2016-2017 Gear Thread

**bsavery** · 01-20-2016, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Just wanted to post this photo. The final version will be about 1500g. The one Blister took a photo of was the first sample version. They worked to raeduce weight in a few areas to get them to 1500g (some will probably be below)

I think a lot of Mags will really dig these boots. Demo boots will be circulating the next few months. Fit is nothing like the present Cochise boots, or anything with a walk mode for that matter.

Attachment 175246

Whats with the weird open areas in the shell? Does it affect the flex/etc. Also curious to hear about fit.

**Lindahl** · 01-20-2016, 09:24 PM

Sorry, just kinda figured that information is pretty relevant when talking about walk mode issues. Thats a lot of impacts and stress specifically to that part of the boot.

**robnow** · 01-20-2016, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Just wanted to post this photo. The final version will be about 1500g. The one Blister took a photo of was the first sample version. They worked to raeduce weight in a few areas to get them to 1500g (some will probably be below)

I think a lot of Mags will really dig these boots. Demo boots will be circulating the next few months. Fit is nothing like the present Cochise boots, or anything with a walk mode for that matter.

Attachment 175246

Does Tecnica give any thought to leaving the cuff height taller and placing the dotted line like I believe the Mach has to mark a lower cut line? I'm assuming this is done to add a few degrees to walk ROM?

**TahoeJ** · 01-20-2016, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Just wanted to post this photo. The final version will be about 1500g. The one Blister took a photo of was the first sample version. They worked to raeduce weight in a few areas to get them to 1500g (some will probably be below)

I think a lot of Mags will really dig these boots. Demo boots will be circulating the next few months. Fit is nothing like the present Cochise boots, or anything with a walk mode for that matter.

Attachment 175246

Interesting. So is the aim with this boot primarily to reduce weight or is it just as much about the fit? Swappable soles or now the do-it-all combo? Looks like a tech toe on there so I assume the latter.

Not that I think the weight on the current Cochise is much of an issue but I have more of a mountain-biker's mentality when it comes to the ascent. However, lighter without compromise is always nice. :-)

**matt** · 01-20-2016, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Fit is nothing like the present Cochise boots, or anything with a walk mode for that matter.

Care to expand on this?

**SupreChicken** · 01-21-2016, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Vapor Float looks pretty cool for a meadow skipper - 117 underfoot and 1400g. A little short/long at 178/189 though. They need a tweener size.

The vapor is la sporitiva?

**Lindahl** · 01-21-2016, 06:38 PM

Yeah, same nano construction as their other vapor models

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 01-21-2016, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

The vapor is la sporitiva?

Made by Goode, I believe.

**jmars** · 01-21-2016, 07:51 PM

Carbon Flipcore Brahma....I'm sure a few of you saw

**rob stokes** · 01-21-2016, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by jmars

Carbon Flipcore Brahma....I'm sure a few of you saw

I just want a zero G bodacious! Come on!!!!!

**wasatchback** · 01-22-2016, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by rob stokes

I just want a zero G bodacious! Come on!!!!!

We built some Proto 186 Bodacious with a Balsa/Flax core that saved about 250g per ski. They're out on people's feet right now. Not sure where that experiment is headed though. A wider Zero G has been discussed but not sure where it stands in the plans.

Purpose of the Zero G is to have a 1500g boot in a 130 flex that skis more like a traditional overlap boot. Swappable soles for people that might want to ski it alpine bindings but it's also nice if you wear out the rubber to only have to buy $30 replacement soles. They are the easiest to customize boots with a walk mode and have a standard boot board that can be ground.

The new ZeroG/Cochise last has more shape than anything we've ever made. It is very low volume but really comfortable at the same time. It needs to be tried on to really understand what I mean. It has room where you need it but is closer to the foot in the places that actually cradle your foot.

**auvgeek** · 01-22-2016, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Purpose of the Zero G is to have a 1500g boot in a 130 flex that skis more like a traditional overlap boot. Swappable soles for people that might want to ski it alpine bindings but it's also nice if you wear out the rubber to only have to buy $30 replacement soles. They are the easiest to customize boots with a walk mode and have a standard boot board that can be ground.

I had assumed you saved ~200 g on the Zero G by getting rid of the swappable soles, but I guess you cut weight elsewhere. Bummer. How exactly is the Zero G different than the 300g-heavier Cochise? Frankly, removing the swappable soles and making the boot a no-compromise 1550 g touring boot makes more sense to me, but maybe I'm in the minority on that.

**Lindahl** · 01-22-2016, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

We built some Proto 186 Bodacious with a Balsa/Flax core that saved about 250g per ski. They're out on people's feet right now. Not sure where that experiment is headed though. A wider Zero G has been discussed but not sure where it stands in the plans.

Cool, though I'd prefer to see that layup in the Spur shape. I see the Bodacious as being more of a resort ski, so losing some weight on it doesn't make as much sense to me. Really digging my Kusalas (similar to Spur/Renegade) that come in at 9lbs/pair. With the full lightweight ZeroG layup they could probably get close to 8lbs like the soft Kusalas.

**LeeLau** · 01-22-2016, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I had assumed you saved ~200 g on the Zero G by getting rid of the swappable soles, but I guess you cut weight elsewhere. Bummer. How exactly is the Zero G different than the 300g-heavier Cochise? Frankly, removing the swappable soles and making the boot a no-compromise 1550 g touring boot makes more sense to me, but maybe I'm in the minority on that.

Lots of people wanted swappable soles for the wear. Eg ski patrol, sled users etc

**Lindahl** · 01-22-2016, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I had assumed you saved ~200 g on the Zero G by getting rid of the swappable soles, but I guess you cut weight elsewhere. Bummer. How exactly is the Zero G different than the 300g-heavier Cochise? Frankly, removing the swappable soles and making the boot a no-compromise 1550 g touring boot makes more sense to me, but maybe I'm in the minority on that.

Unless its changed a bit, the liner is probably 200+ of the weight difference.

**auvgeek** · 01-22-2016, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by LeeLau

Lots of people wanted swappable soles for the wear. Eg ski patrol, sled users etc

I totally get that. I just think those people would be served fine by the Cochise. The popularity of the Vulcan, Mtn Lab, etc shows that a 1500-1600 g touring boot without swappable soles sells just fine.

**rob stokes** · 01-22-2016, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by wasatchback

We built some Proto 186 Bodacious with a Balsa/Flax core that saved about 250g per ski. They're out on people's feet right now. Not sure where that experiment is headed though. A wider Zero G has been discussed but not sure where it stands in the plans.

I'd buy the shit outta it.

**TahoeJ** · 01-22-2016, 09:46 PM

Swappable soles does make sense for wear purposes. I'm curious did you guys go further with the instep again or leave that pretty similar? I hope it's not tighter...

**XXX-er** · 01-23-2016, 12:04 AM

I had swappable soles on endorphins back when I was the reluctant tourist not touring much so I didn't change them much but now days I can't see swapping soles as much as I would do so I just use the Vulcan for everyting, even tho I got a couple pair of alpines bootchoice really depends on which ski I wana ride

**1000-oaks** · 01-23-2016, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I'm curious did you guys go further with the instep again or leave that pretty similar? I hope it's not tighter...

X2. Digging the tech fittings in the shell. No cant adjustment?

**Atrain505** · 01-23-2016, 01:20 AM

I swap soles at least once a season. You use sleds to ski it is inevitable and essential in my boot purchase.

**verbier61** · 01-24-2016, 05:41 AM

I will be tomorrow at ISPO and will try to take pics of what has not been shown yet... follow instagram @milanomontagna

**wasatchback** · 01-24-2016, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I had assumed you saved ~200 g on the Zero G by getting rid of the swappable soles, but I guess you cut weight elsewhere. Bummer. How exactly is the Zero G different than the 300g-heavier Cochise? Frankly, removing the swappable soles and making the boot a no-compromise 1550 g touring boot makes more sense to me, but maybe I'm in the minority on that.

Cochise is either PE or PU depending on the model. ZeroG is Triax. ZeroG also has a new Palau liner (better fit than the one in the Cochise Pro Light) whereas the Cochise comes with a more Traditonal alpine boot liner. New Cochise Liner is much lighter than the present one, it also was better and has a breathable upper.

Zero G also has a specific cuff that saves weight.

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I totally get that. I just think those people would be served fine by the Cochise. The popularity of the Vulcan, Mtn Lab, etc shows that a 1500-1600 g touring boot without swappable soles sells just fine.

Guarantee the Salomon would have had swappable soles if they could have figured out a way to do it and have it weigh 1500g.

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Swappable soles does make sense for wear purposes. I'm curious did you guys go further with the instep again or leave that pretty similar? I hope it's not tighter...

They're Tecnicas. They will always have a little more instep room. It's hard to compare it to present Cochise as the fit is so much more contoured but I would say instep height is similar.

Originally Posted by 1000-oaks

X2. Digging the tech fittings in the shell. No cant adjustment?

Another aspect to these boots that was completely redone was the whole walk function. We tried to eliminate any play that would develop over time. When you have a cant adjustment piece there is a screw that could loosen over time, especially with the cuff moving so much. Designers felt that it was more important to have a rock solid cuff/lower connection than a cant adjustment piece. Since these have swappable soles you can use Cantology between the shell and the sole if you really need it. The cuff bolts and walk/ski switch were also completely redesigned. It requires some photos to properly explain. I'll take some at SIA where we'll have boots in pieces.