onenerdykid
Active member
13886486:n3vrast said:
That's currently being checked with the TÜV and the certification process is underway. Once we know either way, we will release the information.
Hawx Ultra XTD
- Thread starter onenerdykid
- Start date
That's currently being checked with the TÜV and the certification process is underway. Once we know either way, we will release the information.
BrawnTrends
Active member
Just ordered a pair! Should get here either tomorrow or on Thursday.
onenerdykid
Active member
13888615:BrawnTrends said:
What ones did you end up going with?
BrawnTrends
Active member
13888621:onenerdykid said:
After a lot of deliberations and against everyone's advice here, I went with the 100. Hard to resist for 370 euros...
Turnfarmer
Member
13888626:BrawnTrends said:
From what you said above, I think that was the right choice for you.
Carl_the_Llama
Member
Apologies to keep beating this horse, but 1 - if you're phasing to GW, will that mean that even this and last year's XTDs will be able to be swapped out down the road?
2 - does this apply to Salomon as well?
God I hate binding norms, biggest pain in the ass, for both shops and customers
2 - does this apply to Salomon as well?
God I hate binding norms, biggest pain in the ass, for both shops and customers
13886703:onenerdykid said:
onenerdykid
Active member
13888631:Carl_the_Llama said:
Me too.
1. We'll see.
2. No idea what Salomon is exactly doing, but for sure GW will be on some products in the future.
**This post was edited on Feb 6th 2018 at 10:21:03am
Carl_the_Llama
Member
Fair enough, cheers
13888648:onenerdykid said:
onenerdykid
Active member
13889011:Carl_the_Llama said:
Sorry if that came off snarky... I really don't know what we will be able to offer for XTD spare parts in the future. It's all undergoing analysis right now.
Carl_the_Llama
Member
13889028:onenerdykid said:
No, no worries, looks like a sick product, it would just suck to buy a pair this year and have them be non compatible within a year or two
onenerdykid
Active member
13889311:Carl_the_Llama said:
But that won't happen with any multi-norm certified binding anyway. Whether a boot is WTR or GW, it doesn't matter for 99% of the freeride bindings on the market.
GW is more of a concern when talking about system skis & rental, which is why the whole industry is moving to GW- less adjustment, faster binding set up, customer out the door.
BrawnTrends
Active member
The main difference between the Silver and Gold liners is that the Silver's toe box doesn't allow moisture through, right? I was just comparing my two liners, and except the upper cuff and toe box materials differences I couldn't see any (XTD's Silver obviously has a more flexible area in the back too).
Might just use the gold liner in my XTD for now and keep the other fresh and new for later.
Might just use the gold liner in my XTD for now and keep the other fresh and new for later.
onenerdykid
Active member
13889458:BrawnTrends said:
The materials on the outside are similar (for durability reasons) but the internals are different. Same basic ankle pocket shape, but there's firmer and more moldable goodness on the inside of the Gold liner.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13889463:onenerdykid said:
I meant the classic Ultra Gold liner versus the XTD silver liner
BrawnTrends
Active member
I took them out on a 3hrs tour the other night and they were great!
Never had any pain or blisters on my heels. Had some mild toe bang by the end of the ascend, but most probably because the rest of my setup is not super light (Candide 3.0 with Barons...), and obviously they were great on the way down. Flex felt consistent. I had some worries flexing the boots at home because I could feel a pressure point on the back of my heel, where the walk mode lock is, but while skiing I couldn't feel it at all and they felt just as comfortable as my Ultra 110.
Never had any pain or blisters on my heels. Had some mild toe bang by the end of the ascend, but most probably because the rest of my setup is not super light (Candide 3.0 with Barons...), and obviously they were great on the way down. Flex felt consistent. I had some worries flexing the boots at home because I could feel a pressure point on the back of my heel, where the walk mode lock is, but while skiing I couldn't feel it at all and they felt just as comfortable as my Ultra 110.
Jecossette
New member
Hi, just tried the ultra 130, just too tight. I have a pair of Hawx prime 120 flex that I had heat molded, the left foot is perfect but my right foot needs two added soles for ajustment. Can the heat molding widen the boot significantly enough so as to fit? I really love your boots and am looking forward to start touring. Unfortunately, if I have the boots heat molded, the store won’t refund if they are still too tight. Any suggestions?
Jecossette
New member
Hi, just tried the ultra 130, just too tight. I have a pair of Hawx prime 120 flex that I had heat molded, the left foot is perfect but my right foot needs two added soles for ajustment. Can the heat molding widen the boot significantly enough so as to fit? I really love your boots and am looking forward to start touring. Unfortunately, if I have the boots heat molded, the store won’t refund if they are still too tight. Any suggestions?
onenerdykid
Active member
13890225:BrawnTrends said:
Sweet! Glad you're feeling good in them. Does the flex feel pretty similar to your 110?
13890396:Tremere said:
Check in with your local Atomic retailer and have them order the "XTD Free/Lock Base Plate 13/19", part number AZE001416. This just recently became available and using this piece instead of the stock one will allow you to make the boot 2 degrees more upright (from 15 to 13 degrees).
You unscrew the ski/walk mechanism, remove it, and remove the silver colored base plate from inside the cuff. Use this new base plate with the 13 degree setting in the (you'll know it's the 13 degree setting because you can read it, other wise it would read 19). Attach everything and re-tighten.
13890554:Jecossette said:
Well, if you had to stretch out your medium fit boot, then the narrow option will require more work to get it to fit right. There's definitely no guarantees that it will work as it just depends on how big your foot is, how well you deal with a snug fitting boot, and if the shop is good enough to perform the proper shell work for you.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13890724:onenerdykid said:
Maybe a tad softer but not a lot of difference that I could notice. I'll have to ski them a couple more times, but it feels progressive enough and comfortable (conditions were ideal though, so it makes everything easier).
Jecossette
New member
13890724:onenerdykid said:
Thanks, can you give me an idea, 102mm, 103?
The guys work very well and I think they can get it done. Are there plans to get a 100mm Ultra XTD out there? If not, why?
onenerdykid
Active member
13890792:Jecossette said:
Size 26.5 can be stretched to 110mm with the right tools and know-how. Honestly, it just depends on your foot, your tolerance for a tight fit, and if the shop can do it properly.
Perhaps
13890724:onenerdykid said:
Oh, new stuff. Any chance the 120 XTD liner is available. before september?
Any way, I found out that my 130XTD was a part of a batch that did not have lock tight on the screws for the metal binding. Is there any difference to the screws with lock tight on them from the factory than apply it for my self?
onenerdykid
Active member
13890874:n3vrast said:
Most likely not before September, unfortunately.
No difference. Just add your favorite loctite flavor.
TheWeaz
Member
Hey onenerdykid can you give a comparison between these and the mtn lab?
Specifically ankle pocket volume as thats what I have issues with. The only boot I’ve found to have a low enough ankle pocket volume is the new nordica pro machine, but that doesn’t help me go uphill.
My current touring boot is the lupo carbon from last year but even with the ankle buckle tightened painfully tight and a heel lift in I still don’t have enough ankle support.
I tried on some mtn labs in a size too big because the shop didn’t have my size and it felt like the pocket was almost small enough, so the next size down might work but I was wondering if these are even lower volume.
Also these are both wtr soles correct? Does that mean they would work in a p18 with the wtr afd, or in the marker sole id toes that say the iso touring norm on them or are the marker toes strictly gripwalk/ alpine.
Thanks for the help
Specifically ankle pocket volume as thats what I have issues with. The only boot I’ve found to have a low enough ankle pocket volume is the new nordica pro machine, but that doesn’t help me go uphill.
My current touring boot is the lupo carbon from last year but even with the ankle buckle tightened painfully tight and a heel lift in I still don’t have enough ankle support.
I tried on some mtn labs in a size too big because the shop didn’t have my size and it felt like the pocket was almost small enough, so the next size down might work but I was wondering if these are even lower volume.
Also these are both wtr soles correct? Does that mean they would work in a p18 with the wtr afd, or in the marker sole id toes that say the iso touring norm on them or are the marker toes strictly gripwalk/ alpine.
Thanks for the help
onenerdykid
Active member
13891216:TheWeaz said:
Ultra XTD will have a narrower heel/ankle pocket and more toe room than the MTN Lab.
MTN Lab = Touring Norm ISO 9523 (traditional full rubber sole)
Ultra XTD = Touring Norm ISO 9523-WTR (rubber sole with hard AFDs in specified locations)
Personally I have not checked to see if our sole fits in a P18 with a WTR AFD. It could, but I'd be skeptical because WTR follows the Touring Norm, and therefore it has a range of possible shapes and heights. I don't see how a single binding AFD shape can can fully cover a range of possibilities. Perhaps someone who has this combo can comment?
Re: Marker Sole I.D. - the bindings we have here test out with an Ultra XTD. It's snug, but they pass. The problem is with how some of Marker's Sole I.D. bindings accept different sole heights/shapes: in the Griffon ID, for example, the AFD slides forward and down to accommodate the different norms. The problem with doing this is that the binding no longer engages the boot where general Touring Norm ISO 9523 says it should- there is a specified zone in the general Touring Norm where the binding should contact the boot (this is why the WTR version of the Touring Norm puts the AFDs in the sole where they are). So, I would recommend going with a binding that actually adjusts the toe height and while keeping the binding AFD location in the right place, like the STH2 or Warden MNC.
BrawnTrends
Active member
Something weird happened today. I went skiing with the XTD (mostly inbound powder) and I had a pressure point at the top of my left foot all day, where the boot flexes (right under the second top buckle, just above where the ankle flexes). Never had that in my Ultra 110. It wasn't painful enough to make me stop skiing, and I still had a great day, but then I went on a two hours tour and the pain was still there on the way up and right now it's a little sore when I touch it (like a bruise).
I heat molded the liners two days ago, and obviously have custom footbeds. Any idea what happened there??
I heat molded the liners two days ago, and obviously have custom footbeds. Any idea what happened there??
TheWeaz
Member
13891236:onenerdykid said:
Thanks for the help regarding fit. Its interesting that the jester sole ids I have just say iso 9523 on them, it seems like marker could get in a fair share of trouble if they advertise it as being compatible with all iso 9523 soles while in reality it is only compatible with gripwalk and probably not even with wtr let alone complete touring soles.
For the record the jesters also move forward when they move down, so probably not compatible with anything other than gripwalk.
onenerdykid
Active member
13891396:BrawnTrends said:
And this pressure point wasn't there before? This boot uses the same exact tongue (plastic, foams, linings, etc) as normal Ultra so that's weird...
Are you ensuring that the tongue sits properly after you take the boot off? If it gets pinched between the shell overlap when taking it off, it can definitely fold in a funny way and lead to a pressure point the next time you put it on.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13891740:onenerdykid said:
This was only the second time I was wearing them. First time I did mostly uphill (no pain), and yesterday mostly downhill (pain after an hour or so). Today the spot on my lower shin/higher ankle is really sore (feels like a bruise if touched).
I always make sure to readjust the tongue inside and buckle the boots back right after taking them off (I put them in a boot bag in my car for the drive home), and then I take the liners and insoles out to let them dry.
What's really weird is that the Ultra 110 never ever hurt me in any way...
onenerdykid
Active member
13891760:BrawnTrends said:
Have they been heat molded? Liner only, or the whole thing via Memory Fit?
If not, I would at least suggest a liner mold of the one that is bothering you. Perhaps the foam will settle in a bit differently and more easily work itself out.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13891770:onenerdykid said:
Heat molded the liners already. I forgot that the first time I took them out skiing I put my Ultra 110's liners in the boots (probably why I had no pressure point).
I took a photo of the liner, would that help?
**This post was edited on Feb 14th 2018 at 5:22:32am
13891236:onenerdykid said:
Unfortunately, I just bought new skis with the Griffon ID (prior to your post). I can confirm the AFD does not at all align correctly with the boot sole. Would you recommend me to change the binding or would you be comfortable skiing with this setup?
I would also suggest you to update the FAQ on binding compatibility as it still says the boot is compatible with Marker Griffon ID.
onenerdykid
Active member
13897149:skiernor_ said:
You should get your boot and binding release tested. If it passes, then it is good to go. The Marker bindings that we tested, pass. But, there may be some that don't (it wouldn't the first time a Marker binding didn't pass a bench test). Personally, I think there are far better bindings out there that adjust the right way, in accordance with the Touring Norm. But again, if it passes, it passes.
onenerdykid
Active member
13897225:skiernor_ said:
Definitely (and I'm not just saying that given my employer). It is the binding that best accommodates all sole norms.
onenerdykid
Active member
13902561:esphav said:
This is unfortunately what the Kingpin does to all boots, not just ours. And there's not much you can do about it unfortunately besides ensuring your binding is 100% perfectly adjusted and you take care stepping into the binding.
The Kingpin adapter is designed for boots that are not Touring Norm so they can fit into the heel of the Kingpin (which is designed for Touring Norm boots). Since our boot is already Touring Norm, as you found out, it won't fit.
Adding a world cup "DIN shim" (http://www.verdonkracing.com/product/metal-din-shims-heel/ ) also won't work because they either interfere with the tech insert of the heel or aren't able to be properly screwed in the heel given the tech insert space.
13902588:onenerdykid said:
Thanks for the quick reply! A local ski shop suggested trying out an adapter as it might protect the edges of the heel a bit. I bought the adapters, but when trying to fit them they seemed to be to narrow for the heel, so I returned them.
Since then I haven't thought about it until today, when I saw the boots with (looks to me at least) the Marker Kingpin DIN adapters in a Norwegian ski magazine. I've already sent a message to the author about it, so maybe he can give me some info.
They did win the test btw
EDIT: Got a reply from the author, and they're actually adapters for Beast bindings. So I guess that solves the case!
**This post was edited on Mar 9th 2018 at 11:48:50am
13902598:esphav said:Thanks for the quick reply! A local ski shop suggested trying out an adapter as it might protect the edges of the heel a bit. I bought the adapters, but when trying to fit them they seemed to be to narrow for the heel, so I returned them.
Since then I haven't thought about it until today, when I saw the boots with (looks to me at least) the Marker Kingpin DIN adapters in a Norwegian ski magazine. I've already sent a message to the author about it, so maybe he can give me some info.
They did win the test btw
EDIT: Got a reply from the author, and they're actually adapters for Beast bindings. So I guess that solves the case!
**This post was edited on Mar 9th 2018 at 11:48:50am
Damn you just beat me to it. I used Beast adapters with my HawX boots and they fit in Kingpins, Shifts, Tectons without issues.
FreddoBumps
New member
I think I read the whole thread (jumping around), so sorry if I missed the answer, but...
Any changes to the boots/lineup for 2018/19?
Also, what’s the experience of those with the 100? I’m 5’11”, 160lb. X Max 100 are about the right flex for me (2018, which feel and supposedly are stiffer than 2017).
Any changes to the boots/lineup for 2018/19?
Also, what’s the experience of those with the 100? I’m 5’11”, 160lb. X Max 100 are about the right flex for me (2018, which feel and supposedly are stiffer than 2017).
BrawnTrends
Active member
I'm about the same size as you and I have the XTD 100 and I like them a lot. My alpine boots are the regular Ultra 110s and the XTD 100s do feel quite softer, but they work perfectly for my type of skiing and they're great on the way up (done a few 3hrs tours in them and never had blisters or pain or anything)
**This post was edited on Mar 26th 2018 at 8:53:10am
**This post was edited on Mar 26th 2018 at 8:53:10am
FreddoBumps
New member
Great info, thanks. I got turned onto these by trying on the Ultra 110s. The fit is great for me out of the box (enough so to tell that a little heating and they’d feel amazing). The flex felt borderline soft, but certainly manageable. I’ll have to see if I can find an Ultra 120 to try on. Overall, I’m super-impressed!13908461:BrawnTrends said:
Re: 2018/19, I’m guessing a move to Gripwalk? Anything else you can say @onenerdykid?
I got a great deal on a pair of 120s but I am having trouble getting a binding to work with them. After the shop where I got the boots informed me that the first binding I purchased didn’t work (Attack2), I went to a different shop and picked up a pair of Look Pivot Dual 12s after the first one were trying to sell an Atomic Warden for above retail by a large amont, the shop where I am getting the mount claims the Look’s will not work. Is the shop just bullshitting me until I buy a binding from them or do the Look Pivots work and I just need to go to a different shop to get them mounted? Based on Evo answers the Pivots should be compatible and I know that is a very popular binding so feedback would be appreciated. @onenerdykid
**This post was edited on Mar 27th 2018 at 1:58:31am
**This post was edited on Mar 27th 2018 at 1:58:31am
BrawnTrends
Active member
The Pivots are WTR so they should work. Maybe the guy at your shop doesn't know how to adjust them though?
13908933:BrawnTrends said:
Thanks for the advice I went to a different shop and they are mounting them now. Tech said this was one of the most popular boots series the shop has ever sold and many people had the same issue as me at the orginal shop and thus they have done many binding mounts with the Pivot.
onenerdykid
Active member
13909266:BoulderAv said:
Pivot Dual WTR bindings should be fine. I haven't personally mounted/tested a pair, but I have heard there aren't any issues. Wardens and STH2 bindings are always going to work with Ultra XTD since they accept different toes by moving the actual toe piece, not on a ramped AFD (which has a much more limited adjustment range).
ucberzerkeley
Member
13909962:onenerdykid said:
Anywhere I can try on the 120 in Montana?
onenerdykid
Active member
13910131:ucberzerkeley said:
Go to Atomic.com, use the dealer locator, and start calling shops to see if they have that model in stock still.
cobra_commander
Active member
Look Dual Toes work fine.