"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
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

"®óñ© © ²°¹°" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:58:52 -0000, "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.


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.

So I should be safe using my two hazel thumbsticks then :-)



--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

PeterC wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:05:14 GMT, Tom wrote:

Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

It'd need a lot of water and speed to get those cleats to aquaplane!



Ah, but it only needs to aquaplane for the very
short time until the balance is sufficiently upset.
After that it doesn't matter whether the water has
had time to be squeezed into the cleats, because
the entire boot is nowhere the ground!

"Gopher" wrote in message
...
In message , June Hughes
writes
In message , john bently
writes
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 have some very good walking shoes by Merrill. They are like trainers
only heavier and are waterproof as well as being warm. they are lighter
than the leather boots I have for walking and give a good support. The
cost was around 70GBP but they may have gone up in price a little since
2008, when I bought mine. HTH

If it hasn't been mentioned before, there is a newsgroup for walkers which
offers an FAQ on boots and walking footwear. May I suggest you subscribe
and post to uk.rec.walking. The group is extremely knowledgeable and very
helpful.


I've only just noticed the coss posting. John's query has been addressed
quite enthusiastically on uk.rec.walking.

I admit to having failed to notice the cross posting.

Bill

On 19 Feb, 12:20, Peter Clinch wrote:
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.

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 * *http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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?

On 20 Feb, 17:54, Simon Challands
wrote:
In message
* * * * * Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, 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.
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

"(don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes)"

A light pair of Inov-8's will see you skipping across the rocks? ;-)

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

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.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

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.

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.

FenlandRunner wrote:

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!!!)

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:15:20 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

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.

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.

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.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

Bob Hobden wrote:

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

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.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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. 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.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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.
--
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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:16:57 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:

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.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.