There’s no need for leather boots if you’re sticking to an established hiking trail. Ankle support hasn’t been much of an issue since pack weights dropped below 20lb and internal frames became the norm.
Ankle support Is sort of a catch 22. It's the stiff sole and elevated heel that frick up your natural mobility and stability, so you need ankle support to compensate when walking in rough terrain, because you're on an elevated stiff platform and heel striking, which is the actual problem. You land on the heel, your calves are not engaged to support propert and you twist your ankle before you have time to react.
A stiff sole is pretty much only needed for climbing, mountaineering and using crampons.
so would my vans be adequate footwear for a hike (in a tropical climate)? or should i buy a pair of hi-top chucks, perhaps? it rains fairly often here this time of year.
>vans >chucks
yeah those would be totally suitable for a tropical climate hike. the category of shoe was originally invented as a beach shoe, but they're also fine for hiking. when plimsoll shoes were invented they also wound up getting used a lot in mountaineering because they were superior to the hobnail & felt shoes of the time befoe them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimsoll_shoe
if you're putting down lots of miles in a day you might want something with more cushioning.
personally in that sort of climate i prefer a sandal to any kind of shoe if sand is involved.
Unironically yes, you could hike in casual tennis shoes.
The issues you’d run in to are that they’re not designed for long walks, so the soles aren’t as comfortable and the shoe isn’t as durable overall. Traction will be a major issue. Foot box room will vary from shoe to shoe but I doubt any are as spacious as a pair of trail runners. Obviously they won’t have a rock plate. You won’t see any specs regarding stack height, so you won’t be able to compare them to one another (kind of a moot point unless you’re a consumer gear queer with lots of disposable income).
But the lack of a raised heal or ankle support won’t be a factor.
>Ankle support Is sort of a catch 22. It's the stiff sole and elevated heel that frick up your natural mobility and stability, so you need ankle support to compensate when walking in rough terrain, because you're on an elevated stiff platform and heel striking, which is the actual problem. You land on the heel, your calves are not engaged to support propert and you twist your ankle before you have time to react.
>A stiff sole is pretty much only needed for climbing, mountaineering and using crampons.
Holy shit, another anon who actually gets it. A few months back I was ranting in one of these footwear threads about how the Aztec pochteca walked barefoot to trade their goods, the Native Americans wore moccasins, and the Roman legions wore sandals (tall, heavy, hobnailed sandals, but sandals nonetheless).
"I bet they'd have worn boots if they'd had them," was the brainlet response.
No, they'd have gone on being shod with flexible soles, because unless you have the squishy feet of an obese air conditioning-sitting office homosexual, flexible soles are superior by far for rocky, uneven terrain.
But no doubt we will continue to hear about how you have to wear boots for ankle support, even though the stiff planks that pass for soles on those things contribute much more to injury than ankle support ameliorates.
There's a time and place for boots: When you absolutely need them. I have five pairs: knee-high muck boots, mukluks, duck boots, work boots, wading boots. But I wear wimpy, light, flexy things whenever I can get away with it.
Picrel, literal Inuits each with far superior survival skills to anyone on this board, not actually wearing boots but rather sealskin moccasins. Get fricked, fat morons.
>Holy shit, another anon who actually gets it. A few months back I was ranting in one of these footwear threads about how the Aztec pochteca walked barefoot to trade their goods, the Native Americans wore moccasins, and the Roman legions wore sandals (tall, heavy, hobnailed sandals, but sandals nonetheless). >"I bet they'd have worn boots if they'd had them," was the brainlet response.
i constantly point out how old felt climbing shoes and mountaineering hobnail leather boots were obsoleted right after world war 2 and fell out of favor by serious hardcore climbers who preferred standard rubber and canvas plimsoll tennis sneakers (think: vans or converse) for difficult technical terrain. once everyone switched to mountaineering in literal off the shelf consumer rubber sneakers the world's highest ascent went up 2000 meters, k2 started getting summited more as these types of shoes (and vibram soles) gained popularity, etc.
I fell run and do competitions and rolling your ankle is just an accepted thing that will happen to you, but I rarely if ever see anyone I race with having a serious injury. Most times I roll, I feel it but can keep on going, you develop muscle there pretty
Pic related what I wear, basically plimsoles with big rubber lugs. Perfect job, I find boots are too unwieldly for most things on the fell
This is what morons post because they don't know how to put their thoughts into words when they don't agree with something. This is the PrepHole version of "who hurt you". You are anonymous on this site but still choose to comment like a bot. Here is some advice, be genuine.
>on xer’s 1 mile hike
anon that hardly makes a lick of sense. almost all long distance hikers prefer shoes over boots and the only boots popular with long distance hikers are stuff like moab ventilators -- very sneakerlike boots.
also over half of people who begin a long distance hike in boots switch to runners at some point during their hike and get rid of them.
https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/the-top-footwear-on-the-appalachian-trail-2022-thru-hiker-survey/
https://www.halfwayanywhere.com/trails/pacific-crest-trail/pct-gear-guide-2021/
I wear these and stiff boots in alaska. Ive used only the shoes in pic related for a whole season though. Just found these carbon plated insole. Works much better than those 1mm thick flexible cutting board
>Anonymous
I mean, I made the Flat Top trail in Alaska with 20 dollar converses. Really you can use anything given you have the skill to use it, but I don't think that gives a compelling argument to say running shoes are better for hiking.
Wearing high ankle boots atrophies your ankles, what you think is helping you is making you weaker. I had some boomer with, in his words, "wobbly ankles" looking for boots and after I told him the same thing he said "well im not trying 'work out' while I hike I just want some good boots" I imagine most of you won't realize what you are doing until you are also as old as that guy.
Tying the laces doesn’t make a leather boot act like it has a rigid brace, wtf are you taking about.
The leather itself is flexible, it’s not a rigid ski boot or motocross boot.
I know you think it’s funny to be antagonistic, but you just look moronic when you try and say strings make something flexible into something rigid.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It LITERALLY does
1 year ago
Anonymous
>still trying to argue laces make a leather boot rigid
Leather itself is flexible.
Pic rel are $250 Redwing leather hiking boots literally on my feet right now.
See how the leather flexes and creases despite being tied?
Amazing, right?
They will not stop an ankle injury like ski and motocross boots with their built in hard plastic braces.
Just shut the frick up, moron
1 year ago
Anonymous
Are those the Kirkland wool socks?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Lol yah those are fice year old Kirkland Smartwool socks.
Getting a bit thin in some places now
1 year ago
Anonymous
dang my costco only sold tall ones.
their new wool socks are actually pretty good too. i was sad to see the old ones go but the new ones seem to be on par.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Im talking about tall boots here, actual boots. See what happens when you tie those together. Of course your ballerina shoes wont give you support
1 year ago
Anonymous
>boots >ends at the ankle
i don't care about this whole boot vs sneaker debacle, but at least use real boots in this debate.
tall boots still bend in that same spot. i'm too lazy to make a video but i tried it out with every pair of boots i own. i keep my old worn out pairs for yard work and walking the dog. some of my boots actually offer a noticeable amount of resistance to the motion but i can roll my ankle with any of them if i try.
if i were to design a better hiking boot than is what on the market i'd put a little plastic collar or something reinforcing that area. seems like a pretty fixable design flaw in hiking boots.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That would be moronic
1 year ago
Anonymous
This is basic science, they will not. I doubt you have actual boots then.
https://i.imgur.com/U2SGWhn.jpg
>9gag is that way ->
Did you get home safely?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>This is basic science
yeah that's what i'm saying.
making the boot taller isn't going to make its collar any stiffer. its basic science. its impressive there's anons on this board who struggle to understand a taller boot isn't going to help.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Basic science would say that tying leather around your foot would help with support
1 year ago
Anonymous
i think you fail to understand that the point boots crease is at the ankle and its a result of leather not being stiff enough to resist the rolling motion. adding more leather to your shins doesn't do a single thing.
picrel on anon's low tops are where all my boots crease regardless of height.
do you even own a pair of boots? why are you even on here? one of those people researching what gear to collect for your closet? lol.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I have more boots than youll ever own. Creasing doesnt mean its not stiff enough, some motion has to be allowed. What tall boots do is add stiffness, enough support for your foot to be held back if it rolls. Once you start carrying some weight and hike outside of a trail youll get it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>boots >ends at the ankle
i don't care about this whole boot vs sneaker debacle, but at least use real boots in this debate.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>real boots in this debate.
anons idea of real boots
1 year ago
Anonymous
gay
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anon said REAL boots
They aren’t real boots if they don’t have straps and buckles like pic related
1 year ago
Anonymous
How could I forget, that's what makes them rigid and roll proof. Thanks for the clarification anon
1 year ago
Anonymous
That and laces
The more laces and buckles, the more better for support and ankle protection
1 year ago
Anonymous
one of the other factors besides "ankle support" is how wide the shoe is. wide shoes are harder to roll your ankle in. remember back in the day when all skate shoes were ridiculously fat? it was extremely rare to roll an ankle while skating in those. when slim shoes took over people started rolling their shit right and left.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, when you string together two leather parts on each side, they add support. This is pretty obvious
BTFO by
https://i.imgur.com/83EbAzf.gif
>still trying to argue laces make a leather boot rigid
Leather itself is flexible.
Pic rel are $250 Redwing leather hiking boots literally on my feet right now.
See how the leather flexes and creases despite being tied?
Amazing, right?
They will not stop an ankle injury like ski and motocross boots with their built in hard plastic braces.
Just shut the frick up, moron
I can't even sprain my ankles. I can literally stand on the sides of my feet and roll back and forth between the soles and sides, stand on one foot on its side and step over it etc. and nothing happens. I've never in my life worn any shoes that make the ankle inflexible.
I can't even sprain my ankles. I can literally stand on the sides of my feet and roll back and forth between the soles and sides, stand on one foot on its side and step over it etc. and nothing happens. I've never in my life worn any shoes that make the ankle inflexible.
I've done that so many times but my ankle tendons never gets even minor injuries, maybe some ppl are more genetically prone to such injuries and actually could benefit from the support.
I still find use for sturdy boots with stiff support and that's in rough off-trail terrain which is hunting territory more than hiking.
Maybe that's why they're often sold as hunting boots.
most of the people ITT arguing about it are full of shit. the reality is that most people benefit from high-ankle boots if doing something that risks rolling the ankle. it's not like they wear those boots in everyday life to the point where they will make their ankles inflexible/weak.maybe if you wore them 24/7, sure. when I was young and skateboarded 24/7, I could literally roll my ankle bad and not even get sore, let alone damage anything. that was from having high flexibility and strength from skateboarding. when I stopped for a few years, it was easy to get sore when rolling my ankle whiledoing outdoors stuff like walking on rocky banks at the lake. most people don't have the type of flexibility or ankle strength you would get from something like skateboarding, so rolling your ankle could result in pretty bad injuries.
yeah in time. like 50 year old rugby players with knee reconstructions and athrictic joints >just walk it off
we all do it but a time will come when you are old and slow. if you want to enjoy the outdoors for a long time you might consider this.
I'm a field geologist and mostly wear flip flops, I've never twisted or sprained my ankle despite being in rugged terrain all over the western US. Get fricked anklets.
Cause youre not doing significant hikes. You said it yourself, youre a field geologist, and if youre wearing flip flops your clearly not in an enviorment where boots or trail runners are needed.
Cause youre not doing significant hikes. You said it yourself, youre a field geologist, and if youre wearing flip flops your clearly not in an enviorment where boots or trail runners are needed.
sandals are honestly fine until you get into really cold weather. i've started preferring sandals outside of more extreme winter weather when hiking long distance just because i get corns super bad with any enclosed shoe. hasn't really held me back i just hang some runners off my pack and swap if i need.
I've been wearing Brooks Cascadias for quite some time. If you can find a running store that does a fit evaluation go for it, made a world of difference for me. Thinking of trying a pair of Speedgoats as they were also on the list post fit. Trail run, 3 day hike, and general messing about the woods - trail runners. Multi-day week plus hike I start in trad boots but I do pack my Cascadias.
>Unlike conventional hiking boots that have extremely built-up soles and elevated heels, minimalist shoes possess almost no variation in sole height from heel to toe as well as a relatively thin sole. Because your foot is closer to the ground, it’s less likely to roll. In physics terms, the moment arm in minimalist shoes is extremely small or almost nonexistent, which is not true of conventional shoes, including most running shoes and hiking boots. A moment arm is the perpendicular distance from the point of rotation to the line of action of a force, and the moment is the tendency of the force to cause rotation (i.e., ankle rolling) about an imaginary axis through a point.
>Most conventional shoes and hiking boots possess tapering toe boxes that force your toes into a wedge position, causing toe deformities and misalignment and other problems over time. This toe wedging is a true problem, as it strips your foot of its inherent ability to protect you from ankle rolls. When your toes are positioned or aligned the way nature intended, and when your foot is allowed to sit on a level plane, you create a stable base of support—a tripod, essentially—that naturally resists ankle rolling.
Remember, the only ones advocating for trail runners are day/trail hikers. If you want something thatll last you a lifetime, that'll last for several weeks PrepHole, that'll keep you safe, get boots, preferably non-GTX leather boots.
>preferably non-GTX leather boots
You couldn't walk a mile in my boots
Whats your point? I like mountaineering boots, but theyre far from a jack-of-all trades boots. Leatherboots are arguably all season/long trek, with the ability to layer. Also that boot is too mainstream, very gay colorscheme.
Andrew Skurka advocates for trail runners. It’s what he used on his Great Western Loop.
Ok, good? Thats literally what I said, theyre for trails. Stop falling for youtube bunnies advice.
>something thatll last you a lifetime >good for PrepHole
Doesn't exist. Either you get an EVA midsole that compresses after a couple 100 miles, a PU midsole that hydrolyses after a couple years or a leather midsole that will torture your feet on long hikes. Even if you can resolve the latter, eventually the upper will wear out. Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch. Get something that fits your feet and your purpose. Sometimes that means stiff-soled GTX-lined mountaineering boots, sometimes that means lightweight breathable trail runners.
You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime. This isnt a sale pitch, this is common practice back when boots were expensive and had to be taken care of. Wax it, dont dry it like a moron, and use it. I understand these three things are impossible for an PrepHoleist, but try.
>are day/trail hikers
actually unless deep constant mud, venomous snakes, or brambles is involved i'd say in most rough and off trail terrain runners come up ahead of boots. they don't put as soft/grippy of rubber compounds or as aggressive of lugs on boots as they do on runners. runners are way more nimble and also offer better under-foot protection than boots, at least the models with carbon plates inside do.
>unless there's nature, trail runners are completely fine.
Listen, I get it. I can easily put on a pair of light shoes and walk some small trail and run past the grandmas on their walkers. And if I were only out for a day, or a few days in warm climate Id probably not give a damn, but if youre actually out in nature where you have to adapt, tall, non-GTX, leather boots are the best and WILL last you a lifetime.
>You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime. This isnt a sale pitch, this is common practice back when boots were expensive and had to be taken care of. Wax it, dont dry it like a moron, and use it. I understand these three things are impossible for an PrepHoleist, but try.
>You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime.
no it won't. that's a sales pitch.
you can treat your leather boots and ___the upper___ can last about 6-10 resoles.
the lower half of the shoe is thrown away and replaced numerous times, and no it can't be done unlimited times, or enough times to last a lifetime with most common methods soles are affixed.
in the context of a work boot or a fashion boot this is a great idea. that's why you see high end fashion and work boots constructed this way.
have you ever wondered why hiking boots aren't?
it must be some schizo conspiracy theory something something modernity right?
no. you can still buy that type of boot. its marketed for fashion and blue collar work now.
here's the problem:
a full leather midsole sucks dick to hike on. >muh olden days
some basic facts to establish:
there were no long distance recreational hikers back then. it wasn't a thing.
no man had ever summited anything 7,000 meters or higher yet.
when plimsoll sneakers like converse were invented the full leather hobnail boots and felt climbing shoes of yesteryear were quickly abandoned for off the shelf fashion sneakers like van's and shit by most serious mountaineers. people were pretty much immediately able to summit things 2000m higher. casual beginner mountaineers were summiting what was previously world records with ease in vans.
>you can still buy that type of boot. its marketed for fashion and blue collar work now.
Can confirm
I got
https://i.imgur.com/83EbAzf.gif
>still trying to argue laces make a leather boot rigid
Leather itself is flexible.
Pic rel are $250 Redwing leather hiking boots literally on my feet right now.
See how the leather flexes and creases despite being tied?
Amazing, right?
They will not stop an ankle injury like ski and motocross boots with their built in hard plastic braces.
Just shut the frick up, moron
for work because it’s cheaper to resole.
Gone through 5 soles in three years because I walk on a lot of rubber matting, and that wears them quickly.
>Also that boot is too mainstream, very gay colorscheme. >cares about what's "mainstream" instead of what works >cares about color schemes >calls others gay
>The Great Western Loop is an established trail
Hahahahahahahaha!
And like the other Anon pointed out, his Yukon Expedition was almost entirely off trail.
Also Skurka isn’t an internet celebrity. I don’t think he even has a YouRube channel. My guess is that this is the first time you’ve heard his name, which is sad.
>something thatll last you a lifetime >good for PrepHole
Doesn't exist. Either you get an EVA midsole that compresses after a couple 100 miles, a PU midsole that hydrolyses after a couple years or a leather midsole that will torture your feet on long hikes. Even if you can resolve the latter, eventually the upper will wear out. Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch. Get something that fits your feet and your purpose. Sometimes that means stiff-soled GTX-lined mountaineering boots, sometimes that means lightweight breathable trail runners.
> Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch.
this.
a casual fashion boot can easily last a lifetime. even a pair of work boots can, something like some nick's.
the way hiking boots are used its an impossible task unless your way of making the boot last your lifetime is putting it in the closet and never hiking.
> Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch.
this.
a casual fashion boot can easily last a lifetime. even a pair of work boots can, something like some nick's.
the way hiking boots are used its an impossible task unless your way of making the boot last your lifetime is putting it in the closet and never hiking.
>are day/trail hikers
actually unless deep constant mud, venomous snakes, or brambles is involved i'd say in most rough and off trail terrain runners come up ahead of boots. they don't put as soft/grippy of rubber compounds or as aggressive of lugs on boots as they do on runners. runners are way more nimble and also offer better under-foot protection than boots, at least the models with carbon plates inside do.
I use both depending on the situation and season. The trail runners typically get put away in November and don't come back out of the closet until May.
1 lbs on your feet is the same as 5 lbs on your back, if you are hiking on easy terrain then there is no reason not to use trailrunners, loads of people even hike in flipflops. personally i use boots because of rough trail conditions and im in muddy terrain often
Based take.
If I am hunting and hope to be packing quarters of a deer out on my back? Tough leather boots and a set of treking poles. I have blown out my left knee twice, the ankle once, and broken both of my feet, I dont need that shit again, boots have their place.
99% of normal hiking and exploring? frick yeah ultralight gear, trailrunners and a walking stick so I can feel like Bilbo frickin Baggins going on an adventure.
yep the entire footwear debate only matters to poor gays. footwear is a wear component. it doesn't cost anything more in the long run to have a bunch of choices as long as:
- you have the money up front
- you don't let PU soled stuff sit on the shelf
- you hike enough to wear them all out eventually
Trail runners vs boots is really a matter of environment. I'm generally on the side of runners. If I gotta do a water crossing I know those runners are gonna be dry a lot faster than boots. I'll go further and faster on the trail. Brush and rocks I'll just use gaiters.
But. If I was in a non permissive environment like say a trench in eastern Europe where miles covered per day are not a relevant condition and you may be stuck in the mud for hours and hours a day I'd probably side with boots and get some Savottas
I tried them hiking on the moors up in Aberdeen and my feet were wet the whole time. I did not wear my draining socks in fairness but my feet were never on a dry enough surface to drain. So if I'm hiking on moors and bog should I use boots, non-draining runners, or just remember my draining socks?
I just did a 28 day trekking+mountaineering holiday in Nepal, averaging 6 hours hiking per day with a lot of elevation change and some pretty rough terrain.
Did the whole thing in my Salomon trail runners (bar the summit days where we needed properly insulated 2 piece boots capable of fitting crampons). I brought along my hiking boots too but didn't wear them once, the lightness and agility of the trail runners was too much to pass up.
However the trail runners are now fricked. The upper has split from the sole along the medial aspect of the shoe. I just don't think they were designed to cope with the lateral forces involved in scrambling over some of the boulders.
>file name: Screenshot_20230119
I take back what I said about it being a good larp.
At least change the file name after you just screenshot something for a larp
>file name: Screenshot_20230119
I take back what I said about it being a good larp.
At least change the file name after you just screenshot something for a larp
what's larp? he accurately described trailrunners. great performance, poor durability.
>However the trail runners are now fricked.
28 days of continuous wear, 6 hour days, rough terrain, sounds like a job well done for you and the shoes. If they weren't fricked up after that, then your feet would have been. Think of those shoes as crumple zones on cars, without them absorbing the impact it would all get transferred to you instead. Also no "runner" type shoe is good on lateral forces they are engineered just to go straight versus like a cross trainer that has more lateral support
Why can you not follow along in the thread and join the conversation? This is the only trail runner thread, don't lump it in with your boot shit posting
Nope. Food and shelter. You can go in tennis shoes that you already own. It may not be ideal, but you can do it. You absolutely have to have food, and most likely need some kind of shelter. Insulation is up there as well considering it’s January.
lolwut?
under 20% of medium and long distance hikers prefer boots over shoes. they barely get talked about in any other outdoor community unless its mountaineering focused, which are not the same kind of boots the poorgays on here are buying.
Why are there 11 footwear threads?
unironically its 1 anon who's shitting up the forum by spamming them. a few are real boot threads but most are just spam from a single anon who discovered this board has no janny. he did the same thing about a month ago spamming threads about wool.
if you've seen the sperg anon from norway who only ever posts 500 pixel photos from the 1990's whenever you ask for proof he goes outside, that's the guy spamming all the boot threads. i think he's disabled or something and lives vicariously through shitting on this board.
I just use cheap boots. Pic shows my extremely used vs my new pair.
A friend suggested I switch to these cadet marching boots a couple years ago. They only cost $100. The used ones have also been completely soaked in honey (high acid) many times as well as being used as an every day shoe and used for multi day hiking, they still retained their water proofing. Honey eats most fabrics. I think they're 3 years old and I'm still using them, once I feel they are done i'll switch to my new pair. No point spending hundreds of dollars on a purpose shoe then these things do literally everything without an issue and cost $100. They're Trailblazer cadet boots.
I wear boots because I live in a desert where absolutely everything I come in contact with is trying to stab something through my footwear. Trail runners, while breathable and lighter, just let every spine, stinger, and sticker right through. Since swapping to boots I don't get beaten up by nature nearly as much out here.
in typical PrepHole fashion we're making a false dicohotmy. trail runners and hiking boots are both great in different circumstances and for different people.
I thought I was a smart-ass taking trail running shoes on a hunting trip. Think I'll stick to use them on trails, the amount of times I nearly rolled my ankle holy frick
>hey guys my name is crunchy! >these crocs ROCK especially for water crossings uwu >i've been thruhiking for a month now, but still no tan thanks to my chest SPF >you like my hat, I made it myself with acrylic paint and I sell them too if you're interested o.O
I use la sportiva tx2 and scarpa triolet depending on the situation and here's my 2c: Trail runners / approach are good when you walk on trails, but if you need to go outside of trails (mud, bush, rocks, snow) then more rigid shoes just give you a more stable platform, they also protect your foot more from random crap like falling rocks, hitting pointy things, etc. They also are warmer and last much longer. So basically it depends but all things being equal real boots will get you further.
Do any UK anons use trail runners? Currently wear boots because 9 times out of 10 it will get soggy and most trail runners let water in readily. I know the argument is they dry quick too, unlike leather or waterproofed boots but autumn/winter/early spring UK temps probably won't climb up high enough to quick dry stuff.
>unlike leather or waterproofed boots but autumn/winter/early spring UK temps probably won't climb up high enough to quick dry stuff.
vapor barriers and waterproof socks are a thing.
uk is what like 70% humidity with high winds?
should be fine drying runners out if you go with the kind with less upper material. >Currently wear boots because 9 times out of 10 it will get soggy and most trail runners let water in readily.
with runners you usually just hike with wet feet then dry off and swap socks at camp after. its not dangerous or a big deal to until temperatures are really low and when temps are that low your feet don't get wet hiking because its too cold to rain or for puddles to exist, so its a non issue in those temps as well. you just bring enough socks to rotate so you always have a dry pair. only really an issue in like 90-100% humidity areas but i live in one and i make do just fine in runners.
90-100% humidity sounds killer. The swamp ass must be crazy.
>its not dangerous or a big deal to until temperatures are really low and when temps are that low your feet don't get wet hiking because its too cold to rain or for puddles to exist
Please do not take this advice, this isnt minecraft where shit just changes instantly. You can walk in wet enviorment and have temps drop or simply get cold from wet feet. This idea of "if its cold, its too cold to be wet" is bollocks, especially in the UK.
if someone made sandals like a chaco but with something like vibram ultragrip as an outsole i might not ever wear a runner again tbQH. traction on wet is the only problem with the better designed sandals on the market right now.
Absolute reddit take
There’s no need for leather boots if you’re sticking to an established hiking trail. Ankle support hasn’t been much of an issue since pack weights dropped below 20lb and internal frames became the norm.
Ankle support Is sort of a catch 22. It's the stiff sole and elevated heel that frick up your natural mobility and stability, so you need ankle support to compensate when walking in rough terrain, because you're on an elevated stiff platform and heel striking, which is the actual problem. You land on the heel, your calves are not engaged to support propert and you twist your ankle before you have time to react.
A stiff sole is pretty much only needed for climbing, mountaineering and using crampons.
so would my vans be adequate footwear for a hike (in a tropical climate)? or should i buy a pair of hi-top chucks, perhaps? it rains fairly often here this time of year.
>vans
>chucks
yeah those would be totally suitable for a tropical climate hike. the category of shoe was originally invented as a beach shoe, but they're also fine for hiking. when plimsoll shoes were invented they also wound up getting used a lot in mountaineering because they were superior to the hobnail & felt shoes of the time befoe them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimsoll_shoe
if you're putting down lots of miles in a day you might want something with more cushioning.
personally in that sort of climate i prefer a sandal to any kind of shoe if sand is involved.
Unironically yes, you could hike in casual tennis shoes.
The issues you’d run in to are that they’re not designed for long walks, so the soles aren’t as comfortable and the shoe isn’t as durable overall. Traction will be a major issue. Foot box room will vary from shoe to shoe but I doubt any are as spacious as a pair of trail runners. Obviously they won’t have a rock plate. You won’t see any specs regarding stack height, so you won’t be able to compare them to one another (kind of a moot point unless you’re a consumer gear queer with lots of disposable income).
But the lack of a raised heal or ankle support won’t be a factor.
~~*vans*~~ have shit traction
3 pairs of Emericas could do the whole AT
>Ankle support Is sort of a catch 22. It's the stiff sole and elevated heel that frick up your natural mobility and stability, so you need ankle support to compensate when walking in rough terrain, because you're on an elevated stiff platform and heel striking, which is the actual problem. You land on the heel, your calves are not engaged to support propert and you twist your ankle before you have time to react.
>A stiff sole is pretty much only needed for climbing, mountaineering and using crampons.
Holy shit, another anon who actually gets it. A few months back I was ranting in one of these footwear threads about how the Aztec pochteca walked barefoot to trade their goods, the Native Americans wore moccasins, and the Roman legions wore sandals (tall, heavy, hobnailed sandals, but sandals nonetheless).
"I bet they'd have worn boots if they'd had them," was the brainlet response.
No, they'd have gone on being shod with flexible soles, because unless you have the squishy feet of an obese air conditioning-sitting office homosexual, flexible soles are superior by far for rocky, uneven terrain.
But no doubt we will continue to hear about how you have to wear boots for ankle support, even though the stiff planks that pass for soles on those things contribute much more to injury than ankle support ameliorates.
There's a time and place for boots: When you absolutely need them. I have five pairs: knee-high muck boots, mukluks, duck boots, work boots, wading boots. But I wear wimpy, light, flexy things whenever I can get away with it.
Picrel, literal Inuits each with far superior survival skills to anyone on this board, not actually wearing boots but rather sealskin moccasins. Get fricked, fat morons.
Barefoot shoes gang?
would an inuit survive if i shoved them up your ass hole? thought so.
give me a break u need leather sheathing for ultimate resistence to the elements
I have sore feet so use shoes with protective (spongy) insoles, but I've been noticing lately that walking in flat shoes feels much more natural.
>Holy shit, another anon who actually gets it. A few months back I was ranting in one of these footwear threads about how the Aztec pochteca walked barefoot to trade their goods, the Native Americans wore moccasins, and the Roman legions wore sandals (tall, heavy, hobnailed sandals, but sandals nonetheless).
>"I bet they'd have worn boots if they'd had them," was the brainlet response.
i constantly point out how old felt climbing shoes and mountaineering hobnail leather boots were obsoleted right after world war 2 and fell out of favor by serious hardcore climbers who preferred standard rubber and canvas plimsoll tennis sneakers (think: vans or converse) for difficult technical terrain. once everyone switched to mountaineering in literal off the shelf consumer rubber sneakers the world's highest ascent went up 2000 meters, k2 started getting summited more as these types of shoes (and vibram soles) gained popularity, etc.
what's going on in that image
her feet are cold, silly. he's warming her feet up
I fell run and do competitions and rolling your ankle is just an accepted thing that will happen to you, but I rarely if ever see anyone I race with having a serious injury. Most times I roll, I feel it but can keep on going, you develop muscle there pretty
Pic related what I wear, basically plimsoles with big rubber lugs. Perfect job, I find boots are too unwieldly for most things on the fell
Then buy real boots. Stop buying bargain bin garbage. This is true for trail runners and boots alike
Some people also just have b***h-made ankles and some don't
>Absolute reddit take
This is what morons post because they don't know how to put their thoughts into words when they don't agree with something. This is the PrepHole version of "who hurt you". You are anonymous on this site but still choose to comment like a bot. Here is some advice, be genuine.
>t. homosexual that wears trail runners on xer’s 1 mile hike
>on xer’s 1 mile hike
anon that hardly makes a lick of sense. almost all long distance hikers prefer shoes over boots and the only boots popular with long distance hikers are stuff like moab ventilators -- very sneakerlike boots.
also over half of people who begin a long distance hike in boots switch to runners at some point during their hike and get rid of them.
https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/the-top-footwear-on-the-appalachian-trail-2022-thru-hiker-survey/
https://www.halfwayanywhere.com/trails/pacific-crest-trail/pct-gear-guide-2021/
I've covered a lot of miles in my Asics Nimbus runners. Every trail condition except deep snow. My knees love them
No
Sincerely,
Alaska
I wear these and stiff boots in alaska. Ive used only the shoes in pic related for a whole season though. Just found these carbon plated insole. Works much better than those 1mm thick flexible cutting board
>pov no high ankle footware
Opposite. With a more flexible and lighter shoe, I find it easier to get good footing and adjust fast when something happens.
>Anonymous
I mean, I made the Flat Top trail in Alaska with 20 dollar converses. Really you can use anything given you have the skill to use it, but I don't think that gives a compelling argument to say running shoes are better for hiking.
If I am out on my own in the middle of nowhere I would rather not frick up my ankle and be stranded unable to move anywhere efficiently
If it means that muh ankle mobility is reduced, so be it
So do you wear motocross boots to hike or something with a built in ankle brace?
>If it means that muh ankle mobility is reduced, so be it
imagine saying this outloud like to your doctor or something kek
>You're gonna have to reduce your sugar intake or we will have to take the feet
>If that means that muh height is reduced, so be it
Of course boots and diabetes are totally different but just using "muh" to downplay something is top stupid kek
Footwear*
Wearing high ankle boots atrophies your ankles, what you think is helping you is making you weaker. I had some boomer with, in his words, "wobbly ankles" looking for boots and after I told him the same thing he said "well im not trying 'work out' while I hike I just want some good boots" I imagine most of you won't realize what you are doing until you are also as old as that guy.
Stiff boots atrophy your foot muscles but they make walking on vertical terrain an absolute pleasure
>he thinks hiking boots are stiff enough to stop you from rolling an ankle
Lol lmao
>pic rel
>an empty unlaced boot proves it cannot support your ankle
Holy frick does PrepHole take the cake today
You think some strings make something rigid?
Are you dumb?
Yes, when you string together two leather parts on each side, they add support. This is pretty obvious
Tying the laces doesn’t make a leather boot act like it has a rigid brace, wtf are you taking about.
The leather itself is flexible, it’s not a rigid ski boot or motocross boot.
I know you think it’s funny to be antagonistic, but you just look moronic when you try and say strings make something flexible into something rigid.
It LITERALLY does
>still trying to argue laces make a leather boot rigid
Leather itself is flexible.
Pic rel are $250 Redwing leather hiking boots literally on my feet right now.
See how the leather flexes and creases despite being tied?
Amazing, right?
They will not stop an ankle injury like ski and motocross boots with their built in hard plastic braces.
Just shut the frick up, moron
Are those the Kirkland wool socks?
Lol yah those are fice year old Kirkland Smartwool socks.
Getting a bit thin in some places now
dang my costco only sold tall ones.
their new wool socks are actually pretty good too. i was sad to see the old ones go but the new ones seem to be on par.
Im talking about tall boots here, actual boots. See what happens when you tie those together. Of course your ballerina shoes wont give you support
tall boots still bend in that same spot. i'm too lazy to make a video but i tried it out with every pair of boots i own. i keep my old worn out pairs for yard work and walking the dog. some of my boots actually offer a noticeable amount of resistance to the motion but i can roll my ankle with any of them if i try.
if i were to design a better hiking boot than is what on the market i'd put a little plastic collar or something reinforcing that area. seems like a pretty fixable design flaw in hiking boots.
That would be moronic
This is basic science, they will not. I doubt you have actual boots then.
Did you get home safely?
>This is basic science
yeah that's what i'm saying.
making the boot taller isn't going to make its collar any stiffer. its basic science. its impressive there's anons on this board who struggle to understand a taller boot isn't going to help.
Basic science would say that tying leather around your foot would help with support
i think you fail to understand that the point boots crease is at the ankle and its a result of leather not being stiff enough to resist the rolling motion. adding more leather to your shins doesn't do a single thing.
picrel on anon's low tops are where all my boots crease regardless of height.
do you even own a pair of boots? why are you even on here? one of those people researching what gear to collect for your closet? lol.
I have more boots than youll ever own. Creasing doesnt mean its not stiff enough, some motion has to be allowed. What tall boots do is add stiffness, enough support for your foot to be held back if it rolls. Once you start carrying some weight and hike outside of a trail youll get it.
>boots
>ends at the ankle
i don't care about this whole boot vs sneaker debacle, but at least use real boots in this debate.
>real boots in this debate.
anons idea of real boots
gay
Anon said REAL boots
They aren’t real boots if they don’t have straps and buckles like pic related
How could I forget, that's what makes them rigid and roll proof. Thanks for the clarification anon
That and laces
The more laces and buckles, the more better for support and ankle protection
one of the other factors besides "ankle support" is how wide the shoe is. wide shoes are harder to roll your ankle in. remember back in the day when all skate shoes were ridiculously fat? it was extremely rare to roll an ankle while skating in those. when slim shoes took over people started rolling their shit right and left.
BTFO by
I can't even sprain my ankles. I can literally stand on the sides of my feet and roll back and forth between the soles and sides, stand on one foot on its side and step over it etc. and nothing happens. I've never in my life worn any shoes that make the ankle inflexible.
I've done that so many times but my ankle tendons never gets even minor injuries, maybe some ppl are more genetically prone to such injuries and actually could benefit from the support.
I still find use for sturdy boots with stiff support and that's in rough off-trail terrain which is hunting territory more than hiking.
Maybe that's why they're often sold as hunting boots.
most of the people ITT arguing about it are full of shit. the reality is that most people benefit from high-ankle boots if doing something that risks rolling the ankle. it's not like they wear those boots in everyday life to the point where they will make their ankles inflexible/weak.maybe if you wore them 24/7, sure. when I was young and skateboarded 24/7, I could literally roll my ankle bad and not even get sore, let alone damage anything. that was from having high flexibility and strength from skateboarding. when I stopped for a few years, it was easy to get sore when rolling my ankle whiledoing outdoors stuff like walking on rocky banks at the lake. most people don't have the type of flexibility or ankle strength you would get from something like skateboarding, so rolling your ankle could result in pretty bad injuries.
>force gets transferred to your knee instead
lol
>force
even worse, torque.
Hypermobile master race calling in
What, rolling your ankle actually hurts for more than 2 minutes?
yeah in time. like 50 year old rugby players with knee reconstructions and athrictic joints
>just walk it off
we all do it but a time will come when you are old and slow. if you want to enjoy the outdoors for a long time you might consider this.
>pov, Black folk who skip squats
I'm a field geologist and mostly wear flip flops, I've never twisted or sprained my ankle despite being in rugged terrain all over the western US. Get fricked anklets.
Cause youre not doing significant hikes. You said it yourself, youre a field geologist, and if youre wearing flip flops your clearly not in an enviorment where boots or trail runners are needed.
sandals are honestly fine until you get into really cold weather. i've started preferring sandals outside of more extreme winter weather when hiking long distance just because i get corns super bad with any enclosed shoe. hasn't really held me back i just hang some runners off my pack and swap if i need.
Not doing ankle mobility stretches
I exclusively wear my solomon trail runners. Best investment I ever made, though I'm going to try la sportiva next. Or KEEN.
I've been wearing Brooks Cascadias for quite some time. If you can find a running store that does a fit evaluation go for it, made a world of difference for me. Thinking of trying a pair of Speedgoats as they were also on the list post fit. Trail run, 3 day hike, and general messing about the woods - trail runners. Multi-day week plus hike I start in trad boots but I do pack my Cascadias.
>I need boots if it’s a longer period of time
That’s strange. Why?
>Unlike conventional hiking boots that have extremely built-up soles and elevated heels, minimalist shoes possess almost no variation in sole height from heel to toe as well as a relatively thin sole. Because your foot is closer to the ground, it’s less likely to roll. In physics terms, the moment arm in minimalist shoes is extremely small or almost nonexistent, which is not true of conventional shoes, including most running shoes and hiking boots. A moment arm is the perpendicular distance from the point of rotation to the line of action of a force, and the moment is the tendency of the force to cause rotation (i.e., ankle rolling) about an imaginary axis through a point.
>Most conventional shoes and hiking boots possess tapering toe boxes that force your toes into a wedge position, causing toe deformities and misalignment and other problems over time. This toe wedging is a true problem, as it strips your foot of its inherent ability to protect you from ankle rolls. When your toes are positioned or aligned the way nature intended, and when your foot is allowed to sit on a level plane, you create a stable base of support—a tripod, essentially—that naturally resists ankle rolling.
Remember, the only ones advocating for trail runners are day/trail hikers. If you want something thatll last you a lifetime, that'll last for several weeks PrepHole, that'll keep you safe, get boots, preferably non-GTX leather boots.
>NO YOU CAN’T SCREE SKI, YOU NEED BOOTS UNLESS YOU’RE ON PAVEMENT OR WELL GROOMED TRAILS!
Man I always get butt pucker when I see people do that. I just picture the whole rock pile starting to slide like an avalanche
>doesnt even have a backpack
Whats your point? I like mountaineering boots, but theyre far from a jack-of-all trades boots. Leatherboots are arguably all season/long trek, with the ability to layer. Also that boot is too mainstream, very gay colorscheme.
Ok, good? Thats literally what I said, theyre for trails. Stop falling for youtube bunnies advice.
You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime. This isnt a sale pitch, this is common practice back when boots were expensive and had to be taken care of. Wax it, dont dry it like a moron, and use it. I understand these three things are impossible for an PrepHoleist, but try.
>unless there's nature, trail runners are completely fine.
Listen, I get it. I can easily put on a pair of light shoes and walk some small trail and run past the grandmas on their walkers. And if I were only out for a day, or a few days in warm climate Id probably not give a damn, but if youre actually out in nature where you have to adapt, tall, non-GTX, leather boots are the best and WILL last you a lifetime.
>You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime. This isnt a sale pitch, this is common practice back when boots were expensive and had to be taken care of. Wax it, dont dry it like a moron, and use it. I understand these three things are impossible for an PrepHoleist, but try.
>You can literally just treat your leather boots and theyll last you a lifetime.
no it won't. that's a sales pitch.
you can treat your leather boots and ___the upper___ can last about 6-10 resoles.
the lower half of the shoe is thrown away and replaced numerous times, and no it can't be done unlimited times, or enough times to last a lifetime with most common methods soles are affixed.
in the context of a work boot or a fashion boot this is a great idea. that's why you see high end fashion and work boots constructed this way.
have you ever wondered why hiking boots aren't?
it must be some schizo conspiracy theory something something modernity right?
no. you can still buy that type of boot. its marketed for fashion and blue collar work now.
here's the problem:
a full leather midsole sucks dick to hike on.
>muh olden days
some basic facts to establish:
there were no long distance recreational hikers back then. it wasn't a thing.
no man had ever summited anything 7,000 meters or higher yet.
when plimsoll sneakers like converse were invented the full leather hobnail boots and felt climbing shoes of yesteryear were quickly abandoned for off the shelf fashion sneakers like van's and shit by most serious mountaineers. people were pretty much immediately able to summit things 2000m higher. casual beginner mountaineers were summiting what was previously world records with ease in vans.
>you can still buy that type of boot. its marketed for fashion and blue collar work now.
Can confirm
I got
for work because it’s cheaper to resole.
Gone through 5 soles in three years because I walk on a lot of rubber matting, and that wears them quickly.
>Also that boot is too mainstream, very gay colorscheme.
>cares about what's "mainstream" instead of what works
>cares about color schemes
>calls others gay
ISHYGDDT
>is triggered by being called gay
9gag is that way ->
>9gag is that way ->
Skurka 4k mile alaska loop was 100% off trail. Boots are great for vertical terrain with heavy loads though
>The Great Western Loop is an established trail
Hahahahahahahaha!
And like the other Anon pointed out, his Yukon Expedition was almost entirely off trail.
Also Skurka isn’t an internet celebrity. I don’t think he even has a YouRube channel. My guess is that this is the first time you’ve heard his name, which is sad.
>preferably non-GTX leather boots
You couldn't walk a mile in my boots
Doesn't look like you have either.
Those boots are almost showroom new. You maybe stepped in 1 mud puddle on your way from the REI to your car.
What is snow if not water
Im such a prostitute for la sportiva
Same
Just got my first pair of climbing shoes from them, really nice stuff anon
Andrew Skurka advocates for trail runners. It’s what he used on his Great Western Loop.
>something thatll last you a lifetime
>good for PrepHole
Doesn't exist. Either you get an EVA midsole that compresses after a couple 100 miles, a PU midsole that hydrolyses after a couple years or a leather midsole that will torture your feet on long hikes. Even if you can resolve the latter, eventually the upper will wear out. Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch. Get something that fits your feet and your purpose. Sometimes that means stiff-soled GTX-lined mountaineering boots, sometimes that means lightweight breathable trail runners.
> Historically, footwear has always been a consumable. The idea of a boot that will last you a lifetime is nothing but a sales pitch.
this.
a casual fashion boot can easily last a lifetime. even a pair of work boots can, something like some nick's.
the way hiking boots are used its an impossible task unless your way of making the boot last your lifetime is putting it in the closet and never hiking.
This
Only boots that will last you lifetime are the kind you wear once and throw in the closet for the rest of your life.
I'm all for "Buy once, cry once", but anything that comes between your feet and thousands of miles of rocks won't last a life time.
If you throw boots in the closest they deteriorate faster than if you were to use them for years. Boots will easily last 20+ years if taken care of.
>are day/trail hikers
actually unless deep constant mud, venomous snakes, or brambles is involved i'd say in most rough and off trail terrain runners come up ahead of boots. they don't put as soft/grippy of rubber compounds or as aggressive of lugs on boots as they do on runners. runners are way more nimble and also offer better under-foot protection than boots, at least the models with carbon plates inside do.
I use both depending on the situation
I use both depending on the situation and season. The trail runners typically get put away in November and don't come back out of the closet until May.
1 lbs on your feet is the same as 5 lbs on your back, if you are hiking on easy terrain then there is no reason not to use trailrunners, loads of people even hike in flipflops. personally i use boots because of rough trail conditions and im in muddy terrain often
I change my shoes depending on what I’m doing. Fight me.
Based take.
If I am hunting and hope to be packing quarters of a deer out on my back? Tough leather boots and a set of treking poles. I have blown out my left knee twice, the ankle once, and broken both of my feet, I dont need that shit again, boots have their place.
99% of normal hiking and exploring? frick yeah ultralight gear, trailrunners and a walking stick so I can feel like Bilbo frickin Baggins going on an adventure.
yep the entire footwear debate only matters to poor gays. footwear is a wear component. it doesn't cost anything more in the long run to have a bunch of choices as long as:
- you have the money up front
- you don't let PU soled stuff sit on the shelf
- you hike enough to wear them all out eventually
Trail runners vs boots is really a matter of environment. I'm generally on the side of runners. If I gotta do a water crossing I know those runners are gonna be dry a lot faster than boots. I'll go further and faster on the trail. Brush and rocks I'll just use gaiters.
But. If I was in a non permissive environment like say a trench in eastern Europe where miles covered per day are not a relevant condition and you may be stuck in the mud for hours and hours a day I'd probably side with boots and get some Savottas
One day, you will get old as well.
There is no prize for finishing the trail first.
The people who are against trail runners have never tried them.
I tried them hiking on the moors up in Aberdeen and my feet were wet the whole time. I did not wear my draining socks in fairness but my feet were never on a dry enough surface to drain. So if I'm hiking on moors and bog should I use boots, non-draining runners, or just remember my draining socks?
Wtf are draining socks?
I use double merino socks, change to dry socks after setting up camp. Never had problem.
The problem is durability.
I just did a 28 day trekking+mountaineering holiday in Nepal, averaging 6 hours hiking per day with a lot of elevation change and some pretty rough terrain.
Did the whole thing in my Salomon trail runners (bar the summit days where we needed properly insulated 2 piece boots capable of fitting crampons). I brought along my hiking boots too but didn't wear them once, the lightness and agility of the trail runners was too much to pass up.
However the trail runners are now fricked. The upper has split from the sole along the medial aspect of the shoe. I just don't think they were designed to cope with the lateral forces involved in scrambling over some of the boulders.
Kek this is a pretty high quality larp post
Get dunked on homosexual.
>file name: Screenshot_20230119
I take back what I said about it being a good larp.
At least change the file name after you just screenshot something for a larp
Screenshotting an image on my phone is the easiest way I know to drop the file size.
what's larp? he accurately described trailrunners. great performance, poor durability.
>However the trail runners are now fricked.
28 days of continuous wear, 6 hour days, rough terrain, sounds like a job well done for you and the shoes. If they weren't fricked up after that, then your feet would have been. Think of those shoes as crumple zones on cars, without them absorbing the impact it would all get transferred to you instead. Also no "runner" type shoe is good on lateral forces they are engineered just to go straight versus like a cross trainer that has more lateral support
Why are there 11 footwear threads?
Why can you not follow along in the thread and join the conversation? This is the only trail runner thread, don't lump it in with your boot shit posting
Because its the most essential thing for going PrepHole
Nope. Food and shelter. You can go in tennis shoes that you already own. It may not be ideal, but you can do it. You absolutely have to have food, and most likely need some kind of shelter. Insulation is up there as well considering it’s January.
lolwut?
under 20% of medium and long distance hikers prefer boots over shoes. they barely get talked about in any other outdoor community unless its mountaineering focused, which are not the same kind of boots the poorgays on here are buying.
unironically its 1 anon who's shitting up the forum by spamming them. a few are real boot threads but most are just spam from a single anon who discovered this board has no janny. he did the same thing about a month ago spamming threads about wool.
if you've seen the sperg anon from norway who only ever posts 500 pixel photos from the 1990's whenever you ask for proof he goes outside, that's the guy spamming all the boot threads. i think he's disabled or something and lives vicariously through shitting on this board.
This the new west Virginia secret hikes guy from DC
When I go out I always get my shoes completely fricking dirty. I really like white soles but it doesn’t work well for trail running / walking.
Legitimate uses for boots:
>slush, snow, ice (mukluks, duck boots, mountaineering boots)
>muck, marsh, rivulets (gum boots, muck boots)
>dense, thorny underbrush (leather boots, hiking boots)
>wading (wading boots)
LARPing brainlet uses for boots:
>literally anything else
Leather boots cactus or turtle skin for snakes.
*for cowards
I just use cheap boots. Pic shows my extremely used vs my new pair.
A friend suggested I switch to these cadet marching boots a couple years ago. They only cost $100. The used ones have also been completely soaked in honey (high acid) many times as well as being used as an every day shoe and used for multi day hiking, they still retained their water proofing. Honey eats most fabrics. I think they're 3 years old and I'm still using them, once I feel they are done i'll switch to my new pair. No point spending hundreds of dollars on a purpose shoe then these things do literally everything without an issue and cost $100. They're Trailblazer cadet boots.
Didn't notice before but you can actually see that the sole has been grinded back on the used pair. I use them every day on a farm.
>AR670
>water proof
lolwut
Completely water proof as proven by 3 years of farm work.
youre wearing aftermarkets
GI desert boots are notoriously dogshit
Yeah I've used these for a while, they're pretty awesome but the eyelets have ripped out of place a bit like in your used pair
Good boots all around tho
I wear boots because I live in a desert where absolutely everything I come in contact with is trying to stab something through my footwear. Trail runners, while breathable and lighter, just let every spine, stinger, and sticker right through. Since swapping to boots I don't get beaten up by nature nearly as much out here.
ultralight homosexuals love to go missing permanently in the woods when their gear fails, causing them to get injured and then die from exposure.
I can't afford trail rubbers so I have leather boots
when i hike i wrap my entire lower leg in leather sheaths usually from goats or sometimes cows
topo mtn racer 2 reporting in.
in typical PrepHole fashion we're making a false dicohotmy. trail runners and hiking boots are both great in different circumstances and for different people.
I thought I was a smart-ass taking trail running shoes on a hunting trip. Think I'll stick to use them on trails, the amount of times I nearly rolled my ankle holy frick
Nice try israelite, trying to make me pay $400 for boots when I can just pay $10.
>hey guys my name is crunchy!
>these crocs ROCK especially for water crossings uwu
>i've been thruhiking for a month now, but still no tan thanks to my chest SPF
>you like my hat, I made it myself with acrylic paint and I sell them too if you're interested o.O
>mocking a man whos genuinely enjoying nature
>while sitting in his neet cave
ironic
>t. crunchys munchy
I use la sportiva tx2 and scarpa triolet depending on the situation and here's my 2c: Trail runners / approach are good when you walk on trails, but if you need to go outside of trails (mud, bush, rocks, snow) then more rigid shoes just give you a more stable platform, they also protect your foot more from random crap like falling rocks, hitting pointy things, etc. They also are warmer and last much longer. So basically it depends but all things being equal real boots will get you further.
Do any UK anons use trail runners? Currently wear boots because 9 times out of 10 it will get soggy and most trail runners let water in readily. I know the argument is they dry quick too, unlike leather or waterproofed boots but autumn/winter/early spring UK temps probably won't climb up high enough to quick dry stuff.
Thank you anons :^)
>unlike leather or waterproofed boots but autumn/winter/early spring UK temps probably won't climb up high enough to quick dry stuff.
vapor barriers and waterproof socks are a thing.
uk is what like 70% humidity with high winds?
should be fine drying runners out if you go with the kind with less upper material.
>Currently wear boots because 9 times out of 10 it will get soggy and most trail runners let water in readily.
with runners you usually just hike with wet feet then dry off and swap socks at camp after. its not dangerous or a big deal to until temperatures are really low and when temps are that low your feet don't get wet hiking because its too cold to rain or for puddles to exist, so its a non issue in those temps as well. you just bring enough socks to rotate so you always have a dry pair. only really an issue in like 90-100% humidity areas but i live in one and i make do just fine in runners.
Thanks buddy. I'll look into some
90-100% humidity sounds killer. The swamp ass must be crazy.
>its not dangerous or a big deal to until temperatures are really low and when temps are that low your feet don't get wet hiking because its too cold to rain or for puddles to exist
Please do not take this advice, this isnt minecraft where shit just changes instantly. You can walk in wet enviorment and have temps drop or simply get cold from wet feet. This idea of "if its cold, its too cold to be wet" is bollocks, especially in the UK.
>hiking is a race
ultralight gays out
>fatass cope
if someone made sandals like a chaco but with something like vibram ultragrip as an outsole i might not ever wear a runner again tbQH. traction on wet is the only problem with the better designed sandals on the market right now.
yet another
>buy my overpriced plebbittier tenni-boots
thread