TX-PRO vs alpine boot flex numbers?

[KingDuckbill]

I’m buying some AT Boots and I’m not sure what flex I want. Normal flex is said to be 100 and kind of pro freeride boots are around 120, racing is 130 and up. I had some alpine boots that felt too stiff, so I think I want some middle ground, but I haven’t bothered with alpine in 20+ years . I know these numbers is just an indication and so on, anyway…

My recent tele boots has been the yellow TX Comp and now the black/orange TX Pro. They both feel about the same flex wise, outdoor temperature makes bigger difference than what I can feel between the boots. The flex is nice for tele but feels soft when I do P-turns. I read somewhere that Scarpa rates the PRO as flex 100, but that can’t be right, I don’t think I ever had slalom boots as soft as my Tx.

I’ve come to the conclusion I want something a bit stiffer than the TX, but not very much. Is 100 flex AT boots what I’m looking for? I’m not super extreme in any way, and prefer a new school stand at the middle of an easy pivot rocker ski rather than hanging forward on a binding mounted far back.

[comradeporcupine]

It's more complicated by the fact that although there's a number assigned to flex, it's not standardized or tested between companies in any way. It's really just a way of each manufacture rating the relative flex within their own boot lines.

So the only answer really is to try a bunch on and see what's comfortable.

But coming from tele I think you'll prefer a softer flex. Most people don't actually need anything stiffer than "110" (whatever that means, per boot)

[KingDuckbill]

Like I wrote in the first post, I’m aware the flex scale is far from standard. What I mean, simplified, is more like: how do a Scarpa TX Comp/Pro compare to a standard alpine boot in terms of flex? Scarpa says the Pro is “100” but I have hard to believe any alpine boot that is given a “100” in the ads is that soft.

[comradeporcupine]

Maybe try to find some demo-days near you. Or go to a really good boot fitter, and bring your TXs with you and say... match this feel... if you dare ...

[Antoineb420]

As anybody here tried the crispi evo wc, I havent skied on em but just like that walking with them inside they seem to be really really soft for what ive heard of them

[TallGrass]

I’m buying some AT Boots and I’m not sure what flex I want. Normal flex is said to be 100

I have some (used) Salomon alpine boots with "120" flex and they're fine despite me using them non-competively pace wise, and one can always add some "flex" via buckle adjustments.

I'd pay attention to "last, mondo, and volume" more, and flex last making sure you don't have too little as you can back off.

Last (shoe term) as in boot width. 100 is Medium, 102-4 wide (some go or can be punched to 106), 98 narrow. This is poor in that "100" is also used for flex.

Mondo (or alternatively Boot Sole Length) is for foot length. Your fit can vary between makes or models, but knowing either will get you in the ball park.

Volume is for foot height (think forefoot wiggle room) are the 3rd and 4th size specs such as high, low, medium.

Flex, usually in increments of 10 starting with 100 (higher being stiffer), and I do like how some distinguish women's boots by ending in 5 instead of 0.

Story:
I rented boots and as a repeat I was "upgraded" to a newer model that was "104" (per label on boot calf) and my feet were "swimming" -- imagine foot twisting side-to-side in boot affecting ski directional control (avoiding "crossing your tips"), ala a steering wheel with play or a shopping cart wheel flutter. I returned that night mid-multi-day rental. They said " 'last' isn't a term used anymore ... '104' is the flex rating" which I had to correct them on both via manufacturers webpages both using 'last' and '104' being that boot model's width as its flex was a totally different number.

They "advised" I try a smaller Mondo size to snug up. I told them that was wrong but humored them by trying, and sure enough smaller was ill-fitting (toe tip rub). It wasn't quite Dead Parrot Sketch level, but eventually I got them to drag out different models and I found a 98 Last which was older (ratchet buckles) but fit proper. Even though the boot was years older, it outperform on the slopes.

With the prior boot, my tips got momentarily crossed a handful of times, whiskey tango foxtrot moments because that wasn't something I'd had to worry about since my first few times skiing ever. A couple millimeters twist at the ankle is much more at the tip, and the momentum carries it farther until countered, then it swings sloppily out, same problem different direction, then repeat. This was horrible on uneven/non-consistent terrain.

With the properly fitted, I had my old form (no tip crossing) back because I had control back. Unlike the former, I could tighten the boot down to snug the forefoot properly.

It didn't dawn on me to check the last when I picked them up before close the prior day as I'd never been issued what was effectively (extra) wide boots.

[Montana St Alum]

As anybody here tried the crispi evo wc, I havent skied on em but just like that walking with them inside they seem to be really really soft for what ive heard of them

I skied the Crispi Evo which I think isn't quite as stiff as the WC. For me, there were two things about the Evo I didn't like. One was that there was insufficient heel hold down. The other was that the boot sole was so stiff that I couldn't get a "ball of foot" flex on the dropped knee. After about 30 days on them, I sold them and went back to the Tx Pro.

[MNisBetter]

I’m on blue/orange TX pros that I’ve done surgery on to put tech heel inserts in for the Meidjo alpine heel. With the heel locked down, I feel like the boot flex of 110 is pretty comparable to other 100-110 flex alpine boots I’ve skied.