Boot: 2024-2025 phaenom fs 01 120
Test Location: Crested Butte Mountain Resort, CO
Test Duration: ~15 days
Stated Flex: 120
Available Sizes: 24–28.5
Stated Last (size 26): 102 mm
Size Tested: 26
Stated Boot Sole Length (size 26): 305 mm
Additional Specs
Blister’s Measured Weight (size 26):
- Shells, no Liners (left & right): 1517 & 1512 g
- Liners, no Footbeds: 536 g & 545 g
- Shells + Liners = 2053 & 2057 g
- Stock Insoles: 40 g each
- Removable Spoilers: 52 g each (included in shell weight above)
Buckle Layout: 2 micro-adjustable (1 upper cuff, 1 lower shell)
Power Strap: 70 mm elastic strap w/ hook-and-ladder closure
Shell Materials:
- Cuff: TPU (heat-moldable)
- Lower Shell / Shoe: TPU (heat-moldable)
- Tongue: TPU
Stated Forward Lean: 15° (adjustable to 13° and 17°)
Soles: GripWalk (ISO 23223), replaceable
Binding Compatibility: GripWalk & MN (multi-norm) bindings
Intro
It’s rare that we see a new brand enter the ski boot category, but phaenom is the latest to try their hand at offering something different in this part of the snowsports gear world.
Phaenom announced their first limited release of boots in November of 2023, so they’re now into their second full season of production. For more on the brand background, check out our writeup on the announcement.
Long story short: phaenom is part of Full Stack Supply Co., the parent company of Faction Skis and United Shapes snowboards. Phaenom currently offers eight boot models, and in addition to some very interesting design choices, the boots are all built with longevity, repairability, and recyclability in mind.
We’ve now spent several days skiing in the fs 01 120, the stiffest fixed-cuff model in the lineup, and we’re ready to dive into all of the things about this boot that make it stand out from the rest.
What phaenom says about the fs 01 120:
“The fs 01 120 is the all-mountain freeski boot designed to achieve flex perfection, power transmission and shock absorption.
The innovative hybrid cabrio / overlap construction combines the best of both worlds: the close fit and edge control of the overlap, and the progressive flex of the 3-piece. Paired with the patent-pending phaenom strap, the fs 01 120 provides rebound, shock absorption and exceptional flex control. The elasticity of the strap generates tangible rebound through your turns, for increased power transmission, turn initiation precision, comfort and predictability.
Designed for customization, the boot comes with three different inserts (flip chips) that allow forward lean angles of 13°, 15°, and 17°.
The sleek all-black design supports restoration and reuse of the boot and its parts. Each element of this product — from panels to buckles to straps and screws — is designed to be repairable and recyclable.”
[Note: from here on out, I’m going to disregard phaenom’s all-lowercase formatting for clarity’s sake.]
Phaenom’s Ski Boot Lineup
Phaenom launched with eight boot models. The four “FS” (aka, freestyle) models feature fixed cuffs; the four “FR” (aka, freeride) boots come with walk mechanisms and tech inserts at the heel and toe for use with touring bindings. However, the FS and FR boots reportedly share very similar overall constructions and an identical last.
Here are the models in Phaenom’s current boot lineup and their available sizes:
- FR 01 130 (size 24–28.5)
- FS 01 120 (size 24–28.5)
- FR 01 120 (size 23–26.5)
- FS 01 110 (size 23–26.5)
- FR 01 110 (size 24–28.5)
- FR 01 100 (size 23–26.5)
- FS 01 100 (size 24–28.5)
- FS 01 90 (size 23–26.5)
Shell Design & Materials
One of the most noteworthy aspects of Phaenom’s boot design is that they combine elements of 2-piece “overlap” boots and 3-piece “cabrio” ones.
The Phaenom boots feature an open (i.e., non-overlapping) lower shell that’s covered by a plastic tongue, akin to traditional 3-piece boots. However, Phaenom’s design features a more substantial overlapping upper cuff similar to most 2-piece boots. The Phaenom plastic tongue is also shorter than traditional 3-piece boots, extending about halfway up the upper cuff.
According to Phaenom, this approach provides “the close fit and edge control of the overlap, and the progressive flex of the 3-piece.”
Below, I’ll offer some thoughts on why I disagree with some of the specific language used there, but the main point is that Phaenom’s design fills the middle ground between traditional 2-piece and 3-piece boots. Overall, the Phaenom shell layout is pretty similar to the recently revealed Armada AR ONE boots, though the Phaenom tongue is lower and its cuff covers a bit more of the lower shell (more on that comparison in the Full Review section).
Moving on from its unique shell layout, the FS 01 120 features a TPU shell, cuff, and tongue, and Phaenom says you can heat-mold both the shell and liner if you need more room inside the boot (see their site for the details).
Liner & Insole
The Phaenom liner is also pretty out of the ordinary. For starters, it features a rubberized outer sole that’s meant to “absorb high and low frequency vibrations coming up through the ski boot.” Combined with its optional but included laces, that also makes the liner a decent option for wearing around a lodge / hut.
The Phaenom liner features an adjustable tongue that you can move fore / aft to tweak the instep fit, and Phaenom says that 50% of the liner is made from bio-based materials. These boots come with 2 mm and 4 mm shims (or “volume reducers”) that can be used to take up internal volume, though these shims are designed to be run between the liner and insole, rather than between the liner and shell.
On that note, the insole that comes with the FS 01 120 is quite nice by stock-insole standards. The vast majority are just flimsy pieces of thin foam that do nothing to support most feet, which is why we’re such big proponents of working with a bootfitter to add an aftermarket insole to your ski boots. However, Phaenom says they worked “with Lenz and renowned orthopedic specialists” to create a better one. It’s made with 30% recycled EVA foam that has more structure than most ski boot insoles, and there’s cork under the heel for added vibration damping.
I doubt that this insole will provide equal support as an aftermarket insole for most folks, given how different everyone’s feet are, but I bet it’ll be better than most of the stock insoles that come with other boots. Phaenom’s is one of the few that I actually hung onto after eventually swapping it for the custom insoles I need to run in any ski boot (the Phaenom insole found a happy home in my snowboard boots).
Buckles / Closures
Phaenom pairs their hybrid shell design with just two buckles — one for the cuff and one over the instep. The lower buckle latches over a broad piece of plastic to distribute pressure over the plastic tongue. Both buckles are quite large, feature fully serviceable hardware (i.e., no pesky rivets), and are micro-adjustable.
Power Strap
Yet another unique element of Phaenom’s boots is their power strap. Most brands use some sort of textile for their stock power straps, but Phaenom’s patent-pending strap is made of an elastic plastic. Combined with its belt-buckle-like closure, the resulting setup is a bit like a really wide (70 mm) Voile ski strap.
It has a good deal of stretch to it, which is always a plus (more on that later), and Phaenom says that the substantial width of the strap is part of why they could forgo the traditional second upper cuff buckle. It’s also worth noting that Phaenom puts this premium strap on every one of their boots — not just the stiffest models.
Forward Lean
All of Phaenom’s boots feature adjustable forward lean; they come stock at 15° but can be adjusted to 13° and 17°.
In the FS models, this change requires that you swap out the little ‘flip chips’ that sit just behind the cuff pivot point (the boots come with the chips for all three settings).
The Phaenom boots also feature a removable and adjustable spoiler, but it attaches to the shell, rather than velcro-ing to the liner.
Soles & Binding Compatibility
All of Phaenom’s boots feature rubberized soles that fit the ISO 23223 standard (i.e., “GripWalk”). As with most aspects of these boots, the soles are easily replaceable with a screwdriver / torque wrench.
The FS models are compatible with bindings that are certified to work with the ISO 23223 sole standard (i.e., GripWalk and “MN” or multi-norm bindings).
Weight (and Comparisons)
For our size 26, the FS 01 120 weighs a little over 2050 grams per boot. In today’s fixed-cuff boot market, that nudges it into the heavier end of the spectrum. That said, we’d still categorize this as a pretty standard weight for an alpine boot; it’s just that more and more brands have recently cut weight from their own boots.
Here are a number of our measured weights for some comparable boots. For our measured weights, we list the weights of each shell + the weights of each liner, then the total weight of the shells + liners.
K2 Recon 130 LV (26.5): 1276 & 1277 + 369 & 374 = 1645 & 1651 g
K2 Recon Pro (26.5): 1334 & 1328 + 426 & 434 = 1760 & 1762 g
Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 S GW (26.5): 1375 & 1376 + 410 & 413 = 1785 & 1789 g
Salomon S/Pro Alpha 130 (26.5): 1408 & 1417 + 399 & 400 = 1807 & 1817 g
Tecnica Mach1 LV 130 TD2 GW (26.5): 1472 & 1469 + 369 & 375 = 1841 & 1844 g
Nordica Promachine 130 (26.5): 1428 & 1428 + 444 & 445 = 1872 & 1873 g
Dalbello Cabrio LV Free 130 3DWrap (26.5): 1640 & 1640 + 246 & 244 = 1886 & 1884 g
Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 Professional GW (26.5): 1411 & 1415 + 548 & 546 = 1948 & 1961 g
Tecnica Mach1 LV 130 TD (prior-gen) (26.5): 1518 & 1518 + 447 & 450 = 1965 & 1968 g
Lange Shadow 130 LV (26.5): 1560 & 1560 + 415 & 419 = 1975 & 1979 g
Kästle K130P LV (26.5) 1635 & 1635 + 361 & 368 = 1996 & 2003 g
Fischer RC4 Pro LV GW ZF CFC (26.5): 1438 & 1440 + 586 & 586 = 2024 & 2026 g
Head Formula 130 (26.5): 1557 & 1558 + 468 & 470 = 2027 g & 2029 g
Tecnica Mach1 MV 130 TD (26.5): 1541 & 1539 + 491 & 501 = 2032 g & 2040 g
Head Formula RS 130 (26.5): 1587 & 1588 + 466 & 466 = 2052 g & 2053 g
Rossignol Hi-Speed Elite 130 (26.5): 1610 & 1607 + 442 & 446 = 2052 & 2053 g
Phaenom FS 01 120 (26): 1517 & 1512 + 536 & 545 = 2053 & 2057 g
Armada AR ONE 130 MV (26.5): 1649 & 1651 + 444 & 444 = 2093 & 2095 g
Lange RS 130 LV (26.5): 1634 & 1634 + 481 & 489 = 2115 & 2123 g
Fischer RC4 Pro MV GW BOA ZF CFC (26.5): 1554 & 1555 + 605 & 603 = 2170 & 2170 g
Atomic Redster CS 130 (26.5): 1773 & 1778 + 435 & 434 = 2208 & 2212 g
Nordica Dobermann 5 S (26.5) 1811 & 1816 + 491 & 490 = 2302 & 2306 g
Head Raptor WCR 140S (26.5): 1852 & 1849 + 507 & 511 = 2359 & 2360 g
Fit
As always, our Fit sections will never replace the usefulness of the advice of an experienced bootfitter, nor are they designed to do so. The fit of any boot should be the deciding factor and everyone’s feet are different, so we highly, highly recommend visiting a bootfitter before settling on a boot. Want to find a reputable bootfitter? Check out our Blister Recommended Shops. With that said, here are some thoughts on how the FS 01 120 feels on my feet.
For reference, I have a fairly wide midfoot (a little over 100 mm when unsupported), fairly low instep, low-volume ankle, and skinny calves. The Tecnica Mach1 MV is the boot with which I’ve gotten the best out-of-the-box fit; my feet have also gotten along quite well with the Lange Shadow LV after swapping in my custom ZipFit Gara HV liners (more on those below).
Phaenom’s FS and FR boots have an identical stated last width of 102 mm (size 26). On paper, that makes them comparable to many brands’ “high-volume” boots, but last width is just a small piece of the fit puzzle.
At the widest point around the midfoot, the FS 01 120 definitely feels roomier than most “medium-volume” (~100 mm stated last width) boots. Same goes for the toe box; the FS 01 120 leaves more room around my toes than every medium-volume boot I’ve tried, save the Fischer RC4 Pro MV.
However, the FS 01 120 feels like less of a high-volume boot around the instep and ankle. It’s still roomier in these areas than most medium-volume boots I’ve tried, but Phaenom’s single lower buckle does an impressive job of snugging things down over my fairly low instep. (I often struggle to achieve a secure fit in traditional 3-piece boots because they leave too much room over my instep).
Given my role at Blister and the fact that my feet don’t play nice with most boots, I almost always end up swapping boots’ stock liners for my custom ZipFit Gara HV liners in order to complete a long-term review. After several days in its stock liner, I did that with the FS 01 120; it drastically improved how secure the boot felt around my heel, ankle, and instep, which is consistent with just about every boot shell I’ve paired with my ZipFits.
This is not a slight against the FS 01 120, it’s just a reality when testing ski boots — certain boots work better for certain foot shapes, and certain foot shapes (like mine) don’t work with many boots in their stock form. Even with my ZipFits, the FS 01 120 is still roomier than I prefer around the ankle, but it ended up working a lot better than I expected, given that I typically prefer boots with stated last widths between 97-100 mm.
FULL REVIEW
Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): At the tail end of last season, we got a pair of Phaenom’s FS 01 120 boot, the stiffest fixed-cuff model in this young brand’s lineup.
My first few days in the FS 01 120 were quite positive. While I typically prefer a legit ‘130-flex’ boot, the FS 01 120 felt like a strong ‘120,’ and I was still able to use it to bend stiff skis on ultra-firm groomers during spring mornings. And I didn’t have any issues with ‘blowing through’ the flex pattern of the boot. Its suspension also felt quite nice, and all the other components and materials seemed high quality.
Following those initial days with the boot, I got back in it this season for more testing and fine-tuning. To achieve a more secure fit on my particular feet, I added a shim / volume-reducer to the shell and swapped the stock liner for my aforementioned ZipFit Gara HV liners. Having achieved a good enough fit to ski confidently, I really started to focus on the FS 01 120’s on-snow performance.
Flex Pattern & Overall Skiing Performance
We’ve already spent a lot of time discussing this boot’s unique design, but what does it actually translate to while skiing?
Overall, the FS 01 120 provides a smooth and progressive flex pattern. And, in general, “smooth” is a word that kept coming to mind while testing this boot.
But before we go further, we need to revisit the confusing / inconsistent nomenclature surrounding ski boots.
For reference, here’s a section that we’ve included in the intro to the Ski Boots section of our Winter Buyer’s Guide for the past few years:
“Note: “Progressive” vs. “Linear” Flex: You’re going to find us using these terms quite a bit in this section. When we say that a boot has a “progressive” flex, what we mean is that the boot gets (progressively) stiffer — i.e., becomes more and more supportive — as you flex the cuff of the ski boot farther forward. When we say that a boot has a “linear” flex, we mean that the amount of support it provides doesn’t increase significantly in stiffness, but stays pretty much the same whether you are flexing the cuff of the boot forward a little bit or a lot.”
We added that, in part, because we often hear the term “progressive” used to mean different things by different people. Most notably, some folks use “progressive” to describe 3-piece “cabrio” boots like the Dalbello Cabrio or Raichle / Full-Tilt / K2 FL3X. In reality, those types of boots tend to flex in a more linear fashion than most 2-piece boots (when using our own definitions, outlined above).
There’s a lot more nuance to this than a couple of broad-level terms will ever be able to accurately convey, but we just want you all to be on the same page and understand what we’re trying to convey. Back to the FS 01 120…
Compared to 2-piece boots that ramp up in stiffness quite quickly (e.g., Lange Shadow 130, Tecnica Mach1 130), the initial quarter or third of the FS 01 120’s flex pattern feels notably softer. But, similar to the Armada AR ONE 130, the FS 01 120’s flex pattern does ramp up nicely as you flex deeper into the boot.
(I can’t help but think of mountain bike suspension when trying to describe ski boot flex patterns, so I’m gonna make some analogies and probably mix some metaphors here. If any of them don’t make sense, please let me know in the comments and I’ll try to clarify further.)
This transition from softer initial flex to more supportive “midstroke” feels smoother / less abrupt in the FS 01 120 than some 2-piece boots I’ve used, such as the Atomic Hawx Prime XTD 130, which feels like it ramps up in stiffness more quickly at a certain point. But the FS 01 120 also doesn’t take as long to ramp up in stiffness as, say, the Dynafit Radical Pro or Scarpa Maestrale RS (both of which are touring boots that feature a different take on a “hybrid” shell layout). And the FS 01 120 offers more support deeper into its flex pattern than most 120-flex (and some 130-flex) 3-piece boots I’ve tried.
So, I’d describe the FS 01 120’s flex pattern as almost linear / modestly progressive at the start, and then pretty progressive from there.
When A/B testing the FS 01 120 and Armada AR ONE 130, the FS 01 120 felt a bit softer during the initial quarter or third of its travel, but the two felt similarly supportive once I got to the ramp-up point in their flex patterns. Overall, they feel pretty similar, but the Armada AR ONE 130 does feel a bit stiffer. If / when Phaenom makes a 130-flex version of the FS 01, I suspect it’d be really close or maybe a bit stiffer than the AR ONE 130.
In moguls and choppy off-piste conditions, the FS 01 120’s flex pattern has generally been fine for my preferences. However, those situations are often where I notice the excess room I have in this boot, particularly around the ankle and toe box. However, I haven’t yet felt like I’ve rapidly blown through the flex pattern of the FS 01 120 during a quick, intense impact, which is something I have experienced in some 3-piece boots and some softer-flexing “hybrid” touring boots.
The rearward support of the FS 01 120 feels fine for the most part. It might be a bit less stiff in this direction than my go-to boot, the Lange Shadow LV 130, but I can’t say for certain. At the very least, it’s been good enough that the FS 01 120’s rearward stiffness has not been something that’s come to mind while using the boot.
The lateral support of the FS 01 120 is a similar story — I mostly haven’t noticed / thought about it. Part of this is due to the extra room I have inside the boot; I can’t confidently say much about a given boot’s lateral rigidity when my foot / liner is moving around inside the shell. But, again, the main point is that I didn’t feel as though the FS 01 120’s shell was deforming or flexing in an unusual way.
In sum, after some adjustment time and the fit tweaks I mentioned, I could mostly just ski in the FS 01 120 as I would in my go-to alpine boots (all of which are ‘130-flex’ boots befitting that rating). Despite the FS 01 120’s initial flex pattern being softer than I’m used to, I could adapt after a few runs and still had the support I wanted once I reached the more progressive middle part of its flex pattern.
[Note: adding ZipFit Gara liners to the FS 01 120 does stiffen up the boot a bit, but it doesn’t feel like an unusual or drastic change, compared to the numerous other boots I’ve tested with their own stock liners and then with the Gara. The comparisons I’m mentioning refer to all boots in their stock configurations.]
Suspension & Rebound
The suspension of the FS 01 120 feels quite nice. It does a commendable job of muting out harsh impacts from the snow, even when not using its stock liner (which has a shock-absorbing sole) and stock insole (which has cork under the heel to further absorb vibrations). Again, “smooth” quickly comes to mind when I think about skiing in this boot.
As for how this boot rebounds when flexed, it mostly just feels normal and predictable to me. The FS 01 120 ‘bounces back’ a bit more noticeably than the Mach1 MV 130 and Shadow 130 LV, but I think that’s mostly due to the FS 01 120’s softer initial flex pattern allowing for more leg movement / ankle flexion. The FS 01 120 definitely doesn’t feel like an undamped spring in the way that some really light touring boots can.
Notable Features
It’s a bit of a bummer that the FS 01 120’s stock setup doesn’t work for my feet, cause I do think its stock liner is very nicely made. I like the idea of the rubberized outsole on the liner, not only for its vibration damping, but also cause you could use it as a house bootie on a hut trip, for example.
The FS 01 120 comes with liner laces, and Phaenom’s recommended setup is to run it with laces and put on the boot “World Cup style,” where you lace up the liner on your feet and then put feet+liner into the shells. That’s the approach I’m now accustomed to, since I usually wear lace-up ZipFit liners in my boots, but it’s also pretty easy to get in and out of the FS 01 120 via the normal method if you use its liner without laces. Its plastic tongue pivots up and down a bit when the boot’s unbuckled, which helps free up some room over the instep area when getting the boot on / off.
Either way, it’ll probably take a bit of time for most people to get used to how all the pieces of this boot’s shell and liner are meant to line up. This is the experience I’ve had with just about every take on a “hybrid” shell layout; there are just more plastic parts, buckles, etc. that need to line up properly, particularly compared to a traditional 2-piece boot layout. But I doubt most people would have a real issue with this.
The FS 01 120’s stock power strap is one of its most conspicuous features, and I’m a fan. I will always opt to run an elastic power strap on the ski boots I use for an extended period of time because elastic straps do a much better job of maintaining a consistent leg-to-cuff connection than static, non-stretchy straps. For many boots, that means I need to swap their stock strap for an aftermarket elastic one (and pray that I don’t need to drill out stupid rivets to do so). The FS 01 120 comes stock with a power strap that I’d happily run on any other boot.
That said, it does take some getting used to. During my first few days in the FS 01 120, I found myself over-tightening the strap and consequently cutting off circulation to my feet. Now, I tend to leave it a notch looser than I think I should, and that usually provides a good balance of tightness. This strap can be trickier to stuff under a narrow pant cuff, though, due to the plastic’s slightly grabby texture.
Those specific features aside, the FS 01 120 strikes me as a very well-made and well-thought-out boot. I particularly appreciate the efforts that Phaenom took to make the boot serviceable and repairable — just about every piece of the boot can be removed and replaced with basic hand tools.
Bottom Line
Sometimes, when a new brand sets out to ‘disrupt the industry’ or make ‘being different’ a key selling point, they just make us realize why everyone else had stuck to the status quo. ‘Different’ doesn’t always mean ‘good.’
Fortunately, that’s not the story with the Phaenom FS 01 120. It’s a very good ski boot for the right people. As always with ski boots, the shape of your particular feet will determine whether Phaenom’s medium- to high-volume fit will work for you.
With that major caveat aside, the FS 01 120 provides an accessible initial flex pattern that smoothly ramps up to what I’d call a very legit ‘120’ flex — it’s more supportive than several of the softest ‘130’ boots we’ve tested. The FS 01 120 also provides a nice, damp ride quality, lets you easily replace its major components, and comes with several stock features that are an upgrade from what you usually see on this sort of boot.
Related Articles & Reviews:
2024-2025 Blister Digital Winter Buyer’s Guide
350+ skis, 65 boots, and 280+ pages of honest, accurate product reviews and comparisons. Order our 24/25 Winter Buyer’s Guide or become a BLISTER+ member to read the Digital Guide NOW.
If you’re already a Blister Member or have purchased the 24/25 Winter Buyer’s Guide and are seeing this message, please log in and then refresh this page.
Phaenom Footwear Announces Limited Drop of New Ski Boots
phaenom footwear, the newest and most nebulous ski boot company to hit the market, has announced a limited drop of their first collection of ski boots. Here are the details.
I find these intriguing and wish that Phaenom offered a 31.5.
Luke wrote: “After several days in its stock liner, I [dropped in a ZipFit Gara HV] with the FS 01 120; it drastically improved how secure the boot felt around my heel, ankle, and instep, which is consistent with just about every boot shell I’ve paired with my ZipFits.”
IME the heel hold from a ZipFit is only matched by:
1. A very tightly fit plug, properly ground to match your heel shape.
2. An injected liner with harder-than-standard foam (shops that cater to racers will do this. Surefoot in particular defaults to a foam that is way too soft IME)
It truly is no knock on the boot that it can’t match that with a stock liner. Nothing can except those Fischer models that ship stock with Zips.
It’s nice to see another variation like this on the market even if I wouldn’t be caught dead in one (LV and plug overlaps only, thanks). I know a lot of people who might get along with this approach.
BTW the best things I ever did with my ZipFIt Garas were to get rid of the power straps (obviously), and swap the thick laces and tensioner for the thin paracord and low-profile tensioner that ship with the ZipFit Corsa 92. Zip will sell those to you for a reasonable price if you ask nicely, or you can cobble equivalent bits together off Amazon or whatever.
Oh, and figuring out how to “squeeze” cork back and forth between the 3 chambers on each side to balance the relative volume above/over/below the heelbone was a big deal for me. Those bottom chambers/tubes under the heelbone are the key to heel lock, but too much OMFit and they start to cause trouble.
The review mentions the shell and liner as heat moldable but it doesn’t seem like you mention an attempt to mold the shell to tighten heel hold. Did these ever get heated and thrown into a Fischer Vacuum system or anything like that to see how heat moldable they actually are? Curious about the “moldability” of these shells, especially given the unique construction and materials.
As a rule heat-molding is a one-way operation in the sense that it will only expand the shell or reduce the volume of the liner.
It is true that expanding the shell or reducing the volume of the liner in one area can allow you to tighten the boot more and thereby remove volume over other parts of the foot, but unfortunately the achilles channel and heel pocket don’t really work that way. If you don’t have acceptable heel hold in the initial state you’re not going to get it by heat-molding in my experience. Also the boot’s spine is structurally critical and generally isn’t moldable in any case, so the Achilles’ pocket typically is what it is.
The thing that make Zips so unique is that you can selectively add and remove volume from different zones around the ankle and heel areas by adding/removing/migrating OMfit material as needed. I don’t know of any other current liner design that allows that (I think that some of the old silicone liners could be reinjected, but those are pretty much gone and weren’t that great in any case).
I think it’s important to reiterate something that Luke tells us about himself – he has very narrow ankles in relation to his forefeet. From personal experience, that’s a difficult combination to fit “out of the box”, and it’s no knock on a bootmaker if their product doesn’t work without modification for somebody like that.
Patrick pretty much summed it up for me — I can’t think of a boot that fit snugger around the ankle area after I heat-molded it with a bootfitter. Even the one Fischer boot that I molded via their Vacuum process didn’t seem like it changed much in that area. For my foot shape, I typically have to decide between starting with a lower-volume shell and trying to create more room around the midfoot, or go with more of a medium-volume shell and try to take up volume around the ankle (which I’ve mostly easily done via my ZipFits).
Elaborating a bit on my own and Luke’s comments, and adding some informed speculation from my distant past as a mechanical engineer and designer….
As I understand it most if not all “heat-moldable” boots are made using two co-injected plastics: A stiffer, higher-temperature “skeleton” that provides the overall shape and most of the boot’s stiffness, and a softer material in the “fit zones” that softens at lower temperatures and can be molded. If you made the entire boot out of moldable plastic then it would warp during fitting, and its flex would be undesirably temperature-sensitive (a big problem even with non-moldable, higher-temperature grades of boot plastic). No free lunch, etc etc.
The boot spine and the heel area in general and the medial and lateral hinge points above the ankle bones are special places because they carry a LOT of stress during skiing, and the spine and hinges in particular effectively determine the shaft angles (cant and lean) of the boot. I’ve never seen a boot in which all of those weren’t beefy slabs of high-temperature, stiff plastic. I’m sure that the makers are trying their hardest to use as much soft plastic as possible along the sides of the heel and basically everywhere else they can, but IMO there’s only so much they can get away with before they compromise the integrity of the boot.
What a moldable shell might allow somebody with a wide forefoot to do is to choose a boot that fits their ankle/heel but is too narrow in the forefoot, and then use molding to expand the forefoot as needed. The medial and lateral forefoot walls are almost always moldable IME. I suspect that the single biggest problem with that approach and the reason the boot-makers aren’t really designing around it is retail experience – that boot will be pretty painful when the client tries it on before molding (after all it would be a sort of “moldable plug”), and they’ll probably choose something else anyway.
Mine arrived and I like the fit out of the box. I heated them and the shinny plastic that goes over the clog got soft and it molds to the tongue, which is encouraging. Laced and heated the liners. Fit my foot well. I like my Roxa’s also, they are good for a Grilamid boot, these seem more. There seems to be multiple layers of plastic in critical areas. Instep and heel seem secure, toe box is roomie. I have high instep, the tongue is very interesting, the velcro that allows it to be adjusted seems like it will last., and the plastic on the tongue another plus. I kind of wish I got the touring, the fit reminds me of my Hoji PX in a good way. Tomorrow should be fun.
These (the Phaenom FS reviewed here) aren’t Grilamid. All 3 parts are TPU.
Are you using a different model?
OK, I have a question for Luke…. You mention getting a good fit out of the box with the Tecnica Mach 1 MV, but my recollection of that boot is that the ankle-box is low but on the roomy side laterally (sort of the opposite of Lange, which typically have tall-but-narrow ankle boxes at least in the LV lasts that I use). Did you have to do anything special to keep your skinny ankles from rolling excessively, or are you only skinny behind the ankle bones in the Achilles-to-heelbone region (where Tecnica is fairly snug).
Asking out of curiosity. I have Cochise 130s and Gen-1 Zero-G Tour Pro 130s (with the Raide lean mod) and love them, but I use custom liners to fill out some ankle-box volume in both.
Hmm, it’s been a while so it’s hard to compare them precisely; after I cracked my second pair of Mach1 MV 130s and figured out I could make the Lange Shadow LV work with ZipFits, I haven’t been back in the Mach1 MV. But for the first ~30 days in the stock liner, I remember having a pretty solid overall fit in the Mach1 MV (compared to all other stock setups I’d tried). After that, I felt the need to add a shim / volume reducer. And after the stock liner started feeling a bit sloppy again, I ended up using them with custom liners (Atomic Pro and then ZipFit Gara HV).
So I’m not sure I can be of much help there, but I’ll see if my bootfitter friends can give me any more detailed info on the most defining aspects of my foot and ankle shape.