Hawx Ultra XTD

LeeLauSorry I don't see a function to edit posts and the img /img tags didn't work to embed pics so this will have to do

Can't edit posts on NS unfortunately (but it does keep the dumb comments around, which is always good for a laugh).

@Lee, when creating a reply, click on the "Editor On" button below the text field, and you will be able to upload and embed much more easily.

A few more days on this boot and some thoughts after mostly touring and some inbounds. Tried the Vulcan and Mountain Lab on one foot and the Hawk Ultra Extended on the other foot at the same time.

It's a LIMITED conclusion because an opinion after just 10 days is not an informed opinion IMO. Lets base this on me skiing with the Vulcan with tongue inbounds and the Vulcan without tongue touring. The Atomic, Salomon and Dynafit boots were all skied with Intuition liners. I did also ski all the boots with the stock liners but lets just have these preliminary impressions with the same liners.

In terms of skiing from best to worst
- Hawk Extended , Salomon/Vulcan (tied)

In terms of touring from best to worst
- Vulcan, Hawk Extended , Salomon

More on the skiing aspects follows in a stream of consciousness. A good test was in chopped up 10cms of fresh snow on 20cms of previous storm snow from a couple of days ago. Ie some soft snow with variability with flat light where I had the Hawk Extended on Prior Overlords 188 mounted with Beast 16s and pointed downslope through some traverse lines and then into Blackcomb Glacier. Trying to stay centred on the skis and letting the boots do their thing I was jostled around but could maintain fore/aft stability. When I had to turn I could get low and lean laterally into the Hawk Extended and let them do their thing; again maintaining stability but this time on the sideways plane.

On both the Vulcans and the Mtn Labs I would not have that same level of either stability or hit-absorption but for different reasons. The Vulcans are not a progressive boot with the tongue and tend to hit a firm stop in a jarring fashion so particularly on fore-aft hits you will get bucked around. Without the tongue the Vulcan will fold forward on fore/aft hits. The Salomon Mtn Lab is a bit softer fore-aft so also will get fold on the fore/aft hits. Where all these boots perform well is with respect to lateral stability where they reward the more modern style of driving skis on their natural arc as opposed to driving from the tips. Having said that, real world skiing conditions sometimes dictates imperfect snow. Coupled with less than Hoji-like reflexes some skiers (ie me) require that fore/aft support crutch and that's where the Atomic Hawk Ultra XTD offers that small but noticeable benefit. I'd expect that bigger skiers (especially those who like to huck or who partake in big hits) will really appreciate the added stiffness and progression of the Hawk Extended boot.

Not much to add in the touring aspect. Since I tour in the Vulcan without the tongue I threw that into the mix accordingly. The Vulcan (without tongue) is noticeably better (more free) in touring stride then the Atomic. The Atomic Hawk Extended is noticeably better in touring stride then the Salomon Mtn Lab. All three boots bootpack just fine. It's noticeable on lower angle skintracks in particular where one gets glide and kick with the Dynafit and Atomic but not the Mtn Lab. It's also noticeable on higher angle skintracks where I have to engage heel lifters more often with the Mtn Lab but not either the Hawk Extended or Vulcan

I'm 160lbs. Bigger more aggressive skiers will have different impressions. A reminder that all AT boots are compromises. With the entry of the Atomic Hawk Extended one will have many more choices to make without having to compromise as much

I'm loving the details of this thread. Can someone post measurements for instep height and the distance from the bottom of heel to instep? And the boot size of course.

Also wondering the comparison between other boot's instep. (Vulcan, Quest Max BC).

Thank you for continuing to make boots with forward lean.

hemlockjibber8I'm loving the details of this thread. Can someone post measurements for instep height and the distance from the bottom of heel to instep? And the boot size of course.

Also wondering the comparison between other boot's instep. (Vulcan, Quest Max BC).

Thank you for continuing to make boots with forward lean.

External measurements won't give you an honest picture due to the boot-board sitting lower into the shell than most every other boot. So the internal dimension isn't reflected 1:1 into the external shape. BUT this boot has the same instep height (vertical and heel to instep) as Hawx Ultra. If you're able to put your foot into a normal Ultra, that will give you the most accurate comparison/description of last volume.

Hawx Ultra & Ultra XTD have about 3mm more instep room than X-Max and Quest Max.

We like forward lean too. Sage, Chris, and the rest of the team all really wanted more than our standard 15°, but at least we give people the option to choose between 15° and 17°.

onenerdykidExternal measurements won't give you an honest picture due to the boot-board sitting lower into the shell than most every other boot. So the internal dimension isn't reflected 1:1 into the external shape. BUT this boot has the same instep height (vertical and heel to instep) as Hawx Ultra. If you're able to put your foot into a normal Ultra, that will give you the most accurate comparison/description of last volume.

Hawx Ultra & Ultra XTD have about 3mm more instep room than X-Max and Quest Max.

We like forward lean too. Sage, Chris, and the rest of the team all really wanted more than our standard 15°, but at least we give people the option to choose between 15° and 17°.

Thanks. Good to know. I was hoping for the internal measurement but the comparison works too.
Why do companies not release their instep measurements? We had a chart of these dimensions and Surefoot and it was awesome.

hemlockjibber8Thanks. Good to know. I was hoping for the internal measurement but the comparison works too.
Why do companies not release their instep measurements? We had a chart of these dimensions and Surefoot and it was awesome.

Part of the issue is where on the last do you measure? Supplying the info is easy, but you just need to make sure every boot is measured in the same way, from the same points, which is not as easy as it sounds. Do you have an image of where they were measured to/from?

onenerdykidPart of the issue is where on the last do you measure? Supplying the info is easy, but you just need to make sure every boot is measured in the same way, from the same points, which is not as easy as it sounds. Do you have an image of where they were measured to/from?

Totally understandable and it was easy to make sure it was consistent at Surefoot because they took all the measurements themselves. No image available but I could probably track it down.

onenerdykid...

I'm really impressed with what Atomic is doing with the Backlands and the upcoming Hawx-Ultra-XTD.

If you're not already aware the ability to keep the cuff buckled while engaging walk mode is making these boots rise in popularity with the splitboard community.

Splitboard talk- http://splitboard.com/talk/topic/atomic-backlands-thoughts-on-mods/

Which has lead to enterprising hard boot (non-split) snowboarding folk creating spring systems for use. Example- http://www.ojankaivajat.org/forum/download/file.php?id=1427

While the hardboot snowboarding community is small in North America it is much larger in Europe and wildly growing in Asia. Unfortunately there are really only two large companies that make boots (UPZ and Deeluxe). There have been no advancements or changes in boot design for nearly a decade.

If Atomic added an optional accessory spring system to allow flex control while in walk mode you would have a whole new group of riders to market to across the world. This would also provide another opportunity for Atomic to be seen on podiums across the world as hardboot snowboard racing is still, very much, a thing.

Thanks for starting this thread.

Mahalo.

LonbordinI'm really impressed with what Atomic is doing with the Backlands and the upcoming Hawx-Ultra-XTD.

If you're not already aware the ability to keep the cuff buckled while engaging walk mode is making these boots rise in popularity with the splitboard community.

Splitboard talk- http://splitboard.com/talk/topic/atomic-backlands-thoughts-on-mods/

Which has lead to enterprising hard boot (non-split) snowboarding folk creating spring systems for use. Example- http://www.ojankaivajat.org/forum/download/file.php?id=1427

While the hardboot snowboarding community is small in North America it is much larger in Europe and wildly growing in Asia. Unfortunately there are really only two large companies that make boots (UPZ and Deeluxe). There have been no advancements or changes in boot design for nearly a decade.

If Atomic added an optional accessory spring system to allow flex control while in walk mode you would have a whole new group of riders to market to across the world. This would also provide another opportunity for Atomic to be seen on podiums across the world as hardboot snowboard racing is still, very much, a thing.

Thanks for starting this thread.

Mahalo.

Good stuff! I know Lou at Wildsnow.com had a post about this topic recently too. Definitely something we'll look into! Thanks for the tips!

onenerdykidGood stuff! I know Lou at Wildsnow.com had a post about this topic recently too. Definitely something we'll look into! Thanks for the tips!

Awesome...

I forgot to include an image of just how simple these spring systems can be... I would be an easy accessory for Atomic.

LonbordinAwesome...

I forgot to include an image of just how simple these spring systems can be... I would be an easy accessory for Atomic.

Well the upload didn't work... The photo is here-
https://goo.gl/photos/eeHytAZo2NdPNCEc9

Mahalo.

I got to test these beauties for a week. I am 5'11'' 190lbs, aggressive skier. Sidecountry, backcountry, trees, touring, groomers and occasional park laps these boots can do it all. I've been skiing the Hawx Ultra 130 since December and I couldn't really find that much difference performance-wise. XTD is lighter though and it has a sort of trimmed out touring liner which was quite comfy and breathable though a bit cold on the colder days in Finnish Lapland. Fit-wise it's really close to the "regular" Hawx Ultra and the only thing I really noticed was that it felt lower in front of the boot, in toebox and metatarsals. I did the memory fit process and threw in my custom footbeds.

Comparing to similar kind of high-performance bc touring boots (Scarpa Freedom SL and K2 Pinnacle pro) these were way lighter and yet snugger fit. I could wear these for long touring days and couldn't feel any pinching or hot spots, they were so comfortable. The fells are sharp rock bottom and I got to test the rubber soles in action. There was enough traction and they still look good as new after walking on shark teeth for the whole week. Touring mode is amazing and the lock is really sturdy and reliable, I didnt have a single problem with them.

I skied Backland fr 102's with Tracker 16's and Backland 95 with backland tour pin bindings and didn't have a single problem with these boots. They handled both setups and felt really solid even on tech bindings which I was a bit sceptic at first. I never felt I needed a lighter touring boot hiking or a burlier race boot for steep or high speeds.

I would say the only things I missed in this boot was race-y feeling on the liner tongue and a bit of cushioning for the boot board. I think both of these "problems" are gone in hands of a good boot fitter. I would definitely recommend these for someone who's looking for a snug fitting do-it-all boot.

alextheknifeI would say the only things I missed in this boot was race-y feeling on the liner tongue and a bit of cushioning for the boot board. I think both of these "problems" are gone in hands of a good boot fitter. I would definitely recommend these for someone who's looking for a snug fitting do-it-all boot.

FYI - for serial production, the liner tongue will get thicker and more supportive. It will end up being more comfortable on the shin, slightly reduce some overall volume in the cuff, and more aptly power the boot.

onenerdykidFYI - for serial production, the liner tongue will get thicker and more supportive. It will end up being more comfortable on the shin, slightly reduce some overall volume in the cuff, and more aptly power the boot.

Great job there Matt! Always a pleasure giving you feedback on the products.

Getting the 120's molded tomorrow, and then will start exploding words out about them on Blister ASAP. The living room test boded well!

How much can you blow out the big toe area on these shells? I tried the size 25 Hawx Ultra on and it fit quite well overall (much better in the instep/heel/achilles than my current MTN Labs), but I would need to stretch the big toe area a fair amount. I read somewhere (maybe earlier on this thread?) that you can't stretch the toes much on the memory fit shells...

wilcox510How much can you blow out the big toe area on these shells? I tried the size 25 Hawx Ultra on and it fit quite well overall (much better in the instep/heel/achilles than my current MTN Labs), but I would need to stretch the big toe area a fair amount. I read somewhere (maybe earlier on this thread?) that you can't stretch the toes much on the memory fit shells...

The plastic in these boots stretches very well, it's just a matter of how you do it.

Through Memory Fit, you will not get a much more in length because the body's standing pressure isn't enough to move the plastic forward in that area.

Through traditional stretching, where much greater forces are generated, it will be super easy to gain 5mm or more.

Thats encouraging. So if you blow out the toe before doing the memory fit, will the toe just come back in during the memory fit process? Or do you need to do the whole memory fit thing first, then go back and blow the toe out? The downside to that is then you have to stretch the toe of the liner after blowing out the toe...

wilcox510Thats encouraging. So if you blow out the toe before doing the memory fit, will the toe just come back in during the memory fit process? Or do you need to do the whole memory fit thing first, then go back and blow the toe out? The downside to that is then you have to stretch the toe of the liner after blowing out the toe...

Adding heat to any stretched boot will cause the stretch to shrink. This will happen via Memory Fit or by a heat gun or when placed next to a fire- for any ski boot.

It depends what you need. If it's just a toe punch, then skip Memory Fit and do a toe punch.

If you need width, volume, and a toe punch then do Memory Fit first and then toe punch once the boot has cooled down. You would then need to heat the liner separately in the toe to get it to move into the toe box.

Or you can do everything via traditional stretching and then heat mold the liner as a last step.

Just depends on what you need done and what you & your fitter are most comfortable with. Ultimately, you have lots of options that will lead to a well-fitting and comfortable boot.

onenerdykid.

if this boots skis so well downhill, why would anyone buy the backland?

scratchskier321if this boots skis so well downhill, why would anyone buy the backland?

totally different intended end uses.

Hawx Ultra is intended to ski very well and be (comparatively) very light. That said, it is still around 1500 grams, doesn't have amazing range of motion, and has WTR soles.

The Backland is intended to tour better while still skiing (comparatively) well. It has more range of motion, a fully rockered and rubber sole, and is lighter.

I'm sure onenerdykid can give you more detailed and accurate reasoning and maybe correct some assumptions I've made, but in the end they are boots designed for different uses/customers in mind.

I have a few days on the XTD 130 so far, both resort and short day tours.

What it is: a light weight backcountry freeride boot to compete against Scarpa Mastrale, Dynafit Vulcan, or Beast, Salomon MTN Lab, etc...

What it is not: A do everything boot. If you plan to spend a fair amount of time in the resort take the weight penalty and get a different boot.

It's light, I can't remember the measured weight, but the 26.5 was right around 1400g with liner. Fit is on the long side. A lot of it is likely due to the paper light liner but this is a good half cm or more longer than most other 26 sized boots. I measure past 27 and could barely feel the end of the boot. Walk mode is super smooth like the backland series. ROM is great forward, and ok to the rear. The heel pocket shape limits rear ROM as it starts to pry your heel up and out of the pocket (a more modern forward lean would likely help with this).

Flex is on the stiffer end for all walk mode boots. I'd say it compares as a '120' against most pinned alpine boots. Most of my skiing with the boot has been on ZeroG 108s with ions and Kartel 108s with STH2. The Hawx XTD has been plenty capable of controlling, driving and edging ~110mm skis. For occasional use in the resort or only skiing smooth and soft snow they are great. The issue I have with using these boots everyday is the lack of depth to the flex. It hits blocky on the shin and the following range lacks substance. Skiing firm or uneven snow is harsh. The flex also feels uneven medial to lateral side. It's stiffer on the lateral front than the medial front. Kind weird having your knees driven together. The above issues will keep me from recommending this boot as a do everything boot. Like most every boot with a walk mod the flex is not bottomless - when pushed hard they all seem to crush the heel. This is just an issue with having walk modes and the necessary headwear associated with them.

Touring on this boot is pretty rad. The exterior lever style walk mode is rad. Everything is exposed to the skier which prevents having them ice up. It's very easy to manipulate the boot between touring and skiing. This is the best system currently on the market. Strong, dependable, easy to work with, and quick to manipulate. The extra length in the toe box is nice when touring as the boot has a tendency to push your foot forward on low to moderate inclines. Has anyone told you how light these are? They are fucking light (an intuition tour liner will lighten it more). These feel like nothing is on your feet. For a 1400g touring boot they ski really well too. Much more capable than a mastrale RS or Mercury. They have a more progressive flex than a Vulcan (without tongue) but slightly less then the ZeroG Guide or MTN Lab (although stiffer and distinctly lighter than either).

This is an increadbly capable and light backcountry touring boot. It's a great boot for someone who wants to tour with bigger skis (anything over 100mm) to access more aggressive lines from the trail head. This is also a great all purpose touring boot for someone who isn't comfortable skiing the lighter and more maneuverable 1000-1200g options out there. At 1400g this boot is lighter than most of the historical touring boots from Scarpa, Garmont or Dynafit over the last two decades (TLT5 and recent being the exception). It also skis better than any of them.

I'd like to see Atomic drop the WTR sole from this boot. It's distracting for something that should be viewed as a dedicated touring boot. Just give me a full rubber sole. I'd also really like to see it come with a 13 degree forward lean option. 15 will chase many skiers away who have gotten used to the more upright stance of most boots ~13 degrees.

scratchskier321if this boots skis so well downhill, why would anyone buy the backland?

patagonialuketotally different intended end uses.

Hawx Ultra is intended to ski very well and be (comparatively) very light. That said, it is still around 1500 grams, doesn't have amazing range of motion, and has WTR soles.

The Backland is intended to tour better while still skiing (comparatively) well. It has more range of motion, a fully rockered and rubber sole, and is lighter.

I'm sure onenerdykid can give you more detailed and accurate reasoning and maybe correct some assumptions I've made, but in the end they are boots designed for different uses/customers in mind.

As Luke said, two different users. Backland is more for "general purpose" touring, while the Ultra XTD is for any type of skiing that requires more power, more progressiveness, more alpine feel. For the majority of North Americans, who ski on 100mm wide touring skis, the Ultra XTD would be considered a "touring" boot, while Europeans, who skis on 80-90mm skis, Backland is considered a "touring" boot. Different solutions for different skiers.

onenerdykidAs Luke said, two different users. Backland is more for "general purpose" touring, while the Ultra XTD is for any type of skiing that requires more power, more progressiveness, more alpine feel. For the majority of North Americans, who ski on 100mm wide touring skis, the Ultra XTD would be considered a "touring" boot, while Europeans, who skis on 80-90mm skis, Backland is considered a "touring" boot. Different solutions for different skiers.

why do americans and euros tour on such different setups?

cobra_commanderI have a few days on the XTD 130 so far, both resort and short day tours.

What it is: a light weight backcountry freeride boot to compete against Scarpa Mastrale, Dynafit Vulcan, or Beast, Salomon MTN Lab, etc...

What it is not: A do everything boot. If you plan to spend a fair amount of time in the resort take the weight penalty and get a different boot.

It's light, I can't remember the measured weight, but the 26.5 was right around 1400g with liner. Fit is on the long side. A lot of it is likely due to the paper light liner but this is a good half cm or more longer than most other 26 sized boots. I measure past 27 and could barely feel the end of the boot. Walk mode is super smooth like the backland series. ROM is great forward, and ok to the rear. The heel pocket shape limits rear ROM as it starts to pry your heel up and out of the pocket (a more modern forward lean would likely help with this).

Flex is on the stiffer end for all walk mode boots. I'd say it compares as a '120' against most pinned alpine boots. Most of my skiing with the boot has been on ZeroG 108s with ions and Kartel 108s with STH2. The Hawx XTD has been plenty capable of controlling, driving and edging ~110mm skis. For occasional use in the resort or only skiing smooth and soft snow they are great. The issue I have with using these boots everyday is the lack of depth to the flex. It hits blocky on the shin and the following range lacks substance. Skiing firm or uneven snow is harsh. The flex also feels uneven medial to lateral side. It's stiffer on the lateral front than the medial front. Kind weird having your knees driven together. The above issues will keep me from recommending this boot as a do everything boot. Like most every boot with a walk mod the flex is not bottomless - when pushed hard they all seem to crush the heel. This is just an issue with having walk modes and the necessary headwear associated with them.

Touring on this boot is pretty rad. The exterior lever style walk mode is rad. Everything is exposed to the skier which prevents having them ice up. It's very easy to manipulate the boot between touring and skiing. This is the best system currently on the market. Strong, dependable, easy to work with, and quick to manipulate. The extra length in the toe box is nice when touring as the boot has a tendency to push your foot forward on low to moderate inclines. Has anyone told you how light these are? They are fucking light (an intuition tour liner will lighten it more). These feel like nothing is on your feet. For a 1400g touring boot they ski really well too. Much more capable than a mastrale RS or Mercury. They have a more progressive flex than a Vulcan (without tongue) but slightly less then the ZeroG Guide or MTN Lab (although stiffer and distinctly lighter than either).

This is an increadbly capable and light backcountry touring boot. It's a great boot for someone who wants to tour with bigger skis (anything over 100mm) to access more aggressive lines from the trail head. This is also a great all purpose touring boot for someone who isn't comfortable skiing the lighter and more maneuverable 1000-1200g options out there. At 1400g this boot is lighter than most of the historical touring boots from Scarpa, Garmont or Dynafit over the last two decades (TLT5 and recent being the exception). It also skis better than any of them.

I'd like to see Atomic drop the WTR sole from this boot. It's distracting for something that should be viewed as a dedicated touring boot. Just give me a full rubber sole. I'd also really like to see it come with a 13 degree forward lean option. 15 will chase many skiers away who have gotten used to the more upright stance of most boots ~13 degrees.

Thanks for the super detailed write up and feedback! Mucho appreciado. Let me address some of your points, not to counter them but just to shed light on why we did what did (and how we can improve things moving forward).

Re: the liner - For serial production (read: what you guys can buy in the fall), the 130 liner is getting beefed up in the heel & ankle area, slightly snugger in the fore foot, and a thicker/denser tongue. This will bring the fit as close as possible to normal Ultra 130 and provide a better feel in the boot while skiing. Better damping, better ski feel, overall more betterer. Additionally, the 120 will get a liner that has a build more similar to normal Ultra (plastic cuff, plastic tongue, etc) but with an Achilles flex zone. It won't tour as well, but it will feel more like an alpine boot.

Re: progressive flex/stiffness - This is an interesting topic to dive into. On paper/robot measured, we are very progressive with a slightly stiffer feel "off the top" compared to boots in this category (and against full PU alpine boots). But very progressive, not linear. For me personally (which mirrors our robot flex data), I find the Zero G to be super linear, super soft, and hard to control. So if testers like the way the Zero G feels, this will feel very different, almost harsh in comparison. And vice versa for those who don't like the Zero G. On one hand, there is a way to measure objectively how a boot flexes but then there is an equally real yet very subjective feel to each boot. I don't think one is truly more right or more wrong, but just good to be aware of. Additionally, I think a lot of people will like the 120 model, which uses a cuff made from world cup grade PU. This boot will be heavier (due to the liner as well) and feel more "alpiney" than the 130. If you can get on a pair of these, I'd love to hear your feedback.

(FYI - For those of you who want to see it, there should be an image in this thread that shows our flex test data)

Re: WTR sole - This is one part of the equation that allows us to ski as powerfully as we do. When we were testing sole configurations, a full-rubber sole was definitely on the table. But, in an alpine clamp style binding (STH 2, Warden, Jester, etc) rubber soles compress and deflect while skiing, resulting in a tangible loss in energy transmission to the ski. What WTR provides us with is a fully hard connection to the binding, just like an alpine boot. This ensures that the energy generated from 130 shell material makes its way to the ski and isn't lost in the rubber sole. Obviously, this doesn't matter in a pin binding, but for freeride-alpine bindings, this does make a tangible difference in how well the boot skis.

Re: 13° forward lean option - This is something we can for sure look into with a different flip chip. I'll get back to you on this.

scratchskier321why do americans and euros tour on such different setups?

I have no idea... but in Austria, for example, it is a very minimalist approach to mountain sports. One of my CAD engineers skis in our Backland Ultimate boots (750g per boot!) and 162cm Ultimate 65 skis just as fast on piste as I can ski on XTD 130s & 188cm Vantage 100s. I'm a rather decent skier too... It's insane.

You see this reflected in the bike set ups too. Ultra-light carbon hardtails are the jam around here, not 160mm enduro bikes.

A beefed up liner would likely help with establishing some depth and substance to the boot.

Is the actual internal length of the shell the same as the current Hawx Ultra? I read a review that said it felt longer but that it was probably just do to a thinner liner

wilcox510Is the actual internal length of the shell the same as the current Hawx Ultra? I read a review that said it felt longer but that it was probably just do to a thinner liner

In terms of fit, the last dimensions between the normal Hawx Ultra and the Ultra XTD are 100% identical. The 2mm longer BSL of Ultra XTD is due to the tech insert at the toe of the boot. Because we wanted to keep the last length the same as normal Ultra, it meant that we had to bump out the length by 2mm in order fit the tech insert in. If the BSL was the same, then XTD's last length would need to be shorter by 2mm and that's not what we wanted to have happen.

The pre-production XTD 130 liner that various testers have is thinner than normal Ultra 130, but things are getting beefed up for serial production so that the fits are as identical as possible.

TL/DR: the shell fit between Ultra and Ultra XTD is the exactly same.

Thanks for all the answers

whats up nerdy....so i can probably get these for a really good price next season. and this seems like a longshot, but what is the chance they will fit my foot if I am in a 25.5 Nordica GPX 130 right now. Nearly perfect fit in those out of the box, just had to blow the ankle out a little bit...after that it is a perfect performance fit.

Profahoben_212whats up nerdy....so i can probably get these for a really good price next season. and this seems like a longshot, but what is the chance they will fit my foot if I am in a 25.5 Nordica GPX 130 right now. Nearly perfect fit in those out of the box, just had to blow the ankle out a little bit...after that it is a perfect performance fit.

When asking details about something someone has slaved over designing and hyping and working with people who sell it for a living, it is often unnecessary to let them know that you won't be paying asking price for their product.

hemlockjibber8When asking details about something someone has slaved over designing and hyping and working with people who sell it for a living, it is often unnecessary to let them know that you won't be paying asking price for their product.

I mean...majority of the people buying stuff in skiing aren't really paying asking price....at least on NS. It's shopping smart. Go over to epicski and maybe people will pay full price without question.

If I can get an amazing boot like this at a good price I'm going to hop on it. Sorry I said I am not paying msrp.

Not paying Msrp takes nothing away from nerdys amazing product. This boot is gonna kick ass. And they are going to sell a lot of them. If me not paying msrp offends you nerdy sorry...could have left that out.

hemlockjibber8When asking details about something someone has slaved over designing and hyping and working with people who sell it for a living, it is often unnecessary to let them know that you won't be paying asking price for their product.

lighten up

Profahoben_212whats up nerdy....so i can probably get these for a really good price next season. and this seems like a longshot, but what is the chance they will fit my foot if I am in a 25.5 Nordica GPX 130 right now. Nearly perfect fit in those out of the box, just had to blow the ankle out a little bit...after that it is a perfect performance fit.

I haven't had my foot in a GPX in a while, but under normal sizing constraints no one has changed size with the XTD. The only exception to that is if you have a 1cm shell fit in the GPX, going to a 1cm shell fit in the XTD will be not super comfy to tour in. You might want to bump up to a normal 2cm fit if you will be doing a lot of touring.

But, generally speaking, if you are a 25.5 in the GPX, go 25.5 in the XTD. And if you have the chance to try on a normal Ultra in 25.5 it will give you an even better indication on how it will fit.

hemlockjibber8When asking details about something someone has slaved over designing and hyping and working with people who sell it for a living, it is often unnecessary to let them know that you won't be paying asking price for their product.

Appreciate the concern, but I'm sure he has a shop contact or is a shop employee, or a patroller etc. No stress :)

onenerdykidI haven't had my foot in a GPX in a while, but under normal sizing constraints no one has changed size with the XTD. The only exception to that is if you have a 1cm shell fit in the GPX, going to a 1cm shell fit in the XTD will be not super comfy to tour in. You might want to bump up to a normal 2cm fit if you will be doing a lot of touring.

But, generally speaking, if you are a 25.5 in the GPX, go 25.5 in the XTD. And if you have the chance to try on a normal Ultra in 25.5 it will give you an even better indication on how it will fit.



Appreciate the concern, but I'm sure he has a shop contact or is a shop employee, or a patroller etc. No stress :)

Cool! Sounds pretty Sick! Thanks for the awesome info as always nerdy! Killed it on this boot!

And yes...working the industry has it's perks:)

Asking for a friend: how would the fit compare to the Waymaker?

Significantly lower volume than a waymaker. It fits very close to a Hawx Ultra. A little more room with the lower volume liner (which is getting more substantial for retail release). Honestly if you took a Hawx Ultra and modified the fit for touring you would have this boot. The livefit technique will get you a bit more volume but not out to a waymaker fit. I have a high instep and mid with foot, it took additional shell work to make it fit comfortably for a full day.

Many moons back after being disappointed with the boot I decided to revisit it with different liners. I tested it with the ZeroG pro liner and a Hawx Ultra liner. Drastic skiing improvement with both liners. The Hawx Tra liner skied the best, but obviously reduced ROM for touring below what I'd want for anything over side country scrambles. The 0G liner worked great with the boot, and the extra volume provided the additional substance and smoothness I'd want in this boot for occasional resort skiing. I still think of it more as a touring boot (a la ZeroG, MTN, Vulcan) than a true mixed use boot (Lange XT Freetour, Cochise, Freedom) but those boots all weigh drastically more, and weight skis good.

onenerdykidRe: 13° forward lean option - This is something we can for sure look into with a different flip chip. I'll get back to you on this.

Any updates here? Seems like you could possibly just steal the flip mechanism from a backland, no?

auvgeekAny updates here? Seems like you could possibly just steal the flip mechanism from a backland, no?

Early protos started out that way, but the parts kept breaking (totally different boot construction and the forces were too much for it to withstand).
Therefore we needed to make the XTD flip chip thicker and stronger than the one in Backland. So unfortunately, they are not interchangeable. BUT a 13° piece for XTD is being produced as we speak and should be ready for fall/early winter.

Just realized I never dropped this in here. I skied the XTD 120 this spring, and am really excited to ski it again this winter, here's my First Look: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2017-2018-atomic-hawx-ultra-xtd-120.

Right now if you told me I could only have one boot for all of the skiing I'll be doing next winter, this is the one I'd pick, but I'm sure I'll have more to add this winter.

Matt,
Thanks for all your info here.
I have a question regarding Ultra XTD shells. Is the lower clog the same plastic on the 100, 120, and 130. Or is it stiffer on the higher flex boots.
Total boot nerdery, but curious if you get the stiffer flex from the upper and spine only or upper, spine, and clog.
Thanks

TurnfarmerMatt,
Thanks for all your info here.
I have a question regarding Ultra XTD shells. Is the lower clog the same plastic on the 100, 120, and 130. Or is it stiffer on the higher flex boots.
Total boot nerdery, but curious if you get the stiffer flex from the upper and spine only or upper, spine, and clog.
Thanks

All of the lower shells are made from a special type of Grilamid. Like PU, Grilamid is available in different qualities/grades. We use the highest end version that absorbs the least humidity and this causes the plastic to be as stable as possible and flex consistently. You're not going to get wet from this humidity absorption, as it's happening at a super minute level, but humidity causes the plastic's flex and rebound characteristics to become softer and weaker (not good for skiing). So we use a super nice grade of Grilamid that remains super stable.

In general, wherever you have a plastic component, you can change it's hardness and therefore the flex. We believe that a more stable shell will lead to better skiing, so we most often use a stiffer shell compared to the cuff. And in the cuff, the rear spine is stiffer than the main component. When we build the range, the top model (the 130) will use the stiffest shell and stiffest cuff combination. In the case of the 120, it uses the same hardness lower shell as the 130, but the cuff spine and cuff main component are softer and we switch to race-grade PU (this yields the 10 point flex difference). And when we make a 20 point jump down to the 100, we need to use a softer cuff spine, softer cuff main component, and softer shell.

This may be easier to follow:
130
130 shell (Grilamid)
130 cuff (Grilamid)

120
130 shell (Grilamid)
120 cuff (PU)

100
100 shell (Grilamid)
100 cuff (PU)

Thanks, helpful.

I've followed this boot way to much, but have not seen anything on how the memory fit does for molding upwards for high insteps. Any thoughts?

I discussed your exact question on this page. I have a pretty damn high instep (instep is a over 29, foot is size 27, ski a 26). It took additional boot work after the memory fit process to make work.

Hey!

Just wondering how the Memory Fit differs from the different iterations of the boot, 130, 120, 100 etc..

As I've understood the XTD 130 boot has the same Memory Fit process as the Backland boot, i.e 12 mins in the oven, then 2 mins on feet, then 10 mins of cooling. Does this apply to the other flexes as well? Or do the process differ because of the different materials or different liners?

Also, how does the Hawx Ultra XTD 120 liner compare to the normal Hawx Ultra 130 liner? Since the 120's liner is supposed to be less touring and more downhill oriented, will it be similar to the normal Hawx Ultra 130 liner? Are they maybe the exact same liner?

Cheers

dreminemHey!

Just wondering how the Memory Fit differs from the different iterations of the boot, 130, 120, 100 etc..

As I've understood the XTD 130 boot has the same Memory Fit process as the Backland boot, i.e 12 mins in the oven, then 2 mins on feet, then 10 mins of cooling. Does this apply to the other flexes as well? Or do the process differ because of the different materials or different liners?

Also, how does the Hawx Ultra XTD 120 liner compare to the normal Hawx Ultra 130 liner? Since the 120's liner is supposed to be less touring and more downhill oriented, will it be similar to the normal Hawx Ultra 130 liner? Are they maybe the exact same liner?

Cheers

I replied to this via Instagram, but for the sake of the thread I will reply here too.

If you are looking for expansion (applies to all models):
heat the shells in the oven for 5 minutes and the liners on a hot air blower for 15 minutes. Stand in the boots for 2 minutes, then add cooling packs for 5-10 minutes (the longer the better).

If you are looking for a tighter fit (only applies to the 130 and 110w because of their liner construction):
Do not heat the shells, and put the liners into the oven for 3 minutes. Stand in the boots for 10 minutes with toes slightly elevated (~40mm), no need for cooling packs.

The liner of the 120 has the same fit and guts as a normal Ultra liner but it has a flex zone on the back to aid in touring.

onenerdykidEarly protos started out that way, but the parts kept breaking (totally different boot construction and the forces were too much for it to withstand).
Therefore we needed to make the XTD flip chip thicker and stronger than the one in Backland. So unfortunately, they are not interchangeable. BUT a 13° piece for XTD is being produced as we speak and should be ready for fall/early winter.

Thank you for all the info provided on the XTD. I'm looking forward to getting a pair of XTDs this winter, and they're just starting to hit stores now. However, I've yet to see any mention of the 13 degree forward lean--did this get implemented/is it an additional part we'll need to get?

Skeeze_Thank you for all the info provided on the XTD. I'm looking forward to getting a pair of XTDs this winter, and they're just starting to hit stores now. However, I've yet to see any mention of the 13 degree forward lean--did this get implemented/is it an additional part we'll need to get?

This spare part is currently being created and it will be available stateside most likely December-January. You'll need to have your local Atomic dealer get in touch with Atomic customer service in Utah and they will get the part out to your shop.