Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2010, 07:38 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 167
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2010, 11:49 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
SMS SMS is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 04:39 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,129
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 05:50 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
SMS SMS is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 06:33 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2009
Posts: 192
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 07:58 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 167
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 08:05 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
SMS SMS is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 08:22 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
SMS SMS is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 08:57 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 4
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 11:27 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 167
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 11:44 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 167
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2010, 09:16 AM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 39
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2010, 10:30 AM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2009
Posts: 192
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2010, 10:40 AM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2009
Posts: 192
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2010, 10:43 AM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 167
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fat lady wellington boots lillia Gardening 7 20-02-2006 03:08 PM
Women's gardening boots ? [email protected] Gardening 0 04-10-2005 02:11 AM
i was walking units to good Stephanie, who's excusing about the frog's road [email protected] United Kingdom 0 23-07-2005 12:36 PM
Need A Good mechanical/biological pond Filter Which ones are good? DD DDD Ponds 10 03-04-2005 08:15 AM
Weigela - tough as old boots! MG United Kingdom 0 14-04-2003 09:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017