Stan
Well-known member
I've been searching futily for a pair of shearling boots suitable for hikes, trail rides, keeping warm and looking cool. D'ya suppose Limmer ... ???
Limmers: Not Your Off-the-Shelf Hiking Boots (NHPR)
- Thread starter bikehikeskifish
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
una_dogger
Well-known member
Tim,
I ordered a pair in the 80's. Took about 6 months to be ready. Liked them so much I ordered a second pair a few months later.
Dang, the first pair is still going strong and the 'replacement' pair still sitting in the original box.
Limmers are the real deal. If your feet are hard to fit or want lifetime boots take a look.
What about the tread life of the soles? I tend to wear mine out prematurely.
For hiking, I'm a trail runner convert.
For backpacking? I don't think I could get away with trailrunners -- I'd go back to boots...which means, I can't go backpacking again until I buy another pair of boots!
Last edited:
dr_wu002
Well-known member
I totally agree... I think Limmers are well made, expensive... but unnecessary. Your "ankle" support comes from your ankles (which are extraordinarily well made) and not your shoes. I don't sprain ankles, I don't scrape ankles on things and my ankles are no different than yours. I can see if you're doing heavy field work you might want a tough shoe like a limmer although for recreational hiking they're not just complete overkill, I think they totally subvert the natural functioning of your feet. Bootmakers in general have hoodwinked the hiking populace into somehow thinking their legs/feet are poorly designed and they need fancy boots with big, thick, heavy soles to go walking around in the woods for a few miles on the weekend.
Not saying they aren't well made, I just think they're useless for the most part and that boots are actually the cause of sprained ankles and other injures and not the solution/prevention. Limmers, unfortunately, get that "Holy Grail" of hiking boot status...
-Dr. Wu
Last edited:
dr_wu002
Well-known member
No difference in doing a Pemi Loop in sneakers to doing a long backpack in sneakers. In fact, I think you have more of an advantage taking sneakers backpacking than dayhiking even.For backpacking? I don't think I could get away with trailrunners -- I'd go back to boots...which means, I can't go backpacking again until I buy another pair of boots!
-Dr. Wu
una_dogger
Well-known member
How so? I have tried and have had foot pain and felt less stable carrying a heavy backpack with shoes with flexible soles? I know many people do it, I haven't been able to. I suppose I could with an overnight pack, but not with a 5-7 day pack. I see others doing it -- I think heavier pack weight is the point where I need tougher shoes over trail runners.
I have had good luck with Asolos -- I don't see myself ever buying Limmers. I'm not the type to religiously clean and care for leather.
Hikes4fun
New member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 234
- Reaction score
- 47
I'm with you...I have PF in both feet...Light weight boots and trail runners don't give me enough support especially w/ the added weight of a larger pack...I recently found a pair of Kayland Contacts that are super..Although I still tape up every time out
dr_wu002
Well-known member
Maybe you need less shoes than your trail runners for backpacking. Not even joking around. How about the FiveFinger KSO Trek?
You just ran a marathon! I bet your foot parts are pretty strong...
-Dr. Wu
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,067
- Reaction score
- 136
I agree with Wu. My feet have gotten stronger since I ditched the boots about ten years ago and started doing everything in trail runners. The first backpacking trip with trail runners and trekking poles sold me; I felt like a cat on the trail, compared to the old "slog-slog-slog." We wore trail runners for our 8 day through hike of the NP, and they were great.
It's not just the boot companies that have sold everyone on this "heavy boots" thing. All the retailers and catalogs have it built into their marketing; the hiking organizations (ADK, AMC, etc.) still parrot it; and every time there is an accident or a rescue, officials quote this stuff.
Sure, there are always special cases and specific pre-existing injuries. But I think for most people, less shoe is better for the feet.
TCD
It's not just the boot companies that have sold everyone on this "heavy boots" thing. All the retailers and catalogs have it built into their marketing; the hiking organizations (ADK, AMC, etc.) still parrot it; and every time there is an accident or a rescue, officials quote this stuff.
Sure, there are always special cases and specific pre-existing injuries. But I think for most people, less shoe is better for the feet.
TCD
dr_wu002
Well-known member
I agree wif you too and your first post. I'd like to add though that many are even reevaluating their trail runners too as having too much padding, too much goretex, too heavy, too much heal. More and more are going minimal (Inov-8) to more minimal (FiveFinger, VivoBarefoot) and even just barefoot. Even Merrell is getting into the game...
We evolved to have pretty spectacular knee / ankle / arch / toe systems so why not use them? Sure, doing 20 miles Presidential Traverse barefoot you might tear up the bottom of your feet. But you can protect your feet from some excessive wear while still letting your body provide the strength/support and not try to rely on shoes. I even ditched the poles too a few years back... I find my balance is 100% better without them. Not even sure I completely buy the "saves the knees" argument as maybe that's more of a strength training issue. Sure there are exceptions to everything and yes, Limmers seem to be an exceptionally well crafted and durable product. I just think the hiking populace has been sold something for years that they absolutely do not need and probably hinders rather than helps you to get strong.
-Dr. Wu
Last edited:
Does anyone here know anything about the ratio between the weight on your feet and the load on your back? I was always of the understanding that the more weight on your feet...the more load on your back.
giggy
New member
everyone is different, but i was in the "big stiff boot" camp for a while for long hikes, backpacks, etc. I have very much converted to the trail runner idea for pretty much everything besides winter climbing. So, I am def agreeing with TCD and WU, etc..
I still use a boot for backpacks, but its a very light asolo and I am probably going to covert over to trail runner for that as well. I agree as well with the the "whole twist the ankle" thing. I have never even come close to twisting an ankle in trail runners.
light is right - heavy is outdated nonsense. less = more!
just say no to heavy, stiff boots in over 32 degree weather!
I still use a boot for backpacks, but its a very light asolo and I am probably going to covert over to trail runner for that as well. I agree as well with the the "whole twist the ankle" thing. I have never even come close to twisting an ankle in trail runners.
light is right - heavy is outdated nonsense. less = more!
just say no to heavy, stiff boots in over 32 degree weather!
Last edited:
I will wade in with my comments and experience. I used custom Limmers for about 5 years hiking in the whites. They were the widest pair they had made that year. I wore out a set of the soles in about 3 years. When they were resoled they lost some width. After asking them about the lost width, they said "oh that usually happens but they will stretch" After that, I used them for day hikes without any major issues, but could not use them for long distance backpacking due to the loss if width. During this era I would sprain my ankles frequently. After one long hot backpacking trip where I got some pretty serious blistering on the sides of my feet from the lack of width, I had no choice but to switch to Tevas. Even with some pretty messed up feet, I did 18 miles with the Tevas the next day. After that I switched to trail runners and the Limmers were retired. I have used trail runners for about half to two thirds of my AT section hiking and I have far fewer sprained ankles.
The major positive for Limmers is that they are super durable, with care they can last a long time. I go through a pair of trail runners every year, at around $100 per pair, in seven years the Limmers are paid for. Many of the folks I know use them as work boots rather than hiking boots. In that usage, the miles traveled are less and therefore the soles will last longer. Barring major neglect or abrason, the leather lasts a real long time.
I dont know if they have changed, but when I got my custom boots they only made one shoe pattern for the biggest foot. therefore people with distinct differences between each foot did not get such a good fit.
I had less than great experience buying so called stock boots. They measured me and said sure they would fit once they broke in, no need for custom. They never broke in well despite returning them to have them stretched. At that point they were worn in so no option to return.
I have always suspected that the rational for the standard recomendation for wearing heavy boots with ankle support is that that recomendation is made to infrequent hikers who only hike on occasion and therefore havent built up their ankle strength. It probably cuts down on the amount of rescues of occasional hikers plus serves to slow them down by adding a couple of pounds of ballast
For what its worth, recently one of the VFTT members mentioned a custom boot shop in NZ that did mail order and their prices were quite reasonable and had a far better turn around. I will have to search for the thread.
The major positive for Limmers is that they are super durable, with care they can last a long time. I go through a pair of trail runners every year, at around $100 per pair, in seven years the Limmers are paid for. Many of the folks I know use them as work boots rather than hiking boots. In that usage, the miles traveled are less and therefore the soles will last longer. Barring major neglect or abrason, the leather lasts a real long time.
I dont know if they have changed, but when I got my custom boots they only made one shoe pattern for the biggest foot. therefore people with distinct differences between each foot did not get such a good fit.
I had less than great experience buying so called stock boots. They measured me and said sure they would fit once they broke in, no need for custom. They never broke in well despite returning them to have them stretched. At that point they were worn in so no option to return.
I have always suspected that the rational for the standard recomendation for wearing heavy boots with ankle support is that that recomendation is made to infrequent hikers who only hike on occasion and therefore havent built up their ankle strength. It probably cuts down on the amount of rescues of occasional hikers plus serves to slow them down by adding a couple of pounds of ballast
For what its worth, recently one of the VFTT members mentioned a custom boot shop in NZ that did mail order and their prices were quite reasonable and had a far better turn around. I will have to search for the thread.
Sasquatch
New member
One pound on the foot equals five in the pack,right? Thats at least 10 "pack pounds" or more for a pair of limmers. I'd rather throw a couple of bricks in my pack.
After attempting the Alex Mcphail route on a h2h last year ( bailed due to bad weather) I seriously question the validity of that mark. I think it's an amc (Alex Mcphail club) fairy tale. Hence the question :WWAMD???
Goin h2h in a couple weeks on the standard route.
After attempting the Alex Mcphail route on a h2h last year ( bailed due to bad weather) I seriously question the validity of that mark. I think it's an amc (Alex Mcphail club) fairy tale. Hence the question :WWAMD???
Goin h2h in a couple weeks on the standard route.
dr_wu002
Well-known member
Next up is ditching the plastic horror boots for winter hiking! Barefoot in winter!
-Dr. Wu
Neil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,434
- Reaction score
- 487
Same thing goes for packs that weigh 7 pounds empty, 8 pound tents, 4 pound 3-season bags, "kitchens" etc. etc.
Who wants to carry a sofa on their back while wearing bricks on their feet?
[insert image of cast iron frying pan swinging to and fro, banging against hikers' calves.]
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
DougPaul
Well-known member
I read somewhere that the one-to-five ratio is an army number. It is probably derived from equivalent energy expenditure for marching (or fast marching) on level (probably smooth or paved) ground.
It has been repeated so often that most people don't bother to ask if it actually applies to hiking or not...
Note that Telemark and AT skiers wear 10-15 lbs of boot+ski. It certainly doesn't feel equivalent to 50-75 lbs in my pack when I'm skinning uphill...
I believe the traditional heavy boot was derived from European Alpine (off trail) mountaineering practice which involved a lot of rough, rocky terrain. The lug patterns on Vibram soles were derived from the iron Tricouni nails (http://www.chesslerbooks.com/item/7719-tricouni-nails-for-nailed-boots.asp) used on pre-~1940s mountaineering boots.
Doug
Last edited:
This was intended to be purely FYI, not that I mind the direction. Let me hijack my own thread and ask the trail runner advocates about waterproofing - how waterproof are they?
Tim
p.s. I am still hiking in my LL Bean Crestas
Tim
p.s. I am still hiking in my LL Bean Crestas
They're not. But after a day in them my feet are a LOT drier than after a day in my Danners. Trail runners dry out and the sweat can get out.
I did have a pair of Keen Shellrocks, eVent tops, which were both waterproof and very breathable. Unfortunately they were horrible shoes in all other respects; hurt like hell to run in and fell apart very quickly.
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
I had a pair of Keen's - not the Shellrocks. I found the Keen's fell apart quickly. Would be reluctant to buy another pair of that brand in any style.
I also have a pair of LL Bean Crestas. They're comfortable, but not nearly as rugged as a traditional Norwegian welt boot. I wear them if I'm on a moderately smooth trail, but rarely off-trail.
Last edited:
