Dynafit Vulcan

Downhill Performance

The Vulcan skis better than any of the dedicated AT boot I’ve ever used. (Note: this paragraph was written before I had spent much time in the Salomon MTN Lab. Comparisons to that boot will be coming soon.)

Likely in part due to the great fit I have in the Vulcans, they are big step up for me from other boots that are sometimes spoken of in the same class, such as the La Sportiva Spectre or Scarpa Maestrale RS. Compared to these boots, the Vulcan is significantly more supportive of my 195 lb frame and often heavy pack, and the fit is more precise. While the Maestrale RS is much closer in flex to the Dynafit, I am able to push through the RS more easily, and find my foot moving around in them quite a bit more.

(The caveat here is that I was using a pair of liners from my TLT5’s to ski in the Maestrale, which certainly created some of the fit issues. But overall, the shell was a lot sloppier for me even when using that very same liner in my Vulcans.)

Compared to the Sportiva Spectre, the Vulcan is almost in another category for a big skier riding fast in variable conditions.

In terms of lateral stiffness, I feel like the Vulcan is as stiff as my Salomon X-Max 130, and gives up nothing to any alpine boot I’ve used. This is nice, since I spend most of my time skiing the Vulcans on very wide skis like the DPS Lotus and Spoon series, so that lateral stiffness is a boon when driving big skis at high speeds.

Paul Forward reviews the Dynafit Vulcan for Blister Gear Review
Paul Forward in the Dynafit Vulcan, Alaska. (photo by Andy Milauskas)

The rearward flex / support of the Vulcan is one place where I feel like they fall short compared to alpine boots like the Tecnica Cochise Pro 130 or the Salomon X-Max 130. This was made clear to me one day when I thought I had the day off from heli guiding and dropped my alpine boots off at the shop for some boot work. Later that day, one of our guides tweaked his knee and I needed to get out there in a hurry to take his place so he could come home. I quickly adjusted a pair of Lotus 138’s I had with Marker Dukes on them to fit the Vulcans, then jumped in the helicopter.

Halfway down the first run, I hit a few compressions that popped me into the backseat and I immediately realized that, while the Vulcans have great forward support for me, they are comparatively lacking when I get in the backseat, especially while wearing a 30lb guide pack. They are still more supportive than any other dedicated AT boot I’ve used, however, and I was able to adjust quickly. But I was surprised that day by the difference.

Flex / Flex Progression

If you’ve read about people’s experience with the Vulcan and Mercury, you will encounter some reports about a lack of progressive forward flex, or of “hitting a wall” in the flex. In my time in the Vulcan, I have not felt this way, and frequently find myself flexing deeply into the boot and getting out a fair amount of rebound and support when I need it.

It is not the smooth, damp flex of an alpine boot, nor is it the deep, smooth flex of a Full Tilt. But, at least at my weight (195 lbs) and style, the Vulcan flexes nicely for all types of skiing. Those who must have the rebound, stiffness, and dampness of a quality alpine or race boot will definitely find the Vulcan wanting, but there’s nothing out there in this class of dedicated touring boots that I’ve skied that is closer. (Again, we’ll be discussing the Salomon MTN Lab soon.)

Just for the record: one notable difference in the construction and possibly the flex of the Vulcan vs. the Mercury is that the Mercury is designed with tabs of plastic on the lower shell that function to stop forward flex of the cuff. These are absent on all of the Vulcans I’ve seen, and the Vulcan’s upper cuff is able to flex past the point where the Mercury’s have the stopper. I suspect the Mercury is designed this way to give it a little stiffer forward flex without the inherent material stiffness of a carbon fiber cuff. I have yet to ski the Mercury, but I wonder whether those who have more experience with the Mercury than the Vulcan are (1) aware of this difference, and (2) if not, whether they are then making assumptions about the blocky flex of the Vulcan that might be more germane to the Mercury…

But compared to the Tecnica Cochise Pro 130 (and to a lesser degree the Salomon Quest Max BC), the Vulcan skis much less like an alpine race boot, and will fall short for many people who want or need that type of boot. But when considering that the Vulcan weighs about a kilogram less per pair, goes uphill like a TLT6, and still skis pretty darn close to a real alpine boot, this compromise seems like an easy one to make.

Durability

I have more than 120 days in my Vulcans (including a decent amount of rock scrambling), and they are still fully functional. The rubber soles are thinning near the toes, but the tech fittings are still in good shape and uncompromised.

The cuff pivot point on the Vulcans is built with a bushing system that greatly decreases wear on the carbon cuff. By the time I had 100 days in my TLT5’s, the carbon cuff was already wallowed out enough that it created alignment issues with the Ultralock system, and eventually the boots became difficult to use. I have seen no evidence of this with the Vulcans.

Value

The Vulcans cost about $1000, which makes them among the most expensive ski boots on the market. But they have been so much better for my feet and my skiing needs that they’ve been worth the price. (And with the upcoming changes to the boot, it may be possible to find a pair of this year’s for substantially less.)

Bottom Line

I spend a lot of time in AT boots, and the Dynafit Vulcan skis and tours better than just about any AT boot out there. It has been one of my favorite pieces of ski equipment, and they have served me very well through some of the best days of my life. In my opinion, the Vulcan has set the standard for dedicated AT boot performance, and we’ll see if any other boot can kick that standard even higher.

6 comments on “Dynafit Vulcan”

  1. I own a pair of Dynafit Mercuries that I use for 80 percent of my ski touring and on hill days. I have a few observations to share.

    Regarding:

    “The only downside is that it’s not possible to have the cuff buckled and be in walk mode, or to be in ski mode with the cuff unbuckled. This is rarely an issue for me, although occasionally it’s nice to have these options when touring out of an area with a lot of rolling terrain (where you have to skin / ski downhill)”

    This was also an initial issue for me until I discovered the boots skied perfectly fine for these scenarios by leaving the power strap engaged and unbuckling the cuff lock/upper buckle. (“…cuff buckled and be in walk mode”…) In fact, I kinda like the old school extra soft flex fore and aft for perfect powder low angle meadowskipping runs to rekindle nostalgic ‘good old days’ memories of skiing in leather boots.

    “…to be in ski mode with the cuff unbuckled.” ; one can disengage the wire bail at the ladder, snap shut the cuff buckle while relying on a snug or loosened powerstrap for varying degrees of forward support.

    As for the upper cuff forward flex bump stops: In an effort to modify the boots to exhibit less blocky flex, I did an experiment where I modified the bump stops to be bypassed by adding plastic wedges on either side to allow a smooth flex beyond their limitations. I skied a few runs in REALLY bad snow…deep rain soaked coastal cementometers. Without extra tongues inserted the boots basically collapsed while pressuring the tips and on terrain undulations. I had to ski centered/aft for the rest of the run in fear of breaking the boots. With tongues inserted, there was more support, but, the flex felt off…too much initial resistance followed by an ‘anti progressive’ softening feel while driving the shin deeper into the flex of the boot. It was clear that the bump stops were there for a reason; I stopped the experiment before catastrophic failure and have been skiing happily ever after with boots in stock form…mostly sans extra tongues. Yes the flex is a tad non linear but I have since adapted and it has proven to be a non issue.

    An aspect of the boot’s performance that doesn’t appear to be widely discussed is their basic walk, hike, and steep snow climbing ability/agility. Can’t comment on ice climbing and crampon work…just snow. I do a lot of varied terrain and surface dry ground approaches, some very low class rock work while scrambling and frequent spring/summer steep snow, couloir uphills. This is where the rear range of motion shines its glory…lots of ankle mobility for sensitivity and balance after carefully adjusting instep and front buckles. For steep kick stepping and french techniquing steep snow of varying hardness, the boots just feel good. Frequently, snugging the power strap but leaving upper buckle in walk mode provides the correct balance. As angles change, simple adjustments of power strap are sufficient to micro tweak the upper cuff fit compression. And full lockdown mode provides bomber support for conditions requiring it.

    The only part of the boot that is left wanting, in my opinion, is the durability of the outsole for dry land work…mine are completely trashed after 2 seasons of use, with particularly heinous wear at the toe. The problem has been rectified with a few layers of shoo goo that have been shaped to mimic the factory fresh form. I believe the Vulcans share similar rubber on the outsole, which is why I mention it.

  2. I have the Mercury. Love the up hill performance but don’t like the down hill performance at all. Not even close to a traditional alpine boot. No progressive flex. I am in salomom race boots . Curious to see flex the Solomon mnt lab. The stance and flex don’t inspire confidence when bombing through junky snow.

  3. @Simpson: re: Mercury flex: Personally, I found the boot was/is pretty sensitive to footbed ramp angle in how the flex profile subjectively ‘felt better’ for my personal physiology. This, combine with the forward position of the forward lean option and sometimes some added foam wedges for even more forward lean of the boot cuff seemed to be the best compromise for me. With flat stock footbeds, the sensation of not so progressive flex was more noticeable than with more rigid custom orthotics with higher heel and some simple layers of duct tape added to fine tune the perceived balance point. With a more neutral ramp the sensation of hitting a more abrubt end of flex resulted in a feeling of getting knocked back/backseat when skiing snow that was undulating and provided more tip of ski feedback; i.e. maching through junky, cut up coastal snow and bumpy terrain. With a more forward oriented ramp angle, this tendency was/is perhaps not eliminated but seemed to provide a more positive shin on boot tongue feel and tactile, precise and not AS abrupt end to the forward flex of the boot. Not perfect, but improved. Probably the same with any boot but the Merc was/is the first boot where I’ve done extensive a/b comparisons and fine tuning to dial in the performance… of course, it’s all very subjective and personal, but so far the Mercury has been the best compromise of uphill/downhill performance of any ski touring boot I’ve owned/tried; after spending LOTS of time fine tuning. For the record, I’ve been skiing the boots with Intuition Luxury high volume liners.

    • Hi Greg, The short answer is no, the only alpine bindings that are officially compatible with these boots that I know of are the Marker Lord and the Salomon Warden MNC. I’m sure you’ll see lots of people using boots like the Vulcans in regular alpine bindings but they are not certified to have safe, consistent release. For more details about this check out the recent article we did on AT boots and bindings: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/skiing-101-at-boots-bindings

Leave a Comment