2021/22 Tecnica Mach1 questions

[Heeler]

Okay boot gods and goddesses. Questions:

1) Do any of you know if the new Mach1 shells are actually molded as LV, MV and HV or is the difference in volume with the liners and possibly footboards ? Reason I ask is there are plenty of local stock of MV in the 130 but no LV. I have a LV120 that I ordered online that fits superbly with my ZipFits but I'm afraid they're too soft, even with the ZipFits. Which leads me to question 2.

2) Are the 130 shells alone significantly stiffer than the 120 or is the extra stiffness/firmness due to the inner boot and the graphite T-Drive piece? I read that the 120 uses a"softer", non-graphite T-Drive piece. I can't find the article again now and it also stated that the T- Drive pieces would be available to purchase individually. ---> Q 3

3) Do the T-Drive pieces indeed contribute to the different flex ratings and are they available to purchase on their own ?

I'm sure you've guessed, if you haven't stopped reading already, that my end game is- can the 120 be turned into the 130 with a T-Drive swap and my ZipFits? I'm doubtful but had to ask since I have the 120's in hand now, I like the blue and my inner Veruca Salt is escaping.

My bigger hope is that the shell volumes are the same and only the inner boots make up the volume difference and that way I can go buy a pair of MV130's tomorrow and ski them on Monday (My Spidy-senses are telling me I may as well order a pair of the LV130 but, "I want them NOW!"

Thanks for playing

 

[Heeler]

Got all my answers from Tecnica/Blizzard. But thanks for all of the input

 

[Ottoclave]

So, what did Technica say?

 

[doc]

But thanks for all of the input

Geez; impatient much? Gave us all of one day to respond! LOL.
Seriously, though, I am also interested in hearing what Technica has to say as I just got a pair of MV 130s and my son got some MV 120s.
Have two days on them and like the performance. However, while the left boot fits perfectly, it feels as if the right boot liner packed out a bit already and there is more room around the heel than I like.

 

[Choucas]

Here's my experience with the 2021/2022 Mach 1 130: I was skiing in the old Mach 1 130 MV in a 26.5, black cuff/orange clog. It was a bit roomy overall for me, and it seemed like the new ones would be closer fitting and a notch better performance wise. I tried on the 2021/2022 Mach 1 130 MV in a 26.5. It felt real nice. Then I tried on the LV, also a 26.5. This felt better overall (closer fitting and a bit stiffer than the MV) but I had some pressure on the 6th toe and some pressure over the instep. An hour or so later, most of those issues were addressed, and I was the happy owner of a new pair of boots. I went back to the boot fitter before my first day on snow to lightly plane down the zeppa to gain more room over the instep. 6 days on them so far, and I'm very happy with the results and very glad that I went with the LV. I did not try the 120. Since the old 130 worked flex-wise, I didn't go down that road. I would say that adding stuff to the 120 (MV or LV) will still not get you to the 130 LV. Pluses vs. the old Mach 1 130 MV are: more toe room, seem to be warmer but that's hard to tell at this point, better heel pocket, a bit lighter, less clunky feeling, more responsive.

 

[Heeler]

Geez; impatient much?

I did say that I was channeling my "inner Veruca Salt" (you have to be a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fan)

Tecnica confirmed that the shells themselves are LV, MV and HV with a specific inner boot to match. I didn't get confirmation/info on shell thickness between the 120/130 and I don't have adequate calipers myself to be able to measure accurately. I currently have both a 120LV and 130LV at home, both 27.5 (still on the fence). I played with the T-Drives, which you can purchase individually from Tecnica. Without skiing them the only discernible difference I detected was the graphite(130) piece had a "quicker" rebound than the PU(120), if that makes sense. It didn't seem to stiffen the flex of the 120 nor did the 120's T-drive soften the flex of the 130. Buckle tightness had/has a much greater effect. Putting my Zipfits in the 120's (7 year old World Cup) made the 120's stiffer than the 130's with their stock liner, again NOT skiing, but even with all of the Omfit rolled out of the tongue I have too much pressure on and just above my instep. Puts my feet to sleep after wearing for about twenty minutes. Not sure if board grinding/shaving can eliminate this without creating too much foot volume? I have a touch of the same pressure with both of the stock liners but I'm sure that would/will disappear with the molding process.

I also didn't detect a difference when switching liners between boots, i.e. 120-->130/130-->120. I actually still have a pair of Atomic Hawx Ultra 130S and Nordica Pro Machine 130, both 27.5, that I was fit testing as well, and also spent some time in the Salomon S/Max 130 at a LSS. All I'll say now is that the Mach1 feels the lowest volume to me. I like the flex of the Tecnica's. The Mach1 130 had the softest flex (does not translate to SOFT), to me, of the four 130's (stock liners) and feels very progressive where as the Atomic feels very linear and in-your-face. The Nordica and Salomon were very similar flex-wise and just a touch stiffer than the Tecnica. The Tecnica has more volume in the calf area of all the boots, unfortunately for me, but manageable. Looking at the boots all side-by-side it actually appears to be the cuff volume/mold as opposed to just the inner boot thickness. I've had the boots at home, purchased online, since just before my first post. Tried all on many, many times and at different times of day, swapped liners between brands as well as my Zipfits AND my old, original Intuition liners that came with my 8 year old K2 Spyne 130's. Interestingly enough the "winning" fit is the Tecnica with my old Intuition liners FWIW the Nordica liner was a bit too long for the Tecnica and the toe (of the liner) actually bunches just a tad so perhaps a 26.5 in the ProMachine would be a better fit.

I have very skinny heels/narrow achilles and TBH the heel hold of the Mach1 was the best for me. That being said, the stock liners were not as good as my old Intuition liners for heel hold. The Intuitions had one season on them before I upgraded to the Zipfits.

I'm leaning towards the Mach1 LV130. I really like the flex of the 120 but I'm afraid the softer flex wouldn't be good for my lower back with all of the variable/mixed conditions (read heavier snow. Sorry peeps, snow you pack into a snowball and can throw further than ten feet without it falling apart is NOT powder ) we get here in the PNW when skiing primarily off piste. That's enough. I hate long posts

 

[doc]

Had to Wikipedia that one. I don't get much past Seether from the band.
Thanks for the insightful comparison on the boots. I too have skinny heels and a narrow Achilles, so heel holdown is always a challenge.
I also have less than manly calves so the calf area volume of the Technica is an issue, but think I solved that by swapping out the Technica bits velcroed behind the upper rear of the boot for some from K2, which are a bit thicker.

 

[Heeler]

Had to Wikipedia that one. I don't get much past Seether from the band.
Thanks for the insightful comparison on the boots. I too have skinny heels and a narrow Achilles, so heel holdown is always a challenge.
I also have less than manly calves so the calf area volume of the Technica is an issue, but think I solved that by swapping out the Technica bits velcroed behind the upper rear of the boot for some from K2, which are a bit thicker.

Funny you mention that as the "powerspoiler" that came with my Spynes/Intuition liners is about 12mm thick at the top and 4mm at the bottom. I tried it with stock Mach1 130 liner and it did fill the void, without me having to crank the buckles down. I actually used it (skied) tucked under the strap of the Zipfits with my K2's since I got the Zipfits. How did the Mach 1s ski with the thicker spoiler? Any noticeable difference/effect of forward lean? I have an appointment tomorrow with a boot fitter to make sure the shell fit is optimum for my foot/calf combo. I'm also thinking I have a Booster Strap in my future. We shall see...

 

[doc]

Noticeable difference in the calf volume; foward lean, not so much.

 

[tbs]

I did say that I was channeling my "inner Veruca Salt" (you have to be a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fan)

Tecnica confirmed that the shells themselves are LV, MV and HV with a specific inner boot to match. I didn't get confirmation/info on shell thickness between the 120/130 and I don't have adequate calipers myself to be able to measure accurately. I currently have both a 120LV and 130LV at home, both 27.5 (still on the fence). I played with the T-Drives, which you can purchase individually from Tecnica. Without skiing them the only discernible difference I detected was the graphite(130) piece had a "quicker" rebound than the PU(120), if that makes sense. It didn't seem to stiffen the flex of the 120 nor did the 120's T-drive soften the flex of the 130. Buckle tightness had/has a much greater effect. Putting my Zipfits in the 120's (7 year old World Cup) made the 120's stiffer than the 130's with their stock liner, again NOT skiing, but even with all of the Omfit rolled out of the tongue I have too much pressure on and just above my instep. Puts my feet to sleep after wearing for about twenty minutes. Not sure if board grinding/shaving can eliminate this without creating too much foot volume? I have a touch of the same pressure with both of the stock liners but I'm sure that would/will disappear with the molding process.

I also didn't detect a difference when switching liners between boots, i.e. 120-->130/130-->120. I actually still have a pair of Atomic Hawx Ultra 130S and Nordica Pro Machine 130, both 27.5, that I was fit testing as well, and also spent some time in the Salomon S/Max 130 at a LSS. All I'll say now is that the Mach1 feels the lowest volume to me. I like the flex of the Tecnica's. The Mach1 130 had the softest flex (does not translate to SOFT), to me, of the four 130's (stock liners) and feels very progressive where as the Atomic feels very linear and in-your-face. The Nordica and Salomon were very similar flex-wise and just a touch stiffer than the Tecnica. The Tecnica has more volume in the calf area of all the boots, unfortunately for me, but manageable. Looking at the boots all side-by-side it actually appears to be the cuff volume/mold as opposed to just the inner boot thickness. I've had the boots at home, purchased online, since just before my first post. Tried all on many, many times and at different times of day, swapped liners between brands as well as my Zipfits AND my old, original Intuition liners that came with my 8 year old K2 Spyne 130's. Interestingly enough the "winning" fit is the Tecnica with my old Intuition liners FWIW the Nordica liner was a bit too long for the Tecnica and the toe (of the liner) actually bunches just a tad so perhaps a 26.5 in the ProMachine would be a better fit.

I have very skinny heels/narrow achilles and TBH the heel hold of the Mach1 was the best for me. That being said, the stock liners were not as good as my old Intuition liners for heel hold. The Intuitions had one season on them before I upgraded to the Zipfits.

I'm leaning towards the Mach1 LV130. I really like the flex of the 120 but I'm afraid the softer flex wouldn't be good for my lower back with all of the variable/mixed conditions (read heavier snow. Sorry peeps, snow you pack into a snowball and can throw further than ten feet without it falling apart is NOT powder ) we get here in the PNW when skiing primarily off piste. That's enough. I hate long posts

My current boot is the K2 Spyne 130 MV which unfortunately needs replacing as both shells are cracking. I tried the Nordica Speedmachine 130s on the hill but found them too soft. How does the stiffness of the Mach1 compare to the Spyne 130? Thanks.

 

[Heeler]

My current boot is the K2 Spyne 130 MV which unfortunately needs replacing as both shells are cracking. I tried the Nordica Speedmachine 130s on the hill but found them too soft. How does the stiffness of the Mach1 compare to the Spyne 130? Thanks.

I can only speak to comparing the first year Spyne 130 (white cuff/red transparent lower) and mine are actually MV as well. That's why the Zipfits worked so much better for me than the Intuitions and probably why the Intuitions provide the extra snugness in the LV shell? The Mach 1's have a completely different flex "pattern", way more progressive and smooth. IMO the flex of the Mach 1 initiates easier than the Spyne, doesn't have a hard stop and the rebound is smooth and precise. I don't think "softer " is really the right word because the Mach 1 is not soft. I'm expecting the Mach 1 to be a much more responsive boot than my Spynes. I won't ski them until after the holidays. Let the local snow pack stabilize and increase a bit more, plus the slopes will be like a bowl of molasses in fruit fly season. I'm a non-holiday, midweek skier. Why? Because I can I didn't try the Speed Machines, only the ProMachines. The ProMachines were a close second in my choice of a new boot. I think a better description/comparison of the flex between the Mach 1's and the PM's over what I stated earlier would be that the PM's , again IMO and not on the hill, do have that hard stop flexing forward. Not as big/long of a flex range. The flex is progressive, up to a point. The inner boot is very comfortable and similar in design/shape//form to the Mach 1 (with the obvious material differences) The shell had just a little too much volume for me from mid-foot to heel. The toe boxes are very similar.

If you try the PM's, and depending how snug of a fit you like, don't overlook the LV. It's a really nice boot if it's right for your foot. Perhaps some one else can give a comparison of flex between the SM's and PM's?