Scarpa SL

I've been tramping over Irish mountains in Scarpa SLs for the last 9 months and I have a love / hate relationship with them. Basically I love them and they seem to hate me! First of all, I find them a very comfortable boot. Short of standing in a river they don't let in water and the breathability afforded by not having a Goretex layer is very welcome as I tend to run hot. The fitting is narrow-ish and perhaps one of my feet would benefit from the wider last - but having said that my other foot would benefit from the next size up! It's always gonna be a compromise. The flexible ankle has offered enough support so far but I've yet to try them with crampons. Again I guess it's a compromise and everyone will have their own take on whether they offer enough support. No doubt this feature contributes to them being so comfortable straight from the box. I've never been entirely convinced by the low toe rand - it doesn't appear to make much sense when they offer the 2009 Manta with a much more substantial rand. Back home - working Nikwax into the gouges in the leather toes after a bit of scrambling I can't help but think the design is lacking in this area. The rand itself is looking like it's just staring to come away from one of my boots. I may have this addressed under warranty before it gets any worse. So, generally speaking, I love these boots. Alas, they don't always love me - and I have the scars to prove it! I find that I don't have as much grip in them as I expected. Compared to my walking partner's Mantas, my SLs are useless on damp rock and the treads don't clear mud as efficiently. If we could make an analogy with car tyres I'd say that the Mantas have a softer compound and a better tread pattern. In my opinion the SLs lack bite in some conditions. Maybe the Mournes have a particular kind of mud and grit they don't find in Italy, but these boots are getting me a reputation for spending as much time picking myself up as walking! In hindsight, I probably should've bought a pair of Mantas for winter and something more flexible for the rest of the year. Silly me, trying to use 4 season boots all year round! :-)

(Written by: ColinJohnston)

I've had my SL's for over two years now, and having seen a lot of use, and despite a little wear and tear on the upper are still going strong. They are light for a 3-4 season boot, but feel reassuringly solid and grippy on pretty much any terrain. There's no waterproof lining, so nothing to make your feet sweaty, and the construction is so solid that a lining would be redundant, no leaks from mine yet. It does lack a rubber rand, so expect to get them scuffed a little, and they are expensive, even for a top of the line hillwalking boot, but apart from that there's not much to fault

(Written by: lampetarian)

I was in the market for a new pair of 3 season boots, having had excellent service out of my Raichle Mountain Trail GTX's (except for the original sole unit coming apart at the compound section just before I had them resoled). I have always been a fan of Scarpa, and seeing I could get the wider fit, went for them. This is essential, as the standard fit is indeed usually too narrow. I am interested to see the LFTO criticism, as I have had to glue my rand down twice on the left toe. A minor niggle, and easily rectified, but annoying, hence my VFM downgrade, as they are pricey. As they are my fourth pair of Scarpa boots, and I have never had any other build issues with them, I hope this is an abberation. They have covered two years of quite heavy use, in all conditions, and have stood up to it well. They are waterproof enough when treated, and usually last until the end of a full day in Scotland's bogs before letting in anything uncomfortable. The lack of goretex means they are not too hot in summer too, or in the Alps where I have used them for scrambling and via ferrata. Above all, for a relatively stiff boot, I had to 'break them in' on my ML assessmnent, (a poor piece of planning on my part), but they gave me no trouble, despite 5 days solid in them. I will certainly get these resoled, and go again.

(Written by: JohnnyW)

Picked these up for £99 when retailers were making way for the new SL. I wanted a 3-4 season boot that was a little stiffer and more robust than my Rangers for rockier terrain and these fit the bill. They're rated B0 for a crampon although I haven't used them with crampons just yet. The ankle cuff is a little stiffer and more supportive than the new SL. The only drawback, as mentioned above, is the lack of a decent rand although the SL seems to cope with knocks, bangs and scrapes quite admirably. David

(Written by: Wilko)