• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

AT boot fit compared to existing Lange alpine boot

firebanex

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Posts
1,090
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
I have Lange XT130's and Salomon S/Lab MTN boots. I've been skiing Langes for as long as I can remember which boots I've used. The have pretty much always fit out of the box and I never really need to do anything to them except get a custom footbed. Out of the box they felt pretty good, but I took them to my boot fitter to get the liners heat molded and we had to do a tiny bit of padding around the ankle on my left foot, but otherwise the boots feel pretty darn close. With my very limited experience with these kinds of boots, I would say the Salomon S/labs are worth a look at.
 

firebanex

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Posts
1,090
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
I have Lange XT130's and Salomon S/Lab MTN boots. I've been skiing Langes for as long as I can remember which boots I've used. The have pretty much always fit out of the box and I never really need to do anything to them except get a custom footbed. Out of the box they felt pretty good, but I took them to my boot fitter to get the liners heat molded and we had to do a tiny bit of padding around the ankle on my left foot, but otherwise the boots feel pretty darn close. With my very limited experience with these kinds of boots, I would say the Salomon S/labs are worth a look at.
I just realized that in writing this post I accidentally removed half a sentence after my sentence on footbeds in my XT130s. It should read ..The S/Labs felt very similar when I tried them on and out of the box felt pretty good on my feet but I took them to my bootfitter..
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,686
Location
Mid-Atlantic
Salomon Mtn Explore or last year's S/Lab MTN (this year they hacked down the cuff rotation),
What am I missing here, both model year S/Lab MTN specs list "47º range of motion for walking", how has the cuff rotation been hacked down?
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,686
Location
Mid-Atlantic
You're not missing anything - for some reason I keep thinking they were on par with the MTN Explore at one point. My bad!
Ok. I don't recall the differences between the two models and I'm not sure about the S/Lab MTN but the MTN Explore 63º range of motion is mostly in the rear direction so ROM may not be an apples to apples comparison between the two, again IDK?

BTW @Analisa do you know if the 2018/2019 S/Lab MTN last shape which now features "Custom shell HD" 10 minute heat moldable 98 - 104mm has changed in shape at the toe area beyond the metatarsals, i.e., less tapered inward and more like an Altra or Merrell Barefoot running shoe shape? A few of the local REI shop guys recently attended Masterfit and have told me that they are advised to no longer stretch the pointy tapered toe front area of new lightweight Alpine and AT boots because the shells are now too thin at the front end and that it is better to size up (which may actually be what the customer measures on a Brannock device) with an insole to take up space elsewhere.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
@neonorchid -- i'm 99% sure the current S/Lab MTN is the same last as it has always been. It's not the heat moldable Custom Shell HD which is a different material.

My experience at Masterfit wasn't quite the same as your REI guys. They did advise against aggressive stretching of AT boot shells, but it wasn't an absolute. It depends on the plastics, the mold, etc -- which is all rapidly evolving in the AT space. One big reason to avoid stretching AT boots at the toe is that keeping alignment of the tech fittings can be difficult -- and they need a high level of precision and accuracy to work correctly. As long as the instep fits well, and your heel is held well into place, there is something to be said for a bit of toe room in an AT boot.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Mister Mann

Mister Mann

aka ADKS
Skier
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
75
Location
New York
What would you recommend in terms of sizing? It's a pain, since I have to order them, charge to my credit card, and wait for delivery just to see if the basic size and shape is OK.

My current shoe/boot sizes are:
  • Street shoe/hiking boot: US Men's 11.
  • Lange RS 120: Mondo 26.5.
  • Light tele/touring boot: Scarpa T4: Mondo 28.5.
I just tried on a Scarpa Maestrale in a 28.5. Shell fit seems way too big, though the boot felt fairly snug with the lining in and buckled. Should an AT boot fit like a racing/alpine fit, or looser to better deal with the touring?
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
Should an AT boot fit like a racing/alpine fit, or looser to better deal with the touring?

A smidge bigger than a race boot, especially if you wear them snug. I wear a 23.5 in my Langes, which might be a tad small. My toes kind of hurt unless I'm leaned into the boot where the toes pull back. If I skinned in a similar fit, all my toenails would probably be gone. My touring boots are a 24.5. My boyfriend is a 10-10.5 street shoe and skis a 26.5 inbounds & out, but uses a thinner liner on the touring boots (otherwise the shell on his Il Moro IDs & Lupo IDs is practically the same).

I'd ballpark that a 27.5 would be a good bet, unless you can walk around comfortably in your Langes.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Mister Mann

Mister Mann

aka ADKS
Skier
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
75
Location
New York
A smidge bigger than a race boot, especially if you wear them snug. I wear a 23.5 in my Langes, which might be a tad small. My toes kind of hurt unless I'm leaned into the boot where the toes pull back. If I skinned in a similar fit, all my toenails would probably be gone. My touring boots are a 24.5. My boyfriend is a 10-10.5 street shoe and skis a 26.5 inbounds & out, but uses a thinner liner on the touring boots (otherwise the shell on his Il Moro IDs & Lupo IDs is practically the same).

I'd ballpark that a 27.5 would be a good bet, unless you can walk around comfortably in your Langes.
Thanks for the quick response!
 

KevinF

Gathermeister-New England
Team Gathermeister
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,345
Location
New England
What would you recommend in terms of sizing? It's a pain, since I have to order them, charge to my credit card, and wait for delivery just to see if the basic size and shape is OK.

My current shoe/boot sizes are:
  • Street shoe/hiking boot: US Men's 11.
  • Lange RS 120: Mondo 26.5.
  • Light tele/touring boot: Scarpa T4: Mondo 28.5.
I just tried on a Scarpa Maestrale in a 28.5. Shell fit seems way too big, though the boot felt fairly snug with the lining in and buckled. Should an AT boot fit like a racing/alpine fit, or looser to better deal with the touring?

My touring boots and my alpine boots are both Lange's, both with 26.5 shells, which is about a 9 or 10mm gap behind my heel. i.e., not a whole lot. If I was doing overnight touring where I'd be putting them on c-o-l-d -- yeah, well, I'd have a problem. But I'm not.

On the few tours I've done, my toes haven't bothered me from sliding forward and hitting the shell. But again, I haven't done anything "big".

I like snug-fitting footwear -- cycling shoes, hiking boots, ski boots, etc.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Mister Mann

Mister Mann

aka ADKS
Skier
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
75
Location
New York
My touring boots and my alpine boots are both Lange's, both with 26.5 shells, which is about a 9 or 10mm gap behind my heel. i.e., not a whole lot. If I was doing overnight touring where I'd be putting them on c-o-l-d -- yeah, well, I'd have a problem. But I'm not.

On the few tours I've done, my toes haven't bothered me from sliding forward and hitting the shell. But again, I haven't done anything "big".

I like snug-fitting footwear -- cycling shoes, hiking boots, ski boots, etc.
What's your street shoe size?
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
What would you recommend in terms of sizing? It's a pain, since I have to order them, charge to my credit card, and wait for delivery just to see if the basic size and shape is OK.

My current shoe/boot sizes are:
  • Street shoe/hiking boot: US Men's 11.
  • Lange RS 120: Mondo 26.5.
  • Light tele/touring boot: Scarpa T4: Mondo 28.5.
I just tried on a Scarpa Maestrale in a 28.5. Shell fit seems way too big, though the boot felt fairly snug with the lining in and buckled. Should an AT boot fit like a racing/alpine fit, or looser to better deal with the touring?

Everyone is a bit different -- and a lot depends on the particular boot you choose:

My sizes:
- Dress shoes: 10/10.5
- Athletic shoes: 11/11.5 (esp 11.5 running)
- Brannock device: 28 (mondo)
- Instep: 27.5
- Inbounds boots: 26.5 old Cochise with punch for toe length
- AT boots: 27.5 Salomon Mtn Lab (w/ Pro Tour liner), and 28.5 TLT5.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Me:
US 11.5 shoes
Cochise 120 in 27.5. Limited touring, but a fair bit of walking around base. No issues yet. Snug fit, but fairly roomy in the toebox, which is where I feel the difference between AT and resort fit comes into play: a resort boot can be fit with leg leaning forward (dorsiflexion) and toes almost touching in that position. When you unbuckle the top buckles, and slide your foot forward (skiing or walking downhill) you need more room in front of your toes.
 

JPM

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Posts
66
Would a better descriptor to use or include be boot sole length (BSL) with mondopoint rather than just using US size and or mondopoint when comparing ISO 5355 and ISO 9523 boot sizes? For instance, I have two pair of touring boots both ISO 9523. The Carbon Travers is size 28.5 and the Scott S1 Longfiber is size 27.5. Both are 306mm.

Compare the BSL and mondo size of the first two boots and the second two boots. Maybe I am repeating something you already know.

Fischer Travers Carbon
276mm (25.5)
286mm (26.5)
296mm (27.5)
306mm (28.5)
316mm (29.5)
326mm (30.5)

Dynafit Hoji Pro Tour
281mm (25.0/25.5)
291mm (26.0/26.5)
301mm (27.0/27.5)
311mm (28.0/28.5)
321mm (29.0/29.5)
331mm (30.0/30.5])

Atomic XTD 130
292mm (25/25.5)
302mm (26/26.5)
312mm (27/27.5)
322mm (28/28.5)
332mm (29/29.5)

Tecnica Zero G Pro
293mm (25.5)
303mm (26.5)
313mm (27.5)
323mm (28.5)
333mm (29.5)
343mm (30.5)
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
Me:
US 11.5 shoes
Cochise 120 in 27.5. Limited touring, but a fair bit of walking around base. No issues yet. Snug fit, but fairly roomy in the toebox, which is where I feel the difference between AT and resort fit comes into play: a resort boot can be fit with leg leaning forward (dorsiflexion) and toes almost touching in that position. When you unbuckle the top buckles, and slide your foot forward (skiing or walking downhill) you need more room in front of your toes.

This ^^

My feet measure 10.25 street shoes and I use 27.5 Hawx XTD boots. Anything smaller and its hard to walk in. It all depends on your feet obviously. They boots fit me nice and snug in the ankle and foot but have some room in the toes.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,165
Location
Gloucester, MA
In terms of narrowest & most comparable boots to the Langes, Salomons fit quite narrow, Atomic is on the narrower side and Atomic Hawx are narrow with a more similar 4 buckle design.

If I had to put together a shortlist: Hawx, Salomon Mtn Explore or last year's S/Lab MTN (this year they hacked down the cuff rotation), or La Spo Spectre.

Analisa and Jmeb, great info and thanks for sharing.

I ski Lange RS140 in 29.5 and just bought the Hawx XTD 130 in 29.5. I am a size 12.5 US shoe. I have long narrow feet and the XTD is definitely a narrow fit like the Langes. I have signinficantly less toe length and width in the XTD as compared to the RS140. BTW, I should be in a 28.5 RS140 with some toe lengthening. I got new thicker liners that made the 29.5 work really well. I tried a Lange on one foot and the Atomic on the other at home just for shits and giggles, I clicked into skis just to see the difference in feel. XTD a lot lighter, tighter in the toes, less snug around the ankle and instep. Close in stiffness, stiffness is plenty on the XTD 130. Lange, heavier, vice grip around the ankle and instep, burlier feel. When I twitch, the ski twitches too. This is how I like it.

In summary, I can tell I will loose a little downhill precision with the XTD's, but that is too be expected in my book. I also need to ski them and break them in, so take this a preliminary impressions.

I tried on this years (2019) Salomon SLab/Mtn and I liked the fit better than the XTD's. More toe room, more snug around the instep, more comfortable liner in general. A little softer in flex and more progressive. The 2019's have changed from the previous generation. It might simiply be a plastic change only, not sure. The big difference for me was the range of motion. The Slab had a hard stop on the forward lean that was my instep hitting the boot instep wall. It was non yielding. The XTD did not have this and as their spec says, gave more forward ROM. Both boots felt frictionless to me, although this is just in the store. The XTD has a very flexable liner that bends at the heel/instep very easy. The Slab was a little stiffer.

My comments to others: Primoz, get the XTD you will be happy on the up and impressed with the down on this boot. By store feel, the XTD will tour better than the SLab, but not by much.

Mister Mann: I would not buy the XTD based on what I read in your posts. It is too downhill oriented a boot to do rooling hill tours on. I presonally would step down one "notch" to the SLab/Explore or whatever is the next step down is in a touring boot for "downhill" and step up in "uphill".

I will add that the liner is a huge part of the boot "feel" along with the stiffness of the shell and the fit. For downhill, I like the vise grip clamp of my Langes with firm dense cushioning all around my foot. It is very comfortale. For touring the XTD 130 has a very flexible, lightweight liner that doesn't grip at all like the Langes, but gives very little resistance to flexing and works well with the frictionless cuff pivots on the boot. I hope there is enough comfort there for downhill skiing and touring. I am looking forward to using them very soon.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
@ScottB thanks for info. I'm pretty much 99% sure I'm getting Atomic. I tried them last time at friend's place (it was 120 not 130), and they felt really good. Much lighter then expected, walking is actually surprisingly good, although not on pair with my current TLT6, but that would be stupid to expect anyway. And when in ski mode, they felt way better then current Dynafit, even though checking that inside at room temperature and just bending boot a bit doesn't really tell all that much.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Mister Mann

Mister Mann

aka ADKS
Skier
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
75
Location
New York
So I've had the opportunity to try on several boots. Here's my impression so far:
  • Scarpa Maestrale (28.5). Shell too big. Looks like a solid boot, but perhaps on the heavy side for me.
  • Dynafit TLT7 (27.5). Fits well generally. I find the lower cable latch difficult to adjust at times. The connector is spring-loaded, but is sometimes hard to move to put the cable on and off. Is the lightest of the bunch I tried, and feels the lightest. My biggest concern is that the tongue feels too low on my shins, so when I flex into the boot, it feels like it's pushing on one party of my shin, not across the whole shin. The dual upper latch is ingenious. It tightens the entire boot, and also puts it into walk mode with one flick, including loosening up the entire boot, so don't have to fiddle with multiple buckles. Not compatible with the Vipec/Tecton bindings, which lowers it a notch in my eyes.
  • Scarpa F1 (27.5). So far, this boot feels the best. It is snug, but comfortable. The Intuition liner also feels the best. There is sufficient room in the instep, but toe box seems on the small side. Feels much better on my shins than the Dynafit. They feel more solid than the Dynafits too, but hard to tell in the living room. It certainly feels that I could ski reasonably well, off and on-piste in these. They will only feel stiffer in the cold. This boot doesn't have a traditional buckle. The power strap has a buckle-like lever to tighten the upper boot, though the lever seems small and hard to crank down. It's hard to know how tight to affix the velcro before trying to push down the lever. The bottom of the boot is cinched with a Boa dial, which I have grown to like in my cycling shoes. It's also easy to loosen the Boa, but just pulling the dial up.
  • La Sportiva Spectre (27.5). This is the beefiest of the boots I've tried (except perhaps for the Maestrale, which I didn't get a good sense of). It is a four-buckle design, which seems quaint compared to the designs of the TLT7 and F1. It's also the heaviest. The flex seems the stiffest of the four, and is, by far, the narrowest. I'm concerned that there isn't enough room in the instep. I feel pressure points above my insteps, toward the top of my feet, where the boot flexes. Not sure if this can be addressed, or if it's due to the thin liner issue. I have read that some people complain that any bony spots tend to rub in this boot. Ski-walk transition is easy with the flick of a lever, but you also have to un-do the four buckles. The buckles are non-traditional and can clip in the correct place, even when not buckled, which is nice.
At this point, I'm leaning toward the F1, and possibly the Spectre, but I'm concerned about its narrowness. The Spectre is the least expensive for me.

For skis, I'm thinking of re-purposing my Salomon Q98s, and putting on a Tecton binding. The bindings seem to be out of stock now from Black Diamond for some reason. I hope this is due to demand, not a technical problem with the bindings.

Any thoughts appreciated!
 

Sponsor

Top