Printable View
I’d jump on those leftover ones especially if you’re on a budget and not racing uphill.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonMexico
Granted I wish I hadn’t seen this thread because it now has me thinking about upgrading but I have the previous version guide pros and have been super happy with them. They could be a little stiffer but for pow are more than fine.
Is the shape generally the same? Thinking I might go try on the new version just to make sure they’re not totally incompatible with my feet...Quote:
Originally Posted by dfinn
I imagine the older version is still going to be wayyy lighter than my kryptons, correct?
Old ones are 1550’ish grams I think. No clue what your kryptons weigh. I haven’t tried them on but based on what other people said in this thread the fit is very similar.
The fit is more snug and refined on the newer boot, overall its lower volume. The range of motion isn't even comparable with the new version hitting a completely different class of boot.
Can second this. I have the current year and a pair of atomic backland carbons and the ZGTP only uphills slightly worse than the backlands with tongues in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
Probably buried in here somewhere, but anyone punch the width out to 102/103 in the forefoot with good success?
Oh for sure I punched to 105mm. Miracle of Grilamid and carbon infused plasticQuote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Thanks
Any idea if the toes are punchable length-wise?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Sure, depends on what bindings you want to use though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
Adding to what Xavier said you are constrained by tech fittings for lengthQuote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
Same as anything else far as I knowQuote:
Originally Posted by hcrossing
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant can you expand the toe box of the boot so your toes aren’t hitting the front of the boot, not can add or subtract from the BSL or the duckbill.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
By lengthening the toe box you are potentially reducing the amount of material that your alpine binding can hold onto on the duckbill therefore potentially making them incompatible with alpine bindings.
I say potentially since it depends on binding dimensions, and where that toe punch goes in. But in most cases you can't have your pie and eat it too on this sort of boot for alpine bindings.
I have gotten length out of this boot for customers, how much do you need?. The worry for me when stretching tech boots length wise is maintaining the pin alignment. Its possible to do, you just have to be conscious of it especially on lighter boots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalNomad
Thanks, guys. I went a size up because I didn't think it could be punched. I'll try the lower size on and figure out how much I need. Is there a minimum space you'd recommend for the foot in the shell without the liners?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
Leelau, or anyone else with experience in both boots: how do the ZG Tour Pro compare to the Atomic Hawx XTD 120/130 overall? I know the XTD is 100-200 gm heavier depending on the liner used, but I’m most interested in heel/ankle hold and the progressiveness of the forward flex. If you had really low volume heels/ankles, did a mix of short sidecountry tours and the occasional long slog or multi day yurt trip, and cared more about downhill performance than being a weight weanie, which boot would you own? I have the Lange XT 130 Freetour LV as my daily resort boot, so I have a heavy crossover set up already.
I'd pick Atomic HawX for what you said. Stiffer by 5 points approx. More fiddly to get that awesome tour mode but not by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGamms
Both boots can be fitted to take care of low vol/heels ankles.
To answer something you didn't ask that HawX is very stiff though. Someone else who had the Lange said they were pretty comparable
Hey Lee, just for reference; how 'progressive' do the hawx and zerog feel in comparison to the mtn. lab? Just curious if they're dramatically different feeling, subtly different or kinda the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Peeps have said the mtn lab was a more progressive flex feeling boot but for me they felt even more brick wally than the vulcans.
Its better than Vulcan but that's not saying much. In order if ski feel quality from best to worse
- Dalbello Lupo AX120 ( but i felt it linear)
- ZeroG and HawX tied
- MtnLab
- Vulcan ( no tongue)
awesome, thanx Lee.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Can anyone compare the old version to the new one length wise ? I drive the old Zero G Guide Pro in 29.5 with Intuition Pro Tour HV ( high calfes, needed to minimise room in the cuff). The new one seems to tick all the boxes I dislike about the old version. Unfortunately my boot fitter does not have Tecnica anymore. I could order it online and take it there. Can I just order the same size as the old one ? Second, I guess I will not fit ne Pro Tour HV in the new one ?
I got a Dalbello I.D. Pro cheap and have now used it without molding for two days. It looks like a Plug wrap liner but I guess medium in thickness so like a powerwrapish :DQuote:
Originally Posted by wren
Anyways, it fits but is kind of tight in the heel. It's softer against my shins than my pro wrap which is heated to I won't heat mold this. Might do the rise mold so my heels won't fall asleep if it doesn't change after a weeks use.
Skiing wise it feels great and for a guy who've had problems with his shins for 20 years, whoa! now I got two liners that work without shinbang. I put that down to the progressive flex in the boots. Happy as hell :D
I can ski hard in mogulfields and chop without having swollen shins at the end of the day, wow!
Btw I have a shim in the heel and behind my calf to get an angle I like better but I love these boots!
Hi!
I have tested zgtp and rs2 in living room and outside couple times.
What I can say about fit (my foot 264-265mm and 100mm. Tested size 26.5):
Room for toes rs2>zgtp
Wide rs2>zgtp
instep space rs2 > or equal zgtp
Angle volume rs2>zgtp
Heel pocket rs2>zgtp
rs2 shell is about 3mm longer.
Rs2:
Too much room for my foot. With extra insole I think it´s still little bit too wide.
Walks better than ztgp. Better forward lean. Easy in and out. I like middle buckle, because it helps keep heel on place and I don´t have to open it. It walks very well if that buckle is closet. Still I got better heel hold in ztgp.
Left boot has tiny "cap" when lock in ski mode. I can notice that when I lean backward.
After couple times getting liners out is quite a easy, but putting back is hard work.
ZGTP:
Light and yes light. First I got little pain on my outside of midfoot. Insoles did help for that. After keeping these couple times, only pain is on instep (probably solved in time or heat molding liners. At least I hope so).
Fist liners felt very thin, but legs get use to, so no problem. Walks well when upper buckles are open.
Stiffer than rs2 for sure. Power strap might be good after you get use to it.
Quit a easy in, not so easy that rs2. Getting out is quit easy, but pain full. Tongue of liner slips side and plastic rips my instep.
Easy to take liners out and put back.
It´s hard to decide which one to keep.... After reading rs2 problems.... winner is zgtp =)
And yes, I´m sorry for bad English =)
There is much less volume in the cuff of the new boot. I doubt an HV liner will fit in the new ones. You probably won’t need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by exxun
I’d say they fit pretty similar lengthwise. Overall volume of the boot is much less. Was a 28.5 in last years and a 28.5 in this year’s. Have always been a 28 however.
What’s your shoe size?
Interested in this ^ as well. I’m going to pick up a pair of last year’s cheap. Always been a pretty tight performance fit in Dalbello Krypton @ 29.5. Wondering whether to stick with that or go bigger in the Technicas. (13 shoe, 14 running sneaker)Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
Keep me posted on this. I’m a half size smaller than you and went 30.5 but am having misgivings. Fit is fine but just wonder if I could have gone 29.5 and had it punched. I tried on. Pair of Fischer Travers Carbon Pros and the fit was astounding. Almost custom. But that’s got a boa cinch.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonMexico
Good luck.
I just had a weekend in the ZeroG Tour Pros. I normally have 26,5 boots and have the same in the ZGTP. Lengthwise I find them normal. The volume of the shell is, as said above, rather low, especially around the second buckle (from down). Insteap is race-like, but no problem. The fit of the thin liner is great on my foot, but I do need to punch some room on one spot in the forefoot. Overall a excellent fit for me with my rather narrow feet. I have the Cochise 130 as my current main freeride boot. The Cochise's innerboot is way thicker, and mushy and comfy in comparison to the very thin and compact liner of the ZG, just like many have described already.
Flex-wise in skiing they do not feel like a 130 indexed freeride boot, like the Cochise. The ZG felt much softer and not as torsionally stiff. More like a 110 boot, I would say and I overloaded it at a few times, especially when I tested it with a burlier 115mm skis and/or GS piste skis. The progressivity of the flex is kind of normal for an overlap boot, even if the fit around the ancles opens up a bit when the boot is flexed forward. Most overlap boots do. What I didn´t like was the lack of response and springiness in the plastic, which is kind of typical to Grilamid. Even if the flex held up for everything but really hard (for me=not that hard charging compared to skiers that really charge) skiing, it felt a bit more boring and less engaging to ski compared to the Cochise. The Hawx XTD 120 and 130 feels more snappy in the flex response even if they also have that small delay in response time compared to most mid-weight PU freeride boots.
I find the wire buckles to be a bit fiddly. I would have preferred some lightweight solid buckles instead. I quess you have to make small sacrifices on several places to reach that low weight. The buckles work, but it´s a bit of extra work every time.
The shell and liner interaction and upper closing is fantastic. Really good matching there and it really feels like the liner is made for this boot.
Overall I am satisfied with the Zero G Tour Pro, but it is not going to take the place as my main boot. It skis excellent for beeing a 1300 gram touring boot, but you have to add that "for beeing a 1300 boot" to use the term excellent. It does not match some burlier 1700-2000 gram freeride options for lift served general skiing. I will keep it, but it will only be used for days when I have a bit more walking than just 15 powder access hikes to do.
I had the boa in my bd boots and loved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app
Interesting comment about the lack of response.Quote:
Originally Posted by MnO_____
I ski the Lange 130 freetour in the bc. I tried them a few times in the resort, and when skiing bumps, i feel like I'm always half a step behind.
They are softer than my rx 130 but not by much.
You think the difference is the plastic, and if so, why?
Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app
I am not used to testing boots so I really don´t know. I have tested hundreds of skis during the years, but maybe just about 15 pair of boots in all years. Not sure if I am guessing wrong, so far I have felt that all Grilamid shoes that I have tried just feels different in how they deliver the power back to me. Some kind of light sponginess in the flex while still beeing less damp in snow feel, so a mix of feelings really. It might just be a coincidience, but if I compare the old grilamid Zero G to the PU/Pebax Cochise (same mould, different materials and liner), I find the Cochise to be more fun to ski. If feels more alive and have a better balance in the way it flexes and handles the connection from the snow to the skier. If it wasn´t for the lighter weight, I would never even consider the Zero G back then. Now the difference in weight is huge and now I can justify to have both models after the intro of the new ZGTP. So Grilamid feel or just lack of punch in the flex is hard to tell. For sure the thinner Grilamid brings a special feel to the boot anyway that I don´t fully like.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
All in all it´s very much a try to describe a subjective feel and I find it harder to write boot reviews compared to ski reviews. Like I just said, It might just be that the flex is softer in the new ZGTP so that the lack of response is actually just a softer flex. I don´t dare to call myself an expert on plastics enough to really settle my statement.
Anybody has any thoughts on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by MnO_____
Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app
I agree with everything he/she says. Grilamid just skis different than PU, and I prefer the feel of PU by a huge margin for all the reasons stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
Grilamid is light, so I end up with it in my touring boots. And that's fine - I keep my expectations in line with the inherent constraints of the boot. A 1300 gram ski doesn't ski like a 2100 gram ski, and a 1300 gram boot isn't going to ski like a 2100 gram boot. But anytime anyone says "this [Grilamid] touring boot skis just as well as my alpine boots," I pretty much instantly ignore their opinion. Because no it fucking doesn't.
PU also flexes differently in different temps than Grilamid. PU still has massively tuneable rebound characteristics for that progressive feel. You won't find grilamid or Irfran or any of the wonder carbon-infused plastics in alpine boots for say racing anytime soon. Even skiing my 10 year old 110 flex alpine boots next to my basically new 130 (ahem) flex ZGTP it's pretty clear how much better the alpine boot is for hardpack or paired with supercross carving skis (for eg).Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
That's why i didn't bother and don't bother responding to people asking whether they can use xyz AT boots for their inbounds GS skis. It's inherently a stupid question. Do whatever you want bro
^^^ For sure.
I do think that companies have gotten better about making Grilamid more like PU with respect to temp differences. Still a noticeable difference, but I remember my old Grilamid Garmonts being really terrible in colder temps. My Zero G's seem to have a less dramatic difference. Or maybe that's just a decade of memory loss speaking.
i think there's a real difference. Most of the innovation in boots is because of these miracle plastics which is why I love dorking out over boots as opposed to bikes. There's real innovation going on as opposed to microparsing and keyboard fappage over millimeters of axle size. For eg Dynafit Mercurys with 10 days to me felt as stiff if not stiffer than 300day old Vulcans. Cuff slop was part of it but for sure the plastic deformation of the old Vulcan lower bootshell over time did it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
But you and I and many other boot reviewers keep saying time and time again that all boots (and all gear) are about compromises but it seems to go in one ear and out another. I get so many incredibly thick pms. Can you suggest a boot that fits my feet? Can you diagnose my exact needs? File in G for garbage
Lee: what in your opinion is the best skiing/flexing 1300-1500ish g "freeride touring" style boot today? Hawx XTD 130? Will I notice a significnat improvement in ski performance on the XTD, Zero G Pro Tour, Hoji Free etc. coming from Maestrale RS 1.0 with stock liners? Talking downhill ski performance when touring and occasional pow/variable resort days on a 1900g 105-110mm ski, not GS race boards.
Will also hang onto my 2010 vintage alpine freeride boots for hard snow resort days until they crack.
cheers
First Q - You're bigger so you'll get more out of the XTD. If you didn't mind a heavier boot I'd say Lupo 130 or 120.Quote:
Originally Posted by gramboh
Second Q - oh yes. By quite a bit
The biggest difference is weight plain and simple. A 1300g boot won’t ski even close to as well as a 2000g boot. Just like a 1300g ski won’t ski nearly as good as a 2000g ski.
Regardless of how stiff they are, they will feel and ski completely different.
The Zero G is not meant to be an every day boot. It’s not billed as that. It doesn’t have a DIN sole or Grip Walk soles. It’s a boot built for touring and built for people that like to ski hard while doing so. It can stand up to that.
With low weight comes compromise, there is no way around it. Sure those compromises have become less and less extreme but they will never go away.
So why even make a stiff touring boot, if you can't truly use it for inbounds and outbounds.
I used my Maestrale inbounds, bumps, racing and never had an issue.
Now I am worried the Zero g won't be able to handle the same?