufacturer would have to want to put in the money and efforts of R&D to find out. And I wonder if any are.

 

[David]

I had 3 pair if these and wouldn't go back. My Salomon, Garmont & Norbica's all had me standing too straight and I actually cracked the front cuff on my Nordica's because there wasn't enough forward flex. The only positive was when I had to unbuckle after and rebuckle before each run it was easy!

 

[Philpug]

I wonder though as it has me curious. How would that part ever truly be fixed?

Like what is done with other boots, with different volume shells, not a one size fits none design that was out before.

 

[x10003q]

I skied the Salomon 90 E for 2 seasons and they never fit. The ski shop fit them on my Dad and put me into a pair of 91 E (red and white)at a huge discount and those were worse than the 90 E. The adjustment that tightened around my foot was a nightmare. I sold those to a buddy after 1 season. I then found a Dachstein V4 4 buckle that basically fit right out of the box and skied that for 8 years.

Just say no to rear entry.

 

[Muleski]

I posted on this a while ago. Good comments among those who skied in them. As I mentioned, I was not getting paid to be in the boot, but I was certainly getting a lot of attention, and helping Salomon with the boots. This was in the day when they were hoping to get a couple of good skiers at a number of areas visibly in the boot. People ripping all over the hill. In my more relative youth, I guess I could fake that.

@Philpug {and others} are spot on. The big issue was how your foot fit in the shell. There was virtually no bootfitting going on in the sense that we think of it today. No grinding, no punching. The Salomon was designed to lock your foot into the shell with the various adjustments and tools. Depending on your foot size, and volume, the boots could be just huge. Clown shoes.

I was a bit of a unicorn in terms of my foot, ankle and calf size. I fit very tightly into the shell. The regular liner and adjustments worked OK. But, the guys who were skiing on the pro tour, and the few EC or WC skiers.....notably Giradelli...were in foam liners. I went into one of those, after we had fiddled an awful lot about stance, weakened the shell in some paces, reinforced it in others, and arrived at a reasonable stance. To be honest, we didn't think enough about ankle flexion in those days. Or I didn't. Stiff as hell was good.

The next boot, the SX91E was, again for my foot, a pretty good boot. Once again, a lot of work went into my boots. I had a better foam liner. A reasonably comfortable one, though by todays standards too solid. We were able to make the boot laterally very rigid, and while it has the adjustable flex, some material was added to the boot to make it stiffer. Had one pair that we had locked the hinge on, and added material, and that one was not so good.

I think that a high performance rear entry boot is a complete non starter. @Philpug and others can correct me, but I don't see a market to begin to feed the cost to design, tool up, manufacture and distribute. The perception, I think is pretty well set, that the rear entry boot is a beginner or low intermediate option. For that segment, and particularly for the rental market, it might work.

I wonder where a company like Dalbello, which has expressed huge desire to own the rental market, is on something like rear entry.

One of the comments made here that I can't begin to understand is the one about how Dodge should have gone to rear entry. Really? How, and why? And what makes one think it could have succeeded?
Don't forget, they sell direct. If anybody does move back into this, it's going take a lot of drums being banged very loudly, IMO.

Dodge just reduced their price to $1000. Think about what a high performance boot, with a footbed, and maybe a custom liner costs, before any sole work?

Seems like a high performance rear entry, unless it incorporates some design and materials that I sure can't dream about, is a non starter.

 

[James]

Haven't read the whole thread... has @mdf admitted he has a pair of Soloman's as back up in a dark closet?

I recall @bud heishman talking about doing a test with Soloman back in the early 90's? on all the rear entry boots. Some were incredibly bad. There was a Nordica that had almost no forward flex but flexed backward!

Yeah only crappy skiers were in rear entries:

Of course Scot Schmidt couldn't do that without the Vuarnet sunglasses. So maybe some just had the wrong eye wear.

 

[x10003q]

Haven't read the whole thread... has @mdf admitted he has a pair of Soloman's as back up in a dark closet?

I recall @bud heishman talking about doing a test with Soloman back in the early 90's? on all the rear entry boots. Some were incredibly bad. There was a Nordica that had almost no forward flex but flexed backward!

Yeah only crappy skiers were in rear entries:

Of course Scot Schmidt couldn't do that without the Vuarnet sunglasses. So maybe some just had the wrong eye wear.

You could glue moccasins to barrel staves and this guy would still ski like this.

 

[Living Proof]

About 10 years ago, I returned to skiing following a decade of doing other things, including financing my kids tuition bills. For the first year back, I did use my Solly SX 92, the white ones, trimmed in some pink, not a popular color combination at the time. During a trip to Alta/Snowbird, I took a lesson at Alta, and, during the first ride up, my instructor flat out told me the SX 92's were terrible and would hinder my skiing development. By lessons end, she made a point of telling me I did pretty well in the boots. Two days later, I happened to join a husband/wife team, who were the head of the Amateur Ski Instructors organization headquarted in Bellayre. They had similar initial thoughts, modified by days end. I did get new boots for the next season, a modern Solly, and they were a SOB to get on and off. How much they improved my skiing is lost in the grey mist of the past, but, it was not a "WOW" experience. The "Wow" I remember was trying to put them on the first time in cold weather.

I did keep the SX92 for many years, using them in the fall to do indoor Harb tipping exercises. Harb is not a proponent of pushing against the front of the boot, they were fine for indoor drills on a tipping platform, especially that easy off- easy-on incented doing drills.. I've never tried the same drills using my current pull-out liners. I did not like the flat bottom on the inside shell, a good footbed might have made up for the extra space my narrow feet had.

Bottom line, I would love to see Solly do a modern version, not so much for the expert 4 buckle design buyer, but, targeted to infrequent skiers who believe that convince of entry has a higher priority than supporting technical competency. I will always regret that in our sport where so much emphasis is placed on skis, and, demoing different skis is so easy, that we can not do the same with boots, unless one happens to be an industry insider with a foot to match sample sizes. While I would not want to ski on the old narrow skis, I sure would like to try the SX 92's on a modern all mountain ski. But then again, I like riding old steel bikes.

 

[cantunamunch]

One of the comments made here that I can't begin to understand is the one about how Dodge should have gone to rear entry. Really? How, and why? And what makes one think it could have succeeded?

I'm squinting hard here and I can sort of see a funny outline of something that resembles answers to your questions. First, CF could both provide lighter weight and a closer shell fit than conventional rear entry boots - so if one was making a rear entry boot CF seems a promising technology to pick. Second, rear entry circumvents a known problem with CF boots, namely getting the foot through the throat of the boot. Third, there is provably a market for boutique direct to customer products, and a small manufacturer is better suited to fit that niche than a large one.

Now, if there was more to what @Mike Thomas was thinking, I would be as glad to hear it as you might be.

(and I was only ~40% kidding about the tall boots. In fact, let's stop calling them boots 'coz that just keeps our thinking in a box. Let's call them something like BSI body ski interfaces)

 

[Muleski]

Part of my "bias" re: the Dodge comment is some familiarity with the boots, the guys and their backgrounds, the plan, the goal. No doubt, everything that @cantunamunch suggests makes sense, even to a clueless non-engineer like me.

Knowing that Bill and Dave set out to build the best and most unique high performance {actually race}, boot ever designed made me just sit up at the "should have done rear entry" comment.

I do have a close friend who told them just about at the minute they released their first boot that they should seriously look at the AT/BC market. The growing numbers, the light boot weight, etc. They have a toe in that market, with I think people skiing frame bindings, etc., but does not seem like they tweaked the boot for that. No walk mode, tech inserts, sole changes. Perhaps they will?

I just have a hard time seeing a future for a $1K {or more} rear entry boot. I think the marketing and sales challenges would be huge. There is a generation, or two, of skiers conditioned to think that "rear entry boots suck", accurate or not.

Rental boots, maybe beginner boots. That I can see, maybe.

 

[Uncle-A]

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.

Hanson flo fill boots were difficult to use, between the silicone you had to spray and the flo packs that would shift from one day to the next. I remember a young woman with a very narrow foot that purchased a pair when the shop I was working at was going out of business. The boot fit her well when I fit her but the following season she could not get it on her foot. 1. She forgot to use the silicone spray and 2. The flo pack shifted over the summer. She came into the shop I was working the following season that did not sell Hanson boots and my boss did not want anything to do with the boot. I felt terrible that I could not help her, it is one of a few customer experiences that still haunt me till this day.

 

[Goose]

I posted on this a while ago. Good comments among those who skied in them. As I mentioned, I was not getting paid to be in the boot, but I was certainly getting a lot of attention, and helping Salomon with the boots. This was in the day when they were hoping to get a couple of good skiers at a number of areas visibly in the boot. People ripping all over the hill. In my more relative youth, I guess I could fake that.

@Philpug {and others} are spot on. The big issue was how your foot fit in the shell. There was virtually no bootfitting going on in the sense that we think of it today. No grinding, no punching. The Salomon was designed to lock your foot into the shell with the various adjustments and tools. Depending on your foot size, and volume, the boots could be just huge. Clown shoes.

I was a bit of a unicorn in terms of my foot, ankle and calf size. I fit very tightly into the shell. The regular liner and adjustments worked OK. But, the guys who were skiing on the pro tour, and the few EC or WC skiers.....notably Giradelli...were in foam liners. I went into one of those, after we had fiddled an awful lot about stance, weakened the shell in some paces, reinforced it in others, and arrived at a reasonable stance. To be honest, we didn't think enough about ankle flexion in those days. Or I didn't. Stiff as hell was good.

The next boot, the SX91E was, again for my foot, a pretty good boot. Once again, a lot of work went into my boots. I had a better foam liner. A reasonably comfortable one, though by todays standards too solid. We were able to make the boot laterally very rigid, and while it has the adjustable flex, some material was added to the boot to make it stiffer. Had one pair that we had locked the hinge on, and added material, and that one was not so good.

I think that a high performance rear entry boot is a complete non starter. @Philpug and others can correct me, but I don't see a market to begin to feed the cost to design, tool up, manufacture and distribute. The perception, I think is pretty well set, that the rear entry boot is a beginner or low intermediate option. For that segment, and particularly for the rental market, it might work.

I wonder where a company like Dalbello, which has expressed huge desire to own the rental market, is on something like rear entry.

One of the comments made here that I can't begin to understand is the one about how Dodge should have gone to rear entry. Really? How, and why? And what makes one think it could have succeeded?
Don't forget, they sell direct. If anybody does move back into this, it's going take a lot of drums being banged very loudly, IMO.

Dodge just reduced their price to $1000. Think about what a high performance boot, with a footbed, and maybe a custom liner costs, before any sole work?

Seems like a high performance rear entry, unless it incorporates some design and materials that I sure can't dream about, is a non starter.

very Interesting post and imo made for a great read. Apologies up front to al for a looong post here.lol

Based on some of what you've said and also what some other posters have shared I still question/wonder about some the things Ive mentioned and speculate all along.

Firstly....you mention things like pro tour, EC and WC and also the desire to get the good (I assume high level performers) skiers visibly in the boots at resorts. This lends itself to the notion that by fault of no one but human nature and ego, the general population (as such is the case in most any sport) will follow only what the very best are using whether or not it truly necessary in their tamed down world or not. Hence the trickle down effect of marketing.

But besides that, in mentioning top performers I think it safe to assume very few percentage (tiny) among the masses of ski population are actually skiing at those levels. Even among really good resort recreational skiers is only imo a small% skiing those levels and even fewer doing it all the time anyway.

The term advanced or advanced/expert or outright expert is imo very subjective regardless of any said scale of numbers someone decided to put out there. Plenty people consider themselves somewhere between advanced-to-expert. Many of which may not really be and yet many more may indeed be but only as per their type of skiing. So again its truly a subjective thing. Many technical skiers would consider themselves advance and or expert. because they are indeed very good at what they like to do. Can anyone say they are wrong? Etc, etc, My point for bringing this up is that among the general masses of recreational skiers how many of even the percentage really good ones are truly skiing to the levels of tops in the sport and also doing it constantly where as anything less than that perfect boot is going to be so detrimental to their enjoyment?

Im just kind of stuck on believing that most recreational resort goers "of all levels" would probably be just fine while in a would be newest modern pair of rear entries and not just at the beginner-intermediate levels. Most people are not the unique community like so many people here. Most (including also very good skiers) don't even honestly know nor understand a good boot fitting other than trying on and feel it. Heck, many people of different abilities still even chose colors over fit. Just the way it is.

The average resorts have been filled for years with large percentages of skiers who may be among the top 30 to 40% better skiers on any given hill on any random day and yet so many of them have never had a real boot fitting nor may even be on a ski that's best for them. That may actually be limiting them more than a given boot. They may be skiing in boots that are not even near being the correct boot for them other than the fact that they feel comfy ok to wear them. I mean back in the days of RE boots so many did just that and never knew any better and it never bothered them. In fact not just then but people been doing just this forever. Yet they still perform their skiing very happily within their version of "advance-to-expert" or whatever skiing ability levels they feel they are.

I would think if R&D teams of manufacturers created rear entries nowadays they would be somewhat better than back then and if of course matched our shaped skiing era. While they still may not work very well for the well educated and very top performers, they should (I would assume) work just fine for most skiers at most the resorts and not necessarily just beginners and intermediates. I mean would newer versions be so poor that instructors would be telling students they need to get out of those boots if they want to progress? Or would that be only at the very top line of almost pro-like instruction? Or would instructors also simply be caught in the perception and ego thing? It was just mentioned by one skier ("living proof") who was told this but does not recall any significant improvement truly note worthy. I think skis could potentially be more a limiting factor to progressing ones skills. The performance gain from a slightly better boot may not really be enough to outweigh the practicality of convenience and comfort for most skiers except possibly for only those at the very top levels. Before someone kills me Im not dictating this as law but only speculating.

Of course labeling such proposed boots as only beginner up to intermediate lines in itself would create a negative vibe and prevent even many intermediates from buying them. As you and others mention.... there is perception. Hence there goes the ego thing again. Of course price points would help. Create a higher price point for any so called "advanced or expert" RE level boot and that in itself can make egos feel a little better. Sometimes we are just stupid..lol

IDK I don't pretend to be an expert on this and apologize if I ever sound like I am trying to be one (though just fun/intersting to discuss imo) but I do like to theorize.
If produced better then before and marketed the right way without any bashing (which would be hard to overcome). Who knows? People just have a poor habit of putting down anything but the utmost best or at very least categorize and let others know what they have is crap. Again, the ego thing. Were it not for that (and its an unfortunate biggie) I would bet they could again be popular and successful to many levels of recreational skiers. But who (if anyone manufacturer wise) would take that bold leap?

 

[Muleski]

First of all, that was about 30 years ago.

So back then, ski and boot manufacturers still believed that alpine ski racers, even those on the upstart pro tours actually helped to market and sell equipment.

Other than every 9 year old girl wanting Atomic "stuff" because Mikeala is under contract with Atomic, it doesn't seem to work that way. We have had recent threads discussing just low lean the money is in the business. The top WC athletes are paid pretty well by their ski/boot companies. The majority of those even skiing on the WC are not. Advertising budgets are really slim, and they aren't going to athletes.

I think it's safe to say that regardless of "discipline"; all on snow sports and athletes are dealing with that. So, probably not going to sell product that way.

Do local skiers, area reps, etc. help sell product. Sure, in some cases, and to some degree. How much? Somebody who's closer to that could weigh in.

Will rear entries "work"? Sure. Will people buy them?

I think it will take a seismic change for very many serious skiers to make a change back. Just my hunch. I'm not going back. Might reconsider in my late eighties.

No doubt they could be better engineered, designed and built. People still need to sell them, and buy them. That's a hurdle.

BTW, EVERY boot build in the last ten years is much better than similar ones built 10-15 years ago.

I guess some are passionate about rear entry boots!

 

[Goose]

Will rear entries "work"? Sure. Will people buy them?

No doubt they could be better engineered, designed and built. People still need to sell them, and buy them. That's a hurdle.

BTW, EVERY boot build in the last ten years is much better than similar ones built 10-15 years ago.

I guess some are passionate about rear entry boots!

it is something through the years that many people do often seem to still talk of and miss even to this day. I mean all these years later? so I just think that says something positive for them. Honestly is partly why I brought it up.

 

[Tony S]

Late arrival. Answer: No.

 

[MattFromCanada]

From the point of view of this lay person, working at the one of the three local hills in Vancouver which are always packed on weekends... the great majority of the skiers around here are the kind of people who buy their gear at SportChek, or Dicks Sporting Goods or what have you, and only because the high schooler who works there tells them that the boot fits, and it's a sweet deal because the "regular" price is $899, but they're on this month for $199...


And with that sales model, pretty much anything could get sold. But I suppose, the thought behind this topic is, would rear entry boots be any good?

 

[Wolfski]

I actually liked the Salomon's, yes they were free but I did have a choice but there was a lot of work put into them to make them work, not for fit, for performance
The SX 90's needed stronger beefier shells, they had multiple liners with different densities, they needed metal channels riveted to both sides to increase lateral stability and when you flexed them the ankle pockets bulge out, so whats the problem?
The 91's improved the fit and the foots position in relation to the shell and that helped with performance but we still needed the metal bracing on the sides, more people were given the foam choice and the best part was that new rear cuff was quite weak at the bottom and the play between the upper and lower shell with the flex adjusters allowed way to much rearward movement, best solution was installing the Raichle forward lean shims between the upper and lower shell as it didn't effect the flex and the rearward weakness was gone.
The Salomon with the one piece do all lever, nope.
The 92 was an improvement on the 91 and brought foam back to the masses for a much better fit, mine were the most comfortable concrete boots I've owned.

The rear entries were also easy to sell which is a big reason why they became so popular, that and Salomon bought a fair amount of market share with all the giveaways forcing others to play catch up. The Ski Industry is very much a follow them market, remember the short ski movement of the 70's, flo, wax, sand, cork and ???

I'm on a four buckle now and I like them a lot, just a lot a buckles and they are a bear to get off