Author Topic: Atomic Redster Boots  (Read 703 times)

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Atomic Redster Boots
« on: January 02, 2013, 05:24:51 pm »
On the way home from skiing today, I stopped in the local Philly area ski mega-store and tried on Atomic's Redster 110 ski boot. I have narrow foot and the 98 last is appealing. My present boots, Nordica Speedmachine 14's are too big according to modern fitting standards and are designed for a wider foot, so, I've been hoping to downsize. The Nordica's are also a 130 flex, far stiffer than the Atomics. The extra space in the Nordie's has been filled up very nicely with Intuition liners and I've no problems with heel lift or side to side play, my toebox does have a lot of space. I' 6'1", 205 lbs.

A dryfit of the Atomic indicated about 5/8" of space behind my heel, and, the sides were very close to my foot. We put my aftermarket footbeds in the boots. The result was a boot that felt very close to being able to go out and ski. Toes a little tight, arch well supported, no heel lift. They are a full boot size smaller than the Nordies. In Tahoe last season, I tried on several boots in smaller sizes and found nothing I would consider due to pain.

What is concerning is the 110 flex. My thinking about flex is very much in lock-step with PMTS in that a stiff boot is better as it permits the leg to be centered between the front and back of the boot. No pushing of plastic. I spent much of the ski day simply working on fore/aft balance, paying attention to weight distribution in my feet remaining centered, moving forward somewhat in the bottom half of the turn. Stayed in contact with the boot front, never really crushing the boot forward. It's hard to let go of the thinking that a stiffer boot is better.

So, it was very strange to be in a softer flexing boot. Atomic does make a 130 flex the same boot, but, it's not stocked in the shop. Naturally, I'd like to be fitted in what I'd wear on the hill. I'm not an aggressive high speed skier, certainly not getting any younger, so going to a 110 may make sense. I spoke with Philpug following the fitting, and, he skis Fisher Vacuum boot in a 110, loves it, and thinks a 110 may fill my needs nicely. Others who have transitioned from softer to firmer flex seem to find more performance with the stiffer flex.

So, if you have any thoughts, please share. My thinking is that if the right boot shows up this season, I'm willing to give up my now 5 year old Speedmachines. No rush.


Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2013, 05:42:55 pm »
Mike, my thinking is that it is far easier to soften a stiff boot, than to stiffen a soft boot.  I went through this with my Inferno 110's, which I found just did not have the beef to hold myself (at 6'2", 220 lbs) and a pair of stout Dynastars on steep slopes and in heavy crud.  I was just overpowering the boots.  Adding industrial grade, triple-ply Booster straps seems to have solved that, but Boosters aren't for everyone, and I recall you mentioning you weren't a fan of them. 

In any case, I was peeved, as I had only had the boots for one season, and it seemed I had already outgrown them.  I regretted not buying a 130 right from the start, and softening it to suit temporarily.  I may still switch, if I find the Boosters are not the final solution for me (too early to tell).

Eg. Gary skis a Lange RX130, and you know he's no Thor.  But he has significantly softened that boot to work for him, and he can still reverse some of the tweaks if needed.  Ask him for details on what he did -- definitely the spine bolts are out; but whether he cut some of the inner shell I'm not sure.

If the shell of the Redster 110 is a perfect fit with minimal work required, then how about buying a 130 online and paying a bootfitter for a few tweaks? Or see what's on offer at Ellicottville at the end of the month.  There is at least one really good store there -- ask G for the name.

The Redster is certainly an interesting boot design.  The shell is shaped so that the foot sits flatter on the bottom (flatter lower shell profile), supposedly giving better edge control.  And the cuff can be rotated on the vertical axis to allow the knees to track straight.  Kind of like traditional cuff alignment, but in the other plane.  Cool.... 

Hope this helps.

PS:  there is a big difference between one brand's flex indices's and another, and even within the same brand (Dan may disagree with me here).  Through some boot testing in the spring, I found several at 130 flex that were significantly softer than my Infernos at 110, including another Tecnica (go figure).  Other 130's felt about the same, and only one or two were actually noticeably stiffer.  Turns out my 110s are pretty solid after all, which was reassuring.  Not sure what the Redster feels like, but if it's solid in the shop, then it will be more so out in the cold.  Bottom line - I wouldn't pay too much attention to the numbers, but go by feel instead.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 07:02:45 pm by Svend »

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2013, 07:28:49 am »
Svend

Thanks for the thoughts. You are quite correct about the differences in flex ratings. The fitter at the shop commented that if I wanted Atomics to be as stiff as my 130's, then I would have to look to the Atomic 150 World Cup Boot. The 110 boots are a LOT softer. And, yep, I agree that going to a 110  is not a wise decision at his time.

Of interest is a thread on Epic about the Atomic Redster. A poster in Toronto bought the 130 in a 28.5, has only skied it for hours, and, it's too big. He just posted it for sale yesterday in the Epic forums. Are there any shipping issues sending from Canada to the US such as customs or taxes?

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2013, 07:58:49 am »
Since you have no federal sales tax, you will not have to pay any tax on this.  US Customs might charge you some duty, though.  It all depends on what the seller/shipper declares as the value of the product.  Since this is a sale between two individuals, and not retail, there is some, er, fudging room, if you know get my drift...  ::) 

Shipping is pretty reasonable -- I ship 2 to 3 lb packages by FedEx ground regularly from Toronto to PA, and each costs about $15 to $20.  Ski boots may be a bit more, but not exorbitant.

Will send you a PM....


Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2013, 08:13:35 am »
I'm sure you've considered this, but I just have to ask:  I assume the owner of the Redsters has not done any major modifications? Punch outs? Grinding? Since your feet are not like his, you wouldn't want to live with bumps and hollows where you don't need them.   ;D


dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2013, 08:14:23 pm »
I've heard the Redster is a soft boot, as well.  Atomic used to have a plug that was labeled 150 and was probably more like a 160 or 170, if I remember right.  There's definitely variation--I've never intended to suggest otherwise.  What I was trying to communicate in the other thread was that, while there's variation, the system isn't completely worthless and, if a full-grown adult can't bend a 100 flex boot in the store, there's likely a geometry problem.  We could argue all day about whether a 911 is faster than a Corvette, but a Prius is slow by anybody's standard.  :D

It's always easier to make a boot softer, so I'd lean toward buying stiff and trying it out first, especially if you lean towards the PMTS thinking on boots..

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2013, 05:23:46 pm »
Dan,

I totally agree with your thinking, which is based in HH's PMTS doctrinie , which translates that stiffer boots are better for tipping movements. OK, maybe it's not your independent research, but, that of someone who knows a "helluvalot" (a tip of the hat to  Greg) than all of us. I ski without trying to push the plastic, that is to say, just stay with the boot front in contact with the ski.

Having said the above, what excites me about the Redster is the great match between my foot and it's shape. Also, the cuff adjustments (at least in the advertising) permit changes that negate the need for boot sole planning. How one determines the exact need for planning specs is a subject for a whole different thread. Waterville is only an 8 hour drive, so, I'm not likely to get a HH trained analysis.

Thanks for your thinking!

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2013, 05:45:04 pm »
Well...did you pull the trigger on the boots from the guy in Toronto? New pair coming your way?  8)


LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2013, 02:55:19 pm »
It's not set in granite yet, but, things are looking good for acquisition.  :D




HighAngles

  • 1 Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 208
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2013, 03:51:31 pm »
I can definitely confirm that Atomic's flex ratings are softer than comparable Lange, Head, or Nordica boots.  The Atomic 110 would most likely be far too soft for you Mike.  Glad to hear you may have the 130 on the way. 

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2013, 06:55:20 pm »
Hi all, and, glad to tell that I'm just sitting here on a Friday night, and, wearing my new Redsters  130 flex. One mistake is never, never try to put this boot on cold. Minor panic when I first attempted to put them on, no flexing whatever and it just never got done. An hour later, they warmed up and went on fine. Bought via Epic from a Toronto skier who skied for one hour, but, his feet were too small for this size. They are pristine!

The fit appears fine "out of the box". Compared to my old Nordica's, the Nordia's were a battleship, the Redsters are a destroyer, much less overall volume. I need to adjust my bindings for 10 mm less length, now I won't get as much heat for stating my boots are a 335. 325 is just so much lower.

Thanks to Svend for his many PM's assuring me that shipping from Canada to US would not be an issue, and, it was not as they were shipped on Tuesday and arrived 4 days later.

I am one happy camper! Now, if this January Thaw, 60 tomorrow, will just leave, we can get back to the business of skiing.

Watch out Helluva, I'm coming for you at Hollymont! (Yeah, right  ;D )
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 06:59:28 pm by LivingProof »

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2013, 10:20:01 am »
Good one, Mike.  And brilliant that they fit so well right out of the box. Rare find, and sweet when it works.  The newer boots seem to so much more anatomically proper, though, which is a big step forward for the industry. 

How do the 130's feel for flex? All good?

Looking forward to hearing how they ski....  8)

Congrats!

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2013, 02:13:45 pm »
After 6 days of rain, I finally got to ski the Atomic 130 Redster Pro Boots, 98 mm last. I was able to adjust the Freeflex plus rear binding to take up the extra 10mm of bootsole length, on my Hart Pulse skis, so the net effect is to move the boot a little more forward. Snow was soft and wet, temps remained in the mid to upper 30's, creating many piles of loose granular snow, which is not a personal favorite to ski in.

First thoughts:
The fit just happens to be great right out of the box. The liner is very comfortable to ski in ( with my existing custom footbeds - I forget the make ). I can easily ski this boot all day. Warmth was no problem, but, temps were mild. There is great symmetry between the 98 last and my thin foot. I was concerned that one foot was touching the boot front, but, that was not a issue at all and I  could just move the toes. I'm feeling very lucky to be in a boot that a great match for my foot.
 
The 130 flex is nice and progressive. Not a stiff boot feel at all, with my old Nordica's I felt I hit a wall when I got real forward. Make no mistake, it is firm flex that gives me the support I want and need. When skiing into piles of crud, maybe I wish the boot flexed a little more to help absorb.The boot reacts to tipping movements very nicely. It feels the snow better, and, my senses tell me the ball of foot is closer to the snow, and, perhaps more in a down position that my old boots. I started with very loose buckle settings and loose booster strap, I adjusted during the day, and everything was a little loose as I took them off, so, as time goes on, I'll tighten up more. No issues, just breaking in new boots.

On snow, they get better angles than my old boots and feel like they just want to carve. Very easy to  make the transition from the old boots and I was charging by the end of the first run. Good fore aft balance point is a little more forward in the boot. If I did not pay attention, I would get aft and my thighs went into rebellion.

Great first day, can't wait to ski them on harder snow and with some better light to see what they will do. Returning to home bump tomorrow for "Demo Day". Stay tuned for some further reviews.



« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 02:18:30 pm by LivingProof »

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Atomic Redster Boots
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2013, 02:57:26 pm »



Congratulations.  Sounds like good news all over the place --  fit, flex, finish, fore-aft  -- all fine.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."