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 3

post #61 of 89
MEFree--

Interesting. I have almost no arch and very low instep, and it felt like that was exactly what was making the 92 work for me...I can't see how someone with much instep could get under the "low ceiling" of this boot.

I know from some guys at the Surefoot HQ that the 97 is actually a little wider through the arch area than the RL11 was, but it is also lower instep, so if you have much arch, that's probably why Bergeron thought it a long shot.

--Josh

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
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).
Ahhh.... that makes sense. My feet are both right at about 102 mm. I also have relatively flat feet with a low instep.

I've tried on countless boots over the years, and I leave everyone on the shelf as I realize I'd have to do the same to them that I've done to my ancient Langes: pad them with art/craft sheet foam in order to make them snug enough around the ankle/rear foot area.

This 92mm Lange just sounds so promising if I can squeeze into the 29.5 and get the flex softened.

MEfree, those 120's sound like just the ticket for you. My kid has essentially that boot (Comp 120's), though in the LF rather than the MF or HP fit. I've always felt the flex on those boots would be fine for me.

AM.
post #63 of 89
Went shopping today in Toronto for Lange boots. One shop no longer carries Lange and another didn't even have the Comp Pro 130's instock. Plus they couldn't answer my questions.

I currently have the WC130's Low Fit about 5 yrs old, blue with gray cuff.

Question: Does any know if the new Comp Pro's will fit the same as my old WC130's? At least as narrow? Or has Lange opened up the footbed?

Thks
post #64 of 89
Soundrulz, not sure where you went, but I was in Sign of the Skier a few weeks ago and they definitely had some of the new Langes. I'm pretty sure they had a 130, but in any event it's probably worth calling, at the very least.
post #65 of 89
I couldn't find any Super Comps, but I tried on the Comp Pros today in a 29. Didn't fit at all the way I'd hoped. It was snug across the ball of foot width, but my heel seemed a bit sloppy, it was still too high in the instep (I have essentially no instep), and the length was only sufficient with my toes slightly curled. My guess is that the Super would be too tight across the BOF area. Darn it!

Really a nice-looking boot, but I doubt it's the one for me. Unfortunately, no one seems to make a boot that's close to fitting my foot right out of the box.

AM.
post #66 of 89
Hi all. I need to replace a Lange comp 120 LF. Would the comp pro be a good choice? My size is 29.5 103mm But very low volume in ankle and calf. Thanks
post #67 of 89

My Shop Review: Lange Comp Pro

Tried the Comp Pro 26.5 w/97m last today. I spent about 2hrs with them.

Before you read below, I am a BIG Lange fan, no doubt about it. I have skied with Lange racing boots for over 20 yrs. My current WC130's have a crack so I need to replace them. The Comp Pro was my expected replacement and I heard a number of great reviews about this boot.

Here's my feedback:
First, the boot shows 120 flex, not 130. This is right on the back spine near the top of boot in black lettering. I must say, in the shop compared side by side with my current 2004 Lange WC 130, they are MUCH softer in forward flex. Tried the Banshee 125 flex and they were stiffer then the Comp Pro's by just a little.

Second, the liners on the Comps are very cheap! No shape at all. We compared them to my current WC 130's and even the shop owner was surprised at what Langer is offering on these Comps. The Comps have NO heel formation what so ever. No rear top shim like the older Lange’s. In addition, I found the liner padding to be somewhat soft. I wonder how long they would last over time.

Third, looking at the shell w/o the liner's installed, they also have very little shape in the heel area. For example, the heel piece is just round like most other shells. The WC130's are very shaped around the heel, they have a pronounced heel indent, the Comps don't.

I could not get the Comps to hold my ankle in place like my old boots. The shop tried everything, heel lifts, padding around the ankle area etc.

So, I left the shop wondering why the big changes to the liner and shell quality? Will the Super Comp Pro’s, Comp Pro HP’s in 140 be better? Will the liner be comparable to my current Lange’s? My next trip will be to another shop that carries the 140’s.


For those who have tried the Comps or the 140’s what was your experience?
post #68 of 89
As I said a few days ago, I too was disappointed in the way they fit. I didn't take the liner out, but I agree that the boot didn't feel like it was going to hold my heel and ankle well despite being snug across the widest part of my foot.

AM.
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrulz View Post
So, I left the shop wondering why the big changes to the liner and shell quality? Will the Super Comp Pro’s, Comp Pro HP’s in 140 be better? Will the liner be comparable to my current Lange’s? My next trip will be to another shop that carries the 140’s.
You may also want to consider one of the RL11 (WC150) based boots. They are supposedly much closer to the "traditional" Lange fit than the new RL12 last.
post #70 of 89
soundrulz try the Banshee series as they are based on the old shell (RL11/World Cup shell)

the Super Comp/WC160/Comp Pro IS a different fit from the old Lange shell...
post #71 of 89
Waxman
I tried on the Banshe (brown one). The flex was bad right around the very top of the shell, like tonge bit.

Here in Toronto, I cannot find dealers carrying the Super Comp 140's. Sure, they can order it in.

Wondering if they have the better liner like what's in the plug boots and what's in the older WC130's such as a real heel pocket? If anyone has a chance, could you report what the liners are like in the 140's? There's two versions WC and HP, which may mean different liners in each.

Josh, maybe you know what the liners looked like?
post #72 of 89
The liners in the 140 were a nice race type full lace-up...I felt like the 140 had me locked down solid. There was ZERO slop or heel slip for me. But the stock liners in these boots are kind of irrelevant to me b/c I'm gonna use my custom liners (conformables) anyway.

I'll be trying on the Comp Pro 130 in about a week, so will be able to report back with some compare/contrast....will try it on with both custom and stock liners. Since the 140 fit was so good for me, I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up going 140 and having some work done to soften and slow up the boot a bit (since I'm not racing in it). But if the 130 fit is nice and snug and the shell is significantly softer, I may go that route.

As for the comment above that the Comp Pro said 120 on it and was softer than last year's, that makes no sense...the 2009 Comp Pro is definitely called a 130 flex and should have significantly lower range of flex/motion (and thus feel somewhat stiffer) than last year's WC 130 because of the vertical cuff and how quickly that engages. The 140 was WAYYYYYY stiffer and lower range of motion than the 2008 WC 130, which I skied in last year and had with me for side-by-side comparison when I tried on the 140. it was night and day, but it's not the plastic; it's the shell design.

I wish they were making a boot with the new 92mm last but with the slower and softer construction of the freeride boots. I think all of us low volume feet people who aren't racing anymore would gobble it up -- super snug anatomical fit of the race plug but with a somewhat less responsive, more foregiving design for free skiing.

--Josh
post #73 of 89
Josh,
The Comp Pro is 120 flex. When flexing, the bottom of the boot expands out like it's bulging which is strange. I did a side by side comparison of the Comp's and the WC130's, the older WC130 are much stiffer at the same temp.

When trying on the Comp's, make sure you look closely at the liner when it's out of the shell. Very thin and soft foam. Also it does not have the wedge on the top at the back like older WC130's or the current plug boots. Although there is velcro at the back.

Brian
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrulz View Post
Josh,
The Comp Pro is 120 flex. When flexing, the bottom of the boot expands out like it's bulging which is strange. I did a side by side comparison of the Comp's and the WC130's, the older WC130 are much stiffer at the same temp.
Brian
You might be right, but the Lange website calls it a 130 flex...problem is that there is really no uniformness to ratings
http://www.langeskiboots.com/#/produ...s/ref=lb81060/

This has one of the Lange reps talking about the two Comp boots, but I didn't catch him giving a flex rating
http://www.skiandsnowboardequipment.com/Comp/p/SS1009
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
You might be right, but the Lange website calls it a 130 flex...problem is that there is really no uniformness to ratings
http://www.langeskiboots.com/#/produ...s/ref=lb81060/

This has one of the Lange reps talking about the two Comp boots, but I didn't catch him giving a flex rating
http://www.skiandsnowboardequipment.com/Comp/p/SS1009

The Comp Pro is a 130 flex and the Super Comp is a 140. That number is determined by the material used and the design of the shell. A Comp Pro has ZA plastic, which in the crazy blue boot of the last few years was a 120. The reason a ZA in the Comp Pro is a 130 has to do with the design of the shell. The Comp Pro and Super Comp use a new shell, RL 12, that has a small range of flex - meaning the boot is not hinged like a traditional Lange. So even though the plastic is the same, the boot functions in a different way.
The flex rating is simply provided to give the user a reference point for the boot within the collection. Every skier will have a different sensation to the flex of any boot. This could be due to ankle mobility, leg lenght/strength, etc.
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aregee View Post
The Comp Pro is a 130 flex and the Super Comp is a 140. That number is determined by the material used and the design of the shell. A Comp Pro has ZA plastic, which in the crazy blue boot of the last few years was a 120. The reason a ZA in the Comp Pro is a 130 has to do with the design of the shell. The Comp Pro and Super Comp use a new shell, RL 12, that has a small range of flex - meaning the boot is not hinged like a traditional Lange. So even though the plastic is the same, the boot functions in a different way.
The flex rating is simply provided to give the user a reference point for the boot within the collection. Every skier will have a different sensation to the flex of any boot. This could be due to ankle mobility, leg lenght/strength, etc.
Exactly.

And the moment you try on the RL12, you will feel this...the cuff engages the lower shell MUCH faster -- meaning with a much smaller range of flex motion -- than on the RL11. The stiffness of the Supercomp 140 relative to past Langes is not the plastic used, it's the boot construction. You flex just a bit and then feel like you're hitting a wall in how far the cuff can go. So, you pressure, the cuff immediately engages, the ski responds...there's no slop, gradual engagement and so little forgiveness...don't know if it's too responsive for free skiing, but I might take the chance b/c the fit of the 92mm for me is incredible. The boot is also ground 1 degree to the outside so that will add to the responsiveness relative to an uncanted boot too. Of course one could grind it flat to slow it down and can probably have some things done to the shell to get it to engage a little more gradually too. I plan to explore those options.

--Josh
post #77 of 89
Ok here's the end of my saga with the Supercomp and Comp Pro, which I thought would be of interest to others on this thread trying to sus out whether the RL12 is for them and which fit -- 92 versus 97.

As per above in the thread, I had already tried on the Supercomp 140 in the WC Fit (92mm). Today, tried the Comp Pro 130 (97mm). VERY different. The Comp Pro is quite a bit softer with more range of motion and MUCH roomier. In addition to being wider through the forefoot, it feels wider through midfoot/arch...just feels like a different last shape overall, although does seem to have the same low instep as the 92mm. When you go from the 92 to the 97, you definitely feel like you are going from a plug to a recreational boot. The Comp Pro is probably a much better choice for most free skiers unless you have very low volume feet b/c the 92mm is VERY tight and the 140 flex is very stiff. I do have very low volume feet...

So, my ideal boot would be the 92mm fit with the flex of the 130, but that doesn't exist, so I went with the Supercomp 140 (92mm). Got custom liners done (Conformables, which I also had in my WC 130s) and the liner came out great and feels like it will be a great fit with no additional work...heel totally locked down (better than with stock lace liner). The stock boot sole 1 degree grind to the outside seemed to put me in the right alignment so I'm leaving that as is, but folks buying this boot should have their alignment checked in case they'll want the boot board and sole made flat.

Net-net, I'm very happy with the fit, but a little worried about how burly and fast the boot will be for free skiing. I'll probably experiment with removing one rear rivet and seeing how it skis...maybe a V cut if necessary to further increase flex.

Now just need to get on the hill and play.

--Josh
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Skier View Post

In addition to being wider through the forefoot, it feels wider through midfoot/arch...just feels like a different last shape overall, although does seem to have the same low instep as the 92mm. When you go from the 92 to the 97, you definitely feel like you are going from a plug to a recreational boot.
The last change for this boot (and the World Cups in the past few years) is proportional so as it gets wider everything gets bigger - forefoot width, instep height, heel cup, etc.

Also the 92 and 97 molds use the same outside mold, but the internal mold (plug) changes to make the last change. So a 92 last has thicker plastic through out the entire lower shell, thus less deformation when flexing. The 97mm last has thinner plastic, compared to the 92mm so that is why the sensation of "plug" vs. "recreational". But, the 97 last thickness is still thicker than a standard production boot.
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by aregee View Post
Also the 92 and 97 molds use the same outside mold, but the internal mold (plug) changes to make the last change. So a 92 last has thicker plastic through out the entire lower shell, thus less deformation when flexing. The 97mm last has thinner plastic, compared to the 92mm so that is why the sensation of "plug" vs. "recreational". But, the 97 last thickness is still thicker than a standard production boot.
"Outside mold" - Do you mean the upper cuff and just the lower mold has a higher flex? i.e., Upper - ZA, lower ZB/C?
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Skier View Post
Got custom liners done (Conformables, which I also had in my WC 130s) and the liner came out great and feels like it will be a great fit with no additional work...heel totally locked down (better than with stock lace liner).
--Josh
Can you comment on the stock liner between the two boots? Are they much the same?
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrulz View Post
"Outside mold" - Do you mean the upper cuff and just the lower mold has a higher flex? i.e., Upper - ZA, lower ZB/C?
No the cuff and lower are the same material. The outside mold is the part of the mold that that shapes the exterior part of the boot.
post #82 of 89
I called around to all the Lange shops in the Toronto area, no one carries the Super Comp. Looks like I will move towards the 150 plug and have them soften the shell as close the 130 flex. If I go this route, would it be wise to try the boot at the stock flex and decide later to soften?

My background:
Ski groomers, first one down the hill – I like to go fast!
Ski moguls - I love moguls
Ski powder - when I can find it!
I guess I'm a level 8-9 out of 10.
I ski very hard and I'm very athletic
Blacks, double blacks
Mostly ski in the east, ice, hardpack etc.

Brian
post #83 of 89
Soundrulz, I'm not a bootfitter, but the general rule of thumb is that you can always make a boot softer, and you can stretch it out. You can't make it stiffer, or smaller. So unless your bootfitter thinks based on the indoor evaluation that it's way too stiff, ski it at the normal flex (maybe with a screw out of the back), then see whether you need to go softer.

My other piece of advice is to call around to the Collingwood shops. They often have more selection of race and pseudo-race products than the Toronto ones, and the trip is worth it if you can find the right boot for you. No harm in phoning at least.
post #84 of 89
While Canuck is right about being able to soften a boot as a general rule, that rule doesn't apply so much to these boots...because of the way they are coinstructed (mostly the vertical cuff), some of the softening tricks won't do as much. Multiple Lange people confirmed that...they all said you can do some things, but you won't get the same results as on other boots.

Someone asked about the stock liners...the stock liner in the 140 is a thin lace-up racing liner...seemed fine. The stock liner in the 130 is more of a normal traditional liner...still on the thinner side but not super thin and dense like the lace-up jon in the 140.

I'm a big believer in Conformables...both times I've been foamed, I got great results that dramatically improved fit...especially happy with the way the heel pocket came out and how locked down my heel is...they do stiffen the boot a tad though. If you're racing at the highest levels, sure you'd want the additional snow feel you get from an ultra-thin liner, but for everyone else I think a custom liner is the way to go.

--Josh
post #85 of 89
I found this thread after purchasing a pair of WC 160 in the ZA (130) flex, which appeared to be the only boot around which fit my very narrow (is it possible it is 90mm- that it was the fitter suggested) and low volume foot. My quest to find a boot that fit can be found in other threads. I am concerned, even in the ZA, that this boot will be too stiff for me with too limited a flex range (I ski with kids often, love bumps). The fitter did not share my concern at all-and thought I would have no problems. He even preferred the ZB at 140 based on my ability to flex (it was 70 degrees in the shop though!!!). I also know that efforts to soften this boot cannot do a whole lot due to the construction. I am probably a strong 7 or 8- but I spend as much time with my kids on intermediate trails at moderate speeds as I do freeskiing. I ski aggressively (fast but not breakneck and no racing) when not with my kids, on almost everything on trail (save literal cliffs), but love the bumps and will stay there whenever available (until my legs give out). I am 5' 9" 150-155 lbs and excercise regularly (5 days a week) so am in decent shape. I am by no means a "strong" guy though, as most of my work is cardio.

Did any of you who liked the 92mm fit in the Super Comp (140) but thought it was too stiff try the WC 160 in the ZA? If not I am wondering why? Is the ZA (130) in the WC 160 stiffer than the 130 in the Comp.? Am I just being unreasonably freaked out by the race designation, or are these boots really beyond my weight, strength and abilities?

I am also wondering if I should have looked toward the new (??)WC 150- which appears to have a 95 mm last (different than years past) according to the Lange website and could be softened more from the various flexes available in that model?

From the frustrated end- why doesn't anyone make a boot for mere mortals with narrow feet? I've been through every 98 mm high performance boot out there to no avail. I have been told I should not simply pad- as this is a short term and far from ideal option.

Thanks for any thoughts that might get me off the ledge fearing that I made a huge mistake with the boots (I can still take them back, as no shell work has been done yet-- I will be returning after I ski for the tune ups).
post #86 of 89
End of my quest. Lange replaced my older cracked WC130 boots with 2007 WS130's. The crazy blue ones. I was very happy to see how Lange stands behind their product.

Looking forward to another ski year!
post #87 of 89
That's great! Maybe I should've taken in my old Pink Panthers and requested a warranty replacement The liners haven't held up over the life of the shell!

I settled on some new Salomon Falcon CS Pros. The older shell Langes were snugger, but I have a piece of hardware holding my ankle together that is irritated by the Langes for some reason. Compromises.....

AM.
post #88 of 89
Anyone else care to chime in on their impressions of the Comp Pro?  Not so much the fit, but how the boot skis.  Big difference from the '07 WC 120?
post #89 of 89
Never skied the Comp Pro-- have 40+ days on the WC 160 (ZA) (same shell???) see above for my fitting saga-- love em.  I am primarily a bump skier, but when not in bumps ski short to medium turns on trail.  Boots are dynamite in the shorter turns and they work in the bumps, mostly because they have to.  Like the fact that boot to ski reaction time is minimal in bumps, but the flex range is a little limited also, which takes some getting used to, to say the least.

Please note my review is limited by two factors-- (1) only returned to the sport 2 years ago- and haven't skied much of the new gear and (2) the Langes replaced a pair of Krypton Rampages-- super soft non-overlap and too wide for my feet.  So the Lange seemed like a formula one car-- but a lot of that may be limited to what I was comparing it with.
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)