Arcteryx Acrux AR GTX Boot Experiences

Hi Fellow Climbers,
I have noticed in recent years that my feet seem to be a bit more sensitive to the cold. So I am thinking of buying a warmer boot this year for my technical ice climbing next winter. I am interested in the Arcteryx Acrux AR GTX boot because it seems to be the lightest, lowest profile, warm double boot on the market today. Normally the weight and profile of a double boot gives me the feeling that I am trying to ice climb like "Frankenstein"--that clunky, heavy feeling like I have big bricks on my feet. But these boots are essentially the same weight as high performance single boots with an integrated gaitor (ex., Scarpa Phantom Guides, etc.--basically in the range of 950-1050 grams per boot). Ditto for the profile. So at least online and on paper these boots stack up well against single boots or single boots with an integrated gaitor, but with all the advantages of a double boot--primarily warmth. Yes, they are expensive but not too out of line with high performance boots like the Phantom Guides, etc. But as yet I have not spoken with anyone who has climbed in them--especially technical ice climbing. Maybe they are so new on the market they are just not yet in wide circulation. So, I am wondering what peoples' experiences have been with them? I am interested in issues like durability, heel lift when standing on front points, etc. Any insightful comments are appreciated.

Cheers,
Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Bob. I'm considering the Acrux AR GTX boots too. About the same weight as the Phantom Techs but a double boot! Let me know what you decide!

Hey Bob,

I picked up pair this spring, thanks to a member here selling them for a good price.

Unfortunately, right after I got them we've had a big heat wave, so i've been able to climb one day in them. The past four years I was climbing in the La Sportiva Batura Evo (the second generation).

I climbed one pitch of moderate ice with some hiking. More comfortable than my Batura, with less weight. Pretty comparable in volume, if i remember correctly. Takes a few tries to get used to the liner part, but once you do it makes sense. I didn't notice any deficit while climbing (paired with Petal Lynx). It was snowing and around 32 all day, but my feet were plenty warm, though that isn't much of a test.

I was initially concerned about the lack of laces higher up on the ankle, but the velcro does well for heel hold (so far). The boot flexed a bit on the softer side when trying them on at home, but didn't notice it while climbing (so far).

Let me know if you have more specific questions, I can try to answer.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your comments. They are helpful. Due to the lack of comments by others to my questions I am just going to have to try. I have ordered a pair in to a local store in what I think will be my size and I am planning to give them the best in-store test I can and if they seem solid will keep them. I would have preferred to have heard some views by others but so far there is little to go by based on what I have found online. I am really intrigued by the warmth to weight ratio as well as the overall low profile of the boot. If they pan out as advertised they would be cutting edge--nothing else on the market seems to come close in warmth for the weight, as well as low profile. I have a long narrow foot and narrow heel so I will really be checking for heel lift and any potential for flexing while on front points but the online manufacturer specifications suggest this will not be an issue. If I buy them I will give people my impressions on this discussion thread.

Cheers,
Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi Fellow Climbers,
I finally had the chance to compare three boots side by side in the store and can make some comments. Note of disclosure: I did not have a sensitive scale to measure weight, nor a tape measure to accurately measure dimensions, but my impressions may, none-the-less, be of help to someone on this discussion thread.
I compared the Scarpa Phantom Guide, the La Sportiva Batura 2.0, and the Arcteryx Acrux AR (AA) boot. I ended up purchasing the Acrux. I have a fairly long and narrow foot, and a somewhat narrow heel. There are numerous online reviews of the Scarpa and La Sportiva boots, so the focus of my comments will be on the AA boot. Here is my summary:

1. In weight the AA feels almost identical to the Scarpa and La Sportiva boots--the differences are in the few grams category. For me so long as they are close I am not worried--if I need to shave some weight I can take one carabiner off my rack ( approx. 30 grams) and there goes any difference between one boot and the next.
2. The external profile of the AA boot is virtually identical to the Batura. I clipped the AA boot into my crampons (wire bails--DDM Terminator) and the fit was near perfect--actually a closer fit than the Phantom Guide and the Batura--both of those had a little "play" in the front lip of the boot. In other words the AA has basically the same profile of a high end single boot. That is nice for aesthetic reasons (no big Frankenstein boot feeling) and performance reasons--closer feel to the rock in mixed terrain.
3. Wearing the boots side by side--a AA boot on one foot a Batura or Phantom Guide on the other foot and walking around the store for a bit the AA is the warmer boot (the AA boot foot got to the point of sweating well before the foot with one of the other boots on it--the Batura or Phantom Guide boot always felt like room temperature while the AA boot get noticeable warm). This was a big reason I was interested in the AA boot--I wanted the technical performance combined with a good weight to warmth ratio comparable to a high performance single boot for those super cold ice climbing days in January. I think I got it. The AA is a warmer boot--how much more would require thermometers and a freezer, etc. But I would guess on days in the past when my toes went numb I will have okay feet with the AAs on in the future.
4. The AA inner boot is more like a beefy sock. So one could wear it inside a sleeping bag, tent, etc., and dry it out at night on a multi-day climb. I think that is a nice feature--keep your feet warm in a sleeping bag and dry out any possible moisture. Also the AA inner boot is advertised as having no internal seams so no friction points. That was true--inside it is a seamless beefy "sock." The AA boot used Gortex twice--on the inner boot and the outer boot, so it should be a fairly dry boot with respect to foot perspiration.
5. Heel lift--since I have long narrow feet and narrow heels this was a concern for me. So I stood on my front points in the store. After I adjusted the laces and velcro at the top to my foot's dimensions I experienced minimal heel lift. It would take several pitches of sustained vertical ice to be sure but my sense is this will not be much of an issue for the AA boot.
6. My complaints about the AA boot are few. They are: a) the dual pull tabs (red) on the outer boot to help you insert the inner boot into the outer boot should be a bit longer to accommodate a gloved hand. In the store with warm hands and no gloves this is not an issue but I can see that if I was wearing thin gloves it would be tough to get my fingers into the pull tabs--actually I doubt I could. It is not likely I would do that maneuver much in the field but I might and if it is so cold I want double boots then it will be cold on exposed fingers; b) for Arcteryx to keep the external dimensions close to that of its high end single boot competition the "space" is in the inner dimensions of the boot--normally I wear an 11.5 (US mens) boot but I had to go with a 12 in the AA boot to get the same toe room space; c) since the inner boot is more like a beefy sock than a true lace up boot it helps that I have long narrow feet--I would imagine that if a climber had wide feet or big thick ankles and calves getting in and out of this inner boot might be enough extra effort that it is not worth it--not sure but that is my guess--I think the reason the AA inner boot is fairly close at the top is to further keep foot heat in and any snow melt moisture out--which was fine for me with narrow feet.
The rand is high and robust--better than the competition. The outer boot gaiter is as high as the Batura, so higher than the Phantom Guide, and closes well at the top of the calf. Overall I think this is a good product. Also, walking around the store and at home, it seemed to flex well enough at the ankle that hiking in and out of a climb should be okay, yet it is a truly rigid boot for front pointing. If someone is looking for a high performance double boot to extend the comfort range for their feet--and wants the performance and feel of a high end single boot, but also wants the low weight then this is good boot to look at. I should also say I am just an average climber, I am not affiliated with Arcteryx, did not get paid for these comments, and do not stand to benefit in any way from my words. So I am fairly disinterested other than I did end up buying the AA boot.
I hope I helped.
Cheers,
Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Bob: thanks for the fantastic review. Very helpful insights. I have a longer, narrow foot too so the AA may be in my future as well! Where did you find them in stores?

Hi TheIceManCometh,
I am glad you got some benefit from my comments and I am glad to help. The reason I did not mention the store in my prior post is I was concerned that my prior post would come off as some sort of advertising or that I might have a bias about retailers. I do, like most of us do, but I thought it best to keep all of that to myself.
But you asked and I try to be helpful where I can. The shop is Mountain Gear, which has a good online store. I am fortunate. Mountain Gear has a retail store in my city, and Mountain Gear's online store had just recently decided to stock the AA boot along with the others. So up to a couple of weeks ago I did not know this and thought I would be shopping for the AA boot sight unseen and guessing at the right size for my foot--something I did not want to do for that amount of money--foot sizing and foot comfort is just too individual.
The manager of the Mountain Gear retail store is John Schwartz--a prince of a man if there ever was one. He ordered in from the online store's warehouse several different sizes in each boot for me just so I could get it right--at one point I probably had 10 different boxes of boots open and spread out on the floor.
I do not know where you live but my hope is you could find a store reasonably close to you so you could physically try the boots on with the socks you normally wear. But if that is not feasible you could sure go online and shop off Mountain Gear's website. I am not affiliated with the store and will get nothing for stating this but if all else fails for you, you might even call the store, speak with John, explain your dilemma, and see if some kind of solution could be worked out. If we were talking about a $10.00 carabiner we would not even be having this discussion, but $750.00 boots is another matter entirely.
Last night after submitting my prior post I put on the AA boots and wore them around my house for several hours. I noticed something additional, which I am not 100% sure of, but may turn out to be true. The inner boot seemed to form to my foot and retain the shape. I think there is a quilted foam layer in the inner boot "sock." My guess is the foam takes on a shape and retains it a bit. My left foot has a somewhat different dimension than the right due to the consequences of a leader fall years ago and some surgery on the left. So I was able to notice the "molding" difference. If I am right about this then buying the AA boot second hand from someone might mean a misfit and blisters/hot spots, etc. Of course I could be wrong--I have to wear them more to really tell, but if I am right then buying new might be the best path. I also thought about warmth to weight ratio a bit more. I asked myself if I was in a snow cave due to an unplanned bivouac and trying to get some warmth back into my frozen feet--would I be congratulating myself that I shaved a few grams of weight on the climb by going with a lighter boot? Probably not--in that situation I would be congratulating myself that I did not have frozen feet by going with the warmer boot that weighed the functional equivalent of a couple of carabiners more than another "lighter" boot. I think the claims by various manufacturers as to who has the lightest most cutting edge boot (assuming their advertised weights are even honest) can deceive us climbers--I do not mean false advertising, what I mean is thinking that a few grams on your feet will be decisive to your climbing. If I cannot get up some pitch it is likely not because my boots added 50 grams to my body--it is likely I needed to train better or use better technique or just be more courageous. All three boots I tested are well within the weight range of the other--the differences really are down in the range of a carabiner or two between all three brands of boots. For me, at that level of difference I want the extra warmth range and no frozen feet in a forced bivouac. I read online somewhere (possibly a UK website--not sure) that Arcteryx considers this a 6000 meter boot (aka about 18,500 feet)--i.e., alpine climbers could use the AA boot on 6000 meter peaks. I did not verify this, so do not hold me to it. But if true, at this weight, and low profile, generous rand, high gaiter on the outer boot, minimal heel lift, then the AA boot is a strong contender.
Again, I hope I helped.
Cheers,
Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

To TheIceManCometh & Others,

I am glad you and others have found my comments helpful. Yesterday some friends were over to my house including a climber who has summitted Denali several times, including by some of the mountain's harder routes, as well as summitted in the Himalaya. We discussed the AA boot being a 6000 meter (approx. 18,500 foot) peak boot. His comment after wearing them a bit in my house is he would use them on Denali and just put a gaiter over the top of them at the higher elevations on the mountain. He thought his feet would be fine in them at 7000 meters by just adding a gaiter. He was impressed by the weight to warmth ratio as well. Overall his impressions of the boot were all positive. Just one climber's observation, but I thought I would share it.
Cheers,
Bob

I'd like to revive this thread a bit and ask about how the Acrux AR size. I was considering ordering a half size up from my Acrux approach shoes which are a snug fit but my toes touch the front on downhill hikes. Any suggestions for sizing? Do they run big/small, should I be considering ordering a full size up?

Just from 30min in a store, walking, kicking, edging, I was the same size as my hiking boots and Lowa Weisshorns. The Acrux seemed pretty narrow. It punched my skin on the bottom of my foot, but so did the Lowa boots until broken in. Nice low profile feeling, I would buy a pair if the price was right.

Adding a super gaiter to it would prob put it over the top weight wise compared to other big mountain boots in the 6-8k range, but would save you considerably in ca$h money from using one boot.

Edit: I had the same experience as Drew Carey stated below. Heel was in place. Anyone selling a 10.5?

I recently tried these on in the Arcteryx Denver store. I was very surprised to find that (for my foot at least) there was absolutely no heel slippage. The boot and liner did a wonderful job of comfortably and firmly holding my heel in place. There was just enough rocker in the boot to make walking on flat ground comfortable as well. I hope Arcteryx has these boots available for demo at the Bozeman Ice Fest this winter.

I hope this thread is still active.
I'm considering buying the AA boot (to use the previous term) and was wondering is it would be good for my adventure. I will be going to the Wind River Range in Wyoming for 30 days. I will cover 75 miles and climb 8 peaks. My expected temperatures are between 20 and 60 degrees. Could these boots work, and if not, any suggestions for suitable boots?

Sam, sounds like you are doing a NOLS course in the wind river range. If I am right, these boots will be far too warm and stiff for that course. You would be better served by picking up a boot like the Trango Cube(not ice), Trango S, or Scarpa Charmoz. These days I even go with a lighter weight boot for those conditions like the La Sportiva Hyper Mid. Hope this helps.

My experience doing rocky mountains in boots meant for snow is that the soles get blown out extraordinarily quick. I'd second what Calvin said. Also $750 for a boot that will likely get trashed to me is a bit steep too. NOLS type courses often state that the gear that you use (particularly puffies, shells, footwear, pants) get pretty beat up.

Goodluck! Sounds like a rad trip!

Thanks guys. I'm new to mountaineering so this will be useful info.

Have any ladies tried these boots out? thanks!

I have a new pair of these boots and have used them about 4 days so far, and they seem to be wearing much faster than I expected. The rand around the front bail has numerous small chunks missing, along with the sole lugs. One of the liner pull tabs is coming off despite being trying to be gentle. I never saw this much wear on my Nepal evos in 4+ years. Not mad, just surprised. Am I expecting to much? Do you guys agree? I know you have to sacrifice a little for weight. @carlycain, my wife has the boots and she likes the fit, but agrees with me on the longevity issue and she has 2 full days in hers.

I'm looking to summit Ranier this summer, with some smaller peaks around the PNW. Assuming these are pretty prime for the temperature range and terrain I would be tackling correct. Very new to mountaineering (close to zero experience) so quite a bit of training will be needed before June. Trying to buy the right shoes the first time.

Thanks

I was quite impressed with everything but the fit. I wear US size 13, bought the largest size they sell, and boots were far too small/narrow when worn only with thin sock liners (I own a lot of Arc gear and it all is sized for subminiature humanoids...I have to buy XXL everything and still sometimes lack adequate layering room). If they ever decide to manufacture these boots in adult sizes I'll certainly buy a few pair.

A couple of people on the interwebs have noted that these boots aren't as stiff as Baturas.

thealpinestart.com/2016/05/…
(see Comments at the bottom)

arcteryx.com/product.aspx?c…
(see Questions and Answers at the bottom)

Has anyone climbed a good amount of steeper ice in both and have any thoughts? Seems like everyone agrees they walk better which isn't really a concern for me.

I have Baturas, but doubles would be nice for longer trips. I can deal with a couple of days of wet boots in the morning if they climb significantly better though.

[I have a feeling this doesn't matter for a gumby like me but I do a lot more ice climbing than easy mountaineering so thought I'd ask]

jdejace wrote:I have Baturas, but doubles would be nice for longer trips. I can deal with a couple of days of wet boots in the morning if they climb significantly better though. [I have a feeling this doesn't matter for a gumby like me but I do a lot more ice climbing than easy mountaineering so thought I'd ask]

JDE, check out the G2SM boots from La Sportiva. I picked up a pair for some future goals but they have become my go-to boot for ice climbing. They actually climb better than my Salewa single boots.