Garmont Cosmos Ski Boot — Light, Stiff and Swift
Lou testing Cosmos, May 2012, Colorado. Click most images to enlarge.
Garmont Cosmos backcountry skiing & ski mountaineering boot.
With atomic bomb force, the backcountry skiing boot market has exploded with variety that even my fertile gear-fantasy brain never imagined a decade ago. Joining the chain reaction, Garmont is introducing for 2012/13 their Powerlite series. This review focuses on the Cosmos. All Powerlite boots have similar features to Cosmos with variations in buckle number, plastic compounds, and so forth.
- Cosmos 4 buckle (men) (all Grilamid plastic, Garmont rated stiffness 125)
- Celeste 4 buckle (women) (all Grilamid plastic, Garmont rated stiffness 120)
- Orbit 3 buckle (men) (Grilamid lower shoe, Garmont rated stiffness 115)
- Nova 3 buckle (women) (Grilamid lower shoe, Garmont rated stiffness 110)
Overall, Cosmos is positioned as a fairly beefy boot that still has the cuff articulation and lack of weight for effective human powered vert.
Weight
Pick up the Cosmos, you’ll think it’s lost mass through some miraculous process involving cosmogentic nuclides. Thankfully, no radioactivity is involved. Instead, Garmont built every major shell component with Grilamid, that difficult to mold but beautiful plastic that’s now the go-to material for making light yet stiff ski boots.
My 28.5 (BSL 316) test shells without power strap weigh 41.4 ounces each (1174 grams). That is LIGHT, compare to other boots in our weight chart. The next shell size down, what they call the 27.5 (BSL 306 mm) is 41.4 ounces (1174 grams) !!
While comparing weights to other brands, remember that due to how Garmont lasts and builds their boot shells, the next shell size down in a Garmont Powerlite boot is a better comparison. In other words, their 306 mm BSL shell fits my foot the same as most of the longer shells in our weight chart.
Sidebar, with help from Paul Parker: Above alludes to a problem in the backcountry skiing boot industry. Please when comparing boot shell weights, do so using what shell actually fits your foot rather than looking at BSL (Boot Sole Length) numbers. Although often mistaken as such, BSL is not the boot size. BSL can vary greatly between different boot models of the same internal size due to how the boot shell is designed (how thick the plastic is, shape of sole, etc.).
All boot shells have a number stamped inside the lower shell (scafo in Italian) such as “28.5.” This number is the boot’s Mondo Point Size. Shell cuffs and tongues often span two lower shell sizes so they may not reflect the exact size — it is important to look inside the scafo. That number in the scafo in virtually all cases will be the length of the inside of a complete boot.
Most touring boots use this Mondo Point System (MPS) with the shell changing every 1 cm in size. (Note: some alpine and race boots use UK sizing, which I won’t go into other than to note that it is a different measurement scale similar to the US scale.) In the Mondo Point System, half sizes are usually taken care of with the thickness of the liner and/or footbed. Note that different brands use different 1CM shell “size breaks”, i.e. some use the same shell for a 26.5-27.0, others use the same shell for a 27.0-27.5. It is vitaly important to know this shell break when fitting the boot, and certainly when comparing weights and BSL. The BSL, or BOOT SOLE LENGTH, is printed on the outside of the boot and is often mistaken for size. Most manufacturers also put a sticker on the outside of the boot that shows actual MPS size, but a good hint to boot makers would be to print shell size on the outside as well–new concept?
Oops, above is starting to look like a theology essay. To put it in easier terms, weight of the whole 28.5 Cosmos enchilada, shell/inner/powerstrap, is 52.6 ounces (1490 grams), weight of the 27.5 (next shell size down) is 51.1 ounces, 1450 grams. Wow, perhaps this does indicate some kind of cosmogentic anomaly compared to many other boots in this class? More, that’s with a liner that’s a bit heavier due to the reinforced tongue. Swap in a svelte aftermarket liner, ditch the power strap, watch your aftermarket footbed weight, and we’re talking beautiful lightness for a boot that skis this well.
Uphill
Okay, yeah, they’re light. But weight matters little if you can’t walk in your shoes. While not providing the cuff articulation of leading “tour optimized” backcountry skiing boots, Cosmos still delivers in the cuff comfort department.
Cosmos cuff rotation is excellent, and enhanced by the double pivot sliding lean-lock bar.
From vertical position to termination of rearward travel, Cosmos cuff rotates about 17 degrees. Translated to English, that means the cuff moves enough for a comfortable and normal touring gait. Though a bit more sluggish than I’m used to these days, rearward cuff articulation is nicely ergonomic. This due to the vertical lean-lock rod being free to pivot at both ends, both where it’s anchored lower in the boot as well as its sliding anchor point in the cuff. This is similar to other cutting edge systems you’ll find on the market, and truly does more closely match the motion of your ankle while having less resistance.
Cosmos lean lock bar is free to pivot while it moves up and down in relation to cuff. Cosmic.
Trouble with any “tongue” type ski boot shell is you’re going to get resistance forward while walking. Keep the upper buckles loose or unbuckled helps with this, but ultimately you’ll still feel the tongue if you stride out. Cosmos is average in this department.
How the buckles stow is also important when you’re uphilling on skis or just foot packing a dirt track access trail. The two Cosmos cuff buckles are spring loaded so they stay folded in even when unbuckled. The cuff buckle ladders have spring loaded wire “frames” that rest over the attached bails, holding them in place if you prefer touring with your buckles attached but loose. Due to the nice fit I got in these boots, I toured with the cuff buckles totally undone. Your mileage will vary on that one.
Garmont Cosmos, showing buckles automatic position while unbuckled.
The lower two buckles are one of the best Cosmos features. Open, and they swing totally out of the way via spring loading. Snap closed, and both buckles rest ON TOP of the shell tongue, thus being totally resistant to catching or opening on crusty snow, rocks, brake pedals, snowmobile tunnels, or anything else your feet might encounter in a normal day's ski mountaineering. Yeah, the buckle ladders are still over there on the side, but that's way better then having the actual buckle in a vulnerable location.
Entering and exiting ski boots can be annoyingly fiddly or difficult. Cosmos is an exception. Due to the way Grilamid is molded, the lower shell opening extends farther towards the toe than has been common in ski boots. Along with that, the tongue folds up and away on a hidden wire hinge. Pry the cuff laps out of the way with both hands, and your foot pops in and out like donning a pair of Tevas.
Check out how open Cosmos is when it's open. The only fiddle while getting your foot in and out is having to hold the curve molded cuff laps out of the way. The cuff is made from stiff springy plastic, so this is harder than it sounds but a minor inconvenience.
One other thing about hiking or climbing in Cosmos ski mountaineering boots. They have a Vibram brand sole with nice stiff rubber in the toe area where AT boots frequently become shredded after sometimes as little as a few hundred feet of scree scrambling. During my testing I stumbled up a bit of scree, and was delighted at how well the Cosmos sole held up. They’ll still wear, of course — and they’re ski boots so the sole has to be fairly thin in the toe area. But Garmont optimized this as well as any thinking person would deem possible, aside from simply making the boot sole toe area out of steel. Steel would wear well, but…
Vibram makes terrific AT boot soles,and this version has denser rubber around the outside and at toe, more grippy stuff in the middle. I did a good test of these while booting a variety of moderately steep snow without crampons. They're fine. This version of Vibram might be slightly heavier than the vapor soles found on some of the super light backcountry skiing boots available, but they actually stand up to some abuse. Also illustrated: one advantage of using old style tech binding sockets is you have quite a bit more distance between the steel socket and the boot sole, thus allowing for a thicker sole. For some backcountry skiers this is important, while others who seldom hike dirt or rocks will yawn while reading these words. To wake you up, know that by having the denser rubber on the sole, these boots will probably perform slightly better in frame bindings then they would with a softer sole. Thought I should mention that point somewhere in here, for the four of you out there who don't use tech bindings.
Downhill
When examined in light of the complete AT boot market, Cosmos is indeed optimized for the down: Conventional tongue shell design, stiff Grilamid plastic for all three major shell components, four buckles, plenty of height — the list goes on. During my testing I found Cosmos to be an impressive mix of weight savings and downhill control. This is the perfect boot for the skier who cranks hard on big vertical — charging both up and down under human power.
Cosmos spoiler can be raised by drilling another hole, or removed entirely. To remove power strap you take out the spoiler attachment fastener, jerk out the strap, then replace the fastener. Note attention to weight saving detail. We love speed holes.
Garmont touts their “anatomic shell design.” While simply meaning they attempt to bring in the ski boot shell dimensions to more closely match the shape of an average human foot, this is a valid feature. You can see it in the shell, with the deep heel pocket and slightly reduced volume over “bathtubs” of the past. No bull, you can feel the “anatomics” when you ski — a snug responsive nesting of your foot that even worked for me on a shell and liner that’s around a half size too big.
Oh, and last size? First, know that this danged “last size” thing that everyone seems to obsess on can be quite misleading. Kind of like BSL (see above). Some say the informal standard is to measure the widest part of a size 26 boot’s metatarsal area and that’s the “last size” for a model size run. But some makers measure other sizes than that, and where the shell breaks for your sizing also influences what such a number would really mean. I quizzed Paul Parker about this and subsequently decided the most precise we could get with communicating “last width” is to say Cosmos has a last width for a 27.5 of 103.5 mm, and that this is very similar to the last width of the Adrenalin (as well as being a common last width across the interbred spectrum of AT boot brands.) In broader terms from a backcountry skiing boot perspective, I’d call it a “medium” width last. If speaking from the alpine skiing side, I’d consider it a wide last. Beyond all that, remember that simple things such as the thickness of the liner and which shell size is ultimately picked (the last width scales up and down with size) obviate any precise accuracy in using “last width” to predict the fit of a boot.
Cosmos ski boot spine. Forward lean adjustment is accomplished by loosening the two indicated fasteners, moving cuff, then re-tightening.
Two technical adjustments prove Cosmos is a ski boot for the down as well as the up.
First, yes Virginia, the shell has cuff alignment. Some of you could care less about that, but those who need it know what I’m talking about, and what I’m talking about is wonderful to have.
Second, forward cuff lean angle is moderate, what I’d call around 12 degrees — but you can adjust it up to about 14 degrees (similar to that of Garmont Radium). Lean can of course also be added by using thicker spoiler, shimming inside the boot under your heel, etc. — stuff boot fitters can do in their sleep. Garmont is well aware of issues with binding ramp angle, especially that of some tech bindings having pronounced ramp. Thus by providing a relaxed cuff angle choice, requirements for modern style skiing are satisfied even while using bindings with tons of ramp.
More, rather than providing the two lean positions in the lock bar (perhaps the worst “feature” to ever exist in backcountry skiing boots), Garmont set this up so you can increase forward cuff lean by loosening the obvious two screws on the outside rear of the boot, jacking the cuff forward, then re-tightening the screws.
One small gripe about the lean lock; the mode switch is rather small and difficult to operate with thick gloves. Designing it this way is obviously a feature that prevents accidental switching from rocks or pant cuffs, but has a downside. This is not a deal breaker, and if you otherwise like the Cosmos I suspect you’d get used to it.
Sidebar: While we feel some tech bindings have too much ramp, providing at least some forward lean via binding ramp angle has a few hidden advantages. Mainly, you get some lean angle without compressing your ankle joint. Boots with aggressive forward lean in the cuff can cause ankle compression injury when pushed too far forward on ankles that are already flexed. Secondly and more importantly, boots used with a ramped tech binding can be built to walk nicely when used in the binding flat-on-ski mode, yet automatically have more forward angle when the binding is set to alpine mode with the boot heel lifted up higher than the toe. What seems to work best for a backcountry skiing setup is to provide moderate ramp angle for the binding in downhill mode, but not too much. Ramp angle of any binding can of course be tuned with shims under heel or toe mounting points, though doing so can be complex due to the need for longer screws and such.
Injection molding of Grilamid plastic is a high art. Getting it thin enough to reduce weight is key, but doing so is tough because the stuff is difficult to inject into small spaces. One solution is the inclusion of thick-thin patterns in the mold. In the Cosmos Garmont backcountry skiing boot, 'webframe' reinforcing ribs yield the combo of thin and thick, thus reducing weight while keeping the beef. Nice job, only one problem: If you want to relocate a buckle for better fit, it appears doing so will require mounting the buckle in a thinner weaker spot. Since the second buckle up from the toe buckle is mounted a bit too forward for some folks (it's in the wrong place for this reviewer, for example) this is definitely something to consider. On the other hand, most people don't do things such as buckle relocations to tune their boot fit, so in that case, non issue.
Lastly, forward flex while the cuff is locked is similar to most other tongue type boot shells. Cosmos does flex forward, and they ski fine in my opinion, but this boot doesn’t have the progressive flex of an overlap cuff. If you prefer the flex of an overlap, keep that in mind.
Liner
I quite like these liners. They’re light (9.5 ounces, 28.5) and conform well to my feet. The reinforced tongue feels good on my chicken legs. I can see swapping them into some of my other boots.
Cosmos backcountry skiing boot liner is as good as anything out there -- you liner swapping fanatics might even stick with it. I likely would.
As most of you WildSnowers know, I’m not big on writing endless verbiage about boot liners. They’re so easy to swap out, and so many people do it, that extensive coverage feels like writing chewing gum reviews. But I’ll keyboard a few things. What makes the Cosmos good is the optional laces, pull loops both front and back, density where you need it, and the nicely shaped cuff. In my view the go-to feature of the Cosmos specific liner is the plastic stiffener in the tongue. This combined with the Cosmos shell tongue I suspect will give most of you “forward stiffness challenged” boot shoppers something to be joyful about. Indeed, perhaps you won’t have to be swapping in other boot tongues, nor building up your boots with epoxy and Kevlar? And yes, the liners are thermoformable and strobel constructed (sole stitched on).
Conclusion
At first-look first-test, we easily give the Cosmos backcountry skiing boot a rousing cheer and multiple thumbs up. Garmont has nailed a beautiful combination of light weight, walking comfort and downhill performance. Simply put, by paying cosmic attention to detail and improving almost every aspect of a fairly conventional “tongue shell” ski boot design, Garmont has achieved something extraordinary with the Cosmos and their whole Powerlite line. Give ‘em all a look if you’re shopping this fall for AT boots — they’re the bomb.
Garmont Powerlite boot series shell breaks:
Celeste, Nova backcountry skiing boots:
23.0-23.5, 24.0-24.5, 25.0-25.5, 26.0-26.5, 27.0-27.5Cosmos, Orbit boots:
25.0-25.5, 26.0-26.5, 27.0-27.5. 28.0-28.5, 29.0-29.0, 30.0-30.5, 31.0-31.5
Comments
51 Responses to “Garmont Cosmos Ski Boot — Light, Stiff and Swift”
Got something to say? Please do so.
When the dust settles, we need a cross-comparison of the Vulcan, Maestrale RS, Cosmos and any other downhill-oriented lightweight boots. It’s getting hard to keep track and it would be good to know how both uphill and downhill performance compares when selecting a model.
I’d also be interested to hear how downhill performance in boots of this class compares to that of beefier boots like the Titan, Cochise, etc. I like my Titans but find them too soft laterally and aft. If these boots end up both lighter and stiffer, that’s a win in my books.
DM, one big thing in this is that some folks simply fit one brand better than another, since brands tend to use the same or similar lasting from model to model. Thus, if you’ve tended to like the Garmont fit, you’d trend to the Cosmos over other boots of similar stature. In my view this is a huge factor and one that’s impossible to compare in any meaningful way in a review, it is unique to each person and their foot shape.
Nonetheless, I agree a shootout of all these boots would be cool. We’ll do it, but it’s not going to happen particularly fast. I’d like to wait till we have production versions of each boot, and have skied each quite a bit. Lou
Is it possible to punch out this grilamid-stuff?
It’s just nylon, so is Pebax, but Grilamid requires more heat for the punch, conversely it’s usually thinner so the heat has to be applied more carefully. Both Pebax and Grilamid require more skill to heat punch than PU. There you go. Lou
I use Garmont Mega-Rides, for both resort skiing and touring. Does anyone have a sense of whether they are outdated–that is, these new boots are just so much better–or whether I should just stick with what I currently have and like. Thanks.
Very nice indeed!
but please do not forget the Orbit. If you are a not big fan of 4-buckle high cuff boots and the TLT5 feels too less or too cold, or simply doesn’t fit you. These 3-buckle little brothers can be particularly interesting options for folks favoring more traditional lower cuff skimountaineering boots for long mileage and with slightly lower budget. Other similar ‘little bro’ sub 3000g/pair boot is Scarpa Rush and of course good old Dynafit Zzero3.
I think those upper buckle wire gates are useless, you simply have to undone the buckles completely or you keep touring with unnecessarily restricted cuff rotation. In my experience this is the case with all these traditional designed boots and their cuff buckles with retaining catches.
Zeb, I’d say way outdated. But the fact that you like what you have is huge. Perhaps stick with what you like? Personally, I’ve never found a boot I totally like, seems like every few years nearly everything out there is better than before…
Thanks Toby for pointing that out. We picture the Orbit here:
http://www.wildsnow.com/6524/garmont-powerlite-review/
I’d consider it as my Powerlite choice, but I think I’m more inclined to customize a Cosmos by removing lower buckle and power strap. I’ll have to look at the real-world weight differences before I decide what’ll be in next year’s boot quiver.
As one of the 4 people not on dynafits I have been waiting for this review, obviously Cosmo will be compared to the maestrale so some questions :
-Probably the big question for me would be which toe box is wider, I got chicken legs/ankles but a wide forefoot ?
- So these liners are better than the garmont liners of old, I can see the liners say “Garmont” but who makes them, if you molded the liners how was the molding process ?
-do you know who makes the low tech fittings for Garmont?
-the Cosmo reminds me a lot of the xena/endorphin series I been skiing for 5 yrs, did Paul Parker design both?
Any idea how wide the boot is? I need a 100mm last in an alpine boot, and I ski with BD Factors now, not the widest, but I can make it work.
I like the overlap boots because of the seamless fell when you flex forward. Would the garmonts ski as well as the factors?
I know it’s very old news, but I used to ski in the Garmont Adrenalines and i hated that boot, from the lack of lateral stiffness, to the sharp plastic that used to always cut my hands, to …
@Lou, I have not yet found a touring boot I truly fully enjoy. I agree that they seem to be getting better each year.
On the alpine side, I’ve been using my venerable plug boots since my race days. The design has not changed much in many years and I don’t see much room for improvement there. It’s hard to beat the performance and comfort of a properly fit plug boot.
asuming both boots fit, how much better is the Maestrale for up hill.
would it be fair to say that the new RS and cosmo have similar down hill proformance
Mr X, I knew a few of you guys would come out of the woodwork (grin). Perhaps Paul will drop by and answer a few questions, but I can address a couple.
I think the toe boxes are quite similar between Scarpa and Garmont, not sure which would be wider. Either can be blown of course.
Does it really matter who makes the liners, i.e., what factory they’re made in? They’re definitely designed by Garmont and made specifically for the boot they come in. They molded as easy as any other thermoform I’ve used, I just dropped them onto my stack blower, then did the usual process.
Garmont makes their own fittings. They’re very nice and beefy. The heel fitting is pounded in with a hammer and has a nice long screw. IMPORTANT, any brand of tech fittings can be defective. When you purchase any brand of tech fitting equipped boots, immediately place in tech binding in downhill mode and test release on the workbench. Set binding lateral release to lower setting, 5 or so, and press sideways on the boot heel. The boot heel should move smoothly to the side then release, the boot shouldn’t stick and then violently release after excessive force. This is super important. I you don’t test your boots for this you run risk of injury.
-Yes, Parker worked on design of both. He’s not the only designer but the most visible one and the one who speak English (grin). His team worked truly hard on the Powerlite series, and it shows.
If I measure my flat foot with a ruler it is also 100mm, for me getting a grila-mid toe blown out would be a 1000km drive OR the guy at the hockey shop … I don’t think buddy will be touching either my maestrales or cosmos as the case may be
having tried intuition/ palau/ variuos conform’ables liners, the liner is pretty important to me, I don’t mind swapping liners but I would rather not have to upgrade the fact that you liked these and you could fit using a stack blower instead of a convection oven tells me these are probably different than the old G-fit liners and hopefully much improved
Interesting hearing people with beef boots considering these. I have my doubts that if you need a double overlap beef boot, that you’d be happy with the skiing perf of a lw tounge boot, but would love to be proven wrong.
On the other hand, I want a pair of these. I tried to buy the TLT5 this year, but just couldn’t handle the fit. I think these will be on my feet next year, if they fit like my current boots. I’ll be coming from a Radium.
OK OK, I spoke for an hour on the phone with Parker, mostly about last width!
Here is what I added to the review, so you guys don’t have to go find it in there:
Oh, and last size? First, know that this danged “last size” thing that everyone seems to obsess on can be quite misleading. Kind of like BSL (see above). Some say the informal standard is to measure the widest part of a size 26 boot’s toe box and that’s the “last size” for a model size run. But some makers measure other sizes than that, and where the shell breaks for your sizing also influences what such a number would really mean. I quizzed Paul Parker about this and subsequently decided the most precise we could get with communicating “last width” is to say Cosmos has a last width for a 27.5 of 103.5 mm, and that this is very similar to the last width of the Adrenalin (as well as being a common last width across the interbred spectrum of AT boot brands.) In broader terms from a backcountry skiing boot perspective, I’d call it a “medium” width last. If speaking from the alpine skiing side, I’d consider it a wide last.
Beyond all that, remember that simple things such as the thickness of the liner and which shell size is ultimately picked (the last width scales up and down with size) obviate any precise accuracy in using “last width” to predict the fit of a boot.
SB, I’d agree that if you want basically an overlap alpine boot with a lugged sole and tech fittings, this boot might not be your cup of tea. On the other hand, everyone matures eventually (grin). Lou
Xer, measure your foot width while on insoles from your favorite boots, while pinching the ball of your foot together so it fits nearly all on the insole. That’s more realistic. No one wears a ski boot that allows their foot to just sit there and freely spread out. Or perhaps one person does (grin)?
In my mind the tongue boots can easily be made stiff( very much so side to side). But the are never going to have that sweet feedback during ankle articulation that is so nice when you can actually CARVE a turn. So Ill stick to my radiums.
i really cant understand why a really lite overlap boot useing at least some grilamid, isn’t being made. Anyway Radiums seem to be fast enough for me to climb bigger peaks in the Tetons, and even a multi day slog to bag Gannett so whatever. I will say i regret replacing the nice somewhat breathable liner, for my overstiff vapor barrier powerwraps
Suggestion: Include some other vital stats in the boot review table like whether sizing breaks on the full or half size.
Great review! Thanks.
Pete, good idea, I added the shell break info to end of review. Enjoy, be sure to study them for several hours (grin). ‘best, Lou
Lou tell us some words about that Volkis you ride with the cosmos
Spiros, not much to add to Anton’s review
http://www.wildsnow.com/5879/volkl-nunataq-ski-review/
They’ve got more rocker than anything else I ski on, most of front and rear beyond boot position. Wonderful in soft snow, ok on harder because they’re not wimpy, possibly a bit too much ski for me in 178 cm. More in Ultimate Quiver review coming soon.
Thanks for asking. Lou
Never knew about the Mondo size stamped inside the scafo. Nice detail, very pertinent to correct boot fit.
They look great, exactly what I’m looking for for next season. Thanks for sharing, very detailed review!
I believe Nicola Viniero at Garmont should receive kudos for the Cosmos and related family. They look great and seem to have significantly improved over other cabrio boots in many facets. Hope to try them soon.
Hi All,
Paul Parker here. Thanks for your interest in the Cosmos. We are all delighted with our results from this Power Lite Project.
Verbier61 is exactly right and I’m glad that I brought it up. Nicola, our super-modelista, realizes the ideas that go into the project, and Power LIte has very much been his baby. He deserves more than kudos.
Calling me the “designer” seems to be an easy translation into English, but in fact I’m the Product Manager and keep the project on track. We work as a team with various engineers and designers to realize each project. Garmont’s owner Achille Morlin is also intimately involved in R&D.
I think that Lou has answered most of the questions that have come up, as we’ve had quite a bit of dialog. A lot of it as involved last width, weight, boot sole length (“BSL”), Mondo size—numbers that are bandied about in our market and are often misinterpreted. Lou has done a great job of clarification. I’d like to reiterate how important it is to qualify each of these numbers with key info like size and shell break, as different manufacturers use different sizes for weight samples, and have different shell breaks.
There was one question that came up regarding making an overlap boot out of Grilamid®. I, too, like overlap boots very much and still feel that our Radium is one of the best-skiing boots out there. ‘That said, you couldn’t inject a Radium in Grilamid® because you couldn’t get it off of the mold without deforming it too much; Grilamid® is stiff. And you can imagine if that is true when the plastic is very warm and soft from injection, it’s doubly true when it’s cold and stiff. You couldn’t get it on and off.
Thanks again for your interest and support,
Paul
Excellent input Paul, thanks!
Thanks Paul. Another “advantage” to the three piece design is it doesnt need the plastic of the lower shell to come up very high above the heel. The Radium has a way around this that works for me but, is still pretty limited in the ever more important ROM.
Anyway why not make a Grliamid sole and “frame” and do a second injection of Pebax, were you need the extra flex AND in the areas were you might punch and grind.
Hi Sam,
Good idea. Unfortunately at this time Grilamid isn’t compatible co-injected with Pebax. Plastic compatibility is a very precise, and important issue with multiple injection. You wouldn’t want the bottom half of the boot falling off.
Paul
I’m trying to find some direct comparisons between the Cosmos and the Dynafit One PX. Any thoughts?
Hi Lou — wondering how the Cosmos compare width-wise to the Vulcan? Do you wear a 28.5 in the Vulcan as well? What size (U.S.) shoe do you typically wear? Thanks!
Matt, Cosmos is slightly wider. In terms of trying to figure out fit from what someone else wears, waste of time. Just look at your own ski boots and measure your feet, then be ready to do some mail order swapping if necessary.
when will the Comos exist ? when’s Garmont going to release them ?
OT, but just stepped out the backdoor and it’s currently snowing here in east Anchorage
I just tried the Cosmos and felt it had the feel of the original Mega Rides. I remember looking a couple of years later at the Mega Ride and the liner was a complete change and I abandoned the boot. I am considering both the Cosmos and the La Sportiva but have not been able to try the La Sportiva in my size. I had the Lite Rider from Garmont and had they fixed the problems with the boot I would have bought another pair, great design but multiple problems. From reading most of the comment from this post, the skiers commenting should try several boots and then fly to where ever they boots are being made and buy a custom pair. I don’t think any of the respondents is going to get a good fit from all the quirks I have read about at this post. It simply boils down to if it fits, buy it. No amount of jerry- rigging is going to make it perfect.
I am thinking about pulling the trigger on some Dynafit Mercurys, but this boot is tempting, and a fair amount lighter. Is it significantly less beefy as well?
SB–if Cosmos are like Mega Rides, as Willis says, then the Mercury boots are beefier. I just replaced Mega Rides with Mercuries and, on the living room rug and stairs at least, they are much stiffer.
I recently ended up buying the Dynafit One over the Cosmos. I tried them both on at the same time. The Dynafit wrapped closer to my ankle which I have a lot of trouble with regard to fit. There was also room in the foot area from previous Dynafit boots. I was surprised how much more room there was in the toe of the One. I found the One had a much better overall fit as well. Trying the two boots on at the same time really lets you look at the difference. I felt it was a matter of fit not performance. I did think the Cosmos is much softer than the One. When I put the One on I felt I wanted to really drive the boot. It felt as if it was a high performance race boot. When you compare them side by side there is quite a difference but again fit is the mantra.
I pulled the trigger on the Dynafit Mercury, though I suspect I would have been happy with either boot.
Re Mercuries, the pull tab on the tongue broke off almost immediately on mine. Certainly not an essential part of the boot, but bad sign. I sent two emails to dynafit and they answered neither one.
Zeb, some of those tabs with various boot brands are just glued in, and they get loosened when the liner is molded. It’s been a problem for years. Lots of ways to deal with it. Warranty them, or insert the tab back in with some epoxy. The latter is what I usually do.
Thanks Lou. I’m now in my fourth day at Surefoot trying to get them to fit my feet–bone spurs and all. But once they do, it will be great!
Today I skied on Cosmos for the first time after years skiing Megarides. The Cosmos fits me better. It is very comfortable touring uphill, with nice easy articulation while still holding my foot firmly in the liner (no hot spots). It seems to me to be stiffer and more supportive in downhill mode than the Megarides were as well. So far I love the Cosmos.
Iam wondering if anyone can tell me..the last for Garmont adrenalins. Sole length 327mm.And there flex rating.Thanks.Ed
Hans anyone reported breaking the bucklels on the Cosmos? Specifically the 2 lower buckles over the instep (cuff buckles?). They have a plastic extender that is very frail. I busted one stowing them after skiing. I may have had some ice in the teeth of the ladder and the plastic was very cold but I was astounded when it just snapped. It isn’t like I was using my “kung foo grip” to close the buckle. I didn’t even have my foot in the boot. I was just buckling them up after taking them off.
Turns out there is only about .5 cm of plastic at the point of attachment to the buckle. If this part were made of aluminum, I don’t think this would be an issue. As is, these buckles are extremely delicate. They are astoundingly easy to break.
Too bad because I love these boots. Amazingly light, good performance downhill and they seem pretty comfortable (I haven’t broken them in yet). I think if next year Garmont replaces the plastic buckle components w/ metal this problem will be resolved.
Tried on both the Mercury and the Cosmos.. I wasn’t so worried about “fit” .. I’ve got wide feet and knew which ever I got was off to the fitter to get blown out… Picked the Mercurys they felt stiffer in the shop, and we slightly lighter (and EMS was blowing them out for 25% off list) … Haven’t skied them yet.. they are at the fitter getting blown out and fitted with a set of ultra low profile foot beds…
Bought the cosmos. Like the fit ans stiffness. Have had a problem with the lock/lean bar snapping. MEC here in Calgary also reporting the bars snapping. Garmont definitely has a design/quality issue there. Or maybe Scott has…….?
By “snap” do you mean “click”? Mine make a click sound sometimes. I don’t notice it any more; either it stopped, or I got used to it. The mechanism that locks the boot for downhill mode is a sort of toothed rack thingy that is unlike any other boot lock mechanism.. Something doesn’t quite line up right, but it seems to work fine. These boots still ski great and are very comfortable skinning too.
Hi, Garmont definitely has a design/quality issue. Last week, after roughly 30 tours the lock/lean bar fxing mechanism broke (aluminium plate). If you hear a “clicking” sound I’d definitely check the mechanism. I have found somebody else’s report on the same problem (in German).
(
shame. great shoe but not (yet) built to last. great if that happens if you’re touring from hut to hut etc.
Max
Cosmos 29.5 / Hardside 181 / Dynafit Radical / 80kgs/ 180cm
Tne saga of Garmont boots has culminated in disappointment, but there is hope as Scott says they will revamp and continue with the line, under the Scott brand.
See
http://www.wildsnow.com/8655/garmont-cosmos-details-review/
Lou