walking boots-- which are good?
john bently
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.
jcr_au
John
First step would be to think about the style of walking you're
interested in doing.
Maybe starting out you would be more likely to go on shorter walks on
good tracks in National Parks or other well maintained bush tracks,
generally in better weather. At that end you could even start with
sand shoes, or like hikers.
Mid hikers would be more suitable for slightly harder walks,and then
there are a variety of "full" boots for the really serious walker
John r
Peter Clinch
Reviews are of little use beyond telling you what conditions a certain
pair can be expected to handle.
And they are of little use (and anecdotes of goodness of little use
alongside them) because the absolutely crucial point is fit. There is a
lot more to a shoe-size as to how well a boot fits as feet are complex 3
dimensional shapes and so are boots. it doesn't matter if they're
lasted and stitched by God's Own Right Hand if they're a different shape
to your feet. For example, my wife and I have quite different foot
shapes: I like Scarpa and Teva, she doesn't like either.
So I'd suggest you find a good shop that knows its boot-fitting (tell us
where you are and suggestions can be made).
Also, don't assume you need boots. I do most of my walking in shoes and
sandals because they're lighter and have less stuff to rub, so more
comfort, less tiring to walk in and less chance of rubbing (and
blisters). Folk go on and on about ankle support being necessary, but
the fact is that human ankles are perfectly adequate for walking and
shouldn't need any extra propping up most of the time. Some things,
like edging skis or standing on your toes on a tiny hold or carrying
outsize loads ankles haven't evolved to carry, do benefit from extra
ankle support, but /walking/ is actually harder as your foot is more
restricted from normal flexing. Some boots benefit from being stiffer,
for example to take crampons or walking over very rough stone paths, but
in other places again they just prevent your foot from conforming
naturally to the terrain and make walking more tiring.
In summary, try on a good selection with a good fitter (who can do
things like add volume adjusters and short-cut to models/brands suitable
for you foot-shape) and depending on where and what you have in mind
don't assume you particularly need boots.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Bob Hobden
"john bently" wrote ...
There are some excellent makes out there, I myself use a pair of old
Zamberlan Civetta classic leather boots but also have a pair of Meindl
approach shoes for the better weather, actually bought them after a fall on
Exmoor made it impossible to wear my boots for nearly two years due to
Achillies Heel damage.
The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)
Look for a shop that will allow you to try the boots on for some time and
walk around in them, some even have slopes etc for you to walk on to make
sure they fit and don't hurt your toes on downward slopes etc. Some even
allow you change the boots provided you haven't walked outside in them so
you can walk around at home for some time to ensure they stay comfortable
over time.
Make sure you take your thick walking socks and liners with you and don't be
precious about the size, comfortable fit is the only consideration.
If you are spending �130+ on good leather boots to last most of a lifetime
you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about �60 but are not
all-weather.
http://www.zamberlan.uk.com/
http://www.meindl.de/english/index.html
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK
��� � ����
After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.
--
(�`�. ��� � ���� .���)
Peter Clinch
> If you are spending �130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
> lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about �60 but are
> not all-weather.
What weather aren't they?
Peter Clinch
> After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
> nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
> Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.
Note that trekking poles and Nordic Walking sticks have some overlap but
may be rather different. NW is an exercise regime and the poling
technique is meant to burn energy. Use of trekking poles, like other
walking sticks, is to give balance and spread load.
NW poles often have glove-type grips, which are great for power transfer
into the poles but a PITA on a walking stick because they're so awkward
in and out.
For more on trekking poles, see
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/poles.htm
(I like them on a really big day, but for most walking I prefer to do
without as they just get in the way.)
rbel
wrote:
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
You may want to have a look at http://www.outdoorsmagic.com for reviews.
If you are prepared to pay around 100/150ukp Scarpa do a very good range.
--
rbel
Peter Clinch
> You may want to have a look at http://www.outdoorsmagic.com for
> reviews.
I'm an OM user and do reviews for the site from time to time... but I'd
be very wary of them. Consumer reviews often polarise into "this is
great" or "this sucks", as a way of underlining to oneself that you
bought the Best Thing, or getting back at the purveyor of something
perceived to have let you down. As the OM review writing guide notes,
most gear /should/ be 3 star, but there's an outsize incidence of 5
start reviews... It's also the case that user-reviewers seldom have
much to comparatively test against, and even if they did they'd rate a
boot the right shape much higher than an otherwise identical built on a
last that might better fit a prospective buyer.
> If you are prepared to pay around 100/150ukp Scarpa do a very
> good range.
They're only good if they happen to be the right shape for you. They
are for /me/, but I've friends and acquaintances that hate them with a
passion. Similarly, La Sportiva are very nice... for some people other
than me.
Scott Bryce
> Also, don't assume you need boots.
In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.
Peter Clinch
Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...
The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
even ones.
Vic Smith
Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.
I walked many miles a days some years ago and found that what shoes
you wear make a huge difference.
And price doesn't mean much.
I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.
Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.
Saved me expensive trial and error.
For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.
--Vic
David
news:hlluef$k22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
My choice :
Skateboard trainers for dry conditions. (stiffish soles, good grip, no
tread)
Specialized Rockhoppers without SPD cleats for wet and muddy conditions
(very stiff soles, lots of tread, slightly more water resistant)
Peter Clinch
> I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
> they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.
Again, what works depends on your feet. I like NB in their 2E width
fitting, but again it's down to individual feet. I also like Saucony,
but not Adidas, others have different feet and different preferences.
> Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
> mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.
The particular ground you're on makes a difference. Running on streets
means a hard surface and exaggerated footfalls from running rather than
walking. Also, different folk have a different strike, those with a
heavy heel-plant probably need more cushioning than others. More
cushioning means a higher shoe, which means less control of the foot:
it's notable that fell-running shoes have practically no cushioning,
partly as they're for soft ground where the ground does the cushioning,
and partly to minimise the chances of turning an ankle getting nasty by
providing extra leverage from the extra shoe height.
> Saved me expensive trial and error.
> For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.
Trail running shoes, which have more aggressive outsoles than street
shoes and usually tougher uppers, may be a better place to look unless
the OP is planning on walking around streets.
Bob Hobden
"Peter Clinch" wrote...
> Bob Hobden wrote:
>
>> If you are spending �130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
>> lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about �60 but are
>> not all-weather.
>
> What weather aren't they?
>
Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I have
found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
Of course that may just be the ones I've got.
Barb
"john bently" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:hlluef$k22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and bought
a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about �40. I tried on
several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable enough to sleep in!
Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in" - they either feel good
straight away or they don't.
I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk on road
or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave away a couple of
pairs of socks with them as well, which are still going strong. Decent
socks are important, no ridges and providing a comfortable lining to the
boot.
Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!
Barb
Rod Speed
> "john bently" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hlluef$k22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know
>> of a good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different
>> walking boots available please? Apparently the last consumers
>> association review was done way back in april 2006.
>>
>> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive)
>> that are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks
>> for any advice.
>>
>
> I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and
> bought a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about �40.
> I tried on several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable
> enough to sleep in!
> Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in"
> - they either feel good straight away or they don't.
Thats not right. My current boots were a tad tight over the top of the foot, but
wore in fine and are by far the most comfortable for walking I have ever had.
> I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk
> on road or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave
> away a couple of pairs of socks with them as well, which are still
> going strong. Decent socks are important, no ridges and providing a
> comfortable lining to the boot.
And its important to avoid pure synthetics too.
PeterC
> The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
> good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)
IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.
I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
to its name?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
Bob Hobden
"PeterC" wrote...
Bob Hobden wrote:
>
>> The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got
>> a
>> good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)
>
> IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.
Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably depends
on the tread pattern.
>
> I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
> to its name?
--
Simon Challands
Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce
> <sbr...@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Also, don't assume you need boots.
>>
>>In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
>>lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
>>shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
>>effort to walk in.
> Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.
Solid level terrain is also different from giving level terrain and
rocks. I wear boots (don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes), and they're fine there, they're fine on level,
good stony paths, and they knacker me on roads.
--
Simon Challands
pamela
Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.
Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.
You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that
you have made the best choice.
Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.
That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.
The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.
After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for
rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a sole that is slick when
wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for. I bought a well
known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw
them out after the second fall. A review might have helped me avoid that.
Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers
hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That can be bad for the
publication business.
You might try > http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/
They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and
volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment. In addition, owners of
gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have
purchased.
I have also heard of > http://gearjunkie.com/
Rod Speed
> john bently wrote
>> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a good place to see some *critical* reviews of
>> the different walking boots available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done way back in
>> april 2006.
>> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive)
>> that are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks
>> for any advice.
> Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.
Nothing like in fact.
> Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.
Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.
> You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that you have made the best choice.
> Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.
Thats very difficult to do with very young puppys particularly.
> That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.
Or you could have enough of a clue to work out what breed you
want from the breed characteristics and then work out which of
the dogs that are available from the breed you like and then you
will be more likely to end up with the sort of dog you want,
given the behaviour that particular breed is known for etc.
> The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.
Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.
> After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a
> sole that is slick
> when wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for.
And for other things like how well it lasts and how well made it is etc.
> I bought a well known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw them out after the second fall. A
> review might have helped me avoid that.
It might indeed.
> Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That
> can be bad for the publication business.
> You might try > http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/
> They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment.
But its less clear how many of them are competant reviewers
and whether they will use them the way you plan to etc.
> In addition, owners of gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have purchased.
Trouble with those, they arent likely to have tried too many alternatives.
Voyer
find them very comfortable. If you have a store near you, you can always go
in and try them out. They also have a great satisfaction guarantee.
"john bently" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:hlluef$k22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
GSV Three Minds in a Can
>
>
> "PeterC" wrote...
> Bob Hobden wrote:
>>
>>> The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they
>>> got a
>>> good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)
>>
>> IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.
>
> Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably
> depends on the tread pattern.
There are numerous different flavours of Vibram soles, and not all are
equal, but IME they do grip better than most of the alternatives.
As far as boots go .. well I've destroyed or abandoned about 10 pairs
now (3 still on the go) .. for best fit at full price (for MY feet) I
like the commercial Alt-berg ones, since they come in 5 width fittings,
and half sizes, although not all stockists stock all of them. My last
pair lasted 1500 miles, and was comfy quite fast.
If you want cheaper, then I'm quite happy with the Johncliffe Scafell
boot, for about 1/3rd of the price - I got mine via Amazon. Hawkshead
Lomer also used to be good (for me) but are now gone. Karrimor
Skye/Orkney work well for deep stuff in winter, but are a bit high for
real comfort, and take a long time to wear in.
But as everyone has said - fit is most important, followed by a decent
sole, and if you're out on mud / grass etc you need some =edges= ..
rounded heels will dump you on the first slope you try to traverse..
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
16,110 Km walked. 2,937 Km PROWs surveyed. 53.1% complete.
Bill Grey
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7u7pcr...@mid.individual.net...
> Scott Bryce wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Also, don't assume you need boots.
>>
>> In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
>> lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
>> shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
>> effort to walk in.
>
> Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
> are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
> deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...
>
> The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
> and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
> even ones.
>
> Pete.
FWIW, my preference for trail shoes would be Meindle(Scout). they are
waterproof and very durable, oh yes- and comfortable.
Bill
Bill Grey
"��� � ����" <r...@spamall.com> wrote in message
news:sj5tn5duuu5vm8hgk...@4ax.com...
So I should be safe using my two hazel thumbsticks then :-)
FenlandRunner
I'm not an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.
For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.
Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?
FenlandRunner
wrote:
> In message <4obtn55u19t2rem1l9pgm3tquo3jo88...@4ax.com>
A light pair of Inov-8's will see you skipping across the rocks? ;-)
PeterC
> ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
> point in boots.
>
> For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
> mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.
>
> Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
> diminishing?
Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Heather is quite fun in shoes, too. Boot keep most of it out, and
boots+gaiters are more-or-less proof against it.
Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Christopher Loffredo
> Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
> diminishing?
Depends on what is being done: One or two week treks with heavy packs,
often in less than ideal seasons (my typical "hill" use, due to
geographic reasons) would be pretty miserable without boots...
Sometimes miserable with! ;-)
(I've had boots go mouldy in Scotland!!!)
PeterC
My first boots had little padding over the ankles and a clip against a rock
hurt through 2 layers of leather.
I did do a walk that had a lot of rocky going - including stepping stones
and limestone pavement - in sandals and didn't hurt anything. It's like
wearing snadals whilst playing darts - one is much more aware of what could
happen and adjusts accordingly.
Still wouldn't want to be in sandals across wet farmland, though.
Peter Clinch
>> What weather aren't they? [trail shoes]
>>
> Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
> Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I
> have found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
> Of course that may just be the ones I've got.
May indeed be they are the ones you've got... I wear mine in all
weathers. They don't have a waterproof lining but waterproof socks will
keep my feet dry if that's going to be a problem. See
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/hmn1.htm for a 12 day trip
including plenty of mud, rain, snow, ice and rivers and look at the
footwear: neither of us particularly regretted not having boots with us
But if I wanted warm, dry feet in "inches under water/mud" I'd wear a
decent pair of wellies. That's what gamekeepers and farmers etc. seem
to wear by choice when they spend a day out in the goop, and they should
know.
Walking boots have a distinct advantage if you need to kick steps into
turf and/or snow, and for wearing full crampons. But that sort of
situation isn't that common and on the slippy stuff a pair of Kahtoola
Microspikes or similar will do the job fine until you're well towards
the realm of graded snow climbs. Otherwise, for sole grippiness they're
often the same sole patterns in the same rubber from the same companies
(mine have Vibram soles). Many have more aggressive sole units which
will actually do mud better than most boots.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch
> and if you're out on mud / grass etc you need some =edges= ..
> rounded heels will dump you on the first slope you try to traverse..
Ah yes. "Conservation heels" with rounded backs, that you roll onto to
reduce the impact, particularly featured by marketing folk back in the
late 80s. Now that /was/ a crap idea, for exactly the reason noted above.
Peter Clinch
> Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
> on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.
Up to a point. That point being that the particular application has to
be the same basic one as yours, and if the reviewer's idea of a good day
out is the Cuillin Ridge and yours is a dander round Richmond Park (or
vice versa) then you may well be looking for different things.
Unless you're doing something fairly technical the design detail is
really down to how it affects wearing comfort, and that's what you'll
find by trying it on.
I've come across experienced boot fitters who've been exasperated by
magazine reviews. Folk ignore the preamble about fit and jump straight
to the "best in test" irrespective of whether it fits or it's right for
their application. And if that's pointed out they're "fobbing off the
customer with something they're trying to push".
> Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.
But we're at the point where making a pair of shoes or boots isn't
exactly unknown territory. A decent pair of walking shoes 20 years ago
would still be a decent pair of walking shoes today, because feet and
walking haven't actually changed much.
Peter Clinch
> Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
> have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
> the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
> Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
PeterC
> PeterC wrote:
>
>> Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
>> have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
>> the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
>> Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
>
> I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.
>
> Pete.
They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
Are the Whernside Wellies still around?
Peter Clinch
> They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
> laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
> varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
>
> Are the Whernside Wellies still around?
Not familiar with WWs, but if it's a traditional wellie's height that's
a problem something like Nokian Trimmis (quite a bit lower at the height
of a high walking boot) might get you by that (I don't know exactly
where your veins cause you problems). Sadly not a great shape for my feet.
PeterC
> PeterC wrote:
>
>> They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
>> laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
>> varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
>>
>> Are the Whernside Wellies still around?
>
> Not familiar with WWs, but if it's a traditional wellie's height that's
> a problem something like Nokian Trimmis (quite a bit lower at the height
> of a high walking boot) might get you by that (I don't know exactly
> where your veins cause you problems). Sadly not a great shape for my feet.
>
> Pete.
The veins are affected almost anywhere on my R leg, so any wellie would
need to be a snug fit.
T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
>> on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.
> Up to a point.
Nope, thats always true.
> That point being that the particular application
> has to be the same basic one as yours,
Thats what part of being a good review is about, that its relevant to your circumstances.
> and if the reviewer's idea of a good day out is the Cuillin Ridge
> and yours is a dander round Richmond Park (or vice versa)
> then you may well be looking for different things.
See above.
> Unless you're doing something fairly technical the design
> detail is really down to how it affects wearing comfort,
Nope, particularly with how well it wears and whether its waterproof etc.
> and that's what you'll find by trying it on.
Not even possible with either.
> I've come across experienced boot fitters who've
> been exasperated by magazine reviews.
Sure.
> Folk ignore the preamble about fit and jump straight to the "best in
> test" irrespective of whether it fits or it's right for their application.
Sure, there will always be those who cant work out what is a useful review too.
> And if that's pointed out they're "fobbing off the customer with something they're trying to push".
Yes, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists.
>> Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.
> But we're at the point where making a pair of
> shoes or boots isn't exactly unknown territory.
It is however one area where some take shortcuts to reduce the price
etc with so many of the consumers rating the price as important.
> A decent pair of walking shoes 20 years ago would
> still be a decent pair of walking shoes today, because
> feet and walking haven't actually changed much.
Yes, but a review can be useful to decide what is and is not decent quality wise.
And things have changed radically in those 20 years with so much being made in china now.
Its desirable to know which operations have managed to get their chinese manufacture done effectively now.
Rod Speed
> PeterC wrote:
>
>> Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going,
>> would have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was
>> half way up the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
>> Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
> I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.
soup
> T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
> etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.
Apropos nothing. Son has wellies for his horse work (stabling, he has
boot things for riding)he wears standard Screwfix jobs[1] (�15
region)and they have steel toecaps and a steel shank in the sole so
nothing can penetrate his foot. Agreeing with what Peter Clinch says in
the "what suits your feet stakes", he says they are comfier than any
other boot he has tried including �80 dedicated stable boots[2].
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yjb8geg
[2] http://tinyurl.com/yk5dwht
Peter Clinch
[wellies]
> I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
>
> There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.
If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant degree of
commonality with a 30 mile forced march with a 30 kg pack then that'd be
a good point...
Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land
all day, every day. If they're good enough for them, they're probably
good enough for us.
SMS
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
> good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
> available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
> way back in april 2006.
>
> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
> generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.
"Not too expensive" is not too descriptive.
Look for the following features:
1. GORE-TEX� lining.
2. Vibram� outsole
3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)
4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").
Such boots are hard to find and quite expensive, i.e. the Danner
Mountain Light� II. On the plus side, they will last a very long time. I
had a pair for 24 years. I think that they're made in the U.S.A. too.
If you give up on stitch-down construction then the choices expand and
prices fall. I.e. Cabela's offers their IA-811047 boots for $170 which
are not stitch down. I bought similar Vasque Summit GTX boots at REI on
sale for about $150 last year (regular price is $200). Not as good as
the Danner boots, but I could not find anywhere to buy another pair of
the Danner's other than ordering them directly from Danner.
If you give up on full grain leather construction prices fall even more,
if you give up on the GoreTex lining and the Vibram soles you can soon
be down to $50 or less. You get what you pay for. But in my experience,
the cheaper boots are not worth it. They are not waterproof, the
imitation Vibram does not provide sufficient traction, the soles
delaminate after a couple of years, and non-full-grain leather quickly
becomes motted and dirty and is impossible to clean.
I would not cheap out on boots if you're going to be doing serious
walking or hiking. You just need mid-high boots unless you're doing
serious backpacking. The boots I mentioned are all mid-high.
Christopher Loffredo
>
> Look for the following features:
>
> 1. GORE-TEX� lining.
>
> 2. Vibram� outsole
>
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)
>
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").
>
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...
Peter Clinch
I don't like them for exactly those reasons, but if folk /do/ prefer
them then note that Goretex isn't the only game in town. eVent is
another high quality breathable/waterproof, generally reckoned to be
considerably more breathable than Goretex though also one that suffers
more from contamination, and there are various others that will do a
similar job.
Another option is a waterproof sock, for example Rocky Goretex or
Sealskinz. These have the advantage over boot/shoe linings that you
only use them when you need them, so a hike on a hot day doesn't require
your feet to sweat freely in their own personal high-tech plastic bags.
OTOH a boot liner is better if the basic problem is cold as when a
waterproof sock outer is saturated it will still conduct heat readily
from your foot, even though it keeps it dry.
Aside from cold, another reason to keep feet dry is mainly down to damp
skin is softened and more prone to blisters, but in light footwear that
allows your foot to move naturally this is much less of an issue than in
a stiff boot, as the upper moves /with/ your foot rather than rubbing
against it. Note how orienteers gallumph around with soaking feet and
don't feel any particular need for waterproofing most of the time.
SMS
> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.
> It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
> lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
> fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
>
> Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...
For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.
Andy Leighton
> Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>
>> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
>
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
> a boot.
I prefer a plain leather boot without goretex lining.
> You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
> which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
> cheaper, non-full grain leather.
That is complete rubbish. My Zamberlans (don't know the model) don't have
goretex and they were definately not a low-end boot.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Vic Smith
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:40:52 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>>
>>> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
>>
>> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
>> a boot.
>
>I prefer a plain leather boot without goretex lining.
>
>> You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
>> which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
>> cheaper, non-full grain leather.
>
>That is complete rubbish. My Zamberlans (don't know the model) don't have
>goretex and they were definately not a low-end boot.
Sometimes a poster doesn't look at the big picture before posting.
Simple provincialism really, and I won't hold it against him.
--Vic
Christopher Loffredo
> The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
> GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
And you actually used them sometimes? ;-)
> You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
> which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
> cheaper, non-full grain leather.
My non-Gore-Tex boots are certainly neither cheap nor low-end. In fact,
full-leather non-Gore-Text boots usually cost as much or more than the
ones with.
Michael Black
> Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>
>> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
>
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in a
> boot.
>
>> It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
>> lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking fairly
>> quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...
>
> For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
> remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside, protecting
> it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
>
> The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a GoreTex
> liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
>
Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had a
Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable. Since
it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof
So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex, or
you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25 years
is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the first
place. They stood up because of the rest of the boot, not the Gore-Tex.
I have doubts about its value in boots. On a jacket or pants, it makes
sense, since you are merely warding off rain, and the rest of the jacket
is well designed to be resistant to rain in the first place.
Boots, they get immersed in snow or water. How well does the rest of the
boot hold up? Gore-Tex isn't just about that thin layer, if it's not
put in properly (what about that stiching over there?) it won't mean a
thing.
If the boot soaks up water, you really aren't at an advantage
over no-Gore-Tex. I have my doubts about it keeping the water out when
immersed in water, but then other factors come into play. If you're
walking through snow or water, chances are good you'll hit spots where
the rain or water is higher than the boot, and your feet get wet that way
anyway.
The conditions where I'd worry about getting my feet wet, I'd want
something different in the way of a shoe or boot. Something with rubber
around the lower level, which then gets connected to leather upper
(though, I've not had a lot of success with those, the first time I bought
a pair of winter boots like that, they held for about seven years before
the rubber broke, but more recent purchases have had the rubber breaking
before a year is up). Otherwise, you live with the occasional wet foot,
I don't find my feet get wet due to rain, they get wet due to puddles.
When I walked to New York City in 1982, someone had "rubbers" or
"galoshes", thin rubber overshoes that went over shoes, he actually wore
them over light hiking shoes. I have no idea how comfortable it was, but
seemed a reasonable method for those times when it was quite wet.
I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.
Michael
Phil Cook
>Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...
>
>For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
>remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
>protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
>
>The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
>GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
You were lucky or careful. And I doubt that those boots were in
frequent use if you managed to get them to last so long.
Toenails and grit can quite easily make holes in boot linings.
>
>You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
>which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
>cheaper, non-full grain leather.
As others have said this is a falacy.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
> [wellies]
>> I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
>> There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.
> If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant
> degree of commonality with a 30 mile forced march
> with a 30 kg pack then that'd be a good point...
They dont just use other than wellies for 30mile forced marches with a 30Kg pack.
> Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land all day, every day.
Most of them dont in fact use wellies.
> If they're good enough for them, they're probably good enough for us.
Wrong again. They wear them every day all day, we dont.
SMS
> Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
> plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had
> a Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
> non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable.
> Since it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof
That's why GoreTex works especially well in boots. It _is_ protected
properly. For jackets, the early ones had the GoreTex membrane unprotected.
> So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex,
> or you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25
> years is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the
> first place.
Probably 50 multi-day backpacking trips, and 1200 day hikes. They would
have lasted even longer but someone left them outside in the rain for a
long time and they were growing mold. Probably could have salvaged them,
but it was time for new soles which are not cheap. I hope I can get even
half the life of the replacement Vasque boots.
> I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.
I'd never buy a pair of hiking boots or hiking shoes that lacked
Gore-Tex for waterproofing. It's usually not even an option to not get
it since nearly every high-end pair of waterproof hiking boots has it.
I.e. all 72 types of waterproof hiking boots, from $100 to $475, sold at
REI are GoreTex. It doesn't add a lot of manufacturing cost, and it's a
huge advantage.
If you go to a lower end sporting goods store (in my area it's Big 5 or
Sports Authority) you can buy non-Goretex boots, but not full-grain
leather IIRC. Wal-Mart sells some full grain leather boots that are
non-Goretex for $30.
Bill Grey
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.10...@darkstar.example.net...
If you're not keen on Gore-Tex why not say so :-)
I am on my second pair of Meindle Scout t5rail shoes which are Goretex
lined. I wear them every day when walking my dog. OK i don't wear them over
rough ground but the ground is frerquently sodden. I got my second pair
because the first started to look a bit shabby, not worn out. I can
honestly say I've never had wet feet even when the oputers are vewry wet. I
once had some water enter the shoe by runninf off my waterproof trousers and
then down into the top of the shoe.
I write this in case you've put some folk off Gore-Tex.
Bill
SMS
> I am on my second pair of Meindle Scout t5rail shoes which are Goretex
> lined. I wear them every day when walking my dog. OK i don't wear them over
> rough ground but the ground is frerquently sodden. I got my second pair
> because the first started to look a bit shabby, not worn out. I can
> honestly say I've never had wet feet even when the oputers are vewry wet. I
> once had some water enter the shoe by runninf off my waterproof trousers and
> then down into the top of the shoe.
>
> I write this in case you've put some folk off Gore-Tex.
Unlikely!
Remember, the early GoreTex back in the 1980's was not nearly as good as
today's product. Back then it was known as "the miracle membrane that
lets moisture in and traps it."
Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if they were
full grain leather you could get away with the lack of GoreTex by
applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects breath ability.
For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those waxes, so GoreTex is
even more important.
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
get wet.
Phil Cook
>Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
>shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if they were
>full grain leather you could get away with the lack of GoreTex by
>applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects breath ability.
>For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those waxes, so GoreTex is
>even more important.
>
>Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
>purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
>GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
>get wet.
I remain unconvinced that GoreTex is the wonder material you purport
it to be. My last pair of four season winter walking boots were sans
Tex and my current pair have it. I never noticed my feet getting wet
(from the outside) in the old pair despite a good many years in rather
"mixte" conditions. Bogs and slush can be wet in the extreme and both
tend to feature prominently in Scottish winter hillwalking. The reason
I bought my latest pair with Tex are that they fitted me better than
any alternative, the comfort was the killer application for me rather
than the liner.
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots or
shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable. Fit, fit
and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
Rod Speed
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or
>> trail shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if
>> they were full grain leather you could get away with the lack of
>> GoreTex by applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects
>> breath ability. For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those
>> waxes, so GoreTex is even more important.
>>
>> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
>> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
>> have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to
>> have them ever get wet.
>
> I remain unconvinced that GoreTex is the wonder material you purport
> it to be. My last pair of four season winter walking boots were sans
> Tex and my current pair have it. I never noticed my feet getting wet
> (from the outside) in the old pair despite a good many years in rather
> "mixte" conditions. Bogs and slush can be wet in the extreme and both
> tend to feature prominently in Scottish winter hillwalking. The reason
> I bought my latest pair with Tex are that they fitted me better than
> any alternative, the comfort was the killer application for me rather
> than the liner.
> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
> Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
Yes, but your claim that that never become comfortable is just plain wrong.
That pair is now the most comfortable I have ever owned.
SMS
> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots or
> shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable. Fit, fit
> and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period
where they become more comfortable. But for cheaper boots of nubuck,
suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they
are at the time of purchase.
SMS
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
> good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
> available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
> way back in april 2006.
>
> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
> generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.
When you say "walking" do you mean on trails where ankle support is
critical so you need actual boots, or on pavement and paths where you
can get by with lower walking shoes?
For hiking boots look for:
-One-piece, full grain leather uppers
-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
-Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)
For walking shoes it's a little easier:
-Leather or nubuck
-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
-Vibram or other sole with good traction
Look for boots/shoes which come in a lot of sizes, including different
widths and half sizes. In the U.S., it's often annoying that half-sizes
stop at 11 (on the cheaper shoes) though this is changing a little
because they're bringing in more of the European sized products where
there are more whole sizes that correspond to U.S. half sizes.
In the U.S., for actual boots, some of the brands and models to look for
are:
Danner� Mountain Light II
Vasque Summit GTX
Asolo Power Matic 200 GV
Cabela's All-Leather Mountain Hikers
Michael Black
>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>
> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>
> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
>
But that's a different case.
A shoe or boot, you don't have the option of taking back once you've
actually used them. So the best you can do is take them home, wear them
inside to get a feel for them, and then take them back if they don't fit.
Once you wear them outside, they are actually used and I doubt many
companies will take them back.
If you have nothing to lose, you might as well persist. But if you
have doubts, then the time to deal with it is before you irreversibly
wear them outside. They may improve with time, but if they don't,
you are stuck with boots that you can't take back.
Michael
Rod Speed
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>> Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
> If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period where they become more comfortable.
There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.
And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.
> But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they are at the
> time of purchase.
Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
>> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
>> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
>> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
> But that's a different case.
No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
> A shoe or boot, you don't have the option of taking back once you've actually used them.
That varys, some do allow a return if you arent completely happy with them.
But I wasnt even talking about using them, I tried them on,
found they were a bit tight across the top of the foot, decided
that given how much effort it had taking to get them replaced
the first time around, it wasnt worth the hassle to get them
replaced again, and so decided to see how they would
wear in and found that they did wear in fine.
The original exchange was quite complicated. I had originally
bought them and then found that the soles were too deeply
patterned and that too deep pattern ended up with mud in
the patterning and was a pain to use for that reason.
I just didnt wear them, use different boots with a better sole
that did not have that problem. When those wore out, I then
went back to the originals and discovered that the soles had
split and come apart etc. That was something like 30 years
after I had bought them and I couldnt even remember where
I had bought them from so I couldnt return them to where I
had bought them from. So I returned them to the manufacturer.
They tried to fob me off because they had not made
them for a considerable time by the time I returned them.
Since I had never worn them for more than a few days,
I wasnt happy with that and they were stupid enough to
have their MD named on their web site, so I rang him up
and chewed his ear about them. He initially just ran the
same line, but I wasnt going to accept that and kept
telling him that other boots from that time from other
manufacturers had not had that sole decomposition
and that since I had not worn them in that time because
of the mud problem, that he should replace them.
He did eventually agree with me, likely to just get rid of me.
So when the replacements were a bit tight on one foot,
I decided that it wasnt worth the hassle and expense
of returning the replacements, so decided to see how
they went since they were free anyway, and they turned
out fine and in fact are by far the most comfortable boots
I have ever had once they wore in.
These are elastic sided leather boots that I wear all
the time except in summer when I wear what we call
thongs and you barbarians call flip flops as I recall.
> So the best you can do is take them home, wear them inside to get a feel for them, and then take them back if they
> don't fit.
Thats what I basically did, but it wasnt practical to return them.
> Once you wear them outside, they are actually used and I doubt many companies will take them back.
A few do and state that explicitly. Corse they are the most expensive too.
> If you have nothing to lose, you might as well persist.
Yes, thats what I did, and proved that he is just plain wrong.
> But if you have doubts, then the time to deal with it is before you irreversibly wear them outside. They may improve
> with time, but if they don't, you are stuck with boots that you can't take back.
Sure, but with that particular imperfect fit, with
real leather, they likely will fit fine over time.
PeterC
> -Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)
In that case I'll go for Nothing - lighter, cheaper and won't be more
slippery than the Vibram soles on my Scarpa boots (although might leak a
bit).
I have shoes with no cleats at all, just a smooth sole, that just won't
slip on surfaces where the Vibram slip quite readily, so, except for
macro-mechanical interaction, pattern doesn't help grip. The shoes are, of
course, no good on mud or snow but very good on wet slabs and 'green'
concrete. I haven't tried them on the rocks on Scafell Pike! :-)
Phil Cook
>Michael Black wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>
>>> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
>>> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>
>>> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
>>> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
>>> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
>
>> But that's a different case.
>
>No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
I worded it rather poorly. What I should have said was that boots or
shoes that are uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become
comfortable.
Phil Cook
Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede. Full grain leather has the outer
intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions are made
with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from
wear.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Black wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>>>> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
>>>> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>>>> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
>>>> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
>>>> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
>>> But that's a different case.
>> No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
> I worded it rather poorly.
You did indeed.
> What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
> uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.
Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.
Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.
Peter Clinch
> Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>
>> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
>
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
> a boot.
Perhaps you're not listening very hard?
Chris Townsend, President of the MCofS, author of numerous acclaimed
books on backpacking and gear editor of The Great Outdoors magazine
doesn't seem particularly keen for one, and I concur. (see, for example,
http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/gear/footwear/3-season/inov-8-roclite-390-gtx-100-1.1005457
with "Dislikes: W/B lining).
> For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
> remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
> protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
Goretex doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil because of a PU smear over
the membrane. What a boot lining doesn't stop is small bits of grit
working themselves through over time and rubbing a hole through the
(very thin) membrane. Also, the membrane will be prone to wear over the
flex points around the toe with repeated mechanical stretching.
> The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
> GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
I wouldn't take that as a representative sample!
> You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
> which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
> cheaper, non-full grain leather.
Ho ho, so the Scarpa SL and Manta models are "low end"? Despite their
being favourites in wet and muddy UK year after year and their excellent
construction, top-end Vibram soles, first class leather and high price tags?
Peter Clinch
> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
> GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
> get wet.
Sorry, that's just plain wrong.
Expert opinion here frequently put non-Goretex boots at the top of their
recommended lists and that's for use in the UK, where it /will/ be wet.
Peter Clinch
> When you say "walking" do you mean on trails where ankle support is
> critical so you need actual boots, or on pavement and paths where you
> can get by with lower walking shoes?
Unless you're toting a beastly weight you should get all the ankle
support you need from the bones, muscles and tendons that have evolved
to do the job. Ankle support is only critical when you're going outside
what ankles have evolved to do (which is just about any running and
walking with relatively light loads), so if you're trying to edge skis,
or stand on a crampon point, or stuff like that /then/ ankle support is
critical.
This has been proven by loads of people over thousands of years walking
through very rough terrain without extra ankle support. Man would have
dies out in prehistory if his ankles had been so weak that he needed
boots or special paths to get anywhere.
> -One-piece, full grain leather uppers
The main point of a one-piece upper is reducing stitching which reduces
leakage, but if you've got...
> -Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
more breathable).
> -Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)
So why do fell-runners and orienteers who need the best traction use
something else? Vibram soles are good but they're compromises for
multiple terrains. If you're spending a lot of time in sticky mud then
a studded sole like Innov-8's or Walsh's more aggressive units will give
you better traction. But a Vibram unit is usually a good indication of
quality that will do most jobs well.
SMS
> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
> been abraded to resemble suede.
Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.
2. Vibram� outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
grade outsole).
3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
except on extreme high end).
4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
support and durability.
Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
price, etc..
Christopher Loffredo
But before genuflecting before each of these "necessary" points,
remember that there are other opinions (also based on a fair bit of
experience) on the matter...
While those points may be valid for some users and for some uses, they
are being presented in a *very* dogmatic manner.
hbol
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
> good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
> available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
> way back in april 2006.
>
> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
> generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.
I sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
discussion/debate to not see a result.
I think I have read the whole thread, but if you have already posted
that info and I missed it, sorry.
Phil Cook
>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>
>Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
as good as full grain leather though.
In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.
And speaking of fashion and branding:
>1. GORE-TEX�
>2. Vibram�
In the UK JCB make earth moving equipment, but they aren't the only
game in town anymore.
Peter Clinch
> In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
> (hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
>
> 1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
> breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
> NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.
SMS is doing what he does best, which is assuming he knws better than
anyone else. It is a simple and verifiable fact that Scarpa SLs and
Mantas (among many, many others) have long been favourites in the
(rather wet) UK, with both expert opinion and public acclaim through use
and sales, and they don't have any such lining.
> 2. Vibram� outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
> grade outsole).
Vibram are generally good, but not the only game in town.
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
> except on extreme high end).
This effectively says it is *necessary* to get "extreme high end" boots.
But look what people /actually use/ and you'll find plenty of folk
doing a great deal without "extreme high end" boots.
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
> support and durability.
Those will be the most durable, but how durable will you need? For a
lot of applications fabric boots will be more comfortable because
there's far less effort needed to bend them as you walk, plus more
breathable, and if you can buy three pairs for the same money and
wouldn't ever have worn out the leathers anyway, why bother paying all
that money for something which is just harder to walk in? Serious
leather boots have their place, certainly, but for a lot of applications
they're simply overkill.
> Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
> to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
> price, etc..
Though "necessary design elements" in typical walking footwear don't
actually include Goretex, Vibram, Stitchdown construction or full grain
leather. How do I know? From doing lots of walking in footwear with
variously only some or absolutely none of those features.
Geoff Berrow
<ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>SMS wrote:
>
>>Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>>
>>Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>>suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>>unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>
>Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
>need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
>resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
>as good as full grain leather though.
>
>In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
>the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
>nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.
My first boots were suede and very comfortable. I bought them
thinking that I could just brush the mud off when dry. Despite using
the various sprays though, they did get sodden and eventually cracked
and split along a crease, long before they were worn out. Now
relegated to garden duty. :)
Well-dubbined leather is now my finish of choice.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
PeterC
>>> No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
>
>> I worded it rather poorly.
>
> You did indeed.
>
>> What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
>> uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.
>
> Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
> a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.
>
> Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.
They can also be stretched a bit.
I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D - for me,
that's narrow. It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond
that.
PeterC
>> -Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
>
> then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
> really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
> only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
> more breathable).
Any opinions yet on Hi-Tec's IonMask proofing? Looks good in print, but
does it work?
Scott Bryce
> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
> have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have
> them ever get wet.
Have you spoken with every expert? Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?
Scott Williamson, who has hiked at least 40,000 miles, wears running shoes.
Not only would these people not consider GoreTex important, they would
specifically advise against it. The reason is that under some
conditions, your feet will stay drier without it.
The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
are overkill for walking.
Roger Chapman
snip
> The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
> are overkill for walking.
That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.
Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>I sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
>you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
>discussion/debate to not see a result.
Prolly just turn out to be a troll...
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>> suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>> unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>
> Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
> need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
> resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
> as good as full grain leather though.
Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather
boots. This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most
expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex membrane, and a
Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes
down.
I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather
boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram, but fine for his easy
boy scout treks. The next boots though will have to be better as the
weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and they
don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't
allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
and sufficient traction.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>>>> Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
>>> If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in
>>> period where they become more comfortable.
>> There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.
>> And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.
>>> But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably
>>> won't become more comfortable than they are at the time of purchase.
>> Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.
> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away.
Nope, just leather with the finish that some prefer.
> It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off.
Yes. So the same considerations apply with it becoming more comfortable over time.
> Nubuck is the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.
Yes, which is why said what I said.
> Full grain leather has the outer intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions
> are made with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from wear.
All irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether some
boots and shoes do become more comfortable over time.
Rod Speed
> Phil Cook wrote
>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is
>> the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.
> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather
> which doesn't look
> good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
> In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
> (hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
> 1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining)
> for breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have
> this). NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof
> membrane lining.
I do that last all the time. I just dont need boots with a waterproof lining.
> 2. Vibram� outsole for best traction
I dont need the best traction either. What I actually
need is the best confort and very long wearing instead.
> (cheaper boots may have a lower grade outsole).
I am quite capable of checking the outsole.
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare except on extreme high end).
So its stupid to demand that, it restricts your choice far too much.
Makes more sense to accept that they may not be quite as durable,
but much better value and vastly more range to choose from.
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for support
I dont need support. My ankles have evolved with all the support I need.
> and durability.
Thats very desirable, but not absolutely essential if the price is lower
enough so you can say buy twice as many as the most expensive etc.
> Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you
> begin to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit,
> aesthetics, price, etc..
It makes no sense to do it your way on price most obviously.
Its an important consideration at the same time as considering
the design because it interacts with the design so much.
Rod Speed
> SMS wrote
>> Phil Cook wrote
>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck?
>> I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look
>> good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
> Fashion.
Not necessarily. I used to wear them just because they didnt need to be
cleaned like leather boots do. And I wear them all the time in winter too.
> Suede looks trendy
Not necessarily.
> but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane
> to boots and shoes made of it if you want water resistance.
Sure, but many dont need that. Not everyone inhabits that soggy little island.
> Nubuck looks like suede but has some water
> resistance, not as good as full grain leather though.
> In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
> the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
> nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.
I dont even bother with the wax.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
>>> I worded it rather poorly.
>> You did indeed.
>>> What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
>>> uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.
>> Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
>> a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.
>> Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.
> They can also be stretched a bit.
Yeah, thats the main reason I didnt return them, I decided that it should
be feasible to stretch them if they didnt wear in by themselves. And since
I wear them all day every day in the winter, they likely would wear in.
I dont wear different boots for walking than I wear around the house in winter.
> I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D
Not sure how well those work with modern glued construction.
> - for me, that's narrow.
My feet arent anything special width wise, just a bit higher than average at the top of the foot.
> It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond that.
There's plenty of antique stretchers on ebay and some that appear to be new too.
SMS
<snip>
> That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
> would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
> describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
> walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
> the countryside away from paved surfaces.
>
> Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.
Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:
1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX
Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.
Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."
Rod Speed
> SMS wrote
Nope, I prefer elastic sided boots just for the convenience of putting
them on and off and they are more convenient for grass seeds as well.
I wear them all day every day in winter and they are a lot eaier
to keep looking decent than with modern running shoes etc.
Rod Speed
> Phil Cook wrote
>> SMS wrote
>>> Phil Cook wrote
>>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner
>>>> side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer
>>>> that has been abraded to resemble suede.
>>> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade
>>> leather which doesn't look good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>> Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of
>> it if you want water resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not as good as full grain
>> leather though.
> Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather boots.
Nope, not if they can start with cheaper leather.
> This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex
> membrane, and a Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes down.
You cant easily separate that from just what the more expansive manufacturers choose to do tho.
It could even be as basic as whether its made in china etc.
> I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram,
> but fine for his easy boy scout treks.
They're also fine for many adult's much more extensive use.
> The next boots though will have to be better as the weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and
> they don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't allow anyone the backpack trips without
> boots that have ankle support and sufficient traction.
More fool them.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
>> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
>> have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have
>> them ever get wet.
>
> Have you spoken with every expert?
Spoken? No.
> Nearly everybody who successfully
> hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
> runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?
No.
Christopher Loffredo
>
> Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
> wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
> where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
> heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
> just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
> call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
> you'd get shoes such as:
>
> 1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
> 2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
> 3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
> 4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
> 5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
> 6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
> 7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX
>
> Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
> certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
> it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
> leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
> of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.
>
> Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
> proper English.
"There, but for the grace of God, goes God."
Chick Tower
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
> a boot.
We're a quiet bunch.
--
Chick Tower
For e-mail: arh DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net
Peter Clinch
> Boots are required for safety; they won't
> allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
> and sufficient traction.
Boots are /widely perceived/ to be needed for safety. That's not the
same thing.
Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.
Geoff Berrow
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
>more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
>in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
>the experts won't be in them.
I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.
Peter Clinch
> I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
> the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
> As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
> boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
> doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
> relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
> prefer lighter footwear.
Indeed, but the other point to realise is that going faster doesn't
magically protect one's ankles on fast terrain. In practice it's not a
problem because a /safety requirement/ of ankle support is a red
herring. Yes, orienteers damage their ankles from time to time but not
to the extent that you ever see many in something like
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=productpage&row=104446&page_id=159&
rather than
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=productpage&row=104425&page_id=159&,
and it's not as if boot-wearers never prang theirs.
That's not to say some folk won't prefer a boot for whatever they're
doing, but a preference and a requirement for safety are quite different
things.
Gordon
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7uhlg6...@mid.individual.net...
> If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant degree of
> commonality with a 30 mile forced march with a 30 kg pack
30kg? 60kg more like...... :-(
Vic Smith
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
><p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
>>more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
>>in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
>>the experts won't be in them.
>
>I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
>the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
>As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
>boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
>doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
>relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
>prefer lighter footwear.
Speed isn't the only concern with weight.
After some miles of walking in comfortable but heavy boots, a knee
became painful and slightly swollen. I didn't connect it with the
boots at first, but when I doffed the boots the knee problem very
quickly disappeared.
It's possible my gait in the above ankle boots was a factor, but I'm
guessing it was mostly the swinging weight of the boots.
--Vic
Tim Jackson
> Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
> proper English.
Nah, he wouldn't learn it proper like what English is spoke in England.
> One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
> drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
> over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
> backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
> asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
> had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
> was permitted."
Just as long as he didn't have a fag in the tent.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
rob
I'm also guessing, but I think it's more likely that you walk differently
in boots. In running, there are advocates of barefoot running, largely on
the grounds of reduced injuries. There was a study that showed that
injuries increased in proportion to the cost of the running shoes.
Heavy boots can make your feet feel very protected, but may mean that you
stride out in a way that puts more strain on other parts of your body.
--
rob
Peter Clinch
> Heavy boots can make your feet feel very protected, but may mean that you
> stride out in a way that puts more strain on other parts of your body.
I don't know whether the confidence will affect gait or not, but I'm
pretty sure a stiffer sole will because your foot doesn't get to bend
nearly as much as "normal" walking has evolved. And because walking is
different, it's probably using muscles that don't usually get so involved.