ScottB

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
609
Location
Boston
My younger brother is in the MDF camp of skis boots. He still skis the SX whatevers. I found an old pair of my wife's SX's in the basement and they were the men's model and in good shape. He was absolutely thrilled when I gave them to him (was going to throw them out then I remembered he skis them).

I actually tried them for one day of skiing, "back in the day". I have a long, narrow, "Lange" foot but I wanted to see what everyone was talking about. To me, the thing was you could adjust the boots with a combo of rear cable, instep cable, and fore foot cable to almost any foot shape. The liner was pretty padded and comfortable too. If you couldn't get them adjust to your foot, you went up or down a size until you could. I didn't like the heel pocket, but I suppose you would get used to it. For me, the size boot narrow enough to fit my foot was not long enough. I didn't know about toe punches back then. Not even sure if they could be modified. I skied the correct width boot for one day and they performed well, but my toes were bruised and the boots were just too short for me. I stuck with my Langes.

They were easy to get on and off, which is why they were so popular I think. Personally, I was so used to working the buckles on the front, it felt weird to be working things on the back of the boot. Once it was adjusted properly, you just clamped the rear buckle and your done. If I remember right, the instep adjustment was on the rear buckle as well, as a turnable thumb screw. Probably more detail than called for, time to end this.
 

johnnyvw

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Posts
304
Location
NEPA
Damn, now you're making miss my 91E's. Some time in the late 90's the lever on the back of one boot broke, during a day of skiing. To my surprise, I was able to buy new ones direct from Salomon. I purchased two, and the second was as a spare until just a few years ago. If I had known people were STILL using these boots, I would have sold it on ebay LOL
 

cosmoliu

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
568
Location
Central CA Coast
How about some Raichle rear-entries? And rocking an 80s-style sweater to boot! Spotted over lunch at Canyon Lodge, Mammoth yesterday. I was going to say hi to the skier, but when I surfaced from a deep dive into my rice/beef/veggie bowl, he was gone.
2B04CDAF-C873-4952-938D-43F9BEBCA400.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Joal

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Posts
533
I have looked through a couple boot size related threads hoping to find the answer and I think it was explained somewhere at one time. What does the number at the top of the back cuff of SX s refer to? Is that a kind of Salomon size? Was that how boots were sized at one time. Does not ring a bell. For instance I have a pair of SX 80 that says 345 but the BSL is around 310 and foot size around a nine. Heh, all this SX talk is getting me excited. Might have to put them into rotation. They very much have the feel of the Polaris.
 

Chef23

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 17, 2017
Posts
344
I have looked through a couple boot size related threads hoping to find the answer and I think it was explained somewhere at one time. What does the number at the top of the back cuff of SX s refer to? Is that a kind of Salomon size? Was that how boots were sized at one time. Does not ring a bell. For instance I have a pair of SX 80 that says 345 but the BSL is around 310 and foot size around a nine. Heh, all this SX talk is getting me excited. Might have to put them into rotation. They very much have the feel of the Polaris.
The sizing was a volume measurement you can't track it to a boot sole length. It had to do with measuring around the instep and width if I remember correctly and not length. The theory was a wide short foot with a high instep might wear the same size boot as a longer foot with the same instep height and width. No relation to the BSL.

I was at Sugarbush on a Monday with the retired skiers and saw a bunch of older equipment including several pairs of SX boots. I can potentially see skiing the older boots but the matching bindings scare me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdf

Joal

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Posts
533
The sizing was a volume measurement you can't track it to a boot sole length. It had to do with measuring around the instep and width if I remember correctly and not length. The theory was a wide short foot with a high instep might wear the same size boot as a longer foot with the same instep height and width. No relation to the BSL.

I was at Sugarbush on a Monday with the retired skiers and saw a bunch of older equipment including several pairs of SX boots. I can potentially see skiing the older boots but the matching bindings scare me.
Thanks, I will have to assume a rough correlation if I were to buy another pair. I have SX92 325 with a BSL of 300 and SX91 340 with a BSL of 310 so I am thinking a 335 would have a BSL 305.
 

Chef23

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 17, 2017
Posts
344
Thanks, I will have to assume a rough correlation if I were to buy another pair. I have SX92 325 with a BSL of 300 and SX91 340 with a BSL of 310 so I am thinking a 335 would have a BSL 305.
I am a 10.5 shoe with a decent sized instep and I wore a 345 in the Solomons.
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,684
Location
Boston Suburbs
My Force-9 (essentially SX-93E) in 345 has a 321 BSL.
A retired pair of SX91E, also in 345, doesn't have a marked BSL but I just measured it as 299 +- a couple.
 

LeVieuxCrouton

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Posts
141
ce.JPG
ci.JPG
co.JPG
cu.JPG


Found today at noon ...
St Valentine's luck as I am alone this evening !

SX91 Equipe , size 345

I am a 355 man myself so I can't wear them .
They are in a near mint condition .
I can send more pictures should you want .

Now , what to do with them , eh ??
My feet are too big !
And I already have a pair .
 
Top