Tecnica Boots 2016/2017

[sf]

The ZeroGs has their own thread, and it would be nice if we could consolidate some info about the alpine/freeride offerings in a separate thread.
There's already some info about the new Cochise in the ZeroG thread, but most of it is about fit, and not much about skiing. I've not seen much info regarding the new(?) Mach1s.

The ZeroG thread
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ica-ZeroG-boot

Some info in the comments here......higher cuff on the Cochises?
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...-for-2016-2017

Some info about fit here (leelau's blog?)
http://www.randosaigai.com/incoming.html

And more in the 16-17 Gear thread (most of it copied into the ZeroG thread....I think)
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a.../t-295845.html


My meager contribution:

I've put in approximately 100 days inbounds and touring with 1st gen Pro Lights modified with liners from Sole in Chamonix, but last year I pretty much ended up skiing Mtn Labs the entire season. Probably 40ish days inbounds and touring. I've always felt that Pro Lights, even with better liners, were to roomy around the calf. The Mtn Labs were a bit better, and skied just as well. I've always felt that the Pro Lights upper shells were a bit low as well.

Skiing the Mtn Labs obviously comes at a cost as I've been reluctant to ski my FKS/Pivots with them, so I've been waiting for a boot with alpine soles and tech fittings for inbounds and short tours.......Enter the Cochise 2017.

I've tried on both the 120 and the 130 and can confirm that the fit felt more contoured than the Pro Lights. They felt tighter around the ankle, pretty much the same instep, a bit tighter around the calf and I felt that the cuff was a bit higher, but I really don't know. Some of it is probably the new shell and some is due to a thicker liner.

However, since this was in a warm shop, both felt pretty soft when flexing them on the floor. Can't say for sure since I've not had my other boots on for 5 months, but I'd say the 120 was pretty similar to the Mtn Labs.


What I'm looking for:

Basically I want a bit more beef than my older boots, but without ending up with a semi-race boot. At the end of the day most of my skiing is in pretty tight trees, often skied out, and I'd like a boot that I actually can flex when not carving perfect turns on the groomers.
I'm 190/85, decent skier and fit, but definitely not the fastest skier on the mountain in technical terrain.

In other words, I'm primarily looking for info about how they flex and how they ski / how the flex feels on snow. Has anybody skied both the 120 and the 130? Can anyone compare them either to Pro Lights or Mtn Labs?
The Mach1s are probably not an alternative for me due the lack of tech fittings, but if anyone think I should consider them, let me know.

[nyskirat]

Not too much help yet (will be trying a pair of 130s on in a few weeks and can report then), but can you compare the fit of your original Pro Lights to the Mtn Lab?

[Skeeze]

Should be a useful thread for me--I'm particularly interested in the Cochise 130 since it appears to be lighter and have a better walk mode compared to the similarly priced Lupo TI.

Did you notice any difference in fit between the 120 and the 130? I know they're supposed to be identical, but given the plastics are different, I know it's possible that that slight changes can occur after pulling the boot off the mold.

[Quadzilla]

Well, just got a pair of 17 Cochise Pro 130's that replace my 14/15 Pro 130's. First thing is that the boots are not that similar in a lot of areas. My older ones were much stiffer all around, three buckle with buckle powerstrap. The walk mode had little range and the fit was average in the forefoot but huge in the cuff. Once I got them to fit around the leg they skied decent, drove big skis but resort only. As compared the 17's, the boot is a little roomier in the forefoot and tighter around the lower leg. Liners seem to be a higher quality and more techy. Flex is softer and more progressive. My older ones were like a rock which I didn't like. Walk mode ROM on the new ones is in the same league as a full on touring boot and the walk lever is solid. Boots are a little lighter but not the kind of boot to do any kind of big tour on at least for me. They also have tech fittings.

Anyway, for me a full on resort boot that will walk around icy parking lots and hiking from car to lift with absolute comfort, use the tech fittings on occasion resorting with my big AT skis and maybe add some tour liners if I want a burly BC boot skiing my big tech skis when it is heavy and crusty.

Bottomline from what I see is that the 17's are well thought out, every component better than the old ones. However, haven't skied them yet but confident it was the right choice for me.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I tried a new Cochise 120. It was really nice. Almost like a pre-punched feeling in the last. 27.5 was a 315mm BSL, so yeah, the cuff is a normal height, the sole is a normal length, etc. Alpine DIN soles with Dynafit inserts
The 120 was maybe a little soft, and I was making the middle buckles touch, which was really weird. I've never done that on a boot. I think it might be some quirk of the design. They definitely gave the shape some instep height. Much more than my Agent 120's. But again, ski/walk mechanism may have made it a little soft. Hard to tell in a warm store in October.
Oh, and they're nice and light compared to a traditional alpine boot, which even for strictly inbounds skiing would be nice.

[sf]

Not too much help yet (will be trying a pair of 130s on in a few weeks and can report then), but can you compare the fit of your original Pro Lights to the Mtn Lab?

I'd say that they are reasonably similar in the lower shell. The Cochises have a bit more room over the instep and around the heel. For me the difference is more pronounced around the ankle and calf. I feel that it's easier to get a close fit with the Mtn Labs. Especially with original liners the Cochises transfered input worse, the original Palau liners were more like a stiff sock after a season of use.
Overall I'd say that the Mtn Labs ski better in every way.

Should be a useful thread for me--I'm particularly interested in the Cochise 130 since it appears to be lighter and have a better walk mode compared to the similarly priced Lupo TI.
Did you notice any difference in fit between the 120 and the 130? I know they're supposed to be identical, but given the plastics are different, I know it's possible that that slight changes can occur after pulling the boot off the mold.

I only tried them on for a minute or two. No difference as far as I could tell, but have a look in the ZeroG thread. I think someone brought this up there. Cut and paste if you find the answer.

Well, just got a pair of 17 Cochise Pro 130's that replace my 14/15 Pro 130's. First thing is that the boots are not that similar in a lot of areas. My older ones were much stiffer all around, three buckle with buckle powerstrap.

Interesting. If that's correct I'd consider the 130s over the 120s, given the fact that both felt softish for their stated flex in the shop.

[Lindahl]

In my opinion, some of the problem with the Cochise (and ZeroG?) cuff diameter has to do with the fact that its the same upper cuff regardless of which liner you have. The Cochise Pro has a pretty thick alpine style liner. The old Pro Light (and ZeroG?) have pretty low volume lightweight liners. This means without the CAS alpine-style liner, there's a lot of volume in the upper cuff. Most other touring boots don't have this issue since the liner and shell are designed together as a single boot rather than being repurposed.

Its not terribly bad, but I do notice the extra volume in all the different Cochises that I've owned when using my own Intuition Liner (and when trying the old Pro Light Palau liner). I haven't been in the ZeroG yet, so I can't really speak to it, but it probably has the same problem. I'd agree that putting this same liner into the Mtn Lab does not cause volume issues (probably because the shell was designed around the low volume liner).

While we're talking about liners, Tecnica still seems to be short-lasting them? My gfs toes were totally crammed in the womans ZeroGs. We swapped it out for a one-size-larger Intuition and it fits beautifully. The Intuition does not have any length issues in the shell. The stock liner is simply too short for the shell's interior sole length. Tecnica should really just order one-size-larger liners from Palau. They had that issue with the original Cochise liners too (not Palau). I wonder if this would solve peoples issue with the rearward ROM causing toes to hit the end of the boot (probably just hitting the end of the liner). Salomon's QST Pro 130 has a similar problem as well. The heat moldable shell can accomodate a pretty wide toebox but the liner is super skinny at the toes and can't really be stretched. It had the potential to fit so many more people!

[gregL]

While we're talking about liners, Tecnica still seems to be short-lasting them? My gfs toes were totally crammed in the womans ZeroGs. We swapped it out for a one-size-larger Intuition and it fits beautifully. The Intuition does not have any length issues in the shell. The stock liner is simply too short for the shell's interior sole length. Tecnica should really just order one-size-larger liners from Palau. They had that issue with the original Cochise liners too (not Palau). I wonder if this would solve peoples issue with the rearward ROM causing toes to hit the end of the boot (probably just hitting the end of the liner). Salomon's QST Pro 130 has a similar problem as well. The heat moldable shell can accomodate a pretty wide toebox but the liner is super skinny at the toes and can't really be stretched. It had the potential to fit so many more people!

LIners that don't extend to the limit of the shell interior are one of the reasons many people end up in a boot that's too big for them - the pressure they feel on their toes is often just the neoprene of the liner. Pretty much any liner toe can be stretched with a heat gun (or even a hairdryer) and a broomstick handle; the key is to heat the vinyl sole layer enough to loosen the glue, peel it back an inch or two and stretch the toe where needed, then stick the vinyl back down before it cools.

[wasatchback]

The New Cochise boots will feel softer than the old ones at warmer temps... new ones are PU/PE old ones were triax. Triax (pebax, and Pp based plastic is less temperature sensitive so stiffer when warmer softer when colder versus PU/PE.

Old Cochise boots didn't really flex very well at all, especially if you had small lower legs as you had to buckle them so tight. They were very blocky. Some people liked it, a lot didn't. It worked, but could have been much better.

Cochise and Zero G Cuffs are exactly the same height. There aren't too molds.

All you have to do to get the Palau liners to fit is mold them with toe caps. Those liners NEED to be molded in order to fit, period. Never judge the fit of the Guide Pro before it's molded as it changes dramatically. This Palau liner is light years better than the one in the Cochise Pro Light. It actually has some pre molded shape but it still needs to be molded.

The liner in the Zero G Guide and Guide Woman's is not made by Palau. It's heavier but fits much better to begin with.

If you need to take up space in the Zero G upper I put a Velcro spoiler in the back and a layer of neoprene on the tongue. I have chicken legs! Worked great.

Just as with every Tecnica boot, they have slightly more instep room than most boots, especially Salomon. That's just their signature fit.

[Lindahl]

The New Cochise boots will feel softer than the old ones at warmer temps... new ones are PU/PE old ones were triax. Triax (pebax, and Pp based plastic is less temperature sensitive so stiffer when warmer softer when colder versus PU/PE.

Old Cochise boots didn't really flex very well at all, especially if you had small lower legs as you had to buckle them so tight. They were very blocky. Some people liked it, a lot didn't. It worked, but could have been much better.

Cochise and Zero G Cuffs are exactly the same height. There aren't too molds.

All you have to do to get the Palau liners to fit is mold them with toe caps. Those liners NEED to be molded in order to fit, period. Never judge the fit of the Guide Pro before it's molded as it changes dramatically. This Palau liner is light years better than the one in the Cochise Pro Light. It actually has some pre molded shape but it still needs to be molded.

The liner in the Zero G Guide and Guide Woman's is not made by Palau. It's heavier but fits much better to begin with.

If you need to take up space in the Zero G upper I put a Velcro spoiler in the back and a layer of neoprene on the tongue. I have chicken legs! Worked great.

Just as with every Tecnica boot, they have slightly more instep room than most boots, especially Salomon. That's just their signature fit.

Totally agree on the flex of the new Cochise. Very nice.

Why not just start with the proper liner length to begin with? What advantage is there to short-lasting? Shop fit goes a long ways towards selling boots. And yeah, the liner stretched after molding to accomodate her toes, but if we were the typical(?) consumer, we wouldn't have known that based on shop fit and moved on.

Yeah, I use one of those tongue eliminator things (prefer an upright stance anyway, due to lack of dorsiflexion). I know it costs more, but maybe it makes sense to give the upper cuff on the ZeroG a narrower last? Though I do like more plastic overlap. Makes it stiffer.

[iriponsnow]

Any thoughts on the Cochise 100?! I'm on the lighter end of the spectrum & have no use for the dynafit system. Much appreciated!

[1000-oaks]

Just as with every Tecnica boot, they have slightly more instep room than most boots, especially Salomon. That's just their signature fit.

Don't ever change that, Tecnica is about the only brand that fits my instep.

Just got the 2017 120's and was worried they might be too soft, glad to hear they'll stiffen up in the cold. Coming off 2016 Pro 130's, it's crazy how flexible the 2017 is by comparison. The cuff is much more flexible, the split in the cuff between the two buckles provides give, the cutaway in the lower shell over the instep makes it easy to get on and off, etc. Last year's 130 is a beast by comparison, almost seems like a burly race boot vs a comfy recreational boot. I trust that the new rear spine design (harder plastic) will provide the adequate support though, and it'll ski fine. If not, there's always Power Wraps or stepping up to the 130.

Regarding the 5mm shorter BSL across the line, it looks like the length reduction is due to the elimination of the removable sole blocks. I've been between sizes in the Cochise and was hoping the update meant the internal length also dropped 5mm (I went up a shell size in the 2017), but based on a rough shell fit I don't think the internal length changed much. The new 2017 26.5 120 seems to be about 10mm longer internally than the 2016 25.5 Pro 130.

Bummer, but it'll have to work, would like to keep all of my toenails this year.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I wonder if 1 can order than Mach 1 130 powerstrap.
Then again, you could just throw an NRS strap on there. Same thing.
120 felt a bit soft to me, too, but idk. So hard to tell in a warm room.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Also, I find that the proper way to break in most liners is to throw them in the garbage where they belong and get Intuitions.

[sf]

The New Cochise boots will feel softer than the old ones at warmer temps... new ones are PU/PE old ones were triax. Triax (pebax, and Pp based plastic is less temperature sensitive so stiffer when warmer softer when colder versus PU/PE.

Ok, thanks. Good answer, but those often lead to more questions.
Can you say something about what you mean with warmer vs colder in this case? Does it need to be a -15'C/5'F day in order for them to stiffen up? And when they do, are they pretty much the same as previous generation in the stated flex? Except from the fact that they flex better/smoother? Can you compare how they feel in winter/spring temps to other boots?

[Lindahl]

Ok, thanks. Good answer, but those often lead to more questions.
Can you say something about what you mean with warmer vs colder in this case? Does it need to be a -15'C/5'F day in order for them to stiffen up? And when they do, are they pretty much the same as previous generation in the stated flex? Except from the fact that they flex better/smoother? Can you compare how they feel in winter/spring temps to other boots?

In warm spring temps (40-50), the 130 compared to the old Cochise 120, they're about as stiff but with a much springier and smoother flex. The temp to flex ratio is higher so they should be stiffer than the old Cochise 120 as it gets colder. Haven't had them much below 25 yet, but can say that the sweeter flex is still there at those temps. You can always throw them in a fridge to get a better idea.

Honestly, I was a bit worried about them in warmer temps too, but then I skied them. No worries here. Its been a while since I skied a PU boot!

[yellofin]

Also, I find that the proper way to break in most liners is to throw them in the garbage where they belong and get Intuitions.

The new 120 liner is really nice it really locks the heels place I put my old intuition luxury liner in and the new one definitely felt better also glad to hear about the difference in the plastic when warm

[1000-oaks]

The new 120 liner is really nice it really locks the heels place I put my old intuition luxury liner in and the new one definitely felt better also glad to hear about the difference in the plastic when warm

The 2016 Pro 130 CAS liner also has an amazing heel pocket. 2017 120 liner looks almost the same, but is softer with a perforated foam cuff, much softer plastic around the cuff, and a small flex zone on ths spine. More biased to touring.

[iriponsnow]

I wonder if 1 can order than Mach 1 130 powerstrap.
Then again, you could just throw an NRS strap on there. Same thing.
120 felt a bit soft to me, too, but idk. So hard to tell in a warm room.

I was actually thinking of going for a 100 or 120, then I tried em on & decided on the 130.... very springy / progressive flex. We'll see how it handles on snow.

[iriponsnow]

Springiest boot I've ever tried.

[galibier_numero_un]

+1 on the sweet, sweet flex (in shop) on the 130's.

One data point on shell sizing ... My foot is 9.5 on the Bannock, and a 25.5 is a performance fit (less than a finger spacing).

... Thom

[SnowMoJo]

I'm going with the Mach1 130 LV. No need for a walk/hike mode, haven't needed one in the past, to me just another potential area of failure. I've toe kicked my way till now, so no sense changing. ANYWAY - buggered up ankle with a whack of metal installed in it, boots recommended were Dalbello, Full-tilt and Tecnica. Having been a Tecnica fanboi in the past, these are what are getting custom fitted to my stubs this upcoming week. And I'm stoked. Already went in for initial assessment and they're just coming out way head of the other options for a number of reasons.

I like orange. It's the new black.

[1000-oaks]

Tip for those with Salomon driver-toe bindings; open up the wing adjustment ALL the way before snapping in a 2017 Cochise, or risk stripping the threads in the housing. With STH Steels, the wing adjustment is only 1/4 turn (both sides) from maximum width.

[sf]

The 2016 Pro 130 CAS liner also has an amazing heel pocket. 2017 120 liner looks almost the same, but is softer with a perforated foam cuff, much softer plastic around the cuff, and a small flex zone on ths spine. More biased to touring.

Just heard back from a store I've previously used. They decided to not sell the 120, they felt it was to soft. I'm sure the decision is based on the expected sales as well, but still..... Leaning towards 130s now

[yellofin]

If you weigh under 180 lbs don't you want to feel a progressive flex of a boot and a rebound then repeat while smiling profusely