Most obvious comparison for similar performanceis the PetzlDart at 840g per pair. The BD Stinger is 910g per pair on my scale.
For the 70g (2.5 oz) you get a easy replaceable and inexpensive front point, (likely the best improvement over the Dart)a pair of mini secondary front points (that are suppose to grow in the production version), full antibots front and back, mid sole traction of sorts for hard iceand stainless. The foot print isvery closein size (virtually the same) on the Dart and Stinger. And I have accused the Dart and Dartwin as being "roller skates" on moderate ice. I don't like either there and would expect the Stinger to be just as dismal on that kind of terrain.The Stinger seems to "cut" a little better from my own use. The secondary points will allow me to use them on more ice routes than limiting them tojust mixed where I would use the Darts now. None of theseare a "beginner crampons" or something I'd suggest as your only crampon.. It is the right direction, but still ageneration or two to go before I'll be totally happy:)
Before you read any further this pair of pre-productionBD Stingers arethe1st piece of gear to be reviewed here on Cold Thistle that I have been loaned.So YMMV, but by all means, "Caveat emptor".
I don't write about kit that I don't like so obviously I like these new Black Diamond crampons. And againno matter who's blog...if theyare given the sheet...bewareof the review...even mine. Caveat emptor!
It should be obvious if you read the blog that I am none to happy with the state of modern boots and crampons. Twight says and rightfully so, "you can't get around in the mountains without crampons".
And I say in the last 30 yearsthe boots and crampons haven't improved much. That might be a little over stated as both crampons and boots have improved a lot...but I bitch andpush for even better gear where it is so easy to improve. Crampons are easy to improve.
I'd bet it is no surprise that in my spare time I write what I hope are constructive comments to folks at Petzl, BD or La Sportiva for example hoping that small things might get changed. I suspect the company receiving them round files the commentsandjust might refer to them as "nasty grams". Even though I am always polite.
I figure why not...I have nothing to loose from a suggestion.
I am an equal opportunity crampon guy. I like them all. Darts, Dartwins, G12s, M10s, Sabertooth or Cyborg, they all climb well. Just thatfewof them climb pure ice as good asthe last version of the Chouinard/Salewa or SMC rigid. Kind of an old and sad secret really.
Only thing still resembling a Footfang is the current Grivel Rambo.
1978 Haderer single leather boots, Chouinard Zero,a Terrordactyl an SMC rigids...Canadian Rockies ice.
1980 North Buttress of Mt Hunter, Kolfach Ultras and SMC rigids again.
And more recent Dartwins, on Curtain Call, Feb
Grivel G12s on a WI5+
BD Serac on WI4, in the Ghost, Nov
Just an idea of how impressed I am with any one crampon or brand of crampons. They all seem to work.
But all of them could also be better.
Thisis a want list I recently sent to BD after spending a few days climbing on Cyborgs again. And I think the BD Cyborgs is a very good crampon although on the heavy side of what is available.
"I figure somewhere there @ BD you have a plan to update the Cyborg. My thoughts on the Cyborg if so. I'd tighten up the connecting bar interface as you have the Sabertooth and the Serac. I'd go even tighter and make it a .0005" +/- over. Hard to move and adjust but added rigidity to the crampons worth while I think and you still have the option of a spring bar if they aren't using rigid boots..easy to cover in the brochures. Since you are already doing a second connecting bar....you'll have some options. But I wouldn't go to a thinner stock on your new bail. I've been rethinking that. Problem with the thin Petzl bail is reliability and work hardening in the stainless as we suspect. I would not go to a thinner bail but a much "thinner width" bail on a thinner width crampon forefoot. A more narrow bail would solve many of the actual fit problems. I know you haven't missed what Grivel has done on the G20 and G22 bails and forefoot. It won't take much in width. Then you can use the weight savings there to add a bit of length to the forfoot piece. As much as you think you can get away with and still fit tiny boots. But the size of the forefoot *foot print* seems way too smallcurrently. I think it needs to be longer. But that is going to take a new computer drawing of the forefoot. It won't take much to make a big difference. The older wider bails will still fit the dbl boots like the Spantik and over boots as required. The one thing that really shows on the Cyborg trying to fit the newer boots (classic example is the Spantik's rocker and I'd bet the Nepals as well) is the lack of rocker on the Cyborg. You could easily dbl the amount of rocker in the Serac and Sabertooth which is good and really helps the over all fit and be fine on most any boot I suspect. And they would fit so much better over all on others. I think you would be better off on a technical crampon to reduce the size of the first two verticals and move the second pair back a bit more like a Sabertooth front than what you are running now on the Cyborg. Equal length points are easier to mix climb in. And you aren't going to loose anything on technical ice with your forged front points. Just mate the first pair of points up and have them hit a the surface when sitting on a flat. I am not explaining this well. Easy to see if you set a Serac, Saber and Cyborg front piece on a flat. Take a Serac, add the 3rd set of full size teeth from the saber (1st vertical pair supporting the front) narrow up the forefoot a bit and add Cyborg fronts. Then build a narrow forefoot bail of the same material you are using now. Then just do a aggressive lightening job with aggressive profiling on the teeth sides. Easy enough when you cut them out of the plate. I'd bet from looking at it you could do all that and drop some significant weight on the Cyborg."
OK! What am I asking for...short version? Bails that fit the new boots, a bigger foot print on the bottom of your boot, and more rocker in the forefoot. A more rigid inner face between front and rear crampon parts..more rigid. Smaller main points on the crampon, easier to climb mixed and easier to walk in. What I wasn't interested in was a technical crampon that was mono point specific.
Hopefull ythe back groundwill all make more sense in a minute. Dare to read on.
The new Black Diamond Stinger
The one thing that I really miss on the newest crampons is a "cutting edge". By that I mean a set of side points (front to back) that easily allow you to kick a step on hard ice to splay your feet out and get off your calves. In the old days with a straight shafted toolyou could do it with one or two swings, pick or adze. Even the original carbon fiber Cobra could handle that job adroitly. Current Cobra will do it if you don't stick the pick...but an adze is pretty useless in a reversed grip. Quark is OK. Nomic?Fusion ? Not so much. Ergo...ha, ha, hhhaaaaa! And I like my Ergos :)
Here is what I mean by a good "cutting edge". The last generationChouinard/Salewa clip on crampons. You can do some serious step cutting with the point design on these guys. Nothing I would have thought toask for but gotta say I am more than pleased to see this change in forefoot design on the new Stingers.
New Stinger goes a little retro on the third set of down points and you get a slightly bigger foot print from what theCyborg has done previous as the comparison shows. Count the lugs on the sole and look where the yellow mid sole meets up with the down points as a reference.
Stinger and Cyborg side by side. The Stinger mono point is slightly off set of center to the inside of the foot intentionally closer to the big toe. The Stinger is amono specific crampon, andno question the designis specifically intended for hard, modernmixed climbing. BD offers other less technical crampons for pure ice that climb very well. As a "more general" crampon, if you can put a any mono specific cramponin that catagory, these have some advantages over the usual suspects imo.
Cyborg forefoot shown below. Stinger is giving almost a full lug more of coverage on my 45.5 size Spantiks shownhere. A good thing I think. Thenewdesign (really not new at all) might be a little sketchy on the down hill though with the loss of 2 "braking" points on the forefoot. I am more worried about getting up than getting down so I like the change. Never seemed to have a problem before on the older gear and no bots at that!
It gets better. As the heel piece is just a tiny bit longer as well. Again more over all foot print. At this point I am thinking BD is staffed by brilliant engineers and climbers...as we were thinking along the exact same lines. Just that they were 2 years ahead of me and my "round file" letter.Heels. Check out the heel lever placement. The longer set is the Stinger.
Stinger
Cyborg..again check the position of the boot sole lugs. Stinger has thelonger foot print.
One of the things that has really buggedme on two piece crampon design. If you are going to fook up a perfectly good crampon design by cutting it in half and making it semi rigid...which generally just means flexible, why not at least add some working bits to the empty space between your 2 parts? If you have ever stepped up on a piece of cauliflower ice to find nothing under your foot is biting, you'll know why this one can really irk a climber.Grivel is doing something similar on the G20 and G 22......but have to say I think the BD versionis a better solution for that issue.
This is the current Cyborg, kinda half assed into the idea
Grivel G22 a totally different way to address the same problemof traction mid foot.
This is the new Stinger which is the best solution I have seen to date on a two piece 'pon..
And a classic example why the new cuts under neath the forefootis a good thing imo. It makes a difference
So what do I think over all? The Stinger is going to ship from the factory with a flex connecting bar. I have tried both the flex and the rigid bar. No surprise what I think works better. I like the rigid bars but I also like options. The connecting bar slot is cut very tight...almost but not quite a rigid crampon with the solid bar in place. Will they be reliable?...who knows at this point but I suspect they will. BD typically over builds everything for durability. Fit? Remember these a pre-production crampons..proto types really. A third or forth round of new bails are in the works. I've seen that bail and fit ittomy Ultras. I believe they will be just as good of fit as I have now, with Petzl bails clicked in. With my Petzl bails in the crampons these are the first pair of crampons to fit my Scarpa Ultras (which a super thin bitch to fit) and my La Sportiva Spantiks (which are about as big as I will get in boot soles). The added rocker on the forefoot of the crampon makes a huge difference on fit. Any crampon that actually fits my boots I am THRILLED spitless to climb in, free or not!
Weight? BD has dropped6.5 oz per pair compared to the Cyborg with the lighter weight Stinger. Stinger is 900g or 32oz even per pair with the bot and heel strap. Good bit of that loss is just in loosing theone front point though. But we have also gained a bigger foot print and a better ability to cut a stepwith a bigger "cutting edge" and better placed down points to accomplish it.
Not a big mono fan myself, but the two secondary front points are being enlarged on the production model which gives me hope. More coining is being added to make the forefooteven more rigid. The down points may be shortened a tiny bit more to make them even more rigid.No question I like having the chance to replace a worn set of front points withforged replacement parts that are cheap to replace. Over all I like the Stinger crampona lot. Things I really like...more rocker in the crampon, more rigid crampon by design and a much, much better fit on all my boots. Down side is they are monos (which may be OK if the production version's secondary front points are long enough to give some real additionalsupport) This is a pair of crampons I will likelybuynext fall when they become available in final form.
Gotta say, "thank you" to Black Diamond for allowing me to introduce the Stinger to the world on Cold Thistle.
WI5, SLC, Jan
It always interests me to know how a person arrives at their preference for a specific bicycle, especially people of different skill levels. Unlike me, the Co-Habitant is naturally athletic, handles a roadbike like it's nobody's business, and loves speed. And yet, he chose a sedate, stately roadster as his daily commuter - complete with such distinctly non-sporty features as full chaincase and dressguard.
To be honest, when we first bought the Pashleys I assumed that he was getting the Roadster mainly for my benefit - so that we'd have matching bikes. When we later got roadbikes, I expected him to gradually transition to riding his roadbike to work, and to only ride the Pashley when out with me. But nothing of the sort happened. He loves his Roadster and has been commuting on it faithfully for over a year now, snow days included. When I ask him why he prefers such an enormous and heavy bicycle to his faster and more agile roadbike, his answer is that the Pashley is "the most comfortable bike [he has] ever ridden." A straightforward enough reply that explains how two cyclists with different skill levels can ultimately choose similar bicycles for their practical, everyday needs.
The terms "commuter bike" and "practical bike" can mean completely different things to different cyclists. There is a school of thought out there positing that relaxed and upright bicycles are mainly for those who are inexperienced, afraid of car traffic, or lack physical stamina - and that as a rider grows more confident, they will naturally come to prefer a faster and sportier bike for commuting. But clearly that is not the case. A runner can still prefer walking as a means of getting around in their everyday life, and a bicycle racer can prefer commuting on a beach cruiser in flip-flops. It's really all about individual perspectives.
Back in the city now from our stay on the shore, I am looking back in bemusement at what had been intended as a bicycling-heavy trip, but turned out to be anything but. 
It did rain a great deal. But even when the weather was good, we hardly did any substantial cycling. In fact, we probably cycled less during this trip than at any other point since winter ended. Like everyone else who rides a bicycle, I go through periods when my enthusiasm for it waxes and wanes. But this was probably the strongest and most unexpected case of the latter I have experienced since I started this blog. Why?..
On a superficial level it was really very simple: I lost interest in cycling when I discovered that the water was warm enough to swim. You see, I love swimming in the ocean but can't tolerate hot climates, so my options are severely limited and I've been swim-starved for years. In Northern New England the water is too icy, but in Southern New England(let alone popular vacation spots such as Florida) the weatheris already too hot and humid for me. It is as if there is an imaginary line somewhere along the MA/RI border where the climate and the water temperature undergo a dramatic change and what I really need is a place that is north of that imaginary line as far as climate goes, but south of it in terms of water temperature. And unexpectedly, I found such a place in Rockport, MA. Despite it being August, it was never above the low 80s, and dipped as low as the 60s on cooler days. Yet, the water remained swimmable the entire time and I found myself perfectly content to spend my waking hours at the beach: swim, read, eat, repeat. I cannot remember the last time I've been able to do anything like this!
I also must admit that we did not enjoy cycling here as much as we hoped during the few times we did it. Going north to Ipswich and beyond, water views were limited, car traffic was pretty heavy and there was not a whole lot of shade.Weknow from experience that once you get up the coast to New Hampshire and Maine it gets better, but we never made it that far.Truthfully, cycling "at home" - along the tree-lined, quiet country roads Northwest of Boston - is, on the whole, considerably more enjoyable.
So at some point we decided to just let it go and accept that there wasn't going to be a whole lot of cycling during this trip.
We used the bikes for transportation when necessary, but gave up even trying to go on "real" rides after the first week.
By the time we loaded up the bikes again to head back, I felt as if I'd gotten completely unaccustomed to it and the weight of our luggage was challenging. There are many short, but steep hills en route from the place where we stayed to the train station, and the bike fishtailed wildly every time I attempted to feather the brakes on a downhill. Given the huge amount of Saturday tourist traffic and the narrowness of the road, this made me so nervous that I was shaking and covered in sweat by the time we got on the train. Ironically, the final leg of the trip home - from the train station in the center of Boston to our house on the outskirts - was less stressful, but by the time we got home I was completely drained and did not want to look at another 100 lb luggage-laden bike again for a long, long time.
24 hours later, I still can't shake that feeling - a feeling that somehow morphed from that of being tired of just the trip home, to being tired of cycling in general. Maybe the hot, dusty, overloaded final ride was just a particularly cruel contrast to the cool, light feeling of being on the beach - swimming so far out from shore as to be surrounded by complete silence, submerged in the blissfully perfect temperature of Rockport's water. Also, maybe having taken a step back from cycling has made me realise that I've been neglecting other activities that I used to love - still love, in fact, but just don't get a chance to do. Maybe I ought to try harder to find time for them. Take swimming for instance: After all, Rockport is just a commuter rail's ride away and I can take one of my upright transportation bikes on the train, and... Ah, there. I guess I am still thinking of everything in terms of bikes, and there is really no danger of Lovely Bicycleabruptly ending as I run off to spend all of my time on the beach. Everyone needs an interlude, but cycling is such an inherent part of me now that I can hardly imagine life without it, at least in some form.
my birdhouse gourds have pretty white blossoms against huge leaves that are very soft to the touch. Sometimes they vines climb up into a tree and the gourd looks like it is part of the tree.
One of the streams/waterfalls that drop hundreds of feet down the mountain side along the Glacier Highway.
The river of ice fills the valley below and continues on up and around the mountain peak on the left. Those black streaks are dirt and rocks that the glacier has picked up as it moves imperceptibly over the mountains.
It would not be an easy task, if even possible, to hike over this. 
Crevasses and holes would make it a rather treacherous journey. These aren't just ripples in the surface, they are deep. Perhaps a hundred feet or more.
Salmon Glacier from another turnout two miles north. The clouds and fog obscured the little bit of sun that occasionally came through.
The Salmon Glacier is the fifth largest glacier in Canada and is a remnant of the last glaciation period which occurred 14,000 years ago. What I saw and what is shown here are but a very small portion of the glacier which extends way back beyond the horizon.
The sun did make an appearance now and then and the rain finally stopped - briefly. Down in the valley and a few miles to the south are the towns of Hyder, Alaska and Stewart, British Columbia.
