or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 LANGE COMP PRO (Quick Review)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 LANGE COMP PRO (Quick Review) - Page 2

post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
What makes it different or better than the previous boots on the market? Looking forward to skiing a pair soon.
It's a combination of things I think. It feels like the width has been repositioned somewhat so that despite the 97mm vs. 98mm widths, it fits my foot better. Also the liner is a vast improvement over previous Langes. (in fact, I'd say that liners have been Lange's short suit for years) The C-pro has a shorter sole length than the new version of the FR which is using the older shell......yet the length feels similar so the liner fits the shell space better.

I know that the shell cavity has also been readressed on the Super Comp and possibly in the C-pro as well. The rather dome shaped roof of the boot has been lowered and widened some, and the main cavity on the Super is significantly offset to the medial side. (not a "duck" stance though)

SJ

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 89

09 Lange Comp Pro pic

Not sure if its the 120, 130 or 150 plug but this is the new boot. Nice medium
translucent blue color!


OK - how the heck do I attach a jpeg file to this post?? Or pm me & I'll send the pic.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski-Joe View Post
Here are some links for the picture-hungry skiboot fans.

I guess these are the new Lange Plug boots

http://www.schuhbert.com/de/produkte...lange-rc-2006/
This is the current plug boot

http://www.schuhbert.com/de/produkte/neuheiten-ispo-08/
Bottom link is the 09 Super Comp plug boot
post #34 of 89
These boots are awesome, picked them up last Saturday while skiing at Okemo in vermont. Have one day of skiing in them so far, but we are heading to Deer Valley next week so I'll get a full week in them.

I have pics that I can send if anyone would like to see them.
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cougny View Post
I have pics that I can send if anyone would like to see them.
C'mon - just pony up and post 'em here!
post #36 of 89

Images

Here are a few images..












post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by coupdevill View Post
Size: 26.5
Flex: 130
Forefoot: 97mm

WOW!


Wait till you ski this boot!

Coup
I currently have the WC 130 which replaced the old Lange yellow Tii's. I love the WC130's so much! It was a big uplift from the older Langes. But one of them started to crack in the shell near the lower shin, right at the curve.

Help me to convince my wife I need to shell out $700 for a new set of boots. Is the boot that much better then the WC130's? Forward flex I take it would be simular, is the edge hold better? If you placed a dime underneath one edge of the boot, would you feel it right away?

BTW: I'm one of those few guys that never needs mods for Lange boots. Just slip them on and go. They're made for my feet.
post #38 of 89
if the old langes where just made for your feet you may need some work doing on these, but IMO the fit is so much more anatomical than the older RL11 shell

the 92mm shell doesn't feel like a 92, it feels similar to most of the 95mm boots out there [too dam narrow for my foot...] but i expected it to be even tighter than the 95mm shells...the 97mm is just a great last, for next year they are working on making a softer flexing version [100ish] as the fit works so well and they are missing a big market segment
post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEM View Post
if the old langes where just made for your feet you may need some work doing on these, but IMO the fit is so much more anatomical than the older RL11 shell
The R11 covers what years? Was the old Yellow Tii's the same shell design or much older?

The Lange site is not up, so it's hard to get any info.
post #40 of 89
I own the 08 model, same flex, the crazy blue (smurf blue as I call it ) and I can say it's a wonderful boot.

But, if I'm not wrong, it's a bit wider (95mm) than this year model

Anyway, I love this boot!
post #41 of 89
I've been skiing Lange for almost 35 years - always top of racing lineup - so I was confident to buy new ones for the upcoming season.

I wasn't scared about narrow last or stiffness, because my feet are very slim and I'm pretty used to unbuckle my boots only when I'm finished my day, although my current boots are stiff as an iron vice.

BUT, (..!!)
when I went shopping, I first tried a pair of Rossignol WC RR (same as new Lange WC160, identical mold and 95mm. last - not a shelf product, but a RD for athletes), and felt very bad.

next try was a pair of Head Raptors RD130, which I immediately liked, giving up any chance for Lange/Rossi.

superior fit, easier to wear and buckle up and definitely much much more comfortable despite the same 95mm width.

I didn't try the top of the line RD150s because the shop owner - a well known former WC skiman - warned me about useless racing stiffness vs. comfort in lowest temperatures.

Only drawback, Lange has a nicer color ..
post #42 of 89
I currently have a set of the old L10 race fit and been using for so long but can wait to get my hands on a pair of the super comps :P

Also anyone know any stockists in the UK?
post #43 of 89
pipeto, the consensus seems to be that the Rossi fits different than the Lange(probably liner?) but the WC160 is a 92mm forefoot not 95 as you mention so maybe you didn't try on the right boot?
post #44 of 89
Actually I tried a Rossi WC RR because I trusted the man; he said the two are perfectly identical (speaking of RD boots) but the (color)-price: Lange is 200 (!) euros more expensive than Rossignol - with athlete's contract ..! well over full price for a stock boot.

And I'm talking about the most respected racing-oriented shop in my country.

I can't argue about the liner because the only Lange available at the moment was a '08 model.

My feet are very narrow, but trust me, with such a fit I bet no one could bear a similar torture the whole day.
post #45 of 89

Supercomp and Comp Pro

I tried on the new Supercomp 140 yesterday and all I can say is: Holy crap what an incredible fit! I currently ski last year's WC 130 and the new last is very different and a huge improvement, at least for my foot (which is narrow with very low instep). As has been said above in this thread, the fit is way more "anatomical"...the shell just wraps the foot's contours a lot more. And yes, it is VERY snug, but that's what we like right? My understanding is that the cuff is vertical and the bottom ground 1 degree to the outside so the boots will be VERY responsive...maybe too responsive for free skiing in vaiable snow, which is a concern.

The 140 is very stiff -- too stiff for me as I'm not racing anymore and so I'll be looking at the Comp Pro 130 instead. Which leads to my question for any of you who know a lot about these boots: I was told the 130 is the exact same shell as the 140 except for the softer flex...is that true? If so, why is 140 listed as "WC fit" and 130 as "HP fit"? Also, do they have the same stock lace liner?

--Josh
post #46 of 89
Clarification to my question above. I know the Supercomp comes in both 92mm and 97mm and Comp Pro just 97mm. The Supercomp I tried on was the 97mm and still said WC Fit on it so I'm wondering if there is any diff between Supercomp 97mm and Comp Pro 97mm. Thanks.
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Skier View Post
Clarification to my question above. I know the Supercomp comes in both 92mm and 97mm and Comp Pro just 97mm. The Supercomp I tried on was the 97mm and still said WC Fit on it so I'm wondering if there is any diff between Supercomp 97mm and Comp Pro 97mm. Thanks.
According to http://www.langeskiboots.com/#/produ...s/ref=lb81060/

shell material is different giving it the softer 130 (vs 140 flex). Info is limited on this site but says it also has an anatomical fit. More importantly for me, the Comp Pro comes in a 30.5 while the largest size for the Super Comp is 29.5.
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Skier View Post
Clarification to my question above. I know the Supercomp comes in both 92mm and 97mm and Comp Pro just 97mm. The Supercomp I tried on was the 97mm and still said WC Fit on it so I'm wondering if there is any diff between Supercomp 97mm and Comp Pro 97mm. Thanks.
From the Lange race literature, the WC160 (crazy blue) comes in ZA/ZB/ZC in 92mm only.

In the retail catalogue there's the Super Comp in 92mm/ZB (140) and Comp Pro in 97mm/ZA (130). These are the transluscent blue boots.

Given that info, the Super Comp is the race plug with different coloured plastic?

As for the orange boot, Rossignol has the 92mm RL12 with no 97mm equivalent. And the RL11 lives on for both brands.
post #49 of 89
But the Supercomp 140 flex comes in both 92mm and 97mm last, the Comp Pro 130 flex only 97mm. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's any diff at all between the 97mm version of the 140 and the 130 other than flex. One thing I don't understand is that the 140 I tried on, which was a 97mm version, said "WC Fit" on it. I had assumed the WC/HP distinction referred to the 92mm v 97mm last width. If not that, then what makes one WC and the other HP?
post #50 of 89
I'm having trouble finding anyone who carries the 92mm version. Anyone know?

I measure a 13.5 B width. (6'2", 210 lbs.) Most 30.5's are loose on my very low volume foot, though most 29.5's are on the short side regarding length. Do you think a 29.5 in this boot could be made to work? I'm willing to go see Jeff Bergeron if necessary to make them work.

I've been skiing in really old Lange XRi's with extra pads inserted to keep 'em tight in the ankles. This new boot sounds like the boot I've been waiting for for WAY too many years.

My old XRi's essentially don't flex at all. Since I prefer bumps and off-piste, do you think the 140 flex will still be stiffer than I'd like?

AM.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attacking Mid View Post
I'm having trouble finding anyone who carries the 92mm version. Anyone know?

I measure a 13.5 B width. (6'2", 210 lbs.) Most 30.5's are loose on my very low volume foot, though most 29.5's are on the short side regarding length. Do you think a 29.5 in this boot could be made to work? I'm willing to go see Jeff Bergeron if necessary to make them work.

I've been skiing in really old Lange XRi's with extra pads inserted to keep 'em tight in the ankles. This new boot sounds like the boot I've been waiting for for WAY too many years.

My old XRi's essentially don't flex at all. Since I prefer bumps and off-piste, do you think the 140 flex will still be stiffer than I'd like?

AM.
I have a similar size foot and recently saw Jeff (but with no Lange's in the shop for me to try on). He thought that these would be a long shot for me, but expected the '08 World Cup 130s and some of the other 98 mm lasted Lange/Rossis would work best for me. He thought I would be happier with a 30/12 rather than 29/11 shell. He said smaller shells can be made to work in many instances, but not if the boot was excruciatingly tight over the entire top of the foot (near the ankle joint).

I was able to find a pair of last years Langes to try on in a 11/29 and didn't think it could be made to work for me. Your foot may be different enough that it may be different for you.

FWIW, although I have yet to find any of this years Langes, a Lange website said they make the 130 flex Comp Pro up to a 30.5, but the 140 Super Comp only goes up to 29.5.
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attacking Mid View Post

Since I prefer bumps and off-piste, do you think the 140 flex will still be stiffer than I'd like?

AM.
I can't answer this, but you may want to also consider the Banshee Pro (135 flex) or the Rossignol B Squad Pro Carbon (130 flex). I think that both use a similar shell to World Cup with 98 mm lasts, but are oriented towards freeriding. I am not sure if this is marketing or real performance, but it does seem like a few of the features help with shock absorbtion which might make bump skiing a bit more user friendly??
http://www.skiandsnowboardequipment....e-Pro/p/SS1008
post #53 of 89
The largest 92mm shell is a 29.5 and the 97mm HP shell maxes out at 30.5.

Comp Pro has a different liner which I don't believe comes with laces. Alternatively, you can get the WC 160 in a ZA flex with the 92mm shell.
post #54 of 89
Attacking Mid,

You're a big guy, but still I can't imagine choosing the 140 for bumps and off-piste...I mean, of course it's skiable, but it is a very stiff shell...WAY stiffer than my 08 WC 130s, which felt like sponge when I put them on right after the Supercomps. I'm a former racer, so I'm used to stiff boots from back in the day, but IMO the Supercomp is not a variable condition free ski boot...it is very stiff.

Also, re your search for someone carrying the 92mm shell: I can't imagine you'd need the 92mm shell. The 97 is MUCH lower volume than the 2008 98mm shell, especially w/r/t the instep, which is substantially lower. I have very low volume feet -- both narrow and no instep -- and I cannot imagine going for a lower volume last than the 97 I tried on...you'd just end up grinding and punching it out a ton anyway, which might be worth doing if you were racing at a very serious level I suppose, but the 97 felt sculpted anyway...at least on my feet.

Btw, the bsl is 5mm shorter than the 2008 WC130 -- at least the 26.5 was (WC130 is 308; Supercomp 140 is 303).

I'm still hoping someone can explain what the WC versus HP fit designation really means since the 97mm Supercomp 140 I tried on said WC Fit on it even tho not the 92.

--JHR
post #55 of 89
My college-aged son with similar but slightly smaller feet, has Comp 120 LF's in an 11.0 (first year of the heat-moldable liners). I've put 'em on for grins, and it would take some serious work before I could ski in them all day. My son even says he couldn't stand anything smaller, and he wears 11.5 vs. my 13.5 street shoes.

Several posts have indicated that the newer Langes (last year or two) are running larger in size - thus my curiosity about maybe being able to fit into that 29.5. Of course, friends have suggested that with feet like mine, there's little need for boots/skis.

I am not technically proficient enough to ski well with loose-fitting boots. If my boots are even slightly loose, I struggle in the bumps.

AM.
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Skier View Post
Attacking Mid,

The 97 is MUCH lower volume than the 2008 98mm shell, especially w/r/t the instep, which is substantially lower. I have very low volume feet -- both narrow and no instep -- and I cannot imagine going for a lower volume last than the 97 I tried on...
I'm sure you're right regarding the 140 flex being too stiff - though they can't be stiffer than these dinosaurs I've been skiing - they literally don't move.

Did you find it true what others have said regarding the new boot being more anatomically correct compared to your WC 130's? Langes have always worked for me, but I would never say they were comfortable - I'm always VERY ready to get them off at the end of the day.

Edit: Sorry - I went back and re-read your post where you already answered this.

AM.
post #57 of 89
Important update/clarification for people interested in this thread.

It turns out the boot I tried on WAS the 92mm not the 97. The guy in the shop was wrong (which he realized when I emailed him and pointed out that it said WC Fit on it), which explains a lot about why the boot felt so much tighter than my 2008 WC 130s!

So, Attacking Mid, I take back what I said above about not imagining the 92mm as fittable right out of the box. Now the problem is that I love the fit of the 92 but I don't want a boot that stiff. I guess I'll try on the 97mm 130 and take it from there.
post #58 of 89
I was thinking that might have been the case. Thanks for clarifying. I wonder how hard it would be for a good bootfitter to soften the 140/92mm model?

Now I just need to find someone in Co Spgs or Denver that carries those models.

I wonder why Jeff Bergeron thought this boot was unlikely to fit MEfree30 - at least in the 130/97mm version.

AM.
post #59 of 89
I spoke to a dealer (who is very knowledgeable about the Lange race line) about softening up the 140. He said it can be done but not with the same results you'd ordinarily get on another boot. Part of what makes the boot feel so stiff is the vertical cuff that engages so fast, so some of the usual v-cut modifications you'd make to soften won't have as much effect. Still, he definitely said some things could be done.

I'm going to try on the 130/97, but I have a feeling I'm not going to be able to resist the fit of the 92...it just felt like it was molded around the foot with no space in the boot anywhere except the toe box...and that was with the buckles on the first/loosest notch.

--Josh
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attacking Mid View Post

I wonder why Jeff Bergeron thought this boot was unlikely to fit MEfree30 - at least in the 130/97mm version.

AM.
While it is possible that my foot is slightly wider than yours...Jeff said I was a B, others have said B/C and they measured one foot at 105 mm and the other at 110 mm at Surefoot (saying that the 98 mm last is really 106 in a size 12/30 shell), it could be somethiing else about my foot- maybe that I have a med to high arch.

OTOH, the 97 mm version is one of the few boots that he thought had any chance of fitting me properly (while saying that the 98 mm version was more of a sure thing).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 LANGE COMP PRO (Quick Review)