New Foot Scanner App

[gregL]

Seems like hawx prime 130 + heat molding shell is probably my best bet

That would be my choice. You can also do a spot stretch on the instep if you have the right tools/bootfitter, plus grinding the bootboard. If you get the Prime XTD you may be able to use it in place of both boots, but supply is sketchy this year. When you heat mold it, go longer than the recommended time (I would do 10 minutes with a cold oven), and put 1/4" foam over your instep under your sock . . . if you want an alpine boot, I would jump on this:

https://www.evo.com/outlet/alpine-sk...oots-2020-.jpg

[tBatt]

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat! Greg, you da man.

What temps are you cooking your shells?

[Sashko]

Hi guys. Could you please help me with new boots for resort and cat skiing for my chicken legs? My current kryptons are living their last days. Just curious what are my other options besides another kryptons (without tech inserts). bonus points if the boots have swapable GW/Alpine soles.

P.S. I have Atomic Ultra XTD in 24.5 for touring.
P.P.S. I would use the original app (not the fischer's one), if it was available for my country.

[gregL]

Hi guys. Could you please help me with new boots for resort and cat skiing for my chicken legs? My current kryptons are living their last days. Just curious what are my other options besides another kryptons (without tech inserts). bonus points if the boots have swapable GW/Alpine soles.

P.S. I have Atomic Ultra XTD in 24.5 for touring.
P.P.S. I would use the original app (not the fischer's one), if it was available for my country.

Atomic Hawx Ultra (alpine version) is the best you will find; get the new 2022 version with the extra shell reinforcement around the midfoot. Make sure you get a decent footbed as well.

[random_watcher]

Atomic Hawx Ultra (alpine version) is the best you will find; get the new 2022 version with the extra shell reinforcement around the midfoot. Make sure you get a decent footbed as well.

Hi Greg
Just out of interest what makes the Hawx Ultra much better than things like a Tecnica or Lange LV boot in this case?
I think the feedback you give is great and I'm just interested in trying to piece together some extra information.

[Qilimanjaro]

Hey Greg,

Thanks a lot for the information shared here.

My dimensions are very similar to Sashka above, if only +1 cm everywhere. I'm skiing in Hawx Ultra XTD as well. Was wondering if there is an appropriate touring only boot for feet like this with a better walk mode? Roxa Tour? La Sportiva Vanguard half a size down (so a full size down shell)?

Thanks a lot.

[Sashko]

Atomic Hawx Ultra (alpine version) is the best you will find; get the new 2022 version with the extra shell reinforcement around the midfoot. Make sure you get a decent footbed as well.

Thanx!
Additional questions - 24.5? If I get 130, can I soften it to 120 in future?

[gregL]

Hi Greg
Just out of interest what makes the Hawx Ultra much better than things like a Tecnica or Lange LV boot in this case?
I think the feedback you give is great and I'm just interested in trying to piece together some extra information.

I didn't say they skied the best, I meant they are the best fit for a very skinny ankle and lower leg. Go to a shop and wrap your fingers around all three boots at the cuff; the Hawx Ultra is 1.5 to 2 inches smaller in circumference.

[gregL]

Thanx!
Additional questions - 24.5? If I get 130, can I soften it to 120 in future?

Can it be done? Yes. Can you do it yourself? Hard to say, it usually involves some combination of slotting the boot shell, lowering the cuff height, and removing the bolts holding the rear of the boot together.

[gregL]

Hey Greg,

Thanks a lot for the information shared here.

My dimensions are very similar to Sashka above, if only +1 cm everywhere. I'm skiing in Hawx Ultra XTD as well. Was wondering if there is an appropriate touring only boot for feet like this with a better walk mode? Roxa Tour? La Sportiva Vanguard half a size down (so a full size down shell)?

Thanks a lot.

Atomic Backland Carbon is a good candidate. I'm not familiar with the Roxa Tour line or the Vanguard.

[Qilimanjaro]

Thanks Greg.

Last time I put my foot in a Backland it felt like a bucket.

[Sashko]

Can it be done? Yes. Can you do it yourself? Hard to say, it usually involves some combination of slotting the boot shell, lowering the cuff height, and removing the bolts holding the rear of the boot together.

Thanx a lot. That was really helpful!

[gregL]

Thanks Greg.

Last time I put my foot in a Backland it felt like a bucket.

Well, I'm not sure what is better as a starting point. Companies tend not to make boots for super skinny feet/ankles/lower legs because only a tiny percentage of the skiing public will be able to make them work (the skiing public looking for light touring boots is an even smaller niche market). Adding a thicker liner would help a lot.

[Qilimanjaro]

Been thinking about that, hope to sort it our during the season. Thanks a lot Greg!

[lucknau]

Are there brands who have Verifyt QR Codes?

[gregL]

Are there brands who have Verifyt QR Codes?

Not that I know of, but maybe. Verifyt was designed as a way to fit clothing remotely and the shoe part was added; we have been working with them to adapt it for use with ski boots.

[lucknau]

Not that I know of, but maybe. Verifyt was designed as a way to fit clothing remotely and the shoe part was added; we have been working with them to adapt it for use with ski boots.

Thanks. Hey, you’ve probably mentioned it, but I just realized that Evo has Verifyt integrated into their website. I just logged on from one of the boot description pages and it populated with the recommended boot size and last. I couldn’t figure out if they had a way of filtering searches with it, but still, pretty cool. They go 1cm greater than foot length, recommending for comfort vs performance.

[gregL]

Thanks. Hey, you’ve probably mentioned it, but I just realized that Evo has Verifyt integrated into their website. I just logged on from one of the boot description pages and it populated with the recommended boot size and last. I couldn’t figure out if they had a way of filtering searches with it, but still, pretty cool. They go 1cm greater than foot length, recommending for comfort vs performance.

Yes, it's a test run - not every viewer sees it. I recommended going +1 mondo, since people who feel the need to consult a website to figure out what size boot to buy are generally not going to be elite level skiers.

[Zaeius]

Check out my weird small feet. Sent in via the QR code - MW initials.

Fairly wide (especially the right) and high for their length is what I've been told. Scans seem a bit short based on what I've heard before. Always wear a 24.5 boot with a Surefoot insole and that normally give me a 1.5 finger fit (smallish hands).

Currently in a 2017 Tecnica Mach 1 MV 130 and a 2018 Cochise 130. Instep is a bit tight on both and the Cochise needed a decent punch on the outside of the right boot to be wearable. As the liner on the Mach1 has packed out there is a tiny bit of looseness everywhere in the boot which means tightening of buckles for performance which exacerbates the instep issue; thinking I probably should have gone LV and ground the boot board a bit and done some serious punching on the right foot. Thinking I may add an intuition to take up some volume and grind the boot board down a touch. Sounds like the newest version has slimmed up the internal shape a bunch but not sure I really want to get 2 new pairs of boots this year. Thoughts?

Im looking to get a dedicated touring boot this winter. 130ish flex - thinking Zero G with some punching to the right foot not sure about the instep though. I tired the first year (2018?) Atomic XTD Ultra and it was way too tight over the instep and width wise, not sure if the shell fit would have done enough. Also not sure if they have modified the internal shape since then or if the Prime would be a better option?

Any and all thoughts/ideas appreciated. Thanks

[gregL]

Check out my weird small feet. Sent in via the QR code - MW initials.

Fairly wide (especially the right) and high for their length is what I've been told. Scans seem a bit short based on what I've heard before. Always wear a 24.5 boot with a Surefoot insole and that normally give me a 1.5 finger fit (smallish hands).

Currently in a 2017 Tecnica Mach 1 MV 130 and a 2018 Cochise 130. Instep is a bit tight on both and the Cochise needed a decent punch on the outside of the right boot to be wearable. As the liner on the Mach1 has packed out there is a tiny bit of looseness everywhere in the boot which means tightening of buckles for performance which exacerbates the instep issue; thinking I probably should have gone LV and ground the boot board a bit and done some serious punching on the right foot. Thinking I may add an intuition to take up some volume and grind the boot board down a touch. Sounds like the newest version has slimmed up the internal shape a bunch but not sure I really want to get 2 new pairs of boots this year. Thoughts?

Im looking to get a dedicated touring boot this winter. 130ish flex - thinking Zero G with some punching to the right foot not sure about the instep though. I tired the first year (2018?) Atomic XTD Ultra and it was way too tight over the instep and width wise, not sure if the shell fit would have done enough. Also not sure if they have modified the internal shape since then or if the Prime would be a better option?

Any and all thoughts/ideas appreciated. Thanks

Can you try to share your data with me again using my work email? (see your PM's) One of the QR codes in this thread doesn't work anymore.

If you are happy with your current 24.5 boots, I won't tell you to size down, especially for a dedicated touring boot. Measuring on a Brannock device (as almost all shops do) typically yields a length number 5-7mm longer than either Verifyt or Fischer apps. This is mostly due to the heel cup on the Brannock, which is a few millimeters thick and can add more depending on the shape of your heel. The digital scanners just measure the longest pure length dimension relative to a known length in the frame (sheet of printer paper).

The Zero G Tour Pro or Scout sounds like a logical choice; same basic last as the Cochise with a less cushy liner, easy to punch for width, and great balance of weight vs skiability. Depending on your access to bootfitting, you can generate more instep height in a number of ways, including spot heating the area and using a wedge inside the boot, grinding the bootboard/footbed, and cutting out the elastic and extra material in the tongue of the liner, but you should heat mold the liner with foam over the instep before you do anything else.

You could get the Hawx Ultra XTD to work with similar techniques; the Prime is much larger in volume. Chances are the Ultra would be fine after a "hot" shell mold (10 minutes with a cold oven) with 1/4" foam over the instep.

[gregL]

OK, got your scans, Zaeius. Yeah, your instep is the main problem, especially on the right foot, and another reason to stick with 24.5 (moves the tight spot further forward). Your numbers are 72mm for the left foot, 76mm for the right. I would try a combination of wedge and spot heating for the insteps combined with grinding the bootboard/footbed.

[Zaeius]

If I wanted the absolute best performance fit I would be in a 23.5 (probably with some serious work done), but the main issue is that no one really makes 130 flex boots in that size (other than plugs or maybe junior race boots? Not widely available).

Given the width and instep issues I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the non touring side, specifically LV vs MV in the Mach 1 (or just stick with the 2017 MV and fill up space with a power wrap/grid boot board)? I am in Squamish so lots of good fitter options between Whistler and Vancouver.

Thanks again for your help; much appreciated!!!!!!!

[gregL]

If I wanted the absolute best performance fit I would be in a 23.5 (probably with some serious work done), but the main issue is that no one really makes 130 flex boots in that size (other than plugs or maybe junior race boots? Not widely available).

Given the width and instep issues I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the non touring side, specifically LV vs MV in the Mach 1 (or just stick with the 2017 MV and fill up space with a power wrap/grid boot board)? I am in Squamish so lots of good fitter options between Whistler and Vancouver.

Thanks again for your help; much appreciated!!!!!!!

You are right on the flex issue; almost all performance men's boots don't go smaller than a 24/24.5 shell. I would say go with an LV in whatever boot you choose (Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 would also be a decent starting point) and have your bootfitter go to town (your feet aren't really all that wide, just tall; your right foot is the equivalent to a 110mm forefoot in a 26.5 - mine is 117mm and I'm fine in everyone's 98 or 97mm boot). In an extreme case you can remove the front half of the bootboard completely and grind out the ribs in the scaffo, you'll have plenty of instep room but may need to work on the ramp and may need to add foam over the toes of the liner to reduce vertical room. Hopefully your bootfitter has some sort of adjustable wedge to make the instep of the shell taller (try this first).

[gregL]

You are right on the flex issue; almost all performance men's boots don't go smaller than a 24/24.5 shell. I would say go with an LV in whatever boot you choose (Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 would also be a decent starting point) and have your bootfitter go to town (your feet aren't really all that wide, just tall; your right foot is the equivalent to a 110mm forefoot in a 26.5 - mine is 117mm and I'm fine in everyone's 98 or 97mm boot). In an extreme case you can remove the front half of the bootboard completely and grind out the ribs in the scaffo, you'll have plenty of instep room but may need to work on the ramp and may need to add foam over the toes of the liner to reduce vertical room. Hopefully your bootfitter has some sort of adjustable wedge to make the instep of the shell taller (try this first).

Actually, the Hawx Ultra XTD is going to be tough - it's not that the instep is especially low once you get your foot in the boot, it's that the cuff diameter is very small, pulling the "pinch" point of the instep further back - your instep high point on your right foot is probably 3-4 cm further forward than average . . .

[amunre]

Curious as to what kind of foot this might be, in terms of volume and matches to certain boot brands/types/styles?? Any insight would be much appreciated

Im 6’3” 230-40lbs, athletic build, and still developing. Probably currently around an advanced intermediate level, looking to get as close to expert as I can over the foreseeable future/seasons. Still spending a bunch of time each day on development drills, etc. I don’t have easy access to a bootfitter where I live (Las Vegas), so’ve had to learn a lot on my own. Long story short I’ve gone down 5 sizes, from 32 to 28 mondo (and up from 70 to 120 flex) as I’ve improved my skiing. Developed smallish haglunds bumps on both heels due to too-large 30 mondo hawx prime 120s I had for first half of last season.

The 28 hawx primes I finished the season in have been generally good, but tight/aggravating on those heel bumps, and packed out to being maybe a bit too roomy in the last, for my liking. When my foot is deeper in the 28’s heal pocket, I’m much better off. I could literally take out the footbed, shim and shave down the zeppa, and have the heel bump pain/discomfort completely disappear, but obv I’m not gonna have the support I’d need otherwise. I was hoping the shell’s heel pocket could somehow be raised up a bit, but no luck. The whole crew at footloose (including the head dude) in mammoth couldn’t figure out a way to punch that heel area over/around the bumps, saying the way the shell was originally molded (and the material used) meant it would be too easy to damage, and they didn’t want to take that risk. The bumps have gone down a bit in the off-season, and I really don’t want to re-aggravate them any more, if at all possible.

For whatever reason I’m not allowed to link the shot of my Fischer scan, so I’ll just type out the numbers manually and add info in other comments, as needed :/

Results (mm) L / R
Length: 298/ 302
Ball width: 114 / 118
Instep height: 75 / 76
Navicular height: 48 / 50
Heel width: 78 / 67