Ski Touring Boot Range Of Motion Survey: A Look at Responses

by Jason Albert
written by Jason Albert
Skinning in the Esplanade Range in B.C.

Let the zigging and the zagging begin. Boot range of motion comes into the play during the uphill portion of our efforts.

If you are finicky about a boot’s range of motion, you’ve got plenty of options out there. Here’s a look at some of the information collected from our range of motion survey.


Range of Motion (ROM) matters for backcountry ski boots. Think of it as the ability of the ankle to move (relatively) unimpeded when secured in a ski boot set in walk/touring mode. Setting some ground rules first, we’ll assume we come to the sport with expectations, needs, and desires regarding gear. But this much is true: if you are staying true to the human-powdered concept of backcountry skiing, much of your time, maybe 90% of it, is spent working uphill on skins, booting, cramponing, and maybe practicing the art of vertical snowshoeing.

Ninety percent of a minute, an hour, a day, that’s a lot of time: best to find a comfortable boot meeting your needs.

Digging into the “Range” of the ROM

What got me thinking about ROM and how manufacturers quantify a boot’s ROM began with the Dynafit TLT X last spring. Here’s what I wrote in a first look:

“The Dynafit TLT X is relatively minimal in weight and has a pivot at the ankle that feels frictionless. Other boots claim a larger range of motion (ROM), Travers Carbons (80 degrees), S-Lab MTN Summit (75 degrees), Tecnica Zero G Peak (75 degrees), and Scarpa F1LT (72 degrees). At 60m degrees for the TLT X, I’m not noticing any deficiencies in ROM. If 60 degrees is the new 70 degrees or 75 for that matter, then so be it. I have a tough time discerning the ROM difference between the S-Lab MTN Summits and TLT Xs.”

I’ll call the difference between 75 degrees and 72, when it comes to a ski boot’s ROM, as near identical: we’re not talking about the mirror on the Hubble Telescope or landing a Mars probe too hard on the red planet’s surface. It’s a ski touring boot.

But the difference between, say, 60 degrees in the TLT X and 75 in the S-Lab MTN Summit should be discernible. Both boots skin/walk great, and their ROM lies somewhere between the claimed 60 and 75, respectively.

On a recent hut trip, I brought a 183cm Atomic Backland 107 and a 184cm DPS Pagoda Tour 112 RP for the expected soft snow powder conditions. With these larger skis, I like a slightly bigger boot. I don’t need super stiff, just more support: I opted for the Fischer Transalp Pro. This boot is an in-between-er. In other words, it provides more support than a 1kg class boot but falls off in stiffness compared to boots like the Tecnica ZG Tour Pro and Scarpa Quattro SL (two four-buckle boots I have been experimenting with lately).

The ROM of the Transalp Pro is stellar. But, it is not the claimed 80 degrees. I wrote this last season:

“Although the Transalp Pro is aspirational, the cuff rotation, understandably with a stiffer boot, is reduced. The Fischer promo video on their site claims 80 degrees for a range of motion, while some other websites restate the 80 degree ROM claim. Cripple Creek BC states 65 degrees – and I’d agree with that.”

During those recent six days in the Transalp Pro, striding in the best-ever set skin tracks I’ve been on, I used a low riser sparingly and made good use of the boot’s ample ROM while in flat mode. The super fit skier from Colorado who was often ahead of me on the skinner was in a ZG Tour Pro (claimed ROM 55 degrees) and slotted into his low riser using a Marker Alpinist binding much, if not all, of the time. (I attribute my flat mode preference to boot choice.)

We all likely expect less ROM in a stiff freeride oriented boot and more in a lighter speed-touring boot. And the survey says, according to the ROM respondents, that claimed ROM is most often accurate.

A note, we did not ask survey takers about their specific liner. We assume some skiers have replaced stock liners with an aftermarket choice. (I use stock liners in all but one boot, which is not discussed here.) Additionally, we did not ask about ankle ROM — we understand that some backcountry skiers experience limited ROM due to something biomechanical.

And, as the pie chart illustrates below, of those who find an inaccuracy in the claimed ROM, most perceive the ROM to be less than claimed.

Of those who claimed inaccurate and less than claimed, all but six skiers were on stiffer freeride-oriented boots.

But, as you can imagine, many skiers in these stiffer free-ridey boots thought the claimed ROM was accurate. We’ve got nine skiers saying the Tecnica ZG Tour Pro’s (including one skier in the Scout and one in the Tour) 55 degrees is less than claimed. Sixteen skiers in this same boot say “accurate” as claimed (this includes a Scout W). Let democracy flourish: we can agree to disagree. Perceived ROM is up to the individual.

High Risers

Whenever risers are passingly mentioned in a WildSnow piece, I get semi-nervous about the ensuing onslaught of comments. Risers and riser use seem to matter… a lot. Maybe even more than a lot to some.

I take the road of use risers if you want. And if the skintrack is so steep it demands riser use, and still, you refuse, I suppose setting a new skintrack is an option.

That said, nearly 64 percent of the kind folks who responded said they seldom use high risers. That could mean a lot of things, but it likely means, as a community, less than steep skintracks are the norm, or that lighter high ROM boots are widely used. (Norms likely deviate zone to zone and region to region.)

Twenty-two skiers opted for “often” use a high riser. Almost universally, these folks are in four-buckle boots.


Closing it out

We’ll leave the discussion of what may impede a particular boot’s ROM for another time. But, when asked to describe the limiting factors to a boot’s ROM, we had wide-ranging responses. There was “slightly squeezing my ankles,” on a Hoji Tour, to “Cuff/lower interference, liner stiffness,” on a claimed 80 degree ROM boot the respondent stated was an accurate claim.

The info presented only captures a tiny portion of the backcountry skiers out there. But, the survey makes this clear: a combination of uphill efficacy and downhill proficiency is in demand.

More on the ROM and limiting factors later on — have a good weekend.

As always, chime in. If risers matter, which they evidently do, then ROM also has a place in the conversation.

15 comments
0 Email

Dynafit Blacklight Boot: A First Look

by Jason Albert
written by Jason Albert

IMG_0550

Blacklight and TLT X.

Dynafit has released the carbon-cuffed Blacklight speed touring boot (left); a model similar to the softer TLT X (right).

Dynafit’s speed touring Blacklight brings all the best features of the TLT lineage into a new carbon-cuffed speed touring boot weighing (drum-roll) … around 1kg, depending on the size. These comfortable and capable boots are built for deep missions.

 

With this first look, like a Wim Hof inspired ice plunge, we’re mindfully jumping fast into the basic stats of Dynafit’s new speed tour model, the Dynafit Blacklight. To the stats.

Blacklight Stats

Weight Blacklight 27.0/27.5 shell w/27.0 liner stock footbed + optional mini-powerstrap: 1118g

For comparison, weight TLT X 27.0/27.5 shell w/27.0 liner stock footbed + optional mini-powerstrap: 1118g

Optional power strap weight: 19g

Lower shell construction: Carbon-infused grilamid

Cuff: Carbon fiber

Boot spoiler: The white on the boot’s rear — Grilamid

Forward Lean: adjustable 15° or 18°

Sole: Pomoca

Liner: Dynafitter 5 (so far, no heat molding necessary)

Sizing: The boots break on the whole size. Meaning the 27.0/27.5 share the same shell (BSL 297). The 27.0 has a slightly smaller liner than the 27.5 (it’s a slightly roomier fit with the 27.5 liners).

Price: $899.95

WildSnow TLT X Coverage
— First look
— Review
— Comparing the TLT 5, TLT 8, and the TLT X

 

The Flex

The big question, I suppose, many are asking is how is the flex compared to the TLT X? The primary difference between the TLT X and the Blacklight is the Grilamid-fiberglass cuff of the TLT X compared to the Blacklight’s carbon cuff. Boot shells are comprised of an upper and a lower. And the lower shell in the Blacklight is carbon-infused Grilamid, whereas the TLT X is straight sauce Grilamid.

A rainy day carpet test bore some information. I locked into skis, a Blacklight on my left foot, a TLT on the right and leaned aggressively forward: WildSnow video production unit was on-hand to document.

The literal carpet test: Dynafit Blacklight and TLT X.

Initial engagement with the boot, while pushing forward as if to initiate a turn, the Blacklight feels marginally stiffer. Pushing through the initial engagement is where the enhanced stiffness of the Blacklight shows up.
The TLT X’s flex is progressive yet softer than the Blacklight. Pushing all the way through with the shin, the interface of the upper and lower shell on the TLT X begins to flex and bow out slightly as some energy is absorbed and, as a result, makes the flex feel softer.

Conversely, with a strong push-through with the shin in the Blacklight, there’s some bowing at the shell’s upper and lower interface, but markedly less. All this means is that so far, the Blacklight does feel stiffer. In terms of a progressive flex, the Blacklight is progressive, but the range of forward flex (when in ski mode) seems more limited than the TLT X’s; it’s easier to push to the end of the flex range in the TLT X.

Who is this boot for?

Dynafit markets the Blacklight and TLT X as speed tourers. Honestly, I like that classification. I see a speed tourer looking to optimize efficiencies moving in big terrain while sacrificing some stability on the descent— but not much. These boots are not four-buckle big-ski-driving boots. But you know that. They are, however, capable of driving skis 95mm and smaller that are constructed with the uphills in mind (read lighter). I can imagine, on a very soft (like feathery) and light snow day, that a capable skier could use the Blacklight or TLT X to push a wide powder ski. The Blacklight might provide the added stiffness you want to pull this off.

Those eyeing spring traverses, far-away steep lines, resort uphilling, and simply the means to move faster, either boot works great — the Blacklight will ski slightly stiffer than the TLT X.

Twistfit system: Dynafit.

Like the TLT X and other racing boots in the Dynafit line, the Blacklight employs a Twistfit system to secure the lower shell.

Securing the Blacklight upper.

The upper is stiffened with a carbon cuff and a buckle-strap with an optional mini-power strap to top it off.

Ultra Lock 5 Walk Mode

The Ultra Lock 5 Walk Mode is easy to use and time tested. Throw the buckle open, maybe loosen some velcro, and start skinning.

Fit

I like where Dynafit has gone with fit. The instep, for me, is neither too high nor too low. And from what I gather, the instep has a range suitable to many foot types. There’s room to add a more supportive aftermarket insole if need be. The last, at a claimed 101mm, is sufficiently wide, with the toe box allowing room for toes to spread out comfortably. Again, the liner is heat moldable. And with carbon-infused Grilamid, it can be punched, but bring it to a trusted bootfitter who has experience working with the material; better safe than sorry, as this stuff can be touchy when heated.

I’ll call my heel pretty average. Like I did with the TLT X, using an EZ-Fit heel sock takes up the extra heel volume I don’t need; the Blacklight has room for wide heels. All in all, Dynafit has built a very comfortable boot that can accommodate foot swelling on those epic tours.

Similarities and Differences

Beyond the cuff and flex, the similarities with the TLT X are many. There’s a BOA-like closure called the Twistfit. The Twistfit tightens over an internal plastic plate that, when the system is tightened, snugs firmly over the instep and draws the heel back. The design also provides ample sensitivity for micro-adjustments. I tend to loosen the Twistfit during transitions from skiing to skinning.

Both boots have a claimed 60-degrees range of motion, which, personally, I think Dynafit is underselling. The ROM feels near frictionless and many degrees beyond 60. They are superb uphilling boots.

I’ve skied plenty with the TLT X, including a six-day traverse. The boots were great. The assumption is that the Blacklight will handle efforts like that similarly. The most notable differences are the cuff material and the color scheme, and the flex pattern. A small difference is the upper mini-powerstrap affixes to the Blacklight with two small screws, whereas the same strap on the TLT X does not use screws.

Liners: Blacklight and TLT X

Both boots have heatmoldable Dynafitter liners made for speed touring. This means thinner foam and built-in flex. The Blacklight on the left has slightly different reinforcements for high wear zones than the TLT X’s liner on the right. The Blacklight does not hav e eyelets for laces.

Mini-power strap boot's rear side.

The boot’s rear’s are near identical too. The optional mini-powerstrp secures with a screw on the Blacklight, where’s as the TLT X has a molded fitting to secure the strap.

The liners, which appear near identical, have slightly different patterns for reinforcements in the high-wear zones. (See photo). The Blacklight’s stock liner is laceless, while the TLT X liner that showed up last spring has lace eyelets.

And there’s the price; you’ll pay about $100 more for the carbon cuff and carbon-infused Grilamid. The quality of the carbon cuff’s build so far seems exceptional and durable. More on the Blacklight later this season.

Shop for the Dynafit Blacklight.

19 comments
0 Email

Atomic Backland Carbon: A First Look

by Slator Aplin
written by Slator Aplin

Atomic updated their Backland series of boots for the 22/23 season. I plan to test the Backland Carbon. Before diving into more comprehensive field testing for this season, here’s a first look.

 

The Intro

The Atomic Backland Carbon is one of the SIX new flavors in the Backland series. The Backland boots vary from more affordable and less stiff to less affordable and stiffer. The Backland Carbon is the least affordable and most stiff in the series. Here’s a graphic to help with the related manufacturer’s model mayhem:

Atomic Backland boot: the breakdown.

The Backland Series goes from Carbon > Pro > Expert > Sport. The distinctions between models are material type, liner type, and power strap type. It looks like all of the boots are built with the same molds and use the same notions (buckles, liner covers, ski/walk mechanism, pivot materials).

The Backland Series goes from Carbon > Pro > Expert > Sport. The distinctions between models are material type, liner type, and power strap type. All the boots appear to be built with the same molds and use the same notions (buckles, liner covers, ski/walk mechanism, pivot materials).

There is a complementary series to the Atomic-declared ‘ALL ROUND’ Backland series called the Backland UL series (called ‘FAST AND LIGHT’ in contrast). The Backland UL series differs by having a velcro cuff buckle, no power strap, a lighter liner, and a BOA shell closure system. I imagine this saves a bit of weight and money at the expense of durability and downhill performance. As a disclaimer, I haven’t seen any of the Backland UL series; this is strictly speculation from catalog browsing.

Backland Carbon UL ( left) / Backland Carbon (right)

Backland Carbon UL ( left) / Backland Carbon (right).

 

The Update

Okay, what’s changed with the updated 22/23 Atomic Backland Carbon?

Versions of the Backland Carbon: Old v New.

21/22 Backland Carbon (left) / 22/23 Backland Carbon (right).

Atomic replaces the BOA system with a buckle system: The new shell buckle system is called the Cross Lace 2.0. It has similarities to the 18/19 Atomic Backland Carbon (hence the 2.0 as an improvement on the past buckle design). I imagine the extra zig in the zig-zag cable pattern will provide a more uniform closure over the top of the shell. The move away from BOA has turned into a market bifurcation within the two-buckle boot world: some companies are sticking with the BOA (ex., the Salomon MTN Summit, the Scarpa F1 LT, and the Dynafit Blacklight), while others are moving back to the buckle (ex. the Tecnica Zero G Peak and the Dalbello Quantum), and the Skorpius CR II evolved from a buckle to the BOA. (The upside to all these closure systems is you’ve got options.) I look forward to comparing both the merits and drawbacks over this season.

New power strap: The new power strap is a minor, albeit helpful, improvement. The difference is there’s now a locking system on the cam strap buckle. The locking system allows the cam lock open or remain closed and makes threading the cam strap easier while putting on the boot. I’m curious if this added complexity will lead to more opportunities for something to break; for now, it’s convenient and a pleasure to operate.

New liner: The new 3D Platinum liner is made from Atomic’s proprietary Dry Fit Foam. Atomic advertises this foam as providing a phenomenal and longer-lasting fit that improves foot hold over previous Backland boots. Designwise, they moved the perforated red foam from the toe box to the heel and Achilles area. The red foam is designed to improve venting and reduce foot sweat. Maybe there were complaints of cold feet with the past liners having the perforated foam in the toe box? Also new is a more durable outer fabric that is placed on higher friction areas to improve the liner’s durability. Knowing liner rub is a pervasive problem across two-buckle boots, I’m excited to see this. In general, the liner feels high quality. Most ~1000g boots have a skimpy liner to save on weight. This liner feels substantially more plush – made with denser foam, a reinforced tongue and calf cuff, and a noticeably high construction quality.

Atomic Backland carbon liners: old v new.

Old liner (left) / New liner (right).

New snow gaiter: The snow gaiter received an update too. The gaiter is a common failure point for most two-buckle boots. It’s difficult to bond fabric to plastic, and it’s in the high friction zone where the cuff articulates on the shell. The old snow gaiter has two magnets that attach the fabric to the liner. The new one has a velcro tab connecting to the liner’s tongue. More noticeably, the new gaiter reaches higher up the boot and doesn’t have a stitched seam in the center. I’m looking forward to testing the durability of the new snow gaiter this season.

Atomic Backland Carbon gaiter: Old and New

Old snow gaiter left / New snow gaiter right.

 

Aside from these changes, the 22/23 Backland Carbon looks similar to its aged brethren. Similar shell and cuff. Same great cuff buckle (one of the best in the category because of its large amount of travel for remaining buckled while in uphill mode without hindering range of motion). Similar outsole and ski/walk mechanism. I look forward to seeing how these design changes play out throughout the season. In particular, I’m thinking:

Will I miss the BOA?

Will I want to replace the liner for something more substantial in less than a season?

Will the snow gaiter hold up through the season?

The Fit

As a preface to my description for the Backland Carbon’s fit, I’ll describe my foot as narrow and low-volume. The Scarpa Alien RS fit my foot shape great, but the volume was too high. The Salomon MTN Summit was an appropriate volume, but too wide in the toe box (as two related points of reference). With that in mind, the Atomic Backland Carbon feels narrow in the toe box and has an appropriate volume for my foot size / arch height.

The shell buckle provides more macro adjustment to the boot but lacks micro adjustment (the BOA system, in contrast, felt the opposite. It provided great micro adjustment but lacked a wider range of macro adjustment). The cuff is slightly too high volume for my calf and ankle. This surprised me because I have bigger than normal calves and ankles.

This is my first take on out-of-box boots. I’ll update later with a more informed opinion.

The First Impression

I went for my first tour with the Atomic Backland Carbon boots. Here are a few notes from the outing:

Uphill:
-Smooth, low resistance range of motion

-Convenient power strap (with the updated locking mechanism)

-Great cuff buckle that allows me to avoid moving the buckle in between uphill and downhill mode without compromising the range of motion

Downhill:
-Surprisingly progressive flex for a carbon fiber cuff

-Secure shell fit with shell buckle system

-Lower-than-I’d-like cuff height

-Strange off-axis cuff overlap

Atomic Backland Carbon: BOA V Buckles.

The white arrow points to the asymmetric cuff overlap. I’m not sure if this negatively or positively affects the performance of the boot.

Final Thoughts

What I like:
-The boot has a narrow fit that feels comfortable but not spacious (think performance fit)

-The progressive flex is better than other carbon fiber two buckle boots that I’ve tried

-The shell buckle system is an improvement to the BOA for durability and fit.

-The liner feels nicer, more durable, and higher performance than the old Backland liner

-The color scheme screams Disney villain, which I’m into.

What I don’t like:
-The liner tongue doesn’t sit well while the boot is in downhill mode. It will slide to one side or the other, which is noticeable while skiing. A velcro strap connecting the tongue to the rest of the liner could be an easy remedy for this issue.

-The cuff overlap sits asymmetrically on the shin. I don’t know if this helps or hurts downhill performance.

What I look forward to finding out:
-How do the liner, snow gaiter, and hardware hold up over normal use in a season (general durability)?

-How would a few upgrades, like a thicker liner and wider power strap, add to the downhill performance of this boot?

 

The Basic Stats

Claimed weight: 1162g (size 26.5)
Construction: Carbon cuff, shell is carbon infused polyamide
Last: 98mm
Forward lean: 13, 15, and 17 degree options
Range of motion: 74 degrees
Price: $799.95

Thanks for tuning it. Will check back later with more comprehensive opinions!

Shop for the Atomic Backland Carbon.

10 comments
0 Email

Scarpa F1 GT: A Review

by Russell Wong
written by Russell Wong
Scarpa F1 GT in use.

Taking the F1 GTs out for a spin. The boot’s progressive flex allows for great sensations when driving the ski in and out out turns.

Scarpa’s F1 GT piggybacks on the basic design of the venerable F1 LT. The GT’s softer flex and buckle closure offer another lighter weight option for those seeking a near do-it-all boot.

 

As someone who grew up riding lifts, I initially saw touring as a means for “earning turns.” Over time, I have learned to enjoy touring for its own sake. Now it’s not just about the turns but also about exploring the endless mountains Alaska offers. The crux in moving from a downhiller to an uphiller was acquiring the proper gear. Most importantly to me, this meant finding my ideal ski boot.

My ski-boot journey led me to the Scarpa F1 GT, a boot that, while built as a fast and light “skiing machine” by Scarpa and perfect for long traverses in the Alaskan wilderness, also fits into a category that allows for great pleasure in all aspects of skiing the backcountry.

A clean look at at the F1 GT. This boot deviates from the F1 LT in construction and closure systems.

F1 GT Stats

Size Tested: 28

Weight (28): 1240g/boot

ROM: 72 degrees

Forward Lean (adjustable): 9, 11, or 13 degrees (+/-2)

Shell Material: Grilamid with fiberglass (this is punchable)

Liner: Intuition Tour L T2

Sole: Vibram UFO LT

Closure: Upper buckle, full-size powerstrap (removable), and a lower buckle.

Price: $798.95

The Scarpa-f1-LT shares some DNA, but is a lighter stiffer option with a BOA closure over the instep and a buckle/powerstrap + mini-powerstrap securing the upper.

These boots come in at 1240g in size 28. They have a 100mm last and 90-ish flex (though with the large power strap up top, you can crank em’ down, and they feel closer to a 100 flex, in my opinion). Check out Alex Lee’s first look for more of the nitty gritty.

WildSnow F1 GT Fist Look.

WildSnow F1 LT Coverage.

 

I began this journey looking for a light and comfortable boot for long travel days but burly enough to withstand the cold and support a 30-40 lb multiday pack.

The boots satisfying these criteria were to be tested on a “shakedown” trip on the North side of the Alaska Range near Delta Junction last spring. In a scramble to get something together on time, I scored a third-hand pair of Arc’teryx Procline Carbon Lites. These were lighter (and cheaper) than any boot I had owned, but they just didn’t work for me. They ran a bit small, and I found myself wanting more stability and warmth for their weight. My tripmate, Alex, informed me of the perfect alternative, sitting in his garage some 300 miles away, a pair of Scarpa F1 GTs. I did my best to suffer crushed toes in silence.

 

The Skiing

I eventually stepped into the Scarpa F1 GTs on a pair of Black Diamond Helio Carbon 95s, and they satisfied everything I was looking for. They offer excellent mobility and comfortable touring while maintaining just the stiffness and warmth I sought.

For a first run in these boots, I put down a couple of the first winter tracks on Peak 4, a classic of the Chugach front range outside my hometown of Anchorage, Alaska. I met Alex at the trailhead at a crisp 8:45 AM (a real alpine start here this time of year), giving us enough time to adjust the skis to the boots in a surprisingly warm parking lot and start skinning all before sunrise at 9:30.

The clear skies were already glowing. But, a dramatic inversion had set in with temperatures of 17 degrees in Anchorage and 34 degrees at the trailhead. We skinned up the trail past Peak 3, which looked a bit shark-infested for us, and it was also tracked.

F1 GT driving the Helio 95.

The F1 GT proved to be an ample boot with the BD Helio Carbon 95 underfoot.

It wasn’t far to Peak 4, and we were soon putting in switchbacks. At first, the snow seemed a bit sunbaked and punchy, but each kick turn brought us back out of the inversion and into progressively softer and “actually pretty good snow.” Before long, we had gained the ridge and were making our transition in full-on winter pow.

Until this point, I hadn’t thought about the boots—amazing. When trying new boots, I am usually hyper-focused on potential hotspots because I hate getting blisters. Thankfully, the GTs weren’t rubbing. For this, the boot’s mobility helps too. These boots cover a greater range of motion than my ankles and are comfortable enough to make my toes curse my past self and my willingness to suffer through discomfort.

As I locked into ski mode, I could feel that the boots lean a bit toward a high-volume fit. I fiddled with them a bit more but couldn’t lock my feet down the way I wanted. This wasn’t an issue in the soft snow closer to the ridge, but the funky variable snow down low amplified all that wiggle room. After these first turns, I threw in aftermarket insoles to fill up some space. This sacrificed none of the touring comfort and worked great for my low-volume feet. The reduced movement actually fixed some areas that I suspect may have become hotspots on longer days.

After tinkering with the fit, I took the same setup on a sunset lap to Arctic Valley, another popular spot outside of Anchorage. Unsurprisingly, most of the aptly named area was windswept or windboard, but we found an untracked gully protected from wind.

Forward lean: F1 GT

The forward lean is easily adjusted on the F1 GT with a velcro spoiler.

F1 GT offers a solid 72 degree range of motion.

With the claimed and accurate 72 degree range of motion, the F1 GT continues the F1 LT’s bliss on the uptrack.

The GTs made easy work of variable conditions. I felt secure on the wind-effected snow surface near the ridgetop. As I entered the gully, it was immediately clear that the best snow was right down the gut, creating a rather narrow corridor of true powder. I stuck to this good snow, taking tight and quick turns, and feeling controlled yet free to open it up. Again, I didn’t really think about my boots and just enjoyed seamless power transfer, foot support, and ski control from the GTs.

I only have a little experience skiing lighter boots, but these exceeded my expectations on the downhill. It appears that downhill performance translates well to stability for a heavy pack. Great for the rare winter camping trip, but also exciting for secure feet and balanced turns on any of the usual single-day objectives.

The Features

As far as the specific features go, I am partial to the two-buckle system for its strength in locking my feet down and because it’s what I’m used to. On the other hand, it doesn’t have the low-profile, speed, or micro-adjustability of the Boa mechanism.

I’m also happy about the Speed Lock ski/walk mechanism. It’s a little beefier than others out there, but it seems durable and less likely to ice up with the added option to adjust the forward lean from 9° to 11° to 13°. As a final plus, the power strap and liner spoiler are easy to remove for when you decide to shave off a couple of ounces at the last minute.

A similar boot to the F1 LT, the F1 GT offers a softer flex.

A shot of the boot’s front and rear. The softer flex and buckle closure system offer another option in the Scarpa lineup.

The Scarpa F1 GTs make a great entry-level ski mountaineering boot. It’s softer than its sibling, the highly praised F1LT. That boot has become a staple for those seeking a stiff and light boot.

The F1 GT deviates a bit from the Scarpa F1 LT beyond the stiffness and lower shell BOA closure. This newer, yet softer boot, employs a buckle closure on the upper cuff that is separate from the power strap. The GT’s powerstrap sits above the buckle and is a full-width powerstrap. Conversely, the F1 LT’s upper buckle secures the main powerstrap, while a smaller or mini-powerstrap sits above it to further secure the boot’s upper.

A few other differences. The F1 LT uses carbon-infused Grilamid in the upper and lower shell. Whereas the F1 GT’s shell is Grilamid reinforced with fiberglass, making it softer: this also allows for a more progressive flex. If you are driving smaller/lighter skis, the F1 GT’s flex pattern might better suit your skiing style. This is to say you have choices if the Scarpa fit is to your liking.

Those (en)lightened skiers promised me comfort and ease of travel with reasonably good downhill performance – and they delivered. The Scarpa F1 GT has dissolved past fears of lighter gear, meaning an awkward fit and wobbly turns.

Now I see that the ski can be as fun as the tour.

Shop for the Scarpa F1 GT.

15 comments
0 Email

La Sportiva Skorpius CR II: A First Look

by Jason Albert
written by Jason Albert
La Sportiva Skorpius CR II- new this season.

La Sportiva updates the Skorpius series with the Skorpius CR II: a stiff skiing lightweight option for those going deep to the mountains.

La Sportiva’s new Skorpius CR II makes the best of both worlds: uphill efficiency and downhill performance. This is a boot fond of deep mountain human-powered lines and skiers who need to carve up the snow-canvas with big and fast turns.

 

It’s hard, sometimes, not to romanticize Italy and its boot-making prowess. For years now, La Sportiva, as the lead indicates, is Italian to the core and still conjures magic when it comes to climbing, mountaineering, and ski boots. But as with all things foot and ski boot, the goods must fit.

Back in 2019, Doug had a first look at the La Sportiva Skorpius CR. That version of the Skorpius CR shared the same general shape as the La Spo Solar. We’ll revisit the lineage in a bit. Anyhow, Gary Smith then penned a full review of the Skorpius CR titled “These Dancing Shoes Can Ski.” The title is declarative — there’s no equivocation. And to boot, Gary wrote, “not to my surprise, the Skorpius walks extremely well,” and “transitions are a breeze.”

We are more than rolling into the 2022-2023 season, and La Sportiva has dropped an updated version of the boot, sequentially named the Skorpius CR II. The changes are subtle and, to some, more pronounced.

The boot lower no longer secures with a cable buckle (sorry, buckle lovers) but with a BOA (yeah, for BOA lovers). In contrast, the upper boot looks nearly identical to the old version, with some updated cosmetics — less yellow and more black. Reminder, this is the first look; more will come this season.

BOA closure- Skorpius CR II.

A close up of the BOA closure on the new Skorpius CR II. Behind sits the older Skorpius CR, with the cable-buckle closure.

 

The Skorpius Deets

The upper shell is secured with a robust and easily adjustable power strap (with a buckle closure) and a skinnier velcro mini-power strap positioned above it. The new liner, at least to our discerning eyes, and we’ll confirm in the long-term review, feels just a smidge stiffer up top. The ski/walk mechanism remains unchanged in the effective and simple Swing Lock mechanism. For new Skorpius users like myself, this mechanism takes a few moments to get accustomed to, and it can be tough to nudge from ski to walk with mittens on — likely not a concern for most.

Like its older sibling, the new Skorpius CR II is an all-plastic boot shell, there’s no U-shaped cut out over the forefoot like many lighter weight boots. More specifically, the new deal Skorpius CR II is carbon-infused Pebax Rnew, which is bio-based. The fit, too, is slightly modified, with a bit more room for high insteps. For my feet, which generally seem to fit most boots out of the box with few, if any, mods beyond taking up some calf volume and adding narrowing pads if the liner packs out significantly, the boots are comfortable and snug.

The BOA secures the forefoot and pulls the heel back slightly. I’ve not heat-molded the liners yet. But for a firmer hold with the BOA, I’m wearing a slightly thicker weight sock than my normal go-to socks. Otherwise, I’d be cranking the BOA super tight. I’ll qualify this fit aspect too: I’ve not replaced the stock insole yet. With a Sole or Superfeet insole, I’ll be taking up some instep volume. (Hold on, this is confirmed with a quick-swap carpet test, an aftermarket insole takes up some instep volume for me.)

Swing Lock - Skorpius CR II.

On the left, the new Skorpius CR II, on the right, the original Skorpius CR goods. Both employ the Swing Lock ski/walk mechanism.

Bot rear: Skorpius CR II and Skorpius CR

The new on the left, old on the right: similar if not near identical builds.

Securing the Skorpius CR II's upper.

Like the original Skorpius CR, the Skorpius CR II upper secures with a buckle-thrown wide velcro power strap, with a secondary mini-power strap to top it off.

 

The ups and the downs

I’ll defer to my main ski partner, who also sports a set of the Skorpius CR IIs, to describe what he has experienced. John, the skier I mention, has used the original Skorpius CR for nearly all his skiing since 2019. I have seen him use the Skorpoius CR on big traverses, low-intensity strolls, and shiver-me-timbers jump turn descents. He’s kind of a one-boot quiver guy; at least he says as much, and the Skorpoius CR is that one boot. (He does keep an old pair of BD Quadrants in his shed and, oh yeah, some ski-mo boots, also La Sportiva. So, he’s mostly a one-boot quiver guy.)

John says this:

— The Skorpius CR II boots are stiffer on the descent than the old version.
— The plastic shell around the cuff seems softer while touring, but the boot is remarkably stiff when the BOA and upper shell are locked down and tightened.
— The boot is out-of-the-box comfortable compared to the previous iteration, which took several tours to break in.

And that is the sweet spot the Skorpius CR II still seems to dominate. It is not precisely a 1kg boot; it’s on the heavier end of that class. The 27.5 verified weight is 1215g, just a few hairs heavier than the Salomon S/Lab MTN Summit. The Skorpius CR II’s range of motion, at 68 degrees, is a bit less in reality than the Scarpa F1LT, the Dynafit TLT X, the Fischer Travers CS, and S/LAB MTN Summit. I feel the ROM not so much limited moving back, but with the forward motion. For those coming from leaner Dynafit boots of the past, or a Ficher Travers CS, the Skorpoius CR II feels much burlier and certainly stiffer. I’d call the stiffness of the Skorpius CR II similar to the S/Lab MTN Summit, yet with a beefier feeling liner.

For a not-so-heavy boot, the Skorpius CR II does indeed ski stiff and with authority. John skis, to good effect, the older version of the Skorpius CR paired with a Black Crows Navis Freebird, a 102mm underfoot and not-so-dainty board. (Read weighing 1700g+.) So pushing a bigger ski is in play with the Skorpius CR II — you are not limited to 95mm and under lighter weight skis.

If you are a skier wanting to go deeper and not suffer a serious weight penalty, (wait, there’s more), and be able to ski like a champ, the Skorpius CR II has can-do (likely spoken in the Italian mother tongue) written all over it.

Some updates after a few more skis. It is a roomy fit, so if you have a wide foot and are looking for something stiff skiing and in the lighter weight class, the Skorpius is a good starting point. I’m ordering up some narrowing pads and volume reducing shims to place under the insole. In terms of maximizing ROM, I’m loosening the main upper buckle/velcro and mini-power strap when skinning. John, on the other hand, loosens the buckle but does not otherwise loosen the velcro. He, too, finds the fit roomy. Lastly, I had the boot driving a 112mm underfoot ski relatively easily (DPS Pagoda Tour RP 112). The snow was not light powder, but say six inches of very wind-affected snow; fun, but some work to make turns.

More in the long-term review. But for a first look, we like it. Send questions our way.

Testing ROM: Skorpius CR II

With the straps tightened up, and the throw in walk mode, testing the ROM between the old and the new.

Liner- Skorpius CR II.

A yet-to-be-heat-molded Skorpius CR II liner.

 

Skorpius CR II Stats

Weight verified (27.5) with stock insoles: 1215g
ROM: 68-degrees
Forward Lean: 12-degrees, 14-degrees, and 16-degrees (adjusted with a spoiler)
Ski/Walk mechanism: Swing Lock
Liner: Heat moldable
Last: 101mm
Price: $849.00

Shop for the La Sportiva Skorpius CR II.

8 comments
2 Email

One for the quiver – Tecnica’s Zero G Peak W: A First Look

by Lisa Van Sciver
written by Lisa Van Sciver
Zero G Peak W

Tecnica’s women’s specific entry into the 1kg boot realm, the Zero G Peak W.

Tecnica rounds out their Zero G Peak series of boots with the women’s specific Zero G Peak W. This 1kg class boot promises a solid fit for many foot types and the lightness to help you float up the vert. Here’s a first look.

 

Any seasoned skier is well aware of the need for a boot quiver, especially for someone like me who is always seeking perfection in footwear. My ultimate boot would be feather light for ease on the ascent and then charge on the downhill. With lighter and better ski boots being developed every year, I am staying hopeful in my quest, and this season, Tecnica’s Zero G Peak W caught my attention.

Tecnica, a tried and true boot company established in the 1960s, has come a long way from the Moon Boot and now makes some of the best ski touring boots on the market. Last season, I started skiing in the Zero G Tour Pro, which is pretty close to perfect, other than the really big days when I want something lighter. So, when I learned about the Zero G Peak W, a lighter and more minimalist version of the Zero G Tour Pro, I knew this was a needed addition to my boot quiver.

The Zero G Peak series comes in three versions; the Zero G Peak Carbon, the Zero G Peak, and the Zero G Peak W. All three share common design attributes, including the carbon-infused Grilamid shell, while the Zero G Peak Carbon has a carbon cuff.

Read WildSnow’s Zero G Peak Carbon first look and long-term review.

 

Zero G Peak W Basics

The Women’s Zero G Peak is a two-buckle, mid-volume, touring boot that is supposed to walk like a dream, hold its own on the descent, and be comfortable out of the box. And for those with unhappy feet, the heat moldable CAS technology for both the liner and shell should be able to achieve a custom fit. Technica constructs the boot with a carbon-injected shell, aluminum buckles, and a LIGHT FIT liner resulting in less than 1000g per boot — specifically 905g for a size 7.5 women’s boot.

Once locked into ski mode, the traditional ski boot style cuff wraps around the calf and secures with a 40mm power strap creating a fairly stiff boot, especially considering it is only two buckles. The lower boot buckle forms a Z-shape to wrap over and secure the lower foot. The T-Hike lever (lockout mechanism) is easy and quick to transition into ski mode and sets the forward lean at 13 degrees.

Zero G Peak W inner gaiter.

The Zero G Peak W’s inner gaiter reaches way past the ankle which should help prevent snow from sneaking into the boot.

Z-cable buckle on the Zero G peak W

The Z-Cable buckle secures the boot lower and helps pull the ankle firmly back into the heel pocket.

Locking mechanism Zero G Peak W.

A pretty basic yet effective spring loaded throw locks the boot into ski mode.

 

Zero G Peak W Sizing

Generally, I wear a size women’s US 8.5 to 9 size shoes or in Euro sizes 39 for Sportiva and 40 for Scarpa. My foot is a bit wide in the front with bunions, and I have a low-volume ankle with large heal spurs, as many skiers do.

For the Women’s Zero G Peak, I chose size 25-25.5 (Euro equivalent 39.5/40) as I plan to use this boot for long days making comfort a priority over performance. Right out of the box, the boot felt great on my foot with plenty of room for my wide front foot: the classic good fit one can expect from a company like Tecnica, which has been making ski boots for over 60 years. Without molding the liner, the boot still felt relatively snug; when locked down into ski mode, it feels pretty stiff for such a minimalist boot.

After a quick lap on the Teton Pass, it was obvious this boot is not the four-buckle Zero G Tour Pro, but just the fact that I was comparing them makes this two-buckle boot superior to many I have used over the years.

I expect this boot to excel on the ascent. The Zero G Peak W is light and has a 75-degree range of motion in walk mode and a waterproof gaiter. The thick tread and trademark Vibram sole look ideal for scrambling and climbing in the wintery mountains; the toe and heel welds make the boot compatible with any crampons.

In short, it appears as if the Zero G Peak W is designed for ski mountaineering and long ski tours. I expect this to be my go-to boot for big days in the Tetons and quick fitness laps on the pass. And if the downhill performance exceeds my expectations, the Zero G Peak W could become my primary boot.

Zero G Peak W Studio shot.

The studio shot from Tecnica. Stiff, streamlined, and 1kg summarizes the Zero G Peak W. We’ll have more on the boot later this season.

Technical Specs for the Zero G Peak W

MSRP: $849.95
Last: 99 / Volume: Mid-Touring
Weight: 905g (MP 245)
Customization Liner: C.A.S. Light
Customization Shell: C.A.S.
Soles: Touring – Vibram® – Quick Step-In Low tech inserts
Shell: Carbon co-injected, Wrapping Shell Construction with Gaither, Power Frame Construction
Cuff: Carbon co-injected, Power Frame Construction
Liner: LIGHT FIT – C.A.S. Light – Anatomical Pre-Shaped – Breathable Membrane
Buckles: 2 Light Aluminium, wrapping construction, Hiking position
Powerstrap: 40 mm light strap – Power Lock
Extra Features: Free Move hinge points, Carbon Reinforced Sole
Forward Lean: 13°
Ramp Angle: 3°

Shop for the Zero G Peak W.

0 comment
0 Email
Newer Posts
Older Posts