New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic M Series Boots

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I recently purchased a pair of M 10 boots and was wondering if anyone has any experience with the M-Tech line?

Are they new this year?

Does the cutaway softer sole have any negative effect on skiing?

I was looking for a boot that fit my feet and would allow me to still rip on groomers but not be as stiff in bumps and softer conditions.
post #2 of 17
I'm interested in seeing the responses to the questions you outlined as well. I had a shop recommend the M11 boot as a possibility to provide a good fit for the shape of my foot (wide forefoot, normal heel).

I'm currently in an x-wave 10, but the heel is starting to pack out.

I'd be interested to hear how the M-Tech series compares to the x-wave in terms of fit and stiffness.

I have seen reviews on these boots. They say the softer soles are more foregiving, which typically equates to being less responsive IMO. Hopefully someone can give us some insight on this as well.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
I was in a Crossmax 10 in a 27.5 and purchased the M 10 in a 26.5.

I also had heel issues with my Salomons as did my wife.

I didn't find the flex overly soft on the Atomic M 10s but was worried about the sole flexing.

I don't race and don't expect to but I want a responsive boot that is not too stiff.

What the point of getting a race boot if all your going to do is soften the flex anyway?
post #4 of 17
They are continuation of the TriTech philosophy but they are new for 05/06.
post #5 of 17

Where are all the Atomic guys when you need them?
post #6 of 17


...I'm in agreement with you on the "more forgiving" sole...Coach13, scratching my head about planning to try some this weekend though. For me it was just the lack of material underneath, making my 01' 9.50Race a cool(at best) boot.
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter

A review on both the M 10 and M 11.

They didn't mention any issues with the new sole design.
post #8 of 17
The M-Tech boots are a continuation on the Tri-tech concept. The big change is the use of a polycarbonate mounting plate for the toe and heel lugs. The previous versions were cast aluminum and when coupled with te exposed mounting screws transfered cold to the underside of the footbed. There is no cold transfer, and the mounting plate geometry has changed to move the mounting screws more to the outside of the lugs to create a more precise feel.

Changes to liners and buckles.
post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks BR

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of how the boot handles?

Is it an underperformer compared to their lower level race boots?

Is the M 10 a good freeride boot for a level 7-8 at 5'7" 160-170#?
post #10 of 17
Originally Posted by Scalce
They didn't mention any issues with the new sole design.
The big negative for me is that they say that the boots can't be planed for alignment, due to the new material. That's a killer for me since I require 2 degrees (in) of canting to get me where I need to be.
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Yeah there is rubber on the sole so you can't grind it.
post #12 of 17
The boot works well.

I still use a version for freeskiing. My RaceTecs are for race type skiing. I have the Race VIP (full tri-tech version) for skiing around. More room inside and a bit more vertical cuff.

I need to find out if the soles are shimable like the previous years. We've been pushing the RaceTec so hard that the M tech info has been lost in the shuffle.
post #13 of 17
I believe the boots (last and basic design) are much the same as previous years SX and R series. They ski great, you may notice the sole flexing for about the first 4 turns and then it just feels natural. Slalom boots will often offer stiffer soles with no cutouts GS and DH will have cut outs in the midsole to allow some flex to give more feel for the snow. The soles have been cantable with shims as BR mentioned but that has not been touted as Salomon has a patent on that method. Now that Amer owns Salomon....hmmmm.
post #14 of 17
I tried on the Atomic M:11 and RT CS today. The CS had a little bit more positive feel to it because of a slightly thinner liner. But I like the rubber traction sole of the M:11 for hiking. The Atomic rep was at the shop and said the M:11 should be softer flexing than the CS soft, but I really couldn't tell much of a difference at room temperature.

I have had the soles of my previous Atomic 10.50's planed a bit and so I asked about that with the M:11's. The rep said it could be done and a boot fitter in the shop, Sean Bold, said he has canted a few M:11 soles by planing them. He said it was difficult because of the soft rubber, but it could be done.

I am even tempted to go even a little softer with the M:10 or the CS extra soft as long as they still have the lateral stiffness I want. For Masters, fast groomers and off piste.

But I didn't go home empty handed. I took a detour to my local backcountry shop to "just look around" and came out with a new pair of Garmont Mega-Ride AT boots. Lighter and stiffer this year.
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Footloose has some info on the M:10s.

The more I think about my purchase, the more I think I made the right choice.
post #16 of 17
It's funny..I'm in the same boat as Scalce and Coach...I also have Crossmax 10s beginning to pack out..*and* a good chance my achilles tendonitis was at least in part due to Sallie heel. My fitter wants me to try the RT CS among other things -- thinks I should be in a more upright/stiffer boot anyway. More $$$$.
post #17 of 17
I agree with Jomo, I don't find the RT Cs much or any softer than my SX 11. The SX might even be a little softer in forward flex. The Cs is much stiffer in the lower shell though and for that reason is much more responsive and laterally stiffer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion