Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 569
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,142

    Tecnica ZeroG Tour Pro - 2018- 9 boot

    1300g!

    12-13deg forward lean

    https://www.powder.com/gear-locker/t...00#sf180360900



    Weights etc subject to verification

    Old thread here

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,142
    Some random new ZeroG obs pulled from the Gear Rumor 18 - 19 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    New ZeroG boot is not gripwalk. Normal rockered AT sole.

    Would love to know what other boots are in the 1300g category to make it crowded????

    Maestrale, Mtn Explore, Hawx XTD are all around 1420-1450
    Scarpa F1 is 1280

    Spectre 2.0 is 1445 but in a 27.5.

    Top ZeroG is definitely stiffer than all those, maybe minus the Atomic but again I'm not sure. It was designed
    to have another metal connection point further up the rear of the boot to give it better progression of flex and
    stiffen it up more than the other boots that have a similar walk mode.
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Zero G Guide Pro 26.5 = 1508 grams, Cochise 130 26.5 = 1982 grams. To my way of thinking, 474 grams is substantial.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    gregl and mbillie1 beat me to it. That ZeroG Guide was pretty light. This new one is whoa helium. Start clipping off fourth buckles and trimming powerstraps and getting all skimo on it and you could drop into the mid 1200s pretty easy. Not too shabby at all
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    2017 Cochise 120 26.5: 1,880g
    Shell 1,417g (without soles 1,309g), liner 463g, soles w/o screws: 105g

    2017 0G Guide 26.5: 1,660g
    Shell 1,336g (without soles 1,193g), liner: 357g, soles w/o screws: 132g

    2017 0G Pro 26.5: 1,540g
    Shell 1,320g, liner 220g, soles w/o screws: 132g

    27 Power Wrap, 286g
    27 Pro Tongue, 360g

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    IIRC, people have claimed swappable soles add 250g weight. So is it basically a 0G Guide Pro with a glued on sole? Looks like a new walk mode with a simple bar -- might be good news for people who have had issues with the past Cochise/0G walk modes. Other changes?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,784
    Last?

    Is there any gator underneath the tongue?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    IIRC, people have claimed swappable soles add 250g weight. So is it basically a 0G Guide Pro with a glued on sole? Looks like a new walk mode with a simple bar -- might be good news for people who have had issues with the past Cochise/0G walk modes. Other changes?
    I could see that being true for the first iteration of Cochise where all of the structure and fittings were in the sole block itself. For old ZeroG the "block" was mostly sole material with very little plastic reinforcement + weight of screws so I doubt it was 250g/boot. Maybe the weight savings is a combo of cables instead of buckles, no plastic or screws in the sole, and some others shavings.

    Dynafit-style powerstrap quick release is a nice feature that I just noticed now. Cord on the walk lever is a small but nice touch; one of a few common "mods" that look to be incorporated from the factory.

    Interesting that they reversed the toe buckle but kept the instep buckle in the usual spot.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    780
    I'm curious how the heel will fit in these. I tried on the Zero G Guide Pro's and I found the fit to be good overall, but that in walk mode the cupping of the heel shell really dug into my achilles. FWIW I was just carpet testing though.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    2,742
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    I tried on the Zero G Guide Pro's and I found the fit to be good overall, but that in walk mode the cupping of the heel shell really dug into my achilles.
    My Guide's do this to my achilles, contemplating a different liner. Not really wanting to invest in a new boot just yet

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    66
    This is a completely new boot that does maybe share a "similar" type of fit but other than
    that the only thing it shares is the name.

    ROM is considerably more than the previous model with no digging into the achilles for some
    people. The external metal ski/walk device allows for a much lower spine in the back of the
    boot as the metal helps to reinforce the back of the boot and essentially create that spine.
    The lower spine means more rearward ROM. Even though it's only advertised as 55 I think
    it's about as much as your ankle is capable of. It's a traditional overlap design other than that,
    no gators, no weird flaps or plastic stops to manage flex. The one difference in this boot is the
    extra metal connection higher on the cuff. If you look in the photo you'll see the yellowish anodized
    metal piece. It acts as one more connection point to stiffen the boot and prevent the overflexing
    feeling some have mentioned in the other boot that has a similar external ski/walk mechanism.
    One other cool feature is that it actually has a boot board, which forgive me if I'm wrong is pretty
    rare for a boot in this weight class.

    When I actually get my samples I'll try to post some more photos of the new boot and some
    comparison photos between the present and this 18/19 version.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,784
    No gators?

    Bummer, means you'll have to tour with lower shell buckled tightly if you're breaking trail

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,142
    Quote Originally Posted by nyskirat View Post
    No gators?

    Bummer, means you'll have to tour with lower shell buckled tightly if you're breaking trail
    I don't have gaitors in my boots and don't tour with tight buckles and don't ship snow in the lowers. The only boot where this was a problem was the Atomic HawX where I put a good old strip of duct tape over forefoot to close an entry hole

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,784
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I don't have gaitors in my boots and don't tour with tight buckles and don't ship snow in the lowers. The only boot where this was a problem was the Atomic HawX where I put a good old strip of duct tape over forefoot to close an entry hole
    Even when you get that super light, low density, cold smoke?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Summit Park UT
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post

    ROM is considerably more than the previous model with no digging into the achilles for some
    people. The external metal ski/walk device allows for a much lower spine in the back of the
    boot as the metal helps to reinforce the back of the boot and essentially create that spine.
    The lower spine means more rearward ROM.
    That's good to hear, that digging into the Achilles was the main reason I bought MTN Labs instead o Zero Gs. For super low volume foot it would be sweet if they happened to be lower volume in the ankle/heel area. The teardrop loop shaped buckle bails look very similar to the lower ones used on Vulcans, which were kind of a pain in the ass compared to normal ones...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,017
    Any BSL numbers?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    66
    I believe 26.5 is 302.. First ones didn't have a BSL printed one them.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Summit Park UT
    Posts
    849
    2nd half of this video features the boots...

    https://www.facebook.com/tecnicaskib...6145403423191/

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    1,651
    even the 'heavy & comfortable' zero g tour is only 1,500g ... and what looks like grip walk soles.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    20,031
    and I've been told that this is being made in a REAL 22 as well. Good news for umpalumpas that ski


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Wonder if the guy in the video mis-spoke, he said both the Pro (carbon/Pebax cuff) and the Scout (PU cuff) are 1,350g.
    i heard 1315 (Pro) and 1350 (scout)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Summit Park UT
    Posts
    849

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    3,964
    Playing with a pair (didn’t ski it, sorry no pictures), it’s stiffer and fits similar to current ZeroG. No scale on hand but low 1300s is realistic. Light and powerful enough to threaten the marginal weight gain of boots around 1200g or more.

    I also didn’t have to lift my pants up to manipulate the walk mode, not that I cared.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I also didn’t have to lift my pants up to manipulate the walk mode, not that I cared.
    lol
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,135
    Tried on a pair of production 26.5's in the PNW at the Mission demo - side by side with my regular Zero G Guide Pros. Though the toe looked narrower, the fit was pretty much the same as the 99mm ZGGP but a little more relaxed in the medial midfoot. Flex was stiffer than the old boot. Sole was glued on ISO 9523, BSL was hand-engraved "302". Didn't have a scale with me, but 1315 grams seems believable. Didn't ski them as that would have required some punches, hopefully that will be soon.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mission020718_0221.jpg 
Views:	285 
Size:	402.8 KB 
ID:	223817

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mission020718_0223.jpg 
Views:	840 
Size:	357.7 KB 
ID:	223818

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mission020718_0227.jpg 
Views:	279 
Size:	342.3 KB 
ID:	223819

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sonoma & Truckee
    Posts
    10,929
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    I believe 26.5 is 302.. First ones didn't have a BSL printed one them.
    3mm off the rest of the cochise line from recent years? (as in, 2017 Cochise's in that size are 305mm). That's actually pretty annoying - hope there was a good reason for it.

    (obviously 3mm doesn't matter from a mount point of view, but it's still enough where you'd have to remember to adjust the heel piece on your bindings between boots)

    edit: fixed mm typo
    Last edited by TahoeJ; 02-11-2018 at 09:28 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    3,964
    Cochise is 305 in a 26

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sonoma & Truckee
    Posts
    10,929
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    Cochise is 305 in a 26
    Typo, but same point. Yeah, my 26.5's are 305mm. So having these be 3 mm different is kind of annoying. Saving 550-600 grams is enough to perk my interest but I'd still want to be able to swap back and forth with various skis without having to make binding adjustments every time. Resort slackcountry laps vs. starting at the trailhead, that sort of thing. Not the end of the world but definitely a PITA.

Posting Permissions

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