UKH

I'm a long term user of size 47 Scarpa Omegas and Grivel G14 Cramp o'matics with the longer middle bar. Mainly used them with monopoints. They jointly fitted very well. The front bale is attached via the back two holes to increase front point protrusion.

Just bought some size 48 Batura II boots. Larger size was due to getting black toenails from hitting the ends of Omegas when climbing water ice. My G14s fit ok but I've lost a good 10mm of front point protrusion. I bought a pair of 47.5 Batura IIs by mistake prior and the front point protrusion is better than with the 48 Baturas but worse than the Omegas.

It initially suggests to me that G14s are not properly scaled for such large boot sizes, rather than it being a Batura II fit problem (given the problem was half as bad with the 47.5 sizing). One option I'm thinking is that I could drill a third set of holes for the front bale to connect. Reluctant to buy new crampons if I can help it. Don't want to change boots as struggles to find a well fitting pair.

Just wondered if anybody else has experienced this problem with crampon fit?

In reply to Mr. Lee:
I guess it means the outer toe of the Baturas is narrower, or more tapered, than that of the Omegas... Do you have a New Matic toe bail which you could try instead in case that helps? It makes a bit of a difference with my Petzl Lynx.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I got the same thing with size 42 daturas and rambos. Not a huge deal since i only lost about half a cm of the mono point but I would have though in this day and age the fit should be flush.

In reply to Tricadam:

The smaller size Baturas weren't quite as bad though so it seems as much related to the boot size ans relative construction.

With the 48s the toe bale forms a slightly more acute angle relative to the ground meaning the crampon locates itself slightly further back on the boot sole.

Also just had a closer look at the sole profiles of 48 and 47.5 boots. My 48 boots have more rubber protruding at the front of boot. They almost look as though I need to grind the front of the soles down a little so that the front edge is perpendicular with the ground. This would match the 47.5 profile. I can take photos if some of what I am saying doesn't make sense.

I also wonder if my crampons are less suited to sizes over 47 generally. I know Grivel and Scarpa have good compatibility. Scarpa seem to only make boots up to 47 so wonder if that partly has something to do with things.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

One other idea: ask a pal with different crampons to let you see if their front bail will fit the G14. If the bail fits, and holds the boot further back, job done: you'll just need to find some spares or email the UK supplier. Lyon were very accommodating when I asked them for bails for my Lynxes.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I have a similar issue with my 48 Nepals - and not just front points. The whole front section is much narrower than the boot forefoot width, leaving a hefty overhang either side.

In reply to Mr. Lee:
Hey Lee
I have some g14 crampomatic crampons and I found with most my boots (46 freney and nepals) the crampons had at best only adequate front point protrusion and as the soles wore down and the bail bars slowly bent over time this worsened to an unacceptable amount.

One thing I tried was different bails. Rambo bails work and give a lot more protrusion (initially before bedding in a little too much) and being asymmetric tend to work better with modern boots.

Last year I ordered some G14 rear clips after speaking with needlesports and grivel seem to have shortened the legs on them over recent years to better fit modern boots and my issue was solved. If your g14 are a good few years old its possible newer G14 bails will give a better result also.

I would take your crampons and boots in to a climbing shop and see if they will let you try a couple of different bails on them.

Hope life's treating you well,
Stevo

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Cheers Steve, good advice. Think my crampons must be about 5 years old. Might take a look at the newer bales, in particular the Rambo front bale. Above mentioned New-matic front section sounds as though it might be worth a look, although prefer full step in.

Never had a problem with the front bale bending though. In fact I've needed a vice and bending irons to reshape it in the past.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Just noticed some of the newer models of Grivel crampon have three front bale locating holes instead of two. Maybe that ties in with me thinking I should drill a third set of holes behind the existing two pairs on the G14. Maybe they recognised a problem with large sizes.

In reply to Mr. Lee:
Those Grivel bails do bend slowly over time. If you can bend it with some hand tools think what thousands of kicks will do. I've found the angle of the legs slowly changes / slackens. Also the twists that many grivel bails have slowly tighten.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Just to follow up, I ordered some Rambo front bales as suggested by Stevo. They're 10mm shallower in height, which meant they didn't need to tilt forward so much when fitted to my boots. It gained me around 15mm in front point protrusion. I actually needed to move the bales from the back set of holes to the front set because of too much protrusion subsequently. The Rambo bale suited the Batura II's relative low profile well. So in a nutshell any using a very large boot size and struggling to get enough front point protrusion with G14s consider switching to the Rambo bales.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

No impossible, but it won't be easy to drill another set of hole; crampons are hardened. Expect to blunt a few drill, or break them; you will need a drill press!

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Cool glad to be of service