Re spoilers for forward lean: They do change forward lean, even with respect to the front of the cuff, because as you add more material to the back cuff, the buckles have to be fastened at a more open position. This effectively moves the front of the cuff forward. It adds weight and changes cuff shape though.
True I was going off the assumption volume was being reduced and you keep the same buckle closure. If you do go more open the lean would very subtly change. I don't find these changes to be as perceptible though as adjusting from the ski walk area.
I agree with Weiss, I just think of it the other way around: if you have skinny legs and don’t have a spoiler, when you put the boot on, your tibia will be pulled back towards the spine. In other words, if you have skinny calves, you always have less forward lean than spec. Conversely, people with big/low calves will have more forward lean than spec, because they have to open the cuff, and their calf pushes their shin forward, just like a spoiler would. In the end, what matters is YOUR forward lean at the shin. But spoilers do change that. I just wouldn’t want to use them if I had big calves, because you won’t have enough overlap of the cuff in front anymore.
Excellent video. Great change of pace from most boot overviews. Loved the Newton*meter detail. I mainly ski F1 LT for objectives and Radical Pro for daily driver in the Hood/Helen's area and I'd say this review is spot-on. An even more basic thing that gets lost in layperson boot discussions is just whether the boot even has a real tongue in addition to the overlapping flaps. Loved your "suspension"/progressive flex discussion--totally agree.
Nice video, it makes sense a lot what have you presented on the flex values. Also on a side note, it is also known that many of the world cup freeriding skiers use as their "touring boots" racing boots with a 140/150 Flex such as HEAD Raptor WCRs, Nordica Dobberman etc which are fitted with pin inserts.
The nice thing with ramp angle, is that you can, (in many situations) adjust it by shimming your bindings (or choosing different models). Of course, that also changes forward lean, so no such thing as a completely independent adjustment. - I ended up shimming all my bindings, resort and AT, to give the same ramp angle inside the respective boots. Unfortunately my frontside skis have system bindings, so they can be adjusted, and they are much more ramped.
Yep, you said it yourself you're essentially dealing with both the lean and ramp of the boot and the ramp of the binding, all of which affect contact points within the boot. The boot itself is the only thing that contributes to the ankle flexion aspect and if your ankle is either too flexed or not flexed enough, nothing about shimming The binding changes that and that I think is what is most important in regards to that athletic position.
I think that scarpa agrees that the flex is too dissimilar from the Quattro. They State 125 for the XT and 130 for the Quattro. I find that depending on how I buckle them and how much I attention the booster that they are essentially the same. Which is why I think the Quattro pro is necessary to differentiate and add a stiffer option
Solid vid bruz. I have a mate who skied the Roxa in walk mode and couldn't tell the difference. Sounds like a good boot, but walks like crap and too upright for me.
Re: force transmission, I'm surprised you haven't taken a deeper dive on the tecnica zg peak carbon, it has a secondary tension bar which transmits force to a slightly deeper joint than the walk lever itself. Pretty novel implementation vs the 1k class and in my experience, skis way harder than the F1 series as a result.
I think I may revisit the peak carbon. I tried it on initially and it just seemed very cheaply made. However, ski alpers data shows it being the stiffest of the lightweight boots by a large margin, competing with some soft 4 buckles! Ultimately I just rarely use lightweight boots anymore as my lightest ski that I enjoy skiing is 1700g without binding.
Fantastic video so thanks! A few questions: 1. Have you sized up in your quattro to the same clog size as the maestrale 4.0? 2. Do you find the ridge that much softer than the say a radical pro? Your previous video was quite positive to them
The maestrale runs a thicker liner, so despite the clog sizes being the same between the one size up and the one size down of the two boots, I found my actual fit once I got all my punches and using the stock liners to be essentially the same. That being said, the maestrale is a warmer boot. For the Quattro pro, if I decide to try it, I will likely use my maestrale clog size, so that I will not have to punch as much and so that I am open to more aftermarket liners as I tend to get along really well with wrap liners which will not fit in the smaller Quattro. I do not find that the ridge is dramatically softer. I believe that it is probably somewhere between Scorpius and radical level. And as I've alluded to, if the stance works better for you and where the transmission point of power on your shin hits the boot, the material stiffnesses differences are going to be pretty close. So if I had to put a number I would say that the difference is between them are probably somewhere around like 10 to 15% stiffness wise. And considering how the radical stacks with everyone else, that's pretty dang good. For me, the biggest issue is that they seem to have changed the fit. I used to be able to get along with the radical but the ridge feels like it has slightly more forward stance And because it is a little softer, I feel like it requires a little More knee flexion to get the cuff going and even more to get to the support level that I need so it doesn't feel as natural. But as I said, I think that's very specific to my stance which generally is more upright. Based on how the radical fits you, the ridge is subtly different, which for some people is either going to be a performance boost because it will fit better or worse. To me it makes sense why Christof seems to think this boot is the holy Grail and that's because he liked the original F1 which had dramatic ramp and extreme forward lean of 22°. So the ridge being subtly more forward of a boot than the radical is going to allow for more knee flexion if that's your preferred stance. From an objective place, I still think the ridge is an amazing boot. It's just not the boot that works best for my stance. I really wish that it included a way to change forward lean.
@@thicccboyztv fantastic reply! Sounds like the ridge could actually work great for me then as I do enjoy more forward lean (I could never ski the roxa for example) Sounds to me like you both need a flat ramp and an upright boot, probably why the zero g didn’t work too well for you since it has lots of ramp even though it’s upright. Makes sense why you enjoy the marker alpinist too then. Have you ever tried shimming just your toes in boots with lots of ramp, I know some of my boot fitter friends do this and it can work. I really enjoy your videos, please make more (don’t mean just on boots), you obviously have a lot of information to share and the way you talk and question things gets things going well in my own head!
@@gnarsharthanks! And yes I have experimented with toe shims to some positive effect. However, it becomes problematic, particularly when constantly trying new skis getting specialty length screws to accommodate the added shim and still achieve the desired penetration into the ski. I definitely will keep making videos, however things will probably be in a lull just given how bad the snow has been this year unless we somehow get some miracle dumps!
Question about the data; I see the numbers you are referring to in SkiAlper (within each boot they have the force to take it to 20 degrees fore and aft) but in the graphs, those numbers are referring to the boots in walk mode and ski mode is much different force required to get the boots to even 10 degrees. Granted my Italian isn't very good but maybe worth a double check? I may be reading this wrong though.
I am reading the English translation and there is no way that it takes that many newton meters of force to get a boot fore and aft in walk mode. Some of the boots are near frictionless.
@@thicccboyztv 20 Nm is 15 foot-pounds. that is very little, especially with your whole leg as a lever arm! If your center of mass is 4 feet up, you would only need to lean forward with 3.75 lbs of force to fold the boot 20 degrees. That's nothing.
Just realized this by accident, from posting on TGR. These are the walk mode numbers, which is what they post in the individual boot reviews. I had not noticed that they refer to walk mode when I looked there before. In the overview article, I found graphs for all the boots, both in walk and in ski mode.
@@tjb8841 I looked into this and you guys are correct-however, with the exception of a couple of lightweight boot changes, the freeride category boots all remain similar (tho the roxa instead is normal rather than an outlier) Quattro+ roxa + dalbello cabrio+k2 diverge all the stiffest (all cabrios except Quattro. Highlights of the weight conscious include Scott cosmos and la spo vanguard and zero g peak. Ultimately the top boots (Quattro and dalbello cabrio still require 40 more nm of force than anything else) guess I need to try the Cabrio! It is strange that in the individual reviews they do not make this designation about walk vs ski. And only in the overview article so they differentiate. ironically the conclusions still are similar. The beefiest boots, Quattro and Cabrio showing 200nm of force, both are double the average of "light boots" with an average of 100nm at peak. Whereas touring class boots and most freeride boots average between 140-155 nm. The Quattro and dalbello cabrio are significant outliers in power.
@@thicccboyztv ya looks great. Mine got warrantied but I'm still salty a boot marketed as a hybrid solution basically exploded the walk mechanism after like 10 touring days
@@garrettobrien6962 I had a season on mine and broke the cuff. But yeah I feel ya. I'm more of the mindset that with that much lightness and power you're definitely playing with the limits of what the materials can take. I also think it was made for more euro bodies and not thick boys
Scarpa Quattro XT was measured 5.3 ° by blister. Unsure how they measured it and was unable to find any explicit data from scarpa. By my very calibrated hand, the Quattro has a more abrupt drop off in the mid foot heading to the toe, and I recall preferring the F1 xt with more heel shims so I suspect that the F1 xts ramp is less, I'd guess 4 degrees.
@@svsanchago and also, if you were not aware, the Quattro XT comes with a couple mil heel through mid-foot shim on the half sizes. I think that they did that specifically for volume reduction for the half sizes, but for those sensitive to ramp you can just peel it off and drop the heel down another couple mm.
![Как устроен QR-код? [Veritasium]](/img/n.gif)
Re spoilers for forward lean: They do change forward lean, even with respect to the front of the cuff, because as you add more material to the back cuff, the buckles have to be fastened at a more open position. This effectively moves the front of the cuff forward. It adds weight and changes cuff shape though.
True I was going off the assumption volume was being reduced and you keep the same buckle closure. If you do go more open the lean would very subtly change. I don't find these changes to be as perceptible though as adjusting from the ski walk area.
I agree with Weiss, I just think of it the other way around: if you have skinny legs and don’t have a spoiler, when you put the boot on, your tibia will be pulled back towards the spine. In other words, if you have skinny calves, you always have less forward lean than spec. Conversely, people with big/low calves will have more forward lean than spec, because they have to open the cuff, and their calf pushes their shin forward, just like a spoiler would.
In the end, what matters is YOUR forward lean at the shin. But spoilers do change that. I just wouldn’t want to use them if I had big calves, because you won’t have enough overlap of the cuff in front anymore.
Excellent video. Great change of pace from most boot overviews. Loved the Newton*meter detail. I mainly ski F1 LT for objectives and Radical Pro for daily driver in the Hood/Helen's area and I'd say this review is spot-on. An even more basic thing that gets lost in layperson boot discussions is just whether the boot even has a real tongue in addition to the overlapping flaps. Loved your "suspension"/progressive flex discussion--totally agree.
Nice video, it makes sense a lot what have you presented on the flex values. Also on a side note, it is also known that many of the world cup freeriding skiers use as their "touring boots" racing boots with a 140/150 Flex such as HEAD Raptor WCRs, Nordica Dobberman etc which are fitted with pin inserts.
The nice thing with ramp angle, is that you can, (in many situations) adjust it by shimming your bindings (or choosing different models). Of course, that also changes forward lean, so no such thing as a completely independent adjustment.
-
I ended up shimming all my bindings, resort and AT, to give the same ramp angle inside the respective boots. Unfortunately my frontside skis have system bindings, so they can be adjusted, and they are much more ramped.
Yep, you said it yourself you're essentially dealing with both the lean and ramp of the boot and the ramp of the binding, all of which affect contact points within the boot. The boot itself is the only thing that contributes to the ankle flexion aspect and if your ankle is either too flexed or not flexed enough, nothing about shimming The binding changes that and that I think is what is most important in regards to that athletic position.
Very interesting, thanks!! Also, if you need help translating from Italian in the future I can help
Geek footage! Well done! Scarpa Maestrale XT is the stiffest boot in Scarpa's lineup, imho
I think that scarpa agrees that the flex is too dissimilar from the Quattro. They State 125 for the XT and 130 for the Quattro. I find that depending on how I buckle them and how much I attention the booster that they are essentially the same. Which is why I think the Quattro pro is necessary to differentiate and add a stiffer option
Solid vid bruz. I have a mate who skied the Roxa in walk mode and couldn't tell the difference. Sounds like a good boot, but walks like crap and too upright for me.
Exactly. I too have accidentally left it and you can ski just fine because it's that powerful.
Re: force transmission, I'm surprised you haven't taken a deeper dive on the tecnica zg peak carbon, it has a secondary tension bar which transmits force to a slightly deeper joint than the walk lever itself. Pretty novel implementation vs the 1k class and in my experience, skis way harder than the F1 series as a result.
I think I may revisit the peak carbon. I tried it on initially and it just seemed very cheaply made. However, ski alpers data shows it being the stiffest of the lightweight boots by a large margin, competing with some soft 4 buckles! Ultimately I just rarely use lightweight boots anymore as my lightest ski that I enjoy skiing is 1700g without binding.
Fantastic video so thanks!
A few questions:
1. Have you sized up in your quattro to the same clog size as the maestrale 4.0?
2. Do you find the ridge that much softer than the say a radical pro? Your previous video was quite positive to them
The maestrale runs a thicker liner, so despite the clog sizes being the same between the one size up and the one size down of the two boots, I found my actual fit once I got all my punches and using the stock liners to be essentially the same. That being said, the maestrale is a warmer boot. For the Quattro pro, if I decide to try it, I will likely use my maestrale clog size, so that I will not have to punch as much and so that I am open to more aftermarket liners as I tend to get along really well with wrap liners which will not fit in the smaller Quattro.
I do not find that the ridge is dramatically softer. I believe that it is probably somewhere between Scorpius and radical level. And as I've alluded to, if the stance works better for you and where the transmission point of power on your shin hits the boot, the material stiffnesses differences are going to be pretty close. So if I had to put a number I would say that the difference is between them are probably somewhere around like 10 to 15% stiffness wise. And considering how the radical stacks with everyone else, that's pretty dang good. For me, the biggest issue is that they seem to have changed the fit. I used to be able to get along with the radical but the ridge feels like it has slightly more forward stance And because it is a little softer, I feel like it requires a little More knee flexion to get the cuff going and even more to get to the support level that I need so it doesn't feel as natural. But as I said, I think that's very specific to my stance which generally is more upright. Based on how the radical fits you, the ridge is subtly different, which for some people is either going to be a performance boost because it will fit better or worse. To me it makes sense why Christof seems to think this boot is the holy Grail and that's because he liked the original F1 which had dramatic ramp and extreme forward lean of 22°. So the ridge being subtly more forward of a boot than the radical is going to allow for more knee flexion if that's your preferred stance. From an objective place, I still think the ridge is an amazing boot. It's just not the boot that works best for my stance. I really wish that it included a way to change forward lean.
@@thicccboyztv fantastic reply! Sounds like the ridge could actually work great for me then as I do enjoy more forward lean
(I could never ski the roxa for example)
Sounds to me like you both need a flat ramp and an upright boot, probably why the zero g didn’t work too well for you since it has lots of ramp even though it’s upright. Makes sense why you enjoy the marker alpinist too then. Have you ever tried shimming just your toes in boots with lots of ramp, I know some of my boot fitter friends do this and it can work.
I really enjoy your videos, please make more (don’t mean just on boots), you obviously have a lot of information to share and the way you talk and question things gets things going well in my own head!
@@gnarsharthanks! And yes I have experimented with toe shims to some positive effect. However, it becomes problematic, particularly when constantly trying new skis getting specialty length screws to accommodate the added shim and still achieve the desired penetration into the ski. I definitely will keep making videos, however things will probably be in a lull just given how bad the snow has been this year unless we somehow get some miracle dumps!
zero g has a removable boot board. you can grind it down to change ramp angle.
@@weisseseis so does Quattro, though quattro's is just totally removable
Question about the data; I see the numbers you are referring to in SkiAlper (within each boot they have the force to take it to 20 degrees fore and aft) but in the graphs, those numbers are referring to the boots in walk mode and ski mode is much different force required to get the boots to even 10 degrees. Granted my Italian isn't very good but maybe worth a double check? I may be reading this wrong though.
I am reading the English translation and there is no way that it takes that many newton meters of force to get a boot fore and aft in walk mode. Some of the boots are near frictionless.
@@thicccboyztv 20 Nm is 15 foot-pounds. that is very little, especially with your whole leg as a lever arm! If your center of mass is 4 feet up, you would only need to lean forward with 3.75 lbs of force to fold the boot 20 degrees. That's nothing.
@@weisseseis 15 lb of torque is still way too much force to be required to move a boot in walk mode.
Just realized this by accident, from posting on TGR. These are the walk mode numbers, which is what they post in the individual boot reviews. I had not noticed that they refer to walk mode when I looked there before. In the overview article, I found graphs for all the boots, both in walk and in ski mode.
@@tjb8841 I looked into this and you guys are correct-however, with the exception of a couple of lightweight boot changes, the freeride category boots all remain similar (tho the roxa instead is normal rather than an outlier) Quattro+ roxa + dalbello cabrio+k2 diverge all the stiffest (all cabrios except Quattro. Highlights of the weight conscious include Scott cosmos and la spo vanguard and zero g peak. Ultimately the top boots (Quattro and dalbello cabrio still require 40 more nm of force than anything else) guess I need to try the Cabrio! It is strange that in the individual reviews they do not make this designation about walk vs ski. And only in the overview article so they differentiate. ironically the conclusions still are similar. The beefiest boots, Quattro and Cabrio showing 200nm of force, both are double the average of "light boots" with an average of 100nm at peak. Whereas touring class boots and most freeride boots average between 140-155 nm. The Quattro and dalbello cabrio are significant outliers in power.
Pour one out for my quattros cracking at the walk mode pin, too bad nothing else is comparable 😢
Quattro pro next year has beefed up upper cuff that has more tongue contact and beefed up walk mode pun receiver area. Couple videos out on em.
@@thicccboyztv ya looks great. Mine got warrantied but I'm still salty a boot marketed as a hybrid solution basically exploded the walk mechanism after like 10 touring days
@@garrettobrien6962 I had a season on mine and broke the cuff. But yeah I feel ya. I'm more of the mindset that with that much lightness and power you're definitely playing with the limits of what the materials can take. I also think it was made for more euro bodies and not thick boys
luv u
Do you know the ramp angle of the quattro and the f1xt?
Scarpa Quattro XT was measured 5.3 ° by blister. Unsure how they measured it and was unable to find any explicit data from scarpa. By my very calibrated hand, the Quattro has a more abrupt drop off in the mid foot heading to the toe, and I recall preferring the F1 xt with more heel shims so I suspect that the F1 xts ramp is less, I'd guess 4 degrees.
@@thicccboyztv did some digging on scarps UK website. For the Quattro they claim 5.3 for f1 xt 3.2.
@@svsanchago Good to know that I could actually feel a difference! Haha
@@svsanchago and also, if you were not aware, the Quattro XT comes with a couple mil heel through mid-foot shim on the half sizes. I think that they did that specifically for volume reduction for the half sizes, but for those sensitive to ramp you can just peel it off and drop the heel down another couple mm.
@thicccboyztv I love my Quattro (size 24.5) but can't make the xt (size 24) ski good to safe my life. Never had problems with the f1 Lt