Fwiw I thought the Vulcan skis quasi-brick like with the tongue fore aft. Ie it skis like it has hard stops. Way smoother without tongue
Printable View
Fwiw I thought the Vulcan skis quasi-brick like with the tongue fore aft. Ie it skis like it has hard stops. Way smoother without tongue
Inbounds on tech bindingsQuote:
Originally Posted by BoatBound
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ng-on-dynafits
Cochise thread
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...Marshal-Olson)
thanks! very useful info- now need think about what whats best for how I plan to use
Review - http://www.wildsnow.com/7553/dynafit-vulcan-review/ -thx to pow11 for the wonderfully expressed comments too
Any comments on sizing relative to the Titan? (I'm in Australia so can't walk into a shop and check one out)
I'm currently in a 25.5 Titan but probably half a size too small. Just about to lose my big toenail for the second time after a 6 mile, 4000' vert walk down a mountain trail, toes crashing into the end. Apart from the lack of length I like the fit of the Titan.
Based on this would I be looking at a 26.5?
the vulcan has a longer toe-box than the titan. can't say that would fix it, but all boots toe boxes can be punched forward a good bit.
You know I had a pair of virtually unused 26.5 Titan UL's in my car when I was parked next to you 2 weeks ago? You could have skied them to try out that day and had them for less than half price if you wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarveMan
Were they the ones fast_limey might have PMd me about a while back? Would have been good to try them on at least. Oh well, I should have complained more and you would have known!
Anyway it's pipe dreams as I can't see the budget for a new touring boot any time soon, but I do need to fix the return spring on a buckle and the touring buckle extender on another.
Longer toe box in the Vulcan does sound good though, I've had a dozen pairs of boots in a 25.5 & done thousands of days, and while they have all been a close fit the Titans are the only ones that have caused problems.
My shop was concerned about punching the toe area of my Titans out of fear of affecting the tech fitting alignment. Is that a possible issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
Looking to follow this. My UL's need a 6th toe areaQuote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
My understanding is that this is an issue if you aren't careful. I had the sixth toe in my Titans punched, you just have to be careful not to heat the sole of the boot. You can do this but putting the bottom of the boot in a pan of water while heating, or shielding it with tin foil, or otherwise keeping from heating the sole. Of my concern is punching the front of the boot for the big toe, as the front of the removable sole comes up there and if you punch it, the other sole won't fit. Therefore, my bootfitter ground that area instead of punching. My Titans no fit like a slipper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird Blaster
LOL. Yeah. That is a spendy boot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chugachjed
Any group buys on TGR?!
Do it Do it!
For the amount of shit the last group buy stirred up I don't think this will be happening. Maybe I'm being negative but I'm actually just being realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by buildakicker
Either way, I wish this was boot wasn't as wide, I think I'll be keeping my TLT5's and get the forward lean mod done
Being realistic aint negative. Too much of a good thing........Quote:
Originally Posted by StopMakingSense
That wider boot would fit my foot real nice... but $1k!? I'll be waiting.
So does anybody know how this wider last leaves the Vulcan/Mercury in comparison to the Maestrale? Wider? Narrower? Less or more precise? Interchangeable?
Little narrower in forefoot and ankle. About as wide in toebox. About as (in)precise which means some padding will be necessary but your toes will wriggle a bit - tradeoffs for comfort that are justified imoQuote:
Originally Posted by ready2tumble
Uh, for my foot it's pretty different (wider toebox in the mercury, same in forefoot and ankle) so the shape of the foot might be crucial here...Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
That's why Internet bootfitting sucks. But people can't get to them without buying and they keep asking so i and you have to give our honest impressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by verbier61
Fully seconded :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Why on earth doesn't anyone take real measurements off all these different boots and publish the data?
Or the manufactures could publish their foot last data.
In most cases, single last widht data are available, but they're not so useful because boots are not perfect spheres.... And montebelluna's modellisti aree not willing to publish 3D data and to give up to their 50 year advantage over the rest of the world....Quote:
Originally Posted by shirk
I tried to talk Lou into it. But even he isn't that anal. It'd be a huge project. the only person who's meticulous (^^^anal) enough to do this is SheffitzQuote:
Originally Posted by shirk
Funny you should mention that, because just yesterday I was thinking that shell dimensions could be expressed by a single number, that would equal:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
... the average of...
... the widest dimension at the forefoot and...
... the narrowest dimension at the heel...
... divided by...
... the interior length.
I wouldn’t bother with height, since that is easy to take up with bontex shims underneath the footbed.
And I wouldn’t bother at all with trying to measure anything inside a liner, given that shell fit ultimate is what matters, and liners are of course swappable.
I know this is far from perfect, but I think it would be far better the supposed “last” figures that are currently cited. (Although I suppose those are still better than the “flex” figures, which seem to be suffering from Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation.)
Sorry to be boring, but imvho the only way is 3D. Anything else would be misleading....
ding ding ding. a single number is retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by verbier61
DIY options for external 3d scanning has been available for awhile, someone should be able to figure out a way to translate it to internal.
As a corollary, does this mean sizing down from the Titan to get a similar internal length, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
try before buy. its defiantly NOT 1cm smaller (i.e. 1 size).
How much stiffer is this than the Mercury? Because the Mercury is facking stiff.
Input from Dynafit people here, Disclaimer: turn on paid advertisement marketing filterQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
http://freeskier.com/stories/company...d-of-the-curve
Has me wondering whether the mercury has a more progressive flex than the vulcan?
Hoji insinuates that he's riding them
And if true, N. America being Dynafit's most strategically important subsidiary (whatever that means...the same way a nuclear warhead (Hoji) is important to the air force?), is a surprise and a change of tune.Quote:
“Since I got the Mercury boot in early summer, I have pages of feedback. But coming straight out of box, it’s the best all- around ski boot the world has ever seen.”
If I was going to ski the Mercury (which I won't, it don't fit) I would probably ski it without the tongue. It is still plenty stiff, and has a more progressive flex. Plus it is one less obnoxious piece of plastic. That boot has more parts than a Lego set.
Getting fitted in to the Mercury tommorrow. Should have some feedback on them in a few days.
Ha, funny bout the Mercury, was thinking the same thing when I slipped into them a week or so ago. I haven't gotten my piggies in a Vulcan, but I was extremely impressed by the smoothness and stiffness of the Mercury. I was initially pretty sold on getting the 'One' but the Mercury is only a smidge heavier, has the same good stride, and I'm sure will be more solid on the way down.
I really wanted to buy the Vulcan but when I tried it I got a cramp in my foot just having the boot on unbuckled. Buckled was even worse. I couldn't be bothered to even try to fit that to my foot. The instep is far too low for me
Went for Maestrale RS
Had my Mercuries for a week or two now. Only skied them with some GS skis on groomers once so far, and so far so good. At 190lbs I can't really see why you'd go for Vulcans as these are plenty stiff. The flex is less progressive with the tongue on compared to my Il Moros using the stiffer tongue that came with the Dalbellos (I think it's labeled C?), but they are definately on the stiffer side and plenty stiff for my skiing needs. Haven't tried skiing them without the tongues yet but will give that a go next time on skis. The fiddle-factor with the tongues seems to get easier each time, but you have to pretty much unbuckle everything to get them into place.
Posted about fit with 916s in the Guardian thread yesterday. Crammed these into some 916 ZZs. Toe doesn't adjust high enough but they have those two less rubbery pads that sit on the AFD so I *think* it might work with some grinding. Out of the box they probably will fail any testing as there's a lot of friction against the AFD.
As for fit, they have a pretty low instep, solid heel hold with a pretty snug fit ending up with a pretty big toe box. I have pretty big calves and these are very snug around my calves at least. Tried them with the Intuition liners from my Il Moros but weren't able to even close the upper buckle with those in. Molded the liners that came with them with some padding on my ankles and the sixth toe area and are using them with some Conformable custom footbeds. Still a bit low instep for me but they felt better each run I did. Might have to punch them in the sixth toe area but I need to take them out on some bigger skis as snow season really kicks off.
Will report back with more input once I've had more days on them.
Have you tried to cut out the elastic thingy on top of the instep at the base of the tongue yet?Quote:
Still a bit low instep for me but they felt better each run I did
I'm sure that rigid spine along the seam that travels down the tongue doesn't help either. Instep is a bit tight on me also but plan on cutting that elastic thing off right away.
Checked to see if the boot board is removable but it seems glued in there for some reason.
Hmm, I'm days away from pulling the trigger on some Vulcans, but the last page of this thread has me second guessing them over the Mercury. Not that I'm looking for a race boot stiff AT boot, but I wouldn't mind it considering I'm 6'2" , 220 lbs.
However, I'm no fan of boots (typically Pebax) that have the flex pattern of a cast. I like/want/need stiff boots, but prefer to have a reasonably progressive flex pattern.
I've had several AT boots, but haven't kept any of them because the because the flex pattern sucked (Scarpa Hurricane, Garmont Radium), or because they just had way too much footbed ramp angle (Garmont Endorphin).
I also just picked up a pair of 2011 BD Quadrants on SAC, but i won't be keeping those because they're just too wide for my feet. I am however fine with the flex on these, but then again they're not pebax. (side note i'll post them up for $320 what i paid SAC before i return them. Size 29.5)
Reading this leads me to think the Mercury is basically almost as stiff as the Vulcan, but with a more progressive flex pattern. Can anyone quantify the Mercury flex? Is it like a "110" where the Vulcan is a "120"? Or is the Mercury even closer, further? Is the Mercury similar to the Quadrant?
I know it appears I'm splitting hairs, but i want to keep these boots ...
I ran across some random store marketing specs online that put the Mercury at 120 flex. Will know more when I ski them.