Tecnica ZeroG boot

[gregL]

Tried on the new Cochise 120 the other day (a friend at a shop brought one over for me to try). Can't speak to the skiability, but its definitely tighter from the midfoot back. I'd probably need to remold my Intuitions at the very least. Felt lower on the instep too? Not a lot but noticeable.

For boots that are built on the same last, the 2017 Cochise 120 and Zero G Guide Pro don't really feel the same on your foot. Both boots are noticeably narrower in the medial midfoot, just under and to the rear of the pre-punched CAS navicular zone, even coworkers who ski 97mm boots out of the box have commented on it. I punched this area heavily before I could ski the Zero G (be careful, the plastic just above the sole doesn't taper like traditional shells and is very thin; it would be easy to blow right through the shell). Instep height feels slightly lower on the Cochise than the Zero G, but I think this a function of the liner - check out the minimalist "bikini" tongue on the new Palau liner when you get a chance, it doesn't take up much space at all. Otherwise, the Zero G actually feels tighter in the midfoot than the Cochise, probably also because of the relatively thick (considering the light weight) liner (they seem to have added some foam to the liner between SIA and when I got my boot, it's heavier and the boot feels tighter than it did at the shows). Much of this goes away once you cook the liner. Volume around the ankle isn't exactly small, it's just less than has been typical for Tecnica in recent years. Toe shape is less "pointy" than in the past , with more room on the medial side of the big toe and more around the third and fourth toes as well. If you need extra width, be careful punching near the seam between the Triax and PU plastics - mine separated at the fifth met head punch (much like a Custom Shell or Memory Fit shell), but the overlap is substantial and the seal seems intact on the shell interior, so they haven't leaked in a few days of slushy corn skiing.

In terms of skiing, I'm super stoked on this boot. Flex is very smooth and predictable, very much in the Cochise vein. I was skeptical about a 1500 gram boot getting pushed around in variable snow, but it has been fantastic so far for spring conditions. I've only skinned about 1100 vertical in the Zero G so far, but it is quite good - close to the same mechanical range as my MTN Labs, but the liner (no cutout in the rear) bunches up a bit and hits you in the achilles, so the usable range is a little less. Make sure you undo the top two buckles to tour - I kept the bottom one done for a bit and it quickly started cutting into the soft plastic in the "Quick Instep" zone; this seems not to happen with the buckle undone.

[wasatchback]

New Cochise range is considerably more than the old one.

[gregL]

New Cochise range is considerably more than the old one.

It is also way smoother, pretty amazing actually.

[Lindahl]

New Cochise range is considerably more than the old one.

I didn't really notice much of a difference with the same ProTour liner. Maybe I'd notice more outside the shop?

Or is most of the difference in the liner improvements? Theres a huge difference in ROM between the OLD Cochise liner and my ProTours, so the OLD liner was definitely holding it back big time. With the ProTours the OLD shell wasn't too far from a MTN Lab.

[roQer]

It is also way smoother, pretty amazing actually.

How about the cuff height in the new Cochise? I get sore shins after some hours of skiing in the current Cochise 130. I attribute this to the relatively low anterior cuff height. Could be also the poor cuff anatomy which makes an overthightening of the upper buckles necessary. The cuff fit has been addressed as well, right?

[XavierD]

New Cochise is quicker side to side, and has a smoother engagement than the old one. It is still a quick engagement compared to its competitors but hits you sooner with more power. This is likely due to a PE build and introducing an actual spine to the back of the lower.

New liner is impressive, and defiantly adds to its ability to walk, without any real sacrifice in ski engagement. It still features the CAS material around the ankle, but introduces a breathable foam upper, Velcro tongue, and greater ROM.

Much tighter in front of the ankle and over the instep. My 26.5 Cochise 120 hits lower than my 25.5 2015/16 130. The boot board appears to be the same as what is found in the mach1 and is amazingly quick and easy to grind lower. I was able to take a few mm off of both boots in about 2 minutes. Still tight over the foot.

The 26.5 120 was about 1860g with the stock liner and a hair under 1700 with a pro tour. I'll be taking it for some short tours this week. And give a more in depth report then.

Those of you looking for that one powerful boot that can ski in the resort and be proficient on the tour will have plenty of great options next year between this, the Lange XT free tour, Pebax K2 and Dalbello.

[1000-oaks]

Wasatchback, will Tecnica be releasing a DIN sole kit containing tech inserts for the 2013/14/15/16 Cochise? You alluded to this awhile back, but maybe you were actually hinting at the 2017 Cochise and Zero G shells.

Much tighter in front of the ankle and over the instep. My 26.5 Cochise 120 hits lower than my 25.5 2015/16 130.

How does the interior length compare between your 2016 25.5 and the 2017 26.5? My toes are smashed in the 25.5 Cochise 130 (toenails on big toes haven't fared so well, 26cm long foot), haven't bothered to get them punched yet. Other than the lower instep for 2017, I like what people are saying about the 2017, particularly the "tighter in front of the ankle" bit.

Maybe a 2017 model in 26.5 is the way to go.

[Lindahl]

Those of you looking for that one powerful boot that can ski in the resort and be proficient on the tour will have plenty of great options next year between this, the Lange XT free tour, Pebax K2 and Dalbello.

Salomon also has the new QST series.

[XavierD]

that was snooty.

[TAFKALVS]

that was snooty.

Cue Lou having a bunch of 140lb testers, (with no technical alpine ski background) ski it and complain of the unnecessary stiffness for driving sub 180cm skis.

I don't read his boot reviews anymore.

Lou, if you're reading this, and want people to take your freeride boot reviews seriously, please send freeride boots to someone who weighs at least 200lbs and skis in a way that they can benefit from a stiffer and more supportive boot.

Sincerely, the TGR contingent.

[XXX-er]

IMO Lou's piece is missing enough context to be useful in comparing one boot to another cuz there are a lot of good ski boots out there SO where does the ZeroG slot in compared to the other offerings from ski boot makers

Lee Lau's reviews are good in this respect

[Norseman]

Cue Lou having a bunch of 140lb testers, (with no technical alpine ski background) ski it and complain of the unnecessary stiffness for driving sub 180cm skis.

I don't read his boot reviews anymore.

Lou, if you're reading this, and want people to take your freeride boot reviews seriously, please send freeride boots to someone who weighs at least 200lbs and skis in a way that they can benefit from a stiffer and more supportive boot.

Sincerely, the TGR contingent.

Amen.

[NWFlow]

Amen.

Thirded. That review was brutal and reeked of smug.

When someone gets that up on their high horse about lightweight touring gear it becomes readily apparent that they are in desperate need of a resort day in full fucking alpine gear to remember how that feels...

[adrenalated]

Have you guys ever been on wild snow before? That's how all his reviews read.

[XXX-er]

yeah some good info on that site , great picts, great tech info albeit with a definate ski mountaineering bent, skinny lightweight skis, lightweight bedroom slipper type boots so I just take it in context

And so this time alot of them thar "freeride tourists" are giving Lou a rough time over his review

[Norseman]

I can look beyond the smug, as long as its roots are in reality. Leavenworth Skier's point to which I agreed: powerful skiers look for boots that can support muscle input and then deal with the slight weight penalty inherent to the category. RandoCommando isn't the only type of person going big or far, and neither is that type of boot. So what if I got PowerWraps in my Vulcans? I know you have em too, xxx.

I generally find the site quite helpful regardless.

I dig the freeride tourist moniker.

[TAFKALVS]

I can look beyond the smug, as long as its roots are in reality. Leavenworth Skier's point to which I agreed: powerful skiers look for boots that can support muscle input and then deal with the slight weight penalty inherent to the category. RandoCommando isn't the only type of person going big or far, and neither is that type of boot. So what if I got PowerWraps in my Vulcans? I know you have em too, xxx.

I dig the freeride tourist moniker.

I don't know what you weigh Norseman, but I know XavierD and I are similar size/build and it's not even sure its a muscle issue, it's a a bodyweight issue. For me at least, in most AT boots I bellow out the lower shell when the temperatures are warm, causing the boot to fit/ski like shit, have zero rebound, and cause my calves to cramp since I'm actively having to try and keep from falling through the fronts of the boots.

Only AT boot so far that doesn't do that for me is the Dynafit Vulcan with the tongue installed. But I ultimately sold the Vulcans because I hated the fiddle factor of the cables and tongue.

I'm banking on the Zero G or new Lange XT to be the ticket for touring. (My typical touring is single day, car to car with around 5k of vert. Not much yo-yo, just 1-2 solid long runs. Touring for terrain/turns/snow conditions, not distance.) I imagine if I was going for mileage I'd want something different, but I'd also probably try to slim down too.

[XXX-er]

Its not just a weight issue its the style of skiing one prefers , bigger skis, bigger turns, the ability to ski your AT gear inbounds if you have to

Norse man would be 200 with a case of beer in each pocket

[Norseman]

You're right... I was loose with the language. Should've said 'equivalent bending moment'... affected by shin length and the relative position of body CG, and the power with which it is modulated.

Back to meaningful discussion... sorry for the distraction.

I'm a little over 200 with gear. Got riverbeers still? I'd take a case or two.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I didn't really find Lou's review smug, just the usual touring oriented bent. I get what he's saying, having a light boot with very little range of motion doesn't seem to make much sense. Conversely, what's the point of a 4 buckle boot that's not really beefy enough for hard charging? There was also a lot of positive in that review about the technical aspects of the boot.

I'm not a hard charger but I'm a big guy and I like touring in light weight boots with a nice range of motion and I'm willing to adjust my skiing style accordingly if they're not as supportive. I've been very happy with my Mtn Explores even though they aren't nearly as supportive and responsive as my Quest 120s with PWs. TGR is kind of different than the general ski touring population, most of the people I know who tour regularly appreciate light weight boots with a nice range of motion for skinning or walking and don't expect their AT boots to deliver the same level of performance as their resort boots.

[galibier_numero_un]

Cue Lou having a bunch of 140lb testers, (with no technical alpine ski background) ski it and complain of the unnecessary stiffness for driving sub 180cm skis.

I don't read his boot reviews anymore.

Lou, if you're reading this, and want people to take your freeride boot reviews seriously, please send freeride boots to someone who weighs at least 200lbs and skis in a way that they can benefit from a stiffer and more supportive boot.

Sincerely, the TGR contingent.

I read all of his reviews with amusement. To be fair, Bob Perlmutter has a race background, but he is as you note in the 140 Lb. weight class and 178 is a big ski for him. There may be some hope in his son Louie but in general (and for all the good Lou does), I think that he and his weight weenie ilk (his words) have a deleterious influence on the industry. I see this in my industry (audio) where it's quite a bit worse. The reviewers set the dialog, the masses follow and irrelevant (of course, my opinion) products are the result.

Just one example (from the referenced ZeroG review):

Removable sole system is clean and simple, lack of steel threaded fasteners in boot saves weight, is not a concern because force from tech bindings or alpine bindings is exerted on integral molded parts of shell not on the replaceable portion of the sole.

Really Lou? Weight savings? Is 20 grams gonna ruin your day? I get that this is probably a good cost decision by Technica, since most people will swap only once, and that the design doesn't put stress on the sole blocks. My issue is with Lou's obsession on gram counting which borders on madness. How much of the thin base and edge in current designs is driven by people with influence like Lou? When I hit a rock, I'm glad the bases underfoot were specified by ON3P, Praxis, etc.

To his credit, he advocates as much sole rubber as possible (consistent with proper binding functioning).

His obsession with rearward travel is meaningless to me. We'll have to agree to disagree here, and that's a topic for a whole 'nuther thread. My (short) take is to watch any YouTube clip of rando racers, and like ultra runners, they've figured out that short, high frequency strides are most efficient. If it's good enough for uber athletes with 80 VO2 max, it's good enough for me.

A good example of their stride is at about 1:20.



This following comment is condescending at best:

Paraphrase from our main tester: “I skied a pair of the Zero G boots as a tester for a local shop. My opinions: Too heavy for real touring with no significant performance improvement that could justify the extra weight over today’s “real” ski touring boots. A quiver of one for the freeride touring crowd who can handle boots of average stiffness, and who like the feel of an overlap.”

I could go on and on, but in summary, I think that as much as writers like Lou can drive the industry forward, they do as much damage with their influence from a product durability perspective.

Edit to add:

I want to make it clear that I think Lou adds a lot of value to the backcountry skiing community. His equipment teardowns are great, and because of all of the heavy lifting he's done (not due to the weight of his touring rig ), he has a lot of influence.

In spite of the fact that he does his best to keep his hands on top of the table in terms of his biases, people are led to accept the light and relatively fragile side of the spectrum as fact, as opposed to being a choice that lies along a continuum. I get this from people who ask me about touring gear all the time.

Lou has earned the right to this bully pulpit, but at the same time, his writing exerts what I consider to be extreme pressure on manufacturers to emphasize weight over durability. Of course, manufacturers win because they get to sell gear more frequently. I don't envy Lou's task, because he has to balance a critical approach with that of not torpedoing a budding manufacturer. This isn't an easy line to hold.

As far as reviewers are concerned, I'm of the opinion that you want a reviewer who's motivated to extract the performance out of a design for which it was intended. I would not ask a rando racer to review a Lange XT. Unintended biases creep into the picture, even if someone is doing their best to be objective. It is in this area where I believe Wildsnow can up its game, and the Roaring Fork Valley certainly has enough willing volunteers of varying backgrounds.

Me? I read between the lines, whether it's Wildsnow, Blister, or whatever.

Cheers,
Thom

[Meadow Skipper]

^ I'm gonna agree with you on rearward travel for touring boots. I was thinking about it during today's tour. A certain amount is good, but it does seem to be over-valued by many. Maybe I don't do enough touring in flat country.

[TAFKALVS]

Thom, Louie is skinny. He's a good skier and very knowledgable about gear but not in the weight range we're talking about.

Mofro and Norseman should review boots for Wildsnow.

[galibier_numero_un]

Good point, Leavenworth. I guess what I was driving at is that Louie has a freeride/freetour mentality.

I agree with you, that their range of reviewers should span a broader range of weights. It's not as if he doesn't have enough willing followers in the Roaring Fork valley. I think this all goes toward him looking to set a dialog the way he sees it, and of course, it's his website. Naturally, we don't have to swallow it hook line and sinker (and clearly, we don't)

Cheers,
Thom

[XXX-er]

I had diner last year with a guy who worked for some unnamed (doesn't matter) on-line lifestyle sport zine and buddy was telling me how his testers were lamenting they had trouble getting excited about products to which I replied

that it IS actualy their job is TO get excited and to test/use a product in the manner for which it was built & marketed or GTFO and get somebody else who can do the job properly

I had drank a lot of margarita's, still didn't have to pay for diner