So, as many of you know, finding a boot for high altitude mountaineering that involves mixed climbing is a bit of a royal pain in the rear. At least that has been my experience. And in all of my initial research and after trying on Spatniks, G2 SM, and others, I was pondering why not an AT ski boot?
There's the Atomic Backlands, the Dynafit TLT's...
What is driving my exploration of this question is that there is, as I (and you, possibly) have experienced, no perfect boot.
I have gotten the sales person input on the popular and more obvious choices like Spantiks or G2 SM's. So, I thought I would throw it out to this crazy bunch of nutters who, like me, think that climbing in places where people don't belong is a really phenomenal idea.
So, with the newest technology in AT Ski boots, like those I mentioned--keeping in mind that you can custom fit intuition liners and mold the plastic, as is the case with the Backlands--what downfalls/concerns are there in exploring ski boots as an option for climbing Denali (and other mountains in it's ballpark) over the conventional climbing boot?
Keep in mind, my other factor here is cost. As we all know, this crap is expensive. It's worth every penny to keep toes and feet, so I am not complaining. BUT, is there an opportunity here to capitalize on the performance offered by some of these ski boots, whose prices drop much more sharply due to higher turnover of product and much more rapid iterations on models than what we normally get in the specialized mountaineering world?
So, in short: would you ever consider something like an Atomic Backland OVER a, say, a Spatnik, etc., even if you are not skiing? Why or why not?
Obviously, the primary boot characteristics being sought are, durability, warmth, stability adjustments for hiking (slogging) and mixed ice & rock climbing, comfort, and weight.
Thanks for any input.
vasocreta