walking boots-- which are good?

[john bently]

Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.

Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

[jcr_au]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please?  Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy?  Thanks for any advice.

John

First step would be to think about the style of walking you're
interested in doing.

Maybe starting out you would be more likely to go on shorter walks on
good tracks in National Parks or other well maintained bush tracks,
generally in better weather. At that end you could even start with
sand shoes, or like hikers.

Mid hikers would be more suitable for slightly harder walks,and then
there are a variety of "full" boots for the really serious walker

John r

[Peter Clinch]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

Reviews are of little use beyond telling you what conditions a certain
pair can be expected to handle.

And they are of little use (and anecdotes of goodness of little use
alongside them) because the absolutely crucial point is fit. There is a
lot more to a shoe-size as to how well a boot fits as feet are complex 3
dimensional shapes and so are boots. it doesn't matter if they're
lasted and stitched by God's Own Right Hand if they're a different shape
to your feet. For example, my wife and I have quite different foot
shapes: I like Scarpa and Teva, she doesn't like either.

So I'd suggest you find a good shop that knows its boot-fitting (tell us
where you are and suggestions can be made).

Also, don't assume you need boots. I do most of my walking in shoes and
sandals because they're lighter and have less stuff to rub, so more
comfort, less tiring to walk in and less chance of rubbing (and
blisters). Folk go on and on about ankle support being necessary, but
the fact is that human ankles are perfectly adequate for walking and
shouldn't need any extra propping up most of the time. Some things,
like edging skis or standing on your toes on a tiny hold or carrying
outsize loads ankles haven't evolved to carry, do benefit from extra
ankle support, but /walking/ is actually harder as your foot is more
restricted from normal flexing. Some boots benefit from being stiffer,
for example to take crampons or walking over very rough stone paths, but
in other places again they just prevent your foot from conforming
naturally to the terrain and make walking more tiring.

In summary, try on a good selection with a good fitter (who can do
things like add volume adjusters and short-cut to models/brands suitable
for you foot-shape) and depending on where and what you have in mind
don't assume you particularly need boots.

Pete.

[Scott Bryce]

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Scott Bryce

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...

The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
even ones.

Pete.

[Bill Grey]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Scott Bryce

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...
The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
even ones.
Pete.

FWIW, my preference for trail shoes would be Meindle(Scout). they are
waterproof and very durable, oh yes- and comfortable.

Bill

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce

Post by Scott Bryce

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.
I walked many miles a days some years ago and found that what shoes
you wear make a huge difference.
And price doesn't mean much.
I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.
Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.
Saved me expensive trial and error.
For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.

--Vic

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Vic Smith
I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.

Again, what works depends on your feet. I like NB in their 2E width
fitting, but again it's down to individual feet. I also like Saucony,
but not Adidas, others have different feet and different preferences.

Post by Vic Smith
Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.

The particular ground you're on makes a difference. Running on streets
means a hard surface and exaggerated footfalls from running rather than
walking. Also, different folk have a different strike, those with a
heavy heel-plant probably need more cushioning than others. More
cushioning means a higher shoe, which means less control of the foot:
it's notable that fell-running shoes have practically no cushioning,
partly as they're for soft ground where the ground does the cushioning,
and partly to minimise the chances of turning an ankle getting nasty by
providing extra leverage from the extra shoe height.

Post by Vic Smith
Saved me expensive trial and error.
For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.

Trail running shoes, which have more aggressive outsoles than street
shoes and usually tougher uppers, may be a better place to look unless
the OP is planning on walking around streets.

Pete.

[Simon Challands]

Post by Vic Smith
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce

Post by Scott Bryce

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.

Solid level terrain is also different from giving level terrain and
rocks. I wear boots (don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes), and they're fine there, they're fine on level,
good stony paths, and they knacker me on roads.

[FenlandRunner]

Post by Simon Challands

Post by Vic Smith
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce

Post by Scott Bryce

Post by Peter Clinch
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.

Solid level terrain is also different from giving level terrain and
rocks. I wear boots (don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes), and they're fine there, they're fine on level,
good stony paths, and they knacker me on roads.
--
Simon Challands

"(don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes)"

A light pair of Inov-8's will see you skipping across the rocks? ;-)

[FenlandRunner]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please?  Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy?  Thanks for any advice.

Reviews are of little use beyond telling you what conditions a certain
pair can be expected to handle.
And they are of little use (and anecdotes of goodness of little use
alongside them) because the absolutely crucial point is fit.  There is a
lot more to a shoe-size as to how well a boot fits as feet are complex 3
dimensional shapes and so are boots.  it doesn't matter if they're
lasted and stitched by God's Own Right Hand if they're a different shape
to your feet.  For example, my wife and I have quite different foot
shapes: I like Scarpa and Teva, she doesn't like either.
So I'd suggest you find a good shop that knows its boot-fitting (tell us
where you are and suggestions can be made).
Also, don't assume you need boots.  I do most of my walking in shoes and
sandals because they're lighter and have less stuff to rub, so more
comfort, less tiring to walk in and less chance of rubbing (and
blisters).  Folk go on and on about ankle support being necessary, but
the fact is that human ankles are perfectly adequate for walking and
shouldn't need any extra propping up most of the time.  Some things,
like edging skis or standing on your toes on a tiny hold or carrying
outsize loads ankles haven't evolved to carry, do benefit from extra
ankle support, but /walking/ is actually harder as your foot is more
restricted from normal flexing.  Some boots benefit from being stiffer,
for example to take crampons or walking over very rough stone paths, but
in other places again they just prevent your foot from conforming
naturally to the terrain and make walking more tiring.
In summary, try on a good selection with a good fitter (who can do
things like add volume adjusters and short-cut to models/brands suitable
for you foot-shape) and depending on where and what you have in mind
don't assume you particularly need boots.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel [phone] ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax [phone]              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK

I'm not an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.

For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.

Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

[PeterC]

Post by FenlandRunner
ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.
For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.
Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

[n***@cam.ac.uk]

Post by PeterC

Post by FenlandRunner
ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.
For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.
Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

Heather is quite fun in shoes, too. Boot keep most of it out, and
boots+gaiters are more-or-less proof against it.

Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[PeterC]

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk

Post by PeterC

Post by FenlandRunner
ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.
For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.
Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

Heather is quite fun in shoes, too. Boot keep most of it out, and
boots+gaiters are more-or-less proof against it.
Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

My first boots had little padding over the ankles and a clip against a rock
hurt through 2 layers of leather.
I did do a walk that had a lot of rocky going - including stepping stones
and limestone pavement - in sandals and didn't hurt anything. It's like
wearing snadals whilst playing darts - one is much more aware of what could
happen and adjusts accordingly.
Still wouldn't want to be in sandals across wet farmland, though.

--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

[n***@cam.ac.uk]

Post by PeterC

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk
Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.

My first boots had little padding over the ankles and a clip against a rock
hurt through 2 layers of leather.
I did do a walk that had a lot of rocky going - including stepping stones
and limestone pavement - in sandals and didn't hurt anything. It's like
wearing snadals whilst playing darts - one is much more aware of what could
happen and adjusts accordingly.
Still wouldn't want to be in sandals across wet farmland, though.

I wear sandals most of the time, and have walked long distances over
rough going in them. My point stands, but I agree that the benefit
of boots is small - it does, however, make the difference between a
painful bash and one that makes it almost impossible to walk, in at
least some cases.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk
I wear sandals most of the time, and have walked long distances over
rough going in them. My point stands, but I agree that the benefit
of boots is small - it does, however, make the difference between a
painful bash and one that makes it almost impossible to walk, in at
least some cases.

As always with insurance you bet a certain, known discomfort against a
possible but reasonably unlikely greater discomfort. That might be
premium payments against theft or fire, it might be relatively heavy and
restrictive footwear against a bang on the ankle. In all cases it's up
to the individual to decide how worried they should be, but in my own
case of gone from assuming I'm doomed without boots to being pleasantly
surprised at how much nicer walking is without them.

Pete.

[n***@cam.ac.uk]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk
I wear sandals most of the time, and have walked long distances over
rough going in them. My point stands, but I agree that the benefit
of boots is small - it does, however, make the difference between a
painful bash and one that makes it almost impossible to walk, in at
least some cases.

As always with insurance you bet a certain, known discomfort against a
possible but reasonably unlikely greater discomfort. That might be
premium payments against theft or fire, it might be relatively heavy and
restrictive footwear against a bang on the ankle. In all cases it's up
to the individual to decide how worried they should be, but in my own
case of gone from assuming I'm doomed without boots to being pleasantly
surprised at how much nicer walking is without them.

No dissention there.

If it wasn't for the temperature, I would walk barefoot! With
suitable sandals over sharp rock, of course.

In my experience, walking shoes are an unsatisfactory compromise
between sandals and boots - and I agree that mud, soggy peat and
shallow water are the main problems.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk
In my experience, walking shoes are an unsatisfactory compromise
between sandals and boots

Fairly much what I feel.

Post by n***@cam.ac.uk
- and I agree that mud, soggy peat and
shallow water are the main problems.

In main the summary there is "cold". Wandering through a peat bog in
summer is just a case of diverting through a stream for a clean shortly
afterwards, but with current weather that's not a nice idea!

And Tevas are pretty hopeless for scree running...

Pete.

[Geoff Berrow]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:43:28 +0000, Peter Clinch

Post by Peter Clinch
As always with insurance you bet a certain, known discomfort against a
possible but reasonably unlikely greater discomfort. That might be
premium payments against theft or fire, it might be relatively heavy and
restrictive footwear against a bang on the ankle. In all cases it's up
to the individual to decide how worried they should be, but in my own
case of gone from assuming I'm doomed without boots to being pleasantly
surprised at how much nicer walking is without them.

Well you stick with your sandals and I, like most of the people I see
out walking, will stick with boots. I like my boots.

For me the considerations are these.

Comfort - Obviously, you will wear for a long time.
Support - Debates about FAS (fabled ankle support) notwithstanding,
/I/ feel more stable in boots on uneven terrain.
Sole - A thick rugged non slip sole is essential or you'll feel every
stone.
Water-resistant. They don't need to be as waterproof as wellies as
you are not generally paddling.
Easy to clean- They may look great in the shop - will they still look
great after a few muddy walks?

For me this all equates to a leather boot with a Vibram sole. My
boots have a goretex lining but I don't think that does much in a
boot. With leather though, liberal applications of dubbin not only
make them look good but waterproof them as well.

Both my wife and I chose boots not on price but on comfort and fit.
Having tried much more expensive boots we independently found that
Peter Storm Skiddaw boots came out top.

YMMV

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Geoff Berrow
Well you stick with your sandals and I, like most of the people I see
out walking, will stick with boots. I like my boots.

I like mine, /when/ they're the right tool for the job. Which is
"sometimes", just like my shoes and my sandals.

Post by Geoff Berrow
For me the considerations are these.
Comfort - Obviously, you will wear for a long time.
Support - Debates about FAS (fabled ankle support) notwithstanding,
/I/ feel more stable in boots on uneven terrain.

The more support you get the less free your feet are to move naturally
and the more potential for rubbing. And the tradeoff there is reduced
comfort. As you point out, you will be wearing them a long time...

Difficult to make an informed decision on whether you feel more stable
in a supportive boot or a conforming sandal if you don't actually try
the latter. And that also goes for the "most of the people you see".

Post by Geoff Berrow
Sole - A thick rugged non slip sole is essential or you'll feel every
stone.

It doesn't have to be thick, just stiff so as to distribute the pressure
across the whole foot. And it's a bit of a moot point if there aren't
many stones about.

Post by Geoff Berrow
Easy to clean- They may look great in the shop - will they still look
great after a few muddy walks?

As long as they're comfortable and do the job I don't really care what
they look like!

Pete.

[Geoff Berrow]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:04:00 +0000, Peter Clinch

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Geoff Berrow
Well you stick with your sandals and I, like most of the people I see
out walking, will stick with boots. I like my boots.

I like mine, /when/ they're the right tool for the job. Which is
"sometimes", just like my shoes and my sandals.

It's most of the time for me. I have alternatives.

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Geoff Berrow
For me the considerations are these.
Comfort - Obviously, you will wear for a long time.
Support - Debates about FAS (fabled ankle support) notwithstanding,
/I/ feel more stable in boots on uneven terrain.

The more support you get the less free your feet are to move naturally
and the more potential for rubbing. And the tradeoff there is reduced
comfort. As you point out, you will be wearing them a long time...

I've tried sandals. I can't walk for more than a few yards without
getting stones in them and when wet the straps chafe like hell. That
doesn't constitute comfort for me.

Post by Peter Clinch
Difficult to make an informed decision on whether you feel more stable
in a supportive boot or a conforming sandal if you don't actually try
the latter. And that also goes for the "most of the people you see".

Post by Geoff Berrow
Sole - A thick rugged non slip sole is essential or you'll feel every
stone.

It doesn't have to be thick, just stiff so as to distribute the pressure
across the whole foot.

True, but that usually means thick.

Post by Peter Clinch
And it's a bit of a moot point if there aren't
many stones about.

Unless you confine your walks to pavements and fields, there will be
stones. And in the latter case there will be mud.

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Geoff Berrow
Easy to clean- They may look great in the shop - will they still look
great after a few muddy walks?

As long as they're comfortable and do the job I don't really care what
they look like!

I'm not that bothered myself but it may be something to think about
for some. Your solutions work for /you/. We're talking about a
beginner to walking here and you are suggesting that the best way
forward is to buy a range of expensive footwear and have the knowledge
and experience to be able to choose the correct one. Get real.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Geoff Berrow
I've tried sandals. I can't walk for more than a few yards without
getting stones in them and when wet the straps chafe like hell. That
doesn't constitute comfort for me.

As with boots, fit is the main point to look for. And if the straps
"chagfe like hell" then they're either a poor fit (as regards location)
on your feet and/or you used a cheap pair with unlined straps. Just as
trying /a/ pair of boots that gives you blisters doesn't render all
boots hideous blister-traps, so with sandals. As for getting stones in
them every few yards, I wonder how you manage... sounds like the pair
you tried didn't extend a sensible distance beyond the toe and/or turn
up at all.

Post by Geoff Berrow
Unless you confine your walks to pavements and fields, there will be
stones.

No shortage of routes across peaty moors where there are few to none.

Post by Geoff Berrow
And in the latter case there will be mud.

Why does anyone need a stiff sole and high ankles to deal with mud?

Post by Geoff Berrow
I'm not that bothered myself but it may be something to think about
for some. Your solutions work for /you/. We're talking about a
beginner to walking here and you are suggesting that the best way
forward is to buy a range of expensive footwear and have the knowledge
and experience to be able to choose the correct one. Get real.

Looking back over the thread ISTM I'm primarily suggesting that boots,
by and large more expensive than shoes, may not be the best thing to be
buying. Case in point, got some Peter Storm walking shoes for our
daughter on Saturday. Difference between those and the boot version was
a high cuff she doesn't seem to need (she happily gallumphed around a
couple of Orienteering courses in them yesterday) and £5.

Boots may well be a "do everything" choice, but if you're not going to
be using crampons then you don't need a "do everything" choice, just a
"everything that doesn't need crampons" choice. And if you're just
getting started I think crampons are likely off the agenda.

Pete.

[Gordon H]

Post by Geoff Berrow
I'm not that bothered myself but it may be something to think about
for some. Your solutions work for /you/. We're talking about a
beginner to walking here and you are suggesting that the best way
forward is to buy a range of expensive footwear and have the knowledge
and experience to be able to choose the correct one. Get real.

I agree.
A discussion on boots in URW invariably leads to a boots v sandals
debate.
I wear sandals all the time around the house, and tend to wander into
the garden and garage wearing them.
The result has been wet feet due to wet grass/snow, and some painful
experiences when something falls on my feet, or I kick something.
Pure laziness in not putting something sensible on my feet. ;-)

I have walked in Tevas and other sandals around a local hill when the
weather was dry, but soon tired of having to remove stones from between
feet and sandal.
Boots are a must for me, but I wear light fabric ones when the weather
is set fair.

I have to say though that I'm disappointed with the Brasher Hillmasters
I bought a few months ago, I find the soles are treacherously slippery
on wet rock.

[FenlandRunner]

Post by Gordon H

Post by Geoff Berrow
I'm not that bothered myself but it may be something to think about
for some.  Your solutions work for /you/. We're talking about a
beginner to walking here and you are suggesting that the best way
forward is to buy a range of expensive footwear and have the knowledge
and experience to be able to choose the correct one.  Get real.

I agree.
A discussion on boots in URW invariably leads to a boots v sandals
debate.
I wear sandals all the time around the house, and tend to wander into
the garden and garage wearing them.
The result has been wet feet due to wet grass/snow, and some painful
experiences when something falls on my feet, or I kick something.
Pure laziness in not putting something sensible on my feet.     ;-)
I have walked in Tevas and other sandals around a local hill when the
weather was dry, but soon tired of having to remove stones from between
feet and sandal.
Boots are a must for me, but I wear light fabric ones when the weather
is set fair.
I have to say though that I'm disappointed with the Brasher Hillmasters
I bought a few months ago, I find the soles are treacherously slippery
on wet rock.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

These are rather good http://shop.adidas.co.uk/product/D3061/G00199/Running/Kanadia-TR-2/detail.jsf

;-)

[Gordon H]

In message

Post by FenlandRunner

Post by Gordon H
I have to say though that I'm disappointed with the Brasher Hillmasters
I bought a few months ago, I find the soles are treacherously slippery
on wet rock.
--
Gordon H

These are rather good
http://shop.adidas.co.uk/product/D3061/G00199/Running/Kanadia-TR-2/detai
l.jsf
;-)

LOL!
They certainly look grippy, but to be honest I was more fascinated by
the zooming and scrolling facilities of that photo!

[Yo$$1960]

Post by FenlandRunner
These are rather good
http://shop.adidas.co.uk/product/D3061/G00199/Running/Kanadia-TR-2/detail.jsf

The men's are £10.00 more, at £60.00. I don't like the colour, though.
Fussy bugger.....

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Gordon H
I agree.
A discussion on boots in URW invariably leads to a boots v sandals debate.

Well, not really. I suggested shoes might be better than boots in this
case.

Post by Gordon H
I have walked in Tevas and other sandals around a local hill when the
weather was dry, but soon tired of having to remove stones from between
feet and sandal.
Boots are a must for me, but I wear light fabric ones when the weather
is set fair.

You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?

Pete.

[Gordon H]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon H
I have walked in Tevas and other sandals around a local hill when the
weather was dry, but soon tired of having to remove stones from between
feet and sandal.
Boots are a must for me, but I wear light fabric ones when the weather
is set fair.

You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?
Pete.

Did I? I thought someone else mentioned sandals... ;-)
I can't imagine wearing shoes in some of the muddy messes I've
encountered this winter. You only have to tread in one ankle deep
icy puddle and you have wet feet for the rest of the day.
Not pleasant.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Gordon H

Post by Peter Clinch
You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?

Did I? I thought someone else mentioned sandals... ;-)

Nick brought them up (bare feet too), neither he nor I removed all talk
of anything else so we didn't polarise it.

Post by Gordon H
I can't imagine wearing shoes in some of the muddy messes I've
encountered this winter. You only have to tread in one ankle deep
icy puddle and you have wet feet for the rest of the day.
Not pleasant.

Only a smidge deeper and your boots will fill up too with the same effect.

Though I've usually found looking where I'm going typically manages to
avoid that sort of problem...

Pete.

[n***@cam.ac.uk]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon H

Post by Peter Clinch
You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?

Did I? I thought someone else mentioned sandals... ;-)

Nick brought them up (bare feet too), neither he nor I removed all talk
of anything else so we didn't polarise it.

Right.

I also said that I regard shoes as an unsatisfactory compromise
between boots and sandals, for walking. I do. I never made any
comment about other people's tastes. Chacun a son gout. Some
people doubtless prefer moccasins.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[PeterC]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon H

Post by Peter Clinch
You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?

Did I? I thought someone else mentioned sandals... ;-)

Nick brought them up (bare feet too), neither he nor I removed all talk
of anything else so we didn't polarise it.

Post by Gordon H
I can't imagine wearing shoes in some of the muddy messes I've
encountered this winter. You only have to tread in one ankle deep
icy puddle and you have wet feet for the rest of the day.
Not pleasant.

Only a smidge deeper and your boots will fill up too with the same effect.

My first boots - made by a walker who just happened to own a shoe factory -
were OK to about 6" of gloop. I still hanker after them.

Post by Peter Clinch
Though I've usually found looking where I'm going typically manages to
avoid that sort of problem...
Pete.

If there's anywhere to go to avoid such thing; on farmland there's very
limited choice and farmers will put gates in the muddiest part of the
fields. There's one a couple of miles away that'd be difficult in wellies,
so OK if frozen or dry.

[Phil Cook]

Post by PeterC

Post by Peter Clinch
Only a smidge deeper and your boots will fill up too with the same effect.
Though I've usually found looking where I'm going typically manages to
avoid that sort of problem...
Pete.

If there's anywhere to go to avoid such thing; on farmland there's very
limited choice and farmers will put gates in the muddiest part of the
fields. There's one a couple of miles away that'd be difficult in wellies,
so OK if frozen or dry.

Gates /become/ the muddiest places because they concentrate traffic.
Hooves, wheels and boots all churn up the ground. I know one
small-holder who comes home to muddy gateways whenever he has to leave
his pigs to be cared for by stand-ins. They all feed them at the gate
instead of somewhere else.

[Phil Cook]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon H

Post by Peter Clinch
You're the one that polarised the matter into boots vs. sandals, not me!
For your reasons not to wear sandals, why does that rule out shoes?

Did I? I thought someone else mentioned sandals... ;-)

Nick brought them up (bare feet too), neither he nor I removed all talk
of anything else so we didn't polarise it.

Post by Gordon H
I can't imagine wearing shoes in some of the muddy messes I've
encountered this winter. You only have to tread in one ankle deep
icy puddle and you have wet feet for the rest of the day.
Not pleasant.

Warm and wet is bearable. Cold and wet as at this time of year is not.
I have tramped across the Cairngorm moors in sandals in July but
wouldn't try it in winter. When I was no'but a lad and could only
afford cheap leaky boots I carried a spare pair of scocks.

Post by Peter Clinch
Only a smidge deeper and your boots will fill up too with the same effect.
Though I've usually found looking where I'm going typically manages to
avoid that sort of problem...

A little deeper still and you can get water past even gaiters. I
managed to fall waist deep into a snow covered hole on my recent trip
up Am Bodach, despite looking where I was going. It was quite amusing
until I realised there was water in the bottom and it was seeping past
my gaiters :-(

On another occasion I managed to go sprawling on a forest track whilst
glancing at some pretty trees. Vibram rubber has even less coefficient
of friction on frozen puddles than it does on wet rock. :-(( But the
stuff on my boots does a good job most of the time unlike the
plasticky Vibram soles on my Merrell shoes. I could go skating on a
wet pavement in those when they were new. Wear has imparted some grip
but it is hardly class-leading.

[Simon Challands]

Post by Phil Cook
Warm and wet is bearable. Cold and wet as at this time of year is not.
I have tramped across the Cairngorm moors in sandals in July but
wouldn't try it in winter. When I was no'but a lad and could only
afford cheap leaky boots I carried a spare pair of scocks.

I wear wetsuit socks underground (where if there's water there's a
good chance it's going to be well over boot or even welly level), so
you could always try them if you're always getting cold, wet feet. On
most walks I'd have thought they'd soon get too hot.

[Phil Cook]

Post by Simon Challands

Post by Phil Cook
Warm and wet is bearable. Cold and wet as at this time of year is not.
I have tramped across the Cairngorm moors in sandals in July but
wouldn't try it in winter. When I was no'but a lad and could only
afford cheap leaky boots I carried a spare pair of scocks.

I wear wetsuit socks underground (where if there's water there's a
good chance it's going to be well over boot or even welly level), so
you could always try them if you're always getting cold, wet feet. On
most walks I'd have thought they'd soon get too hot.

Wetsuit socks wouldn't have been exactly cheap even if I knew they
existed. This was back in the day when £10 was a LOT of money.

[Gordon H]

Post by Phil Cook
Wetsuit socks wouldn't have been exactly cheap even if I knew they
existed. This was back in the day when £10 was a LOT of money.

When I gave my wetsuit away (couldn't struggle into it), I kept the
socks.
I must try them on some time...
:)

[Peter Clinch]

Post by PeterC
Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.

Pete.

[PeterC]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by PeterC
Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.
Pete.

They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.

Are the Whernside Wellies still around?

[Peter Clinch]

Post by PeterC
They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
Are the Whernside Wellies still around?

Not familiar with WWs, but if it's a traditional wellie's height that's
a problem something like Nokian Trimmis (quite a bit lower at the height
of a high walking boot) might get you by that (I don't know exactly
where your veins cause you problems). Sadly not a great shape for my feet.

Pete.

[PeterC]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by PeterC
They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
Are the Whernside Wellies still around?

Not familiar with WWs, but if it's a traditional wellie's height that's
a problem something like Nokian Trimmis (quite a bit lower at the height
of a high walking boot) might get you by that (I don't know exactly
where your veins cause you problems). Sadly not a great shape for my feet.
Pete.

The veins are affected almost anywhere on my R leg, so any wellie would
need to be a snug fit.
T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.

[soup]

Post by PeterC
T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.

Apropos nothing. Son has wellies for his horse work (stabling, he has
boot things for riding)he wears standard Screwfix jobs[1] (£15
region)and they have steel toecaps and a steel shank in the sole so
nothing can penetrate his foot. Agreeing with what Peter Clinch says in
the "what suits your feet stakes", he says they are comfier than any
other boot he has tried including £80 dedicated stable boots[2].

[1] http://tinyurl.com/yjb8geg
[2] http://tinyurl.com/yk5dwht

[Rod Speed]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by PeterC
Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going,
would have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was
half way up the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.

I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.

There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.

[Peter Clinch]

Rod Speed wrote:
[wellies]

Post by Rod Speed
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.

If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant degree of
commonality with a 30 mile forced march with a 30 kg pack then that'd be
a good point...

Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land
all day, every day. If they're good enough for them, they're probably
good enough for us.

Pete.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Peter Clinch
[wellies]

Post by Rod Speed
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.

If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant
degree of commonality with a 30 mile forced march
with a 30 kg pack then that'd be a good point...

They dont just use other than wellies for 30mile forced marches with a 30Kg pack.

Post by Peter Clinch
Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land all day, every day.

Most of them dont in fact use wellies.

Post by Peter Clinch
If they're good enough for them, they're probably good enough for us.

Wrong again. They wear them every day all day, we dont.

[Roger Chapman]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Peter Clinch
[wellies]

I speed a good deal of my time in wellies these days (30 or more hours a
week most weeks). In summer my feet and legs sweat to such an extent
that my trousers within the boots are often sodden by the end of the
day. In winter normal wellies are far too cold on the feet to use for
anything but very short periods. I have a pair of 'warm' wellies for
winter but they start smelling to high heaven almost as soon as I start
to use them. When the ground is really frozen hard I have been known to
wear my 4 season hill boots in preference to the warm wellies. They are
considerably warmer and I don't feel the ruts through the soles as I do
with wellies. The downside is that even with the high cuffs not tightly
laced they do tend to nibble at the ankles. Incidentally nibbling at the
ankles is not a problem I get with my three season boots but it is a bit
of a problem with my walking shoes. Not from the cuffs, there aren't
any, but for the less secure placement of the foot in the shoe.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Rod Speed
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.

Altbergs factory is conveniently placed next to Catterick and they have
a good trade in custom boots for squadies who would rather buy a good
boot with their own money than use regulation issue.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Peter Clinch
If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant
degree of commonality with a 30 mile forced march
with a 30 kg pack then that'd be a good point...

FWIW I was wearing wellies a couple of summers ago when I stood on an
unseen stone while spraying bracken from a heavy backpack. It broke
something in the calcified lump that passes for my right ankle and it
hasn't been right since.

Post by Rod Speed
They dont just use other than wellies for 30mile forced marches with a 30Kg pack.

Post by Peter Clinch
Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land all day, every day.

Most of them dont in fact use wellies.

Post by Peter Clinch
If they're good enough for them, they're probably good enough for us.

Wrong again. They wear them every day all day, we dont.

I am not a gamekeeper but I think the last time I had a day when I
didn't wear wellies at some point was the day before I returned home
after 2 weeks away over Xmas.

Cross postings removed.

[mick]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:40:39 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

<snip>

Post by Roger Chapman
FWIW I was wearing wellies a couple of summers ago when I stood on an
unseen stone while spraying bracken from a heavy backpack.

<snip>


I always wondered where all that d**n bracken came from.
;-)

<gets coat & runs...>

[Bill Grey]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Peter Clinch
[wellies]

Post by Rod Speed
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.

If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant
degree of commonality with a 30 mile forced march
with a 30 kg pack then that'd be a good point...

They dont just use other than wellies for 30mile forced marches with a 30Kg pack.

Post by Peter Clinch
Gamekeepers etc. are happy to work in them, covering that sort of land
all day, every day.

Most of them dont in fact use wellies.

Post by Peter Clinch
If they're good enough for them, they're probably good enough for us.

Wrong again. They wear them every day all day, we dont.

When I was a surveyor working mostly on farm land, I was used to wearing
steel toecapped wellies day-in day-out. I got very used to wearing them and
they were fine -- but damned nice to get off at the end of the day.

Bill

[Christopher Loffredo]

Post by FenlandRunner
Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Depends on what is being done: One or two week treks with heavy packs,
often in less than ideal seasons (my typical "hill" use, due to
geographic reasons) would be pretty miserable without boots...

Sometimes miserable with! ;-)
(I've had boots go mouldy in Scotland!!!)

[Bob Hobden]

"john bently" wrote ...

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

There are some excellent makes out there, I myself use a pair of old
Zamberlan Civetta classic leather boots but also have a pair of Meindl
approach shoes for the better weather, actually bought them after a fall on
Exmoor made it impossible to wear my boots for nearly two years due to
Achillies Heel damage.
The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)
Look for a shop that will allow you to try the boots on for some time and
walk around in them, some even have slopes etc for you to walk on to make
sure they fit and don't hurt your toes on downward slopes etc. Some even
allow you change the boots provided you haven't walked outside in them so
you can walk around at home for some time to ensure they stay comfortable
over time.
Make sure you take your thick walking socks and liners with you and don't be
precious about the size, comfortable fit is the only consideration.
If you are spending £130+ on good leather boots to last most of a lifetime
you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about £60 but are not
all-weather.

http://www.zamberlan.uk.com/
http://www.meindl.de/english/index.html

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Bob Hobden
If you are spending £130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about £60 but are
not all-weather.

What weather aren't they?

Pete.

[Bob Hobden]

"Peter Clinch" wrote...

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Bob Hobden
If you are spending £130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about £60 but are
not all-weather.

What weather aren't they?

Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I have
found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
Of course that may just be the ones I've got.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Bob Hobden

What weather aren't they? [trail shoes]

Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I
have found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
Of course that may just be the ones I've got.

May indeed be they are the ones you've got... I wear mine in all
weathers. They don't have a waterproof lining but waterproof socks will
keep my feet dry if that's going to be a problem. See
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/hmn1.htm for a 12 day trip
including plenty of mud, rain, snow, ice and rivers and look at the
footwear: neither of us particularly regretted not having boots with us

But if I wanted warm, dry feet in "inches under water/mud" I'd wear a
decent pair of wellies. That's what gamekeepers and farmers etc. seem
to wear by choice when they spend a day out in the goop, and they should
know.

Walking boots have a distinct advantage if you need to kick steps into
turf and/or snow, and for wearing full crampons. But that sort of
situation isn't that common and on the slippy stuff a pair of Kahtoola
Microspikes or similar will do the job fine until you're well towards
the realm of graded snow climbs. Otherwise, for sole grippiness they're
often the same sole patterns in the same rubber from the same companies
(mine have Vibram soles). Many have more aggressive sole units which
will actually do mud better than most boots.

Pete.

[PeterC]

Post by Bob Hobden
The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
to its name?

[Bob Hobden]

"PeterC" wrote...

Post by PeterC

Post by Bob Hobden
The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably depends
on the tread pattern.

Post by PeterC
I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
to its name?

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

"PeterC" wrote...

Post by PeterC

Post by Bob Hobden
The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably
depends on the tread pattern.

There are numerous different flavours of Vibram soles, and not all are
equal, but IME they do grip better than most of the alternatives.

As far as boots go .. well I've destroyed or abandoned about 10 pairs
now (3 still on the go) .. for best fit at full price (for MY feet) I
like the commercial Alt-berg ones, since they come in 5 width fittings,
and half sizes, although not all stockists stock all of them. My last
pair lasted 1500 miles, and was comfy quite fast.

If you want cheaper, then I'm quite happy with the Johncliffe Scafell
boot, for about 1/3rd of the price - I got mine via Amazon. Hawkshead
Lomer also used to be good (for me) but are now gone. Karrimor
Skye/Orkney work well for deep stuff in winter, but are a bit high for
real comfort, and take a long time to wear in.

But as everyone has said - fit is most important, followed by a decent
sole, and if you're out on mud / grass etc you need some =edges= ..
rounded heels will dump you on the first slope you try to traverse..

[Peter Clinch]

Post by GSV Three Minds in a Can
and if you're out on mud / grass etc you need some =edges= ..
rounded heels will dump you on the first slope you try to traverse..

Ah yes. "Conservation heels" with rounded backs, that you roll onto to
reduce the impact, particularly featured by marketing folk back in the
late 80s. Now that /was/ a crap idea, for exactly the reason noted above.

Pete.

[Tom]

Post by PeterC
IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

My previous boots' leather gave up the ghost after
nearly a quarter of a century. The vibram was still
in perfectly adequate condition.

Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

[PeterC]

Post by Tom

Post by PeterC
IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

My previous boots' leather gave up the ghost after
nearly a quarter of a century. The vibram was still
in perfectly adequate condition.

Yes, my old boots are OK after a lot of walking, but the Scarpa soles were
well worn after about a year and mainly flatt(ish) ground. They also skid
on a clean, wet road (where my bike tyres are difficult to lock (well, rear
wheel!) and last for 3,000 miles.

Post by Tom
Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

It'd need a lot of water and speed to get those cleats to aquaplane!

[Tom]

Post by PeterC

Post by Tom
Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

It'd need a lot of water and speed to get those cleats to aquaplane!

:)

Ah, but it only needs to aquaplane for the very
short time until the balance is sufficiently upset.
After that it doesn't matter whether the water has
had time to be squeezed into the cleats, because
the entire boot is nowhere the ground!

[®óñ© © ²°¹°]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:58:52 -0000, "john bently"

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by ®óñ© © ²°¹°
After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.

Note that trekking poles and Nordic Walking sticks have some overlap but
may be rather different. NW is an exercise regime and the poling
technique is meant to burn energy. Use of trekking poles, like other
walking sticks, is to give balance and spread load.

NW poles often have glove-type grips, which are great for power transfer
into the poles but a PITA on a walking stick because they're so awkward
in and out.

For more on trekking poles, see
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/poles.htm

(I like them on a really big day, but for most walking I prefer to do
without as they just get in the way.)

Pete.

[Bill Grey]

Post by ®óñ© © ²°¹°
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:58:52 -0000, "john bently"

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.

So I should be safe using my two hazel thumbsticks then :-)

Post by ®óñ© © ²°¹°
--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·Ž¯)

[rbel]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

You may want to have a look at http://www.outdoorsmagic.com for reviews.
If you are prepared to pay around 100/150ukp Scarpa do a very good range.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by rbel
You may want to have a look at http://www.outdoorsmagic.com for reviews.

I'm an OM user and do reviews for the site from time to time... but I'd
be very wary of them. Consumer reviews often polarise into "this is
great" or "this sucks", as a way of underlining to oneself that you
bought the Best Thing, or getting back at the purveyor of something
perceived to have let you down. As the OM review writing guide notes,
most gear /should/ be 3 star, but there's an outsize incidence of 5
start reviews... It's also the case that user-reviewers seldom have
much to comparatively test against, and even if they did they'd rate a
boot the right shape much higher than an otherwise identical built on a
last that might better fit a prospective buyer.

Post by rbel
If you are prepared to pay around 100/150ukp Scarpa do a very
good range.

They're only good if they happen to be the right shape for you. They
are for /me/, but I've friends and acquaintances that hate them with a
passion. Similarly, La Sportiva are very nice... for some people other
than me.

Pete.

[David]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

My choice :

Skateboard trainers for dry conditions. (stiffish soles, good grip, no
tread)

Specialized Rockhoppers without SPD cleats for wet and muddy conditions
(very stiff soles, lots of tread, slightly more water resistant)

[Barb]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and bought
a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40. I tried on
several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable enough to sleep in!
Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in" - they either feel good
straight away or they don't.

I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk on road
or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave away a couple of
pairs of socks with them as well, which are still going strong. Decent
socks are important, no ridges and providing a comfortable lining to the
boot.

Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!

Barb

[Rod Speed]

Post by Barb

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know
of a good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different
walking boots available please? Apparently the last consumers
association review was done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive)
that are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks
for any advice.

I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and
bought a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40.
I tried on several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable
enough to sleep in!
Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in"
- they either feel good straight away or they don't.

Thats not right. My current boots were a tad tight over the top of the foot, but
wore in fine and are by far the most comfortable for walking I have ever had.

Post by Barb
I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk
on road or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave
away a couple of pairs of socks with them as well, which are still
going strong. Decent socks are important, no ridges and providing a
comfortable lining to the boot.

And its important to avoid pure synthetics too.

Post by Barb
Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!

[mick]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that
are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any
advice.

[FOLLOW-UPS TRIMMED TO uk.rec.walking ONLY]


Hmmm... Can of worms time!

Unfortunately boots are such a personal thing that almost all reviews are
largely pointless. Any two people walking the same route in identical
conditions will probably prefer different footwear!

You say "start walking" and "retired" so I'm assuming that you are
looking for something to handle the gentler walks (not too much climbing
over rough stuff and bog trotting), probably 2-3 season at first anyway.
If that's the case then look for fabric or fabric-topped boots/shoes, not
leather. They can generally handle light/medium rain ok and dry out
easier than leather. They are also a lot lighter. (And a lot cheaper!) A
breathable lining such as gortex or eVent might be ok for you, keeping
more rain out but still allowing your feet to breath a bit.

I've been told that you don't need to "break in" fabric boots. I'm not
too sure about that. My most recent pair (Karrimor Ksb softshell mid -
about 60 quid on amazon, 68 elsewhere) felt fine in the shop but a lot
less comfortable after I'd used them for a week. After that they improved
again and I'm quite happy with them now. Whether they "broke in" or
whether I just got used to them I don't know!

Whatever you do - try some on in a proper shop. Look for a foot measuring
gauge and a test slope as a minimum. If the shop hasn't got those then it
probably isn't worth bothering with.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by mick
I've been told that you don't need to "break in" fabric boots. I'm not
too sure about that. My most recent pair (Karrimor Ksb softshell mid -
about 60 quid on amazon, 68 elsewhere) felt fine in the shop but a lot
less comfortable after I'd used them for a week. After that they improved
again and I'm quite happy with them now. Whether they "broke in" or
whether I just got used to them I don't know!

Probably the latter. Leather stretches gradually over time according to
the walking and the foot the boots are on, which is what "breaking in" is.

The standing joke with plastic climbing boots was always that they broke
in the opposite way, by moulding your foot slowly to them, but really
it's just getting used to it. With new sandals worn barefoot it's often
taken a couple of weeks before my feet are used to the slightly
different straps, and that's nothing to do with stretching and shape change.

Pete.

[pamela]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.

Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.
You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that
you have made the best choice.

Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.
That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.

The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.

After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for
rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a sole that is slick when
wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for. I bought a well
known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw
them out after the second fall. A review might have helped me avoid that.

Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers
hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That can be bad for the
publication business.

You might try > http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/

They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and
volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment. In addition, owners of
gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have
purchased.

I have also heard of > http://gearjunkie.com/

[Rod Speed]

Post by pamela

Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a good place to see some *critical* reviews of
the different walking boots available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done way back in
april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive)
that are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks
for any advice.

Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.

Nothing like in fact.

Post by pamela
Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.

Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.

Post by pamela
You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that you have made the best choice.
Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.

Thats very difficult to do with very young puppys particularly.

Post by pamela
That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.

Or you could have enough of a clue to work out what breed you
want from the breed characteristics and then work out which of
the dogs that are available from the breed you like and then you
will be more likely to end up with the sort of dog you want,
given the behaviour that particular breed is known for etc.

Post by pamela
The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.

Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.

Post by pamela
After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a
sole that is slick
when wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for.

And for other things like how well it lasts and how well made it is etc.

Post by pamela
I bought a well known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw them out after the second fall. A
review might have helped me avoid that.

It might indeed.

Post by pamela
Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That
can be bad for the publication business.
You might try > http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/
They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment.

But its less clear how many of them are competant reviewers
and whether they will use them the way you plan to etc.

Post by pamela
In addition, owners of gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have purchased.

Trouble with those, they arent likely to have tried too many alternatives.

Post by pamela
I have also heard of > http://gearjunkie.com/

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Rod Speed
Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.

Up to a point. That point being that the particular application has to
be the same basic one as yours, and if the reviewer's idea of a good day
out is the Cuillin Ridge and yours is a dander round Richmond Park (or
vice versa) then you may well be looking for different things.

Unless you're doing something fairly technical the design detail is
really down to how it affects wearing comfort, and that's what you'll
find by trying it on.

I've come across experienced boot fitters who've been exasperated by
magazine reviews. Folk ignore the preamble about fit and jump straight
to the "best in test" irrespective of whether it fits or it's right for
their application. And if that's pointed out they're "fobbing off the
customer with something they're trying to push".

Post by Rod Speed
Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.

But we're at the point where making a pair of shoes or boots isn't
exactly unknown territory. A decent pair of walking shoes 20 years ago
would still be a decent pair of walking shoes today, because feet and
walking haven't actually changed much.

Pete.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Rod Speed
Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.

Up to a point.

Nope, thats always true.

Post by Peter Clinch
That point being that the particular application
has to be the same basic one as yours,

Thats what part of being a good review is about, that its relevant to your circumstances.

Post by Peter Clinch
and if the reviewer's idea of a good day out is the Cuillin Ridge
and yours is a dander round Richmond Park (or vice versa)
then you may well be looking for different things.

See above.

Post by Peter Clinch
Unless you're doing something fairly technical the design
detail is really down to how it affects wearing comfort,

Nope, particularly with how well it wears and whether its waterproof etc.

Post by Peter Clinch
and that's what you'll find by trying it on.

Not even possible with either.

Post by Peter Clinch
I've come across experienced boot fitters who've
been exasperated by magazine reviews.

Sure.

Post by Peter Clinch
Folk ignore the preamble about fit and jump straight to the "best in
test" irrespective of whether it fits or it's right for their application.

Sure, there will always be those who cant work out what is a useful review too.

Post by Peter Clinch
And if that's pointed out they're "fobbing off the customer with something they're trying to push".

Yes, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists.

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Rod Speed
Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.

But we're at the point where making a pair of
shoes or boots isn't exactly unknown territory.

It is however one area where some take shortcuts to reduce the price
etc with so many of the consumers rating the price as important.

Post by Peter Clinch
A decent pair of walking shoes 20 years ago would
still be a decent pair of walking shoes today, because
feet and walking haven't actually changed much.

Yes, but a review can be useful to decide what is and is not decent quality wise.

And things have changed radically in those 20 years with so much being made in china now.

Its desirable to know which operations have managed to get their chinese manufacture done effectively now.

[Voyer]

Not saying its right for you but I wear L.L.Bean Trail Model Hikers and I
find them very comfortable. If you have a store near you, you can always go
in and try them out. They also have a great satisfaction guarantee.

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
done way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[SMS]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

"Not too expensive" is not too descriptive.

Look for the following features:

1. GORE-TEX® lining.

2. Vibram® outsole

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").

Such boots are hard to find and quite expensive, i.e. the Danner
Mountain Light™ II. On the plus side, they will last a very long time. I
had a pair for 24 years. I think that they're made in the U.S.A. too.

If you give up on stitch-down construction then the choices expand and
prices fall. I.e. Cabela's offers their IA-811047 boots for $170 which
are not stitch down. I bought similar Vasque Summit GTX boots at REI on
sale for about $150 last year (regular price is $200). Not as good as
the Danner boots, but I could not find anywhere to buy another pair of
the Danner's other than ordering them directly from Danner.

If you give up on full grain leather construction prices fall even more,
if you give up on the GoreTex lining and the Vibram soles you can soon
be down to $50 or less. You get what you pay for. But in my experience,
the cheaper boots are not worth it. They are not waterproof, the
imitation Vibram does not provide sufficient traction, the soles
delaminate after a couple of years, and non-full-grain leather quickly
becomes motted and dirty and is impossible to clean.

I would not cheap out on boots if you're going to be doing serious
walking or hiking. You just need mid-high boots unless you're doing
serious backpacking. The boots I mentioned are all mid-high.

[Christopher Loffredo]

Post by SMS
1. GORE-TEX® lining.
2. Vibram® outsole
3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)
4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").

Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.

Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Christopher Loffredo

Post by SMS
1. GORE-TEX® lining.
2. Vibram® outsole
3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)
4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").

Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

I don't like them for exactly those reasons, but if folk /do/ prefer
them then note that Goretex isn't the only game in town. eVent is
another high quality breathable/waterproof, generally reckoned to be
considerably more breathable than Goretex though also one that suffers
more from contamination, and there are various others that will do a
similar job.

Another option is a waterproof sock, for example Rocky Goretex or
Sealskinz. These have the advantage over boot/shoe linings that you
only use them when you need them, so a hike on a hot day doesn't require
your feet to sweat freely in their own personal high-tech plastic bags.
OTOH a boot liner is better if the basic problem is cold as when a
waterproof sock outer is saturated it will still conduct heat readily
from your foot, even though it keeps it dry.

Aside from cold, another reason to keep feet dry is mainly down to damp
skin is softened and more prone to blisters, but in light footwear that
allows your foot to move naturally this is much less of an issue than in
a stiff boot, as the upper moves /with/ your foot rather than rubbing
against it. Note how orienteers gallumph around with soaking feet and
don't feel any particular need for waterproofing most of the time.

Pete.

[SMS]

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

Post by Christopher Loffredo
It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.

The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

[Andy Leighton]

Post by SMS

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

I prefer a plain leather boot without goretex lining.

Post by SMS
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

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

[Vic Smith]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:03:56 -0600, Andy Leighton

Post by Andy Leighton

Post by SMS

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

I prefer a plain leather boot without goretex lining.

Post by SMS
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

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

Sometimes a poster doesn't look at the big picture before posting.
Simple provincialism really, and I won't hold it against him.

--Vic

[Christopher Loffredo]

Post by SMS
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

And you actually used them sometimes? ;-)

Post by SMS
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

My non-Gore-Tex boots are certainly neither cheap nor low-end. In fact,
full-leather non-Gore-Text boots usually cost as much or more than the
ones with.

[Michael Black]

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in a
boot.

Post by Christopher Loffredo
It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking fairly
quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside, protecting
it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a GoreTex
liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had a
Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable. Since
it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof

So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex, or
you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25 years
is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the first
place. They stood up because of the rest of the boot, not the Gore-Tex.

I have doubts about its value in boots. On a jacket or pants, it makes
sense, since you are merely warding off rain, and the rest of the jacket
is well designed to be resistant to rain in the first place.

Boots, they get immersed in snow or water. How well does the rest of the
boot hold up? Gore-Tex isn't just about that thin layer, if it's not
put in properly (what about that stiching over there?) it won't mean a
thing.

If the boot soaks up water, you really aren't at an advantage
over no-Gore-Tex. I have my doubts about it keeping the water out when
immersed in water, but then other factors come into play. If you're
walking through snow or water, chances are good you'll hit spots where
the rain or water is higher than the boot, and your feet get wet that way
anyway.

The conditions where I'd worry about getting my feet wet, I'd want
something different in the way of a shoe or boot. Something with rubber
around the lower level, which then gets connected to leather upper
(though, I've not had a lot of success with those, the first time I bought
a pair of winter boots like that, they held for about seven years before
the rubber broke, but more recent purchases have had the rubber breaking
before a year is up). Otherwise, you live with the occasional wet foot,
I don't find my feet get wet due to rain, they get wet due to puddles.

When I walked to New York City in 1982, someone had "rubbers" or
"galoshes", thin rubber overshoes that went over shoes, he actually wore
them over light hiking shoes. I have no idea how comfortable it was, but
seemed a reasonable method for those times when it was quite wet.

I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.

Michael

[SMS]

Post by Michael Black
Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had
a Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable.
Since it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof

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

Post by Michael Black
So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex,
or you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25
years is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the
first place.

Probably 50 multi-day backpacking trips, and 1200 day hikes. They would
have lasted even longer but someone left them outside in the rain for a
long time and they were growing mold. Probably could have salvaged them,
but it was time for new soles which are not cheap. I hope I can get even
half the life of the replacement Vasque boots.

Post by Michael Black
I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.

I'd never buy a pair of hiking boots or hiking shoes that lacked
Gore-Tex for waterproofing. It's usually not even an option to not get
it since nearly every high-end pair of waterproof hiking boots has it.
I.e. all 72 types of waterproof hiking boots, from $100 to $475, sold at
REI are GoreTex. It doesn't add a lot of manufacturing cost, and it's a
huge advantage.

If you go to a lower end sporting goods store (in my area it's Big 5 or
Sports Authority) you can buy non-Goretex boots, but not full-grain
leather IIRC. Wal-Mart sells some full grain leather boots that are
non-Goretex for $30.

[Bill Grey]

Post by Michael Black

Post by SMS

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

Post by Christopher Loffredo
It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had a
Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable. Since
it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof
So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex, or
you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25 years
is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the first
place. They stood up because of the rest of the boot, not the Gore-Tex.
I have doubts about its value in boots. On a jacket or pants, it makes
sense, since you are merely warding off rain, and the rest of the jacket
is well designed to be resistant to rain in the first place.
Boots, they get immersed in snow or water. How well does the rest of the
boot hold up? Gore-Tex isn't just about that thin layer, if it's not put
in properly (what about that stiching over there?) it won't mean a thing.
If the boot soaks up water, you really aren't at an advantage over
no-Gore-Tex. I have my doubts about it keeping the water out when
immersed in water, but then other factors come into play. If you're
walking through snow or water, chances are good you'll hit spots where
the rain or water is higher than the boot, and your feet get wet that way
anyway.
The conditions where I'd worry about getting my feet wet, I'd want
something different in the way of a shoe or boot. Something with rubber
around the lower level, which then gets connected to leather upper
(though, I've not had a lot of success with those, the first time I bought
a pair of winter boots like that, they held for about seven years before
the rubber broke, but more recent purchases have had the rubber breaking
before a year is up). Otherwise, you live with the occasional wet foot,
I don't find my feet get wet due to rain, they get wet due to puddles.
When I walked to New York City in 1982, someone had "rubbers" or
"galoshes", thin rubber overshoes that went over shoes, he actually wore
them over light hiking shoes. I have no idea how comfortable it was, but
seemed a reasonable method for those times when it was quite wet.
I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.
Michael

If you're not keen on Gore-Tex why not say so :-)

I am on my second pair of Meindle Scout t5rail shoes which are Goretex
lined. I wear them every day when walking my dog. OK i don't wear them over
rough ground but the ground is frerquently sodden. I got my second pair
because the first started to look a bit shabby, not worn out. I can
honestly say I've never had wet feet even when the oputers are vewry wet. I
once had some water enter the shoe by runninf off my waterproof trousers and
then down into the top of the shoe.

I write this in case you've put some folk off Gore-Tex.

Bill

[SMS]

Post by Bill Grey
I am on my second pair of Meindle Scout t5rail shoes which are Goretex
lined. I wear them every day when walking my dog. OK i don't wear them over
rough ground but the ground is frerquently sodden. I got my second pair
because the first started to look a bit shabby, not worn out. I can
honestly say I've never had wet feet even when the oputers are vewry wet. I
once had some water enter the shoe by runninf off my waterproof trousers and
then down into the top of the shoe.
I write this in case you've put some folk off Gore-Tex.

Unlikely!

Remember, the early GoreTex back in the 1980's was not nearly as good as
today's product. Back then it was known as "the miracle membrane that
lets moisture in and traps it."

Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if they were
full grain leather you could get away with the lack of GoreTex by
applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects breath ability.
For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those waxes, so GoreTex is
even more important.

Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
get wet.

[Phil Cook]

Post by SMS
Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if they were
full grain leather you could get away with the lack of GoreTex by
applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects breath ability.
For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those waxes, so GoreTex is
even more important.
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
get wet.

I remain unconvinced that GoreTex is the wonder material you purport
it to be. My last pair of four season winter walking boots were sans
Tex and my current pair have it. I never noticed my feet getting wet
(from the outside) in the old pair despite a good many years in rather
"mixte" conditions. Bogs and slush can be wet in the extreme and both
tend to feature prominently in Scottish winter hillwalking. The reason
I bought my latest pair with Tex are that they fitted me better than
any alternative, the comfort was the killer application for me rather
than the liner.

What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots or
shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable. Fit, fit
and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Phil Cook

Post by SMS
Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or
trail shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if
they were full grain leather you could get away with the lack of
GoreTex by applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects
breath ability. For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those
waxes, so GoreTex is even more important.
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to
have them ever get wet.

I remain unconvinced that GoreTex is the wonder material you purport
it to be. My last pair of four season winter walking boots were sans
Tex and my current pair have it. I never noticed my feet getting wet
(from the outside) in the old pair despite a good many years in rather
"mixte" conditions. Bogs and slush can be wet in the extreme and both
tend to feature prominently in Scottish winter hillwalking. The reason
I bought my latest pair with Tex are that they fitted me better than
any alternative, the comfort was the killer application for me rather
than the liner.
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.

That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.

The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.

Post by Phil Cook
Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

Yes, but your claim that that never become comfortable is just plain wrong.
That pair is now the most comfortable I have ever owned.

[Michael Black]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.

That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.

But that's a different case.

A shoe or boot, you don't have the option of taking back once you've
actually used them. So the best you can do is take them home, wear them
inside to get a feel for them, and then take them back if they don't fit.
Once you wear them outside, they are actually used and I doubt many
companies will take them back.

If you have nothing to lose, you might as well persist. But if you
have doubts, then the time to deal with it is before you irreversibly
wear them outside. They may improve with time, but if they don't,
you are stuck with boots that you can't take back.

Michael

[Rod Speed]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.

That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.

But that's a different case.

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

Post by Michael Black
A shoe or boot, you don't have the option of taking back once you've actually used them.

That varys, some do allow a return if you arent completely happy with them.

But I wasnt even talking about using them, I tried them on,
found they were a bit tight across the top of the foot, decided
that given how much effort it had taking to get them replaced
the first time around, it wasnt worth the hassle to get them
replaced again, and so decided to see how they would
wear in and found that they did wear in fine.

The original exchange was quite complicated. I had originally
bought them and then found that the soles were too deeply
patterned and that too deep pattern ended up with mud in
the patterning and was a pain to use for that reason.

I just didnt wear them, use different boots with a better sole
that did not have that problem. When those wore out, I then
went back to the originals and discovered that the soles had
split and come apart etc. That was something like 30 years
after I had bought them and I couldnt even remember where
I had bought them from so I couldnt return them to where I
had bought them from. So I returned them to the manufacturer.

They tried to fob me off because they had not made
them for a considerable time by the time I returned them.

Since I had never worn them for more than a few days,
I wasnt happy with that and they were stupid enough to
have their MD named on their web site, so I rang him up
and chewed his ear about them. He initially just ran the
same line, but I wasnt going to accept that and kept
telling him that other boots from that time from other
manufacturers had not had that sole decomposition
and that since I had not worn them in that time because
of the mud problem, that he should replace them.

He did eventually agree with me, likely to just get rid of me.

So when the replacements were a bit tight on one foot,
I decided that it wasnt worth the hassle and expense
of returning the replacements, so decided to see how
they went since they were free anyway, and they turned
out fine and in fact are by far the most comfortable boots
I have ever had once they wore in.

These are elastic sided leather boots that I wear all
the time except in summer when I wear what we call
thongs and you barbarians call flip flops as I recall.

Post by Michael Black
So the best you can do is take them home, wear them inside to get a feel for them, and then take them back if they
don't fit.

Thats what I basically did, but it wasnt practical to return them.

Post by Michael Black
Once you wear them outside, they are actually used and I doubt many companies will take them back.

A few do and state that explicitly. Corse they are the most expensive too.

Post by Michael Black
If you have nothing to lose, you might as well persist.

Yes, thats what I did, and proved that he is just plain wrong.

Post by Michael Black
But if you have doubts, then the time to deal with it is before you irreversibly wear them outside. They may improve
with time, but if they don't, you are stuck with boots that you can't take back.

Sure, but with that particular imperfect fit, with
real leather, they likely will fit fine over time.

[Phil Cook]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Michael Black

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.

That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.

But that's a different case.

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

I worded it rather poorly. What I should have said was that boots or
shoes that are uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become
comfortable.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Phil Cook

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Michael Black

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.

That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.

But that's a different case.

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

I worded it rather poorly.

You did indeed.

Post by Phil Cook
What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.

Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.

Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.

[SMS]

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots or
shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable. Fit, fit
and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period
where they become more comfortable. But for cheaper boots of nubuck,
suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they
are at the time of purchase.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period where they become more comfortable.

There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.

And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.

But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they are at the
time of purchase.

Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.

[Phil Cook]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Phil Cook
What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period where they become more comfortable.

There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.
And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.

But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they are at the
time of purchase.

Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede. Full grain leather has the outer
intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions are made
with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from
wear.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by SMS
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
get wet.

Sorry, that's just plain wrong.

Expert opinion here frequently put non-Goretex boots at the top of their
recommended lists and that's for use in the UK, where it /will/ be wet.

Pete.

[Phil Cook]

Post by SMS

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find...

For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

You were lucky or careful. And I doubt that those boots were in
frequent use if you managed to get them to last so long.

Toenails and grit can quite easily make holes in boot linings.

Post by SMS
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

As others have said this is a falacy.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by SMS

Post by Christopher Loffredo
Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

Perhaps you're not listening very hard?
Chris Townsend, President of the MCofS, author of numerous acclaimed
books on backpacking and gear editor of The Great Outdoors magazine
doesn't seem particularly keen for one, and I concur. (see, for example,
http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/gear/footwear/3-season/inov-8-roclite-390-gtx-100-1.1005457
with "Dislikes: W/B lining).

Post by SMS
For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.

Goretex doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil because of a PU smear over
the membrane. What a boot lining doesn't stop is small bits of grit
working themselves through over time and rubbing a hole through the
(very thin) membrane. Also, the membrane will be prone to wear over the
flex points around the toe with repeated mechanical stretching.

Post by SMS
The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.

I wouldn't take that as a representative sample!

Post by SMS
You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
cheaper, non-full grain leather.

Ho ho, so the Scarpa SL and Manta models are "low end"? Despite their
being favourites in wet and muddy UK year after year and their excellent
construction, top-end Vibram soles, first class leather and high price tags?

Pete.

[SMS]

Post by john bently
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.
Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

When you say "walking" do you mean on trails where ankle support is
critical so you need actual boots, or on pavement and paths where you
can get by with lower walking shoes?

For hiking boots look for:

-One-piece, full grain leather uppers
-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
-Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)

For walking shoes it's a little easier:

-Leather or nubuck
-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
-Vibram or other sole with good traction

Look for boots/shoes which come in a lot of sizes, including different
widths and half sizes. In the U.S., it's often annoying that half-sizes
stop at 11 (on the cheaper shoes) though this is changing a little
because they're bringing in more of the European sized products where
there are more whole sizes that correspond to U.S. half sizes.


In the U.S., for actual boots, some of the brands and models to look for
are:

Danner® Mountain Light II
Vasque Summit GTX
Asolo Power Matic 200 GV
Cabela's All-Leather Mountain Hikers

[PeterC]

Post by SMS
-Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)

In that case I'll go for Nothing - lighter, cheaper and won't be more
slippery than the Vibram soles on my Scarpa boots (although might leak a
bit).
I have shoes with no cleats at all, just a smooth sole, that just won't
slip on surfaces where the Vibram slip quite readily, so, except for
macro-mechanical interaction, pattern doesn't help grip. The shoes are, of
course, no good on mud or snow but very good on wet slabs and 'green'
concrete. I haven't tried them on the rocks on Scafell Pike! :-)

[Peter Clinch]

Post by SMS
When you say "walking" do you mean on trails where ankle support is
critical so you need actual boots, or on pavement and paths where you
can get by with lower walking shoes?

Unless you're toting a beastly weight you should get all the ankle
support you need from the bones, muscles and tendons that have evolved
to do the job. Ankle support is only critical when you're going outside
what ankles have evolved to do (which is just about any running and
walking with relatively light loads), so if you're trying to edge skis,
or stand on a crampon point, or stuff like that /then/ ankle support is
critical.

This has been proven by loads of people over thousands of years walking
through very rough terrain without extra ankle support. Man would have
dies out in prehistory if his ankles had been so weak that he needed
boots or special paths to get anywhere.

Post by SMS
-One-piece, full grain leather uppers

The main point of a one-piece upper is reducing stitching which reduces
leakage, but if you've got...

Post by SMS
-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing

then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
more breathable).

Post by SMS
-Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)

So why do fell-runners and orienteers who need the best traction use
something else? Vibram soles are good but they're compromises for
multiple terrains. If you're spending a lot of time in sticky mud then
a studded sole like Innov-8's or Walsh's more aggressive units will give
you better traction. But a Vibram unit is usually a good indication of
quality that will do most jobs well.

Pete.