The most honest and in-depth reviews of outdoor sports equipment on the planet.

2017-2018 Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130

Jonathan Ellsworth reviews the Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130

2017-2018 Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130

Stated Flex Rating: 130

Stated Last Width: 98 mm – ~104 mm (can expand ~6 mm in the forefoot)

Size Tested: 26.5 / 302 mm Boot Sole Length

Stated Range of Motion: 54 º

Stated Weight (size 26.5): 1420 g

Blister’s Measured Weight:

  • Shells & Boot Boards, no Liners: 1124 & 1128 g
  • Liners (with laces, no spoilers, no footbeds): 271 & 276 g
  • Stock Footbeds: 15 & 15 g
  • Total Weight per Boot: 1410 & 1419 g

Tech Inserts: Dynafit-Certified

Liner: Hand-Washable Memory Fit 3D Liner

Shell Material:
Cuff: Grilamid
Shoe / Clog: Grilamid

Sole: Rockered, Rubber, non-replaceable Walk-to-Ride Sole

Binding Compatibility:

  • All pin-style / “tech” bindings (Dynafit, Marker Kingpin, etc)
  • All WTR bindings
  • Any binding that accepts an ISO 9523 sole (Warden, Marker Duke/Griffon ID, etc)

MSRP: $799

As noted in our 7th annual Blister Awards from SIA, Atomic is talking a big enough game about the new Ultra XTD 130 AT boot that we gave them our “Swagger” Award.

Here’s what Atomic has to say about the Ultra XTD 130:

The Hawx Ultra XTD “combines the legendary feel, skiing power and all-mountain capability of Hawx with the epic natural movement of Backland. This is the boot that freeriders and all-mountain skiers have been waiting for — the one that can take them all over the mountain, and deep into the backcountry as well.”

Atomic claims that the XTD 130 skis “just like the normal Hawx Ultra. Progressive and powerful, no compromise.”

When companies start talking about their AT equipment performs just as well as dedicated downhill equipment, we usually roll our eyes. But there is no question that AT equipment is getting better and better, and skiers now have options for very lightweight skis, boots, and bindings, and an increasing number of options for skis, boots, and bindings that offer significant downhill performance.

But “no compromise” AT gear?

We’ll weigh in on that later.

Atomic Hawx Ultra 130 vs. Hawx Ultra XTD 130

After putting a lot of days in the boot, I published my review of the new-for-16/17 Hawx Ultra 130. And despite my prejudice against the idea of a very lightweight, 4-buckle alpine boot, I had to admit that the Ultra 130 fits very well and performs very well as an all-mountain boot.

But when making the Ultra XTD 130, Atomic didn’t simply throw a walk mode on the Ultra 130, but instead, decided to make the XTD 130 much lighter. Check the stats:

Atomic Hawx Ultra 130:

Blister’s Measured Weight:

  • Shells & Boot Boards, no Liners: 1270 & 1267 g
  • Stock Liners (with rear spoiler, no footbed): 425 & 426 g
  • Total Weight per Boot: 1695 & 1693 g

Shell Material:

  • Cuff: Grilamid
  • Shoe / Clog: Polyurethane

Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130:

Blister’s Measured Weight:

  • Shells & Boot Boards, no Liners: 1124 & 1128 g
  • Liners (with laces, no spoilers, no footbeds): 271 & 276 g
  • Stock Footbeds: 15 & 15 g
  • Total Weight per Boot: 1410 & 1419 g

Shell Material:

  • Cuff: Grilamid
  • Shoe / Clog: Grilamid

Three things to note:

  1. Notice how much lighter the shell of the XTD 130 is — and then don’t forget that it is that much lighter while also having (1) a boot sole length that is 2 mm longer than the Ultra 130’s; (2) tech fittings (3) a rather burly walk mode.
  2. The shoe / clog / lower of the Ultra 130 is made of Polyurethane; the shoe of the XTD 130 is made of Grilamid.
  3. There is a 150+ g difference in the weight of their respective liners.

So when Atomic claims that the XTD 130 skis exactly like the Ultra 130, if you’re like us, you might be curious to know how that is possible when they have sucked so much weight out of the XTD 130? In any case, the XTD 130 very much looks and feels like an impressive boot.

NEXT: Fit, Other Notes, Etc.

5 Comments

  1. James March 6, 2017 Reply

    Jonathan, I just bought a set of Tecnica Zero G Pro’s….haven’t used them yet…do I return them and wait for the UltraXTD to be available? They are lighter, better ROM, and I like the external walk/ski mechanism. Have you skied both yet?

  2. brian March 16, 2017 Reply

    Can you give more specs on the fit? What are the interior dimensions? Instep, ankle, length? Or at the very least, how it compares to an array of other boots. And why does no one list the forward lean angles? The boot sounds good and not everyone can try on a boot before they order one. Thanks!

  3. vincent savorani March 23, 2017 Reply

    two foward lean 15 and 17°

    XTD vs LAB
    volume : heel and anckle a little bit less
    instep little bit higher than
    metarsal and front with more volume but not high

    the atomic liner is very good for skining but soft for skiing

    more rom on the front and less on the back
    LAB walks better ( XTD WTR sole)
    XTD skins better

    lenght inside perhaps shorter
    on a LAB I was near to take a 26.5 size
    definitely 27.5 for the XTD
    I think this depend of the foot shape, fingers and heel

    boot board is light
    20gr and can give 5mm more place if you grind it. bad point it’s not fixed to the shell snd and move fore/aft few mm.

  4. Christian September 8, 2017 Reply

    Curious what you go for on the shell fit (how many fingers behind the heel)?

  5. Blister Member
    Mike September 14, 2017 Reply

    Any idea when your full review is gonna drop for the Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130? Any an in-depth A/B to the MTN Lab?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*