Scott Bryce wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

You only need a waterproof membrane in your boots if they are made of
materials that are not inherently waterproof. Treated leather is
already a breathable waterproof material.

You only need a waterproof boot if you intend to walk for long periods
of time in wet conditions or in mud.

Hmm... Pretty much mandatory for the UK then.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

Paul Saunders wrote:
Scott Bryce wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

You only need a waterproof membrane in your boots if they are made of
materials that are not inherently waterproof. Treated leather is
already a breathable waterproof material.
You only need a waterproof boot if you intend to walk for long periods
of time in wet conditions or in mud.

Hmm... Pretty much mandatory for the UK then.

Plus you can't always plan when you might end up in wet conditions.

Actually a waterproof membrane is not required, you can take full grain
leather boots and seal them with Sno-Seal or other similar product. The
down side to this is that you're blocking all the pores of leather so
the leather can't breathe and you end up with sweaty, stinky feet and boots.

It's almost a non-issue these days anyway. Only the lowest end hiking
boots lack a GoreTex (or competing product) breathable waterproof
membrane. There's no real down side, the membrane is more breathable
than the leather, so even with no membrane you won't get any more air
circulation.

It's popular to bash GoreTex, especially since their early products were
not very durable or long-lasting, but the past several generations of
GoreTex don't have the problems that their early products did.

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:40:52 -0800, SMS wrote:

That is complete rubbish. My Zamberlans (don't know the model) don't have
goretex and they were definately not a low-end boot.


Ditto my Scarpas.....

"SMS" wrote in message
...

That's why GoreTex works especially well in boots. It _is_ protected
properly. For jackets, the early ones had the GoreTex membrane
unprotected.


But it is only capable of breathing as the leather that protects it
breathes...

"SMS" wrote in message
...

Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!

"SMS" wrote in message
...

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.


Again TOTAL TRIPE! Why bother with extra linings when you don't need them?
As I stated - the ability of goretex linings to breath is restricted by the
ability of the leather to breathe, so why bother with the goretex?
It's a gimmick designed to con punters.

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
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.

Sorry, that's just plain wrong.


I agree. In my experience most water ingression in a good pair of proofed
leather boots either comes over the top or wicks down un gaiter-protected
socks...

Gordon wrote:

Again TOTAL TRIPE! Why bother with extra linings when you don't need
them? As I stated - the ability of goretex linings to breath is
restricted by the ability of the leather to breathe, so why bother with
the goretex?

Fortunately, _you_ stating something over and over again does not make
it true! You need to understand how leather works. If you don't clog up
the pores with beeswax (like Sno-Seal) it does breath. It's not a
waterproof material.

If you're hiking or walking in wet conditions you want to be certain to
never buy shoes or boots that lack a breathable membrane. GoreTex is
one. In order of breathability, the ratings a

eVent
Gore-Tex XCR
Gore-Tex (standard)
HydroSeal (The North Face)
Membrain (Marmot)
Sympatex, Conduit (Mountain Hardwear)
OmniTech (Columbia).

There are some other private label ones as well.

It's a gimmick designed to con punters.

Keep telling yourself that. Ignore all the scientific evidence.

"SMS" wrote in message
...

If you're hiking or walking in wet conditions you want to be certain to
never buy shoes or boots that lack a breathable membrane. GoreTex is one.

Rubbish. In my LONG experience (including Infantry service) the main reason
for water ingressing proofed leather boots is either when it comes over the
top or it wicks down socks.
In neither case will ANY sort of breathable membrane stop it.

SMS wrote:

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

.... the same as the other day. Goretex, stitchdown, full grain leather
weren't "necessary" then, and that won't change by you repeating your
particular chorus again and again while ignoring the countless users
doing Real Hiking in boots and shoes that lack one or more of those of
things you keep on saying they /must/ have.

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/

SMS wrote:

Hmm... Pretty much mandatory for the UK then.

Plus you can't always plan when you might end up in wet conditions.

And yet lots of folk hike here in boots without waterproof liners. By
informed choice.

It's almost a non-issue these days anyway. Only the lowest end hiking
boots lack a GoreTex (or competing product) breathable waterproof
membrane.

Again, do you really think Scarpa SLs and Manatas are "low end"?

There's no real down side, the membrane is more breathable
than the leather, so even with no membrane you won't get any more air
circulation.

If you back up one breathability limiting barrier with another it works
in series, not parallel. Plus not everyone is in thick leather, despite
"needing" to be.

It's popular to bash GoreTex, especially since their early products were
not very durable or long-lasting, but the past several generations of
GoreTex don't have the problems that their early products did.

But it's still sweatier inside them than if they're not there.

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 28 Feb, 17:22, "Gordon" wrote:

Again TOTAL TRIPE! Why bother with extra linings when you don't need them?
As I stated - the ability of goretex linings to breath is restricted by the
ability of the leather to breathe, so why bother with the goretex?
It's a gimmick designed to con punters.

I've long thought that myself, and never noticed any significant
difference between leather boots with and without gore-tex. Fabric
ones, of course, are a different story.

Given that the socks are at least as important when it comes to
disposing of perspiration, You'd think that all the sales blurbs on
expensive boots would tell you which socks to wear, or at least which
they were tested with. They never mention it.

(I go for socks with as much wool and as little man-made fibre as I
can find. I used to wear pure cotton socks inside the wool ones, but
can't get them anywhere now.)

On 1 Mar, 14:32, bobharvey wrote:
On 28 Feb, 17:22, "Gordon" wrote:

Again TOTAL TRIPE! Why bother with extra linings when you don't need them?
As I stated - the ability of goretex linings to breath is restricted by the
ability of the leather to breathe, so why bother with the goretex?
It's a gimmick designed to con punters.

I've long thought that myself, and never noticed any significant
difference between leather boots with and without gore-tex. *Fabric
ones, of course, are a different story.

Given that the socks are at least as important when it comes to
disposing of perspiration, You'd think that all the sales blurbs on
expensive boots would tell you which socks to wear, or at least which
they were tested with. *They never mention it.

(I go for socks with as much wool and as little man-made fibre as I
can find. *I used to wear pure cotton socks inside the wool ones, but
can't get them anywhere now.)

RonHill socks, you can't go wrong!

On 1 Mar, 15:22, FenlandRunner wrote:

RonHill socks, you can't go wrong!

Never heard of 'em. Just been to look at the web site and could not
find any socks at all!

"bobharvey" wrote in message
...
On 1 Mar, 15:22, FenlandRunner wrote:

RonHill socks, you can't go wrong!

Never heard of 'em. Just been to look at the web site and could not
find any socks at all!

http://www.ronhill.com/product-popup...otion-sock.htm