Falcon 10 fit vs. Atomic

**elesquiador** · 11-18-2006, 10:40 PM

My boots are dead, looking for something with a similar fit to a 2001 Atomic Beta Ride 10.5 (i think...the orange ones). Have a good deal on a pair of Falcon 10s in my size, but can't try them on where I'm at now. Can anyone compare the fit of these to my old atomics?

**XtrPickels** · 11-18-2006, 10:59 PM

falcons are more anatomical, without being narrow.
Atomics felt like a rectangular box.
I'd say they are more like the xwave series in that they are a bit higher volume overall.

I don't think the fit is the same, but I don't think that rules the falcon out. Seems to be a solid boot

(disclaimer: I've only tried these in the store and all have been too wide for me)

**Particle** · 11-19-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

falcons are more anatomical, without being narrow.
Atomics felt like a rectangular box.
I'd say they are more like the xwave series in that they are a bit higher volume overall.

I don't think the fit is the same, but I don't think that rules the falcon out. Seems to be a solid boot

(disclaimer: I've only tried these in the store and all have been too wide for me)

Hmm, I'd disagree. I've got a super narrow foot and made the switch from Flexons to Salomon Pro Model SC 2 seasons ago. They've been great, although still a touch too wide. The Falcons are even narrower, so I just switched to them.

To the original question though - Atomics are generally wide, the Falcon last is definitely not wide.

**skibumnh** · 11-19-2006, 09:06 PM

I tried the Falcon 10 and the Falcon Race, they had identical fits. I have a medium-wide foot and I found the falcon last much too narrow w/serious instep pressure. For comparison sake, the xwave 10 felt better overall but the instep was still killing me. I ended up in the Atomic m110 and its much wider all the way through. Its also slightly shorter (falcon is a tall boot) and accomodates a wider calf pretty comfortably. I went a size smaller in the atomic vs what I had tried in the solly. Also, Ive been told the new atomic liners dont pack out much.

**XtrPickels** · 11-19-2006, 09:38 PM

You really think its that narrow?
in my original post, I never meant to make it seem as though they were wide, but they do feel wider than my hotrods.

**TheDon** · 11-19-2006, 10:57 PM

I have a pair of the Falcons, have only worn them around the house. I will be riding them on Thursday. They feel narrower and are a touch stiffer in the flex than the Atomic RT CS that I rode all last year. The toe box on the falxon feels a little smaller around the big toe.
I am actually amped to have them opposed to the Atomic.

I have a pretty normal foot.

**skibumnh** · 11-20-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

You really think its that narrow?
in my original post, I never meant to make it seem as though they were wide, but they do feel wider than my hotrods.

I guess I have a wider than normal foot around the instep area and it routinely causes problems. I went to the m110 from the original beast, which was a cavernous fit. I measure a 27 and I could have probably worn a 25 in the beast. I am wearing a 26 in the m110 now. Everyone else echos your feelings about the falcon so you are probably right - If you have a normal fit, youll probably love the falcon. I wish I could have worn it, it looks like an awesome boot.

**fluffballs** · 11-20-2006, 01:11 PM

Can't speak on the atomics, but I'm making the switch from x-waves to falcons. x-waves were very comfortable for me, but I could never get even pressure along my shin, especially low on my ankle ( I have very skinny ankles). The falcons certainly weren't comfortable through the foot, a bit narrow for my "normal" foot. None the less I'm stoked to have a boot wrap my shin, and it's a generally sweet boot.