1428 in the 26.5/27.0Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Printable View
1428 in the 26.5/27.0Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Sorry if I missed it -- does this replace the current Zero G line (Guide/Guide Pro), or is that still around?
Replace.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Tecnica line up next year:
Firebird - 93 and 98mm multiple flexes
Mach1 (LV -98, MV 100, HV -103) (90-130 flex)
Cochise (100, 120, 130, 99mm)
ZeroG Tour (Guide, Scout, Base, 99mm)
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Gracias!Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I bought the hawx xtd 130 in 27.5 with custom liner, sole,boot board, take off the first buckle and strap: 2700gr
with the tecnica you could put the weight near 2500gt in the same length,
with a rockered sole, nice fit and flex, and not the best but a very good range of motion
happy? yes and no
1- the price
2-not all the "suppose mnc" alpine binding go well with rockered sole:
if you want an expensive all in one
it's because you want to use a big part of your quiver
look carefully if your alpine binding accept this rockered sole (by example with my atomic WTR the height setting on a warden was at the maximum)
3- if it's only a "pin" binding use (with lighter skis)
you don't really need a such stiff flex
and perhaps prefer a better weight and range of motion like the alien RS ( with a swappable krypton tongue)
4- quality of flex
a small detail but with these nervous and light materials you CAN'T have the same plush and progressive foward flex as a krypton or lupo AX
so even if tecnica and other brands(fisher, head, ato, salomon, scarpa) have done a fantastic job in this type of boots, is this really what people need?
Wonder how a TLT tongue would fit inside Alien RS shell.
3 - I think there are plenty of people who would disagree with you regarding stiff boots in tech binders.Quote:
Originally Posted by buenonda
4 - well obviously no touring boot will flex like an alpine boot, just like the Krypon doesn't flex like a plug boot. But that doesn't mean there's not considerably room for companies to improve the quality of flex in 1300g-1600g boots. 5 years ago everybody thought a 130 flex 1400 g boot was impossible.
I would argue this is exactly what people need -- 120-130 flex in a 1300g boot is pretty amazing for touring, just like 95 flex in 850g boot is amazing for others (or sometimes, the same people in different situations). I just hope these same brands start trying to improve the quality of the flex next. But I bet it's hard to focus on that when their competitors are focusing on the numbers game -- specifically things like stiffness to weight ratio.
Certainly a yes in my case. Without going into all the details, a ZG T appears to be the boot that will allow me to drive my bigger skis for midwinter touring without being much of a compromise in terms of weight while offering a better fit for my foot than the F1 I had previously been looking at purchasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by buenonda
Like all things skiing, there is the argument for multiple tools for various needs and I see a lightweight, go-far setup in my future. But if the fit is anything like the current ZG with improved weight/stride, this checks the boxes for my current needs.
Need? It's what people are buying. You did.Quote:
Originally Posted by buenonda
I have a new pair of size 28.0 Alien RS's which I haven't skied yet. I slid some Dynafit TLT 5 tongues (black, 27) in between the liner and BOA cables and the Aliens still fit fine. I have a low volume foot with a low instep but I expect the open shell will also fit higher insteps. These tongues are pretty thin and weigh 136 gm for the pair. It's easier to insert the tongues while not wearing the boots since the tip get's hung up. Surprisingly they don't restrict the walk mode much.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
I stepped into a ski and did some carpet flex testing. Adding the tongues increases the stiffness, but not as much as hoped. They still feel softer than my La Sportiva Spectre's (Gen 1). I'll know better when I get them on snow. I doubt they could compete with the new Zero G Tour. The Aliens are in the flyweight class.
true :-) but it's not necessarily what I really need:
light AT boot with insert
compatible with my sth binding
with a good krypton flex
for that perhaps the new head core 600gr heavier would be a better choice, apparently they had work a lot on the quality of flex...
@auvgeek: yes people with tech binding will love this stiff tecnica, but as you say looking after the quality should be the next thing in that target
honestly they are yet Wonderbar tools to do everything! but there is point to take care like
compatibility, delta and ramp angle if you want they work well in each binding you've got on your quiver
an point I find nice on a freetouring oriented mind is the weight save on the shoes can go on the ski to replace this horrible carbon fiber or light core and give an better confort in downhill
if you want stiffness with your dynafit tongue add stoppers that are in contact with the upper shell, but not sure your will be happy : a brick flexQuote:
Originally Posted by Chubb
Perhaps a Krypton tongue up not under with a hole for the boa, and the tlt5 or 6 plastic piece to stop the tong on the front of the shoe would be better (and you really gain 20 flex index) and give you the option to drive heavier ski when you need it
More like 200+ grams heavier - the pair I tried were around 1540 grams per boot (1532 and 1548). Skied well and much closer to a 130 flex than most of the competition, but if the Krypton last fits you it will be very roomy. The Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro fits like a legit 99mm last and flexes stiffer than the old ZG, though I haven't skied it yet and didn't have a scale on me to weigh it (claimed weight is 1315 g).Quote:
Originally Posted by buenonda
Guessing these will work with the Shift, given the sole is pretty similar to the Mtn Lab?
Guessing you are right, they appear to have a normal ISO 9523 sole.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
This boot looks the goods for me - something with Mtn Lab like-flex at a lighter weight. If the ROM is good, I can see me in these next season, purely due to them being lighter than Hojis or Spectres or Maestrales.
From the review discussing going uphill, "best overlap cuff range of motion" and "cuff mobility leaves nothing to be desired."Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
As people get some time on these boots it would be helpful to know how the ZeroG compares to Dynafit TLTs etc. when touring. Especially from folks who dislike leaving the boot tongues in when going uphill.
Nice reviews and beta. I own a pair of 16-17 Cochise 130's size 28 shell, orange four buckle model. Anybody want to compare the fit of these versa the 18-19 OG's Tour Pro. Not performance or ROM, just fit. Thanks
im really intrigued by these too. these and the hawx xtd 120
Holy crap
Attachment 228026
Wow, I’m definitely curious...
Damn, and you didn't even take the orange Dynafit thingy off. Hopefully mine will be here soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
How does one acquire these boots now?Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Sponsored pro athlete or media reviewer, probably. Retail stores Fall 2018?Quote:
Originally Posted by thecazdog
hopefully the heel pocket is similarly snug as the current zero g. When I was trying new boots this past fall the atomic heel pocket was cavernous. Fitter attributed it mostly to a poor liner but the difference in heel hold was quite noticeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
x2. 24/24.5, please. I've got a few overnighters I would like to take care of this spring, my current second-hand touring boots make me not so excited.Quote:
Originally Posted by thecazdog
I know a guy. Retail availability will probably start around August to September, though a few pairs may show up earlier in Europe. 24/24.5 has low priority in new boots, they always make the sample size first (26.5), then 27.5, then 25.5/28.5, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by thecazdog
Suppose retail is $850 or something nuts?
I can't really read the scale in the photo. What are we impressed with?
It's sub 1300g
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Oh,
I thought it was the 'light fit' of the liner.
But yeah, the weight's not bad either.
I actually forgot to take out the paper from the liner too. So knock about 15g off that 1296g measured.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Stock liner is 220g so that's lighter than Intuition Protour w laces (280g)
With lacers, velcro spoiler and footbed in the liner lets call this thing 1330g in a sz 26.5 - bsl 302mm
The liner isn't ass. The last Palau liner by Tecnica was actually one of the few I didn't garbage immediately for Intuition. But of course standard reminder I am totally biased in favour of IntuitionQuote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
Atomic 130 XTD liner was uuuuhhh voluminous and kind of soft. Replaced immediately with Protour so agreed that the heelhold of that liner was meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghosthop
That said here are some fit comparisons after wearing it around kitchen clomping around and annoying wife but not on-snow yet (Tecnica ZeroG with stock liner). I'm comparing with other boots which people have randomly asked about and going from memory plus data from kitchen stomping is poor so please don't hold me to this. Just putting it up because there won't be much else. If there is variation between what proper bootfitters like GregL or XavierD or MtnLion say trust what they say over my ramblings.
Slightly Narrower and less volume toe-box then HawX 130 and Cochise 120. Quite a bit less volume than Vulcan. For my super wide feet i will need a small punch and aggressive liner cook.
Tighter heelhold than HawX 130. Comparable to Cochise 120. Quite a bit tighter heelhold than Mtn Lab. Way tighter then cavernous Maestrale RS For my heels which are medium-small it's ok but will assess after touring
Instep is medium to small volume. I will probably deal with that with liner cook
Bummer about the instep- that’s one of the consistent features that has kept me in Tecnica’s the past several seasons...
Just to be sure, are you talking about the older Cochise or the all black 120 Cochise from the last two years (16/17-17/18)?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
The older Cochise. Yellow from this review - pic links are dead https://www.tetongravity.com/story/s...g-boot-2014-15Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
Is that black part thats visible on the toebox part of the overlap for the lower half of the shell? Or is it a neoprene cover like the Solly Ghost had?
X2, a low instep would be a huge disappointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
Just part of the overlap. No neoprene coverQuote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
ok now you guys got me guessing. I measured ghetto style using tape from bootboard to where the ankle would hit the shell.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
ZeroG 12.5mm - but is has removeable and configurable bootboard. And no I don't know how much that weighs yet. Take away the bootboard and replace with something thinner (like fiberboard or a rubber strip) and it goes to 11mm
Vulcan (for comparison) 11mm. No removeable bootboard just a rubber strip. Vulcan is considered to be mid- high volume instep iirc.
Will be interested to see an on-snow side-by-side of the Hawx XTD vs ZGTP with Intuitions in both to cut out that variable.