Head Crux Pro

[nyskirat]

Figure out of all the newly released Head Crux products, the Crux Pro boot looks the most interesting.

https://www.head.com/en_US/crux-pro-604033.html

99mm last, 1260g @ 26.5 (unclear w/ or w/o liner), and adjustable forward lean +/- 2 degrees starting at 16 degrees.

The biggest (obvious) downside is a stated 55 degree ROM.

Anyone hear anything else?

[wilcox510]

I was just in Skimo Co, employee had skied them. He said they were nice overall, good ROM, kind of fiddly buckles, flex definitely softer than the Dynafit Ridge, more like a Skorpius, narrow fit as billed with the 99mm last.

[PinyonJuniper5]

Tried this boot on at Skimo the other day. I am currently running a 27.0 F1 LT, and the 26.5 fit really well on my foot. A bit better heel hold than the F1 LT, and slightly wider in the forefoot, but not sloppy.

Stated ROM is only 55 degrees but it seemed to walk way better than the Skorpius. Less friction through the middle of the range and more forward motion. The cuff feels tall and burly, almost as if someone bolted a Hawx Cuff onto an F1 XT or Zero G Peak. The stock liner is also pretty nice. Just one notch below the stock Scarpa liners IMO.

It’s not the lightest, but it seems like it will ski pretty well and walk quite efficiently. The 1280g stated above must be including the liner, and Skimo has the 27.5 listed at 1381g.

I’ve only ever skied Dynafit or Scarpa touring boots, and am slightly skeptical of a brand without much touring pedigree, but these seem really cool. I know Head’s alpine boots have some dedicated fans. Anyone else out there with more info?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asmvolatile]

Anyone else cram a foot in these?

[wilcox510]

I have a pair at home right now that I've been messing around with. They are quite stiff, not as stiff as my Zero Gs but not horribly far off. Touring Range of motion is impressive particularly forward, a bit more limited rearward that the Dynafit Ridge. Buckles are less fiddly than Zero Gs but it would be nice if they had some better, more modern system where you didn't have to fully loosen the buckles to go into tour mode (not nearly as quick and easy as Dynafit Ridge or Backland XTD). The liner is thin and not very impressive. I did most of my carpet testing with my Intuitions that are molded to same size Zero Gs. I've read a few reports about them being very narrow/low volume. They are higher volume in the heel than my Zero Gs. that combined with the lack of a tongue or shell and buckle over the instep and my heel won't stay put. Any but of this style with the Z closure over the forefoot is problematic for me, and I don't understand what boot designers are thinking. Obviously every foot is different, but I need my heel held down, and I don't actually care if my forefoot is tight in a touring boot. Z closures over the forefoot don't do anything to hold your heel down. Same thing with the Backland XTD (which is a much higher volume boot overall). The Crux having two cuff buckles does help, but not enough for me. I was actually looking at ways to replace the Z closure with move of an ankle strap, but then I might as well just get the new Zero G (although I'm sure the crux tours better than it). So, these aren't going to cut it for me. So very slightly lighter than Zero G, slightly higher volume heel at least, likely doesn't ski quite as well, but probably tours better.

[Benneke10]

Thanks Wilcox for the report! The new Zero G is supposed to be 100g lighter.. how would you compare the Crux walk mode to the Skorpius?

[wilcox510]

The Crux has extremely little resistance in tour mode to the front or rear, but when really plantar flexing your ankle (moving the cuff rearward) far I can begin to feel the top off the lower shell start to dig into my Achilles area. I'm not sure if this would really happen in actual use much because I don't know if I could even really get strides big enough to recreate that, but something to be aware of.

Its been a while since I tried a Skorpius on but I remember the walk mode being quite good, but I'm pretty sure the Crux is better in this regard. Pretty sure the Crux is stiffer in forward flex too. But the Skorpius is much more user friendly as far as the cuff closure being so quick and easy to do... A Crux with that type of quick and easy closure would be sweet...

[asmvolatile]

This is awesome info, thanks. Sadly I don’t know if this will be the magic boot for my foot based on your description. I got chicken feet (super tiny ankle, high calves, low instep, no arch, wide forefoot) so I’ll bet I’d struggle with heel hold. As I always do *sigh*.

So far the Scarpa 4Quattro has been the best fit for me, I find it has noticeably more friction-free ROM than the ZGTP (my previous boot of ~3yrs) and skis just as well. But god damn do I absolutely hate everything else about that boot. Construction is god awful, have warrantied like 2 pairs already, had walk mode and toe pins both fail. Lots of flaps and clicking and faffing. Plus the stupid grip walk soles make me feel like I’m on ice skates when booting.

I carpet tested the Ridge Pro but tbh I felt the walk mode wasnt any better than the Quattro (maybe even slightly less ROM) and felt like I’d need to punch big toe for length and 6th toe for width, which is probably a no-go with that shell material.

Still searching for my dream boot I suppose…

[wilcox510]

This is awesome info, thanks. Sadly I don’t know if this will be the magic boot for my foot based on your description. I got chicken feet (super tiny ankle, high calves, low instep, no arch, wide forefoot) so I’ll bet I’d struggle with heel hold. As I always do *sigh*.

So far the Scarpa 4Quattro has been the best fit for me, I find it has noticeably more friction-free ROM than the ZGTP (my previous boot of ~3yrs) and skis just as well. But god damn do I absolutely hate everything else about that boot. Construction is god awful, have warrantied like 2 pairs already, had walk mode and toe pins both fail. Lots of flaps and clicking and faffing. Plus the stupid grip walk soles make me feel like I’m on ice skates when booting.

I carpet tested the Ridge Pro but tbh I felt the walk mode wasnt any better than the Quattro (maybe even slightly less ROM) and felt like I’d need to punch big toe for length and 6th toe for width, which is probably a no-go with that shell material.

Still searching for my dream boot I suppose…

Sounds like we have similar issues. I have heard good things about the Quattro, but I have zero interest in a grip walk sole boot. What I don't understand about Scarpa is if the Quattro tours so well and is almost the same weight as the Maestrale, seems like the Maestrale needs to be replaced with something lighter. The cuff on the Maestrale is like an inch and half lower than the Zero G which has to have a significant impact on skiing power yet its a fair amount heavier than the Zero G... What's up with that?? They just did this overhaul on the Maestrale last year, but didn't really make much of an improvement. It seems pretty outdated now. The F1 is also very outdated. The closure system kinda sucks (the BOA doesn't do shit) and they cuff closure doesn't open enough to allow for full ROM of the cuff. Scarpa has been focusing on the very light and very heavy ends of the spectrum and ignoring the middle ground for a while.

I have been trying to see if I can get the Ridge to work, but there is a lot of volume in the ankle and heel and as you noted the shell isn't very punchable. I'm waiting to check out the non Pro version of the Ridge. It supposedly just has a grilamid lower and fiberglass reinforced cuff instead of carbon reinforced. So you should be able to punch it and I can downsize and punch out the big toe, which is what I normally do, including my Zero Gs. Supposedly only a slight bit softer. No one has any yet. I guess this rant should really be in the 1300 gram boot thread...

https://skimo.co/dynafit-ridge-boots

[Tjaardbreeuwer]

I wrote this in the 1300g boot thread, but since we now have this dedicated thread, I’ll copy it over, with some edits.

I think it flexes stiffer than the Backland carbon 120 XTD (which my kid has) and is taller in the cuff too. So for many people, that might mean it skis better too.

A quick carpet test of the Crux Pro has me very excited.

Weight is 1100 grams for the shell, size 27.5.

Range of motion of the shell is fantastic, both the amount and the fact that it’s very, very, low resistance.
Dont be fooled by the 55 degree claim. These rotate far more than any “55 degree” boot I’ve tried. Both shell on table and when walking (I have great dorsiflexion).
I measured over 70 degrees of RoM measuring off the cuff spine.
Thats a lot more than my regular Backland (not XTD) measured the same way, they only got about 55 degrees.

Liner is so-so. Nice neoprene around the toe, some scuff guard material, but not very firm and inside is open-cell foam.


Comparing to my Backland Carbon (current version with Z-cable, not the XTD):

• ~200 grams heavier shell
• range of motion is bit larger forward, but a touch more resistance. It’s better backwards.
• cuff is much taller: about 30-40mm both front and rear
• Ever so slightly pointier for the medial side of the tip of the big toe.
• Very similar in width and volume for the rest of the foot, including heel.
• ankle might be a tiny bit roomier (I have super skinny ankles)
• forward flex is progressive, and way, way, stiffer.

Hardware is bolted on, forward lean is adjustable.
pivots are not replaceable.
powerstrap is narrow, and does not have a cord to pull it loose, nor a hook to undo it completely.
cuff buckles do not have a slider system, so will need to be moved to end of ladder.
buckles use solid metal, not wire (take that Technica!).
overal I’d say the hardware is a little below the Atomic, but much, much better than Technica.

Basically, this is the boot for people like me who:

• Want excellent walking (the new Zero G Tour felt too annoying for me)
• need something that skis a bit better than the lightest boots (really struggled in anything but perfect snow in my Backlands)
• are willing to accept extra weight for that trade off.
• have long legs
• have a low volume foot

The latter is the crux (pun intended) of the matter. There have recently been several of these boots that walk like a 1 kg boot, but ski much better. However, they all have some kind of high volume last.

The Backlands fit my feet super well, and these are very nearly as good. I have narrow feet, but a fairly high instep.

Hope his helps someone.

[Lord Thomas]

Can anyone give me a comparative estimate of forward flex stiffness of the Crux vs: transalp carbon pro, backland XTD carbon, skorpius II, ridge (I've got a pair of these at home right now), or any other contender in this category? I'm in the clyde category running well north of 200lb. and have a unique ability to crush the forward flex of most boots. I tour with bigger skis, so this heavyish touring boot with excellent walk mode and as stiff as possible flex intrigues me. Looks like my OG hawx xtd 130's may be dying to need to get this resolved soon.

[Tjaardbreeuwer]

Can anyone give me a comparative estimate of forward flex stiffness of the Crux vs: transalp carbon pro, backland XTD carbon, skorpius II, ridge (I've got a pair of these at home right now), or any other contender in this category? I'm in the clyde category running well north of 200lb. and have a unique ability to crush the forward flex of most boots. I tour with bigger skis, so this heavyish touring boot with excellent walk mode and as stiff as possible flex intrigues me. Looks like my OG hawx xtd 130's may be dying to need to get this resolved soon.

I found them surprisingly supportive for an open throat boot. That last part is key. No where near a Hawx 130. I was comparing them to the Zero G Peak, regular Backland, Quantum, etc.

I have not tried any of the boots you list, but reviews consistently say all except Transalp are on the softer flexing side, the Backland XTD most certainly is very soft. (My 160lbs kid has those, and they flex a lot).

Also Ridge, Backland XTD and Transalp fit pretty wide, Crux is narrower, so seems unlikely that all fit you well.

For a big guy with big skis, I can’t imagine any of these boots working for you, and certainly not the Backland or the Peak.

Coming from Hawx I’d say look at Quattro’s, Zero G Tour, Tigard etc. Maybe Radical Pro?

[Benneke10]

Just got mine in the mail, bought online since no stores near me are selling them. Haven't skied them yet but thought I would share some fit impressions, as it looks like they are starting to sell out on some sites. I have a low-ish volume foot, medium-width forefoot, skinny ankles and very skinny calves. For reference, I get along well with Hawx boots and first generation Skorpius, and can't wear the Scarpa F1 series boots because the forefoot is too tight.

Firstly, this boot does not walk as well as the Skorpius with the strap undone. I had them both on side by side to be sure. It certainly walks a lot better than any 4 buckle boot including the new ZGTP which I have tried on. My memory isn't perfect since its been a year since I tried them on, but I don't think it walks as well as the Backland 120 XTD which amazed me with its walking performance, likely due to the aggressive cutout on its liner, but the Head will ski way better than the Backland. I was impressed with how stiff and supportive it felt in downhill mode (in my kitchen). I am only 150lbs, and on my floor it felt closer to my first gen Hawx XTD 130 than the Skorpius, although it probably isn't as consistent through its flex due to the open throat design but I can't speak to that yet.

As for the fit, It's kind of like an F1 XT with a little more room in the forefoot (critical for me). Its not as wide in front as the Skorpius, and it doesn't have quite as much length in the toebox as the Hawx and Skorpius but it has more than the F1 XT/LT. I've got extra room in the heel and I am moving around a little, will have to keep a close eye there, a fair amount roomier than a Hawx, a little more than the Skorpius but similar. I would speculate that it can accommodate a decent range of instep heights as the buckle opens up quite a bit. I'll report back once I get time on snow.

[Lord Thomas]

Mine are supposed to be here on Monday and I will report as soon as I've had a chance to form an opinion. Fingers crossed that this will be my unicorn boot. Was hoping the Ridge's would be it but just can't quite make the fit work so they are for sale. There is a virgin pair of HL C132's also anxiously awaiting the arrival of these Crux's!

[PinyonJuniper5]

I had the Crux on side by side with a second gen skorpius two months ago and could have sworn the Crux walked better. Maybe it just works bettter for the geometry of my foot+ankle? Excited to hear your thoughts, I was really close to purchasing these boots but ended up going a different direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Benneke10]

I had the Crux on side by side with a second gen skorpius two months ago and could have sworn the Crux walked better. Maybe it just works bettter for the geometry of my foot+ankle? Excited to hear your thoughts, I was really close to purchasing these boots but ended up going a different direction.

I appreciated your take and I was just trying to add another perspective. I haven't tried the second gen Skorpius, but I have played with it at a shop for a moment, I think the liner is thicker than the original. I actually really like the liner in the first gen, mine is well broke in, its thin and walks very well. Do you tour with the strap completely undone, hanging freely?

I remember reading in another thread that you went with the Dynafit Ridge, so we probably have different feet because that boot didn't fit me at all and it felt like it didn't have a very smooth walk mode.

[Tjaardbreeuwer]

I had the Crux on side by side with a second gen skorpius two months ago and could have sworn the Crux walked better. Maybe it just works bettter for the geometry of my foot+ankle? Excited to hear your thoughts, I was really close to purchasing these boots but ended up going a different direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tried the Scorpio II and Crux Pro side by side a bit, and the Crux was maybe a tiny bit better, but not really a notable difference.
I did use the same liners in both, so maybe there was more difference with the stock liners.
Stiffness and fit was also pretty close, with a bit tighter heel hold in the Skorp II.

[gravitybud]

This is awesome info, thanks. Sadly I don’t know if this will be the magic boot for my foot based on your description. I got chicken feet (super tiny ankle, high calves, low instep, no arch, wide forefoot) so I’ll bet I’d struggle with heel hold. As I always do *sigh*.

So far the Scarpa 4Quattro has been the best fit for me, I find it has noticeably more friction-free ROM than the ZGTP (my previous boot of ~3yrs) and skis just as well. But god damn do I absolutely hate everything else about that boot. Construction is god awful, have warrantied like 2 pairs already, had walk mode and toe pins both fail. Lots of flaps and clicking and faffing. Plus the stupid grip walk soles make me feel like I’m on ice skates when booting.

I carpet tested the Ridge Pro but tbh I felt the walk mode wasnt any better than the Quattro (maybe even slightly less ROM) and felt like I’d need to punch big toe for length and 6th toe for width, which is probably a no-go with that shell material.

Still searching for my dream boot I suppose…

I've skied the newest Scarpa Quatro Pro a few days now, and it's the only boot that fits my low instep, low volume foot. Friction free 60 ROM. High performance strong and responsive boot. They've solved durability issues with several improvements. Love them!

[CaliBrit]

Picked up a pair cheap from Bob Leisure. I have Ridge Pro which replaced Backland XTD. I like the Ridge Pro just looking to see what else may play better.

[Lord Thomas]

Initial impression of my new Crux's

Actual weight on a lab scale for boot and liner with no footbed size 28.5 = 1,398 grams

Alright, here are my first impressions of Heads new Crux Pro in a 28 shell. Overall the Crux has more volume but doesn’t feel much longer. Closest thing I can think of is a Lange XT3 tour pro size 27.5 with the 99 last for general volume. The forefoot and midfoot are nice and anatomically shaped for a human foot (looking at you Salomon and Dynafit) and remind me a little bit of a Lange. You might also think of it as a blend between a Hawx Ultra XTD Hawx Prime XTD. (For reference, ultra xtd 27.5 is barely tolerable race boot fit for me and I feel like I’m swimming in a prime 27.5…keep in mind that I’ve been in 1cm or less race type fitting boots for the past 15 years so anything less pretty much feels sloppy. Lower volume through the fore and midfoot than a prime but more than an ultra. I would call the instep of the Crux 28 kind of middling with respect to height

The heel and Achilles of the Crux are definitely not as secure as the XT3’s or RS/RX which are super snug and secure for me in a size 27.5 LV. One notable fit aspect of the Crux is that it is tall. In fact, with one on each foot, it felt taller than the XT3 – it feels like a real ski boot, not a hiking boot, and I LIKE that. While I’m on the cuff, with the buckles extended all the way and with the ladder mounted in the last hole I can just get the bale into the touring slot on the ladder. Set up the same way I can get a Lange RX LV 27.5 to the second or sometimes third step on the ladder. For reference, if you got big sexy man calves, the ones your mom and sister both “dig” simultaneously, you might want to try them on first.

Walk mode. Overall, I’m impressed. One thing about only being able to get the bales to the tour step on the ladder is that I can just push the buckles all the way open (they sort of lock there) and walk away…and then just snap them shut and go to ski mode. The Crux also walks almost as well by just unlocking the walk mode and leaving the buckles and power strap all done up; just like a hoji lock.

Understand that my frame of reference for the past 5 years has been an ultra xtd 130 so keep that in mind. The crux walks WAY better than an xtd. Less friction and vastly better ROM. I can easily go uphill to the limit of my dorsiflexsion and a long ways to the back in the crux. When I’m taking a really long stride I can start to feel it in the Achilles but I think that is the liner as there is no flex section in the back of the liner (again, wtf?). Compared to a Ridge (size 28) with only the walk mode unlocked on the Crux and just the Hoji lock unlocked on the Ridge, I would say it’s not close. The Crux has no more friction and has way more rearward range of motion. You have to flip the ankle strap buckle on the ridge open to achieve the same rearward ROM as the Crux. I tested this a couple of times with one on each foot.

As far as carpet flex goes it’s easy off the top for a little bit and then it ramps up quickly, but not super abruptly. For me this leaves it soft enough to flex in the ankles and knees sufficiently to be really nimble but there is still enough stiffness at the end to drive a real ski. I got no hint of it collapsing like some of the skinnier boots that you can just fold like they’re in walk mode. That said, we’ll see what happens the first time I run headlong into some thick manky shit while I’m lettn’m run. Pretty jazzed about this flex pattern except for one thing – there is a surprising amount of fore-aft play in the walk mode lever when in the ski position. Even makes a sloppy mechanical sound when flexing them; WTF Head, thought you guys had better QC than that.

For a comparative flex I would say that, with one on each foot, the Crux is not quite as progressive deeper into the flex as a Ridge and is just a tiny bit softer. (Not sure how to quantify this but think of the Crux flexing 5, or no more than 10, “stiffness” points less than a Ridge). Prolly not much of a difference in actual use (remember, I haven’t skied either the Crux or the Ridge yet).

I would say that the liner is on the medium to good side of tour liners and not the shitty little sock they put in skimo shoes. The one noteworthy feature is that it has a surprisingly thick, firm tongue. Might explain why I can barely close it around above referenced sex calves.

Overall I would say that the Crux could be a super sweet option for a bunch of guys that can’t fit Dynafits. Head needs to fix a few stupid little things but I think this boot could be a real winner with a little refinement and will be my DD tour boot well into the future. Stay tuned for updates after I get a few thousand vert on them. Just spot hot rice formed the liners (navicular) today and the baby maiden voyage is tomorrow afternoon. Will be using them with HL C132 190’s and C113 187’s, and BMT94 186’s.

[CaliBrit]

The fore aft play in ski is a bummer. That’s what I like about the ridge. It is right there locked.

[Lord Thomas]

yeah, the ridge is pretty solid

[Benneke10]

Still haven't used my boots yet.. conditions have been really bad lately in south central AK. Wearing them around a little more, I can confirm the fore aft play it is a little annoying. Feeling a little more uncertain about the fit, I have a little pressure on the bottom of my 5th met (outside midfoot area), it seems like it would be a hard area to punch because the shell is reinforced there. I am also noticing the heel hold is a little sloppy, and my heel does come up a little when I am fully buckled in ski mode, not sure if this is something you can mitigate? Open to suggestions..

[frorider]

I’m tired of boots like the TransAlp Pro with such a wide heel / ankle pocket that even with thick butterfly pads on the liner you still get heel lift. This thread makes me think Head made that bad choice too.

Which reminds me, the non micro adjust Z buckle on the Transalp sucks because I had to choose between comfort and heel lift on the skin track. Seems that the Crux also suffers from a non micro adjust Z buckle.

[Lord Thomas]

Yeah, the heel hold aint great but so far I still don't find myself swimming in the heel/ankle pocket. Only got about 1,000 on them so far so we'll see how that changes when the liner starts to pack. FWIW, Mtn Lab was WAY worse.