OutdoorCrunch

Arc’teryx

Arc’teryx Konseal AR vs LT vs FL 2 vs FL 2 GTX

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR (see image) that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

In the Arc’teryx shoe lineup, the Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX fill the niche of tackling the approach. Durable, lightweight, fast, and waterproof, all four of these models have their own perks. What they don’t offer is extra ankle support like the Acrux LT GTX.

In summary, the stiff sole and abrasion-resistant uppers of the Arc’teryx Konseal AR offer rugged durability. What these shoes lack in comfort, the Konseal LT makes up for with every stride. Meanwhile, the biting grip of the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX beckon your feet to the crag.

Let’s get a closer look at how these options pit against one another. 

Comfort

Although the Konseal AR is one attractive-looking shoe, it’s stiff as a board. Same with the Konseal FL 2 and Konseal FL 2 GTX. While this is ideal for lengthy scrambles, it’s a problem when the going gets mellow. 

The comfort level will leave you wishing you opted for a wider toe box and more cushioning on flat trails. For comfortable day hiking shoes, you’ll want to use the Arc’teryx shoe finder.  

The Konseal LT is precisely the opposite. The breathability and flex of the mesh uppers in combo with the lighter weight provide ample comfort on mellow and rocky terrain. 

Arc’teryx even thoughtfully added in a collapsible heel, turning these into slip-ons for lounging around base camp. Of these four options, the Konseal LT is the one I would slap on for a full day of ascending the approach.

Traction

When scrambling around boulders, you need reassurance at your feet. All four of these Arc’teryx approach shoes offer a solid degree of traction. Which, of course, varies with conditions and terrain.

As for the Konseal LT (see image), this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes.

For instance, the sticky tread of the Konseal FL 2 clings well to rocks and hard-packed trails, as does the Konseal FL 2 GTX. The biggest difference with this shoe is the Gore-Tex waterproofing adds better traction in wet conditions.

This will likely improve your approach as mother nature releases her furry but to a degree. The design of the shoe leads me to suspect some water may seep in around the tongue, causing some slippage inside.

Meanwhile, what the Konseal AR lacks in comfort, it makes up for in traction. This shoe provides a solid grip on smooth slabs and jagged surfaces. The shallow lugs provide full foot contact allowing you to grab surfaces like a chameleon.

As for the Konseal LT, this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes. Just don’t test these when it starts to pour.

Stability

Stiff soles may not be ideal for comfort, but they help with stability. The rigid sole of the Konseal AR does well when the terrain resembles anything but flat.

The Konseal FL 2 hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. Its waterproof counterpart, the Konseal FL 2 GTX, does this and more as it meets the challenge of sloshy conditions with sure-footedness.

And our lightweight friend, the Konseal LT? Even these add stability when precision counts most.

Needless to say, all offer good stability. Yet, if I’m slogging through muddy terrain with a loaded pack, I would go with the Konseal FL 2 GTX.

Durability

For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX (see image) is a better choice.

Slap the Arc’teryx label on anything, and you expect durability. Or so you would think.

Don’t get me wrong; any approach shoes will take a beating. But the Konseal LT may wear out faster than the others. This is mostly due to design.

The collapsible heel leads me to suspect durability issues down the road. Same with the toe cap.

On the other hand, the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX offer better durability. But like the Konseal LT, I fear the toe cap may eventually separate from the synthetic mesh of both pairs.

Then there’s the Konseal AR. These shoes are built to take some serious abuse. From the abrasion-resistant upper suede to the sole, this is the best option for durability out of the four.

Versatility

The Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all work for scrambles and climbs. Yet, it’s their technical features that limit their use for varying activities. 

The Konseal FL 2 (see image) hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. 

The Konseal AR may claim “all-around” use, but the comfort level is less than desirable for the mellow section of a hike. Although, they do look good being sported around town.

The Konseal is the opposite. The comfortable fit and lighter weight can take you from flat hiking to jagged scrambling with minimal compromise. It will let you hop around with agility while you're at it too.

What the Konseal LT doesn’t excel at is scrambling up super slick boulders. For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX is a better choice. Meanwhile, the Konseal FL 2 balances weight with traction to keep you light on the approach.

Conclusion

Approach shoes are best when you need precision at your feet. The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 vs 55

Last updated: August 10, 2022 by

The Alpha AR 35 (see image) offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Among the Arc’teryx backpacks, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are built to accompany your mountain activities. So if you’re looking for a pack that could double for town use, neither are for you. 

In summary, the Alpha AR 35 is not only 5 ounces lighter than the Alpha AR 55; it’s also more versatile. From tour skiing to day trekking, the Alpha AR 35 will hold all your essentials without feeling bulky like the Alpha AR 55. 

Let’s take a closer look at the differences between these two backpacks.  

Versatility

What are you looking to do with your pack? How versatile you need your pack to be is the first metric to consider when figuring out which option is right for you.

Arc’teryx claims the Alpha AR 35 and Alpha AR 55 are versatile packs designed for all-around use. In fact, that’s what the AR stands for, “all-around.” While this sounds good in theory, the delivery doesn’t fully live up to the name.

For starters, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are not good for trail running. Even if you’re swiftly moving in alpine terrain, these packs are just too big and too husky.

The Alpha AR 55 is specifically too large to hit the slopes. The bulky fit is also not ideal for super technical icey climbs. What the Alpha AR 55 is good for are multi-day overnighters and general mountaineering.

The Alpha AR 35, on the other hand, offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Meanwhile, the lighter weight is better for agility. That means you can scramble more comfortably. Ideally, I would use this pack on a long alpine day trek. It will hold all the essentials and possibly some gear for a hiking buddy.

Considering the “all-around” aspect, I’d go with the Alpha AR 35. I find it to be more practical for my needs.

Pack Capacity

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55  allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear. 

With a load like that, the Alpha AR 55 is the winner. The extra 20 liters means you can stuff in more food, emergency layers, and mountaineering gear. That way, you can tackle the expected and the unexpected like those luminous clouds that suddenly rolled in.

Pack Weight

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55 (see image) allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear. 

Despite the large load, the Alpha AR 55 has a surprising space-to-weight ratio. The total empty weight is 46 ounces. This is on the lighter side, considering the capacity of this beast.

Yet despite the good ratio, the Alpha AR 35 is still lighter. This pack weighs in at 41 ounces when empty.

At first, the drop in 5 ounces may not sound like that big of a deal. That is until you fill the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 to the brim with all your gear.

To put things into perspective, the Alpha AR 35 will leave your legs more nimble and put less strain on your back.

However, Arc’teryx offers a range of daypacks of varying weights. Their Arc’teryx pack finder can help you find the right one.

Comfort

Both the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 feature the same style harness. The comfort level, however, is different when fully loaded. This is to be expected as more weight puts more strain on your body. 

That said, the Alpha AR 55 didn’t shine in this category. The weight of the load is rather uncomfortable when attempting technical climbs. This harness style better transfers the load with the Alpha AR 35. 

Regardless, the back panel could use some improvement for both backs. The design doesn’t rest well on the lower back. This could lead to some irritation or pain when putting in the miles.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 or AR 55 could be right for you, depending upon your use. If you want the more versatile option of the two, the Alpha AR 35 is the better choice. Meanwhile, the Alpha AR 55 is better for multi-day hikes and mountaineering adventures that require more gear. 

Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX vs LT GTX vs AR

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

The Acrux TR GTX (see image) is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time. 

Climbing technical terrain? The Arc'teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR feature an earth-biting grip. What these boots don’t offer is agility. For that, you’re much better off with the Arc’teryx Aerios FL MID GTX.

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR are built for technical climbs. The Acrux TR GTX can handle varying terrains on multi-day hikes. For jagged rocky peaks, the Acrux LT GTX is a great match. Meanwhile, the Acrux AR has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Comfort

Finding a technical boot that is functional and comfortable is challenging. The Acrux TR GTX solidifies that point.

The comfort of the Acrux TR GTX is about subpar. The cushion on the midsole is not as thick as I’d like considering these are designed for rocky terrain. The fit is also tighter than I typically go for. Which, in my experience, means blisters.

What I do like about the Acrux TR GTX is the rubber toe cap. This means you’re much less likely to be cursing the trail when you stub your toe on a rocky ascent.

The Acrux LT GTX is pretty brand spanking new to the Arc’teryx lineup. From first impressions, these boots are stiff where you need it and flexible where you want it.

They do offer a degree of breathability, which is always appreciated. Unfortunately, just like the Acrux TR GTX, the Acrux LT GTX has a narrow fit. So wide feet need not apply.

As for the Acrux AR, these boots are surprisingly comfy. Don’t get me wrong; they’re not like slipping into a pair of Crocs.

But, the combo of the flexible inner bootie, warmth, and lighter weight makes them more comfortable than other options.

Break them in over a season, and they’ll grow more comfortable over time. Of course, like my prior complaint, I do wish they offered a wide version.

Stability 

Aside from comfort, stability is one of the most important features of a technical boot. The Acrux LT GTX offers some excellent heel-to-toe stability. Just try it out on a talus slope. 

The Acrux TR GTX and AR also offer stellar stability. However, some minor improvements could be made.

For instance, the Acrux LT GTX could use a wider outsole to better avoid ankle rolling. 

As for the Acrux AR, it could take a lesson from the Acrux LT GTX and incorporate some eyelets and lacing that go higher up the tongue.  

All that said, I’d still take any of these options on technical climbs and maintain confidence in stability.

As for the Acrux LT GTX (see image), this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical. 

Traction

Let’s get one thing straight. The Arc’teryx Acrux AR is made for ice climbing.

A good portion of the time, you’ll be heavily relying on crampons. For the times you’re not using crampons, the anti-slip tread provides reliable traction.

Unlike the Acrux AR, the Acrux TR GTX is not made for ice. What it is made for is more mixed terrain that varies from dry to wet conditions.

The Acrux TR GTX has a grippy sole that does well on talus slopes and stream crossings. I’m also digging the deep lugs, which provide sure footing.

As for the Acrux LT GTX, this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical.

If you’re trekking in varying terrains, I’d go with the Acrux TR GTX.

Use

Arc’teryx claims all three of these boots are built for alpine environments and rock climbing. Which they are, but to a different degree.

The Acrux AR is purely for mountaineering. Find yourself in sub-zero temps with an ice axe in hand, and you’ll want these on your feet.

The Acrux TR GTX is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time.

For those who really like to scramble up the ascent, the Acrux LT GTX would be a better bet.

Due to the technicality, I wouldn’t recommend any of these for an average, all-around hiking boot. But out of the three, the Acrux TR GTX does have the most versatility.

The Arc’teryx boot finder is a useful tool if you need help deciding.

Value

The Acrux AR (see image) has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Your feet are your biggest tool when doing any sort of trekking. I would personally pay top dollar to keep mine in working condition, blister-free.

All three of these technical trekking boots come at a high price. This is precisely what you should expect from anything sporting the Arc’teryx label.

So bottom line, the Acrux AR boots are much harder to slip on than the TR GTX or LT GTX. They also may have some durability issues with the toe. However, they provide exceptional warmth and reassurance when you’re mountaineering.

The TR GTX will offer the most versatility. However, the technical features may be overkill for those who aren’t looking to do multi-day backpacking.

The new LT GTX is a very stylish boot. But, these puppies are too new to see how they’ll withstand some serious trail abuse throughout a season.

Although, if you’re looking to start doing some rocky peak bagging, this could be a good investment for you.

One thing to keep in mind is all these shoes have a narrow fit. If you have wider feet, all the drool-worthy specs will be useless to you.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR all have some promising features. Where they fall short is on the narrow fit.

For those who don’t need a wide fit, these technical climbing and trekking boots could be a good choice.

For more versatility, the TR GTX is a solid option. For scrambling, the lugs on the Acrux LT GTX provide great bite. And anyone looking to brave mountaineering can appreciate the warmth of the Acrux AR.

Need a warm jacket to go with your technical climbs? Check out my review for Best Arc’teryx Jackets.

Arc’teryx Brize 25 vs 32

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

For full-day hikes, the Arc’teryx Brize 32 (see image) is the better choice. This daypack features a 32-liter capacity. 

Arc’teryx is the industry leader of quality technical gear paired with simplicity. This is precisely what you’ll find with the Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32. Lightweight and streamlined, the Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 are sleek daypacks with a range of versatility. However, for the fast and light crowd, you may want to look into the Arc’teryx Aerios 15.

The Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 are sophisticated enough for travel and functional enough for the trail. Any day hiker can appreciate the 25 liter capacity of the Arc’teryx Brize 25 that fits all the necessities. Those who are looking to trek 10 miles or more will be better outfitted with the Arc’teryx Brize 32. The 32-liter capacity could turn your day hike into an overnighter in a pinch.

Pack Size

How much gear do you typically bring on a day hike? The size of your pack should match what you intend to carry.

As the name suggests, the Arc’teryx Brize 25 is a 25-liter pack. This volume has enough space to store a couple of liters of water, some rain gear, an extra top layer, lunch, and some additional small gear. That’s good if you’re looking to hike for about half the day.

For full-day hikes, the Arc’teryx Brize 32 is the better choice. This daypack features a 32-liter capacity. That’s enough for everything the Arc’teryx Brize 25 can hold, plus more food, clothes, and 3 liters of water.

If you need more information on how to choose daypacks, this REI article may be a useful resource.

Pack Weight

Empty, the Arc’teryx Brize 25 weighs 32 ounces. For the minimalist crowd, this is more ideal.

Lighter pack weight allows you to hike faster, longer. So if you’re looking for a new personal-best or simply less weight, the Arc’teryx Brize 25 would be the better of the two.

The Arc’teryx Brize 32 is still rather lightweight at 42 ounces. Depending on how far you hike, you could get away with this pack weight.

However, there are ultralight backpacking packs on the market that weigh less and carry more. Unless you’re packing for two, I’d recommend sticking with the Arc’teryx Brize 25.

You may find the Arc’teryx daypack finder helpful in finding the right pack weight for your style of trekking.

Comfortability

The Arc’teryx Brize 25 (see image) has a smaller capacity that’s better for short to half-day hikes. 

There are several features that up the comfortability factor of a daypack. Two of those being shoulder straps and waist belts.

Both the Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 feature fairly comfortable shoulder straps. The waist belts are another story.

The thin waist strap of the Arc’teryx Brize 25 provides little in the way of comfort. And even less in the way of transferring weight.

The waist strap of the Arc’teryx Brize 32 is also minimal. However, the design does offer a tad more comfort.

I feel both options would be more comfortable if offered in different torso sizes to better tailor the harness to your height.

Versatility

What do you need your daypack to do? The Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 could easily take you from trail to town.

Both feature a clean, streamlined design with internal organizational and side pockets. So you can swap out headlamps for pocket notepads and water bladders for insulated water bottles.

The Arc’teryx Brize 25 is a solid option for an airplane carry-on. Whereas the Arc’teryx Brize 32 is better for packing clothes if you’re renting an Airbnb for the weekend.

However, the main differences in versatility will be most noticeable on the trail.

The Arc’teryx Brize 25 has a smaller capacity that’s better for short to half-day hikes. Plus, the 32-ounce weight is better for agility.

Meanwhile, the Arc’teryx Brize 32 offers more internal space, so you can stay out on the trail all day.

Value

Arc’teryx has a reputation for producing some of the highest quality gear around. And with premium gear comes a premium price.

You could certainly find less expensive options out there. Yet you will likely trade for it in durability and quality.

Both the Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 are built to last. Even when put through repetitive abuse trekking on the trail.

I do wish the Arc’teryx Brize 25 had a better waist strap, given the price. Yet, the capacity, weight, and versatility are good for day hikes or laptop sessions at the local grind.

The Arc’teryx Brize 32 costs a bit more but not enough to break the bank. What you get in return is a quality daypack offering all-day use.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Brize 25 and 32 are clean-designed daypacks big enough to hold all the hiking essentials. The one drawback is both daypacks could be more comfortable. 

Despite this one flaw, I would recommend either of these daypacks. For short hikes, the Arc’teryx Brize 25 is where it’s at. For longer hikes, I would opt for the Arc’teryx Brize 32. Short or long trekking, both offers town and travel versatility.