UKC

Anyone got experience with the superlight aluminium crampons like the Petzl Leopards, or the 50/50 ones with aluminium back section and steel front section?

I'm wondering what their durability is like in real world use. How many full days can you get out of them? Are they only suitable for snow slopes, glaciers etc or will the alloys take a bit of a beating on rock? How easy they hold a point when resharpened?

In reply to tbm:

They're really designed for skimo or light approach/glacier use. They're a sigificant compromise on strength and durability because they are designed for infrequent and gentle use. If you real world use involves kicking into water ice, anything around rock, or real climbing, get something designed for purpose.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

What alu crampons have you got then?

In reply to tbm:

I've used the Beast Lite a few times in the UK since writing this review. https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/snow+ice/crampons/beast_lite_crampons_from_... (please admire the video at the bottom, I had forgotten making that, but it does actually show that I'm not a complete punter at ice climbing! 😀) and have been quite surprised that clattering about on scree on top of Great End for instance, didn't seem to wear the points at all. I do take them early season hill walking/scrambling sometimes if I'm not sure if I'll need crampons because they are so light, so I've worn them on Striding Edge and high in the Carnedds in such situations. I don't think they're a great choice for doing everything in the UK, but they are not nearly  as disposable as many people seem to presume.

In reply to TobyA:

I have a pair of Grivel Air Tech Lights I bought years ago for various expedition uses. Good for their intended purpose but I wouldn't take them romping over rocky ridges or on hard water ice. 

As for a pair of 384g Leopards? Your call!

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

But have you needed to walk over rock ground in them? I'm just quite surprised that the Edelrid ones seemed to not really be bothered by it. I don't use them for standard hillwalking and only occasionally for climbing, but they've survived. And that's what the OP's question seemed to be asking. If it's only the heel section that is alu in the model s/he is looking at, and s/he isn't an instructor in Scotland going out day after day all season, they might be worth considering.

In reply to TobyA:

I don't personally see how saving 145g per foot is worth the compromise in materials (Beast Lite vs G12), especially with all the superlight boots these days, if your main aim is general mountaineering. 

Ten years ago a pair of winter boots like Scarpa Manta, or even modern day Nepal Evo's are over 2kg a pair. Now modern tech boots like the Ribelle range are not that far over a kilo (1200/1300g). Cutting weight on the boot seems like a better compromise than the metal on your crampon IMO, unless you're on snow only ascents. Just my 2c

In reply to tbm:

I have a pair of Grivel Haute Route which are steet front bit and alloy rear bit. They weigh 612g, more importantly they are made to fit ski boots. Only ever used them for short sections of ice, most of the time they're deadweight in the pack, so the lighter the better. They're good for what they were intended but I wouldn't want to use them for general mountaineering. 

In reply to tbm:

I've used the 50/50 Petzl ones with alu heels and steel front points in the alps a bunch for glacial approaches. Paired with really lights boots they are excellent for up and over routes where you have to carry your glacier kit up a rock route. 

I wouldn't want to do any serious rocky approaches with them on, the heels and dyneema joining string wouldn't last long!

Also, front pointing up some unexpected black ice was moderately terrifying with them because of the flexibility. 

In reply to TobyA:

How long have you had them for? Google aluminium fatigue life vs that of ferrous alloys and get back to me.

In reply to danm:

This is the 8th winter I've had them. I used them loads for the first winter I had them as they were for reviewing, but they haven't got used so much in recent years.

I know aluminium can fail, but no problems so far. It's interesting that you don't hear about problems with aluminium bike frames much, but then obviously quite different a construction.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

My very old G12s are heavier than that with anti bots on, and I cut some of the bar off as my feet aren't that big, so the Beast Lites are almost half the weight of my G12s. That's actually why they get carried a lot but not used every time! Skimo, early season hill walking "just in case" etc.

In reply to danm:

This is beyond my area of expertise but I can say that that the exact aluminium alloy used can make a big difference here.

In reply to TobyA: Hm actually you do hear about aluminium bike failures quite a lot .  But as stated that's very affected by the alloy used, and how the bikes is designed (Crack'n'fail wasn't a joke)

Re. the Beast Lites - do you see any signs of wear at the points where the bindings attach to the aluminium frame.  I've always been interested in these as I don't think 400g of weight saved on your boots is to be sniffed at, and nor am I very bothered by needing long spikes away from the front points (and often wish those on my lynx were shorter)

In reply to danm:

While aluminium is indeed poor in fatigue resistance, the cycles required for fatigue (assuming its not at the upper end of the stress limit) are generally high enough that an activity like walking should reach them... generally.  Bike frames were a good example of fatigue as generally the cyclic load frequency is much higher.

In practise, the fatigue behaviour of aluminium that makes it a poor performing metal in that respect is actually at the upper end of the cycle frequency response (high frequency, low load) because it doesn't have a fatigue limit, whereas steel does.  This is of the order of around 10^6 (million) cycles where it makes a difference... not so relevant for a low frequency activity like walking.  Below this, the response is similar to steel, but just a lower resistance.

In reply to crayefish:

Ooops... First shouldn't got autocorrected to a should.

In reply to wbo2:

I've never had a Cannondale so maybe that's why its never crossed my mind but I'm sure I've heard a lot more about carbon fibre frames failing. Not spending huge amounts of money on bikes I've only bought alu framed bike in the last 16 or so years. My original "proper" road bike bought in 2001 was steel (wish I had l kept it now as it was a classic beauty!) but since then I've had two mountain bikes, both alu, and for commuting and other riding a hybrid, a CX, and now a gravel bike - all alu. I know that's hardly a big evidence set, but no problems with any of them. 

I'll get them out the cupboard later and take some pics - we can compare them to the review ones when they were new!  

In reply to TobyA: I'd like to see that - as far as I'm concerned the body of the crampons is only there to attach the boot to the frontpoint..  well maybe a bit more but you get the point.

Yes, you'll here a lot about carbon frames cracking, but in reality the most frames I've seen cracked are Al.  Less so now that there's more hydroforming, but stays still crack regularly.  I have seen 'expected lifespans' that bike sellers will guaranteee for before - Al is at the bottom.  The majority of frames I've seen written off have been dropped onto something pointy and there thin wall Al, and Carbon both suffer badly.