Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 228

Thread: Dyna TLT6

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Schruns
    Posts
    839
    I also have used a palau liner with success compare to intuitions. The liners that came in the zzero, I've used in a few shells. They are pretty thick, and the foam has a good balance of support and squish. They made the quadrants a pretty awesome skiing boot for me, when I thought they blew with the stock liner.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445
    [QUOTE=Jonathan S.;4055795]“Andy and Jason are good friends and regular activity partners [...]”
    - You have that kind of relationship with perhaps the two most impressive ski mountaineers in North America, who are also sponsored by two of the best ski gear companies, yet you come here asking for advice? Well, perhaps we should be honored! (Or at least they’re just too busy working as newbie physicians, spending time with their families, and training – I really don’t understand how they do all that.)

    Andy and Jason are just two guys, and they certainly kill it and have their gear optimized for the kind of skiing they enjoy, but skiing is a sport each of us enjoy in our own ways. I would no doubt enjoy Aliens for the same reasons those guys do, but as much as I get off on travelling light and with optimal range of motion, I am still very much a skier and I am not interested in being relegated to survival skiing on anything besides frozen avalanche debris. Unless I can come up with money for two pair of boots, I am not interested in owning a boot that does not ski well. I thought the TLT5 skied very well for me, and that was due mainly to fit, so if that is no longer the case with the TLT6, than I am interested in going out on a limb to try a lighter boot.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher3000 View Post
    Andy and Jason are just two guys [...]
    Silence ye blasphemer -- do not speak of my skimo heroes as you would of mere mortals!
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    I swapped my well used Conform'ables from my garmonts into the mercury's, got em from a fitter in Calagry who didn't like intuition, we can agree to disagree on the quality of a Palau but I think all too often when we fork out the $$$ we are really just buying the shell ... I know I am
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    541
    I've been playing with my TLT 5 and 6 and some PDGs. My guess is no one here could tell the difference (skiing or fit wise) between the 5 and 6 TLT internal volume if you simply dropped your favorite liner from a 5 into a 6.

    2mm is .08" guys. Which is what was added to part of the instep area. 1mm ot the outside of the ball of the foot.

    The PDG liner is available for a low volume fit and is at least 1 mm an may be 2 thinner than the original TLT5 P liner. If one really wanted a low profile boot, go the Wild Snow route, buy the TLT6 a shell size smaller and punch it out and then stick a PDG liner in. Or just bail on the TLT series and buy the PDG or Alien. Although I think the Alien is a bigger volume boot internally. Hard ot tell as the shells sizing is so different between the DyNA last and the Alien last for me.

    Bottom line? If you thought the TLT5 skied well (and I think it does) the TLT6 no doubt skis even better. I got to use mine on late spring and early summer snow and noticed the lack of toe bellows second turn. Still haven't noticed the larger volume and still haven't used the actual liners that came with the boot. Only skied them with my old TLT5 liners and a pair of Pro Tours. Couldn't be happier with them as a ski boot. But by all means buy the boot that fits!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,465
    I assume that a Vulcan/Mercury, without tongue, is about the same fore-aft stiffness, give or take, as a TLT6 with the tongue. All of these are about in-line with the Maestrale/RS options.

    TLT6: 1303g @ 27.0
    Liner= 290g
    Shell= 1013g

    Vulcan: 1590g @27.0
    Liner=308g
    Tongue=73g
    Lower Buckle= 70g
    Shell= 1209g.

    So a Vulcan/Mercury shell w/o tongue is ~184g heavier than a TLT6. If you were to extra power weenie out, and remove the lower vulcan buckle, a Vulcan/Mercury is ~1140g, or only ~130g heavier than a TLT6.

    There is only a 1/4 weight difference, but you can add a tongue to the Vulcan, should you need, but you can remove the TLT tongue to make it softer and therefore more efficient while skinning.

    From there is just the amount of desire one has to gain a taller cuff and frame-binding compatibility vs. the stripped down minimalism of the TLT6.

    The ONE boots weight the same as the mercury/vulcan boots, just without a tongue, so realistically, they are 73g heavier and don't' have the ability to stick the tongue in to get stiffer, but you save a large pile of cash-ish.
    Last edited by marshalolson; 09-13-2013 at 05:00 PM.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,983
    Well when i get my TLT6s I can compare but till then I'm just going to ride my bike. You guys ---- its September. But the views on the Vulcan review, Beast review and all the gear stroking articles are spiking now? Chill .....

    o yeah don't forget to remove the strap on the Vulcan - you don't need it.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    541
    Marshal, I have been skiing the 5/6/RS and One. The earlier 3 all last season.

    Wish it were as simple as you would like it to be. ONE and RS are a LOT more durable than the 5 or 6 will ever be. And a lot more boot for support. Also almost a full # +/-heavier per a PAIR of boots between the RS/ONE and 5/6 depending on the liner.

    Not sure what you want to push for a ski but I am not a fan of the TLTs in either version for my RPCs. Where the ONE and RS will do the RPC and my 138s easy enough. Progressive flex on the ONE feels a lot better to me than the Mercury or Vulcan . Not a big fan of the tongue in the TLT so seemed like a no brainer which "bigger" new Dynafit I wanted. Hands down the Dynafi walk mode still trumps everything but a full on race boot at the moment.

    I don't think your weight numbers are correct. That comment comes from knowing the TLT 5 Mountain shell was actually lighter that the TLT5 P shell. Again FWIW a Intuition Power wrap liner doesn't drop the One's weight much either. Only 2oz per boot in my 29s. ONE and RS are virtually the same weight.

    Some of my big milage friends in Orange Maestrales are even acknowledging that fact and going to a TLT6 this year. My only caution is the durability by comparison between a lwt boot (TLT any version) and a mid weight like the Mae/RS/One..
    Last edited by Dane1; 09-13-2013 at 06:16 PM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    For me, the lack of height is the main difference in skiability of the 5 vs the slightly heavier boots. Weight and stiffness is a pretty small factor, imo. (Though less height means less percieved stiffness.) it tours so damn well, though, that I don't really care until I'm in more interesting terrain (in terms of features to play with, not steepness/etc.), where a supportive boot is really nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Well when i get my TLT6s I can compare but till then I'm just going to ride my bike. You guys ---- its September. But the views on the Vulcan review, Beast review and all the gear stroking articles are spiking now? Chill .....

    o yeah don't forget to remove the strap on the Vulcan - you don't need it.
    You're getting crotchety in your old age...

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl
    For me, the lack of height is the main difference in skiability of the 5 vs the slightly heavier boots.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1010001.jpg 
Views:	452 
Size:	1.00 MB 
ID:	141171

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1010002.jpg 
Views:	389 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	141172

    Just an observation. In the pictures the One and RS are a size 28 shell. The TLT 5 is a full size larger, 29 shell. The RS is noticably a shorter boot in height and arguably the most supportive of the three. The taller ONE almost as supportive with a much more progressive flex than the RS. I suspect in part because it is taller which gives you a longer lever.
    Last edited by Dane1; 09-13-2013 at 10:39 PM.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,004
    I'm a bit concerned about driving some 138s with the TLT6 but considering replacing my alpine boots with a Freedom or Factor MX, which would solve that issue.

    And yeah, there's another three months until ski season gets cranking (if we're lucky) but it's hard to not geek out on ski boot minutia when it's the goddamned rainpocalypse.
    Last edited by Bean; 09-14-2013 at 05:29 AM.
    "High risers are for people with fused ankles, jongs and dudes who are too fat to see their dick or touch their toes.
    Prove me wrong."
    -I've seen black diamonds!

    throughpolarizedeyes.com

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    You're getting crotchety in your old age...
    Being an industry hookedup gearwhore I forget that people shop for gear this early.

    Marshal what Dane said. The TLT5 did not last --- period. Even for a meadowskipper like me. hope the TLT6 will be more durable.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,612
    The only parts of my tlt5 that I had durability issues with were the cuff rivets, the rivets holding the black proto bellows cover, and the power strap. The cuff rivets were any easy off season fix if u found someone with the right tools. And Jonathan says they have improved the cuff rivet since the 1st gen 5. The bellow rivets were a PIA to replace, and the replacements didn't really hold very long. The 6 obviously won't have that problem. The power strap was an easy fix.

    I heard of people having problems with the buckles but mine were fine.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    541
    My biggest concern is the durability of the Grilamid shells and cuff. I've ski chopped the heck out of the two pair of MTN and the bottom of my 1st year Ps. Enough so that I became very careful about when and where I take them out. Seems silly to have to worry about that kind of diurability issues with a $1000 boot.

    My vote would be for a TLT made with a pbax lower and fiber glass cuff, a metal on metal cuff hinge and 2 simple, durable buckle systems that stayed closed as required so I could actually use it as a daily driver a season or two. All at -1100g please.

    Any pro skiers here (lifties/patrolers/instructors/guides) use a TLT as a daily boot and have it last even a single season?

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane1 View Post
    My biggest concern is the durability of the Grilamid shells and cuff. I've ski chopped the heck out of the two pair of MTN and the bottom of my 1st year Ps. Enough so that I became very careful about when and where I take them out. Seems silly to have to worry about that kind of diurability issues with a $1000 boot.

    My vote would be for a TLT made with a pbax lower and fiber glass cuff, a metal on metal cuff hinge and 2 simple, durable buckle systems that stayed closed as required so I could actually use it as a daily driver a season or two. All at -1100g please.

    Any pro skiers here (lifties/patrolers/instructors/guides) use a TLT as a daily boot and have it last even a single season?
    As a ski patroller I have been in TLT5 for ~four days a week--two work days, two days off--while being in alpine boots the other three days, for the last two seasons, and anticipate getting another couple months of full time skiing out of mine before going to whatever i need next. The boots will expire this season but for how perfect the boot was for me I do not feel shorted. I wish the buckles held up but they generally stay closed when i am skiing. I do think skiing the boots with the tongues improves their longevity; I am a lightweight and when i ski them tongueless I can tell I'm transmitted a lot more energy to the cuff rivets and buckles that is otherwise absorbed by the tongue.

    fI have a 200 lb friend who's done three Utah seasons and two full NZ seasons on a pair. He spent more than every other day in mercuries this season but continued to tour in his 2010 TLT5. Another friend goes ski touring seven days a week, november to april, then takes them to AK, plus a 4-6 week SA stint and he's had two pair over the last three years, with no plans for new boots this year. Of course it snows so much here that all of our rocks get covered with snow so boots have it pretty easy here.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445
    Ok so there might be slight hyperbole in that last statement, but we can dream big can't we?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    For me, the lack of height is the main difference in skiability of the 5 vs the slightly heavier boots. Weight and stiffness is a pretty small factor, imo. (Though less height means less percieved stiffness.) [...]
    I think that's a very good point, which might also explain why different skiers have different reactions to the stiffness of the same boot -- my pet theory is that taller skiers will be more sensitive to difference in cuff height.

    I think the other factor is forward lean.
    I always knew the DyNA and then the TLT5 has too much forward lean for my preferences, and I knew that reducing the forward lean would increase the stiffness and hence reduce my need for a powerstrap and/or the external tongue, but the effect was far more pronounced than I anticipated once I got the retrofit part last fall.
    (Should have risked a home mod years ago, doh...)
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier View Post
    And Jonathan says they have improved the cuff rivet since the 1st gen 5.
    It was modified for the 2012-13 season -- very hard to notice unless you look at the rivet kind of in a cross sectional view.
    (And I don't know anyone who has enough vertical on them to provide any feedback on how much of a difference the new rivet design makes.)
    The 2012-13 version also has the adjustable forward lean.
    The sku though didn't change, so hard to tell which version is which on etailer sites.
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher3000 View Post
    Of course it snows so much here that all of our rocks get covered with snow so boots have it pretty easy here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher3000 View Post
    Ok so there might be slight hyperbole in that last statement, but we can dream big can't we?
    You just have to keep skiing further into the season (and post-season...) until more rocks are exposed!

    Re TLT5 durability:

    I have ~564,000' vertical in my original generation DyNA boots (same lower shell & upper cuff as TLT5 P, but no external tongue, and no internal tongue either other than a fabric covering) and ~526,000' vertical in my TLT5 P.
    But I don’t do air, and my body weight is rando race stereotypical more or less.

    Some fairly substantial amount of that vertical (as well as horizontal, ugh) has included scrambling about NH granite:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2287.JPG 
Views:	241 
Size:	133.5 KB 
ID:	141251

    ... and PNW volcanic nastiness:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20110820Jefferson02+Jeff+hiking+up+the+rocks.jpg 
Views:	173 
Size:	90.4 KB 
ID:	141252
    (In that sample picture, we are hiking up in trail runners, but for the descent we continued further down on a snow ribbon, then had a rather memorable lateral “hike” across all that ... stuff, to yet another snow ribbon.)

    I’ve had the rivets repressed twice, and after each repressing they are just fine for another season.
    (They’re pretty much still good enough each summer, but I repressed them then anyway because they’d probably get pretty loose late in the season, which is when I don’t want to wait for the turnaround time for shipping them back to Boulder.)

    The lower shells look like they’ve been to hell and back (because they have!), but that’s just visual.
    The rubber on the TLT5 is still in surprisingly very good condition.
    (The DyNA has a different composition, but it’s still good enough too – the EVO sole composition *looks* exactly the same as the original-generation DyNA, but unfortunately I found out that it wears rather ... differently.)

    Liners have the usual abrasive wear on the outside, but nothing serious.
    Inside of the liners are fine (albeit noxious of course).
    I tore one of the flex zones a bit because of careless liner removal for drying, but a cobbler fixed it good as new for something like $10, and I haven’t had any further tears now that I’ve been aware of the need to grasp it lower down for removal. (I see that the new CR/nee-TF-X liner has a nice fix for that – I wonder if the CL also has that?)

    A friend had the upper buckle rivet break, and did all the research to find the replacement part:
    http://www.wildsnow.com/4715/dynafit...buckle-repair/
    ... which is a good emergency kit addition.

    One of my TLT5 lower buckles had its lower spring get all mangled.
    I really didn’t care about it, but Dynafit replaced it when I shipped the boots back for the rivet represssing.
    With or without any intact spring, I never had any problems with the buckle, although I suspect that is in large part b/c of the relatively high tension I had on the buckle.
    (That said, the DyNA buckle design, although appearing far less impressive – i.e., all plastic buckle, with plastic detent, and cord for a bail – was by far my favorite of the two.)
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Just noticed that SnowInn.com has spec weights for six out of the seven TLT6 combinations (with Approach-Outdoor.com having the seventh -- C-One variation -- as a Competence Center).
    They're identical though to the TLT5 weights, so then again, maybe SnowInn just copied those from last year ... but if they are correct, then the CR vs CL difference is ~11.3 ounces per pair.
    (Sorry, but always think in terms of pounds & ounces per pair, not grams per foot!)
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445
    I came back from a quick trip to the whites last year with a rivetless cuff buckle on one boot, and finished the Utah season with a roofing nail as the main pivot in that most critical closure.

    Where do you get your rivets repressed?

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher3000 View Post
    Where do you get your rivets repressed?
    First I called around some local machine shops, but they didn't have sufficiently large cups.
    So I shipped them back to Dynafit in Boulder.
    Then a year later, I called a local ski shop, which thought it could be done.
    But then I realized that since the shipping cost to Boulder wasn't all that bad (with no other costs), and that it takes less time than would standing around while my local shop experimented, I've just stayed with shipping them to Boulder. (Kind of a nice annual end-of-season tradition, like cleaning and regluing many pairs of disgusting climbing skins...)
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,612
    Cosmo in Truckee has successfully repressed my cuff rivets a couple of times.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    541
    "if they are correct, then the CR vs CL difference is ~11.3 ounces per pair."

    Difference between a current production 29 EVO/PDG foam liner and a TLT6 CR liner is 150g per boot or 5.29oz. 10.58oz for a pair of 29s between what I would think is the lightest Dynafit liner to the new TLT6 CR.

    Lou is saying "(a few ounces, a few hundred grams)" at best between CR and CL. Certainly could be the numbers are lost in translation. But 11+ oz per pair even in a 30 doesn't seem realistic.
    Last edited by Dane1; 09-15-2013 at 07:44 PM.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane1 View Post
    "if they are correct, then the CR vs CL difference is ~11.3 ounces per pair."

    Difference between a 29 EVO/PDG foam liner and a TLT6 CR liner is 150g per boot or 5.29oz. 10.58oz for a pair of 29s between the lightest Dynafit liner to the new TLT6 CR.

    Lou is saying "(a few ounces, a few hundred grams)" at best between CR and CL. Certainly could be the numbers are lost in translation. But 11+ oz per pair even in a 30 doesn't seem realistic.
    The PDG picture sure doesn’t look like my EVO liners.
    Looks much more like the TF liner picture, and the spec is almost identical, at 0.7 oz differential per pair.
    By contrast, the actual weight differential for my EVO liners versus my TLT5 liners is 3.2 oz per pair.
    So let’s see, if the new CL liner weighs the same as the old TF liner (big if!), then using your measured 10.58oz differential for sz 29 PDG vs CR, scale down that differential to the 27.5 spec target, subtract the PDG<>TF differential ... hmm ... maybe a prediction of around nine-ish for the new CR<>CL differential rather than 11 for the old TF<>TF-X.
    Now when will Dynafit update its website with the new specs?!?
    (Or is speculative numerical analysis more fun than having actual quantitative measurements?)
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •