-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
The Never-Ending Atomic Ski Boot Discussion
- Thread starter onenerdykid
- Start date
I need those CS 130 Pro SO BAD!
Be aware the Hawk Ultra with the GW sole will ski differently from the same boot with DIN sole.
What causes that? Oh, wait a minute, I know, it's soul
Last edited:
This is from Mamie. She picked up a new Hawx Ultra 115W for the season. She was on a 5 year old Hawx Ultra prior. She was intrigued by all the GW fanfare. I told her she can ski on it and if she doesn't like it, she can swap out for the DIN sole.
I adjusted her bindings (Marker Griffon) for the GW sole using a 0.5 mm steel feeler gauge.
Walking wise, she didn't notice much difference. We are on skis 100+ days per season. We are very comfortable walking around with our boots.
First sign of trouble cropped up when she tried to clicked into the bindings. Her normal clip in routine just does not work. She never had issues with clicking before. I clicked her in by hand the first time. For subsequent clip ins, she used the other boot to lift the heel to ease entry.
While skiing, I did noticed she was a little back. Just didn't looked comfortable. Wasn't able to work the tip of her skis as she normally would. She also mentioned some pressure on her calves. Never had that before. Her calves. are rather slender. Size of the upper cuff was not the issue.
Swap out the GW sole for the DIN sole that night. Next days, she was all smiles. A very happy camper.
I adjusted her bindings to her boots after installation of the DIN sole. I did noticed I had to lower the AFD to accommodate the DIN compared to the original GW setting. My gut feeling switching the GW soles (toe and heel) to DIN soles alters the relative height of the heel and toe of the boot. Almost like changing the binding ramp angle.
FWIW, Mamie is very sensitive to ramp angle. She likes positive ramp angle and hates zero or negative ramp angles. I have remounted several skis with Griffons after she rejected the zero/negative ramp angle bindings that was originally mounted on the skis.
Thread Starter
TS
That's more of a binding issue than a GripWalk sole issue. Any binding where the binding AFD changes height to accommodate the different sole norms is going to do that, as opposed to a binding where the actual toe piece moves vertically. Having skied lots of bindings with the same boot, I can tell you that's where the issue comes from. If you ever get the chance to try bindings (on the same ski) you will notice this. But either way - there is a solution and her specific solution given the gear ingredients she is working with, going back to a 5355 sole was the way to go.
@Tony Storaro - people have already covered the main benefits of the new version of Hawx Ultra and she will always have sole options. If she doesn't GW, she isn't locked into it with that boot. A 5355 sole will always exist.
Yes, thank you!
The obvious YUGE advantage of the new ones is the Mimic Liners. This is pretty big and I will probably go that way.
I question if that is correct ONK. My point of view is the upper flat surface of the toe of the boot rests against the upper wings or arms or whatever the binding has for stopping vertical movement of the boot. That won't change if you just change the sole, unless the upper toe surface of the boot changes when you change soles. I assume it does not, am I correct or wrong?? The AFD is just moved up or down to remove any gap under the boot. This assumes you don't change the binding. I agree if changing bindings, everything can be different. If the toe moves up and down to accommodate different soles, ala Salomon, then the binding ramp angle changes because the top of the boot moves up or down. (this assumes the heel stays in the same place). If both the toe and heel move up or down together, no binding ramp angle change. You might be saying on an adjustable AFD binding (fixed toe) the heel moves but the toe stays the same, so ramp angle changes. On a moveable toe binding, both the toe and heel always move together, so no ramp angle change. (I was good at Trig in school).
The heel is where things may change, because there is no adjustment there and if the boot's top to bottom heel dimension changes, then the binding angle will change. KG's description of the click in being harder seems to say its a heel dimension difference between the 2 soles. Which would change her binding delta. The boot toe stayed in the same place and the heel moved up or down. KG, which way is positive for you, toe high or low?
She likes a positive ramp which is heel high.
The difficulty in clicking in may not be what it appears. It may be simply a different "feel" in the interface between the boot toe and binding toe. She is very much a routine person when it comes to skiing. We did ride the gondola several times. The click in process appears to work itself out as the day progressed.
I took the plunge. Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 S GW in 30.5. Thermomolded and aligned. The bootfitter said my instep was a "29". Other boots had heel slop, but these locked them in especially after putting in my custom insoles. He said other LV options that might have worked for me did not come in 30.5. WTH?
Thread Starter
TS
It's more your later example that an adjustable AFD changes the boot's ramp angle, which is what KG's wife experienced (most likely). What you need to also factor in is a Marker ID binding (where the AFD slides on a ramp) with a touring norm boot (ISO 9523) the ramp slides all the way down and to the front, holding the boot by the very tip of the toe. This is not where the boot was ever intended to engage the binding (there's a reason why WTR had the boot toe AFD in the location where it was because that is where bindings are specified to engage the boot). And for the alpine norm ISO 5355, it slides up and to the back, engaging the boot in more or less the intended & norm-specified area. You also need to look at the shape of the binding toe AFD- (outside of world cup bindings) they aren't flat surfaces, they are ramped/angled which can change how the boot engages with the binding and this produces a certain boot geometry while skiing. Lastly, how a boot sits on a flat surface like a table top is not necessarily how the boot engages with the toe. This is especially true for GripWalk. All of these weirdnesses favor a binding that has an adjustable toe height rather than a sliding AFD.
Hmmmm....
I guess the point I am trying to make is an adjustable AFD does not change the height of the boot toe off the ski, which does not change the ramp angle. The top of the boots toe stays put and the afd adjusts to accommodate the thickness of the sole. As you move the afd up and down, the toe of the boot should be pulled vertically against the same binding contact surface, so the afd is just removing the gap on the bottom of the boot. If the ramp angle changes in that binding, its because the heel has moved vertically, not the toe. The boot toe is still the same distance off the ski. The sole got thicker/thinner so the afd had to move to accommodate that change. Since the heel cannot be adjusted to accommodate the change in heel sole thickness it causes a ramp angle change. It might just be in how you look at it. You would think that cranking the afd up and down would move the boot up and down, but that is not how a toe piece works, it sets the position of the boot from the top surface, not the bottom surface.
For sure KG's wife's binding ramp angle changed from the sole change. If you focus just on binding ramp angle, the AFD is a non factor to me. The boot is held in place (assuming everything is properly adjusted) by the upper contact surface of the boot's toe and the bottom contact surface of the boot's heel. If either end of the boot moves vertically relative to each other, the binding ramp angle changes. Binding toe pieces are adjustable (one way or another) and heels are not. For an adjustable afd binding (fixed toe height), it is the heel height changing that changes the ramp angle, not the afd moving. The afd moving up an down is irrelevant since the top surface of the boot toe doesn't move.
You bring up a very good point that if the afd moves back and forth (an adjustable afd binding) then the location of the force transfer to the ski changes, and will change the performance of the ski. It seems like it would act like moving your boot mount point. Boy, even more complications for choosing binding mount point. I see your point of how a fixed AFD with an adjustable toe eliminates this issue. I would state that a fixed afd toe causes a ramp angle change because now the toe of the boot is moved vertically since the toe piece moves vertically. If the heel moves the same distance vertically due to a different sole thickness, then the ramp angle goes back to the original one, or in effect no change. I have a alpine sole boot and a WTR boot. I will check if both toe and heel move the same when changing boots. I will also find a picture of what I am talking about.
I guess the point I am trying to make is an adjustable AFD does not change the height of the boot toe off the ski, which does not change the ramp angle. The top of the boots toe stays put and the afd adjusts to accommodate the thickness of the sole. As you move the afd up and down, the toe of the boot should be pulled vertically against the same binding contact surface, so the afd is just removing the gap on the bottom of the boot. If the ramp angle changes in that binding, its because the heel has moved vertically, not the toe. The boot toe is still the same distance off the ski. The sole got thicker/thinner so the afd had to move to accommodate that change. Since the heel cannot be adjusted to accommodate the change in heel sole thickness it causes a ramp angle change. It might just be in how you look at it. You would think that cranking the afd up and down would move the boot up and down, but that is not how a toe piece works, it sets the position of the boot from the top surface, not the bottom surface.
For sure KG's wife's binding ramp angle changed from the sole change. If you focus just on binding ramp angle, the AFD is a non factor to me. The boot is held in place (assuming everything is properly adjusted) by the upper contact surface of the boot's toe and the bottom contact surface of the boot's heel. If either end of the boot moves vertically relative to each other, the binding ramp angle changes. Binding toe pieces are adjustable (one way or another) and heels are not. For an adjustable afd binding (fixed toe height), it is the heel height changing that changes the ramp angle, not the afd moving. The afd moving up an down is irrelevant since the top surface of the boot toe doesn't move.
You bring up a very good point that if the afd moves back and forth (an adjustable afd binding) then the location of the force transfer to the ski changes, and will change the performance of the ski. It seems like it would act like moving your boot mount point. Boy, even more complications for choosing binding mount point. I see your point of how a fixed AFD with an adjustable toe eliminates this issue. I would state that a fixed afd toe causes a ramp angle change because now the toe of the boot is moved vertically since the toe piece moves vertically. If the heel moves the same distance vertically due to a different sole thickness, then the ramp angle goes back to the original one, or in effect no change. I have a alpine sole boot and a WTR boot. I will check if both toe and heel move the same when changing boots. I will also find a picture of what I am talking about.
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
This is a bit of a brain teaser because while that is true, it's taking into consideration/assuming straight lines interacting with each other and that is rarely the case. If's not often that a the top of the boot lug is flat/flush with the inside of the binding. There is a needed tolerance/flexibility in the toe piece of the binding where the boot does not need to sit flat/flush, it can interface the toe at a slight angle and still release properly, and this is what often happens.
Definitely a brain teaser. Agree with what you are saying in last post, but I think those are more secondary geometric effects. Sorry the Mech. Eng in me is taking over. I will take a closer look at the toe pieces on my skis and how they engage the toe lug. Here are some pics on the subject. I have been calling the 'external delta angle' of the binding, ramp angle, which is actually the internal footbed angle built into ski boots. So change ramp angle to delta angle in my posts.
Thread Starter
TS
You'll need to do your experiment with a rockered 9523 sole and a GripWalk sole to see how this changes with a Marker ID binding. Especially with a 9523-touring boot- your triangle AFD will interact with the angle of the sole in front of the boot "AFD" area and produce a very different effective ramp angle. You'll just feel it when you ski both bindings with the same boot.
This seems like a good time to post this bit of info.
www.evo.com
blog.jans.com
It looks like TGR did a deep dive on the subject and here is the thread for whomever is interested.
Ski Boot Sole & Ski Binding Compatibility Guide | evo
Ski, Snowboard, Wakeboard, Skateboard Gear & Clothing: Enjoy Free Shipping, Low Price Guarantee, Product Reviews, Shopping Tools and a little flavor.
www.evo.com
Understanding Ski Boot to Ski Binding Compatibility - blog.jans.com
Reading Time: 7 minutes This is Not a Compatibility Chart: The Excuses Let me preface this by saying that an answers-all breakdown of boot-binding compatibility would need to get specific by brand, model, and model year, while accounting for all models, and years, from each brand, and any...
blog.jans.com
It looks like TGR did a deep dive on the subject and here is the thread for whomever is interested.
Grip Walk sole dimensions? - Page 3
Tried searching, maybe its in one of the this-boot-vs-that-boot mega threads. Does anyone have dimension data for grip walk soles? Tried marker tech manuals as well as grip-walk.com, all I see is marketing hype. Looking for something like this: 214558 Thanks in advance.
www.tetongravity.com
I just noticed that the OP introduces the boot that I recently bought.
Didn't know that when I posted above. I went to a Killington shop that I checked out on line to see if it had several 29.5 and 30.5 options for me to try on including Lange RS 130 like I currently ski. However, I gave none of this info to the bootfitter to get an unbiased look at which way we would take me. I did tell him I preferred all mtn boots with GW soles. I will have my newer all mountain skis set to these, but keep my Langes for my older non-GW bindings.Hey Onenerdykid,
Question for you.
I picked up a pair of 2020/2021 STI 130s (glossy red) today from a friend. I also have a new Dobermann 150 that I havent routed or ground yet. I noticed that the STI is about and inch and a half shorter in the cuff (which I honestly like while standing in them, as I havent skied the Atomic yet). The friend that sold them to me did so because the cuff was too low for him compared to his TIs and old RTIs.
I'm wondering if this is how they were made or if by chance they have a short cuff instaled? Is there a particular code / stamp on the cuff which would tell if it is a short cuff or standard cuff?
Thanks for all your help and contributions here.
Mike B
Edit:
I do understand that most plugs (including the dobermanns) are designed to be cut to your liking both in flex and height, however, the STI doesn't have guidelines for cuts and has not yet been cut, but is lower. Honestly, it doesn't really matter until I ski them, but I was just curious so that if I do like them I can buy two pairs so I don't have to beat my head into a wall about boot setup constantly. haha Example: Put the old black zepa in the new TI 150 and it fits. Put the current white zepa in that same shoe and it feels like a fiberglass boat.
Second edit:
Did you lower the ramp in the new TI boot and up the delta on the binder?
Question for you.
I picked up a pair of 2020/2021 STI 130s (glossy red) today from a friend. I also have a new Dobermann 150 that I havent routed or ground yet. I noticed that the STI is about and inch and a half shorter in the cuff (which I honestly like while standing in them, as I havent skied the Atomic yet). The friend that sold them to me did so because the cuff was too low for him compared to his TIs and old RTIs.
I'm wondering if this is how they were made or if by chance they have a short cuff instaled? Is there a particular code / stamp on the cuff which would tell if it is a short cuff or standard cuff?
Thanks for all your help and contributions here.
Mike B
Edit:
I do understand that most plugs (including the dobermanns) are designed to be cut to your liking both in flex and height, however, the STI doesn't have guidelines for cuts and has not yet been cut, but is lower. Honestly, it doesn't really matter until I ski them, but I was just curious so that if I do like them I can buy two pairs so I don't have to beat my head into a wall about boot setup constantly. haha Example: Put the old black zepa in the new TI 150 and it fits. Put the current white zepa in that same shoe and it feels like a fiberglass boat.
Second edit:
Did you lower the ramp in the new TI boot and up the delta on the binder?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Posts
- 64
The professional are worth the wait…..