How comfortable are boots for PrepHole? Is the extra weight worth the added protection? Due to a recent experience I'm about to drop the trail runner pill.
How comfortable are boots for?
How comfortable are boots for PrepHole? Is the extra weight worth the added protection? Due to a recent experience I'm about to drop the trail runner pill.
The loss of ankle support is minimal, as most ankle support crimes from the sole of the shoe. Most protection from rocks (stubs and such) is needed on the toes and forefoot rather than the sides. A lot of trail runners are designed with both of these things in mind, so any talk of off-trail hiking is a non sequitur (it’s a factor of shoe model rather than type).
Just about everyone who insists boots are necessary are only talking about edge cases rather than the vast majority, or they haven’t really looked into it and just bought into memes. Maybe they’re right, but probably not in any case where anyone would actually co sided trail runners.
Switching to a lighter shoe is very noticeable. I don’t know about the “1lb on feet =5lb on back” thing but you absolutely notice a difference in difficulty/ease. I first switched from boots to low cut hiking shoes, and even that made a pretty big difference. I’m using trail runners now and I don’t see any need for boots.
Boots for winter or if you are doing something that would require extra coverage like a marshy hike or wandering in the desert where there's quicksand.
>edge cases rather than the vast majority
>winter
It’s like saying you need a winter tent because of snow load.
Trail runners sure as hell don't come with protection against rocks on the toes. If anything the super high end ones. The ones that look like running shoes don't.
>they haven’t really looked into it and just bought into memes
Nearly all La Sportiva trail runners have a solid toe cap.
That's high end, exactly the kind of shoe I said would have toe protection. And that also makes the shoe way less flexible.
I don't get this, do rocks literally fall on your toes?
imagine ever walking along a trail
kek
boots 100% of the time even if walking a normy laced trail, the added protection and support out-way any excuses of being nonePrepHole and fat
you can off trail just fine in trailrunners, its often > boot
if anything they're better for it because they have 10x the protection than boots
Each have their place, but boots are noticeably more taxing on my legs.
If I had to choose it would be a low cut hiking shoe or trail runner.
go more by your area and how you hike rather than what anyone says here
>live in desert or mostly go on paved trails
trail runners
>go off trail in bushy area, carry a lot of weight, or have bad ankles
boots
>desert
>trail runners
You've not done much in the desert or have an otherworldly tolerance for thorns, prickly seed hitch-hikers, and all other manner of scratchy, pokey stuff everywhere.
true with most trailrunners, but you're thinking about the popular styles with super minimal uppers. there's trailrunners with protective uppers too. look at solomon's stuff a lot of it leans that way.
I like this post. When I lived in Arizona yeah me and my basic b***h friends could put on some low cut merrells and even fricking shorts and be fine but I came back to Georgia and tried the same shit and every unexposed part of my ankle was instantly raped by bugs and prickly shit. West coast gays are spoiled.
imagine getting cucked that hard
you can get around pricklyshits with the taller, thicker nylon style gaiters with (most) trailrunners but at that point you've given up most of the advantages of wearing a shoe.
>Due to a recent experience
show us in this doll where the trail runner touched you, anon.
I came across pic related on trail and the torns went through my runners fabric like a hot knife through butter. Had to stop multiple times to remove them from my feet and toes.
Trail runners are made from the same material as non-leather boots. Leather boots are only a good choice for extreme edge cases. So again
>it’s not a matter of shoe style
>edge case autism
No, lots of runners have a mesh fabric around the toe box, even boots that aren't leather offer more protection.
Dude why are you seething? I simply don't have ankle issues, you should have played sports and now that wouldn't be a concern of yours as well.
>Should've played sports bro
Not that anon but I think you're missing the point behind that other dudes passive aggressiveness.
You don't carry a first aid kid into the backcountry because you have the strongest ankles, you do it because you aren't so wienery as to think you're going to always have the strongest ankles and be so vigilant as to never slip after himing tgrough whatever conditions you've put yourself in.
Ankle support is a fricking meme anyway, you want to not fall and frick your ankles then you use poles/ a fricking stick.
The best ankle support that could ever exist and anyone that says otherwise is most likely insecure about being seen in anything other than camo tones anyway.
Regardless of how fit you are you always try to be mindful of the trail and try to avoid injury to the best of your ability. That goes for everything and not just your ankles, PrepHole focuses so much on rolling ankles to justify the use of boots that almost makes it seem the board is nothing but 60 yo women suffering from osteoporosis.
I'm op and already explained here
why I'm considering boots.
>I'm op and already explained here
I came across pic related on trail and the torns went through my runners fabric like a hot knife through butter. Had to stop multiple times to remove them from my feet and toes. why I'm considering boots.
Get some low profile leather boots, super comfy and will help against sharp shit on the trails.
I wear boots for support and to keep dry, both my ankles are utterly fricked from previous injuries.
Not sure why that triggers the ever loving shit out of some people here.
I'm thinking of buying something like pic related but they probably weight a ton when wet. Plus they take forever to dry.
It would fix a problem but give me another.
I am honestly curious about these shoes as well. Their marketing can be super cringe, and their products overbuilt, but at least their mascot is a cute dog.
These would be great if they didn’t make the fabric on top of the arch completely inflexible like a bunch of FRICKING moronS. There’s no reason this shouldn’t have a full leather construction on the upper aside but instead they opted for that like tactical canvas or whatever it is.
It uses EVA midsole. The foam generally loses cushioning at 500 miles. You want polyurethane foam midsole instead. It will last a lot longer.
Good point. They are also chink made, which is disappointing given their "murica" marketing
Any euro brands that make shoes that look like this?
just goto a fashion store
>canvas
>fashion store
Sticks and poles truly are the answer to ankle issues, REGARDLESS of whatever shoes
it depends. a typical mid cut glued sole hiking boot with goretex mesh padding on the inside (like salomans or merells) will be very comfortable - really no different from a sneaker. an unlined combat boot on the other hand will cause blisters and ripped skin if your feet aren't calloused in the right areas. a high boot will inhibit ankle movement - which is good if youre walking over uneven terrain while carrying a lot of weight, but can lead to atrophy of certain muscles in the ankle if used too often. to mitigate this, try to keep your gait as natural as possible - even if it's painful. also don't wear boots when you don't have to.
do not buy a goretex lined shoe (or midcut boot) unless you're doing a lot of hiking in the snow
this is moronic. boots inhibit the flexion and mobility of your ankles, making them more likely to roll or become injured
Sounds like you don't hike pussy
>do not buy a goretex lined shoe (or midcut boot) unless you're doing a lot of hiking in the snow
why?
I need new boots and I'm not sure if I should pay more for goretex
the point of boots for hiking is mainly to support your ankles, which is absolutely worth it.
I'm not an anklet so that's not a concern, I want protection against this
since shit like
do frick all.
Although I get what you're saying these are way overkill for my needs.
>way overkill for my needs
Understandable, I just remember going through 3 pairs of wolverines, danners and golden retriever boots in 2 years, and got fed up with paying $200+ on each of those, so I went for something loyal and damn near indestructible
If the size and weight bother you, check out the smaller, more slim hiker boots Whites/Nick's and Wesco make, and considering your issue with being stabbed by thorns, all of these boots come with a wood/steel shank to prevent that from happening
>wolverines
“What does it say?”
“W- wolverine?”
“Read between the lines.”
What no they use a leather shank, except Wesco
>I'm not an anklet so that's not a concern
It should be, it takes one good injury and you're going to have issues with it for the rest of your life.
Used to think the same, had to learn from experience.
>I'm not an anklet so that's not a concern
Yeah, you're a big boy who's not afraid of anything and all that.
Have fun with your injuries.
Here's nimblewill. Man's been hiking for 125+ years.
Look at what he's wearing. Gaiters and new balance trail shoes.
You're an anklet, I'm sorry, facts are facts.
Just admit you like to be gay.
I've had these loggers made by J.K Boots for over 6 years now, about 11k+ hours in, I used them to climb, trim and remove trees near powerlines, and they're the best thing I've ever worn. Seriously I've put these things through hell and back a couple dozen times in all weather and I'm finally approaching my first re-sole
Yeah they're pretty heavy, but once they're broken in they're more comfy than my regular shoes. The custom fit is the most important aspect, they fit my feet so well I get this air suction effect putting my feet in. They also have great airflow, I have profusely sweaty feet that would eat holes in socks and other shoes, and I get very minimal sweat in these
VERY worth it for $475, considering these will last at least another 6 years easily
Does anyone know of a European version of these? Or something like Nicks and Whites? I've done some research but it really seems like America are the only ones who actually make leather boots for work.
If you plan to carry a heavy pack, they are way more comfortable than rolling your ankle.
the solution is to not carry a heavy pack
OP asked about boots for PrepHole, that can easily be anything done outside.
Carrying heavy backpacks is very much an PrepHole thing, and one of the activities that really justify the use of boots.
>being a total moron who doesn't know how to pack light is an PrepHole thing
Please enlighten me on how to pack "light" for a 4-5 days hunting trip where you carry out the carcass on your back.
Or maybe that's not PrepHole for you?
Wearing a dress and posing with anime figurines is the only PrepHole activity in your book?
Fricking homosexual.
Ultralighters are a bunch of morons that jack off to expensive tarps.
Honest question: will a carcass really last for 4-5 days? How do you keep scavengers away for that long? I don’t know anything about hunting.
Depends on temperature, here all big game hunting is in the fall, so cold temperatures and little or no flies.
Many hang it from a nearby tree in game bags or similar, good idea, especially if you have bears in the area.
I hiked 100 lb of meat out of the alpine on a pack frame. Should I have done 5 trips instead? What about my rifle? Should I just leave that at home next time? Have you tried not being a blistering bathhouse monkeypox super spreader?
>Just about everyone who insists boots are necessary are only talking about edge cases rather than the vast majority
Pottery
>multiday treks are an edge case now
larper fingers typed this post.
High boots are casts for your ankles. They don't provide support they are the support and your ankles atrophy inside like a stillborn
Exactly this. High boots are legit bad for your feet and your ankles.
What's this idiocy? You walk without boots literally always when not on trail. Do you wear hiking boots 24/7? Do you sleep with them on?
Do multiday trekking on uneven terrain with trail runners and let's see how much in pain are the soles of your feet on the third day already.
you CAN traverse dangerously uneven terrain in sneakers, issue is it's slow. you wear high boots if you want to keep your head up instead of staring at the ground constantly. depending terrain, high boots can either massively increase or massively decrease your speed of movement. the same is true of sneakers.
for some reason, nobody here ever mentions this.
Again. Here's nimblewill, new balance trail runners. Been hiking for millennia. You don't know what you're talking about you weak homosexual. Basically all long distance hikers who actually accomplish anything either use runners or low cut hiking boots. Ankle boots or higher are simply trash for long distances. You're embarrassing yourself.
dunning kruger
Yes. That's you.
Oh look, here's Pie. He accomplished the triple crown of hiking. What's on his feet? Have you accomplished the triple crown?
these people walk on well maintained trails that cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and take thousands of volunteers and forestry workers to maintain. not everyone has that luxury
Here's Heather Anderson. She accomplished the AT, PCT, and CDT in
One Calendar Year.
That's 8000 miles.
Hey look at her feet! Crazy I know.
High boots are not good hiking boots. They can be good hunting boots, work boots, niche outdoor use boots. They're not good for hiking.
If you think that these trails are some kind of dirt road, you're *truly* moronic. These trails are brutal, the CDT especially.
we are talking about 2 different things. obviously low cut hiking boots are a suitable compromise for long trips where sneakers would be suitable for 80% of the way and high boots for 20%. some people don't live in areas where sneakers are suitable for much of anything. some of us live in snake infested regions, with extremely uneven terrain, dense forests (not like sparse homosexual american ones), and have local governments that won't maintain the trails. some of us don't use trails at all. some people carry 30 to 50 kilograms on their backs need high boots regardless of terrain. nobody insulted your super special chinese goretex boots - they have a purpose. sneakers have a purpose. high boots have a purpose.
maybe you're the weakling if high boots inhibit the range of motion of your feet. you probably don't have any muscles down there. if you were a real man you'd run in combat boots like muhammad ali. you gonna argue with muhammad ali???
see how fricking dumb that sounds?
not falling apart in a month, not getting caught on vegetation from hundreds of fake stitch lines and pointless detailing, drying out quickly, protecting your feet and ankles from snakes. they also provide "ankle support", which is ideally something that you leverage when you want to and not a constant factor - although wearing high boots constantly can lead to the atrophy of certain muscles in the lower ankle make muscles in the higher ankle larger. to counteract this, it's important to keep your gait as natural as possible when wearing them.
For those of us who actually get out and on the trail, trail shoes are just plain better. I prefer to see and do more than to be miserable and larp as a solider. I used surplus and boots for years, but when I actually got money and time, I switched to what professional guides recommended, yes, even ones who have done a lot more than you.
https://www.adventurealan.com/how-to-choose-hiking-shoes/#ankle
Still really depends on the use case.
I'm assuming you are a burger, as you have actual trails.
There are no built trails here, most of the terrain I navigate involves a lot of slate and rock gardens, with some light climbing.
Here boots reign supreme, but if I do hike some smooth-ish trails, sure, shoes are better.
There's also marshes, snow that stay over the summer and streams to cross, these are also good reasons for boots over shoes.
I'm not. Most of my hiking is rocky terrain with elevation. Also, Alan hikes and leads expeditions into the back county of Alaska. I guess if you're in the swamps of Ukraine your milage may vary, but for almost all hiking shoes and gaiters are sufficient along with a pair of backup socks.
I still have some m77 boots but the more experience I get the more i just reach for shoes. It's like when I first started and couldn't afford gear and way over packed. I may be older but I get way better speed, distance, and can see a lot more thanks to that.
how much weight do you carry really?
Full pack? 36-45Lbs depending on water requirements usually. Try to cover at least 15-20 miles even in rough terrain. Poles make life much easier.
fair enough. i'll stop scrutinizing you now
>For those of us who actually get out and on the trail, trail shoes are just plain better
They suck ass. Used a pair for a while. Fine for when I hiked in Utah, but any rocky trail or area with tons of water, it's just a pain.
>B-But they will dry out fast if they get wet
But they also get wet fast too and drying them out takes a bit longer than you think. My highs may be a tad heavier, but I can march through bogs and rocky shallow streams and come out bone dry
Damn dude, how tall are your boots that you can walk through streams?
I have a pair of heritage redwings that I wore as an office shoe, went just above the ankle. After wearing it for a while and using obanauffs on it regularly they molded to my feet and leg and were basically water proof. I accidentally stepped in a mid shin deep puddle and the only thing wet on me were my pants my foot and sock were totally dry.
high boots wont stop a snake bite unless its treated leather, which will develop into blisters after a couple miles, if you are afraid of snakes you may want to pick a different hobby
around here, snakes have a fang length of roughly 5 millimeters. the boots i wear on long trips through densely vegetated areas are constructed from leather of at least 4mm in thickness, overlapping in key areas. add to that the wool socks i typically wear, at 2mm thickness, and the VERY calloused skin on my feet, and there's no way a snake is going to make it to my flesh with its teeth. i don't wear them for snake bite primarily anyway - since snakes very rarely attack without provocation, and are unlikely to inject venom even if they do bite you - no, i wear high boots because i like being able to MOVE QUICKLY over uneven terrain. i like to strafe jump, circle jump, 360 quickshot, rocket jump, bunnyhop, grenade jump, and crouch jump all over the place - and i like to do all of that while looking forward instead of at my feet, and sometimes i like to do all of that at night. i know that i can move very recklessly and irresponsibly with high boots and not injure myself too badly. and yes, my ankles are bigger than yours. if youre getting blisters from a few miles of walking in leather boots then you need to walk in them more or maybe walk barefoot depending on your preference
snake socks exist but that's way overkill for little babby 5mm fangs i feel like you could get away with just some thicker gaiters and pretty much any trailrunner with an upper more on the padded/protective side lol.
what kind of climate are you in though? most of the places there's a lot of snakes in are environments i feel like a boot would suck dick in compared to a shoe.
You don’t have to be a dick dude. It’s weird to get this angry over shoes.
You don't have to be a moron either, yet here we are.
>It’s weird to get this angry over shoes
Jock-sniffers and celebrity-worshipers tend to get angry over trivial matters (see "die-hard" sports fans everywhere)
>High boots are not good hiking boots.
No, but the are better for longer tours. They can deal with rough terrain also.
Picrel, a man walking in boots.
Nah, there's some truth to this. Most shoes people wear daily are different than the softer trail runners or boots they wear during hiking. That leads to blistering in both, but for sure using softer trail runners let your foot flex more and in more directions. That takes some practice but also time to build up muscle and flexibility. It sounds like bullshit but im living it now, milage may vary.
i know there's truth to it - i wrote this
, but you can from his post that he's an ignorant ultralight consumer.
Let met tell you something, these popular USA trails are nothing like off-road trails and summit climbing. Sure, most people should only use light trail running shoes because they will only hike on nice paths but for the more adventurous, you definitely need more protection, either for durability, comfort and protection as rocks can be as sharp as knives and will destroy your shoes, feet and ankles.
Why do people act like those trails are the same as the gravel roads people hike in Europe?
Yes, I know that you can do serious hiking in the US. I was just responding to the larping hiker talking about specific hiking trails in the US where the distance is the only hard aspect of the trail.
>distance is the only hard aspect of the trail.
Objectively false.
stuff like that is easier in trailrunners than 2+lb boots lmbo 4oregner morons
I know. So is everything else. Boots are an outdated meme.
no shit you moronic 4reigner innit you don't think there isn't mountains or rugged terrain or wilderness in the land of the free and the home of the brave? the country you live in is probably the size of a city, or a state at most here. most of the thru hikes have like 100 mountain passes and most people do them in trailrunners. no shit you don't wear trailrunners to summit a mountain in the winter, different gear for different conditions. trailrunners are superior for long distances (fatigue, dry time, condensation) and boots are more protective insulating and have more durable midsoles.
>t. Eurotrash wearing boots to walk in a meadow.
These people seem to be happier than you.
Good for them.
Bad for you.
hey look at that - not a boot in sight
https://andrewskurka.com/recommended-footwear-for-high-routes-alaska-and-early-season-conditions/
2000mi of off trail hiking. https://andrewskurka.com/adventures/alaska-yukon-expedition/route-description/
His shoe of choice? See picrel.
Many people enjoy the added support from a boot due to injured/worn out ankles because they've been hiking PrepHole carrying more than 10kg over a few kilometers at a time anon, when you grow up and you have some proper distance under your belt, you'll understand why boots are fine.
>1 trailrunner or breathable boot if you don't like trailrunners
>1 waterproof boot
>1 sandal or water shoe, for camp+river crossings
there i solved shoes unless you climb or w/e other specialty shit
kek that's a lot more maximal than what i wear in those conditions. i get some of my runners 0.5 size up so i can double sock+liner for winter though.
here's what goes through my brain when deciding if i should wear a runner or boot in the winter:
>positive degrees (daytime)?
trailrunners
>negative degrees (daytime)?
waterproof boot
>going to spend more than a few minutes in spikes?
waterproof boot
>crampons?
waterproof boot
>snow shoes?
end of season when its warm? trailrunners
cold? waterproof boot
pmuch just depends how deep the snow is and if i plan to traverse much ice or not.
not that anon but runners are more popular with long distance hikers than boots tho?
You cant tell me that a single layer of canvas on a modern military boot is gonna atrophy my ankles.
Buy Salomon quests. They're light and stable.
Yeah make sure to wear the boots daily before you go trekking like that funny homosexual. Worn out boots/shoes > new.
I have both, wear boots mainly if rocky to protect ankles or keep mud out.
Was boots only for years, wish I’d tried shoes earlier.
NZ, feet get wet every trip regardless.
i've got a Q that doesnt deserve its own thread, I live in PNW, is it better to have a breathable quick drying boot that'll get wet no matter what but it dries easy so who gives a shit,, or to have a "waterproof" boot, that resists water, but if the waterproof fails it takes forever to dry?
I'd say the first, I had a bad experience with gore Tex shoe getting soaked, it never dried. I spend the last few days of the trip with damp shoes and got athlete's foot
Jungle boots have holes to let water out for a reason. Waterproof footwear feels like another one of those very situational type pieces of gear, namely freezing conditions but everyone seems to think they need waterproof footwear even though we regularly have threads about taking off your boots or keeping them on when wading through high/ moving water.
Like what purpose does keeping your foot sweat trapped in your boot serve other than blisters? Your feet are going to get wet if you're in wet conditions, and your waterproof boots are going to soak through if you're doing anything longer than a day hike in a downpour, and even then odds are your feet are gonna get wet so why try and avoid it?
>tl;dr: waterproof footwear is a meme in any situation that isn't winter/ freezing temps.
Former in general for long excursions
Goretex for missions that won't last over a day. Most goretex isn't sewn in well and only had good experiences with meindl and lowas use of goretex.
Sweat accumulates inside regardless and it doesn't breathe well enough.
If it is above freezing, jungle boots can be great. There is even goretex socks or water resistant socks that get the boot wet, but not your foot. Rocky is the most famous. You just need to upsize so it fits with essentially two socks, doesn't cut off circulation, but can be laced well enough to not slide around. That requires a good boot design
Ive had a pair of Rocky jungle boots and theyve been with me for a lot of miles. Upset I didnt buy another pair before they stopped making them.
that's a larp THOUGH
I like hiking shoes but in winter warm waterproof boots.
if you liked the trailrunner pill but want protection get a really lightweight boot like solomon quest 4d goretex's. the difference you feel on foot weight wise isn't as enormous as typical boots. i've beat mine to shit doing 4 season hiking for years and they hold up. there's also a few other popular light weight boots i see on the trails a lot.
socks matter more than with trail runners and i'm more likely to bring the extra pair with boots.
This is the answer right here. I've tried heavier boots, then trailrunners, and finally switched to a lighter Vasque boot model and never looked back.
if you have room in your toebox in the boots do those injinji toe sock liners (not their normal socks) (the synthetic liners not the wool ones) with whatever sock you usually wear over top. makes your toes splay out a bit more, really comfy.
only worth it if you live near an rei to abuse their return policy with the liners though, the liners only last me 300-500 miles a pair.
boots still have a purpose in my region. trailrunners kind of blow in swampland certain times of year.
I have a pair Injinji (21€)and a pair Tabio (28€), but not tested them yet.
Both are some kind of Nylon blends, but not liners.
the liner thickness ones with normal socks over top is the best of both worlds, it solves all the downsides that toe socks have. i just hope they make a shoe height liner at some point, they only sell boot liners.
also buy a breathable pair if you 3 season hike buy gore tex if you do winters or swampy conditions that aren't deeper than the top of the boot. buy both if you do a lot of that stuff. its pretty easy to get a decent gore tex boot breathable boots tend to be way more hit or miss i would try them in person if you can.
always pair some sandals with boots. the most minimal shity kind are fine as long as there's a heel strap. they're for camp and river crossings so you don't slip and wet your pack like a moron.
I use high boots because I PrepHole in the jungle mostly, the logic being that if I step on a snake it has a lower chance of not biting my skin. I'd rather use something else in any other situaton
wait, if high cut boots suck for hiking, then what it's used for?
High hedge hunting, bushwacking, construction. Things where speed is not a factor but ankle protection (not support) are a more important factor. Ankle "support" fricks your ankles.
the only reason the military still uses them is because of things like shrapnel and debris
Backpacking for 37 years. I have and will potentially wear lightweight hikers, running shoes, Tevas, or heavier leather boots. Mostly now I wear leather boots because of the rocky terrain and mud. Depends on where I’m going and pack weight. Mostly where I’m going.
The part that sucks about boots is that sweat and other moisture can get stuck in the toe and not dry out. I hike in oversized cheapass steel toes because I got tired of sliding into muck, and I find them more comfortable than my trail shoes. Though it's really a question of the boots, the terrain, and the individual.
>The part that sucks about boots is that sweat and other moisture can get stuck in the toe and not dry out.
I mostly use the good old Norwegian M77 army boots, as they are full leather but still light weight.
They dry very fast, assuming you take care of them the right way.
On the warmest days, they can get a bit hot, but when it's hot and dry (like one week per year), I just use some normal shoes instead.
Don't offer nearly as much support as modern hunting boots, but for lighter carry weight and/or easier terrain, they work really well.
Derailing this thread for my own selfishness:
I’ll be going on a year long trip, from mountains to desert and jungle; which Salomon’s would be suitable for all these conditions, but also have durability?
Vasque dude. Those and decent socks are great
everyone sings the praises of trail runners until it unexpectedly rains and you're wading through mud
No, pretty much just keep going. If you had a pair of breathable boots with mesh you're in the same boot, and unless you're whole leg is covered and the water is shorter than the boot a waterproof boot fill up too. The trail runner will dry out in a day though. Boots you can help along with a hot nalgene and pulling the insoles out and in to your jacket though.
Yeah that happened to me recently and having wet shoes and pushing through made me get huge blisters on both feet.
t. OP
it doesn't even have to rain, you just have to walk through moderately dense foliage or tall grass after it's already rained and that's it - part of what leads me to suspect these trail runner evangelists only walk on pussy trails. having wet shoes is a minor inconvenience to me - having wet shoes lined with chinese sponge tex that never dries is a major annoyance. i'll walk all day in wet shoes if they're not waterlogged with an entire litre of water between the both of them. i guess what i'm saying is palladiums are probably the best trail runners
This guy has some interesting experiences testing options. He now only buys jungle boots:
https://www.frankrevelo.com/hiking/gear_footwear.htm
Here's his boot section where he catalogs the mileage on each pair he has bought since 2009:
https://www.frankrevelo.com/hiking/gear_footwear_belleville.htm
It comes down to weight and jungle boots are some of the lightest boots out there.
Most ultra lights weigh less than a pound, 454-. Most running shoes (eva) weigh between 1 to 2 pounds, 454g-908g.
Salomons Quest 4d weighs 2 pounds 13 oz, 1275 g.
Welted logging boots tend to weigh 4+ pounds(1814g+), often 5+ (2268+)
Limmers a traditional hiking boots weigh 4 pounds, 1814g.
Most of your older foam boots like Lowa Tibets and Meindl weigh 4 pounds. These are great for loggers or in heavy brush but don't translate well to speox.
The reason people like jungle boots that hike is they tend to use polyurethane rather than EVA and the uppers are less likely going to self destruct and let water in at every dew step. Some are very good at drying out as well.
Lowa zephyr and renegade both weigh around 2 and a half
The most popular boot in military right now is by Garmont.
T8 NFS (eva) 2.4 lbs, 1070 g
T8 Bifida (PU) 2.9 lbs, 1320 g
Belleville like Frank uses have some great ideas but they never make their lacing easy like Garmont.
Belleville mini mil 2 lbs, 907 g
Belleville One Xero 2 lbs 8 oz., 1134 g
A lot of the time I'd rather weight some type of minimalist shoe with gaiter protection (outdoor research crocodile gaiters) than a boot, jungle boots can serve a good function. Their nylon uppers usually don't provide much for ankle support either. In my experience jungle boots and minimalist shoes/boots help push footwear out to a couple thousand miles (3218 km) than getting sub 1000 (1609 km) miles, usually 300-600 (483 km to 966 km) miles on eva foam shoes.
>Black person I just phone deleted my second post on gay phone.
The footwear industry has largely moved away from welted boots. The US still clings to their cowboy boots, like they did with their revolvers for a century and doesn't have a lot of direct attach manufacturers. The only ones I know of are Danner, Thorogood, and Belleville. The machines cost about a million dollars to bond the upper to the foam midsole.
Here's an Australian example (Redback, Rossi, and Mongrel all use direct attach for boots in Australia)
Both EVA and PU (polyurethane) break down if they are not used regularly in a cycle known as hydrolysis.
But before you toss them out as junk, you should know that most modern shoe and boot comfort is due to these foams. We are not supposed to land on our heels. These foams can dampen that shock significantly preventing long term injury. Newer variants can alsp rebound the step back into the user.
One of the most cited comfort shoes now is Adidas Boost shoes. These use an ETPU or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane that is supposed to rebound about 55% back to the user. I have them in my Sievi work boots.
>Here's a better explanation:
https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/raw-materials/basf-infinergy-thermoplastic-polyurethane-etpu-adidas-boost-footwear-307410/
I have seen polyurethane last up to ten years of regular use. There's a place in Salem Oregon that will resole then with glue and Dave Page in Seattle often resoles more hiking boots by Lowa and Meindl and the like.
The problem I see is when a person buys niche boots like rain boots, hunting boots, that they use during a season of the year and they fall apart. So any of this shit needs to be in some sort of rotation.
The funny thing I read time and time again is people thinking their boots are a rubber that is cracking or crumbling. For example Frank Revolos Vibram Sierra from prev post keeps splitting, but the Sierras are made with nitrile or a plastic rubber.
>Redback
Speaking of them, they have released their first hiking boot called the Everest. I've had a pair of their Alpine boots for years but I think I'll buy a pair of the Everests and see how they go. The Alpine boots I have are all misshappen and partially melted etc; after all this time.
Just buy Danner Canadians and be done with it
Boots frick. Higher cut on your ankles so it keeps weird shit from touching your skin, they feel nice, they climb well, they just feel right
I really like my jungle boots. I feel they offer a little more protection around my feet similar to a high ankle boot but because of the canvas uppers are much more comfortable and still force you to strengthen the ankles. However jungle boots cannot be worn on hard pavement, concrete, or stone for extended times unless you enjoy destroying your knees. Also jungle boots have no insoles at all, you need to get hiking insoles like superfeet or something of that nature. If you buy fake jungle boots for 30 bucks from China you are getting screwed big time.
what brand? it all comes down to brand and country of manufacture with jungle boots. rothcos suck, miltecs suck, filipino altamas suck, 2018 british contract wellcos suck. mcraes, USGIs, and american made altamas are good. there are probably some decent vietnam vibram sole pattern repros that are good too, but i don't know much about that.
Steinkogler If you have money otherwise I saw decathlon has some dessert shoes that look interesting to me.
very nice
McRae jungle boots are what i've been using lately. Updated with speedlaces but still made in the USA.
Just got the kommando store waxi boots. I put them on and made sure everything was tightened properly, wore moderately thick wool socks and it's a damn fine boot so far. Feels like a sneaker in comfort/ lightness and has a great toebox for my wide feet. Went walking around town and was active with them for a couple hours and I had no hot spots. Gonna put some more miles on them before I head into the woods with them. I can see why the Rhodesians liked these so much.
Watch out the heel until you wear them in. I find thicker socks are best with mine. Go for a walk for atleast half an hour, take them off and check your feet. Figure if there are any pressure points. But otherwise, they are good- the wide toebox is great.
I got the jungle pair on the right for I believe 8 dollars. Unused.
Those aren't steinklogers. I have those and they are cheap and hot.
Update on the waxis. Wore them longer and longer each time and then ended up using them for a multi hour event where I was running around. High quality shoe I grabbed the wrong socks so I got stuck with somewhat thin ones but it ended up being ok. Had hot spots under my big toe, pinky toe outer edge and inside edge of my heel. No blisters which tells me I would have been a-ok with the right socks
For me it's the Merrel Moab, they are good for 700 to 800km and are not too pricey at 90€ the pair. Usually i go through two or three pair a year. I have a pair of shitty McKinley gaiters in case the trail offers brambles or nettles.
They will wet through if you step into water, but dry out fast enough.
>they are good for 700 to 800km and are not too pricey at 90€ the pair.
Oh, you said it, friend!
>Nanga Parbat
>Guenther Messner's second boot is found 52 years later
>still looks in usable condition
Yup I'm thinking based.
Embrace perfection.
What in sam frick's name are those heels
What do you mean?
They are downhill shoes.
So comfy.
Your shoes are on backwards.
Boots are a myth. Trail runners every time.
I wear garmont t8 bifidas every day. I don't know about this boot particularly other than it's just comfortable but the amount of times a properly sized and laced boot has saved my ankle from breaking is beyond count. To the extent that when I had a major fall trauma I broke everything above the boot line and absolutely nothing below. But my needs are definitely different than most of yours. I still probably wouldn't wear a shoe to a remote location.
boots are for chads
sneaker "hiking" shoes for caligays.
your call OP.
are patrol boots good for general PrepHole stuff?
I've used trail runners, run/hiking ""boots"", and proper Lowa boots.
each has their own place.
trail runners: trail running/day hiking on established trails in fair weather.
mid weight/height trail boots (think altra lone peak boots / solomon x-ultra boots) : the above, but in inclimate weather, fast packing, backpacking on fair-weather nice trails.
high ankle, heavy leather b***hes (think lowa): backpacking inclimate weather, poor ankle stability w/ heavy pack, orienteer style backpacking.
tennis shoes: youre visiting from california and you want to play music outloud and complain about the cell service for the first 0.5 miles of a trail before turning back and posting on ig about how youre a wanderer
In terms of performance between a low cut boot and a properly treaded trail runner. They'll hike the same, a trail runner will help lighten the load and let you go further. A boot will be more durable and last longer.
I wouldn't really use a high boot unless I was specifically doing work like cutting trail, logging, maybe hunting in deep brush. If you wanna go fast, get a good hard-tread runner, if distance is not your main concern because you're going through dense shit or doing work get a tall boot. But high boots suck to try and squeeze out miles in.
what are some good shoes for the Alps
I hiked the alps for a week with desert boots. I went imberger horn -> rotzspitz -> nebelhorn and back in the summer. No blisters because they were properly broken in but my feet hurt like a MF because I think I had the wrong soles in.
>Miltec Desert Boots
>Waxi Boots from Kommandostore
are the ones I have experience with and the miltecs are reasonably cheap and have lasted me a decade and ongoing.
Also thank you anon, I wrote those down. The Waxi boots look very slick
what are you gonna do in the Alps?
I live there I don't have specific plans currently except walking in the mountain my village's on, mushroom foraging for chanterelles (my be too late by now but I found some recently, I have my spots) and such. I'd like to plan an actual hiking route soon
*pomf*
felt with a crepe rubber sole. literal heaven on earth
jesus looks like it would feel like walking on butter
haha totally. i wanna get some valenki boots for the winter too
The best hiking boot is the Scarpa Mojito Hike.
The best hiking shoe is the Scarpa Mojito Trail.
Recent convert to trail runner (Altra Timp 4) from boots (Salmon Quest). Only under snow conditions would I want boots now and I'm talking about backpacking. You must be obese if you need "ankle support". Also, frick gortex. I'd rather my shoe breathe.
if you have to argue if trailrunners or boots are better you're living in abject poverty it costs maybe 300 or 400 dollars to own a good pair of both TOPS
homosexual european morons
stop samegayginh, mutt.
No samegayging. You're just getting mogged for stupidity.
>he doesn't have a zig-zag tan from his chacos
what boot is that? SFB?
If you're not working towards going barefoot at all times, you are a homosexual
I dunno get some Felin desert boots.
i've had a look at a few of the responses to your question and theres allot of good advice in here but the whole thing mostly boils down to what you're doing and how well boots fit for your lifestyle.
personally i wear heavy leather boots whenever i'm carrying a pack for fitness because i've got an old ankle injury and i really don't wanna roll it again. i also have a pair of lighter weight Magnum military style boots for longer walks on terrain i'm not sure of. that being said if i know the terrain isn't too bad i often wear new balance or nike running shoes for the comfort.
so the real question on boots is where are you wearing them and why. i find them very comfortable everywhere i go but i've got pretty strong legs so i don't mind the extra weight. but you can get lightweight full height boots. id say try a cheap pair and see if you hate them,
I wear boots everywhere
I even go running in hiking boots. I have this pair that is just extremely comfortable and gives me a lot of stability in any terrain as if I were barefoot.
>I even go running in hiking boots.
Post boots.
They are an ugly irrelevant italian brand and I can't even find the specific model on their website but I couldn't live without these boots. Consider that I'm extremely picky with shoes, especially running shoes, I consider most nikes and such utterly uncomfortable. So trust me when I say these boots are good.
Is Gritex like off brand goretex?
Yes.
t. Irish
Has anybody tried and used Lems shoes for in the woods activities. I have a friend with wide feet + bunions and the wide toebox looks like a lifesaver but I don't wanna recommend something thats gonna fall apart.
Boots are fine, just pick something that is comfortable and offers good grip. They're the important things.
This thread, people are fussing over the best shoe or boot, like there's a single answer. There isn't. You need to find what works for you and wear that. I, for example, like to wear a pair of lightweight 'combat' boots. They're not the best hiking footwear for everybody, but I can wear them all day and my feet are fine after. They work for me. That's what matters. Find something that works for you.
in my experience, my ankle height boots seem to work the best for me. I've worn running shoes on long trails and boots on long trails. the boots are heavier, but the tread and the nonslip are quite stable. they are waterproof which is nice for smaller water stuff if needed. def recommend changing socks with them if they start to get sweaty though. although i do that with running shoes too so yknow. as for outdoor activities besides hiking, pretty much boots all the way. hunting is boots, camping is boots, any sort of firewood gathering or shit of that nature is boots. the protection provided forr those tasks has saved my toes a couple times from being smashed by logs. i don't really know a situation i wouldn't be comfortable in my boots going into. the ankle height makes it nice because you still have ankle mobility, but can be bad in the snow if you arrer sliding / in deep snow.
id just say to experiment and find the right shoe forr you in whatever situation you're going to be in. different environments require different functions
>the boots are heavier, but the tread and the nonslip are quite stable.
opposite experience, there isn't a single boot on the market with as aggressive of lugs and as grippy as saucony trailrunners.
boots hold traction spikes WAY better though.
90% of shoes and boots i tried are too narrow for me. size eur48
I can relate. Why is that?
Eur46.
Because you have a wide foot, which they make wide sizes for.
I honestly don't think my foot is vastly different from regular feet, if at all. It's just that i value space for my toes to move. Why does it have to be squeezed in almost every shoe?
If you want boots, the Garmon t8 is the best i've ever had, i have tried a few out too.
Otherwise the Merrell MOAB boots are pretty solid and comfy.
moabs fall apart too fast even though they're really comfy and well ventilated in the summer.
i don't think they're worth it, its better to spend a little more for solomans/lowas. little less breathable, still light weight, way better built.
Yeah see I've read this before, I've had my current pair since 2018 and wear them almost exclusively when not at work, never had an issue, but maybe I got lucky. How do they fall apart exactly?
stitching usually on ventilators, i've never had the normal moabs
I use the Moabs as well (not the boots tho), for me the sole is rubbed off after maybe 700km or so, also my heel rubs the shoe apart because i never open the shoe before i put it on, i just squeeze in.
I use up two to three pairs a year. They are cheap, so not a real problem.
At some point they switched the factory that was making them, presumably to to cut costs, but the quality went to shit. They seem to be better now but if you can find a pair from that perios and compare them to older or newer ones, you can see where they cheaped out on things like the stitching and materials.
take the lowa pill, trail runners are a meme for people who never leave their favorite AllTrails
if one is on a budget though moabs still the best boot, i just don't think price -> performance ratio starts to fall off until $250
that's probably #1 niche for trail runners. long distance stuff in 3 seasons. those soft fabric style gaiters that velcro on fixed all the downsides to runners other than ankle roll (which is debatable; there's an argument to be made not having 2lb on your foot makes you less likely to roll to begin with)
need waterproof = boot
don't need waterproof = runner
don't like runners = they make breathable boots too imagine that
I am on my feet all day and I commute by walking. I wear boots with comfortable insoles. Protective toes, six inches high, waterproof, and metatarsal plates. For rugged dependability, I always choose a good pair of boots.
Also, sole plates. I am protected against punctures.
are jungle boots legit or are they just another PrepHole meme
it really depends on where you buy them from, it's a real minefield. i can recommend mcrae, altama or wellco (but only if they're US military contract, anything else will be terrible), and USGIs from before the 90s if you can find them.
do you have any thoughts on the german baltes jungle boots aka feuchtstiefel?
no idea. i've got a pair of austrian paratrooper boots which are pretty great, and there's a jungle version of them so that might be good - course those cost more than other alternatives
I twisted my ankle a few weeks ago on a hike, it was a stupid but also a bit unpredictable slide on a corner. I was wearing trailrunners and I was pretty lucky to be near a river and let it cool down for a bit.
The stress gave me energy to reach and set up camp but later that evening and the entire next day it hurt like hell. Used a compression bandage, elevation, and the river in combination to heal. Wish I had some kind of pain relief cream. The day after I hiked back to my car like I had a peg leg.
I think it could’ve been prevented easily with above ankle high boots. I suppose if you’re experienced enough you don’t need it though.
For easier trails runners are fine.
For harder or more technical tracks boots are often better.
Boots will provide better support,
More foot protection,
Usually better grip,
Keep water out better,
And for where tracks are overgrown or non existent become a weapon for stomping your way through.
'Easier' is relative to your own abilities. There aren't wrong or right shoes for a particular track.
If you find you can wear trail runners everywhere you go you are probably ready to up the challenge in terms of the places you visit - if you want to, the more extreme types of hiking aren't for everyone.
I personally wear Scarpa Deltas.
All leather, fantastic boots. Good balance of support/protection etc without going overboard. Amazing soles.
I do tonnes of hiking in Tasmania, Australia. We have a thing here called peak bagging where you aim to climb as many mountains as you can off a list of 480 peaks. Finishing the list is a lifetime goal. They range from very easy to very hard. Lately I've been aiming to do 50 a year.
>For harder or more technical tracks boots are often better.
only if you need crampons or spikes.
lighter nimbler feet with no heel's usually favored for technical stuff.
>Usually better grip,
i agree the average boot's lug pattern is way better than the average trailrunner's lug pattern.
on the high end they're about equal.
>Keep water out better
trailrunners handle water better if its above freezing. they dry significantly faster & take much less time to take off for water crossings.
boots do have the advantage of letting you walk through ~1-3in deep creeks and puddles while staying dry.
but waterproof boots' other advantages don't shine until freezing is a factor.
>Boots will provide better support
but they're also 2x+ the weight, on foot where weight feels about 5x heavier than in pack.
>More foot protection,
significantly more upper protection, significantly less puncture protection. good runners have full length carbon plates or close to it.
>And for where tracks are overgrown or non existent become a weapon for stomping your way through.
also boot midsoles have a lot longer of a lifespan than trailrunners. only 2 kinds of people thru hike with a boot: "i want the same shoe to last the whole time" and "its my first thru hike"
Looks like impressively aggressive tread but the uniform pattern will only perform one function well.
Here is an example of a design that covers all he bases.
https://www.kandeshoerepairs.com.au/1450%20clusaz.pdf
Not necessarily the best design but page 2 shows the functions.
Pic is the Scarpa Deltas that I like.
The spine up the middle is especially good on logs, tree roots etc.
I do agree that for thru hiking trail runners should be fine though.
As for boots being good in 1-3 inch water, here in Tassie we have a lot of mud which you don't know how deep it is until you step in it. Often you are grateful for that bit of extra height.
I personally don't mind the extra weight of the boots, doesn't seem to hold me back. Did an 11 hour walk one day last week, half on a track, half off, and wasn't overly tired at the end.
The runner pictured does that by reversing the tread on the heel for descent.
>take off for water crossings
lol
LMAO
>crosses river wearing boots
have a reality check please for a second here,
you can't even make it believable on an anonymous imageboard that you go outside.
everything you post exudes teenager with zero experience talking out of your ass.
i like their old pattern better but its pretty good
>3 high profile cupsole for FOOT PROTECTION
trailrunners have carbon plates, so they actually have significantly more midsole protection than boots. its actually pretty easy to puncture most boots without even using your full body weight. the best of the best tend to handle like 200lbs nail puncture tops.
>Crampon suitability for SAFETY
yeah i said don't try to do runners with crampons
>Shedding Ice/Snow
that outsole's designed for mud, tradeoffs
i don't think runners need the horizontal siping because they space the lugs out further, but that's just a guess i don't actually know.
i assume its for a reason since the trailrunner companies who make boots don't do it either.
>large contact toe
i never see this on runners, i assume its to retain flexbility in the forefoot. either way give me a runner over a boot any day for almost any scramble.
ayyyy14 captcha
i'm not
, but i think it's pretty stupid that you can't imagine someone crossing a river in boots
have......... either of you crossed anything deeper than a few inches in your life?
i'm at a loss, i don't even know how to reply to a post this stupid.
it sounds like you're projecting
oh okay this makes a lot of sense to me actually now.
you're summergay dayhikers so you've never had to worry about anything like that because you're back to the car by sun-down or only camping when its very fair weather.
wet feet? who cares you're drying it out by the fire at home a few hours later anyways.
carry on.
it depends on what boots you're wearing, your tolerance for discomfort, weather conditions, and how far you're actually going. if i crossed a river in jungle boots while wearing wool socks on a not freezing day, i'd be quite happy to continue walking indefinitely until my feet were dry. for someone to do that, it would be like, a minor inconvenience at worst as long as their feet are properly calloused. if you were in a hurry, you could even cross a river in non ventilating boots. straight up saying people would never do something like walk through a river in boots sounds pretty ignorant
Black person you and i aren't the same.
>tolerance for discomfort
yeah because you're a dayhiker. when you're doing something multi day outside of fair weather its not discomfort its fungal infections, trench foot, blisters, stuff like that.
>for someone to do that, it would be like, a minor inconvenience at worst as long as their feet are properly calloused.
your mind thinks like this because you only hike in weather you can get away with that and you're back to the car by sun down.
>straight up saying people would never do something like walk through a river in boots sounds pretty ignorant
nobody does on a multi day unless its really shallow. the norm is to take your shoes off and cross barefoot or in sandals (if you anticipate many crossings)
i'm a dayhiker, but i always walk for more than 12 hours, covering distances of 40 - 60km, orienteering off trail for a good part of the way - and i am confident you could go for 2 or 3 days without and any issues. by issues i mean massive blisters, bleeding, and that type of business
jungle boots will dry out almost completely in less than 3 hours, even in temperatures as low as 5 celsius - they would for me anyway, although my feet are naturally extremely warm and never sweaty. you probably wear goretex shoes and think everything is like that, where they stay wet for days
My feet are always sweaty.
I think i'm not cut out for this, bros.
dry times are so dependent on humidity and sunlight.
i'm just saying when you actually do need to avoid getting wet, its less of a pain in the ass with a shoe than a boot.
extra pair of socks and gold bond bro. no big deal. if you're hiking in a waterproof shoe/boot get one that isn't. also hollow fiber towels are some real good shit, only problem is they're 10x pricier than microfiber.
you're definitely right, and if i actually was hiking for a week straight, i'd be a lot more conservative about taking my boots off during river crossings - especially if they were non ventilating ones.
*i mean, conservative about crossing rivers in boots, as in i'd try harder to avoid it if possible
not saying one or the other is better to be clear, i'm just clearing up the misconception that trailrunners don't have aggressive outsoles. runners are relatively new compared to boots so you see more variety in designs as companies figure out what werks and doesn't.
also
>believing more than 1 anon is this stupid
you're samegayging
maybe you're forgetting the first post that started this but we're talking about water deeper than the top of the water-proofing on the boot. i specifically said boots are good for shallow crossings and puddles.
like lets get real here these guys aren't thru hiking or section hiking or climbing mountains or anything like that in fricking jungle boots.
nobody believes that shit.
What size shoe do you wear? Large foot boots are pretty heavy.
has anyone tried salomon 4d quest gtx (forces or normal), lowa zephyr gtx and lowa z8 gtx side by side?
i need something with goretex that also looks good. i already own danner tachyons but need something more on the hiking side
Yeah. Quest 4D GTX's fit me the best. Try them all on at an outfitter, no one on an anonymous imageboard's gonna be able to tell you which one's the best on your foot.
FWIW the Solomons are excellent boots, I've been buying them for 10 years and they always last until pretty much the maximum lifespan for a boot midsole. I only use them in extreme conditions so I'm hard on them too; more of a trailrunner guy usually.
& from what I've heard lowas are just as good.
i see, thanks for the input. i'll order all of them to see which one fits the best then, sadly no one here stocks stuff like that in-store. i've got a pair of asics fujitrabuco trailrunners but i don't want to wear them for multiple hours because they aren't very comfortable. perfect for short trail running though.
have you worn the salomons in both summer and winter? i'd probably wear them in temperature from -5°C to ~25-30°C. i know there is no perfect shoe for all climates but i could need a picture on how thick they're lined
>have you worn the salomons in both summer and winter?
yeah, the two main times i use them is winter, and summer for swampy or super muddy conditions.
in hot weather they're about as it gets for a gtx boot, to get any better you'd have to go for something without a membrane.
in winter i double sock them but it serves fine for backpacking in pnw mountains. if i was dealing with more extreme temps or primarily using them in winter i'd want something more insulated.
biggest strengths is comfort, and very light weight on foot for a boot. you could almost forget you have a boot on.
here's a pic of the inside, sorry for the ass quality. cracked phone camera + i have guests over and don't want to be an autismlord and carry them outside for decent lighting :^)
Actually, thinking about it I probably have 2k miles on my current pair and the midsole hasn't bottomed out yet somehow. They're really durable. My only concern is all the stitching going on with the upper but that's going to be the case for any GTX boot.
Boots are not only completely unnecessary but possibly even detrimental to your foot health long term
ones you buy might be a little different i bought a bunch of pairs of the version 2's at an rei sale for dirt cheap and have been hoarding them, i think they're on the third revision now?
>Just bought these for a 3 day trip to glacier
thoughts? did I fall for the meme? (Altra Lone Peak Hiker Boots)
Are you accustomed to zero drop shoes? If not you may notice extra effort from your calfs. The wide toe box is really nice, as is the weight. I got about 600 miles out of my 4.0s (trail runners though, not the boots/high tops). I wouldn’t recommend them for too much off trail hiking. I mean they can handle a little, obviously, but they don’t really have much toe protection and the soles are very pliable. So they’re pretty use specific.
> Are you accustomed to zero drop shoes? If not you may notice extra effort from your calfs
No- I actually had not heard of this concept until now. I am not too concerned, will try them out in the midwest first and have time to return if this is a big concern
> I wouldn’t recommend them for too much off trail hiking.
Can you elaborate? I plan on mostly doing "difficult" trails but on trail. I read that these are "not the best" for pure rock
> So they’re pretty use specific.
Do you mean on trail here?
Yeah, by “use specific” I mean their really intended to be used in established trails. The issues with the Lone Peaks are a lack of toe protection and the flexible sole. The former means you’re more likely to stub your toes and the latter means they provide less ankle support (a majorly part of ankle support is from how stiff a shoes sole is). It’s not a durability issue; they’re just as durable as my old La Sportiva Bushido 2’s (ie, they lasted just as long). The Lone Peaks are just more flexible and offer less foot protection.
Just did a 3 day in them and they were great. Never felt like my ankle was loose. Never got any blister or hot spot. Feet didnt get sweaty even though it was 80+ the whole time. You can even run in them since theyre basically a slightly taller running shoe.
Before that I did about 10 days backpacking in europe. It was urban mostly but 20+ miles a day and same deal.
My two criticisms are the soles dont seem to like granite. Already chipping away on the lugs. Also once you get on the road you'll have to retighten them because the foam or whatever seems to compress in heat. I dont know what it is by you'll feel your foot slipping after a couple miles. A quick pull of the laces fixes it though. I think they look great with a bit of dirt on them too, personal preference.
Thank you brother. I have to admit, aesthetics was definitely a factor. I almost got the Brooks Cascadia 16 but I just could not fathom the neon on my body
yeah i really dont know why hiking shoe companies have started adopting neon. hmmm what goes good with mud brown? oh how about neon teal and chartreuse. dumb
oh yeah, good point. i had to climb through some manzanita and they did get a bit snaggy on the branches because of the venting. would not want to be cutting through brush for prolonged periods with them.
Darn tough has free shipping today for any anon who wants some socks
Have they fully transitioned into a fashion brand or is there still time to get a pair that are more function over form?
>advertisement video
I despise you. Uncle Ted would have shot you.
They are very comfortable. I wouldnt hike in them though. A bit heavy for a camp shoe imo. Great for just frickin around on a lazy day though
I'll be working in a farm picking fruit, are boots a good option for footwear? If so what boots do you recommend?
Ty.
Redbacks are the best work boot imo as long as you are cool with the australian work boot foot opening
thanks
>muh toecaps muh upper
punctures are the only thing thats actually going to frick you up off trail other than things neither style of shoe does nothing for (crushing)
boots take like 180lbs-220lbs of puncture for good ones trailrunners are in the thousands.