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

Dalbello Quantum Alpine Touring boots

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I tried on some of the Dalbello Quantum AT boots today.

I tried the Quantum Asolo, the lighter weight, Green and black boot, and the Quantum Free Factory 130, the heavier teal boot. As far as I can tell, they are indeed the same lowers, and the back cuffs are from the same mold, but perhaps different material. The front cuffs are slightly different including a piece of foam glued to the cuff of the lighter weight boot.

They run short in length. I went up to 28.5 and they felt similar to my Technica Zero G 27.5. I couldn’t get an accurate shell fit length due to the nice shaping in the heel pocket, but it was certainly close. BSL is 315 compared to the Zero G at 313, both with full heel and toe lugs, so that too supports that impression.

I tried them on using my Zero G liners, with Boot Doc insoles, since they are molded to my feet, even though of course not to the shells of the Dalbello boots.

Despite sizing up, the forefoot and heels of the Quantum’s in 28.5 did not feel any wider than my Zero G 27.5.

The toe boxes are a different shape than the Zero G, a bit more room for the pinky toe, and big toe space maybe a tiny bit shorter.

I have a fairly high instep, and with the open design, with no plastic over the instep, that was very comfortable in both boots.

Liner on the Asolo Quatum actually seemed nicer to me, with closed cell (moldable?) foam throughout, while the Free had the entire forefoot in open cell foam.
Both liners are comparable in thickness to the liner from the Zero G, so thicker than the ultright race liners, but thinner than a Intuition Tour MV.

Walk mode on the carpet was a fair bit better than my Zero G. Hand flexing the shells without liners was night and day. No resistance at all and extremely fore and aft range of motion.

Carpet flexing felt similar, with the Free’s having a bit more progressive flex maybe. Zero G’s are abput the same stiffness, maybe a touch more, and perhaps flex a bit more progressively again.

Weight per single shell was:
  • Quantum Asolo 28.5: 960g
  • Quantum Free Factory 130 28.5: 1088g
  • Zero G Tour Pro 27.5: 1160g
note that the Asolo doesn’t have a power strap, so adding that, or removing it from the other two, would reduce the weight gap by about 45g or so.


F03CA9DF-60BD-43AF-87BA-87626E254974.jpeg
B170B00A-5A46-480A-A210-3CBC15441684.jpeg
7CDBC6A3-B525-46AD-88EE-309BEE4AB65D.jpeg
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,455
Are you saying the 28.5 shell of the Dalbellos are 315mm? (Nearly the same as the 27.5 Technica.)
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Are you saying the 28.5 shell of the Dalbellos are 315mm? (Nearly the same as the 27.5 Technica.)
Yes exactly. And both have full size heel and toe lugs for use with Frame/Shift/MNC bindings, so it’s not like some AT boots with very short BSL just because they decreased the lugs.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
One more thing of note:
the cord of the ‘boa-like’ tightening mechanism on the lower foot of the Asolos runs inside the gaiter at the top, at the bottom of the ankle. This gives nice ankle hold, but does mean there are two little holes in the cuff there, so it is not waterproof to very high (but of Course better than an overlap or cabrio boot).
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I tried them on some more today.
(Remember, I am comparing 28.5 Quantum vs 27.5 Zero G.)

Fit across the top of the forefoot is snugger in the Dalbello Quantums than in the Technica Zero G. Width at the metatarsal heads feels about the same.
Zero G has more room around the navicular bone, due to premade ‘punch‘ there, and also perhaps due to the fact that I ground down the boot board in that area to get more height for the top of my instep/ankle.

Walking comfort:
Zero G has slightly more rockered sole, but the looser fit, and required opening of buckles that create a much looser fit in walk mode, mean boot walking on the floor is about equal.
On steeper boot packs or scrambles (my stairsogsmile), there is no comparison: the Quantum has a much better foot hold and much lower resistance, larger range of motion far forward.
Descending in boots is the same: Quantum has much better rearward range of motion, and better(snugger) foothold, for more control and less toe bang.
For skinning with shorter strides, I think they feel about the same.

Skiing:
The closest I could come was clicking into my skis on the carpet.
Lateral stiffness is impossible to evaluate that way.
But going on cuff feel and connection of cuff to lower, I bet it scales similar to forward flex.
  • Zero G Tour Pro(carbon injected cuff, 2 buckles and power strap): Great solid feel, nice flex. Let’s call it a 130 flex.
  • Quantum Asolo (also carbon injected cuff, skimo cord): bit more initial play due to closure and lack of power strap. Slightly softer, let’s call it 115. Flex feels nice and even all the way into a deep bend, no sudden collapse.

  • Quantum Free Factory (Plain PA cuff, single buckle and power strap): softer flexing all the way through. Let’s call it 105 flex

The (bad) surprise for me was the Quantum Free Factory. It is the top model in the Free series, which is aimed more at descending than the Asolo series, yet it flexes a fair bit softer. I would think that using the carbon injected lowers and uppers (like the Asolo Factory), would bring the stiffness equal to or better(due to the buckles) than the Asolo series.

Right now, it seems a bit of a “neither fish nor fowl”: it weighs more than the Asolo, has a less supportive liner, and the shell is less stiff.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I did one last try on using my (molded) Intution ProTour Liners with Bootdoc insoles, and on the opposite feet for each model.
I will retract my earlier statements , really not much difference in flex to be felt once you get further into the flex. The start is quite different feeling due to the much tighter fit around (my skinny) calf in the Free, with its powerstrap and solid buckle, vs the cord closure as part of the walk mode on the Asolo.

I looked more carefully at the shell pieces again. The lower boot and back cuff piece are from the same mold. On the lower of the Free you can see the tiny dimples where the lower foot cord would feed through, and on back cuff the ones where the cord guide would rivet on.
The Quantum Asolo uses injection molded carbon in the cuff, which might make it stiffer, or just lighter. However, most of the flex comes from the ankle pivot locations bowing out, so the end result is about the same.

I prefer the dial cord tightening over the lower foot of the Asolo over the Z-cable buckle of the Free, because it is much easier to micro adjust, including a click looser or tighter to switch from uphill to downhill, while still keeping the boot snug for uphill.
It also provides greater heel hold, since it goes all the way up to the bottom of the ankle. Again, this is mostly useful for the uphill, where you have the cuff loose.

If it wasn’t for the durability/repairability problems this guy mentions in his review I would be very tempted by the ’regular’ Asolo Factory.

Note that it seems the ‘regular’ (non free) Quantum models are are no longer sold in the cheaper versions, like the black/green ‘Quantum Asolo’ I tried on above. Only the ‘Quantum Asolo Factory’ (all black) and new ‘Quantum Lite’ (all black with green graphics) seem to be in the line up for this season. Of course there are plenty of the cheaper ones still around in stores.
Of course any ultra light boot is more likely to have issues than a beefier one, but it seems a few grams and dollars more, could have upped the durabilit/repairabilty significantly:

  • Using a steel cable, Boa brand, dial, bolted to the shell, would allow you to easily fix it, or even carry a spare one along on multi day trips.
  • Increasing the height of the front cuff a bit, and adding a removable powerstrap, would allow for a backup cuff closure mechanism.
Basically, the closure system of the Atomic Carbon and Pro boots.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I ended up buying the Dalbello Quantum Free 110. The 130 was sold out in my size.
As far as I could tell, they are the same shell and buckles, and differ only in the liner and powerstrap. So I expect the flex/skiing feel, to be the same.

I was looking for a boot that had easy transitions, a good walk mode, yet still had enough support for my lack of ski skills combined with a lot of leverage (6’5”), and some bigger skis (Wayback 106, 185cm).

The Dalbello Quantum Free hits all those marks.
Very good range of motion, and lack of resistance in that range. Feels similar to Backlands from when I tried those on.

Since these have a full length sole (ISO 9523), they are bit longer in the sole length than most comparable boots, this might make skinning or dry ground walking a bit less comfortable. But does offer full compatibility with all bindings. Like Fritschi Tecton, Marker Kingpin, Shift, Duke PT frame, and even alpine bindings with MNC capabilities (not that I see much of a use case for that).


Transitions are easy (with my upgraded powerstrap):
  1. cuff buckle flips from open to closed, but can stay on the same catch.
  2. Instep buckle can be opened or left closed, personal preference, since there is no tongue, it does not affect range of motion.
  3. Walk mode lever has a little spring loaded hook that locks the lever in place, no matter how hard you fall onto the back of the boot, it will not pop open. This hook is activated with the pull cord you use to lift the walk mode lever up, so it does not require any extra steps.
Hardware seems solid, and replaceable if needed.

I did a short backcountry tour on my K2 Marksman 106, 185 with frame bindings. Walking was a joy with the boot. (Not as much with the 2000g ski and 1200g frame binding, haha). Plenty of control in weird, tight terrain on these big skis. Feet stayed warm with boot-clava’s at 4F/15 C.
I skied my Wayback 106 186cm inbounds for a few runs and had plenty forward and lateral support (for me, and my mellow style). I could pressure the tips of these long skis easily enough
I also skied a few runs in bounds in shallow chop in my shorter narrower Faction Agent 1.0 (86mm, 179cm), and of course they could drive those small skis easily enough.

Fit was on the short side lengthwise, other than that, nothing stood out to me about the fit. Nice snug heel and forefoot.

These hit the perfect middle ground for me, and I suspect, for many others as well:

If you need something warmer, more durable and better able to drive bigger skis, than the ultralight skimo race derived boots,

But you want something that walks with less resistance, better range of motion, and transitions much more easily than the beefy “freeride touring category”

Then I think this category of “regular touring” boots is the way to go, and these are a great option in that category. Add to that they are one of the least expensive options (even the higher end 130, with better liner and powerstrap, is “only” $750 MSRP).
Others around this category would be the Fischer Transalp, La Sportiva Skorpius and Scarpa F1 Lt.


28.5 with Dynafit TLT8 powerstrap (velcro powerstraps eat my pants) and Palau Power LT liner
EF38F963-0733-4A23-B8D0-6864C21AD19C.jpeg
 

Nobody

Out of my mind, back in five.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,272
Location
Ponte di legno Tonale
Yes exactly. And both have full size heel and toe lugs for use with Frame/Shift/MNC bindings, so it’s not like some AT boots with very short BSL just because they decreased the lugs.
Quantum is Dalbello AT boots line, so, like in many other (Dynafit, for that I know) the BSL , for the same "street shoe size" is shorter. Nothing to do with FRAME/SHIFT/MNC compatibilty, IMHO, never quite understood why this but...I took it as one of those "fact of life".

In any case, thank you for the review! Very nice, very well thought and expressed!
I have been considering myself, as replacement of my first gen Tecnica ZGGP, either the newer Tecnica Zero GP or the Quantum free (130, as every review says it is "considerably" softer than that), but since it is the first generation, I guess I will sit, wait and see one more season (also, haven't been skinning up the mountains very much, if not at all, in the past seasons...). one thing, though, you mention the frame bindings...that is one of my attention area. I have been looking to change my Barons on my Gotamas. Barons are decidedly too heavy for me when skinning up. As "luck" (or better, patience) goes, I probably have struck a deal on a pair of used Kingpins 13. If they will arrive, I might swap them in in placeof the Barons on the Gotamas (I have already a set of Kpin 10 for my best half, for when she will be ready to ski and skin again - she is curently recovering/rehabbing from a torn ACL surgery)...
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Nobody ,
binding compatibilty most certainly does have a lot to do with sole length (BSL).

Boots with norm soles, like alpine boots (ISO 5355)and alpine touring boots with “norm soles” (ISO 9523) have a specification for how big the toe and heel lugs need to be (in order to fit in alpine/frame bindings).

“Non norm“ AT boots, which includes all most the lighter weight boots, like Scarpa F1Lt, Fischer Traverse, Atomic Backland etc, are designed to only work with tech bindings. So, they do not need that much of a toe or heel lug. In fact, Dynafit has the “sharknose” (no toe lug at all) on their lighter boots.

In this way,
moving away from frame binding compatibilty >
reduces the size of toe and heel lugs >
shortens the BSL
,
without any changes to the actual internal or external length of the shell at the height of your foot.

That is why I mentioned it.
Since the Quantum’s are fairly lightweight touring boots, if I said that the 28.5 had nearly the same BSL as the 27.5 Zero G, someone might think: “Oh, but that is because those lightweight boots have very minimal toe and heel lugs”

That for example was the case with the 27.5 Backland I tried on, 298mm BSL, even though the length of the boot internally is about similar to the Zero G 27.5, with a BSL of 313 mm.
In the case of the Quantum that is not the case. Full toe and heel lugs, just like the Zero G, so any BSL difference is due to shell thickness (doubtful, since they are both super light Polyamide shells), or internal length, which is what I was driving at.

It is a simple concept, but hard to explain in words. I should make a drawing.
Hope you can understand what I am trying to say without a drawing for now.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
The instep of the Zero G was never great for me. The Quantum Free fits much better. The nice thing of these “open clog” style boots (like F1Lt, Traverse and, to a lesser degree the Backland) is that they have more adaptability in instep height, since there is no hard plastic shell there, you can (to a certain extent) simply tighten or loosen the closure mechanism.
 

Nobody

Out of my mind, back in five.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,272
Location
Ponte di legno Tonale
Nothing I am disagreeing with, but one thing...Dynafit is sort of moving away from the shark nose and returning to a more traditional set up for their boots, especially those for the "general public". More for easier crampons compatibility than else, still, sharknose was, from what I could se, not that big success. Kind of too far fetched as a move...

Edit to add: The Quantum boots , though, are compatible (so I understand about it) with downhill DIN bindings (GW I guess), innit? Hence their short(er) BSL comes from something else...
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Edit to add: The Quantum boots , though, are compatible (so I understand about it) with downhill DIN bindings (GW I guess), innit? Hence their short(er) BSL comes from something else...
yes, their short BSL is because they run small.

yes they are compatible with alpine style bindings, but it would have to be a MNC. (Multi norm certified) type of binding, since it is a full rubber touring sole(ISO 9523), NOT a Gripwalk Sole (ISO 23223).

Like Tyrolia Attack AT, Marker Lord and Salomon Warden. You can check @Philpug ‘s excellent binding overview tables to find others.

Other brands that make lightweight boots with ( ISO 9523) norm soles are Roxa (and Movement and Hagan use those shells too. My daughter has a Hagan boot, and likes it) and La Sportiva.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top