R&D Interview: La Sportiva Skorpius CR II

by The Editors Of Wildsnow
written by The Editors Of Wildsnow

A flagship ski boot in the La Sportiva line, the Skorpius CR II is touted to offer performance for demanding ascents and descents. Wild Snow reviewed the boot earlier this winter. In this article, we connect with the Director of R&D at La Sportiva, Matteo Jellici, for a deeper look at the design and tech of the boot.

Skorpius CR II

WildSnow: What market segment of backcountry skier is the Skorpius CR II aimed at?

Matteo Jellici: The Skorpius is aimed at the devout advanced backcountry skier that wants a lighter product for bigger days in the mountains that can still deliver downhill performance for mid-waisted skis. This skier can sacrifice a little stiffness for lighter weight and an amazing ROM for more comfort when ticking lots of vert.

This is the second edition of the Skorpius. How long was the R&D and prototyping process?

Typically a new ski boot takes about 3 years for the full cycle of development, starting with the design brief and all the way to delivery of the product in stores. With a revamp of a boot like the Skorpius CR II we are able to drop a year off of the development cycle.

Matteo Jellici, director of R&D at La Sportiva

Matteo Jellici, director of R&D at La Sportiva

What specific changes were made from the original Skorpius?

We added the BOA closure system, redesigned the tongue of the boot, and we added more thickness and comfort to the liner for better downhill performance and comfort.

Can you describe the general prototyping and design process for a boot like the Skorpius?

We have seen a leap in recent years with 3D printing technology. The cycle has sped up dramatically. It all starts with a design brief and a design process. That culminates with a 3D design and then you start mold development. In general, there are about 3-4 iterations of mold design and test cycles.

3D printers now allow the development of a boot that can be fit-tested many times before executing mold development. Mold development is very expensive so you want to be as close to perfect as possible. With 3D printing, we can do some light testing but not full stress testing. Real plastic is needed for that.

When designing ski boots, how many versions do you develop before the final mold?

There are usually about 10-15 various prototypes that are tested before the final molds are produced.

Boa closures added to the updated Skorpius boot

The Skorpius is a boot we often think of as a 1kg+ class ski boot. Can you tell us where it stands in the La Sportiva line?

It is solidly in the middle of our line. We have race-focused products in the Stratos Series and the Racetron. The Skorpius sits directly in the middle and is a lighter-weight ski touring boot that can still drive a mid-waisted ski. The Vega and the Vanguard are on the heavier more downhill-oriented end of the line.

La Sportiva Skorpius CR II Specs

  • Weight: 1190g. 1/2 pair (size 26.5)
  • Sizes: 23-31.5 +1/2
  • Fitting Compatibility: Tech
  • Angles: 12° – 14° – 16°
  • Range: 68°
  • LAST: 101

Several companies have a version of 1kg+ boots that have a carbon cuff. Why does La Sportiva not use a pure carbon cuff in this model?

The carbon-reinforced cuff of the Skorpius is very similar in stiffness to comparable boots from other companies. The Solar and Stellar are essentially the same boot with a plastic cuff.

Thanks for the details, Matteo! We’ll see you out there on the snow.

–This interview was sponsored by La Sportiva. Learn more about the La Sportiva Skorpius CR II at the link.

6 comments
14 Email

For the Love of Carbon: Dynafit’s Blacklight Ski Boot

by Jason Albert
written by Jason Albert
The carbon-cuffed Dynafit Blacklight

Dynafit’s Blacklight weighs sub 1200g in a 27/27.5 shell and with a carbon cuff, skis stiff.

The glossy carbon weave is attractive. When carbon is employed, we pay a premium for lightness and stiffness: Dynafit’s Blacklight ski boot doubles up with real-world stiffness and is a high-functioning boot for any mountain mission.

 

Practically speaking, there is no other way to test and review a boot than jumping right into it with the walking, scrambling, cramponing, skinning, and skiing.

Dynafit markets the Blacklight as a speed touring boot: and it is that. What that means is this is not a freeriding boot (read high cuff, meh range of motion, and four buckles) but a worthy boot you’d wear on long missions to drive a ski in the 95mm width range and under. In short, it is a stiff boot, built on an almost identical chassis and liner system to the softer yet capable Dynafit TLT X. Our Blacklight first look spent some time discerning the differences in flex between the two models.

Not just for Skiing: the Walkabout

I’m hoping where you live, you can access a trailhead for touring without walking much this time of year. Slapping skins on skis from the start is ideal. For this time of year, mid-February, I’ve rambled enough in the Dynafit Blacklights to know they are up to the task of step after step after step up a trail to snowline. The claimed range of motion is ~60 degrees. Know that the liner build and friction experienced when walking is walk-friendly. My time heading into ski with @cascadeconnections on the west flank of Mt. Jefferson ground truthed this. Like the TLT X, if you are looking for a spring skiing boot for missions with significant approaches, intermittent climbing, or scrambling, you’ll be in good hands (feet?) with this boot.

Oregon’s snow year, at least from the catalog of images posted on social media and elsewhere, has not been as deep or photogenic as other mountain ranges. Locally, the high pressure and warming temps have made for some firm skiing and firm approaches that are not so typical this time of year. But the best skiing is where you find it, which most of the time is close to home.

Buckle arm.

Noted here in red is the buckle arm disconnected from the power strap hook/clasp.

Ultra Lock system.

To note here, as the buckle arm is unclasped, the buckle and ultra lock system can rotate slightly and ease from walk to “almost” ski mode. I experienced this several times while using crampons.

Cramponing up firm snow and surfaces coming close to an approximation of ice is a breeze in the Blacklight. There is, however, one thing to watch for. The main powerstrap is a time-tested system that incorporates a buckle throw to secure the boot’s upper cuff and switch the boot in and out of ski/walk mode. What makes the throw system work is a hook fixed to the powerstrap side (see photo) that locks/clasps the buckle arm.

While cramponing, I loosen the power strap and secondary mini-powerstrap to ensure a maximum range of motion and minimal friction. I did notice several times while ascending when the boot suddenly experienced a limited range of motion. An unforeseen change underfoot when in crampons cab be unsettling. This all caught my attention.

In these instances, I found the buckle arm had unhooked from the power strap’s clasp. This allowed the ski/walk mechanism to nudge into ski mode. The accidental near lock-out only happened on the left boot and was remedied by tensioning the main power strap’s velcro and reconnecting the buckle arm to the clasp. In the future, when using crampons, I’ll position the main power strap’s velcro a bit tighter than I might otherwise to prevent this.

I know the debate between buckles and BOA (and BOA-related systems) rages on. Let it rage. I can comfortably snug the forefoot to eliminate heel lift and still be comfortable walking and skinning in this boot for hours. Read that as no blisters or discomfort from rubbing. This includes no discomfort after fully dunking my left boot in Mill Creek after I slipped off an icy rock. The Blacklight passed the 5k of soaking wet sock and liner skinning test.

One last comment on skinning/walking in this boot relates to fit and blister prevention. There was some back-and-forth after the first look relating to heel fit. Let’s assume we have some general similarities about our heels and some differences too. I’d say the heel fit skews to those with slightly wider heels (and I mean slightly). I don’t get discernible heel lift when skinning or walking in the Blacklights. But as one does with a boot lower, one can gently tighten the boot lower to secure the forefoot and mitigate heel lift in walk mode.

I know the debate between buckles and BOA (and BOA-related systems) rages on. Let it rage. I can comfortably snug the forefoot to eliminate heel lift and still be comfortable walking and skinning in this boot for hours. Read that as no blisters or discomfort from rubbing. This includes no discomfort after fully dunking my left boot in Mill Creek after I slipped off an icy rock. The Blacklight passed the 5k of soaking wet sock and liner skinning test.

Twistfit- Dynafit Blacklight

The lower shell of the Blacklight features a Twistfit closure that is similar to a BOA closure. Internally, as you tighten the Twistfit, a cable is tightened that secures a semi-rigid plastic fitting over the forefoot. This is an effective and secure retention system.

We uphill here at WildSnow. Meaning that roughly 90 percent of the day, you’re not using an anti-gravity assist machine; you are going uphill using your own power. Which, to most of us, is part of the attraction. But so, too, is the descent.

Last winter, when inquiring about the Dynafit Blacklight, I asked someone who had been in many boots what they thought. And their general feedback was the Blacklight was not much stiffer than the TLT X, which features a fiberglass-infused plastic cuff.

My experience does not align with this at all. The Blacklight’s carbon cuff (which is beautifully crafted) makes this a stiff skiing speed touring boot. Stiffer than the TLT X? For me, that’s a hard yes.

I’ve used the Blacklight and the TLT X in the full spectrum of conditions. And in softer snow, I kept returning to the question of who needs a boot this stiff for driving a ski I’d want to use with this boot. Again, I prefer a boot in the 1kg class of boots to drive skinnier and lighter skis. (In the lightest of powder, I might bump this boot up to use with a bigger and wider ski.)

At 5’10” and 160 pounds and vacillating between aggressive skiing and cruisy turns, I could easily find my flex sweet spot with the softer TLT X. But, on this recent Mt. Jefferson mission, I did find myself in some steep, firm, exposed, and frankly unnerving snow.

The Blacklight’s carbon-induced stiffness was very much to my liking. And further down the face when the snow softened a bit, making for most excellent soft-landing jump turns, I knew then why the extra stiffness was desired: the Blacklights are precise and predictable. (The stiff skiing Blizzard Zero G 95s underfoot were a perfect ski pairing too.)

The Dynafit Blacklight illustrates a well engineered interface between the Grilamid lower shell and carbon cuff. What you can expect is great tourability and excellent stiffness while descending.

The Dynafit Blacklight illustrates a well engineered interface between the Grilamid lower shell and carbon cuff. What you can expect is great tourability and excellent stiffness while descending.

 

Who is this Boot For?

The simple answer to the above prompt is this: this boot is for those looking for a light and stiff boot. The carbon cuff does translate into real-world stiffness. The Blacklight is not as progressive flexing as the TLT X, nor is it a brick wall. With the type of power I employ to push and carve a lighter and shorter ski, I’m certainly in the middle of desiring a softer flex like the TLT X and a stiffer boot like the Blacklight.

I’ve had the good fortune of trying different boots in diverse mountain settings. In isolation, either boot, the TLT X or the Blacklight, could work great for me. I used the TLT X on a big traverse last spring and loved it. But tasting the sweet stiffness of the Blacklight’s carbon cuff in higher consequence terrain will have me reach for this boot more frequently in the spring, particularly when the sharp and pointy tools are present for the ascent, as I might be finding firm terrain on the descent.

One thing I’d change, and this is a very small detail, I like the option of running a lace on my liners: lace eyelets would be nice, but that’s being picky.

Back to the question of who this boot is for. If choosing between a TLT X and this boot (let’s assume you have narrowed down the fit to these boots), the Blacklight is flat-out stiffer. The boot lowers differ slightly. The Blacklight has a carbon-infused Grilamid lower compared to the TLT X’s straight-up Grilamid. I do not experience more torsional stiffness in the Blacklight’s lower than the TLT X. When you lean forward and transfer energy to your skis, that’s where you’ll notice the difference.

Let’s answer the question, though. For super-aggressive skiers, you will likely over-flex the TLT X, which you can experience with a simple carpet test. You know who you are. The Blacklight will have your back.

 

The 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 mini-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)
Price: $899.95

Shop for the Dynafit Blacklight Boot.

7 comments
0 Email

The 120m Flex Scarpa 4-Quattro SL Review

by Jason Albert
written by Jason Albert
Scarpa 4-Quattro SL

The Scarpa 4-Quattro SL, a four buckle boot that skis true to it’s 120 Flex.

Scarpa’s 4-Quattro boots feature a Grip Walk sole, making this an option for those riding lifts or questing in the backcountry. The off-piste reality may convince you this is your power touring boot. The Scarpa 4-Quattro SL can tour and most certainly ski.

 

Scarpa 4-Quattro SL Specs

Size tested: 27
Last (claimed): 100mm in the 27
Weight Verified: 1432g (a bit lighter than a 27.5 Fischer Transalp Pro) and a few paper clips lighter than a Scarpa Maestrale.
Shell/Cuff Material: Pebax R-New® Shell with an over-injected Carbon Grilamid® LFT insert
Sole: Presa Ski-01/GripWalk Tour
Liner: Intuition/heat moldable
ROM: 61-degrees
Flex rating (claimed): 120
Forward Lean: 17 +/-2
Model: The Quattro also comes in an XT model, rated 130 flex.
Price: The SL is $699, and the XTs cost $799.

Read the Scarpa 4-Quattro SL First Look.

We’ll spend a little time up top on the crossover attributes of the Scarpa 4-Quattro SL. This is a stiff boot. The four buckles and a rigid Carbon Grilamid shell are the telltale signs. And if you are riding lifts with the 4-Quattro SL and are dangling planks secured to your boot with a Grip Walk alpine binding (GripWalk is ISO 23223 certified), you’ll be good to go. These boots are also compatible with slightly lighter bindings like Salomon Shifts and Marker Kingpins.

For the time being, and foreseeable future, we’ll be skinning and descending with this relatively light 1432g 120 flex boot without a chairlift assist. And for our purposes, because we like lean when it can be lean, the 4-Quattro SLs are clicked into lighter tech bindings ranging from 180g to 300g.

Not every boot is for every skier. For every attribute of the 4-Quattro SL that makes this a perfect boot for one ski tourer, another claiming that the same feature is a deal breaker will come along. First, let’s tackle the most divisive aspect of the 4-Quattro SL: fit.

Scarpa 4-Quattro SL

A fresh 4-Quattro SL with it’s notable reduced volume forefoot.

Fit

The boots have a low instep, a claimed 100mm last, a forefoot trending towards lower volume, and a slim but not too narrow ankle. Getting my foot into the boot is a non-issue when I loosen all four buckles and the power strap, open the shell up slightly and insert the foot (I wear a lightweight ski sock). I don an EZ-Fit ankle bootie with some boots I wear to prevent hot spots or suck up some volume. So far, in the 4-Quattro SL, I’m not finding the need. With the lowest buckle secured semi-loosely combined with the boot’s low instep, and solid heel hold, there’s no heel movement when skinning.

I’m usually 27.0 / 27.5 in boots, and depending on the model, I use a 27 or 27.5 liner. This boot is a 26.5/27 shell with a 27 liner. I can not go smaller; my toes barely braise the front. It is a performance fit for me in length and width (from the instep through to the toes). I expect some potential 4-Quattro SL and XT users will go back and forth between shell sizes/liners before they zero in on what works.

As is the case with Scarpa, the boot comes stock with a high-quality heat moldable Intuition liner. The upper cuff and tongue are loaded with dense and relatively rigid foam to help support the stiff nature of the shell’s cuff and plastic tongue.

Liner comparison.

The 4-Quattro SL liner on the left with the Tecnica ZG Tour Pro liner on the right. The foam throughout the Scarpa liner’s cuff is noticeably more dense (to the touch) than the Tecnica liner. Yet, both boots do ski legitimately stiff with the Scarpa a claimed 120 flex and the ZG Tour Pro a 130 flex.

If you scroll through the comments over the years at WildSnow regarding boots and fit, you’ll see that sometimes the digital citizenry skews towards a “what have you done for me lately” attitude regarding boots. I once complained to a friend that the sleeve length in an outdoor company’s new apparel ran too long. And his reply was rhetorically spot on, “according to who? You mean your specific arm length?”

The 4-Quattro SL will not fit everyone. However, some portions of the fit are average, like calf volume (they fit my calf without reducing the volume around the cuff, and I’ve got skinny calves), and some dimensions, as noted, run on the low-volume side.

The last ounce to squeeze out on fit is that as I have the boot slotted into my rotation as a wintertime boot when I drive a longer and wider ski, which is all winter— the snug fit works. My foot swells on longer tours as temps warm, especially when pummeled by a stronger Sun. I’d likely need to size up if this were my spring boot.

Ok, one more drop to squeeze…the Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro gets a lot of love. And it should — great skiing, passable walking and climbing, and legit four-buckle power. From a fit perspective, the Quatro SL (or XT…that review comes later this season) and the ZG Tour Pros are markedly different. I can make both boots work with stock liners, but given an average foot, you likely will find yourself looking for slightly more space with the 4-Quattro SL and possibly reducing volume in the ZG Tour Pro. But, these boots are two different solutions to the same problem: how to build an effective uphilling boot that provides optimum performance on the descents.

Scarp[a 4-Quattro SL next to the Tecnica ZG Tour Pro.

The 4-Quattro SL (left) posed next to the Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro. Looking down into the cuffs, the 4-Quattro SL gains some its stiffness via the alpine overlap cuff (like the ZG Tour), yet the Scarpa boots employs a long plastic tongue as part of the build.

Descending

This will be a short section. The 4-Quattro SL, at a rated 120 flex, is a legit 120 flex (and maybe more) with its alpine overlap design. Literally, buckle up, tighten the power strap, flip the ski/walk lever down, stomp the heel, and you should be ready to charge. I can imagine few pure backcountry skiers, or freeridey tourers, feeling underpowered with the 4-Quattro SL…and if you suspect you might be, go a flex rating higher with 4-Quattro XT.

I prefer a bit more forward lean in my boots. For example, with the ZG Tour Pro, the forward lean is 12-13 degrees. I’ve added a velcro spoiler to bump me forward a bit in the ZG. The 4-Quattro SL comes with a 17 (+/- 2) degree forward lean, which might seem aggressive to some. I like the 15-17 degree sweet spot.

If you are a 50/50 skier, with half your time in bounds, this boot can be a one-boot option. But, in spring, with skinnier and lighter skis, I’d say anything under 95mm, you’ll have a bunch of horsepower to drive the ski, but maybe too much.

 

The Ascent

Let’s assume you’ve left the chairlift far behind. The 4-Quattro SL is going to be well-liked on the ups. For what you get with the downhill performance, you’re not sacrificing much skinning in this boot. The range of motion is a claimed 61 degrees. Of those 61 degrees, you get slightly more of that range moving back than forward. And the friction one might expect with a beefier boot and a rigid-tongued liner, as we see with the 4-Quattro SL, feels relatively free. Although this is not a 1000g touring boot, the cuff rotation is surprisingly fluid. Like I noted in my first look, on steeper skin tracks, I’m reaching for a higher riser more frequently with the 4-Quattro SL due to its more limited range of motion compared to the speed touring boots I often use.

The reality of my anecdotal observations is that many of the folks I ski with (or see skiing) opt for more downhill-oriented boots in winter. In other words, there’s a premium placed on great downhill performance and a willingness to sacrifice a bit of touring prowess for that benefit. In the 4-Quattro SL, what you are giving up is not much — especially if you drive bigger skis. These are touring boots. In my view, they just so happen to be compatible with binding options you’d use at the resort. If you are a 100 percent human-powered skier, and the boots fit well, you’ll likely not be disappointed while skinning.

Grip Walk sole- Scarpa 4-Quattro SL

Bottom view of the 4-Quattro SL with the Grip Walk sole. Under the toe is a lugless and flat region.

Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro sole.

For comparison, the Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro, does not have a Grip Walk sole.

However, walking in the Grip Walk sole has a different feel than walking in a boot with a more traditional tech boot sole. For example, the ZG Tour Pro rolls onto the forefoot when walking (it’s a slightly rockered sole), whereas the 4-Quattro SL seems to pivot onto the forefoot as if tipping a small fulcrum. This is likely due to the small platform under the Grip Walk toe, which is lugless.

The Grip Walk sole might not be a biggie if you use the 4-Quattro SL to boot up steep snow-filled chutes in winter and spring. In this case, I assume you are kick-stepping and weighting the boot’s toe in softish snow, which can support body weight. I’d want crampons on in steep and slippery situations where you must step on and pivot up on the toe. But, to be fair, in most slippery situations, I’m in crampons anyhow, Grip Walk sole or not.

Regarding scrambling in the 4-Quattro SL’s Grip Walk soles, I can see issues if you cannot habituate yourself to the slightly different sensation underfoot when walking. If this is your single go-to boot, that is something to consider. If this is still your go-to boot and you never scramble on rocks, then out of sight, out of mind.

 

In many ways the Scarpa 4-Quattro SL comes in as a near complete package. I would like to see a ratcheted cam type power strap, it comes stock with a velcro power strap.

Power strap Tecnica ZG Tour Pro.

The new ratcheted cam style power strap on the Zero G Tour Pro is a power move when it comes to helping stiffen the upper and locking in place.

Transitions

Expect the usual with four buckles, a power strap to loosen, and a ski/walk lever to flip up. It won’t be ski-mo fast, but it’s not too time-consuming. The buckles are easy to use, as is the powerstrap.

I would make one change — I like a cam/ratchet system to secure/loosen powerstraps on beefier boots. The win here goes to the 2023 ZG Tour Pro power strap IMHO. The 4-Quattro SL’s velcro powerstrap system is fine but could be slightly improved with a cam tensioning system and a quick release on the cam unit, as seen on the Fischer Transalp Pro.

Closing Thoughts

If you had asked me five years ago if I would ever use a four-buckle boot in the backcountry, the answer would have been an unequivocal no. But times change. I may be older and slightly slower, but I, too, am marginally wiser. A four-buckle touring boot can offer superior control. Scarpa’s 4-Quattro SL is fierce on the downhills. The uphills, with the 1432g weight (stock liner and insole) and range of motion, are not a hindrance, despite the boot shining more on the down than on the up.

In choosing a stiff boot, like any boot, it will come down to fit. I do like that Scarpa is likely trying to appeal to the crossover market but developed boots in the 4-Quattro series that can be a stand-alone backcountry power boot.

17 comments
0 Email

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.

9 comments
0 Email
Newer Posts
Older Posts