r/Backcountry • u/Reasonable_Employ588 • 8h ago
Beefier boot with worse walkability, but lighter weight (Backland XTD vs Zero G Tour Pro)
I have a funny foot that has been quite frustrating from a boot-fitting perspective. I have already seen a few fitters including SkimoCo in SLC. I have fairly narrow heels, a 99mm last, but a very protrusive instep bone with fairly high overall instep (my instep bone sticks out like 2mm, so the buckle has to sit behind my bone to address both heel lift and instep pressure.
I have skied the Backland XTD 26.5 (more or less the only mid-weight boot that fit my foot) for the last two seasons and am really not impressed with the durability: after about 20 days (avg. 3-4k backcountry days), there was a little cuff play that I chalked up to break-in, and after about 40, there was ~3mm of vertical play and maybe 1mm of fore-aft. I replaced the pivots (after having an absolute nightmare acquiring them), just to find out that the play was significant enough to have eaten into the cuff and still have a 1-2mm of vertical play in the boot that's noticeable while skiing. Atomic was useless when it came to warranty as the pivots are considered a wear item.
Due to my high instep, no bootfitter had even tried to fit me in Zero Gs, but I recently requested to try them and can shockingly fit my foot well in a 25.5: the instep buckles sit more or less perfectly straddling my instep bone. Conveniently, they're also lighter than my Backlands.
I'm wondering how much uphill performance/resistance on bigger days (5K-8K) I would notice the worse friction/walkability in the Zero Gs compared to the Backlands, and if saving ~100g/boot would offset this at all. I don't really want to sacrifice much skiability vs. the XTDs and most of the UL boots anyway have buckles that sit right on my instep, but I have thought about going to the Backland Carbon (which also has an instep buckle that's located such that it does not crush my instep).
