Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,594

    Anybody fondled the new carbon cuff Fischer travers boot?

    Iím wondering if it would be worth the upgrade. Hoping for a significant step up in stiffness with little to no added weight. Canít find reviews or weights anywhere.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,136
    I didn't even know they update it.

    Info seems hard to come by, like you said. Look sexy tho. Do want.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	210 
Size:	68.3 KB 
ID:	272506
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,445
    that is really the only thing I can think about this boot that could be improved. ~150 days and 400k'+ on mine and they're still going strong, but assuming the fit is the same I'll probably bite on these...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    746
    I've seen at least 2 photos of the clog cracking on the last one, and I haven't been able to find out if they changed anything with the clog
    Last edited by NorCalNomad; 03-06-2019 at 11:02 AM.
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Schruns
    Posts
    663
    I tried them on at ISPO, but I couldn't compare to them to the current ones. They seemed stiffish, with decent flex range.

    Talked to a shop guy here who sells the current boots and he was stoked on them, said stiffer.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by NorCalNomad View Post
    I've seen at least 2 photos of the clog cracking on the last one, and I haven't been able to find out if they changed anything with the clog
    You mean the lower shell? Where exactly did it crack?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,136
    Given that nobody seems to know the weight or other details, it's probably futile to ask but...

    Does anybody know if the bsl will stay the same?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810


    Still no info on weight/flex but at least we know the model name. I've emailed Fischer NA, we'll see if they have an ETA.
    Looks like the existing model is also getting an upgrade.
    Getting close to being on the fence about going full Skimo. These certainly are appealing...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    Getting close to being on the fence about going full Skimo. These certainly are appealing...
    If you want to dip your toe the Backland Carbon is 1kgish and there is a bunch of them in the used market. Without the tongue it uphills as good as anything but full carbon race boots, with the tongue in they ski way better than any dynafits in that weight range (certainly uphills better than the tlt6 or 7).
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by NorCalNomad View Post
    If you want to dip your toe the Backland Carbon is 1kgish and there is a bunch of them in the used market. Without the tongue it uphills as good as anything but full carbon race boots, with the tongue in they ski way better than any dynafits in that weight range (certainly uphills better than the tlt6 or 7).
    Tongue fiddling sounds pretty annoying to me. I've read that they're very narrow too. The Fischer seems to fit me right out of the box which is a miracle considering my feet are beyond deformed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    Tongue fiddling sounds pretty annoying to me. I've read that they're very narrow too. The Fischer seems to fit me right out of the box which is a miracle considering my feet are beyond deformed.
    Naw not really on the narrow part. Plus the custom molding on the shell is da tits.

    But if the shell fits your foot, get after it.
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810
    Heard back from Fischer, it's definitely in the 2019/2020 lineup and will be available in NA sometime this summer/fall.
    They sent me a link to the catalogue (see here), Travers models are on page 42. Unfortunately no weights or flex estimates.

    I tried the 2018 non-carbon model yesterday (that's all BC had in the warehouse) and it was not encouraging. The amount of lower shell deformation when flexing forward is insane. I know a number of people who ski the carbon version and swear it skis unbelievably well and is decently stiff, especially laterally (what does that even mean?), but I have a hard time believing it. The carbon is in the sole and provides torsional rigidity, shouldn't make much of a difference in forward or lateral flex between the 2 models... The comparative AT boot flex thread has it at 95, stiffer than the La Sportiva Spectre (90) which is my current ride. Carpet flexing makes me think that everyone must have been high when rating these boots because I'd give the Fischer a 60 at best if the Spectre is 90.
    I know I know, ski more centered, get out of the back seat, blah blah blah... Forward flex is pretty key when hauling ass in variable snow or getting tossed around in chunder though. Not sure about lateral flex, we're not talking about railing superG turns here.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    Heard back from Fischer, it's definitely in the 2019/2020 lineup and will be available in NA sometime this summer/fall.
    They sent me a link to the catalogue (see here), Travers models are on page 42. Unfortunately no weights or flex estimates.

    I tried the 2018 non-carbon model yesterday (that's all BC had in the warehouse) and it was not encouraging. The amount of lower shell deformation when flexing forward is insane. I know a number of people who ski the carbon version and swear it skis unbelievably well and is decently stiff, especially laterally (what does that even mean?), but I have a hard time believing it. The carbon is in the sole and provides torsional rigidity, shouldn't make much of a difference in forward or lateral flex between the 2 models... The comparative AT boot flex thread has it at 95, stiffer than the La Sportiva Spectre (90) which is my current ride. Carpet flexing makes me think that everyone must have been high when rating these boots because I'd give the Fischer a 60 at best if the Spectre is 90.
    I know I know, ski more centered, get out of the back seat, blah blah blah... Forward flex is pretty key when hauling ass in variable snow or getting tossed around in chunder though. Not sure about lateral flex, we're not talking about railing superG turns here.
    IMO scaffo resistance to bulging is the biggest indicator of performance in these 1-1.2 kg boots. A stiff carbon cuff on a bulging scaffo skis like crap. I think this is a big part of why the Alien RS skis so will. Stiff plastic + stiffening ribs + an antibulge metal spring.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator View Post
    IMO scaffo resistance to bulging is the biggest indicator of performance in these 1-1.2 kg boots. A stiff carbon cuff on a bulging scaffo skis like crap. I think this is a big part of why the Alien RS skis so will. Stiff plastic + stiffening ribs + an antibulge metal spring.
    I've never been in a 1-kilo boot and this was eye opening for me. I do see some lower shell deformation on my Spectre but it's pretty minor and it's mitigated by the instep buckle + the fact that it's a 1400 g boot with a lot of grilamid, not a bathroom slipper wrapped in a thin layer of carbon and plastic. On the Travers I could see both pivot points between the lower shell and the cuff bulging out significantly on every flex and the instep region opening up. I don't think the boa closure can do shit against this kind of pressure. I'd be completely gripped skiing these, I'd be waiting for a catastrophic failure on every turn (even though I'm sure the boot can take a major beating). Guess that's why they do have some progressive flex though, the whole scaffold can deform, it's definitely not the brick wall I have heard mentioned.

    Again, I'm all about being more centered on my skis but there's only so much you can do when terrain comes at you fast. Other than skiing more slowly of course. With all the chatter about how much better these light boots are getting I was wondering if we had entered an era of somewhat comparable performance with the beefier model. I guess that's not the case quite yet and it makes complete sense from an engineering standpoint: can't have it all. A number of light-booted peeps have commented that they're more than happy to sacrifice some downhill performance to gain on the uphill. That's not my cup of tea. I'll probably revisit the issue in 10 years when I'm over schlepping 1800 g skis and 4-buckle boots around.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ogden
    Posts
    5,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    I've never been in a 1-kilo boot and this was eye opening for me. I do see some lower shell deformation on my Spectre but it's pretty minor and it's mitigated by the instep buckle + the fact that it's a 1400 g boot with a lot of grilamid, not a bathroom slipper wrapped in a thin layer of carbon and plastic. On the Travers I could see both pivot points between the lower shell and the cuff bulging out significantly on every flex and the instep region opening up. I don't think the boa closure can do shit against this kind of pressure. I'd be completely gripped skiing these, I'd be waiting for a catastrophic failure on every turn (even though I'm sure the boot can take a major beating). Guess that's why they do have some progressive flex though, the whole scaffold can deform, it's definitely not the brick wall I have heard mentioned.

    Again, I'm all about being more centered on my skis but there's only so much you can do when terrain comes at you fast. Other than skiing more slowly of course. With all the chatter about how much better these light boots are getting I was wondering if we had entered an era of somewhat comparable performance with the beefier model. I guess that's not the case quite yet and it makes complete sense from an engineering standpoint: can't have it all. A number of light-booted peeps have commented that they're more than happy to sacrifice some downhill performance to gain on the uphill. That's not my cup of tea. I'll probably revisit the issue in 10 years when I'm over schlepping 1800 g skis and 4-buckle boots around.
    Ha, that's kind of my plan as well. Get lighter and lighter gear as I get older and need the extra advantage.

    I tried on the Carbon Travers earlier this year and was a little disappointed after what I'd read. I had to double check that I had actually locked into ski mode. I'd still like to ski a pair with my spring setup to see just how doable it is.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    Ha, that's kind of my plan as well. Get lighter and lighter gear as I get older and need the extra advantage.

    I tried on the Carbon Travers earlier this year and was a little disappointed after what I'd read. I had to double check that I had actually locked into ski mode. I'd still like to ski a pair with my spring setup to see just how doable it is.
    I'd really like to actually ski a pair... but the thought of dumping $700 or so and remounting my spring setup to accommodate the miniaturized BSL only to find out that I just don't know how to ski without the crutch of heavy-duty boot really makes me hesitate.
    For now I can bang out huge days on heavier gear and I'm happy as a clam ripping big turns through any kind of snow. Sure, I could probably move faster and be less of a transition-beater (mallwalker can attest to that, I've seem him slowly freezes to death while I latch 8 buckles and 2 powerstraps) but I have plenty of time off and I really love being outside for 12 hour stretches. Going lighter means I'd probably be out for the same amount of time and just go further. I'm happy with how far I go for now so I'm just going to get heavier boots for next season!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    317
    I think it's good to look at the best in class weight : performance boots and see if they do it for you.
    For sure an Alien RS out skis many ~1400-1500g boots from 5 years ago
    Chatter suggests the 1300g Zero G Pro Tour out skis many older 1500 g to 1800 g boots
    I've spent the last week or so on a La Sportiva Skorpius, and at 1200g or so, I'd put it up against many current 1400-1500 g boots.

    Lots of folks suggested the Carbon Travers was up there on the list. I only tried a friend's pair once, and didn't think it was overly impressive, but I like a lot of the design features. Maybe next years will step things up to be best in class.
    Last edited by trogdortheburninator; 04-01-2019 at 11:07 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator View Post
    I think it's good to look at the best in class weighterformance boots and see if the do it for you.
    For sure an Alien RS out skis many ~1400-1500g boots from 5 years ago
    Chatter suggests the 1300g Zero G Pro Tour out skis many older 1500 g to 1800 g boots
    I've spent the last week or so on a La Sportiva Skorpius, and at 1200g or so, I'd put it up against many current 1400-1500 g boots.

    Lots of folks suggested the Carbon Travers was up there on the list. I only tried a friends pair once, and didnt think it was overly impressive, but I like a lot of the design features. Maybe next years will step things up to be best in class.
    Wise words.
    When the Spectre came out it was definitely one of the best in the 1400 ish gram 4-buckle boot class and a major upgrade for me (coming from Garmont Radiums). The 2.0 version got stiffer without any negative changes and it got even better when they made their new power tongues compatible with it. Hard to move away from a boot that works well and fits my frankenfeet.

    Is the Skorpius the Euro version of the Solar which popped up on the LS North America website a few weeks ago? They look identical minus the red accents on the Skorpius...

    Edit: looks like the Skorpius is a carbon infused Solar. Interesting.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator View Post
    I think it's good to look at the best in class weighterformance boots and see if the do it for you.
    For sure an Alien RS out skis many ~1400-1500g boots from 5 years ago
    Chatter suggests the 1300g Zero G Pro Tour out skis many older 1500 g to 1800 g boots
    Can confirm. My Zero G's are leaps better than my old Dynafit Titans, in and out of bounds.
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ogden
    Posts
    5,466
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post

    I tried on the Carbon Travers earlier this year and was a little disappointed after what I'd read. I had to double check that I had actually locked into ski mode. I'd still like to ski a pair with my spring setup to see just how doable it is.
    So after a winter of skiing 1900 g skis and 1600 g boots with lots of 6000+ foot days, I switched to a light set up for spring and long, dry approaches. Atomic Backland 95's at about 1300 g and Fischer Carbon Travers at 1050 g.

    Spoiler alert: saving 5 pounds of weight on your feet (and on your back for hikes) is a pretty big deal over the course of a big day. I'm not sure I'd notice it at any given time without thinking about it, but cumulatively, I can tell.

    Another spoiler alert: On smooth corn and cream, this setup skis awesome. I hardly noticed the soft flex of the boot or the size and weight of the skis. Even on smooth, rock hard snow, and bumped out snow it was totally fine. The trouble for me comes with shit snow. Deep mank, breakable crust, or anything that requires me to backseat a bit to keep the tips from going under. The weakness of these boots is the lack of rearward support. What would be a salvageable run with Katana's and Maestrale RS's become pure survival with the Travers. I picked them up for a song off of KSL, so I'm not disappointed, but I'll probably only use them for big days in the spring.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    So after a winter of skiing 1900 g skis and 1600 g boots with lots of 6000+ foot days, I switched to a light set up for spring and long, dry approaches. Atomic Backland 95's at about 1300 g and Fischer Carbon Travers at 1050 g.

    Spoiler alert: saving 5 pounds of weight on your feet (and on your back for hikes) is a pretty big deal over the course of a big day. I'm not sure I'd notice it at any given time without thinking about it, but cumulatively, I can tell.

    Another spoiler alert: On smooth corn and cream, this setup skis awesome. I hardly noticed the soft flex of the boot or the size and weight of the skis. Even on smooth, rock hard snow, and bumped out snow it was totally fine. The trouble for me comes with shit snow. Deep mank, breakable crust, or anything that requires me to backseat a bit to keep the tips from going under. The weakness of these boots is the lack of rearward support. What would be a salvageable run with Katana's and Maestrale RS's become pure survival with the Travers. I picked them up for a song off of KSL, so I'm not disappointed, but I'll probably only use them for big days in the spring.
    Irrelevant data point: Don't need much boot for 2D snow up at about ankle deep that's soft, smooth, consistent and not too steep. Did a test a few years back and did a few laps in hiking boots crammed into downhill bindings. Worked out surprisingly well and showed how superfluous big boots are for those specific conditions. Things went south pretty quick pushing the envelope though into variable snow or inconsistent conditions or deep ski pen stuff.

    Back to the matter at hand. Regarding the lack of rear support...with skis where the binding mount point is dialed, skis feel intuitive, front rocker contact point is correct for body proportions: after years of tweaking boot ski stance through finding optimum forward lean, inboot ramp angle, binding ramp and generally 'just right' fit tension, I've found that for me, rear support of boot is kindof irrelevant. Anything requiring rear pressure should simply be through a subtle shift of some pressure to the heel...but even then, still have ball of foot contact and turn steering. I ain't a hucker though; obviously for that stuff, the boot's gotta be there for ya.
    What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,445
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    So after a winter of skiing 1900 g skis and 1600 g boots with lots of 6000+ foot days, I switched to a light set up for spring and long, dry approaches. Atomic Backland 95's at about 1300 g and Fischer Carbon Travers at 1050 g.

    Spoiler alert: saving 5 pounds of weight on your feet (and on your back for hikes) is a pretty big deal over the course of a big day. I'm not sure I'd notice it at any given time without thinking about it, but cumulatively, I can tell.

    Another spoiler alert: On smooth corn and cream, this setup skis awesome. I hardly noticed the soft flex of the boot or the size and weight of the skis. Even on smooth, rock hard snow, and bumped out snow it was totally fine. The trouble for me comes with shit snow. Deep mank, breakable crust, or anything that requires me to backseat a bit to keep the tips from going under. The weakness of these boots is the lack of rearward support. What would be a salvageable run with Katana's and Maestrale RS's become pure survival with the Travers. I picked them up for a song off of KSL, so I'm not disappointed, but I'll probably only use them for big days in the spring.
    yeah light gear and bad snow isn't the best combo. but I think you'll be impressed again this winter at how well that setup skis pow.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    184
    Isn't BOA a no-go for all strong snowboarders? I remember lots of stories about boa systems falling apart in short period of time

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by HukuTa_KydecHuk View Post
    Isn't BOA a no-go for all strong snowboarders? I remember lots of stories about boa systems falling apart in short period of time
    I had the boa on my bd boots and it worked great

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638

    Anybody fondled the new carbon cuff Fischer travers boot?

    Quote Originally Posted by swissiphic View Post
    Irrelevant data point: Don't need much boot for 2D snow up at about ankle deep that's soft, smooth, consistent and not too steep. Did a test a few years back and did a few laps in hiking boots crammed into downhill bindings. Worked out surprisingly well and showed how superfluous big boots are for those specific conditions. Things went south pretty quick pushing the envelope though into variable snow or inconsistent conditions or deep ski pen stuff.

    Back to the matter at hand. Regarding the lack of rear support...with skis where the binding mount point is dialed, skis feel intuitive, front rocker contact point is correct for body proportions: after years of tweaking boot ski stance through finding optimum forward lean, inboot ramp angle, binding ramp and generally 'just right' fit tension, I've found that for me, rear support of boot is kindof irrelevant. Anything requiring rear pressure should simply be through a subtle shift of some pressure to the heel...but even then, still have ball of foot contact and turn steering. I ain't a hucker though; obviously for that stuff, the boot's gotta be there for ya.
    Did you experiment with anything that effectively added rearward stiffness to your boots?
    Last edited by Self Jupiter; 06-19-2019 at 06:41 AM.

Posting Permissions

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