Printable View
in europe
xtd 130 680 euros
vulcan 750 euros
so the price is definitely NOT what make the big difference
the 2017 vulcan carbon has a pebax shell
wich mean roughly you CAN'T heat it to adapt to your foot... and thanks federico there were made in grilamid before...
this is definitely a good point for memory fit
Just put these on my order for next fall. Is there any difference in fit compared to the alpine hawx ultra?
Probably too early for anyone to opine on cos i'm guessing no samples floating around yet but as a lightweight i'm curious about the flex of the XTD 110 and 120 versions.
If the 130 is stiff or brick stiff as some have described will the softer ones be smoother or will they resist to a point and then fold??
Can anyone comment of the Lupo Carbon ti vs the hawx?Quote:
Originally Posted by buenonda
Lee, what's the bsl? (sorry if I missed it) Think my green machine Vulcs can manage one more year to allow for some first-production-year shakedown of the Hawx, although they're looking pretty well thought-out!
314mm
For real? My 26.5 is 302mmQuote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Looks like that's for a 27.5. My Vulcans are 294 for the 26.5, but I fit a 25.5 in the Backland, so maybe it might end up being a pretty similar bsl with what people end up in.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
It is rare for BSL to increase by more than 10mm in the next shell size - though there may be more than 1 pre-production model around, I would expect the 27.5 to be 312mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by dub_xion
The Hawx XTD shell looks similar cosmetically to the Backland, but it's all new (intentionally longer, ISO 9523-spec soles so they are WTR and Kingpin compatible).Quote:
Originally Posted by dub_xion
FWIW, the Backland BSL in a 26.5 is 288mm.
Greg. It surprised me too
No one has an answer to this yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Climber Joe
Exact same last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gepeto
It feels roomier and longer than the regular Hawx Ultra to me, though the last is supposed to be the same. I assume this is due mostly to the thin liner in the prototypes; with the thicker production liner they may be the same. I would buy the same size in either boot, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gepeto
Interesting that the Hawx XTD shell could possibly be a little longer. I have the Ultra and the shell is a very snug 12/13mm-1/2" fit and the stock liner is just too thick to make the 27.5 shell work for me. I was considering dropping in a Gara Zipfit. With the thin but, stiff shell and the gara, this could be a very light and responsive down hill boot with good up hill manners.
2Funky commented on it's warmth even with the thin bodied shell. I'm hoping that is not just a product of the stock last.
If the XTD is just that smiggin longer. The XTD experiment would be cheaper to start too.
They (hawx) anatomically match me very well and I like/prefer the boot's 1° splay.
1st world problems compared to decades worth of one suffer fest after another.
Goldilocks in a boot is so much closer than she ever was.
If anyone is a 28.5 and wants to be an early adopter, TP has this boot right now for $525 with code HAWX15, plus $45 shipping.
If you think you're interested in this boot, I would try it on sooner rather than later. We got in a size run last week and they sold out in 4 days. The production liner has a beefed up tongue, but didn't get any heavier - in fact the production 26.5 weighed in at 1400 grams, 6 grams lighter than the prototype.
Evo keep pushing back the ship date for the 23.5 Hawx 110 W, and they dropped the 22.5. Bent Gate also hasn't received any under 24.5. Any idea what sizes are actually being made?
I was going to try and hold out for a mid season sale on these, but will there be any left? I have functional touring boots that are too soft in anything other than good snow (spectres) and ancient inbounds boots that need to be replaced. If these fit well they could replace both. It looks like evo just got the 28.5s in stock maybe its time for a try on.
Not for sure, all we've gotten in so far is 24.5 and 25.5. Onenerdykid from Atomic sometimes watches this thread, so maybe he'll chime in (or post the question on his thread on Newschoolers).Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Telepark-pyrenees has a 15% off code for these boots: https://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/todays-discount-codesQuote:
Originally Posted by carlh
that is a great price form Telemark-pyrenees and I an very tempted. I haven't tried these on yet and would prefer to shop local for fitting/molding help. I might see if evo will move on price, even though their price match is US vendors only.
Good luck. They will sell all they can get at full retail before the end of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlh
All the pics I linked were not displayed due to a change in the TGR forum setup. Here's the offline album.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1&l=704222e43c
I got a pair, they seem nice. My 29s are only 125g heavier per boot than my TLT6P without tongues. BSL seems long at 332 but I mounted my last pair of skis such that they'll adjust to that point. I'm looking forward to having control going downhill.
Does anybody have a review of the 120 flex version of this boot? Based on my limited knowledge, it seems that the flex could be a bit more progressive since it has a PU upper cuff.
I'm looking at this for a "one" boot, but no one in my area stocks my size, so I would have to buy before I can even try it on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greasyslope
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...-ultra-xtd-120
^Thanks.
I did read that and it is encouraging. It would be even better if someone had actually skied the stock liner, but that might not have been possible until recently.
Just looking for more opinions. Perhaps folks can do what we do best here and simply speculate if having a PU cuff instead of all Grilamid should help with progressiveness.
I believe I asked this question of the dude who designed them. He told me that the only real difference is in the liner and cuff/upper ankle area due to the walk mode. They are definitely a much higher fit in the instep than the backland, I can't even get my feet in those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gepeto
I tried on a pair of the 120s in a shop today and it felt very similar to the alpine hawx ultra. Which is good, cuz my XTD 130 is in the mail. :D
Pretty sure the additional bsl is only there for the tech fittings and internal length is the same with standard Ultra. It's in the NS thread. So if the standard Ultra is already short on you, walking/skinning without going longer would probably be misery.
This is correct, the same exact last is used. The 2mm is only there because of the tech fittings.Quote:
Originally Posted by turnfarmer
Nobody is going to armchair this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by greasyslope
Bump. Finally got these on my feet. While overall still a little roomy for my absurdly low volume, narrow foot, they are as good as anything I've tried in. The flex feels spot on to me - substantial, but not overly stiff, quite progressive. Walk mode is impressive, better than my first gen Maestrale RS and rivaling my TLT6P.
My question is, has anyone tried to punch these yet, or any bootfitters want to speculate how much these can be punched and how well they'll hold it? I'm at a ~1cm shell fit in these, which is rather snug for touring. I would most likely need to punch for space in the big toe on both boots, maybe a couple mm. Going up a shell size won't work due to aforementioned skinny ass feet. I was able to have the big toes of my TLT6s punched (also made of Grilamid) and they've held up fine, but I probably need a little more space in these.
You only using these with Tech Bindings? If so, easy to ouch. If not, can't grind any toe space.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
While it's conceivable that I might want to stuff it in a Guardian or a hypothetical not-yet-released hybrid alpine/tech binding in the future, I am fine with losing that ability to have a boot that fits well. Current use is tech bindings only.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Other boots in contention right are Maestrale RS2.0 and Zero G Pro Guide, but both of those had more play in the heel.
Yeah, I wouldn't have any hesitation getting another 5mm of toe length for you. Still tighter than I'd like for touring. If you have a fair amount of Achilles curve, should be ok. Does it feel like the boot prys your foot forward in walk mode?
Can I ask where abouts in the Front Range you found these to try on?Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
I wouldn't say it pries my foot forward, but the toe definitely jams the front when I flex the boot back. Flexing forward in ski mode pulls the toe off the front.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Bent Gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
I'm at about 102 mm last width... can I get 4 mm out of the Ultra XTD 130?
I'm in exactly the same spot with a narrow foot, so I have a ~1cm shell fit or less to get a tight fit. gregL did a few mm toe punch but I will probably need a few mm more to be able to walk all day comfortably. This is the best / tightest fit I've had in a touring boot - really looking forward to skiing them! I have alpine boots so I'll likely only ever use them with bindings that have a tech-style toe, anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated