Scarpa Ribelle Tech vs Sportiva Aequilibrium?

Not looking for the classic "whatever fits your foot better" answer. Both fit well.

Who has experience with the Ribelle techs or the Aquilibruim (Leather, Sythetic, or gaitered)? Share your thoughts please.

Looking to do some summer mountaineering in the Alps this summer and in need of something less beefy than what I have (Nepal Evos).

Cheers

Hi Alex, 

I have both of these boots.  Aequilibrium ST (synthetic) and the Ribelle Lite HD.  I bought them thinking that I would just keep one pair, but I find them different enough that it's worth having both.  I wear both in a size 48, so that effects the weight and the flex.

The Aequilibriums are a little heavier (832 grams in size 48) while the Ribelles are little lighter (818 grams in size 48).  Note that the reported weights are the reverse--the weight for the Aequilibrium ST is reported to be less than the weight for the Ribelle. In any case, the difference is small enough to be negligible.  

The Aequilibriums fit like a sock--a uniform, snug, natural feel, with incredible heel hold, and, somehow, plenty of room in the toe. They are a little hard to get on and off, but the flexible heel tab/gasket helps.  They have a rockered sole, and between the fit, the sole, and the overall flex, they walk incredibly well.  They are by far the most comfortable hiking/mountaineering boot I've ever worn. About the flex; they are more flexible than traditional mountaineering boots, especially in large sizes.  Personally I think they work best with crampons that have flexible center bars.  Because of the flex, they aren't the boot I would choose if I knew I was going to be front pointing, but for long glacier treks and snow slopes, and for ridge scrambling and rock climbing, they are amazing.  Also, the heel is perhaps the most distinctive feature.  The wide, pronounced, deeply lugged heel really does feel more stable than traditional designs, especially on steep, loose terrain, walking downhill.  Again, as above, this is the boot I would choose for long routes with combined trail approach, glaciers, snow, low angle rock, and ridge scrambling.  I think these boots are different enough to be an innovation, a step forward in boot design.

The Ribelles are just a little lighter, but also stiffer.  The design of the upper and hence the fit is more traditional.  They are still light, comfortable, three-season mountaineering boot, and they fit me very well, but they don't have the "Wow, what am I wearing my my feet?" feel of the Aequilibriums.  The Ribelles don't walk as well as the Aequilibriums on the approach, and they don't have the  stable heel design, but the combination of light weight and stiffness is hard to beat.  Any route that involved front pointing, or the kind of rock climbing where you need to stand on small edges, the Ribelles are great.  I would be happy to climb moderate to steep alpine ice with the Ribelles, whereas I would not be so comfortable doing to with the Aequilibriums.  This is the boot I would choose for routes that don't have a long hiking approach, and that involve more technical edging rock climbing, and steeper ice and snow.  

OK, hope that helps.  

Aequilibrium is a bit more of a hiking boot than I realized when I bought it. Not necessarily a bad thing, because it is very comfortable to hike in. Just be sure you buy it for rock/hiking/snow/less technical routes. I wouldn't want to "climb" too hard in crampons in them, but they're good on rock without crampons.

I literally just bought both, so I can give some very very initial impressions.  

• Weight (42.5): The Ribelle HD 2.0 is far lighter than the Aequilibrium Top GTX, about 7oz (200g) for the pair.  
• Fit: The Ribelle HD 2.0 is very narrow compared to the Aequilibrium Top GTX.  Also, the "sock" makes for a much snugger fit than almost any other boot I've owned.  
• Flex: The sole of the Aequilibrium Top GTX is far less stiff than the Ribelle HD 2.0. 

The Aequilibrium Top GTX's rubber geometry looks like it will have better snow traction.  Overall, the Ribelle HD 2.0 looks like a technically superior boot, if it fits.

Hi Chris--like you, I just bought two new boots, a Scarpa Ribelle Lite HD and an Aequilibrium ST.  There are different boots than what you are discussing here 9they are really three season/summer boots) but there are some similarities in our impressions as well.  You can find my notes here:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/122696028/scarpa-ribelle-tech-vs-sportiva-aequilibrium#ForumMessage-122696477

Bruno Schull wrote:

Hi Alex, 

I have both of these boots.  Aequilibrium ST (synthetic) and the Ribelle Lite HD.  I bought them thinking that I would just keep one pair, but I find them different enough that it's worth having both.  I wear both in a size 48, so that effects the weight and the flex.

The Aequilibriums are a little heavier (832 grams in size 48) while the Ribelles are little lighter (818 grams in size 48).  Note that the reported weights are the reverse--the weight for the Aequilibrium ST is reported to be less than the weight for the Ribelle. In any case, the difference is small enough to be negligible.  

The Aequilibriums fit like a sock--a uniform, snug, natural feel, with incredible heel hold, and, somehow, plenty of room in the toe. They are a little hard to get on and off, but the flexible heel tab/gasket helps.  They have a rockered sole, and between the fit, the sole, and the overall flex, they walk incredibly well.  They are by far the most comfortable hiking/mountaineering boot I've ever worn. About the flex; they are more flexible than traditional mountaineering boots, especially in large sizes.  Personally I think they work best with crampons that have flexible center bars.  Because of the flex, they aren't the boot I would choose if I knew I was going to be front pointing, but for long glacier treks and snow slopes, and for ridge scrambling and rock climbing, they are amazing.  Also, the heel is perhaps the most distinctive feature.  The wide, pronounced, deeply lugged heel really does feel more stable than traditional designs, especially on steep, loose terrain, walking downhill.  Again, as above, this is the boot I would choose for long routes with combined trail approach, glaciers, snow, low angle rock, and ridge scrambling.  I think these boots are different enough to be an innovation, a step forward in boot design.

The Ribelles are just a little lighter, but also stiffer.  The design of the upper and hence the fit is more traditional.  They are still light, comfortable, three-season mountaineering boot, and they fit me very well, but they don't have the "Wow, what am I wearing my my feet?" feel of the Aequilibriums.  The Ribelles don't walk as well as the Aequilibriums on the approach, and they don't have the  stable heel design, but the combination of light weight and stiffness is hard to beat.  Any route that involved front pointing, or the kind of rock climbing where you need to stand on small edges, the Ribelles are great.  I would be happy to climb moderate to steep alpine ice with the Ribelles, whereas I would not be so comfortable doing to with the Aequilibriums.  This is the boot I would choose for routes that don't have a long hiking approach, and that involve more technical edging rock climbing, and steeper ice and snow.  

OK, hope that helps.  

Thank you for thoughts! That was super helpful. 

"Personally I think they work best with crampons that have flexible center bars." What crampons would you reccomend to pair with them for glacier approaches? Ones like the blue ice harfang or petzl leopard?

Hi Alex--glad to help.  I'm a big ol' gear nerd :)

I'm 6'4" and about 200 lbs with a size 48 foot, so you have to filter my impressions through that perspective.

For me, I've learned that with aluminum crampons I can easily bend over points even on gentle terrain, and that with cord or fabric center connectors there just isn't enough lateral support for my weight, and the heel section slides sideways with any real pressure. 

So I used these boots with Grivel Air Tech crampons and Long Flex centerbars.  

There are similar 12-point crampons available from Black Diamnd, Petzl, and so on, but I have to say, the Grivel New-Matics are really something different.  

They have at least two features that set them apart:

1-The secondary points are much less raked forward compared to traditional crampons.  This makes it easier to place a large portion of the front points onto small rock ledges compared to crampons with more forward-raked front points.  Of course, the flip side is that the orientation of the secondary points means the crampons are not as stable on hard ice.  But, because that's now how I was using these boots, that was just fine. 

2-The down points are relatively short, and the second set of down points is flared to the side.  This makes these crampons feel really stable when traversing along an incline.  I really like the wide, short, down points.  It helps keep the center of gravity low, and prevents the sort of ankle-rolling teetering feeling of some crampons with high down points.

So, once again, for me, the Aequilibrium ST with the Grivel Air Techs made for a unique, comfortable, versatile combination.  It was really a test for me to use this combination, and I really liked it.  If I was lighter and/or had smaller feet, I would try the Air Techs with the aluminum rear section, or the full aluminum model, both of which are available.  

And if I was going for routes with more front pointing and hard ice, I would use the Ribelles with a more traditional crampon, like the Black Diamond Serac, Grivel G12 or the Petzl Vasak.  

Have fun!

P.S. Where are you going in the Alps?  I live in Switzerland and climb often in the Chamonix area.  

Since my last comment, I’ve managed to put a reasonably good amount of mileage on the Ribelle Tech 2s. They are an awesome boot, excelling in being versatile and super light. 

Chris C wrote:

Since my last comment, I’ve managed to put a reasonably good amount of mileage on the Ribelle Tech 2s. They are an awesome boot, excelling in being versatile and super light. 

Chris how do they size compare to other scarpa boots, I'm 43.5 in Phantom Techs (the current version.)

Sylvester Jakubowski wrote:

Chris how do they size compare to other scarpa boots, I'm 43.5 in Phantom Techs (the current version.)

I actually did not fit well at all into the Tech or 6000. In Sportiva (if that helps at all), I wear a fairly consistent 42.5. In this boot, I wear 43.