Turnfarmer
Member
Your info, as always, is appreciated greatly!!!!
Hawx Ultra XTD
- Thread starter onenerdykid
- Start date
My first post on NS - all due to this thread. Matt (and others)thanks for the patience and info to keep answering the slew of questions here. Very helpful.
My conundrum - 50yo skier, Jackson is my home Mtn. Ski everything but (occasional/Corbet’s) cliff huck. Have always been in alpine boots, 130 flex. Old school skier with weight upfront against shin. 185lbs, 6 ft. I’ve been looking at crossover boots to have that backcountry option. My questions:
1) Can crossovers (Hawx EXT in particular) deliver alpine boot performance in bounds? I’m hearing opposing views from different shops in town. I’m considering the 130 but same question applies to 120 based on earlier comment of thicker tongue and more shin support.
2) I like the Cochise but the EXT fit better. However, the liner collapses when I put my foot in it. It’s almost like a sock that I have to pull up. Aside from that one fault, fit and weight are great. Should the liner be a concern? I guess I could buy an intuition but at this price point, should I have to?
3) Is the boot sole easily replaced if it wears out? Who would do that?
Open to all thoughts - thanks in advance.
My conundrum - 50yo skier, Jackson is my home Mtn. Ski everything but (occasional/Corbet’s) cliff huck. Have always been in alpine boots, 130 flex. Old school skier with weight upfront against shin. 185lbs, 6 ft. I’ve been looking at crossover boots to have that backcountry option. My questions:
1) Can crossovers (Hawx EXT in particular) deliver alpine boot performance in bounds? I’m hearing opposing views from different shops in town. I’m considering the 130 but same question applies to 120 based on earlier comment of thicker tongue and more shin support.
2) I like the Cochise but the EXT fit better. However, the liner collapses when I put my foot in it. It’s almost like a sock that I have to pull up. Aside from that one fault, fit and weight are great. Should the liner be a concern? I guess I could buy an intuition but at this price point, should I have to?
3) Is the boot sole easily replaced if it wears out? Who would do that?
Open to all thoughts - thanks in advance.
profa_212
Active member
13876986:SkiMaxx said:
If you are focusing on touring.....keep the stock liner it has been great for that in my experience. If you want alpine performance I would get am intuition. Either way....add boosters and it will be a powerful boot.
If you want the best of both worlds you could do a booster with the stock for touring, then an intuition pro tongue or wrap for alpine. That's what I would do if I was using it as a boot quiver killer.
I have the 130 btw
onenerdykid
Active member
13876986:SkiMaxx said:
Hey SkiMaxx, thanks for questions!
For me personally, the XTD 130 is now the only boot I ski. I still keep a pair of normal Hawx Ultra 130s around for the odd day I grab a Redster ski (because of the binding/boot combo), but 99.99% of my skiing is in the XTD 130 and I don't miss anything personally. For reference, I'm 5'10", 175 lbs, ex-bad racer, and ski the 188cm Vantage 100 as my daily driver.
The liner of the 130 is designed to ski well and tour well. If you're doing less touring and more resort, you can always get a more alpine-style liner and then you have liners for each occasion. Might be something to look into. Or the 120- it uses the same exact shell as the 130 but a PU cuff that is slightly softer (120) with a more alpine/resort oriented liner that will ski better, but not tour nearly as well.
The sole of the boot is a glued on sole, like most every touring boot. Soles are available as spare parts and you'll need to have them resoled by a shop that proficient in resoling boots (any shop that does this for mountaineering or tele can do this).
Thanks for the feedback -much appreciated. Couple of initial reactions. For the 120 boot, and again maybe i'm in the old school frame of mind, but doesn't a stiffer boot give me better alpine performance? i won't lose responsiveness "dropping down" to the the 120's softer cuff? I realise we're probably splitting hairs hair to some degree. I guess the liner of the 120 makes up some of the difference. i never considered Atomic boots until seeing the XTD and tried on the Ultras for comparison. Those felt really good out of the box too. i'm inclined if I go crossover to agree with trying the 130 and seeing how it goes.
The other factor I am considering is appropriate bindings. The Cochise 130 is my XTD alternative. Flat alpine sole is a plus. I am mostly inbounds at this point. The touring is for that occasional option. i also have little kids learning to ski so a good deal of trekking through the parking lot hauling sets of skis and boots. i see a lot of flexibility with the crossover boot yet still want to be able to ski hard when I can. I can use my current ski binding setup (I am told). With the XTD, I have to go to WTR or Dynafit and the binding choices are fewer. I realise Matt you are limited as Atomic rep for recommending bindings. For others out there, suggestions would be welcome. Btw - once again - it's a really rare opportunity to have someone in your position to be able to comment on your company's product. Cheers to you and Atomic!
The other factor I am considering is appropriate bindings. The Cochise 130 is my XTD alternative. Flat alpine sole is a plus. I am mostly inbounds at this point. The touring is for that occasional option. i also have little kids learning to ski so a good deal of trekking through the parking lot hauling sets of skis and boots. i see a lot of flexibility with the crossover boot yet still want to be able to ski hard when I can. I can use my current ski binding setup (I am told). With the XTD, I have to go to WTR or Dynafit and the binding choices are fewer. I realise Matt you are limited as Atomic rep for recommending bindings. For others out there, suggestions would be welcome. Btw - once again - it's a really rare opportunity to have someone in your position to be able to comment on your company's product. Cheers to you and Atomic!
onenerdykid
Active member
13877411:SkiMaxx said:
Re: bindings- actually you have more options with a WTR sole than you do with a normal, full rubber sole. Imagine any full rubber soled boot and the binding options it would have, plus STH2 13 & 16.
All WTR is is the Touring Norm ISO 9523 with hard AFDs in the toe and heel. Same profile as the Touring Norm otherwise.
I have 17mm behind one foot and 25mm behind the other (tried on the boots in the next size down and there is no way I could have used them for touring).
To get good control when I'm skiing I need to have the lower two buckles on their tightest setting, this deforms the shell and makes the shell dig into my foot under the buckle.
I think different liners might help, what do you recommend? Intuition? Zipfit? Foam liners for lift served and a different liner for touring?
Or is there another solution?
To get good control when I'm skiing I need to have the lower two buckles on their tightest setting, this deforms the shell and makes the shell dig into my foot under the buckle.
I think different liners might help, what do you recommend? Intuition? Zipfit? Foam liners for lift served and a different liner for touring?
Or is there another solution?
onenerdykid
Active member
13878457:Oceanic1 said:
So basically your feet are almost a full size different left to right?
That's always going to put you in a difficult spot... As you noted, dropping down a shell size to make your smaller foot more secure ends up crushing your larger foot. Typically, I prefer to have people size to the bigger foot (especially for touring) and then try to take up space around the smaller foot.
Intuition liners or foam injection liners might be good options to explore. You might even need to experiment different options left vs. right feet in order to get things feeling balanced for your different sized feet.
13865356:onenerdykid said:
Quick update. I decided to go with the 25.5. Had them molded at the retailer, and the arch pain was immediately solved. The memory fit process also did a surprisingly good job at adapting to my bow-leggednedd. I did some touring and the boot feels amazing. However, as expected the boots are a bit too tight around the big toes. My retailer did not have a lot of padding, so I am considering going back for a second mold with more padding, especially around the big toes. A few questions:
1) How many times can I remold it without problems?
2) If remolded a second time, will the shell "remember the initial shape" and go back to it? That is, do I need to pad my arch again?
3) On a different note, I am a bit confused around binding compatibility. I did some research and found a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ7Y5EzCiEg&feature=youtu.be). A phd candidate in biomechanics recommend a frame binding without a sliding plate. What kind of testing have been done with the Hawx XTD and frame bindings? What are your recommendations? (I am currently skiing the Kingpin, but I am considering a frame binding for my new skis).
onenerdykid
Active member
13879933:skiernor_ said:
If you reheat the shell, you will have to do the entire fitting process all over again.
You're better off just having the toe box heated and punched out using an hydraulic press (standard boot-fitter tool anyway). Your normal standing pressure isn't really enough to lengthen out the boot anyway, so just go this route. Plus it won't affect the rest of the fit that you like.
For bindings, any MNC style frame binding would work- we are 100% TÜV certified within the general Touring Norm ISO 9523 and the WTR subset of the norm. Tracker/Guardian would ski the most alpine-like and have the lowest stand height, but it will probably be the heaviest of the bunch. FYI- pretty sure all frame bindings will have the sliding AFD though, but from what I have seen this is generally a good thing.
So I finally got on snow to test my new 130s and they are awesome. Albeit since my low arch is creating a non connected feel right in the connection between foot and leg I ordered a new 120 liner to accomodate that. I ordered it from the Norwegian importer in november and I/we still havent heard from austria regarding the promised 120 liner (who was supposed to be deliverd in december).
Nerdy, do you know if there is some monkeybusiness going on causing my liners to delay so much? I would rather not have to spend me week in St. Anton without them
Btw, awesome podcast on Blister, would look forward to the next episode with some more nerdy stuff about flex etc.
Nerdy, do you know if there is some monkeybusiness going on causing my liners to delay so much? I would rather not have to spend me week in St. Anton without them
Btw, awesome podcast on Blister, would look forward to the next episode with some more nerdy stuff about flex etc.
onenerdykid
Active member
13880050:n3vrast said:So I finally got on snow to test my new 130s and they are awesome. Albeit since my low arch is creating a non connected feel right in the connection between foot and leg I ordered a new 120 liner to accomodate that. I ordered it from the Norwegian importer in november and I/we still havent heard from austria regarding the promised 120 liner (who was supposed to be deliverd in december).
Nerdy, do you know if there is some monkeybusiness going on causing my liners to delay so much? I would rather not have to spend me week in St. Anton without them
Btw, awesome podcast on Blister, would look forward to the next episode with some more nerdy stuff about flex etc.
Sorry for the delay!
I'll look into the liners and let you know early next week what the deal is.
hemlockjibber8
Active member
13880050:n3vrast said:So I finally got on snow to test my new 130s and they are awesome. Albeit since my low arch is creating a non connected feel right in the connection between foot and leg I ordered a new 120 liner to accomodate that. I ordered it from the Norwegian importer in november and I/we still havent heard from austria regarding the promised 120 liner (who was supposed to be deliverd in december).
Nerdy, do you know if there is some monkeybusiness going on causing my liners to delay so much? I would rather not have to spend me week in St. Anton without them
Btw, awesome podcast on Blister, would look forward to the next episode with some more nerdy stuff about flex etc.
If you don't get some thicker liners in time try this trick: cut a piece of foam in the shape of a fat peanut and put it inside your sock right at the face of the ankle, ie: where your leg transitions to your foot. This will push your heel back and hold your firmly. It works way better than padding the tongue of your liner as you don't end up ripping it off when you pull your tongue around or remove your liner, and it will pack out to be seamless. Any foam will do, 1/4" thick for really low volume or less to match what is needed. Intuition foam is handy but also packs out too much eventually.
BrawnTrends
Active member
If my everyday boot is the Hawx Ultra 110, should I go for the XTD 100 or 120?
Probably gonna get a pair of the Shift to go with it next winter.
Probably gonna get a pair of the Shift to go with it next winter.
onenerdykid
Active member
13882083:BrawnTrends said:If my everyday boot is the Hawx Ultra 110, should I go for the XTD 100 or 120?
Probably gonna get a pair of the Shift to go with it next winter.
I'd go 120. It will be a little stiffer, but definitely manageable.
I'll be putting Shift bindings on more than just touring skis next year. Given that they are over 200g lighter per side than a Warden 13 (but with the same power transfer and more elastic travel), they'll make a killer "all-mountain" binding for just about any flat ski.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882130:onenerdykid said:
I'd love to put the shift on a bunch of different skis (especially if I have the Ultra XTD), but at 450 euros a pop that might not happen right away...
Is the flex of the XTD 120 the exact same than the regular 120s? Does the grilamid shell make a difference compared to the PU one?
onenerdykid
Active member
13882182:BrawnTrends said:
Grilamid generally feels a bit more springy/lively than PU. So comparing the XTD 120 to the normal 120, they will have a very similar stiffness, but due to the XTD 120 using a Grilamid shell it will feel slightly more springy/lively than a normal 120 (both use the same material in the cuff). These differences are pretty subtle tho, and you would most likely need to have one on one foot and the other on the other foot to feel a difference.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882381:onenerdykid said:
The 120 might be a bit too stiff for me then. Maybe a stupid question, but why not make a 110 XTD?
onenerdykid
Active member
13882388:BrawnTrends said:
Well, again, the stiffness is about the same, it just has a slightly different feel.
Currently, the market for XTD-style boots is smaller than the market for "normal" boots, so we have less models. I didn't want to open the range with a 110 because then lighter/smaller skiers would struggle a bit more.
Get the 120, do more squats and leg presses, and you'll be good to go
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882389:onenerdykid said:Get the 120, do more squats and leg presses, and you'll be good to go
I went to a shop and tried the 120. Flex was pretty good but it was very warm in there (to the point where I had to take my jacket off), and even if I know the Ultra's flex doesn't differ as much as other boots, I'm sure the difference on snow will be noticeable. Fit around my foot felt just as good as my 110s. Boot is really light and the ROM is great.
But the problem was the upper cuff's fit. For some reason it felt pretty loose around my leg. Even with the buckles cranked. Much looser than my 110s.
Is the liner on the 100 XTD more substantial in the upper cuff?
onenerdykid
Active member
13882459:BrawnTrends said:
Cuff geometry is 1:1 normal Ultra, and the liner is based on the normal Ultra (with the addition of flex zone). Weird that you felt that big of a difference...?
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882489:onenerdykid said:
Well I'm an idiot, I forgot I moved the rails on the two upper buckles on my 110... That's why it felt loose on the 120, it's just that I couldn't tighten it as much...
That being said, 120 might be too much for me once it's all cranked like it should. Is the 100 really not worth looking at? I'm just getting started in touring so I'm not really bothered by some extra couple hundred grams, and a 100 flex sounds kinda nice.
onenerdykid
Active member
13882540:BrawnTrends said:
13882718:LeeLau said:
I would share Lee's opinion here.
@Brawn, how much do you weigh? And what boot were you in prior to the Ultra 110?
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882874:onenerdykid said:
I'm at around 155lbs (70kg) and prior to the Ultra 110 I had full tilts and some Salomon X-something. Before that I was snowboarding.
I don't have a racing background, so the 110 is the stiffest ski boot I've ever been in.
Also I won't go on long tour for steep chutes. It's just sidecountry touring for pow, some piste touring after the resorts close (mid to late april around here...), maybe some mellow tours with friends
hm, why are you so hesitant to get on the 120s? As your skills improve having more support can only be a good thing imo, and 120s are not so stiff that they will massively impair your learning curve - perhaps quite the opposite. I also find that experimenting with the tension can be a way of modulating how stiff a boot feels - though that might amount to sacrilege when talking to experience riders such as Lee and Matt.
That being said, i was a bit surprised that you found the 130s to be too stiff Lee - so any additional thoughts on the 130s that you did not mention in the review would be interesting. I really quite like the 130s, though i use em with protour liners.
Also, nice podcast with Blister Matt. Having read some of Jonathan's boot reviews i kinda understand where he is coming from, so i kinda would have hoped that he talked less at times - even if his opinions are very interesting and well informed. I am kinda new to listening to podcast (yes, really) so it also might be me misunderstanding the concept with a standard interview Anyway, keep the good work up!
That being said, i was a bit surprised that you found the 130s to be too stiff Lee - so any additional thoughts on the 130s that you did not mention in the review would be interesting. I really quite like the 130s, though i use em with protour liners.
Also, nice podcast with Blister Matt. Having read some of Jonathan's boot reviews i kinda understand where he is coming from, so i kinda would have hoped that he talked less at times - even if his opinions are very interesting and well informed. I am kinda new to listening to podcast (yes, really) so it also might be me misunderstanding the concept with a standard interview
Anyway, keep the good work up!
onenerdykid
Active member
13882919:kid-kapow said:Also, nice podcast with Blister Matt. Having read some of Jonathan's boot reviews i kinda understand where he is coming from, so i kinda would have hoped that he talked less at times - even if his opinions are very interesting and well informed. I am kinda new to listening to podcast (yes, really) so it also might be me misunderstanding the concept with a standard interview
Thanks! I'm looking forward to the next one we do (at some point), and I'll remind Jonathan not to step all over my lines
13882919:kid-kapow said:hm, why are you so hesitant to get on the 120s? As your skills improve having more support can only be a good thing imo, and 120s are not so stiff that they will massively impair your learning curve - perhaps quite the opposite. I also find that experimenting with the tension can be a way of modulating how stiff a boot feels - though that might amount to sacrilege when talking to experience riders such as Lee and Matt.
That being said, i was a bit surprised that you found the 130s to be too stiff Lee - so any additional thoughts on the 130s that you did not mention in the review would be interesting. I really quite like the 130s, though i use em with protour liners.
Also, nice podcast with Blister Matt. Having read some of Jonathan's boot reviews i kinda understand where he is coming from, so i kinda would have hoped that he talked less at times - even if his opinions are very interesting and well informed. I am kinda new to listening to podcast (yes, really) so it also might be me misunderstanding the concept with a standard interview
78kgs for me fyi. I was doing slackcountry all the time - ie mostly inbounds then one or two runs then the 130 would be fine. But I'm touring for pow lots especially this year. So really I'm a bit of a 30 - 40 deg meadow skipper hunting for new snow this year as the snow has been constant.
Last year when I got the boots in spring I was hunting for bigger lines and the HawX 130 was fine. Like you I used them with ProTour liners and that combo worked really well -- for me.
Where I was coming with the 130 being too stiff was that if i was always driving them hard them then they would be fine. But because I'm lucky to have constant pow this season I could get away with the 120. Perhaps even the 110. And if that was me as a consumer that saves me lots of $$$
I hope that helps
ah - ok, yeah that makes a lot of sense To be fair, me getting the 120s might have been the prudent thing to do - i know it would have been cheaper than going down the 130+intuition route. Alas, went down the more expensive route. That being said, i use the boots a lot in resorts as well, so i do not regret going down the 130 route.
Thanks for chiming in!
To be fair, me getting the 120s might have been the prudent thing to do - i know it would have been cheaper than going down the 130+intuition route. Alas, went down the more expensive route. That being said, i use the boots a lot in resorts as well, so i do not regret going down the 130 route.Thanks for chiming in!
BrawnTrends
Active member
13882919:kid-kapow said:
Unfortunately, being in my mid-30s, my "learning curve" is much steeper than a 20 years old's (lets face it, I'm taking less risks than before)... And, as I mentioned before, skiing steep chutes is far from being my priority at the moment.
That being said, I'm not against getting the 120. But I was curious about the 100, as no one talks about them.
i guess it also comes down to the terrain you are going to ride and the skis you are going to use. If you only ride in light, soft snow and use narrower skis - or primarily ride slower/ with your kids (if you have any), the 100 should work just fine and probably cater to a nice learning curve. You could also upgrade the liner to a stiffer one down the line if you feel the need. If you also have no ambition to haul and progress to riding faster and bigger lines, the 100 should also be more than adequate. If you though have the ambition to ride faster, with burlier gear and in deeper and heavier snow, i would consider the 120s if i was you.
Why you ask? When i got fully into skiing again after 15+ years snowboarding, i went down the 100 route. I was hesitant to get too stiff gear (after using some salomon boots aka torture instruments called quest 12 that are the worst boots i have ever laid eyes on), so i bought some Fischer Transalp ts lite vacuum boots. Incredibly comfy, but also very soft - perfect boots for learning on i thought. The issue was that within half a season the boots were too soft for me, for my preferred conditions (coastal pow) and wide and stiff skis. The boots just were not up to driving bigger skis in those conditions, and would result in my feet shouting out in pain as they took the brunt as the shell flexed like crazy. It was first when i got some Dynafit Khions, first the regular ones than carbons, and then went back to the transalps between the khion models (warranty issues) that i noticed how lacking in support the transalps were (though to be fair, a beefier liner than the stock palau liner would have helped a bit) and how much easier it was to ski in the stiffer Beast carbons that i got in return for the khion carbons - especially as the snow got choppier/deeper. So yeah, i prob still would have bought the transalps again given the chance to reverse my decisions, but i never intended to hang on to them. If i was on more of a budget i would have totally skipped the transalps and just went straight to the regular khions/beasts (not carbons). To be fair, i ski a lot and have skied on and off since i could walk - so i was not a complete noob when i jumped back on skis - so if you are more new to the sport the 100s might indeed be better. For my type of skiing though, i find that stiffer boots help me drive my skis better, with less effort, and i can then get the equipment to do more of the work - instead of over-working my ankles/feet - so less fatigue.
So, in summary - i think a pair of 120s with good heel hold and variation in shin pressure is potentially a better long term investment than the 100s if you have the ambition to ski faster with more substantial gear and deeper snow as your skills improve. Or that at least it would have been what was right for me. If your ambitions lies elsewhere, the 100s should also be a solid choice. Also, i dunno if the 100 shells and 120 shells can be as easily modified as the 130s - but if the there is a difference between the 100 and 120s in that regard than perhaps the one that can be most easily adjusted to fit might be a better choice as well. Anyway, good luck deciding . With the hawx you'll get a good boot regardless.
I really like the Hawx, but they are not perfect - and if anything my 130+protour combo might be a bit too light at 1330gr. While plenty stiff and supportive, i do seem to remember that the beasts feeling more "substantive" - though that can just be me being confused with my alpine boots that i got at the same time as the hawx. I still prefer the hawx over the beasts though, and would def have bought the hawx again
Why you ask? When i got fully into skiing again after 15+ years snowboarding, i went down the 100 route. I was hesitant to get too stiff gear (after using some salomon boots aka torture instruments called quest 12 that are the worst boots i have ever laid eyes on), so i bought some Fischer Transalp ts lite vacuum boots. Incredibly comfy, but also very soft - perfect boots for learning on i thought. The issue was that within half a season the boots were too soft for me, for my preferred conditions (coastal pow) and wide and stiff skis. The boots just were not up to driving bigger skis in those conditions, and would result in my feet shouting out in pain as they took the brunt as the shell flexed like crazy. It was first when i got some Dynafit Khions, first the regular ones than carbons, and then went back to the transalps between the khion models (warranty issues) that i noticed how lacking in support the transalps were (though to be fair, a beefier liner than the stock palau liner would have helped a bit) and how much easier it was to ski in the stiffer Beast carbons that i got in return for the khion carbons - especially as the snow got choppier/deeper. So yeah, i prob still would have bought the transalps again given the chance to reverse my decisions, but i never intended to hang on to them. If i was on more of a budget i would have totally skipped the transalps and just went straight to the regular khions/beasts (not carbons). To be fair, i ski a lot and have skied on and off since i could walk - so i was not a complete noob when i jumped back on skis - so if you are more new to the sport the 100s might indeed be better. For my type of skiing though, i find that stiffer boots help me drive my skis better, with less effort, and i can then get the equipment to do more of the work - instead of over-working my ankles/feet - so less fatigue.
So, in summary - i think a pair of 120s with good heel hold and variation in shin pressure is potentially a better long term investment than the 100s if you have the ambition to ski faster with more substantial gear and deeper snow as your skills improve. Or that at least it would have been what was right for me. If your ambitions lies elsewhere, the 100s should also be a solid choice. Also, i dunno if the 100 shells and 120 shells can be as easily modified as the 130s - but if the there is a difference between the 100 and 120s in that regard than perhaps the one that can be most easily adjusted to fit might be a better choice as well. Anyway, good luck deciding . With the hawx you'll get a good boot regardless.
I really like the Hawx, but they are not perfect - and if anything my 130+protour combo might be a bit too light at 1330gr. While plenty stiff and supportive, i do seem to remember that the beasts feeling more "substantive" - though that can just be me being confused with my alpine boots that i got at the same time as the hawx. I still prefer the hawx over the beasts though, and would def have bought the hawx again
BrawnTrends
Active member
I have the Hawx Ultra 110 that I love and they're the perfect balance of fit and flex for my type of skiing. If Atomic had produced the XTD in 110 the question wouldn't even be on the table (they would prob already be on my feet right now).
So the reason why I'm debating between the 100 and the 120 is because the XTD will not be my primary ski boot. All of my skis are mounted with Tyrolia Attacks (not the new ones) and unfortunately the XTD can't be used with them. So I'm planning on keeping the Ultra 110 as my main boots, with which I ski pow, park, piste, etc, and the XTD will be my secondary boots that I will use for when I'm doing short sidecountry tours with my friends. Which, lets be honest, won't happen that often and most probably won't include a lot of steep technical descent (or at least nothing my 110 wouldn't work on).
So the reason why I'm debating between the 100 and the 120 is because the XTD will not be my primary ski boot. All of my skis are mounted with Tyrolia Attacks (not the new ones) and unfortunately the XTD can't be used with them. So I'm planning on keeping the Ultra 110 as my main boots, with which I ski pow, park, piste, etc, and the XTD will be my secondary boots that I will use for when I'm doing short sidecountry tours with my friends. Which, lets be honest, won't happen that often and most probably won't include a lot of steep technical descent (or at least nothing my 110 wouldn't work on).
Turnfarmer
Member
Matt- just saw that Atomic is joining with Gripwalk. Can you can give us any details on that? Is the XTD going to be grip walk next year or stay WTR? Will Grip Walk soles be available for current non XTD Ultras? Thanks
hemlockjibber8
Active member
13883285:BrawnTrends said:
I have never found a boot with a walk mode that flexes the same as it's full alpine counterpart. Yes, they can beef up the stiffness, but the rebound tends to always take a hit. This can make a boot feel blocky. If I skied a 110 alpine boot, I wouldn't hesitate to get a 120 touring boot, unless you just ski low angle, untouched pow. I don't own the XTD but I have tried them on. They feel amazing but I am hard pressed to believe they are the only touring boot that feels different. I think Atomic has some charts on the flex. I wonder if it considers rebound?
onenerdykid
Active member
13883459:Turnfarmer said:
Yep- Grip Walk is becoming an actual norm and it's what all boot and binding manufacturers will work towards over the coming years. It's one of those things that can't be done overnight since it involves lots of mold modifications on the boot side and on the binding side. But we will be working toward that for sure. Essentially, the 3 norms moving forward are: Alpine 5355, Touring 9523, Grip Walk 9523.
For Range 18/19 (what is being launched at OR/ISPO right now) we will be making replaceable Grip Walk grip pads for Hawx Ultra, Hawx Prime, Hawx Magna, Live Fit, and any older boots that use the same grip pad interfaces as the boots mentioned. Ultra XTD will remain a WTR boot for this year, as it is a "carry over" and production has already been rolling. It will still work with all the bindings that it currently works with.
onenerdykid
Active member
13883494:hemlockjibber8 said:
For sure, rebound is a crucial aspect to how a boot feels. The flex of a boot (or more specifically how the flex feels to you) is a result of plastic materials, wall thickness, shell geometry, cuff geometry, liner construction, power strap construction, sole interface to the binding, and a few other variables. Changing any one of them will (in some degree) change how the boot feels in store and on snow. The robot we have measures forward flex, return flex, reward flex, and even that corresponding return flex. From that we will know how progressive a boot actually is and how it rebounds.
We will then take different versions on snow and ski them A/B against the leading competitors. We'll have different combos of same shell but different cuffs, same cuff but different shells, etc. until we arrive at what we think is the best recipe we can come up with.
.lencon
Active member
13882882:BrawnTrends said:
Go try on the Roxa R3 130 if you can find one. Great boot if you’re lighter than 175 pounds. My boss and I are both around 140 pounds and we’re really digging the fit and flex of the boot.
if anyone over 160-170 is interested in the R3 make sure you try before you buy, as it is a softer 130 flex. My homie loved the fit, but being an aggressive 180 pound skier he could flex the r3 to the floor.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13883734:.lencon said:
When I went to the shop to try on the Ultra XTD 120, I also put on the G3 and the Technica Zero G 120. Both offered very little to no heel hold (even worse in walk mode) so they're unfortunately out of the equation. The flex of the G3 did feel nice and progressive, and I liked the overall look though.
The Hawx Ultra line really has the perfect fit for my feet and ankles.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13883877:.lencon said:
My bad I had a brain fart and mixed the Zero G and the R3 together... I did try on the R3. (the G3 doesn't even exist)
**This post was edited on Jan 25th 2018 at 3:21:05pm
BrawnTrends
Active member
13883894:.lencon said:
Well I could completely lift my heel inside the boot without having to put any effort in doing so. It doesn't happen in my Hawx Ultra, even when they're completely unbuckled. (and I had no heel lift in the XTD either, even in walk mode)
But it's just what usually happens in Intuition liners for me, so I'm not really all that surprised... I have really skinny ankles, super prominent malleolus, high arches, and relatively narrow feet (99mm).
BrawnTrends
Active member
13883912:.lencon said:
Oh yeah I'm sure I can, and they will most probably be the ones I'm getting. I was just curious about the 100 as it's kinda hard to find reviews about it.
onenerdykid
Active member
13883921:BrawnTrends said:
While there aren't many reviews on the 100, the build is super similar to the 120, just softer cuff and shell.
For this current season, it uses a Grilamid shell and PU cuff just like the 120 and the liner is very similar too. It really is just a softer version of the 120. (this boot has blue accents)
For next season, it will switch to a PU shell and get slightly heavier (this boot has red accents). The liner remains the same fit and construction as current. The 130 and 120 will be 1:1 the same as now.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13884154:onenerdykid said:
Ok thanks! The black and red XTD reminds me of Intersport's Ultra 110.
On a side note, next year's green Ultras look pretty fire!
onenerdykid
Active member
13885713:n3vrast said:
No truth to this. The only thing we are changing is that the opening price point 100 and 90 W will get our True Flex PU lower shell rather than Grilamid. That's a result of model positioning and features, not anything to do with quality or flex.