First look of Lundhags Abisku Expedition Xplore boots

[TheMusher]

@Theme said: "I do not agree with the argument with the hiking boots in that context, since in hiking boots the added weight of a stiffer boot usually is a total loss in energy compared to a trail running shoe."

You think?
I'm not sure, I think "rolling" on stiff-soled (albeit light) hiking shoes is preferable to conserve my calves and feet if I'm walking for multiple days as opposed flexing along with a running shoe. Guess it's a personal thing, I'm heavy at 90 kg + backpack.

Anyways, I'm not sure this argument is even transferable to BC skiing such stiff-soled shoes (I have never tried it).

Absolutely agree on the traverse point. However, many boot soles are laterally stiff enough while still leaving enough longitudinal flex. I think Lundhags 75mm boots are good example of this.

Is Abisku your go-to xplore boot at the moment?

[TheMusher]

Also feel free to elaborate on downhill performance if you have tested them!

[TheMusher]

A relative had the first outing on the new quiver today, Falketind 62 with Lundhags Abisku Expedition Xplore.

Was apparently very satisified with the system. Extremely supportive downhill. But also for striding she didn't find the boots too stiff. She has a nordic racing background, so that's good to hear.

-------

-------

Personally, I had some runs with my Guide Expedtion 75 in the local alpine slopes this week.

Downhill shredding they are perfectly suited to handle Switchback bindings. Skis were 86mm wide. Worked well, though I think this is the upper threshold of ski width I would operate on consolidated/icy snow with these boots.

The only thing that could lure me over to Abisku Xplore is the reduced weight (ca 300 grams per boot?), and replacement of both 75mm and NNN-bc with one single norm.

OR maybe the investment is worth it only to to get rid of the 75mm squeaking...?

Think it's abundantly clear at this point I love this line of boots. They're supportive, warm, cozy, comfortable, flex the right places (well haven't tried the xplore version myself). They work equally well for XC and D. They last forever. And if they don't, they will be repaired by Lundhags. They're the boots I will take on my next long-haul expedition.

You may think this a hidden add, but I honestly just really hope more people will see the light and experience the utter salvation of Lundhags.

[Theme]

Super nice to hear @TheMusher !

I'm now again waiting for a few more pairs of the Abisku Xplore to try out the correct size... the Abisku Xplore, to me, was more supportive overall due to the narrower last. Although I will need a larger size than on the Expedition version. The Expeditions were higher on the shaft and in that sense more supportive. But I found it is way easier to fit the foot in through the ankle area on the lighter version. And they still are supportive, just the shaft is not as high.

Still no sign of the Pioneer Pro, though. Currently it is estimated to ship on 11th of February... But because of my heel needing better support than on the Alaska XP (which will become my partner's boots), I also took that into account when choosing the lighter boot. In lack of a better alternative the Abisku Xplore will be light enough for very long ski tours. Although the Alaska XP is low volume, the mid-foot and ankle are kinda wide to me. I have ended up with a lot of bruises on my ankle and shin, too.

[TheMusher]

I can see the size issue Theme!

Have had the same wide last issue with the 75mm expedition.

Solved it by adding 1 additional insole and using thick army wool sock in addition to regular wool socks. Fits like a glove now. And it almost feels like the liner of a plastic boot!

And it’s more livable to tighten the laces superhard for downhill.

But it is now almost a problem if weather gets too warm

In your case, it sounds like the Abisku should suffice? I feel the expedition is designed very much with stability in mind - which - you tell me - is not always necessary in Finland..? Unless you wanted the extra warmth of the expedition of course!

Looking forward to your report in the Pioneers! And the regular Abisku.. I hope you’ll dig them

[CwmRaider]

But I found it is way easier to fit the foot in through the ankle area on the lighter version.

This is interesting. I tried a pair of the "low" abisku xplore size 45 (one size too small) and I found it impossible to get the toes into the toe box. My ankle circumference around the heel (if that makes sense) seems to be too much. Id be keen to try a pair of size 46 but part of me doubts that the 1 size difference will make the opening sufficiently larger, and no shops have these here physically. This is a very uncommon issue for me, I have had several Lundhags footwear in the past without issues, and usually a size too small results in insufficient toe space rather than render it impossible to get through the arch.
Edit I guess the correct terminology is the instep height. These boots don't seem compatible with high instep.
Anyone else have issues pulling on these boots?

[tkarhu]

Yes, I neither could get my feet into the boots a couple of weeks ago at Varuste.

[lilcliffy]

I have the Abisku Expedition XP- and the Guide Expedition BC- they are identical, in terms of last, liner and fit.

I also have the Guide BC- which is significantly smaller volume in the toe box, in particular- yet quite large volume at the calf-
can anyone confirm if the Guide BC and the Abisku XP are the same design?

At the moment- I think that the Guide BC last fits moy forefoot best- but the Expedition BC/XP fits my calf best- both seat and fit my ankle very well.

[JohnSKepler]

I want to keep experimenting with boots. I have weird feet and it often takes a lot of looking to find something that fits. Usually a wider toe-box is the answer so I've been following these Lundhags boots. I really love the weight and the flex of the Alaska XP but to get it to fit in the ankle and get the length right, it's pretty tight across the forefoot.

I've seen that the toe box on these Lundhags boots is a bit wider and was wondering what size I should order. It'll be coming from Finland so I'd prefer to not have to send them back!

I wear a Mondo 25.0 in my TXPro. It's tight but, after thermoforming, perfect.

I wear a 41 in the Alfa Free. It fits really well and I can even wear a variety of socks. I do have a bit of heel lift that can be a problem, but it is super comfortable.

Last year I used a 40 in the Alaska XP. It was quite tight and limited my sock choice but it skied really well. As long as I was bending and using my feet it wasn't too bad. But once I stopped moving, it squeezed my foot mercilessly. I found a 41 on eBay for cheap, worn maybe twice. It's better, though the forefoot is still narrow, but the slightly roomier interior comes with a smidge of heel lift.

What should I go for in the Lundhags boots? I thought maybe the lower shaft Xplore version and, if it fits well, a higher shaft 3-Pin version. I think I saw it comes in a duckbill?

If I finally get something that's perfect (I know, that doesn't exist) I'll have enough equipment to go with my wife, my son, his wife, and my other two sons! Win-Win!

[Theme]

What should I go for in the Lundhags boots? I thought maybe the lower shaft Xplore version and, if it fits well, a higher shaft 3-Pin version. I think I saw it comes in a duckbill?

I cannot speak for the 3-pin model or the BC model, but for the lower shaft Abisku XP, I would choose size 41. A 41 Alfa free fits me great too. I tried on many sizes of the Lundhags XP boots (especially the lighter lower shaft version), and 41 would have been my choice had it not been too tight at the ankle for me. I also had some pressure points so the boot model just was not for me, or it would have taken a long time to break them in. But the size 41 would have been good.