Scarpa F1 GT: A Review

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

F1 GT Stats

Size Tested: 28

Weight (28): 1240g/boot

ROM: 72 degrees

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

Shell Material: Grilamid with fiberglass (this is punchable)

Liner: Intuition Tour L T2

Sole: Vibram UFO LT

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

Price: $798.95

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

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

WildSnow F1 GT Fist Look.

WildSnow F1 LT Coverage.

 

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

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

 

The Skiing

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

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

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

F1 GT driving the Helio 95.

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

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

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

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

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

Forward lean: F1 GT

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

F1 GT offers a solid 72 degree range of motion.

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

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

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

The Features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shop for the Scarpa F1 GT.

15 comments
0 Email

La Sportiva Skorpius CR II: A First Look

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

BOA closure- Skorpius CR II.

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

 

The Skorpius Deets

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

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

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

Swing Lock - Skorpius CR II.

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

Bot rear: Skorpius CR II and Skorpius CR

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

Securing the Skorpius CR II's upper.

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

 

The ups and the downs

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

John says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing ROM: Skorpius CR II

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

Liner- Skorpius CR II.

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

 

Skorpius CR II Stats

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

Shop for the La Sportiva Skorpius CR II.

7 comments
0 Email

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Zero G Peak W Basics

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

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

Zero G Peak W inner gaiter.

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

Z-cable buckle on the Zero G peak W

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

Locking mechanism Zero G Peak W.

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

 

Zero G Peak W Sizing

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

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

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

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

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

Zero G Peak W Studio shot.

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

Technical Specs for the Zero G Peak W

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

Shop for the Zero G Peak W.

0 comment
0 Email

Scarpa 4-Quattro SL: A First Look

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

Fresh out of the box, a Scarpa 4-Quattro SL. The boot (size 27) weighs 1420g.

The Scarpa 4-Quattro SL promises and delivers legit stiffness. The sole is GripWalk compatible for the 50/50 skiers out there. Don’t be fooled by the 50/50 … it could go 100/0. Here’s a first look.

 

I’ll make some assumptions here: the 4-Quattro refers to the four-buckle system and the four boots that comprise the 4-Quattro line: two models for women, two for men. Lots of fours.

Four magnesium buckles help stiffen the ride. And just to ensure the foot retention is solid, a freeride-worthy powerstrap up top keeps the SL legit stiff. Scarpa calls the 4-Quattro SL a 120 flex, 10 less on the flex scale than the slightly heavier and stiffer Quattro XT. For women, the XT is a 115 flex, and the SL a 100. I know women charging way harder than me, so if you want the 130 or 120 flex, try the men’s options.

The plans for the 4-Quattro SL are as follows: the pair arrived in Bend several weeks ago. I took them out for a few laps up the local lift-served volcano (still shut down for the off-season) for this first look and then handed them off in Seattle to Rob Copollillo for the full review.

 

Uphill First Impressions

I’m usually not a four-buckle boot skier, but after a few tours in the 4-Quattro SL, I’m angling for a pair of four buckle boots for keeps and hid my disappointment when handing the boots to Rob. I did say something like, “if the boots don’t fit right, let me know….”

Scarpa 4-Quattro SL on the ups.

The buckles are loosened for the uphill. The boot sports a just-enough 61 degrees of articulation.

Scarpa 4-Quattro lock mechanism.

The lock mechanism is a simple vertically oriented throw.

The stated range of motion on this boot is 61 degrees. I know; maybe it was 60.6 — why not round up? No matter, the boot passes the tourabilty test, and I’d say for most skiers focusing more on the down than the up, you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how forgiving the boot is while ascending. To the shock of some readers, I did deploy the hi-risers on several occasions while skinning. So it goes with a beefier boot and a more limited ROM.

The lockout mechanism is simple, vertically oriented, and reliable in my limited use.

I was very pleasantly surprised while skinning. I expected meh; I got stoke—the boot over-delivered.

First Impressions on the Downhill

I can say nothing more than the 4-Quattro SL skis like a champ. We were just transitioning here from rock skis to less battered boards — I had the G3 FINDR 86 underfoot. The ski is a reliable, stable, and predictable plank (which I love), and with the Scarpa boot helping initiate the turns, the chunder and chop and breakable were way more tolerable. Some more hardcore skiers than I will opt for the XT version with the stiffer 130 flex. The SL’s 120 flex rating felt plenty stiff and progressive, and it’s as close as I’ve come to my old Lange XLRs back when the Mahre brothers ruled the race scene. Stiffer boots can make the downs more fun. Such was the case with this boot. Thank you four buckles, overlap shell, and powerstrap.

 

The Fit

The fit might be finicky for some. The instep and toe box appear to have lower volume. The toe box, for my feet, felt fine, as did the instep, but I can see it being trouble for those with higher insteps. If you are used to the venerable Scarpa Meastrale series, you’ll note the trimmed-down appearance of the 4-Quattro line of boots.

I’m a solid 27.5, and the 4-Quattros break on the 1/2 size. The 26.5 and 27 share the same shell but have a 26.5 or 27 lasted liner, respectively. The 27.0 fit fine; I would want maybe 1.5mm more room up front for the big toe on the left foot (it’s a bit longer than the right foot).

Intuition liner: Scarpa 4-Quattro SL

As usual, Scarpa outfits the boot with a heat-moldable Intuition liner which is beefed up to be a solid match for the four buckle + powerstrap retention system.

Scarpa 4-Quattro SL

Note the lower volume instep. For those used to the Maestrale fit, size before you buy.

Read a WildSnow Maestrale review.

 

Final Thoughts for the First Look

The boot has been plugged pretty hard by Scarpa. The 4-Quattro line is GripWalk compatible, meaning the boots work with both tech bindings, GripWalk-certified alpine bindings, and MNC bindings like the Salomon Shift. For you 50/50 (on-piste/off-piste) skiers out there, a 4-Quattro could meet all your needs. And honestly, if it fits, and you are an all-the-time human-powered skier, the 4-Quattro ST could be a daily driver for those desiring burly stiffness and sufficient tourability. Don’t be fooled by the 50/50 … it could go 100/0.

The 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
Price: The SL is $699, and the XTs cost $799.

Shop for the 4-Quattro SL.

15 comments
0 Email

ZipFit GFT Touring Liner Review

by Gavin Hess
written by Gavin Hess
ZipFit GFT Touring Liner 1

ZipFit’s GFT Touring Liner: Between the durability, better-than-expected walking performance, excellent downhill performance, and truly unparalleled fit and comfort, the GFT has many attributes worth a second glance.

Sometimes the quest for better comfort, more control, and good fit leads down the path of ski boot liners. ZipFit enters the touring boot liner game with a superb, durable, yet heavy and pricey aftermarket liner. Squirrel away the money you might otherwise spend on those triple-espressos.

 

Primer on Aftermarket Liners

Throughout the ski world, aftermarket liners seem to be a controversial subject. Some boot manufacturers annually claim that their in-house liners are so good that they don’t need replacing, and others (see Scarpa) use aftermarket Intuition liners standard in their boots. Anecdotally, most backcountry skiers in my orbit seem to be using some flavor of Intuitions in their boots, with some replacing liners more than once a season. This brings us to the crux of all-foam boot liners; packing out. The real liner beatdown occurs when touring uphill; the walking motion leads to significant wear and compression of the liner’s foam. While redoing the heat molding process can rejuvenate the foam and get more life out of a liner, they eventually pack out, get holes or abrasions from rubbing inside a shell, and end up in the trash.

ZipFit Primer

Enter ZipFit – I had heard about ZipFit from friends that are dedicated resort skiers. While our gear preferences are generally completely incompatible, it piqued my interest to hear time and time again about great experiences with ZipFit alpine liners. Combine that with catching wind of a new touring liner, I had to get my hands on a pair.

Before this past winter, I had heard of ZipFit, but frankly had no idea what made them special or different from any other aftermarket liner. I imagine I’m not alone in my lack of knowledge on this subject, as they really haven’t been relevant to the touring market until this past winter.

Perhaps the biggest differentiator of a ZipFit is the materials used – there is no foam in these liners. They use microfiber, leather, and neoprene – then fill the liner with cork composite called OMFit. ZipFit claims their liners will last 300-500 days on snow, and I’ve heard stories of folks getting close to 1000 days from their ZipFit alpine liners. While I’m interested to see how that translates to a touring liner that suffers wear and tear from walking and rubbing, I expect a significantly longer lifespan than an Intuition or similar foam liner.

In addition to the durability aspect, there are a few other claimed benefits to ZipFit’s liners. First, the OMFit cork is held in four bladders from which one can add and remove the cork – this means one can finely adjust the volume in the Achilles, ankle, instep, and shin areas all independently. This adjustability allows people like me – with skinny ankles and heels – to secure my heels as I’ve never experienced in other liners. The forefoot area is constructed from lined neoprene that is thin and stretchy to give your forefoot space to stay warm and accommodate any bunions or sensitive spots.

ZipFit GFT – Touring Liner

Let’s get this out front: the GFT liner is heavy and $$!!. ZipFit did not compromise on materials or construction techniques relative to the alpine liners, which are also heavy. Here is how the weight compares to the other liners in my possession (All 28/28.5, no footbeds included, no cork added to ZipFit):

Liner Weights
GFT: 577g
Intuition Pro Tour MV: 271g
2021 Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro stock liner: 236g
Price: $475

As you can see, this might not be the liner for the most weight-conscious sector of WildSnow’s readership, which I have, at times, strongly identified with. Cork and leather are simply denser and more robust than the foam used in standard liners, and there is no way around this.

I have been comparing the Dynafit Hoji/Radical line of boots and the Tecnica Zero G + GFT liner (this is theoretical/based on research/reading as I haven’t skied the Dynafit boot). The Hoji line comes in quite a bit heavier than the Zero G (w/ stock liner), but is widely regarded for having a much lower friction range of motion.

ZipFit’s how-to: adding cork.
ZipFit’s how to: removing cork.

 

ZipFit GFT Touring Liner 2

Perhaps the biggest differentiator of a ZipFit is the materials used – there is no foam in these liners. They use microfiber, leather, and neoprene – then fill the liner with cork composite called OMFit.

Assuming the boots’ ski performance is similar, the gut instinct to prioritize weight is questioned – what really matters here is the energy expended to move uphill. All this is to say the GFT, while heavier than the competition, walks about as well as the Intuition Pro Tour, and leagues better than the Tour Wrap. The nature of these beasts, the ZipFit GFT, is that the liner has a robust structure where desired but has thin and flexible zones where necessary to facilitate a pleasant and low resistance walking experience.

Beyond the flexibility, I appreciate the fit and heel hold of the GFT on the uphill as well. With my skinny heels, a 100-day-old intuition is often a mess of heel slop and hotspots during a lengthy spring tour. The combination of near-perfect heel hold and the stretchy forefoot of the ZipFit made for happy feet on hot spring days when swollen feet and hot spots have often had me counting down the minutes until I could get out of my boots at the end of a tour.

ZipFit GFT Tour Downhill Performance

Beyond fit, improved downhill performance is billed as a headline benefit of ZipFits. I’ll preface this by saying that I haven’t skied a proper alpine boot in my adult life, and the Tecnica Zero G was already a fairly groundbreaking performance upgrade in my world. Lately, though, I’ve been getting greedy – skiing bigger skis, maybe a bit faster (faster but by no means fast), and asking for a bit more suspension and stability from my boots.

The GFT liner is the solution I didn’t know I needed on this front. I got some late-season groomer days with the liners here in Jackson and was blown away by what I would describe as the liveliness these added to my boots and skiing. It was an awesome feeling of subtle rebound coming out of a turn and damping in inconsistent snow that had me skiing more confidently and aggressively on some variable early morning spring groomers that often have me a bit hesitant. A few times, the thought crossed my mind: “this must be what skiing a real alpine boot feels like….” I still can’t claim that for sure, but I have to believe I’m a few steps closer with the GFT in my Zero G boots.

In the backcountry, I found a similar appreciation for the liveliness and damping while skiing high-speed corn, as well as during some high consequence and scratchy jump turns where the added suspension helped me maintain a more forward, balanced stance in more 3-D conditions that tend to throw me off balance or backseat. In general, though, the downhill performance benefits of the GFT liner were subtle in high-quality, backcountry snow conditions – this to say, I’m not always convinced that stiff or high-performance boots matter much in these conditions.

Who would I recommend these liners to?

Let’s be clear; a $475, 577g touring liner isn’t for everyone. I believe the ZipFits will have a place in many folks’ lives as they solve a few important issues. First, I’m confident in recommending these as a solution for those constantly struggling with heel hold. The heel hold is off the charts good and should stay that way throughout the (long) life of the liner. Despite my skinny heels/Achilles area, I haven’t added any cork to mine, and they have the best heel hold I’ve experienced.

Second, guides and other heavy users – I have about 30 days on the liners pictured, and they are showing essentially zero signs of wear and tear. As discussed, the durability is truly off the charts – I’m excited to report back after a full season of use. It seems crazy financially and waste-wise to go through two pairs of intuitions each season – but for many, maintaining good fit and performance feels worth it. The GFT liner could be a good solution for some of these users.

Last, the GFT liner could be a great solution for a higher performance, one boot quiver. For all the reasons that a one-boot quiver is appealing to many skiers (perhaps excluding cost savings), the GFT can add performance to a lighter touring boot for resort use while walking really well for touring. Whether for travel, saving space in a small living area, or simplifying life, the GFT will strike a nice balance for some skiers and their one-boot quiver needs.

ZipFit GFT Touring Liner 3

I have about 30 days on the liners pictured, and they are showing essentially zero signs of wear and tear. The durability is truly off the charts.

ZipFit GFT Touring Liner 4

The GFT could be a great solution for a higher performance, one boot quiver. For all the reasons that a one-boot quiver is appealing to many skiers (perhaps excluding cost savings), the GFT can add performance to a lighter touring boot for resort use while walking really well for touring.

A few other thoughts

A unique aspect of the GFT liners and ZipFits, in general, is how they recommend donning/doffing the liner/ boot shell. The recommendation is to put on and lace up the liner first, then put your foot in the boot. This better preserves the heel/Achilles cup as sliding one’s heel into the liner while it’s in the shell displaces the cork and can negatively impact the nice, snug Achilles area. This method worked quite well with the Tecnica Zero G, and maybe made the on/off process easier than with a standard tongue liner living in the boot. I tried the liner a few days with the Alien RS, and it was a bit of a nightmare. Between the gaiter and BOA cables, it took a few tries to thread the needle without catching or snagging, and I often felt like I was going to break something.

At about the same time as getting the GFT, I also invested in a stack-style forced air/heat boot dryer. This purchase was a long time coming for me, but the few days I forgot to put the liners on the dryer reinforced my investment. The merino/Thinsulate/neoprene lower needed the extra oomph of the forced air/heat to fully dry on back-to-back wet/sweaty ski tours.

Speaking of the merino/Thinsulate insulation, I didn’t get the chance to put these liners through the full range of frigid Wyoming temps. I had a few chilly spring mornings in the low teens to single digits to see how the GFT liners fared warmth-wise. I would put them solidly between the stock liners and my MV Intuition Pro Tours – maybe not my top choice for an uber cold expedition, but good enough for my daily use in the often frigid Tetons. I’ll update this as I get more data points throughout the coming winter, but the main takeaway should be that they are a bit warmer than the stock Zero G liner, but can’t compete with the gold standard of dense, warm Intuition foam.

During my fitting session at Nomad Sports in Teton Village, I learned that ZipFit has a free trial/return period where one can have the liners molded and try them for five ski days before making a final decision. At Nomad, they had never had a customer come back unsatisfied after the trial period, but it’s nice to know that option exists when laying down the cash for such an expensive liner.

ZipFit GFT Conclusions

I’m sure I wasn’t alone when I first dismissed the ZipFit GFT liner upon seeing its weight. While the weight and price will dissuade many, hopefully, this review can shed some light on the utility of such a liner. Between the durability, better-than-expected walking performance, excellent downhill performance, and truly unparalleled fit and comfort, the GFT has many attributes worth a second glance. If there were a way to build some or all of these features into a weight-competitive liner oriented toward the 1000g boot class, I would be the first in line. As it stands, I plan to continue to use the GFT’s in my Tecnica Zero G boots for guiding days, and most of my winter day-to-day touring. I’ll probably keep a pair of Intuitions around for the fast-moving and big days where I prioritize weight. That being said, at some point, it seems necessary to ski the GFT (Grand F***kin Teton) in the GFT liners.

0 comment
0 Email

Tecnica Zero G Peak Carbon Ski Boot Review: One Last Look

by Ben Hoiness
written by Ben Hoiness

Shop the Zero G Peak Carbon and the Zero G Peak Carbon – Women’s.

Technica, known for its success with the four-buckle descent-oriented Zero G Pro Tour boot, brings the Zero G Peak Carbon to market in the 1000-g class. Here’s a WildSnow look at the ZG Peak Carbon .

Ben Hoiness on the Zero G Peak Carbon

Ben Hoiness, the author and Zero G Peak Carbon fan, enjoys Cooke City’s winter light. Photo: Leslie Hittmeier.

All new Tecnica Zero G Peak ski boot.

Tecnica makes a big splash in the 1kg class of ski boots with the new Zero G Peak Carbon. This is a lovely looking boot for demanding skiers.

Size tested: 26.5
Stated Weight: 990 Grams. (Actual weight 1,013 demo version)
ROM: 75-degrees
Materials: Carbon cuff, carbon-infused grilamid lower.
Sole: Vibram
Forward Lean: 13-degrees, bumps to 15-degrees by adding a spoiler.
MSRP:$949.95

Read the Zero G Peak Carbon First Look

After spending a big Montana spring skiing this boot, I’m psyched to get this review out into the world. I’ve spent a good amount of time touring, scrambling, climbing ice, and boot packing in the Zero-G Peak; here’s my honest opinion on how this boot suited my mountain travel.

A little background on my daily skiing set-ups and terrain: I primarily ski a Zero G Tour Pro in a 25.5 (4 buckle big boot) and a Scarpa F1LT in a 26 (the 1 kg little boot). I typically ski my big boots on days when I’m more focused on the skiing or if I’m less concerned about speed on the ascent. I ski the Zero G Pro with three different skis, the 4FRNT Renegade122, MSP 107, and MSP99. As for my lighter boots, I tend to ski these on bigger days (8-12k vert) or when speed on the ascent is paramount. I also prefer to ski a little boot in terrain where I am mainly hop turning as I find it easier to maneuver the ski with a lightweight boot. I ski the 4FRNT Hoji112, Raven104, and MSP99 with this boot. I live in Cooke city in the winter and my terrain varies from low-angle tree skiing to steep peak skiing when conditions allow. — From Ben’s first look.

 

ZERO G Peak Carbon Z-cable Closure

First off, there are some significant differences in the design that I have outlined in a few photos below that I think are a major driving force in the improved skiability of the Zero G Peak Carbon over its competitors. The first is the closure. The closure on the Peak Carbon utilizes what Tecnica calls it a “Wrapping Shell Construction.” This construction is borrowed from more downhill-oriented boots and is employed to lock your foot into place by overlapping the shell with a single lower buckle tightening a Z-cable over the fore and midfoot. In my experience, this closure feels and skis much more secure than the BOA systems utilized on other boots in this class. Other makes using BOA-like closures are the Scarpa F1LT, the Dynafit TLT X, the Salomon S/LAB MTN Summit, and the Fischer Travers CS.

The F1LT BOA closure v the Peak's Z-cable closure.

The Scarpa F1LT (left) employs a BOA closure, whereas the Peak Carbon uses a Z-cable system to snug the lower foot and secure the ankle/heel in place. The Peak’s shell also wraps further up on the forefoot.

Peak buckle closure.

The lower buckle on the Peak Carbon is recessed nicely and firmly snugs up the Z-cable for a solid fit.

The second noticeable difference in the Peak Carbon is the shell construction, or rather the shape of the shell. The shape of the Peak Carbon’s shell varies from Scarpa’s LT and RS Lambda frame in one seemingly important spot — see photos.

I believe the construction of the Peak Carbon shell allows for more torsional flex and minimizes slop compared to the Lambda. In the photo, the Peak’s shell wraps further up and around the sides of the foot, relative to the Scarpa F1LT. Lastly, the cuff closure of the Peak Carbon is simple, solid, and reliable. It utilizes a single upper buckle (same buckle as the lower) and a power strap with a camming buckle and G hook. This is a big improvement over the velcro cuff closure of its competitors.

Zero G Peak Carbon side profile 1 outer shell.

In this side profile, we see the outer shell of the F1LT and Peak. The Peak Carbon provides more shell material near the outer ankle to provide excellent lateral stability.

Zero G Peak side view to show how shell material provides great lateral stability.

In this side profile, we see the inner shell of the F1LT and Peak Carbon. The Peak Carbon provides more shell material near inner ankle too. This too provides excellent lateral stability.

The last piece of design I want to talk about is the ski/walk lock mechanism; this design element gives me the most pause. The design is similar to the larger, stiffer cousin to the Peak Carbon, the Zero G Pro Tour, but the lockout mechanism significantly slimmed down on the Peak. The mechanism does a fantastic job locking the boot forward and backward; my main concern is its durability. When in walk mode, the spring-loaded throw protrudes more than its competitors and maybe more prominently than on any other touring boot I’ve used. So far, I have been happy to say the mech has held up great, but I will continue to monitor this in the long run.

Foreground Zero G Peak Carbon walk mechanism.

The Peak Carbon’s walk mechanism protrudes from the boot’s rear when flipped up into walk mode. This might be something to keep your eye on when booting and climbing.

 

Peak Carbon Downhill Performance

The downhill, this is what it’s all about anyway, right? Most of us agree that boots in the 1,000-gram weight class will walk pretty darn well, and the Peak Carbon is no exception here. I’ll dig into the nuances of walking, but first, let’s hone in on skiing. The biggest difference here compared to other boots is the predictability of the boot in adverse conditions. When skiing a light boot, I find it most challenging when I’m bouncing through chop, skiing a fast out track, or anytime the boot needs to flex through snow that isn’t uniform in density or shape. The Peak has a slightly softer flex than the Scarpa F1LT, but the flex is much more progressive, allowing for more predictability through the turn.

Peak Carbon Conclusions

Most of our time in a 1kg boot is in walk mode, and as I stated above, most boots in this class walk quite well, and the Peak is no exception to that general rule. The Peak Carbon has plenty of ROM for long strides across the flats. It climbs well and feels stable on small edges and steep ice bulges. The boot breathes well for high output ascents and has been warm enough for colder days. I’ve worn the boot in temperatures of 5F-45F, and although I haven’t tested this boot in sub-O-degree F conditions, It has been warmer than the F1LT when compared side by side.

Overall, If you can’t tell, I have been psyched on this boot on everything from the durability to the downhill performance. I’m excited about the first boot in this class from Tecnica and look forward to any incremental improvements.

20 comments
0 Email
Newer Posts
Older Posts