Rant mode on!
The best you could buy in the late 1960's. And good enough to get a few up some damn hard climbs even by today's standards.
OK I know we have to use crampons. In the old days (geeze i have to say that a lot) I owned one set of 'pons and did everything in them. Same 'pons for a slog on Rainier, 5.10 mixed or vertical ice. Same freak'in 'pons and I was happy about it!
Jim Elzinga photo on the 1st ascent of SlipstreamNow I own and use...wait I have to write it down first to actually figure out what I do own! Dartwins, Darts, Grivel Rambo IV, and G12s, BD stainless Sabertooths and Cyborgs and finally Camp aluminum 12 points. 7 pair!
It frankly pisses me off!
What I would be satisfied with is a crampon at the weight of the best aluminum 'pons that climbed as well as the newest BD Sabertooths. Sabertooths will easily do rotten WI6 in dbl boots if you are up to the task. Of course that magic of super light and real performance doesn't exist yet. Anyone that tells you the vertical front point crampons climb ice better than the horizontal crampons is just uneducated or naive enough to repeat some salesman's logic. Either way it is crap...excuse me.. false/bad info. Because vertical front points don't climb better and in most cases they climb worse. On pure water ice the horizontal front points excel in every condition.
Add some difficult rock and you might get me to sway a tiny bit on that opinion. But while a mono point can make rock climbing easier and a dual vertical point might have a tiny advantage at times...but then I have never been on anything out side an artificial environment like Hafner where horizontal front points weren't an advantage on pure ice in every way except weight.
Then there is the issue of a crampon losing downward angled spikes to make them lighter. What kind of nonsense is that? Climb in a pair of Dartwins and then a pair of Sabertooths on moderate ground with hard ice and see what I mean. Damn Dartwins (which I like btw) feel like roller skates in comparison to the Sabertooth.
Or how about spikes so long you can hardly walk in them? Do we really need crampons that are so condition specific, hard ice, soft ice, Neve?
Modified G12s on a pair of La Sportiva Trangos Extremes
Then we get into the binding. Only thing I own is clip on 'pons. Wire bail in front and a lever lock in back. Petzl seems to think the plastic bail biting your Achilles tendon is a good thing....knuckle heads! While BD makes their stuff so burly and hell for stout you could winch a truck up on the wires. A 2nd knucklehead award!
Getting any of the major manufacturers' clip on 'pons to actually fit your boots is another crap shoot all together. I have mixed Petzl front bails with BD and Grivel heel levers to get everything to fit and work to my own satisfaction. Crazy and expensive as all that seems! Hate to think anyone in the climbing hardware industry or boot manufacturing might actually promote a DIN standard for alpine boots and 'pons. No that would be asking way toooooooooo much!
Don't get me started on the anti-botts. Take a look at the newest Grivel Rambo IVs being imported to the USA if you want to see a disaster in the making. Hard plastic botts with a hard plastic bubble to slide around on...saw that happening for a week! Scared me bad and I wasn't even climbing on them. You'd be better off to just strip them while new and enjoy a exceptional design with no bott. Hey almost as good as not putting one on the crampon....Petzl's idea on how to design them...just don't bother.
My idea of a good boot 'pon combination? La Sportiva Baruntse and BD stainless Sabertooth...but at half the current weight!
'Pons Part Two
From another conversation...after this blog was written.
"Like many of us with an entire quiver of 'pons sitting in the gear room what we choose to climb on personally wasn't/isn't what is always recommended in print. Given a choice what I choose to climb on for crampons depends on the conditions and route choosen that day."
"I'm just interested in what you prefer for pure ice and why."
On ice you can easily go from hard blue steel type stuff to vertical slush in a single day of climbing. Road side crags aren't a big deal, longer routes can be. Climb longer routes fast or climb faster than the changing conditions and it may not make a difference. On a order of preferenece and reliability ( for good feet) the first crampon on pure ice to let you down in changing conditions are monopoints. They have the least amount of surface area to support you and will not easily support you if the ice gets bad enough. Right behind them but with twice the surface area will be dual vertical front points. Think about that for a minute. Your entire body weight goes on a mono, then you literally double the surface support on dual verts to even more support on dual horizontals. It will obviously make a difference.
The most surface area will always be horizonal front points and because of that, they will the most reliable in all conditions. The other issue I note is most but not all vertical front points require physical placement, just as a tool does, by a kick or two instead of that good swing with your tool. It also wastes energy. First kick needs to clean off the loose ice and the second or more to actually place them securely. The lack of surface area generally requires it.
Curved horizontal front points will sink into the ice under body weight, no kick required. And because of the additional surface area don't require much in the way of support by the condition of the ice in comparison to the other two styles. Energy saved. The majority of time that is true but not always. If I have to kick a cold fragile feature that might collapse I want a razor sharp, single vertical front point. But cold hard ice that is collapsing as I kick it that will eventually get to solid ice I'll want horizontals.
A fully featured horizontal crampon generally has at least 8 vertical crampon points. (Dartwin for example) While a G12 has 10 and a BD Sabertooth has 12. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise which will be more stable on moderate ice while using French technique. Same technique and places I get rests on hard technical ice. The Dartwin (which I climb in a lot) feels like a pair of roller skates compared to the other two imo with the BD a fair step up on the Grivel in the same conditions. Then why do I bother with the other 'pons? Simple. Overall weight mostly and even more important to me than performance at some point, the boot to 'pon fit.
Even with the big advantage of real rigids on pure ice, and it is a BIG advantage..I shy away from them now because of the same basic reason..weight.
For steep, technical climbs like these, all at about the same grade, I used crampons with horizontal front points, BD Sabertooth and Grivel G12s.
And to be fair all my partners for these three climbs choose to use some form of vertical front point or mono point. Black Diamond Sabertooth, Grivel Rambo and Petzl Darts were all represented.
So does it really matter? Only a couple of reasons for which I can justify a preference. First would be if the ice you are on starts to fall down around you when the sun comes out or you miss judge what the conditions were from a distance. These are all one or two pitch climbs close to the road. So I could choose what I wanted to climb on for crampons that day.
Or if you require a secure, easy rest or need to save energy on hard technical terrain. The added security on easy ground of a truly full featured crampon is comforting. All things I find helpful in my own climbing.
This is the 
I did not get a clear photo of the gear shifters, but they are plastic indexed thumb shifters (located on the handlebars); not sure of the manufacturer. Cane Creek headset. Some of the cables are internally routed, which is a nice touch.
Rear brake; internal cable routing. As you can see, the seat cluster is unusual; I am not even certain the term "seat cluster" applies here? The top tube sort of flows past the seat tube and diverges into the rear stays.
As the name of this bicycle suggests, its main purpose is to haul things. Therefore its most noticeable feature is the elaborate wood-topped rack that is built into the frame itself. The rack is rated for a 50kg (112lb) load.
Here is a better look at how the rack is integrated into the frame.
The idea is pretty neat and from a distance it looks nice. But those welding marks really don't do it for me - which should come as no surprise to those familiar with my tastes. I understand that this is a matter of personal choice though, and that some people like them.
Straigh unicrown fork; 700C wheels; fenders; caliper brakes. The tires are cream Specialized Nimbus 700C x 35mm. They felt great until we had to ride on a stretch of the road that was all cobblestones. That felt aweful - but I am not certain whether to blame the tires alone, or whether the aluminum frame also plays a role. I am curious what the experts think.
Front view. The handlebars are swept back, North Road style. There is a small bell, and an LED light is cleverly integrated into the handlebar setup.
Close-up of the headlight. A neat, utilitarian look that is in keeping with the rest of the bike's design, I think.
Globe brown rubber grips, which match the Specialized brown pleather saddle. I did not get a close-up of the saddle, but what surprised me about it is that it is pretty narrow for an upright bike and is more like a roadbike saddle.
Here is another shot of the rear rack, whichI think is the 
I rode the 
My stay in Vienna is turning out to be very bike-heavy, so to speak, but I am not complaining!
During the year I've been away my friend Wolfgang and his partners have opened up a cargo bike shop, Heavy Pedals, and it's stocked to the gills with the likes of Bakfiets, Christiania, Larry vs Harry, Monarch, Winther, Nihola, Yuba Mundo, XtraCycles and, of course, the inhouse-designed Truck. I can't possibly try them all in the course of this trip, but I was very keen to at least finally try the classic Dutch bakfiets.
And here it is - so, so beautiful with its elegant lines and shiny wooden box. While I can appreciate modern designs, I remain a sucker for the classic stuff. 
The Bakfiets.nl 2-wheel cargo bikes come in two sizes, and the one I tried is the short version - which, mind you, is still large enough to transport two children. I cannot find the exact weight rating, but it is over 100kg (220lb).
The box includes a folding bench with two sets of seatbelts and optional cushions. This can be removed if you plan to transport cargo and not children.
The frame is steel and the complete bike is rather heavy. There is a very sturdy and wide fold-down kickstand that clicks into place when both down and up.
The rear wheel is 26" and the front is 20". It comes equipped with a full chaincase, dress guards, fenders and lighting.
An optional rain cover is fairly easy to attach and remove. A non-human cargo version is also available.
Of all the cargo bikes on the market, my readers are probably most familiar with the classic Dutch bakfiets - meaning, literally, "box bike" - which has been imported into the US for several years now, and has been reviewed by others. The most typical bakfiets is the two wheeler with a wide wooden box in the front, like the one pictured here. It is an old design and several manufacturers make modern-day versions - including the Bakfiets.nl reviewed here, Workcycles and Babboe. One thing I would like to know is whether these manufacturers order the frames from the same source or make their own, so any insider information is welcome. As others have already written about these bikes at length, I will not go into elaborate detail about their construction and history here, and instead will focus on my impression of the ride quality.
Put simply, I thoroughly enjoyed it. But you are probably looking for something more technical. Okay: Unlike the longtail I tried earlier, the handling of the bakfiets ispeculiar. But the peculiarity is of the ridable variety. As in, you are riding it just fine and thinking "Gee, this feels different" - rather than toppling over because of the difference, as several of us did with the Larry vs Harry Bullitt. If you've ever tried a Brompton, that's what the bakfiets handling reminded me of the most. The front end is a bit wobbly (with the box empty), but entirely controllable. As Wolfgang put it, it handles like a more extreme version of a classic Dutch bike. Yes.
I am not sure why, but of all the cargo bikes I've tried so far, the bakfiets felt especially accessible. You can see in the pictures that I am cycling right on the road. It was actually difficult to photograph me, because cars kept passing from both directions and also from around the corner, ruining all the shots. But I felt pretty comfortable. There was no "learning curve" and by the end of my test ride I was ready to appropriate the bike for my own. This was very different from my experience with Danish longjohns.
Speaking of Danish, I also briefly tried the Christiania 2-wheeler. Several months ago, I test rode the three-wheel version, but this is an entirely different kettle of fish. Despite being Danish, this cargo bike resembles a bakfiets rather than a longjohn. In size it is equivalent to the longer version of the bakfiets - large enough to transport 3 children.
The bicycle is handsome and classic. I am not positive, but the box appears to be part plywood and part metal. Oddly, I can find almost no official information on this bike, even from the Christiania website, despite it technically having been out since . If you can offer additional information, please do.
Despite being larger, the Christianiais lighter than the bakfiets, because the frame is aluminum (as with the 3-wheel version). Both this bike and the bakfiets have welded construction and unicrown forks - as do all cargo bikes I've seen so far - which does not look too bad given their overall utilitarian look. With both bikes, I would generally like to learn more about where and how they are made, but am finding that difficult.
This bike is equipped very similarly to the bakfiets, with an upright sitting position, rear rack, dynamo lighting and several gearing options.Differences in components include the sweep of the handlebars, the kickstand design, the chainguard in leu of full chaincase, and lack of dressguards.
As far as geometry goes, theChristiania has a somewhat steeper seat tube than the bakfiets. The length of the seat tube is shorter, which means that a smaller person can ride this bike.
The Christianiahas a noticeably lower bottom bracket than the bakfiets. And thesweep of the step-through section of the frame is alsodifferent.
For those who plan to transport children, a very cute and useful feature is the little door in the box with a latch, which the bakfiets lacks. This allows children to walk into the box instead of having to step over the side. A bench with seatbelts is included, just like in the 3-wheel version of the Christiania.
There are no decent photos of me riding the Christiania, but I did ride it in the same way as the bakfiets. The handling was very similar, though with the Christiania there was a bit more front-end fishtailing. I assumed that this was due to the front being longer than on the short bakfiets model, but according to Wolfgang this difference exists even compared to the long bakfiets. Nonetheless the bike was entirely rideable and the fishtailing was nothing like what I had experienced on the Bullitt earlier. As with the bakfiets, I could ride the Christianiaon the first try.
As for how the 2-wheel version compared to the 3-wheeler, they are just entirely different creatures. The 2-wheeler is a bike and handles like a bike, whereas the trike requires you to balance differently and to slow down on corners instead of leaning. As I wrote in my ride report of the trike, I can see myself using it. But overall I prefer the two-wheeler.
Of the two bikes, I think the short bakfiets is the better choice for me - mainly because the size felt just right, and the handling felt more effortless. Also, the Christiania, with its little door, seems more oriented toward transporting children, which is not what I would need a cargo bike for. The bakfiets is heavier, but for me that would not matter much in a cargo bike. Of course, your priorities might be different on all accounts.
As with my other cargo bike test rides, these were obviously fairly short and should be viewed as "first impressions" rather than in-depth reviews. But I think first impressions matter here, particularly for those trying to determine how ridable various cargo bikes are on the first try for someone who is not already accustomed to them. For me, the Bakfiets.nl bakfiets and the Christiania 2-wheeler were quite ridable, despite the unusual handling. Many thanks to Heavy Pedals for the test rides!