From mountains to pubs to bedrooms, currently, no other question dominates the skimo racing boots debate more than “How does DyNA Evo compare to Scarpa Alien carbon one-O?”
The big problem with answering it is that very few people actually used both boots, used them extensively, are not sponsored by either company, and have a detective-like obsession for gear testing.
The comparison follows our standard review format but otherwise it’s all Jonathan Shefftz evaluating his long term experience with these boots!
Note: Do not compare cuff heights, other dimensions, forward-lean or angles based on the above images. As two separate photos they might not be the same scale and were likely taken from slightly different angles.
Dynafit DyNA Evo and Scarpa Alien 1.0 quick overview:
- Usual full price: $1700 and $1800 USD (respectively)
- Weight: With some liner variations, both models are almost exactly three pounds for size 26 – 1360g per pair (680g/boot).
- Cost per gram: $1.25/g and $1.32/g respectively for size 26.
- Pros, both: Stunning range of resistance-free motion while skinning, transforming into equally stunning rearward support and lateral control when skinning.
- Pros, Alien 1.0 only: Astoundingly stiff in forward flex.
- Cons, both: Shells do not seal up the liners against the elements, and limited potential for fit modifications.
- Cons, Alien 1.0 only: Can such a light boot really be too … stiff?
- Cons, Evo only: Sole lugs shear off after only a few hours of off-snow travel.
- Suitability: Rando racing but also just general ski touring if you can tolerate some of the inconveniences.
- How we got it: One boot was bought from a European etailer and another via pro-form, but they came out almost exactly the same. (disclosure notices)
Bottom line:
Even if you are coming from a prior generation race boot like the Dynafit DyNA or Scarpa F1, or the race-derived Dynafit TLT5, you will still be amazed at both the uphill and downhill capabilities of these boots.
Despite the similar bottom lines, their names accurately highlight the differences.
The Evo is an exquisitely slimmed-down rendition of the original DyNA boot (which is very similar to the Dynafit TLT5/6 design). To quote Antoine de Saint-Exupery: “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Dynafit has perfectly stripped out every possible bit of superfluous weight while still preserving an amazing amount of skiing performance.
By contrast, the Alien 1.0 really does live up to Scarpa’s alien technology marketing theme, with an impressively crafted design incorporating many innovative parts and exotic materials. Plus if you like the feeling of getting your money’s worth in terms of carbon fiber, then this is definitely your choice.
The two boots do deviate from each other in two areas:
The Evo sole is simply incapable of sustained off-snow travel, as merely a few cumulative hours of off-snow travel will shear off or significantly damage most of the lugs; and, the Alien 1.0 might feel overly stiff in forward flex for very lightweight skiers without significantly loosening up the cord.
Photos:
How we tested them:
I bought the Dynafit DyNA Evo toward the beginning of the 2013 season and loved it so much that I have used it for over 247,000’ vertical, so almost half my earned vertical for the 2013 season. But toward the end of the season I bought the Scarpa Alien 1.0 for any tours with off-snow travel, so only a relatively modest 77,600′ vertical thus far.
Evo ski/binding setups have been a mix of Movement Fish-X + Plum 165, Hagan X-Race + Dynafit Low Tech Race, Hagan X-Ultra + La Sportiva RT, and Hagan Cirrus + Plum 165. I did not try any wider setups only because I did not have enough binding length adjustability for any of them last season.
Alien 1.0 setups have been mainly the Hagan Cirrus on spring and summer snow, except for one surprise late-season “winter” powder outing on the Movement Logic-X (remounted with the greater adjustability of the Plum Guide so as to try the Alien 1.0 in powder), plus a couple times on the Fish-X.
I haven’t used either boot for extended periods in extremely cold temperatures, plus I always keep moving anyways and find all thermo liners to be warm, so I can’t comment on their insulating properties.
First impressions – out of the box:
Actual weight for both boots is very close but not quite at spec, since my size 26 is pretty much spot-on for the 27 spec. Both boots have Dynafit’s “Quick-Step-in” toe inserts. Scarpa includes a fairly substantive user manual with actual useful information (e.g., the BOA adjustment can be disassembled for cleaning).
The fit is accurate on both boots for the interior length of my size 26, as I can just barely accommodate (sort of) the toes of my 26.5cm foot, which is therefore only slightly shorter than the 279 mm exterior BSL (base sole length). Note that the Evo’s 279 is about 1.5 mm longer than the Alien’s 279 for binding fit, although about 1.5 mm shorter for crampon fit.
For the Alien, the BSL changes in 8 and 9 mm increments, so the interior length’s relationship to stated mondo size might become skewed a bit the further away you go from my size 26. For the Evo, if you are coming from a TLT5/6, note the different shell break: my 25.5/26.0 Evo feels a bit shorter than my 26.0/26.5 TLT5, but not the full 5 mm as would be implied by the stated sizing difference.
The fit modification potential is limited for both boots. For the Evo, my favorite boot guy was able to remove of bit of excess foam (relatively speaking) from the top of the liner toe box, thereby providing my big toes with a few critical extra mm. He successfully heat molded the liner, although given its thin profile, I didn’t notice any differences after molding. The Grilamid nylon lower shell has a good record for punching/stretching in the TLT5/6 boots.
The current Evo liner is essentially a more minimal version of the already minimal TLT5 Performance TF liner (now continuing on as the European-only “CL” Custom Light, as opposed to North America’s only option of the “CR” Custom Ready).
For the Alien, the stiff foam bootboard is easily removed, and by playing with the heel height I was able to alleviate some pinching/banging of the lateral side of the back of my heel. The current liner is neither overlap nor tongued, and instead is essentially a pull-on sock with (minimal) padding in key areas.
I have not yet tried to heat the liner, and given its thin profile, its moldability is probably modest at best. And after my modest usage so far, my boot guy thought I had already essentially molded them through use. He is also fairly confident in his ability to stretch the problem area in the back of my heel.
The Evo’s partial-carbon upper cuff is shared with the TLT5/6 Performance, with the same swap-able plate for adjusting the forward lean. (Evo and TLT5 boots before the 2013 season lacked the swap-able plate, yet can be easily retrofitted with the new part.) But no optional outer tongue, no plastic fixed inner tongue, and no power strap.
The cuff provides complete coverage in back, yet leaves a large gap in front. The lower shell has a fabric cover, but if you tighten up the lower buckle, the fabric tends to sag open a bit, acting as a scoop. Plan either on wearing a race suit with an integrated gaiter, buying the Dynafit Racing Soft Shell Pant (or its Movement pant predecessor), or bringing some of the snowpack along with you.
The Alien’s forward lean is adjustable by changing a bolt position. The cuff height matches the Dynafit TLT5/6. In front, the cuff is taller than the TLT5/6 shell, but lower than the TLT5/6 optional external tongue. (The cuff of my 26 boot is shared with the 25; I don’t know if the size 27/28 cuff is even taller.)
The cuff leaves a large gap in the back between the lower shell, and a cavernous opening in the front. (The lower shell is sealed up better, although the thick fabric tongue unfortunately overlaps inside the lower shell, i.e., the reverse of the ideal overlap arrangement for sealing out water and snow.) Plan either on using the very nicely designed (and nearly weightless, yet unfortunately not costless) Alien lycra gaiter, wearing a race suit with an integrated gaiter, or bringing even more of the snowpack along with you than with the EVO.
Second impressions – in use:
For both boots, in walk/tour mode, you’re in for a shock, as the upper cuff pretty much just disappears. Flip down the Alien lever (which instantly self-aligns) or throw the Evo side lever (which sometimes requires a second of fiddling to engage), and you’re in for another shock: rearward and lateral support are both outstanding, identical to the TLT5/6 Performance.
Evo’s forward stiffness is fine for narrow skis on consolidated snow. I haven’t skied the Evo on bigger skis in unconsolidated snow, but only because I wasn’t able to adjust any of my bigger setups for the shorter BSL. Obviously this isn’t the boot for high-speed lift-served skiing on cut-up chowder, but I’m thinking it should be sufficient for use this season with a new setup somewhere in the high 80s waist width.
Alien 1.0 forward stiffness is … maybe too stiff, if that is possible for a three-pound/pair boot? Unlike Dynafit’s carbon boots, the carbon on the Alien 1.0 upper cuff wraps all the way around, while the inside of the lower shell also wraps your foot in carbon from the cuff rivets out to the heel and forefoot. And the mode switch vertical-throw lever has less than a millimeter of slop. (By contrast, Dynafit has about half a centimeter with its lateral-throw buckle.) That kind of rigidity is outstanding for lateral and rearward support, but is it too much for forward flex? I know one racer who admits to keeping the cord a bit loose to allow a little more give before the cuff locks up on him.
In the field, the Evo provided cord has a sheath that can be a bit slippery, so I advise setting up the cord first with a double fishermen. Although the lower shell buckle has only two micro positions on the lever and two macro positions on the medial side, after I had the length dialed in just right, I found the adjustability to be sufficient even with those limited options.
The fit seems a bit more generous than the notoriously slim TLT5, although hard for me to tell for sure, since I had to go from a very thin sock to an essentially negligibly thin sock to buy a bit more room for my toes. The cord on the upper cuff is attached to a very long velcro strap with a consequently wide range of adjustability.
In the field, the Alien’s BOA system quickly tightens up the lower shell in increments as small or large as you want. However, when I’ve overcompensated for my low-height foot (although my C-width matches up well with the shell), the placement of the BOA on the tongue (as opposed to off on the side like on my mountain bike shoes) can create pressure. Backing off the tension inevitably entails overshooting and having to dial it back it in – but still very quick, and also very easy even with numb fingers.
The upper cuff is all or nothing, so you have to set up your knot length just right by experimenting inside (or in warm weather). With some extra 3 mm accessory cord, you could try setting up a system with multiple knot positions if you really wanted different upper cuff tightness options.
Third impressions – long-term durability:
The Evo rivets/pivots connecting the upper and lower shells prior to the 2013 season notoriously loosened up over time (requiring annual or so repressing). For the 2013 season, Dynafit added a sort of spacer (“gusset”?) to address this issue, with unknown efficacy.
By contrast, the Alien rivets/pivots connecting the upper and lower shells look very industrial.
I finally snapped one of the cords on my original DyNA boots after about 485,000’ vertical. Back-up replacement cord is trivial to carry and retie, plus the warnings signs in retrospect were obvious. The Alien’s lower shell tongue and BOA system are replaceable, as is the standard 3 mm accessory cord for the upper shell.
The Evo lower buckle is fairly low profile, although also all plastic. The upper buckle protrudes significantly when open, which has made for nervous moments when rock scrambling in my original DyNA and TLT5 with the identical buckle – no casualties so far, although for your next mountaineering expedition bring along McMaster replacement parts #s 90596A005, 91785A092, 96659A101 in case the buckle’s attachment rivets are damaged. Even if the upper buckle suffers irreparable damage, ski mode can be improvised by connecting the two cuff parts with a simple screw rivet and tightening up the cuff with a Voile strap.
The BOA placement on the tongue means the lower shell has no buckles on the side to be caught up in boulders, and the mode switch lever in the rear flips up out of harm’s way. But I have read of two failures over time from normal use (as opposed to collisions). This is not very surprising, given the lever’s slender proportions combined with the rigidity of the all-carbon upper cuff, the rigidity of the partial-carbon lower shell, and the very tight tolerances of the connection between the upper and lower. But as long as the horizontal bar of the lower shell is still intact, a couple Voile straps should suffice for a field repair.
My Evo boots have about five cumulative hours of off-snow travel, roughly split between casual grass/dirt/mud hiking versus more demanding rock scrambling. Despite such limited off-snow travel, 11 perimeter lugs have sheared off entirely and 8 are severely compromised, meaning that 2/3 of the lugs are simply gone or about to go. This fails the ISMF gear reg and is obviously unsafe for any off-snow travel other than casual walking/hiking.
Did my particular pair have a bad batch of rubber? Or has the design been changed since my pair? I have read a few internet accounts of 2013 Dynafit PDG boots (with identical lower shells) losing many lugs on a single inaugural hike, which would seem impossible were they not matching up with my cumulative experience. And Dynafit has inspected my boots, concluding that such nearly instant widespread failure of the lugs is simply normal off-snow wear for the Evo and PDG. By contrast, my Alien boots show only appropriately minor wear after the same amount of off-snow travel.
Product Specs:
For comparing these two boots to other ones on the market see our Lightest ski mountaineering boots pages.
Dynafit DyNA Evo:
- Weight: 695 g at size 27
- Shell material: Grilamid
- Cuff materials: Carbon, Pebax
- Sole: EVO Race
- Forward lean when locked: 14° and 17°
- Cuff range of motion: 62°
- Sizes: 23,5, 24, 24,5, 25, 25,5, 26, 26,5, 27, 27,5, 28, 28,5, 29 (two sizes per shell, so liner makes the difference)
Scarpa Alien 1.0:
- Weight: 700 g at size 27
- Shell material: Polyamide
- Cuff material: Carbon
- Sole: U.F.O. Scarpa/Vibram
- Forward lean when locked: 9° and 13°
- Cuff range of motion: 58°
- Sizes: 24-30 (whole sizes only)
Quick overview of their “economy” stablemates – PDG and Alien:
Each boot has a more economy-minded version: the Dynafit PDG and the Alien sans numerical appendage. I briefly tried on each of them inside. Both of them lack any carbon fiber, resulting in a bit more weight, a bit more ski mode flex, and a lot less cost.
The PDG is the closest to its more expensive sibling, as the only differences are the substitution of fiber-reinforced plastic for the Evo’s partial-carbon upper cuff (along with a pre-drilled hole for an aftermarket velcro strap) and a slightly beefed-up liner.
By contrast, the all-plastic Alien “0.0” is more of a contrast to the 1.0’s full carbon upper cuff and carbon-reinforced lower shell. The “0.0” liner is a traditional contrast to the 1.0 sock-like liner. The “0.0” upper cuff closure system includes a velcro strap and a buckle that allows adjustment of the tension.
Online stores that carry Dynafit Evo and PDG boots, and Scarpa’s Alien family:
Dynafit DyNA Evo:
- $1699 at Skimo.co
- $1700 at Boulder Nordic Sport
- $1,699.95 at Backcountry.com
Scarpa Alien 1.0:
- $1,798.95 at Skimo.co
- $1800 at Boulder Nordic Sport
- $1,798.95 at Backcountry.com
Dynafit PDG:
- $849 at Skimo.co
- $850 at Boulder Nordic Sport
- $849 at Cripple Creek BC
- $849.95 at Backcountry.com
Scarpa Alien:
- $798.95 at Skimo.co
- $800 at Boulder Nordic Sport
- $849 at Cripple Creek BC
- $798.95 at Backcountry.com
ng says
You chose the 26 size for your 26.5 feet. Did you use insoles?
Also, Do you believe that your size choice would be wise without the boot fitter work – I am asking this, because I have no access to a bootfitter and I have the same size as yours. Thanks
Eric Munsing says
I wanted to follow-up on EVO sole replacement; I got a used set of EVOs from the same model year, with the same rubber issue. Has anybody found a resoler or DIY method for resoling the boots? I don’t necessarily need Dynafit rubber (happy to put Vibram or approach-shoe rubber on them), but just want something that I don’t have to worry about taking off-snow.
Jonathan Shefftz says
For concerns about crampon compatibility with the walk-ski switch, check this out:
http://www.epictv.com/media/podcast/the-grivel-ski-tour-crampon—2015-review-%7C-outdoor-2015/602766
Jonathan Shefftz says
My first pair of liners also developed a hole above the heel (on the outside of the liner).
Scarpa replaced them, and then to protect them I added those little seals on the inside of the back of the upper cuff, and further smooth it out with a layer of Gorilla duct tape. No problems since then.
Eric Carter says
Kate – I suspect that is a rather universal issue with the super light liners. The Palu liners in my RC-1s lasted about 30 days of training/racing.
Kate Brown says
I get a hole just above the heel (probably from one of the metal bolts in the cuff and holes eventually in the widest part just below my little toes (wide-ish feet). They are good for around 60 – 70 000vertical meters. Going to try some Palu ones next
Jonathan Shefftz says
Kate, tat you’ve even been previously using them for something like La Grave is quite the endorsement!
Curious though what part(s) of the liners are you wearing through each season?
Jonathan Shefftz says
Ah, now I see what you mean: I tried my old pair of Grivel G10 crampons with the Alien 1.0 and indeed the crampon’s rear heel throw bumped up against the base of the boot’s walk-ski lever attachment.
Seemed like it would still work fine, although I didn’t pursue it since that would have required cutting down the crampon’s connecting back underfoot (simply because my Alien has such a small bsl).
So bottomline is definitely to check each crampon beforehand.
Kate Brown says
My alien 1.0s are just starting their 4th season, well the carbon cuffs are. The metal rivets eventually worked themselves a bit loose, but scarpa have replaced the entire bottom half. Prior to this I have been extremely happy with them and have given them a lot of abuse. I now only use a bigger boot on terrain such as la Grave. In Europe, they are winning the boot war at races, there’s simply more of them than the Evos. Really glad I went for the carbon version as am sure the ski is better as a result. The sole seems to last forever. Sadly I go through a pair of liners a season.
Eric Carter says
Jonathan & Eric – I’m not exactly sure about that. I know Nick has had some issues with clip (I believe BD or maybe Grivel) crampons not fitting particularly well on his Aliens because of the small size of the welt combined with the big protrusion that forms the lever attachment. I’m not sure he ever found something he liked that was super solid. I’d take the boot in with you to try out crampons.
Jonathan Shefftz says
Eric, although the toe & heel lugs on the Alien are minimal compared to a more traditional ski touring boot, they’re still fine for boot crampons, so no special considerations for crampon models with the Alien.
eric johnson says
What are a couple of the best crampons to use with the Alien for general mountaineering?
Jonathan Shefftz says
Yes, the Alien 1.0 foam boot board pops out quite easily without tearing — held down with some relatively light glue.
David says
Jonathan, is the alien foam boot board removal a destructive process or does it pop out somehow?
I too am looking to play around with heel height to alleviate a heel rub.
Layne says
Interesting. A little disconcerting since I have the boot. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
Jonathan Shefftz says
In reverse order:
– Although I do know of EVO & PDG boot soles that are still okay after a couple cumulative hours of off-snow use, and although my own pair was okay after that much use, once I reached four hours, lugs just started crumbling off. Dynafit confirms that this is a “normal” wear pattern for the EVO/PDG (and for any model year), i.e., after about five or so cumulative hours of off-snow travel, the majority of the perimeter lugs will be either entirely gone or about to go.
– TGR & WildSnow.com have several reports of attempted resoling. The usual suspects (RMS & Dave Page) will not resole Dynafit QuickStep insert boots. Some other respected resoler tried, and it was a complete disaster. (Somewhere in CO IIRC.) MGear.com somehow managed to obtain replacement TLT5 rubber, but Dynafit in Boulder says it doesn’t have accept to it.
– I too pack trail runners for long approaches. (Current favorite is the La Sportiva Vertical K.) But for some PNW late spring & early summer volcano tours, and for pretty much all spring tours in our Presidentials Range (where I link up multiple ravines with wind-scoured ridgeline scrambles), changing in & out of footwear just isn’t practical.
– If you really want to see all the detailed usage records, I’ve now posted it at http://tinyurl.com/SkiMoSoleWear in spreadsheet form.
Layne says
Jonathan, please elaborate on you think it’s impossible. I haven’t peeled off the sole to have a look underneath. I don’t think it would be impossible to resole. I’m not a cobbler, but you’d just have to make sure that the rubber height under the fitting is the same as the original. If it’s not, grind it down until it is. Preferably on the side that will be glued so the tread pattern is unaffected. I’ve had many pairs of climbing shoes resoled and I’m always amazed at how deft a good cobbler is at his craft.
Also, I’ll chime in on my Dynafit PDG experience. After a full year of use and some abuse (Nov-May and maybe 60ish days) my soles still look good and are holding up fine. There’s some wear, sure, and I’ve used them a ton, but the wear is nothing like you describe. My use includes mostly skinning, some scrambling, and a few rock moves now and again. If I have to walk alot, I pack runners. I would definitely buy them again.
Jonathan Shefftz says
The Dynafit QuickStep inserts make resoling impossible w/o anything other than replacement Dynafit soles … and the TLT5 soles are not available, at least not in North America to anyone’s knowledge.
(I’ve now read of one successful EVO/PDG resoling, with TLT5 rubber whose sourcing doesn’t seem to be able to be repeated.)
Lucas says
has anyone tried just buying a Five Ten dot sole resole kit. Stickiest sole available. Should be a straightforward job. Just a thought.
TimZ says
I’ve seen it, it looks nifty. But I have heard that it causes some pinching in the achilles area. It seems a thinner, more supple material might be better
Jonathan Shefftz says
Interesting update on the Alien sans numerical appendage (“0.0”), courtesy of a sharp-eyed reader from Mumbai (really): for this season, the Alien “0.0” has been updated (now the 0.1?) with some sort of additional plastic covering for the upper shell, kind of sandwiched in between the upper and lower parts of the boot.
I haven’t seen this in person, and I haven’t heard any first-hand feedback, but could be the best of all worlds, combining the weight and articulation of a race boot with the additional sealing of the TLT5/6 for regular touring use.
TimZ says
Thanks for putting up the boot sole wear comparisons in picture form.
Jonathan Shefftz says
Thanks for chiming in Brian – and nice quiver post on your blog the other day.
Re EVO vs TLT5/6 sizing, that could be the different shell break. For example, if I had bought the 26.5 EVO to match up with my 26.5 TLT5, I would have unwittingly gone up a shell size (since the 26.5 EVO is really a 27.0 EVO with a different throwaway footbed, whereas the 26.5 TLT5 shares its shell with the 26.0 TLT5).
Re Alien running short for its size, could be a result of the weird bsl jumps: your size 28 bsl is 17mm longer than my 26 bsl, even though it should be of course 20mm longer, so you’re losing 3mm right there (if the differential for interior vs exterior length is constant across sizes)
brian harder says
Nice review. Just got my Alien 1.0 last week. I agree with all you’ve said. I previously raced on the EVO. The Alien warms my heart a bit more. Just seems more substantial in design. We’ll see how it skis.
Two fit observations to share. One is that my EVO is pretty damn narrow in the toe box. They run a bit longer than the TLT for the same size. I noticed this. My bunion also noticed the reduced room.
The Alien is WAY short for the size. I’m a 28 mondo and the Alien was rock shoe tight on me. I had to go up to a 29 which is good for length but a little wide. My bunion is happy. I put a foot board under my Sole insole and things are good.
Interestingly, I slipped my Intuition Pro Tour liner from my retrofitted TLTs into the Alien just for laughs. Damn thing fit perfectly and I thought I had a sweet and warm set up. Unfortunately, the greater width at the cuff prevented the normal carbon cuff overlap and changed the forward flex characteristics dramatically. Probably not a good idea. Would have been sick, otherwise.
Jonathan Shefftz says
I’ve read about many other EVO and PDG pairs that have had the same sole wear problem. Dynafit does not consider this a warranty issue, and TLT5/6 resoling rubber is not available. (The usual cobblers who specialize in ski boot resoling are not able to deal with the QuickStep profile. I’ve heard of a couple resole attempts — one successful, one disastrous.)
For me, the first couple hours of cumulative off-snow travel use was fine. But after only about five hours of cumulative use, 2/3 of the perimeter lugs are either sheared off entirely or so heavily damaged that they’re about to disappear too.
By contrast, my Alien 1.0 boots have the same amount of cumulative off-snow travel, and they show only the minor wear that is typical of a regular touring boot.
On a more positive note, huge shout out to http://www.gmolfoot.com for a successful work session this past Friday on my Alien 1.0 boots to stretch the problem area that was causing the heel banging this past spring and summer. Lots of very skilled and *careful* work, but they feel great now. Even better, the shop is right at the base of skinning-friendly Bromley so that I could skin almost literally from the shop door to test it thoroughly.
Chris Cawley says
Thanks Stano. I’ve talked myself into remaining interested…
Stano Faban says
Chris, it looks like they might, they might not. As you can see it was a significant issue for Jonathan but not Steve. However, I think Steve walked them less than Jonathan.
I am going to speculate but it also could be a temperature issue. They might be holding up great when it’s cold but not as well when it’s warmer (say 0 C and more).
Any of these very light boots are likely made to be used 99% on snow and only limited time dry walking.
Chris Cawley says
I have a pair of PDG’s in the mail; I’m bummed to hear they might have a sole durability issue. Is that definitely the case?
steve sellers says
I have the 2012 inaugural Evo model. I can say I’ve not experienced the lug sole problem. And that includes the N\A championships at Crested Butte that had A LOT of rock climbing. They got scratched up a lot, but lug soles stayed intact. I wonder if it’s a particular year’s issue.