Alpina BC 1600 Boot

[MicahE]

This won't be much of a review, I've only skied them once, but I thought it would be good to add this boot to the list of options for people to consider since it's not as common for some reason.

In searching for BC boots, I tried:

• Alpina Alaskas
  Rossi BCX6
  Fischer BCX5
  a handful of others by Madshus and Alpina

The Alaskas fit the best from this list except I couldn't get rid of a pinch point on the front at the flex point of the ankle. I've read someone else here had the same experience.

I bought these boots for $170 from the only online vendor I could find, Skatepro...which turns out ships from Europe.

They fit my foot better than all of the above without any pinch points. They seem to be very well made and are stiffer and more supportive than the Alaskas (which felt nice and firm in the foot but pretty flexy in the ankle).

My one trip out was in very deep snow, see below, but I did get to experience some K&G on the way back. This was using the also new Fischer Excursion 88 in 199cm. I will add to this post as I have other noteworthy things to say about them.

[bgregoire]

The BC1600 has been around longer than the Alaska. Are you sure the Alaska is not as supportive? Its got the same look as the Alfa Skarvet, which I believe it the specific boot Alpina was trying to compete with in the scandinavian market.

[MicahE]

The BC1600 has been around longer than the Alaska. Are you sure its not as supportive? Its got the same look as the Alfa Skarvet, which I believe it the specific boot Alpina was trying to compete with in the scandinavian market.

I’ve only tried on the Alaskas (not skied with them) but the Alaskas felt notably less supportive in the ankle compared to the BC1600’s. Maybe I wrote my original post confusing.

[Andy M]

Thanks for posting this review -- I'm interested to hear more once you use them further.

For now, any comments on how they fit compared to the Alaska (e.g., in length, width, and foot volume)? Did you fit the same size in both models, and how does that compare to your regular shoe size? I looked at the size guide on the SkatePro site, and it doesn't help me much, as the foot length and shoe size parts don't match for me.

[Cannatonic]

>>I’ve only tried on the Alaskas (not skied with them) but the Alaskas felt notably less supportive in the ankle compared to the BC1600’s. Maybe I wrote my original post confusing.

Same here. Of course I am known to be somewhat anti-Alaska, having compared the support level to sneakers in the past I don't see what the fuss is about. The 1600 uses better leather and are as close to full-grain leather you can get in a NNNBC boot.

[MicahE]

Thanks for posting this review -- I'm interested to hear more once you use them further.

For now, any comments on how they fit compared to the Alaska (e.g., in length, width, and foot volume)? Did you fit the same size in both models, and how does that compare to your regular shoe size? I looked at the size guide on the SkatePro site, and it doesn't help me much, as the foot length and shoe size parts don't match for me.

I tried on the same size Alaskas as the 1600’s that I bought (44). Poor comparison maybe but this is the same size Dansko clogs that I wear. With “normal” shoes I’m usually on the cusp between 10 and 10.5 but it’s rare that a 10 fits better. I used their international size guide (foot length) to pick a size. I considered ordering the next size down after receiving them but glad I stayed with the 44.

The 1600’s feel a little narrower than the Alaska’s but I expect that to improve with use as the leather breaks in.

[GuillaumeM]

I am looking at this shoes also for my girlfriend. Can you give some impressions about the sole? Does it feel stiffer than the Alaska as well? Can you squeeze the shoe/sole with your hands only or do you need to put the shoe on the ground and use your body weight? A stiff sole with torsional rigidity is more important than ankle support (even if ankle support is nice as well).

[lilcliffy]

Email I received back in 2015 from Alpina in Slovenia, with regards to this question when I was considering the BC1600 for my growing son. This email was in response to me asking about the BC 1600 boot and how it compared to the Alaska.

Hello mr. Gareth

Here below are the answers to your questions:

1. The boot is made in Europe. Uppers are made in Romania and assembly in Slovenia.

2. Stiffness of the midsole that determines the sole flex is 35 Shore D. It is softer than the stiffness of the Alaska model.

3. The thickness of the leather is 2,0-2,2 mm. The thickness of Alaska leather is 2,6-2,8 mm.

Alaska model is generally stiffer boot than BC 1600. It is more reinforced and was developed for more demanding skiers. It provides better stability than BC 1600.

If you have additional questions don’t hesitate to ask and we will provide you our answers.

Best regards!

Janez Novak, Product Marketing
Alpina d. o. o.

Strojarska ulica 2, 4226 Žiri
T: +386 4 51 58 315
M: +386 31 364 897
F: +386 4 51 58 376
E: janez.novak@alpina.si
W: www.alpina.si

[GuillaumeM]

Thank for these informations! It seems a bit contradictory with the abovementioned test. Could it be that they changed the boot? The old version looked a lot cheaper than the new one and they might have redesigned the whole shoe like Alfa with their Guard versions.

[bgregoire]

Thank for these informations! It seems a bit contradictory with the abovementioned test. Could it be that they changed the boot? The old version looked a lot cheaper than the new one and they might have redesigned the whole shoe like Alfa with their Guard versions.

They might have, but I think the official response Lilcliffy pulled out is correct.