2020-2021 Tecnica Cochise 130 Pro
Size Tested: 25.5
Stated BSL: 295 mm
Stated Range of Motion: 42°
Stated Last: 99 mm
Stated Flex: 130
Stated Weight per Boot — size 26.5: 1950 g
Blister’s Measured Weight per Boot — size 25.5:
- Shells, no liners: 1493 & 1496 g
- Liners, no footbeds: 440 & 441 g
- Shells + Liners: 1933 & 1937 g
MSRP: $699.99 USD
Test Location: Craigieburn Valley Ski Area, Porters Ski Area, NZ; Arapahoe Basin and Vail, CO
Days Tested: 12
[Note: Our review was conducted on the 16/17 Cochise 130 Pro, which was not changed for 17/18, 18/19, 19/20, or 20/21, apart from graphics and a switch to include Grip Walk soles as standard.]
Introduction
In 2011, Tecnica came out with the original Cochise, one of the first first tech-compatible boots created by an alpine boot manufacturer. It quickly generated a lot of buzz, then went on to become a class leader in downhill-oriented touring boots — a boot that could hold its own at the resort, but would also work on shorter tours and in a tech binding.
For 16/17, the Cochise has undergone some pretty dramatic changes — especially in fit — but there are also some noticeable improvements in its downhill performance, too. I’ve been skiing in the Cochise ever since it was released back in 2011, and have used it for skiing hard inbounds, and on 4-5 hour-long tours. So how does the new Cochise measure up?
Fit
Each iteration of the Cochise has always provided me with a great fit right out of the box, but there are plenty of other skiers who can’t quite say the same — the Cochise series has been known for its boxier fit in the heel pocket and around the ankles (which is something that we’ve mentioned more than a few times over the years). But with the new Cochise, things have changed.
The heel pocket of the Cochise, which could formerly be described as “High Volume,” is now on the other side of the spectrum — nearly low volume. The midfoot width has tightened up a bit as well, and the toebox gets a bit roomier. I’ve needed significant punching in the heel and a decent amount of punching in the midfoot to get the new Cochise to work with my feet, and to be clear, this is a good thing — you can’t do much with a boot shell that’s too large, but it’s pretty easy to create more space. I can safely say that a lot of people will be really pleased with the changes that have been made to the fit of the Cochise. If you’ve been disappointed in the past with the fit of the Cochise, you may want to give this new boot a shot.
Liner
The stock liner is quite sculpted through the ankle area, and it has an atypical psuedo-shell that can be punched and grinded. The liner itself is also quite thick and composed of a material that, when compressed, won’t pack out easily. When we were creating space in the boot for my heel, John Freely at The Custom Foot (Englewood, CO) tried to use a vice to compress the material. It didn’t work; the material would just spring back to its original thickness. So he then proceeded with major liner surgery to remove some foam. That’s pretty impressive. Overall, I’ve found the liner to be quite excellent, and I wouldn’t jump to replace it.
Range of Motion
While the forward range of motion of the Cochise has been excellent in every iteration of the boot, the rearward ROM has always been middle-of-the-pack. Without your foot in the boot, the upper cuff demonstrated great mobility. But once your leg is placed in the boot, the lower shell rises high enough to effectively reduce the rearward range of motion by quite a bit. As mentioned in our Tecnica Zero G Pro Guide review, trying to utilize the entire upper cuff’s range of motion will lever your leg off the lower shell and push your entire foot forward — either stopping when your instep or midfoot becomes trapped (my experience), or your toes are pushed into the front of the boot (reviewer Paul Forward’s experience).
In a resort / touring boot like the Cochise, reduced range-of-motion is pretty common, and whether or not this is a deal breaker depends on personal preference and the type of terrain you tend to tour in — in terrain that requires long stretches of flat or even downhill touring, rearward range of motion can be pretty useful. However, if your approaches are generally all uphill, then the limited rearward range of motion of the Cochise will be less of a problem, or no problem at all. I personally prefer a decent amount of ROM, but other reviewers (like Jonathan Ellsworth and Paul Forward) are fine with less. For me, the rearward ROM of the Cochise isn’t a total deal breaker, but that’s due in part to the fact that I have a different touring boot that I use on longer tours (Atomic Backland).
Tecnica touts the new 16/17 Cochise 130 Pro’s increased range of motion. The liner has been improved significantly by adding a flex zone in the rear, and the movement is a bit smoother. However, the rear of the lower shell has been extended quite a bit higher, so the levering action mentioned above starts a bit sooner than before. Still, the new Cochise is slightly better than the old Cochise and the old liner (without the flex zone).
And if you are really concerned about this, you can easily modify the shell of the new Cochise so that it operates like the old Cochise, if not better. (Tecnica claims a smoother movement.) Just cut the lower shell down so that it’s at the same height, all the way around. This is something that any bootfitter worth his or her salt can do in a matter of minutes. I personally won’t be modifying my pair since I’m more concerned about downhill performance in a boot like this, and I have a pair of more touring-oriented boots.
Downhill Performance
With the changes to the new Cochise, the downhill performance has improved quite a bit. If you’ve spent time with the old Cochise, you may have noticed that the new Cochise feels a bit softer in room temperatures. This is primarily due to a difference in plastics. The new plastic has different thermal properties.
Thanks to weight loss in other areas (like eliminating the replaceable sole blocks), Tecnica has been able to return to a traditional alpine-boot plastic (polyurethane and polyether instead of Triax). What does this mean? While it may feel softer than previous years on the showroom floor, outside in colder temperatures, its familiar solid flex comes even closer to the performance of a full alpine boot. And this change is very much welcome. The new Cochise is not only smoother in flex, but also has improved rebound. Down in New Zealand I was able to get the boot into some challenging terrain and snow, and I appreciated the Cochise 130 Pro’s suspension and rebound at speed through crud. I’ve also appreciated the improved suspension in cut up powder and crud back in Colorado.
Although the new Cochise 130 Pro has an additional buckle in addition to a power strap, the fourth buckle is placed a bit lower than the powerstrap buckle on the old Cochise. The new Cochise engages a bit slower because I simply can’t get the velcro powerstrap as tight as you could on the old Cochise via the buckle. After playing around with the new powerstrap, I’ve found that I could get quicker engagement of the cuff by shifting the powerstrap up above the outermost plastic overlap so that it engages the liner more firmly. This makes the new Cochise feel like it has a taller cuff and improves its downhill performance.
All in all, I found the downhill performance of this boot to be nearly indistinguishable from a full alpine boot — excellent rebound and absorption, a nice stiff flex, a performance fit, a solid lock in ski mode, and a great liner that resists packing out but still cushions your foot and shin.
NEXT: Binding Compatibility, Buckles and Powerstrap, Etc.
How does the fit, flex and downhill performance of this boot compare with the Salomon MTN Lab?
Hi Jamie,
I haven’t spent any ski time in the MTN Lab, so I can only speak to what I found in the shop.
SHELL ONLY: Placing my molded Intuition ProTour liners in each boot – the Cochise is much narrower in the heel and slightly narrower in the midfoot. The toebox of the MTN Lab is a bit narrower. I needed a lot of punching in the heel, and some punching in the midfoot for the Cochise. The MTN Lab fit my heel and midfoot fine (might need very minor punching – would need to ski it to find out), but I’d need a little bit of punching for width in the toebox/sixth toe region. The instep of both boots are similar.
If you use the stock liner from the Cochise, the instep is a bit lower, and the overall fit is narrower in general. The stock liner of the Cochise is much cushier and I would THINK that it would provide a much comfier ride inbounds than the MTN Lab in harsh conditions.
Again, this is SHOP ONLY observations, but the Cochise offers more support in the rear of the boot than the MTN Lab. It also has a smoother AND stiffer flex. The MTN Lab feels like a touring boot still, a VERY good one, but a touring boot nonetheless. The Cochise feels like an alpine boot.
If you said I could only own ONE boot, I’d probably go with the MTN Lab. If it was two boots? I’d keep my Atomic Backlands and the Cochise (though adding the Scarpa Freedom RS and Lange XT 130 Freetour as other options would be interesting). Again, from my experiences in shop testing only, I suspect that the Cochise would perform on the downhill at a much higher level, especially in harsher conditions.
That’s great Brian.
Further to that, have you guys written anything about boot flex. I currently ski a 120 flex boot (Salomon Falcon Pro), but am pretty light (75kg) and don’t ski as hard as I used to (I’m 47). I still do more off the piste than on. Also, I will be touring, but currently do so on frame bindings and an alpine boot so any tech-compatible boot is going to be a massive relief.
The question: is the Cochise 120 (or even 100) likely to be pretty similar to the 130, allowing for differences in flex?
Finally, have you guys done a review of the K2 Pinnacle Pro?
Based on my experiences with the older 120 (I haven’t tried the new 120), it would perform similarly to the 130. The flex would be a bit softer, and I don’t think it would be quite as smooth or alpine-feeling, but it would still be a very good boot. I’m not as familiar with the 100 in the Cochise series. I think if you’re looking for something a bit softer, based on my shop testing, the Lange Freetour series might give you that smoother feel in a softer flex – I haven’t skied it however. Also consider the QST Pro 130, as it also has a softer and more forgiving flex – there are some caveats however, which my review will discuss (look for it to be released soon).
I bought the 120 recently, size 26,5. I haven´t tried out the 130 so I can only comment for 120, and how it compares fit-wise to other boots. I’m 49 and 70kg and don´t ski that hard either. I tried also Cochise 100 but that has a different liner, and the fit was not as good as in 120. I have a very narrow heel and ankle area, so Cochise 120 provided a really excellent fit, with no punching needed – the arch in the footbed is too high, though, so that I will need to get lowered. In the shop, I also tested Salomon QST 120, Lange XT 110 Freetour, and Dalbello Panterra 120. Fit-wise, Panterra was probably the second best for me, while Salomon and Lange were too wide (XT 110 is not available in LV version). I have yet to ski the boot more, but my early observation is that the boot provides a good level of support and precision, yet it is not overly stiff. Also, it feels relatively comfortable (at least when I get the arch area sorted out).
I too have the Cochise 120. I also tried on many of those same boots, but I tried on the Lange Freetour XT LV. That was a fair bit narrower in the forefoot, but heel hold was actually better in the Cochise.
The Dalbello Itred felt basically like it was a 1/2 or whole size smaller, despite being the same listed size: narrower in forefoot, but tighter over the arch and very short in length too.
I have high arches so the foot feels great for me.
I am 6’5”, 180lbs and an intermediate(plus?) skier. I don’t ski very aggressively, more relaxed, loose and upright.
Fit is great for me. I do get some pressure/rubbing while skiing: it’s on the back of the ankle, above the heel, a price for that great heel hold.
Intution Liners solve that, but have less heel hold.
I also did a 2 hour tour on them, after skiing resort in the morning, and they felt fine, no discomfort at all while touring.
I too noticed the restricted rearward-range of motion.
Have you tried with a booster strap instead of the manufacturers power strap? I find a booster strap pulled tight on the liner skis better and is easier to loosen due to the cam system as you mentioned on the salomon boots…
Hi Robert,
I’m personally not a fan of booster straps, though I know plenty of people that are. Quite a few people I ski with use booster straps on their Cochises (older models). Booster straps have a bit of elasticity in them. I don’t like this elasticity. I generally want a more direct and immediate response from the boot and liner.
Did you find this to be a real 130 flex? I’m in a 120 flex boot right now, and it gets quite stiff in the cold. The Cochise 120 in the store seems to be waaaay too soft, and it has that springiness you mentioned. No one seems to stock the 130 around me, which is odd. If it really stiffens up in the cold, I guess that would be enough, but I was flexing the thing in half.
“but I was flexing the thing in half.”
I assume you meant in the shop? I think it’s extremely important for people to understand that shop flexing a boot really won’t tell you much unless you’ve been able to get the boot down to ski slope temperatures (use a fridge or leave them outside for a while, if it’s cold enough). Most boots are MUCH softer at 70 degrees than they would be on the ski slope. While one could compare two different boots in the same shop temperatures, this isn’t reliable either – different boots can use different plastics, which have different thermal properties. The thickness of the plastic will create thermal differences as well.
I do think that the Cochise is at or near a real 130 flex. Its a solid boot. But, flex numbers can be all over the map, and its hard to say whether or not it will be stiffer than your current 120 flex boot (I don’t know what boot it is, nor have I probably skied it).
Very interesting read Brian! Thanks for this!
I have started getting into backcountry skiing (nothing too fancy, mostly sidecountry or maybe 2-3 hour hikes) and have thus far toured with Guardian bindings and my Mach 1 130’s. Fun and all but a pretty heavy setup… Which got me into thinking of buying some better boots I can tour with.
I will probably keep my Guardian’s for now since I spend 80% of my time in-bounds but was initially thinking of getting something like a MTN lab or Zero G Guide Pro for the touring stuff and keeping my Mach1’s for inbound.
Reading this, it seems like the Cochise 130 could be the one-trick pony for me? (if it fits my feet of course =D)
Hi Freddy,
The Cochise 130 certainly could be a one-trick pony, especially if you augment it with a more touring-oriented liner. I often use an Intuition ProTour liner, which drops the weight down to a more manageable 1800g while also improving ROM and touring comfort by quite a bit. Swapping between the stock liner and the ProTour liner would be an option, but I’ve found that it skis quite well in this configuration, even inbounds. Just be aware that the liner is thinner and if you have a low volume foot, it may be a sloppier fit (my wider foot is fine, however). You’ll probably have to crank the cuff buckles more also – I had to move one of the ladders. The Cochise 120 with a ProTour liner would also be another option for even less weight.
The other way to go would be as you suggested – keep the Mach1 for inbounds and a MTN Lab or ZeroG for touring.
Finally, I could see some people being happy with skiing in only the MTN Lab or ZeroG for both resort and touring (using an MNC binding for resort).
Personally, I like the Cochise option best – I like being able to take my everyday resort boot, which I know well and am comfortable with, into the backcountry for the more challenging skiing. It’s also nice being able to take only one boot when going on ski trips. If you’re happy with the MTN Lab or ZeroG in the resort, either of those could work as well (I haven’t skied either of them, but am skeptical).
That said, the Cochise is a bit much for the really long tours (8+ hour days), so having a secondary very lightweight touring boot is really nice (Atomic Backland for me). The MTN Lab or ZeroG could work here as well, but the Atomic Backland skis ‘good enough’ for me and is even less weight and has even better ROM. You could easily substitute the Atomic Backland with any of the other lightweight boots like the Dyanfit TLT7, Scarpa F1, Fischer Traverse, or Arcteryx Procline, but I prefer the Atomic Backland the most, so far, mostly for fit reasons.
Regarding volume difference with Intuition liner. I have tried using the Intuition Liner from my Scarpa Maestrales (very similar to the normal Intuition tour liner), and since it’s one size bigger than my Cochise, it actually fits snugger!
So, if your shell fit is on the roomy side, and you want to use a lighter, better walking touring liner, you might want to try sizing up in the liner.
(Or some of the usual other tricks like thicker footbed/boar, extra tongue pads etc.)
Thanks for the review.
Resort,I ski a lange rx 130 in 102 width.
Do you think the cochise can be pinched out enough to be as wide in the mid foot as the rx?
Also, heard about rebound in a boot, what does it mean?
Hi Rod,
Yes, I do believe so. The Cochise can be punched quite a bit. By rebound, I mean the ‘return to neutral’ property of the plastic. When you flex into the boot and then relax, the boot will push your leg back into the neutral position. This is rebound. Its a spring-like property of the plastics.
Really interested in the comparison with the QST Pro, when is the review gonna drop?
Very soon.
On another note, boot makers seem to be putting much better liners in their boots these days. Is that a fair comment?
Hi,
very interesting. I currently use K2 Pinnacle 130. How does the Tecnica 130 compares to that Boot? I am more downhill oriented. Thanks!
Hey Hans,
I haven’t had any time in the Pinnacle 130. I do know that its a LOT heavier – if what I’ve read is correct, it’s about 400 grams more per foot. From rumors I’ve heard, I believe it’s a bit softer than the older Cochise 130 and the walk mode isn’t as good, but again, those are rumors – I haven’t even tried one on.
Brian, thanks for the great review!
One question: do you know if the new soles can be canted using a Cantology shim/cant wedge?
I am a strong and aggressive skier (23 years old, 6’6 and 225lbs) but I’m constantly battling my poor knee alignment (internally rotated femurs and horridly flat feet…..the classic high Q-angle A-frame). Because of this, most boot fitters give me anywhere from a +2.5-3.5 degree cant adjustment on the insides, depending on the boot.
I don’t like to be canted on the skin track, but it’s pretty vital to being able to engage my outside edge on the downhill. I use the CAST system, so I can tech-tour up, and ski alpine bindings down.
Do you know if I could shim these boots using a cantology wedge (or similar) in order to replicate a boot fitter planing the soles? And if so, any idea if that might interfere with entry into a dynafit-style toe piece?
Also if anyone in the peanut gallery has thoughts, please let me know as well!
Brett
Hi Brett,
I don’t think I have a good answer for you on this subject. Probably best to ask your local bootfitter.
Very informative review!
Is the forward range of the QST a problem also if it is unbuckled?
Sounds like the perfect boot for my feet (very wide fore/middle foot, low arc, but also low instep and normal ankle/heel). I would buy this boot if it was not for the touring issue you mention.
Currently use the old quest max (working well after molding the forefoot), and I find the touring to be acceptable if fully unbuckled and unhinged.
But I am worried the new endofit tongue would create problems also if unbuckled?
Hi Bob,
The QST 130 Pro review is still being worked on but should be released soon, so I’d prefer to hold off on making any comments on that boot until the review is live.
Hi, thanks for the review !
Those boots seems really good to me, but I skied for 3 years with Dalbello boots, now that I want to change them for tech inserts compatible boots, I dont know if I should continue to ski with Dalbello by taking the Lupo TI or try something new by taking those Tecnica Cochise 130 …
Could you telle me if there’s a big difference of feeling or performance between Dalbello TI and Cochise 130 ?
thanks (and sorry for the English level, I’m french)
Hi PL,
I haven’t skied the Dalbello TI before, nor have I done any in-shop comparisons. However, I do know that a lot of people are happy with it. I wish I had a better answer for you.
Are there any plans to review the Scarpa Freedom RS? I’d be very interested in hearing how that compares head to head with this boot. I own the RS but only have about a week in them. While I sized down in the shell from my previous Langes, it took a good amount of tweaking to get them to fit well. Love the way they ski now but those first couple days were a bit painful. This boot is popular enough that I think the comments from you guys would be appreciated. Don’t think I need more of a boot but it’d be interesting to hear what you folks find.
Hi Jeff,
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to do a head-to-head comparison with the Scarpa Freedom RS. However, I do believe we will have a review on this boot at some point in time. In the mean time, we do have a brief review of the boot in our Buyer’s Guide. And yes, it does occupy the same niche as the Cochise 130. Great downhill performance, great ROM, but heavy. Good for occasional shorter tours and inbounds alike.
Tossed my Scrapa maestrale rs for the Cochise Pro and could not be happier. There was some punching needed in the toe box, (super wide feet) and the heels were the best fitting ever. Old Scarpas were great on the up but just didnt have enough cuff and were way to soft to drive the larger touring skis were using now day.
Great powerful boot for frontside days and could drive anything hard in all conditions. I have just one small complaint and I got the same feed back from others that have this boot, there COLD! New plastic? I’m an old guy, been in lots of boots over the years and have not had issues staying warm since my old Hansens.
Hi Milo,
With my OLD Cochise in really cold temperatures, duct taping the overlap seam at the toe of the boot made it much warmer (and leak less) – when skiing fast, or on the lift, it felt like cold air would leak into the boot, which was reduced via with the duct tape. I know a lot of people do this with Lange boots for this very reason. Caveat being, we’ve had a pretty warm winter, so I haven’t been able to determine if the NEW Cochise is like the OLD one (it’s designed a bit different that area – has a bulge in front of the overlap seal, perhaps to assist for this very reason).
Hi Milo,
I suffered with cold Tecnica feet for years until I got a pair of DryGuy BootGloves. Problem solved and
now my feet are “not cold” all day. The most happiness you can get in life for about $30.
Hi Brian,
I m looking for a resort touring boot with similar performance to alpine boot.Currently I have dynafit khion which was waste of money as I find them too soft.
I want to ask you for opinion on Tecnica Zero G Guide Pro vs Tecnica Cochise 130 DYN.
You wrote that in Zero G you felt a lot of space around heel/ankle after few uses. Is it same with Tecnica Cochise 130 DYN?
(I have tried also scarpa freedom RS but I find there too much space around heel)
By the chance do you have any recommendation of resort touring boots(do not care about weight that much) for man with skinny heels?
Thanks!
Matus
Caveat, I have not used it yet. But:
In the shop, the heel and ankle fit was better and snugger on the Cochise 120 (99mm last) than on the Lange XT Freetour LV (97mm last).
The forefoot felt noticeably roomier on the Cochise, so I think the stated last widths are correct, the difference is in the heel and ankle.
I have skinny heels and ankles too, and a low volume foot, and went with the Cochise over the Lange LV precisely because of the heel/ankle/calf hold.
Hi Matus,
I haven’t skied the Zero G Guide Pro before, I think you meant to address Paul? That said, the liner that comes in the Cochise 130 is very substantial/thick. The liner that comes in the Zero G Guide Pro is much less thick. I can’t say for sure, but I would assume that the Cochise has a much smaller ankle pocket. Unfortunately, I’m not a skinny heeled/ankled person, so I wouldn’t be the best person to suggest a boot for you. I’m sure your local bootfitter could point you in the right direction, however.
Great review!
I have one more may be unusual question.
I see you tested 25.5. What is your mesured mondo size?
I asking since I preordered just -1/2 cm and now think it will be too big :/
I generally wear a 25.5. For boots I’m doing longer tours in, I size up to 26.5. Though, I don’t really look at the size and just try boots on at my local shop, buying for best-fit all-around and have them punch at the toes when necessary. I have a wide foot all-around, so I don’t have to punch for length very often.
Thanks for reply. You have put my mind at ease.
Have you guys gotten out on the 2019 DYN version yet? Notice any difference between the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 version? I bought 2017/2018 and then came across a deal to get the newer model at same price, wondering if its worth the hassle of shipping back and getting the new model. Thanks for the input.
What’s the forward lean for this boot?
Thanks!
Best
Sondre Underdal
Hi Sondre,
I’m not aware of any standard for measuring forward lean of a boot – and from what I’ve heard, it’s a bit like flex numbers – the number is not entirely useful. The best thing you can do is try it on compared to other boots that you’ve skied in.
Should I get Tecnica Cochise 120 or 130?
– I’m 5-9 165lb athletic 50 years old skier.
– I spend 50% time on groomed and 50% on ungroomed (like Vail back bowls).
– 30% hard blues, 40% blacks, 20% moguls, 10% double blacks.
– I ride Nordica Enforcers 93 177.
– I go fast but not super fast as I like to feel in control.
Any thoughts on Cochise 120 vs 130? I tried both and they fit amazingly well. I do not feel much difference in stiffness at the room temperature. And at the room temperature they both do not feel overly stiff so initially I thought of 130 but they can may stiffen up on the snow.
It’s hard to say. Boot stiffness is pretty personal. You could probably go with either. There is definitely a difference in flex between the two, both in the quality of the flex and the stiffness.
As you’ve noticed, you can’t really get a good idea for how a boot flexes when you’re in the shop. You can always ask your local shop to throw them in the fridge to reduce the temperature of the plastic to on-snow temperatures to get a better idea about the flex. But, even then, one’s opinion of the flex can change once a boot is actually being skied.
Hi, currently have the 2013 Cochise 100. My skiing has greatly progressed since I bought these boots, and they now seem like not enough boot for me. They do not seem to hold up when I’m skiing hard terrain and putting a lot into turns and such. I found a great deal on the Cochise 130 reviewed here. Tried them on and the fit seems great. I also want to start trying out touring and side-country. Just wondering if 130 is too stiff and I should go with 120. I’m 6’2”, 225 pounds, and ski aggressively. On groomers I like to go very fast or enjoy jumping off of small stuff on the sides of the trail. I also ski all types of terrain (well except moguls cuz it’s just not fun for me), New England trees, steeps, etc.
Just wondering on if you have an opinion on if 130 would be good for me? Too stiff? Or a welcome upgrade to fit my current skiing? Thanks.
Hi Shawn,
That’s pretty hard to say. I definitely notice the difference between the 120 or the 130. While I prefer the 130, I think most people my height and weight would be happy with the 120. However, you’re a lot bigger than me. I think you’d overall be happy with either boot, but you may end up preferring one over the other if you were able to ski in both first. I can’t say which that’d be.
I ski the old Cochise and love it for the Alpine feel, large fit and sidecountry capabilities. Is this the natural successor for that or is there another boot on the market that is now filling that gap?
Hi Peter,
It’s definitely the natural successor. It’s an improvement overall over the previous Cochise. The fit is definitely tighter, however, so I’d check with your local bootfitter first.
How does the new Cochise 130 flex, rebound and provide suspension in comparison to Mach1 130 or Lange RX 130. Is there much sacrifice for the pros of the Cochise when inbounds all mountain skiing…torn up left overs, bumps, trees, steeps, etc…
Or are these really apples and oranges.
Coming off a Salomon QST 120….which is far too soft.
I’m 6’3 and 215.
Hi Blakus,
The Cochise 130 is pretty close to a Mach1 or Lange RX. It’s a pretty stout boot. The QST 120 is definitely in a different class (not as much of a boot). I’m not surprised you weren’t happy with it, being a big guy.
Brian,
If purely inbounds and never touring or rarely, is the Cochise not the correct option?
Blakus
If you pretty much never tour, then I’d probably just pick an inbounds boot. Why make any compromise?
The Cochise might fit just a hair better. On mountain all day comfort as well. But if it’s a sizeable sacrifice I’ll take the performance. I’ve just heard of several people switching for the comfort and not missing any performance. Not sure if that’s exaggerated or not.
Hey Brian, have you had the opportunity to try the Freetour 130 over the years? I have been using them this season but even though there have been some positives (such as a real progressive flex- I run WC boosters on them) they have generally let me down as far as durability is concerned. The heel hold on them (I have the 100 last MV ones) is also poor.
Could the Cochise be the solution for me? I generally tour for the majority of my season (I know that these kind of boots walk badly tc. but I know their limits and this is what I want), 67 kg, 180 cm.
Hey tilio and others. Just a few notions regarding the fit. I have not had the chance to ski in Cochise yet. I purchased them since I’ve been ski touring a lot in the Zero G Tour Pro for the last 1,5 seasons and have liked those very much.
I got the Cochise in same size as the zgtp. They fit even better out of the box. The last feels similar shaped, instep area has maybe slightly more room than the zgtp and especially the heel retention feels much better while strolling around the house. The heel hold in the zgtp wasn’t bad to begin with, but it has improved with the liners bedding in. The Cochise heel feels even better than in Dalbello Lupo, which have the middle buckle running across the ankle! Of course the stock liner in Cochise is very different from the minimal and firm liner of the zgtp.
Lupos disintegrated very fast, so I wanted something burlier but with tech fittings and walk mode to back up the zgtp’s if they decide to give up suddenly. So far the zgtp have been holding up the abuse of a big dude for +300 hours and 80k meters of ski touring vert. If that’s any indication, the Cochise might be very durable. Cant wait to get some early season tree laps in with those!
Hey Brian,
I am undecided in between the Cochise 130 and the Nordica Strider 130. I didn’t get the chance to try the 130s, only the 120s for both. Both had a good fit, with the Strider requiring maybe no punching. Would you say there is no difference in fit between flexes? For someone who will spend more time inbounds and a few tours every now and then which one would you advise?
Thank you so much!