Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
Peter Clinch wrote
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
Michael Black wrote:
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
"Michael Black" wrote in message mple.net... On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, SMS 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. 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 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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
Bill Grey wrote:
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary. -- Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-) pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish... |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
Phil Cook wrote:
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they are at the time of purchase. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. 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 a Danner® Mountain Light II Vasque Summit GTX Asolo Power Matic 200 GV Cabela's All-Leather Mountain Hikers |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, 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. 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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. 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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:22:33 -0800, SMS wrote:
-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! :-) -- Peter. 2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable. -- Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-) pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish... |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
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. 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. -- Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-) pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish... |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
walking boots-- which are good?
Phil Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote Michael Black wrote Rod Speed wrote Phil Cook 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fat lady wellington boots | Gardening | |||
Women's gardening boots ? | Gardening | |||
i was walking units to good Stephanie, who's excusing about the frog's road | United Kingdom | |||
Need A Good mechanical/biological pond Filter Which ones are good? | Ponds | |||
Weigela - tough as old boots! | United Kingdom |