Today, let’s take a detailed look at the Santic Alps 1.0 cycling shoes. Looking back, buying this pair of shoes was honestly a bit of an impulsive decision. I considered upgrading to a better pair of shoes, but I originally planned to spend the money on a pair of road cycling shoes. After all, my current Shimano RC5 has already been with me for five years. On the other hand, switching my Lykos to a mountain bike cleat system was a decision I made for the long term. Since I had already decided to stick with this setup, I thought: why not just buy a good pair? That way, I’ll have another reason to buy a new pair of road shoes in the future…
Because I was cycling in Hainan during the Chinese New Year holiday, I had the shoes shipped directly there. When I opened the package after receiving it, the first impression was that the packaging was really well thought out! The silver shoe box slides open, revealing the instruction manual, warranty card, and fitting paper neatly arranged inside. So satisfying.
Everything was organized perfectly. This fitting paper actually gave me a pretty good impression… although, honestly, it doesn’t really serve much practical purpose. The shoes were wrapped underneath the instruction manual and warranty card, protected by a layer of wrapping paper.
Unboxing! Unboxing! I didn’t put the pictures in the wrong order — as this is my first pair of carbon-soled shoes, the first thing I looked at after taking them out was the outsole… so naturally, the outsole comes first in this review~ This texture is genuinely beautiful! And for an MTB shoe, it is still surprisingly lightweight.
Here is the standard product shot. The Alps 1.0 (Alps) should be the flagship model in Santic’s MTB cycling shoe lineup. As a racing-oriented shoe, its design is indeed much sharper and more streamlined compared with entry-level models. It also looks very similar to a road cycling shoe. When actually worn and ridden outdoors, it is honestly difficult to tell the difference visually.
The upper uses a multi-layer construction, without leather materials — mainly TPU, fiber materials, and mesh fabric, with a touch that feels somewhat similar to a rubberized material, giving it a premium texture. The dual-dial tightening system is basically a standard feature on high-end cycling shoes.
The ventilation holes cover the entire area from the toe box all the way to the arch, and even the tongue has ventilation openings. It should not have any issues with overheating or poor breathability.
The “VAC-WELDING TECH” printed on the shoe refers to Santic’s vacuum seamless welding technology. The general idea is that, under a vacuum environment, the upper, outsole, cleat mounts, and other components are fused together into one integrated structure, replacing traditional stitching and glue bonding. So technically, the connections on this shoe are “welded” together. Then… does this mean the shoe will never suffer from delamination??
The dual-dial tightening system: to tighten, simply rotate the dial forward; to release, rotate it in the opposite direction — no need to pull the dial out.
ATOP is a Taiwanese brand whose sales volume is second only to BOA. The Santic Alps 1.0 uses the highest-level ATOP LOW-Power series, the 70. Within ATOP’s catalog, LOW, MID, HIGH, and DUAL-SYS are designed for different scenarios — MID is used for motorcycle boots, HIGH for mountaineering shoes, and the dual-system configuration is for skiing.
MTB cycling shoes usually come with toe protection, which is related to their intended riding environment. Some riders may not like this design, but personally, I think it is very practical — with this protective layer, even if you accidentally hit rocks or obstacles, the shoe will not immediately look damaged like many road cycling shoes. Recently, there have even been riders putting electrical tape on their road cycling shoes to protect the toes. With this toe protection layer, you simply don’t need to worry about that.
The material here feels relatively soft, and this area also contains the densest ventilation holes on the entire upper.
The tongue of the Santic Alps 1.0 is relatively stiff, but a longer flexible section is left at the end of the tongue, helping maintain a better fit between the tongue and the top of the foot so it doesn’t press uncomfortably against the foot.
The shoe’s adaptability around the instep is roughly like this — I think riders with higher insteps should also be able to wear them comfortably.
The heel lockdown is excellent, and this is one of the things I noticed very clearly after putting them on. According to the official description, this heel has a specific name — it’s called the “PEBAX Shape-Stable Heel Counter.”
Now let’s take a look at the outsole. It features a beautiful 3K carbon fiber weave pattern, with a slightly frosted surface finish. It looks really good. Of course, beautiful carbon soles also bring some problems — once they get scratched, it really hurts to look at them. The carbon fiber plate extends from the forefoot all the way to the end of the arch area. Since I couldn’t find an exploded view of this shoe, I’m not sure whether the actual carbon fiber plate also extends into the heel section.
The heel rubber section has a large contact area and uses four separate anti-slip blocks — that’s much better than road cycling shoes. However, it seems that these rubber blocks are not replaceable… It’s a double-edged sword: an integrated design can be optimized better and saves weight by eliminating additional screws, but once it is worn out, it is simply worn out…
The front anti-slip section also appears to be non-replaceable. If this area wears down significantly, the cleat may have more direct contact with the ground, which could potentially affect walking stability. The durability of this outsole still needs more time to verify — let’s talk about it again after one year. There is a recessed design on the inner side of the front rubber block area. This should be intended to make cleat installation easier when positioning the cleats with an offset angle.
After installing the cleats, it looks like this. In actual walking, I can barely feel the cleats. (Hopefully this outsole…)
The shoes come with a pair of removable shoe studs, along with a dedicated installation tool.
After installation, they look like this. Since I mainly use these shoes on road surfaces, I didn’t install them — I simply don’t need them, and without them, the shoes are also a few grams lighter.
The insole of the Santic Alps 1.0 is worth mentioning — it is not just a simple thin piece of foam. It provides excellent arch support.
During long-distance rides, providing better support to the navicular bone area can effectively control foot fatigue.
The shoe’s ventilation management is also quite good — the forefoot and arch areas both have sufficient ventilation openings.
In terms of actual wearing experience, the last shape and width of this shoe fit my feet quite well. When I wear the Shimano RC5, the forefoot feels slightly tight, and I usually need to loosen the Velcro strap quite a bit. But when I put on the Alps 1.0, the fit feels just right. Of course, this is a subjective description — every rider has different feet, so the actual fit still needs to be tested individually. That’s exactly why this fitting paper exists, right?
Actually, the shoes also match quite well with a road bike, don’t you think?
Because MTB pedals usually have a slightly larger Q-factor compared with road pedals, I installed my cleats slightly outward so I could achieve a position closer to my road pedal setup. Even with the offset cleat position, engagement with the pedal is not affected. The carbon fiber outsole looks especially beautiful under sunlight — unfortunately, as an outsole, such a beautiful surface is destined to be gradually scratched and worn…
The riding experience brought by the stiff outsole is indeed very different from what I expected, especially during long-distance rides. In my previous article, I mentioned that a friend strongly recommended me to upgrade to a better pair of cycling shoes. At that time, I thought my Shimano RC5 was actually pretty good. However, during longer rides, I did experience some discomfort, including forefoot pressure and slight numbness, and I always felt that perhaps the setup still needed some optimization. (I have previously done three bike fittings, and there should not be any major issues.) But after switching to this shoe, these problems really disappeared.
Compared with composite material soles, the carbon sole on this shoe has much less deformation during pedaling, and because the sole flexes less, the pressure distribution on the foot is also reduced. This is probably why the numbness issue has been improved. As for the tight feeling around the forefoot, it may be because the Alps 1.0 has a slightly wider last — the overall fit feels more relaxed compared with the RC5. During long rides, when your feet naturally swell slightly, the RC5 starts to feel a little restrictive…
A single continuous ride of six hours was still quite comfortable. During these 500 kilometers of riding, my main activities were steady cruising and climbing. There is not much to say about cruising, but when climbing, the shoe’s power transfer is excellent — the feeling is somewhat similar to riding carbon wheels: you can feel every bit of power being transmitted directly, with no vague feeling caused by excessive flex or energy loss.
Walking around is fairly easy — to release the shoe, simply rotate the dial in the opposite direction and lift your foot. The shoe opening is quite generous. The heel structure provides enough retention and stability, while still maintaining good convenience when putting the shoes on and taking them off. Compared with the Shimano RC5, the heel does not have that extremely aggressive anti-slip structure — personally, I think the RC5’s heel grip design is a little excessive. Yes, it provides excellent stability, but it also makes putting on and removing the shoes more troublesome.
The outsole durability of the Alps 1.0 was better than I expected. After putting them on, I initially tried to protect the carbon sole carefully. However, once I started riding, I quickly gave up that idea — missing the pedal engagement occasionally caused impacts, taking the wrong route sometimes meant walking on rough surfaces, and after two or three such situations, I simply accepted it: if it gets scratched, then so be it. During the entire Chinese New Year holiday, I basically adopted an “ostrich mentality” and avoided looking closely at the outsole. After returning to Chengdu, I cleaned the shoes and checked the condition, and the result was much better than expected. The picture above was taken on the final day when I was packing up my bike before returning home — the outsole condition was actually still quite good. Apart from two areas with harder impact marks, there was no obvious damage.
This pair of shoes was my first experiment to answer a question: can a Chinese-made cycling shoe really support this price level? At this point, I think the answer is yes. The Santic Alps 1.0 can fully support the “race-level” positioning that Santic gives it — it is stiff enough, it is light enough! If I eventually return to the triathlon racing scene, this shoe will definitely become my first choice.
At the same time, this shoe also represents a choice where I have made peace with myself. I am gradually caring less about some traditional assumptions — what kind of bike must be paired with what kind of equipment — who cares? As long as it works well for you, that is what matters. Equipment that gets used frequently is the equipment that is truly good.
MTB cycling shoes are easy to walk in. They are convenient to clip in and clip out. Why not choose them?
