Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Rear-Entry Boots....

profile picture
robotdna
Posts: 1232 - Karma: 2,959
You know, I have to be that guy and ask.....why is the rear-entry boot not popular any more? I had a pair when was little, and looking back they seem to make so much more sense than top-entry...
For starters, the foot enters the boot more naturally, creating less stress and strain on the foot. Imagine this when you are trying to get a cold 140 flex touring boot on in the morning outside your tent....soooo much easier. Since the entry hinge is located in the rear, you can stiffen up the front, creating a more solid boot for you to be leaning into. One shouldn't be leaning backwards while they ski anyway, so having a solid forward platform makes sense. You can still place tightening buckles on the arch and toe, but don't need to have the entry in those places. Additionally, more insulation can be provided on the top of the foot where a lot of heat is lost in a traditional boot (I recall my rear-entry being warmer, but I'm not 100% sure as that was a long time ago).

Am I missing something? I probably am, otherwise rear-entry would be more popular these days. I'm not very well-versed in ski technology history. I mean, all these years of ski boot development all around the world have produced some pretty incredible products, so they must be on to something!







tl;dr- Why aren't rear entry boots more popular as they seem to have more benefits than traditional boots?
Oct 12 2014 7:04PM
2 0
profile picture
IKEA
Posts: 622 - Karma: 3,111
full tilts have a tongue that you can flip forward, that is super easy get in. SPKs are also easy. These are park boots tho. I dunno with 140 flex boots
Oct 12 2014 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
ghosthop
Posts: 631 - Karma: 1,027
Lateral stiffness. And more specifically, rear entry boots aren't.

Modern(shaped) skis respond much more to lateral movements and because of this modern boots are made to much stiffer laterally and don't need as much fore/aft stiffness. Its one of the things dalbello always touts because their lowers extend fairly high on the calf. Its also the same reason that a Lange RX 130 is softer flexing fore to aft than Lange 130 from ten years ago.

Head was seen prototyping rear entry boots on the race circuit last season, never heard what came of it.
Oct 13 2014 2:30AM
0 0
profile picture
onenerdykid
Posts: 6714 - Karma: 11,500
robotdnaYou know, I have to be that guy and ask.....why is the rear-entry boot not popular any more? I had a pair when was little, and looking back they seem to make so much more sense than top-entry...
For starters, the foot enters the boot more naturally, creating less stress and strain on the foot. Imagine this when you are trying to get a cold 140 flex touring boot on in the morning outside your tent....soooo much easier. Since the entry hinge is located in the rear, you can stiffen up the front, creating a more solid boot for you to be leaning into. One shouldn't be leaning backwards while they ski anyway, so having a solid forward platform makes sense. You can still place tightening buckles on the arch and toe, but don't need to have the entry in those places. Additionally, more insulation can be provided on the top of the foot where a lot of heat is lost in a traditional boot (I recall my rear-entry being warmer, but I'm not 100% sure as that was a long time ago).

Am I missing something? I probably am, otherwise rear-entry would be more popular these days. I'm not very well-versed in ski technology history. I mean, all these years of ski boot development all around the world have produced some pretty incredible products, so they must be on to something!


Some of the main reasons for their demise are the following (in no particular order of importance): inability to boot-fit (since the liner was glued to the shell in 2 or 3 separate areas, it made stretching/grinding the shells near impossible), the lower shell could not wrap the foot like an overlap boot could (so the foot fit was poor), the boots flexed like stove pipes (not progressive like an overlap), and their power transmission was far weaker than an overlap boot.

With those negatives, there is still a segment of the skiing population who could benefit from them: renters who have no ankle flexibility. Since they don't really care about skiing performance and have trouble entering a ski boot, this design could work well for them.
Oct 13 2014 2:40AM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-5)