Phaenoms showing up.

muffMan.What in the two buckle BS is this. Really doubt the 130 flex is comparable to any other brands 130. And 102 last is dumb for a “performance” boot.

dont know jack about these but initial thought is these ain’t it.

PartyBullshiitHere’s evos review.

https://www.evo.com/reviews/ski/phaenom-fr-01-130-boots?utm_medium=email&utm_source=promo&utm_campaign=2024.07.29_snow_phaenom_ski_boot&obem=ny_McXC01fC9Gwwr5i0MDyCZpcnyRTAk6OvoKI4dtp8%3D&bc_lcid=t6618516204675072lw4638323504177152li0

muffMan.Also definitely a huge mistake making it 102 last, for a free ride boot it is a little wide. Touched on that in the review

muffMan.Eh looks a little better but still personally would wait. Also, I’ve heard of recons not being that stiff, closer to 120s in other brands.

Also definitely a huge mistake making it 102 last, for a free ride boot it is a little wide. Touched on that in the review

tomPietrowskiI think the biggest issue they will have is the length. The boots ski really pretty well. I had the 120 and it skis flex wise like most consumer 120 boots. But their 26.5 is like most 27.5 so make sure you try them on for size.

PartyBullshiitDo you know if they made any updates from the ones you tested to the ones being brought in now to the states?

bennwithtwons

PartyBullshiitI think the 102 last with the initial boots is just so more people can have access to them. Not everyone has super narrow feet or super wide. 102 gives a wider group of people the option To try.

Non_State_Actor102 isn't middle of the road though, it's bucket territory. You can always make a boot wider but not much you can do to make a wide boot narrower aside from packing them full of foam which is shit.

PartyBullshiitI am not a boot fitter so I can’t say for certain but I feel like majority of the population population especially in the United States have a foot that is closer to 102 in the 98 range which would be more narrow

Non_State_ActorI'm just bitter because all the new boots are buckets and my foot is extremely skinny. Low volume doesn't sell because average consumers want comfort straight out of the box.

tomPietrowskiSki boots have have been pretty stale for a while.

PartyBullshiitI am not a boot fitter so I can’t say for certain but I feel like majority of the population population especially in the United States have a foot that is closer to 102 in the 98 range which would be more narrow

partyandBShomie is gonna shit a brick when he finds out they started putting boas on ski boots

Twig10/10 comment.

Also, I will eventually drop a review on these, I've been skiing them a bunch lately. I do actually NEED a low-volume boot, I have super skinny feet. For reference, I normally ride an OG shell Full Tilt mostly sized down a size (when I'm not testing) and even then I have to replace the liners pretty regularly when they get a bit packed.

In the Phaenoms I had to use foam to take up volume above my forefoot but the heel hold is really really good as stock so I don't think you'd need wide or high-volume feet to enjoy them. Obviously, they aren't going to fit someone with super skinny feet but as Tom said, that isn't a majority. They are definitely solid boots, the flex is pretty 'true' and they ski very well... light years better than the SPK and similar. I think you're going to see a lot of park/freeride skiers end up in these.

PartyBullshiitI know it’s not it’s not a touring boot but how does the walk mech work for general range of motion?

Twig10/10 comment.

Also, I will eventually drop a review on these, I've been skiing them a bunch lately. I do actually NEED a low-volume boot, I have super skinny feet. For reference, I normally ride an OG shell Full Tilt mostly sized down a size (when I'm not testing) and even then I have to replace the liners pretty regularly when they get a bit packed.

In the Phaenoms I had to use foam to take up volume above my forefoot but the heel hold is really really good as stock so I don't think you'd need wide or high-volume feet to enjoy them. Obviously, they aren't going to fit someone with super skinny feet but as Tom said, that isn't a majority. They are definitely solid boots, the flex is pretty 'true' and they ski very well... light years better than the SPK and similar. I think you're going to see a lot of park/freeride skiers end up in these.

tomPietrowskiThis is absolutely correct. Of every ten boots sold 5 are wide, 4 are mid volume and only one is low volume. People really overestimate how many people actually need a low volume boot.

IcantSki42069Not trying to throw shade, For sure respect all of your experience. As well as knowing that this sales idea reigns true.

But to play devils advocate. I think that newer Bootfitters across NAM lack the technical training that the generation before them did. I think a large percentage of bootfitters these days bump unknowing people into the next volume up to expedite them to the cash register.

In reality the numbers should be closer to of 10, 3 should be 102+, 6 should be 100mm, and 1 should be sub 98mm.

North Americans traditionally have a wide forefoot but there are a lot of people out there who still should be in a mid volume heel pocket, and circling back to my point above. If more boot fitters had more technical experience they would be able to manipulate a 100mm shell to accommodate a 101-103mm forefoot with a mid-low volume HIP,Ankle,Calf.

Like I said not disagreeing with you but I think that coming to market with a 102 boat playing into the trend that sales folks are more inclined to throw people into something that is immediately comfortable out of the box (read Large) just perpetuates this issue.

tomPietrowskieven though they are 102mm in the forefoot they are by no means a high volume boot. They are a pretty weird mid volume fit. Far too many people confuse forefoot width or last and volume when they really are not connected. The heel is certainly mv in the pheanom and the instep is super low so I would not call these high volume at all.

muffMan.What in the two buckle BS is this. Really doubt the 130 flex is comparable to any other brands 130. And 102 last is dumb for a “performance” boot.

dont know jack about these but initial thought is these ain’t it.

bennwithtwons

tomPietrowskiI would generally agree with you and almost through in something similar to this in my original point.
One point to consider with these boots though is that even though they are 102mm in the forefoot they are by no means a high volume boot. They are a pretty weird mid volume fit. Far too many people confuse forefoot width or last and volume when they really are not connected. The heel is certainly mv in the pheanom and the instep is super low so I would not call these high volume at all.

J_Mendez2001As a boot fitter, the one I rode felt and looked like a bucket. Very hv everywhere, except the instep. I do have a pretty narrow ankle/heel and high instep so I feel the sliding due to less heel lock more than most people would just because my instep is high. But everyone I work with and know that have seen them says they look like a bucket in the ankle/heel area too.
I did think the performance of the shock absorbing piece to be pretty good, it made even the faction skis feel somewhat damp in mixed conditions. But I’m not a huge fan of the soft at first then load into a stiffer flex progressive style so I really didn’t like that, but see how people that want that bounce would like it, I just prefer a little more stability even if it means I have to try a bit harder to engage the edges, but I’m always trying out new shells so I think for me it’s more of a consistency thing whereas if I got used to the bounce it would be more predictable for me.

PartyBullshiitIf they’re successful im sure a LV version will follow.