Comparo — Tecnica Zero G 17-18 and 18-19

Post by blogger | May 8, 2018      

Randy Young

Tecnica Zero G, version 1 to left, 2 to right.

Tecnica Zero G, version 1 to left, 2 to right. Oddly enough, the new version appears narrower in the toe box but is virtually the same in terms of fit, perhaps the plastic is thinner or something.

The name and color are the same. That is all. Tecnica is releasing a new Zero G Guide “Tour” Pro for the 18-19 season and about the only thing it has in common with last year’s boot is its appellation. The 18-19 version is lighter, with a better range of touring cuff motion, stiffer plastic and a familiar but slightly different take on the ski/walk mechanism. Check WildSnow previous coverage here. Below is a field testing review with tech details where I felt appropriate.

Calipers verify 2018-2019 version is about a centimeter narrower, outside dimension.

Calipers verify 2018-2019 version is about a centimeter narrower, outside dimension.

At the beginning of this past winter season I was looking for a boot that I could skin up the resort and then spend the day skiing and feel like I was in an alpine set. As co-owner of Cripple Creek Backcountry I was able to compare quite a few boots and I narrowed my options to the Tecnica Zero G Guide Pro, Scarpa Freedom SL and Atomic Hawx XTD 130. I decided on the Zero G Guide Pro because the flex felt most like an alpine boot. Last year’s boot used a “bi-injected” shoe that made for a solid flex (I’d agree it’s a 130) but combined with a few other factors also made “version 1” a bit on the heavy side. In detail: 1540 grams could be said to be of reasonable weight for a four buckle touring boot, but if you were looking for an everyday backcountry shoe, the fast moving world of boot development is quickly making 1540 the uphill skiing equivalent of tons.

No more problems with weight. For version 2 of the Zero G (now called the “Tour Pro” instead of “Guide Pro”) it’s all Grilamid, less overall volume, no swap sole, and lighter buckles. These changes helped to drop the weight of the boot down 200+ grams to 1320 (my 26.5 testers, per boot). That’s about a pound per pair. You don’t always notice a few grams, but you notice when a full pound is gone.

I’ve been out on both versions quite a bit, and conclude the new boot is ever so slightly less stiff front to back, but is so responsive and stiff side to side that any less fore-aft beef simply contributes to a more progressive feel. I’d still rate it at 130, or perhaps 129?

Check out the cuff flex range of motion on the new version, left.

Check out the cuff flex range of motion on the new version, left. This is the real deal as opposed to an alpine boot you can perhaps tour with.

The best improvement, however, is in range of cuff motion. The old Zero G came in at a limited 44 degrees. For “real” touring that is more of a hangup than weight. During my many days on version 1, the weight didn’t bother me as much as the poor range of touring cuff motion. This years boot comes in at 55 degrees. A noticeable improvement. At 55 degrees the Zero G version 2 feels the way a touring boot should in the skin track, rather than feeling like an alpine boot that you could take out for a tour.

The other major change is an external “strut” ski/walk mechanism that appears similar to what you see on numerous other brand’s touring boots. But with a twist. Tecnica is calling this their “Double Blocking System.” It releases and locks in two places rather than just a single connection point as is common with other brands. They advertise this as a performance and safety advantage. Lou and I joked that the Double Block could be a bit of over-engineering that’s more about appearance than function. However, I have to say that the stability when skiing is impressive so perhaps the Double Block is legit. That little bit of play you feel in ski mode of many touring boots is not noticeable.

So, Zero G version 2 “Tour Pro” is lighter and tours better, but I know all you Wildsnow readers only care about whether or not you can rip turns and stomp landings that’ll enhance your filming career. I have no idea. I do not ski that hard and have never made it into a TGR film. But what I will tell you is skiing last year’s vs. this year’s side by side the difference in downhill performance is very slight. In other words, kudos to Tecnica for being able to drop weight and so nicely improve the touring capabilities of the boot, without sacrificing any of the ski performance. I have had both boots out in powder, spring corn, and rock hard refreeze and can sincerely say the new boot rips just as well as its heavier “sophomoric” predecessor, and tours too.

(WildSnow guest blogger Randy Young is co-owner of Cripple Creek Backcountry, the “local” ski shop that Wildsnow partners with in various endeavors. It is a mystery why he’s the only person within 30 miles of his shop who ski tours one of the two pair of 4-buckle boots Cripple Creek stocked last winter. He swears he never rides ski lifts.)

A few factoids below to help with Tecnica shopping.

Please note the Tecnica Zero G ski touring boot for 2018-2019 will be retailed in five flavors:

Zero G Tour Pro is the lightest weight, with both cuff and scaffo in Grilamid, 130 flex.

Zero G Tour Scout (also in women’s), scaffo Grilamid, cuff PU, 115 flex, plus about 40 grams per boot over Pro.

Zerog G Tour (also in woment’s), cuff and scaffo PU, 110 flex, plus about 150 grams per boot over Pro.

Women’s versions will go down to size 22, but only due to the liner being short lasted. Sizes 22-23.5 all have the same BSL of 275 mm.

Tecnica boot sole lengths etc., click to enlarge.

Tecnica boot sole lengths etc., click to enlarge.


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


17 Responses to “Comparo — Tecnica Zero G 17-18 and 18-19”

  1. rod georgiu May 8th, 2018 1:27 pm

    How is the support when you get in the back seat?

    Like an Alpine boot?

    I find the Lange freetour lacking a bit in rear support

  2. Sam May 8th, 2018 2:38 pm

    Thank you for the review of this very tempting boot. Does that enormous 1cm difference in external width translate into a much narrower internal profile as well? In my experience 2-3mm can make a huge difference in the fit of a boot around my relatively wide feet…just wondering if this aspect will be a deal breaker for me.

  3. Lou 2 May 8th, 2018 5:55 pm

    Sam, the boot is easily punched for width. And no, it’s not as narrow as one would assume from comparing. Lou

  4. Craig Steury May 8th, 2018 11:51 pm

    Just wondering about your opinions of the Tecnica Zero G v 2 to right. vs the Atomic Hawx XTD 130, w.r.t the Atomic Hawx XTD 130? especially in terms of weight, flex, last, etc? I had similar motivations for a beefier boot (as well as being tired of trying to keep up with better skiers on alpine gear in my touring gear). So far so good, though I may need more toe room for a day’s touring …

  5. Lou Dawson 2 May 9th, 2018 9:05 am

    Pretty similar, I’d choose by doing an in-person shell fit and carpet test. Fit would trump everything. I’d guess the Atomic is slightly heavier, but I’d need both boots here side-by-side, in their 2018-2019 model, to get exact weight comparo, and they don’t seem to end up here concurrently, as they’re out for testing nearly all the time.


  6. Randy May 9th, 2018 11:02 am

    Hey Sam, I was very surprised to find that in next years boot which, as shown in the photos, measures to be narrower that the fit was actually easier even with my wide forefeet. Additionally, I’ve done plenty of punching on the current model for customers and with perforated pre-punch zones on both models of this boot they are super easy to work on if you were to need more room.

    Craig, The Hawx 130 is technically slightly heavier (1420) than next years Tour Pro and I think the Tour Pro would still feel stiffer than the Hawx, though I’d have to flex side by side in shop to give you a better idea. As for fit I did find the Hawx to feel narrow out of the box, but the Hawx has MemoryFit (fully heat moldable shell) so getting a custom fit out of the Hawx is “easy.” Ultimately Craig, if you can, I would recommend trying them on side by side at your local ski shop.

  7. Sam May 9th, 2018 11:14 am

    Thank you for chiming in Randy. When you say “the fit was actually easier even with my wide forefeet” do you mean the out-of-the-box fit or do you mean it was easier to customize by punching?

  8. Randy May 9th, 2018 11:42 am

    Hey Sam, I mean out of the box fit. But this is the demo pair so it was likely broken in a bit before I got to it. That said, still impressive that with a 99 last it’s comfortable for me to be in all day when usually I need a wider boot to find that comfort.

  9. Sam May 9th, 2018 11:43 am

    Thanks again, this is exactly the sort of feedback I am looking for!

  10. GB May 15th, 2018 9:21 am

    Thanks for the review. Are the angles of the new boot (zeppa, delta, lean, etc.) identical to the previous boot?

  11. Lou Dawson 2 May 15th, 2018 12:48 pm

    Hi GB, I’ve got both boots here, note that the cuff angle of the new model is adjustable, set at factory setting. The old model does not have adjustable cuff angle.

    Measuring them both in the same binding using an angle meter, forward cuff lean is virtually the same, bootboard (inside shell at bottom of foot, under liner) is the same. Cuff lean is a little tricky to measure as it’s dependent on the depth of the heel pocket as where exactly one places a straight edge, but both heel pockets appear similar and the angles measure very similar, to again where I’d call them virtually the same. If the boots felt different a small amount of liner shimming would take care of it, or adjustment of the cuff angle using the provided adjustment method. The tech fittings appear to be in the same relationship to the interior sole of the shell so the “delta” of the boots when in binding is the same. Beyond spending three hours doing minute measurements, I’d call the boots the same in terms of downhill skiing angles as well as the zeppa angle (boot board, inside shell under liner), though they’ll of course feel different due to how the liner fits your feet etc. Lou

  12. GB May 15th, 2018 2:48 pm

    Thanks for looking at that Lou! Would be interesting to hear from tecnica if they designed all the angles to match. I know atomic tries to keep all their angles identical, from race boot to touring. I’ll put an update here if I get any more info from tecnica.

  13. Max November 14th, 2018 12:13 pm

    I’m really interested in this boot to complete my new 50/50 setup of Kore 93 with Shift MNC bindings. I was out to get the Hawx XTD 130 but it is unavailable in my 24.5 size. I would like to add a zipfit downhill liner for inbound days. The Head Kore 1 could be a great alternative though. I expect the Kore 1 outguns (?) the ZGTP inbounds, while good enough ROM for day touring. However Blister gear commented on the Kore’s soft linear flex while praising the progressive true 130 flex of the ZGTP. Anyone able to comment on this from on snow experience?

  14. vasja January 21st, 2019 11:25 am


    can anyone directly compare HAWX ULTRA XTD vs Tecnica Zero G in the hight of instep? Measure in mm what the height difference is?

    I have high instep and unfortunately I can not find any opportunity to compare both.

    Also currently I’m using original “green” Zero G (2017-18, highly modified by a boot fitter) in 115 flex and I’m looking into something slightly less stiff and more progressive.

    High instep is most important for me.

    Thank you.


  15. herb Jones February 25th, 2019 10:25 am

    Hi Lou et al,

    I bought a pair of the Hawx XTD 130 in early November 2018 and ended up rejecting the boot after many bootfitting attempts to widen the toe box and the forefoot. I am adjusting all boots that I use to get a bootboard ramp angle less than 2.5 degrees. The out-of-box ramp angle of the Hawx 26.5 is 4 degrees so it required a considerable forefoot shim which reduced vertical toe room too much. The plastic of the Hawx is very maleable to allow for foot molding the shell and it is extremely difficult to isolate punches without losing any nearby punches so we cold not get height and width at the same time!

    The spec sheet for the Tour pro and Scout lists ramp angle at 3.5 degrees. It is rare for a bootmaker to even list this feature and starting with a lower ramp means less shimming. Warning: The ramp angle I measured in the 26.5 Tour Scout is actually 2.4 degrees! Even better than I could have hoped for, for my needs. Oh yeah, if you reject the idea that ramp angle makes a difference without having tried skiing with a TOTAL ramp angle less than 2.5 degrees, full toe and metatarsal splay, and 10-14 degrees of free fore/aft ankle flex you can buzz off!
    (Sorry, but don’t knock it until you try it if you have the chops! See “The Skiers Manifesto” website for more info.) The Tour Scout, I subsequently bought, has better vertical toe room than the Hawx AND the plastic is much better if you need forefoot, toe, navicular, maleolus punches,etc. The Scout 115 is much softer fore/aft than the Hawx XTD 130 but, I think it will be enough or at least as supportive as the Dynafit TLT5 Mountain I had before. If not stiff enough I will try the Tour Pro.
    One big drawback to the Tour Scout is the lack of screw fittings which makes punching the forefoot area with a ring or Walker press more difficult.

    On snow testing is iminent. Will report results. Hope this info helps.


  16. Herb Jones February 25th, 2019 8:42 pm


    I have a fairly high arch and fit both boots quite well but, I do not use a footbed. I have flattened the contour of the bootboard by gluing 1/8″ cork gasket material on top and sanding on a belt sander, without changing the ramp angle. Where exactly would you measure the instep height?

    The Tour Scout has softer plastic bonded to the overlap of the scaffo where it turns up and would contact the lower end of the tibia when dorsiflexing (bending forward). This is most welcome and I have felt no impingement on my lower leg when flexing in walk mode. The Hawx did impinge and hinder flexing somewhat.


  17. ted d March 1st, 2019 7:18 am

    Herb- Have you tried grinding down the footboard of the Hawx? It grinds very easily and is much simpler in my mind compared to shimming the forefoot. Atomic also sell them as spare parts if you don’t like the result. I found the angle just under the heel to be way too aggressive for me.

Anti-Spam Quiz:


While you can subscribe to comment notification by checking the box above, you must leave a brief comment to do so, which records your email and requires you to use our anti-spam challange. If you don't like leaving substantive comments that's fine, just leave a simple comment that says something like "thanks, subscribed" with a made-up name. Check the comment subscription checkbox BEFORE you submit. NOTE: BY SUBSCRIBING TO COMMENTS YOU GIVE US PERMISSION TO STORE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS INDEFINITLY. YOU MAY REQUEST REMOVAL AND WE WILL REMOVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITHIN 72 HOURS. To request removal of personal information, please contact us using the comment link in our site menu.
If you need an emoticon for a comment just copy/paste off the following list, or use text code you might be familiar with.

:D    :-)    :(    :lol:    :x    :P    :oops:    :cry:    :evil:    :twisted:    :roll:    :wink:    :!:    :?:    :idea:    :arrow:   
Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after approval. Comments with one or more links in the text may be held in moderation, for spam prevention. If you'd like to publish a photo in a comment, contact us. Guidelines: Be civil, no personal attacks, avoid vulgarity and profanity.

  Your Comments

  Recent Posts

Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed


  • Blogroll & Links

  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version