Carp Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I read that Dalbello is the OEM for Head, Burton, and one other boot. I've used the Burton MGX, Reactor, and I think one other in the early-mid 90's and didn't care for them. Does anyone know if the fit and feel of the Heads (Stratos Pro) is the same or very similar to those Burton models? I've read so many good things about Heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I read that Dalbello is the OEM for Head, Burton, and one other boot. I've used the Burton MGX, Reactor, and I think one other in the early-mid 90's and didn't care for them. Does anyone know if the fit and feel of the Heads (Stratos Pro) is the same or very similar to those Burton models? I've read so many good things about Heads. Burton and head boots are polar opposites. Burton boots fit narrow feet. Head boots are for very wide feet. UPZ are wide-ish in the front and narrow in the heel. Burton MGX and Reactor were very different boots. I wouldn't be surprised if the OEM's for those two boots were different companies - and I'd bet that UPS (before they became UPZ) made the MGX. I'd be pretty surprised to hear Head had anything to do with Burton, but I don't know who made the reactor/fire/wind/earth boot. I'm personally not a big fan of the HSP, though a lot of people like them. My feet are wide in the front, and narrow in the back and Ive found the UPZ to be a much better boot (with a bit of punching). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I believe that Dalbello is indeed OEM for Head boots. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carp Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Anyone know of someone with narrower feet riding these and either loving or hating them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruincounselor Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Burton MGX and Reactor were very different boots. Yup. UPS (Z) made the MGX. I don't recall who made the Reactor but that was a much nicer boot than the MGX (and I've had both). Burton seemed to fit narrow feet pretty well, but those with flippers need not apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilux Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Anyone know of someone with narrower feet riding these and either loving or hating them? I assume you are referring to Head's? I have pretty average "D" width and they were fine BUT where I found these boots big is the overall volume not necessarily width. To me, they were just a really high volume boot that I had to crank down on the buckles and never got a good fit. I also pronate moderately and have off-the-shelf ConForm'able Volcano footbeds that help but if your foot is low profile (also low arch and not properly "corrected") you might find the boot volume an issue. I didn't tinker around with fit too much and didn't want to throw any more money at them so took the plunge on UPZ's and have never looked back. That is just my experience and I know there are tons on here that ride them and they work great. I also bought a NOS pair of Dalbello Carve for cheap (B stock), same mold as HSP's, seemingly identical liner and I find them way more snug (go figure) and a PITA to get into. I was going to modify them a-la-BlueB with BTS and use them to switch from skis/snowboard but never did. Hope that helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Anyone know of someone with narrower feet riding these and either loving or hating them? Anecdotal advide but: a narrow boot can be punched out to fit wider feet (within reason), a boot that is too wide for a particular foot will always feel feel sloppy and not hold your foot firmly in place. Yup. UPS (Z) made the MGX. I don't recall who made the Reactor but that was a much nicer boot than the MGX (and I've had both). Burton seemed to fit narrow feet pretty well, but those with flippers need not apply. Thanks - I wasn't sure about that but I do recall UPS making a boot that looked exactly like the MGX back in the day. I rode on MGX for a long time and agree that they weren't that great, I do like the modern UPZs though. The "modern" family of burton boots seemed really nice, I would have sought out a pair if my feet weren't so wide, that and I do like the ramp angle built into the UPZ. Edited January 22, 2014 by queequeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowmatic Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 The Burton MGX (megaflex) are from Aigner, which are later known as UPS. Nowadays it's UPZ. The Blax / Head hardboots, are from Dalbello (Italy since 1974, former Henke Swiss), also sold as Dalbello TWS-5. The Burton Furnance, Reactor and Shadow hardboots are Made in Austria. Burton Ice, Wind, Fire are Made in Italy, someones says by Garmont. I do like the ramp angle built into the UPZ which is less then on Nortwave Point series, but even more then all other hardboots. Ramp angle may be good on rear foot, but awfully for front leg, giving riding limitations to snowboarders, doesn't matter if intermediate carver, or even multiple world-champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 The Burton MGX (megaflex) are from Aigner, which are later known as UPS. Nowadays it's UPZ.The Blax / Head hardboots, are from Dalbello (Italy since 1974, former Henke Swiss), also sold as Dalbello TWS-5. The Burton Furnance, Reactor and Shadow hardboots are Made in Austria. Burton Ice, Wind, Fire are Made in Italy, someones says by Garmont. which is less then on Nortwave Point series, but even more then all other hardboots. Ramp angle may be good on rear foot, but awfully for front leg, giving riding limitations to snowboarders, doesn't matter if intermediate carver, or even multiple world-champion. Interesting post, I'd heard of Aigner but did not know they are UPS(Z). I also wasn't aware that there was significant ramp angle on the north waves. It's always seemed to me that in order to produce a truly great boot for alpine snowboarding that it might be necessary to offer pairs in both goofy/regular configurations, with differing ramp angles between the left and right foot. Of course, that would dramatically increase the cost of a pair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruincounselor Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Ramp angle - Is it really an issue with "modern" binings? I get to choose the orientation of each foot independently with my TD's (and BTS) so I'm not sure it matters like it used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Ramp angle - Is it really an issue with "modern" binings? I get to choose the orientation of each foot independently with my TD's (and BTS) so I'm not sure it matters like it used to. I'm not sure. You can put ramp in the boot and in the binding, but it seems to me that you can achieve more ramp with less lift in the boot than you can in the binding. It also seems that putting ramp in the boot increases ROM in your ankle, since your ankle joint is slightly extended when the cuff is totally upright - it has the effect of allowing you to crouch down lower to the board than you could without ramp. At least, that is the way it seems to me with my UPZ — to me it seems to allow better ROM despite a stiffer boot (which is definitely a good thing to my mind). My ability to go from totally upright to crouched and compressed improved dramatically when I switched from Heads to UPZ; I think that is largely attributable to ramp angle in the UPZ (I had already modified my heads to allow better forward flexion, still better with the stock UPZ despite this). That said the obvious negatives are: if your boots don't fit well you will probably slide forward in the boot, and that the boot's built-in ramp is not adjustable. It would be really cool if somebody made a boot where you selected not only size, but ramp-angle per-boot. That would be bloody expensive though. An adjustable boot would be awesome but I doubt it would be possible since the last upper would have to respond to any changes to the ramp angle in the footbed. Edited January 23, 2014 by queequeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carp Posted January 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Dang you guys put a lot of thought into riding. I just throw on a pair of boots, snap them in my bindings and ride. If I'm understanding the ramp angle discussion, I would think that it would work a riders quads more than a boot with less ramp angle. I've got weak quads and find less ramp angle allows me to ride a little longer without being spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonbordin Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Dang you guys put a lot of thought into riding. I just throw on a pair of boots, snap them in my bindings and ride. The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. or some variant of such. (Plato's account of the trial of Socrates) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipstar Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Most medium to high level ski boots have a ramp angle adjustment so u can change the boot board angle and also change the volume slightly. As u say better to have ability to adjust to keep range of movement in the ankle and boot fit although can keep range of movement by adding heel lift to the rear binding also. Why snowboard boots don't have is a pity but I think relating to the heel needing space for the intec assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yes ^^^ I have the ramp adjustment in my Dalbellos and I keep it as flat as I can. I still have some toe lift in front and about double that heel lift back. The ramp angle should and it's easy to adjust on the bindings, on snowboard. Built in is counter-productive. Waste of the stack height, especially on the front boot. ROM on NW comes from the design: pivot point lining up with ankle, the way the upper and lower shell overlap, etc. Head/Dalbello need to be modified on the inner shell for more ROM and more flex dependabillity on BTS, if you wanted one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.