or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lange RS 110 vs XT 120

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

So today I was at my local boot fitter.  Here in Michigan most of my local shops don't have a ton of inventory.  My boots I am in now are a size to small.  My foot has grown over the past 3 years since getting them and I also think the last person I used as my boot fitter stuck me in boots too small anyways.  So I am 46 years old and an Advanced skier.   I tried on the RS 110's and they felt great pretty much out of the box.  My left foot is a 1/2 size bigger than my right.  My right is perfect but the left he is going to need to grind down my footbed just a tad to get a little pinching away from the top of my foot.  I also tried on the Technica Mach 1's and though they felt like slippers and they were ultra comfortable the heel cup was way to sloppy and my heel when flexing forward was sliding up.

 

So they didn't have any XT's in stock but he ordered me the XT 120 because I feel that is the boot I want.  I am coming from the Nordica Hell and Back and I really liked the hike mode for when I do boot pack hikes out west and just for walking around the lodge.  So anyone with any experience with either the XT 120 or RS 110 I'd appreciate your pro's and con's.  I am sure there are not many people who have actually skied both because boot demoing is pretty much non existent.  Just like feedback both positive and negative on both the RS 110 and the XT 120.  I know once he gets the XT 120  in and I can do a direct comparison between the XT 120 and RS 110 with them on in the shop it will make my decision easier but would just like some info before they show up next week.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

post #2 of 15

You should find this link of interest. Blistergear also has reviews on several other models of Lange boots, but this one explains the plastics.  Bottom line is that they really change with temperature, so an in-store comparison may not tell you much.  The big difference is that the XT models have no screws holding the upper shell to the lower, so the 110, 120, 130, etc. ratings are meaningless between the RS and XT models  (i.e. RS 130 and XT 130 have completely different flexes).  I have the XT 130s and the walk mode is really lame compared to my BD Factor 130s.  It is hard to tell the difference between it being engaged and open, but I like the way they ski.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2nd-look-lange-xt-130-lv

post #3 of 15
As I understand it, the XT is a narrow last the RS is the widest Lange. I have RX's the gray and white boot from last year, the medium width last. They are a 120 flex, they have two screws on the back of the cuff that can be removed to soften the flex. I'm 60y/o, and decided to remove the screw to lessen the flex by 6%.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post

As I understand it, the XT is a narrow last the RS is the widest Lange. I have RX's the gray and white boot from last year, the medium width last. They are a 120 flex, they have two screws on the back of the cuff that can be removed to soften the flex. I'm 60y/o, and decided to remove the screw to lessen the flex by 6%.

 

Actually the XT and RX come standard in 100mm last and you can get the Low Volume version which is a 97mm last.  The RS come standard in 97mm last but you can get the High Volume version in 100mm last.  Very confusing.  They should just decide do they want to make the 100mm version or the 97mm version the standard and go from there in all models.  IMHO

post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
 

You should find this link of interest. Blistergear also has reviews on several other models of Lange boots, but this one explains the plastics.  Bottom line is that they really change with temperature, so an in-store comparison may not tell you much.  The big difference is that the XT models have no screws holding the upper shell to the lower, so the 110, 120, 130, etc. ratings are meaningless between the RS and XT models  (i.e. RS 130 and XT 130 have completely different flexes).  I have the XT 130s and the walk mode is really lame compared to my BD Factor 130s.  It is hard to tell the difference between it being engaged and open, but I like the way they ski.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2nd-look-lange-xt-130-lv

 

Yes I have seen that review and read through it.  Thanks for posting it though.  It sounds like you own the XT?  I am having a hard time deciding on features of the different boots.  The XT has the grippy sole and the hike mode(however sounds like you don't think the hike mode is very useful) but the RS boots are supposed to be more sensitive and reactive.  I'd go with the RX120 but as lames as this sounds I hate the color combo of the RX 120.  If the RX 120 was the same color combo as the XT 120 or RX 130 I'd probably be looking at that boot as well.  I think it is just going to come down to once the XT 120 shows up I try on that boot and the RS 110 and whatever one feels the best is the one I will go with.

post #6 of 15
Thanks, I'll add after being in Tecnica's for many years, the Lange's gave me a better feel for the tail of the ski.
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
 

The big difference is that the XT models have no screws holding the upper shell to the lower, so the 110, 120, 130, etc. ratings are meaningless between the RS and XT models  (i.e. RS 130 and XT 130 have completely different flexes). 

 

Hmm. Agree about non-comparability, but the 2015's are noticeably stiffer than the 2014's, think they diddled with the lock and made the cuff stiffer, added a denser liner. So it feels like about 115 to me, while the 2014's were silly flexy, more like 105-110 IMO. 

 

Agree with procos that the RS's are more reactive, in 130 pretty close to a plug. You seem to alternatively talk about RX's and RS's. Different boots, y'know, unless you get the LV version, the RX is 100 mm, not 97, the three (RS, RX LV, XT LV) share the same last but the RS and RX shells differ a bit, as do the liners. The XT, obviously, is a different shell in back. Front seems very similar. Finally, keep in mind that the RS and RX have upper bolts that can be removed to drop the flex to 120...

post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Hmm. Agree about non-comparability, but the 2015's are noticeably stiffer than the 2014's, think they diddled with the lock and made the cuff stiffer, added a denser liner. So it feels like about 115 to me, while the 2014's were silly flexy, more like 105-110 IMO. 

 

Agree with procos that the RS's are more reactive, in 130 pretty close to a plug. You seem to alternatively talk about RX's and RS's. Different boots, y'know, unless you get the LV version, the RX is 100 mm, not 97, the three (RS, RX LV, XT LV) share the same last but the RS and RX shells differ a bit, as do the liners. The XT, obviously, is a different shell in back. Front seems very similar. Finally, keep in mind that the RS and RX have upper bolts that can be removed to drop the flex to 120...

 

If I got the RS I would go with the 110.  130 is way to much stiffness for my needs.  I do not race and think the sweet spot for me in flex is between 110-120.  My last pair of boots were the 2013 Nordica Hell and Back Pros.  They were a 120 progressive flex but have read where people say they acted more like 115 flex boots.  Either way I think once I put the XT 120 and RS 110 on back to back it will give me a good indication of which I prefer.  Like I said I know it is super lame of me to rule out the RX 120 because of color combo but I just think it is an ugly boot.  And my local shop doesn't have any in stock just the RX 100.  I think the 100 flex is not stiff enough for me and unfortunately they don't make an RX in 110 flex.

post #9 of 15


FWIW:   I've got a friend with the RX 130s who put Zipfit liners in them and he cannot get them on if they are cold.  He had to buy a heated boot bag.  He removed one of the two bolts to soften the flex and still complains that they are too stiff sometimes.

 

I like a boot with a walk mode for alpine skiing because I walk a lot on and off the snow in my boots, and do a bit of hiking with skis on my shoulder or in a pack.  I like the XT's somewhat grippy soles for slippery and deep snow traction, and the walk mode for ease in taking them on and off.  What I do not like is the really small range of motion in the walk mode.  When you flip the switch it does nothing to soften the forward flex and simply allows you to stand upright a few more degrees.  For various reasons I will not go into, I want a boot I can simply flip the switch to walk/climb and not need to open the top buckle, but unfortunately the XT does not walk a whole lot better in the walk mode unless you also loosen buckles.  The other issue with the XTs is that because the cuffs are not bolted to the lower shells you get almost no rebound from the boot, which is something I got to really like during my Flexon/Krypton days.  I assume the RS and RXs would be better in this regard.

 

 My XT 130s seem more like a 110-115 and work fine most of the time, but I would not mind them being a bit stiffer occasionally for hard driving, but I am 6.5" and 220 lbs.  I like the way my XTs ski, but I cannot help feeling that I gave up some performance and did not get the real walk mode I deserved in the tradeoff.

post #10 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
 


FWIW:   I've got a friend with the RX 130s who put Zipfit liners in them and he cannot get them on if they are cold.  He had to buy a heated boot bag.  He removed one of the two bolts to soften the flex and still complains that they are too stiff sometimes.

 

I like a boot with a walk mode for alpine skiing because I walk a lot on and off the snow in my boots, and do a bit of hiking with skis on my shoulder or in a pack.  I like the XT's somewhat grippy soles for slippery and deep snow traction, and the walk mode for ease in taking them on and off.  What I do not like is the really small range of motion in the walk mode.  When you flip the switch it does nothing to soften the forward flex and simply allows you to stand upright a few more degrees.  For various reasons I will not go into, I want a boot I can simply flip the switch to walk/climb and not need to open the top buckle, but unfortunately the XT does not walk a whole lot better in the walk mode unless you also loosen buckles.  The other issue with the XTs is that because the cuffs are not bolted to the lower shells you get almost no rebound from the boot, which is something I got to really like during my Flexon/Krypton days.  I assume the RS and RXs would be better in this regard.

 

 My XT 130s seem more like a 110-115 and work fine most of the time, but I would not mind them being a bit stiffer occasionally for hard driving, but I am 6.5" and 220 lbs.  I like the way my XTs ski, but I cannot help feeling that I gave up some performance and did not get the real walk mode I deserved in the tradeoff.

 

Thanks so much for this honest and very helpful review of the XT.  The comment you made about rebound is one of my main concerns.  I like a sensitive and lively boot.  My Hell and Back Pro's didn't give me much improvement in walk mode either.  I wish they offered the RS with grippy soles.  That is one feature on the XT that looks great.  Maybe I might have to suck it up and try the RX 120's and just deal with an ugly boot.  The RX seems to have more things in common with the RS with the addition of the grippy soles.

post #11 of 15

I ski the current version of the RX 130 and truth be told, I am not a huge fan of the neon green color, but that all changed when I first tried them on.  They are without question the best fitting boot out of the box of any boot I can remember.  I have slightly goofy feet and have a hard time finding a boot that I like, The new Lange shape just seems to work.  The key to their great fit is that the have a roomy forefoot but a normal to snug heel.  That translate to great heel hold and a comphy fit.  Plus the progressive flex is just right.  The RX 130 & 120 have the grippy soles. so forget the color and try them on.  You will be glad you did.

 

Rick G

post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post
 

Maybe I might have to suck it up and try the RX 120's and just deal with an ugly boot.  The RX seems to have more things in common with the RS with the addition of the grippy soles.

If they fit, go for the RX.  I can tell you after +/-50 days in the RX130 (I'm a bit bigger than you are, so I think you are on target to go for the 120) that the RX skis great and from what I can tell as a consumer (not a fitter), it works well if you want width across the toe box but a narrow, tight heel cup.  The grippy soles are kind of a nice feature for an all-mountain alpine boot. 

 

From a fashion perspective, I understand that the K2 shells were modeled after the RX series, so that might offer an alternative colorway option if you like the basic shape.  Not sure if their walk mode is better, worse or the same.  Last fall, I tried on the Spyne 130 (the red ones) in a shop and they have a similar, but slightly different feel.  Very close to the RX 130 that I bought and have been skiing. 

 

FWIW, I think that the RX 120 looks pretty cool (maybe even more slick than my 130s). . .  I like the neon green highlights against black - kind of like the Sounders' alternate jerseys.  And they'd go great with a new pair of Salomon Q-Labs.  I wholeheartedly support this fashion decision. 

 

But worrying about color is about the worst way to pick a boot, and a tad strange for someone who knows better. . . of course you know that. :) 

post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewyM View Post
 

If they fit, go for the RX.  I can tell you after +/-50 days in the RX130 (I'm a bit bigger than you are, so I think you are on target to go for the 120) that the RX skis great and from what I can tell as a consumer (not a fitter), it works well if you want width across the toe box but a narrow, tight heel cup.  The grippy soles are kind of a nice feature for an all-mountain alpine boot. 

 

From a fashion perspective, I understand that the K2 shells were modeled after the RX series, so that might offer an alternative colorway option if you like the basic shape.  Not sure if their walk mode is better, worse or the same.  Last fall, I tried on the Spyne 130 (the red ones) in a shop and they have a similar, but slightly different feel.  Very close to the RX 130 that I bought and have been skiing. 

 

FWIW, I think that the RX 120 looks pretty cool (maybe even more slick than my 130s). . .  I like the neon green highlights against black - kind of like the Sounders' alternate jerseys.  And they'd go great with a new pair of Salomon Q-Labs.  I wholeheartedly support this fashion decision. 

 

But worrying about color is about the worst way to pick a boot, and a tad strange for someone who knows better. . . of course you know that. :) 

 

I am starting to realize that color means nothing.  Only other problem I have is my local dealer only has the RX 100 in stock.  Unfortunately the store that has the boot fitter I like and trust doesn't have a huge selection.  He said though if I try the RS 110, XT 120 and RX 100 and like the RX 100 best he can order me the RX 120.  I just assume the RX 100 will not have as good a liner as the RX 120 so it might not be a far comparison. 

post #14 of 15

If the RX 100 fits you well, the 120 or 130 will fit even better due to the higher quality liner.  The shell shapes are nearly identical.  The only difference would be if you would need the 97 last boot as the RX100 does not come in the narrower version.  But the RS series does, and the fit between the RS and RX series are also nearly identical with only a slightly different flex.  Rossignol has a line of boots that use the same shell design as the Lange's, I think it is the Sensor series.  If your shop carries those you could give those a try.  Good luck!

 

Ski on!

 

Rick G


Edited by rickg - 1/9/15 at 9:35am
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

If the RX 100 fits you well, the 120 or 130 will fit even better due to the higher quality liner.  The shell shapes are nearly identical.  The only difference would be if you would need the 97 last boot as the 100 does not come in the narrower version.  But the RS series does, and the fit between the RS and RX series are also nearly identical with only a slightly different flex.  Rossignol has a line of boots that use the same shell design as the Lange's, I think it is the Sensor series.  If your shop carries those you could give those a try.  Good luck!

Ski on!

Rick G

I would caution that fit does change as the liners change even if the shell doesn't.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion