Best shoes/tread material for wet conditions

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Not to sound like a smart ass but if you love the Scarpa's so much how come you aren't going with another pair? You mentioned wearing them out on the 48 4k's but that probably entailed 300+ miles of hiking. Not phenomenal longevity but certainly way beyond the 100 miles I got out of my first pair of Merrill's. The other concern mentioned was that they get uncomfortable on longer hikes. How many miles are we talking, and with what kind of backpack weight? With most hikes in the Whites in the 10-14 mile range I'd think just about any shoe should stay reasonably comfortable with day pack weight. Are you sure it is the shoe and not just your feet not being used to longer hikes? When I first started hiking my arches and calfs would get really sore on hikes over 10 miles. I can now do hikes well over 20 miles without this problem (a combination of better conditioning, better fitting footwear and foot beds in my shoes).

For me, after fit (i.e. getting shoes that don't rip your feet to shreds) the grip on rock and slab is my next most important concern, especially for hiking in New England. You pretty much have me sold on going out and trying a pair of these shoes because you made them sound awesome. Just curious what the specifics of your hikes are now and where the shoes become uncomfortable). Sounds like you already have a pretty good shoe.

I've never owned an approach shoe but maybe some sort of footbed added to these shoes would give you comfort over longer miles with a shoe you already know delivers good traction. Is there enough room inside an approach shoe for a footbed? I use in all of my boots and they definitely improve comfort significantly.
 
DayTrip said:
I've never owned an approach shoe but maybe some sort of footbed added to these shoes would give you comfort over longer miles with a shoe you already know delivers good traction. Is there enough room inside an approach shoe for a footbed? I use in all of my boots and they definitely improve comfort significantly.
Click to expand...

I had a pair of La Sportiva Boulder approach shoes about 20 years ago. They were snug, but worked fine for hiking up to and back from rock climbs and were light for carrying on a harness. Not very comfortable for 10+ mile hikes.

I guess you could buy a pair of approach shoes a size larger and add a footbed for comfort, but then it would be essentially a hiking shoe with soft rubber soles that would wear quickly.
 
Last edited:
DayTrip said:
Not to sound like a smart ass but if you love the Scarpa's so much how come you aren't going with another pair?
Click to expand...

Very fair question. As JFB just commented, approach shoes are not the most comfortable for long hikes. They are stiffer and have minimal underfoot padding. I've grown fond of linking multiple peaks together in bigger loops, so most hikes now go over 15mi. Longest hike so far was 24mi. Usually light summer pack weight of 10-15#, which is mostly 100oz water. I plan to do the Pemi loop soon. My feet would fare poorly over 30+ miles in the Scarpa Crux approach shoes. Hot spots and blisters would result. I've probably gotten close to 500 miles out of them. Many of those miles were through our mild winter with microspikes on them. The uppers are in great shape still, but tread is worn off smooth at pressure points. I may well get another pair for shorter, more technical hikes (I haven't done Huntington yet).

Adding a footbed is worth trying. I have added footbeds to Nordic ski boots with some success. I'd have to see if I can find shoes in half a size bigger. One thing I like about the Scarpa approach shoe, which may be true in general for approach shoes, is the lacing goes down to the toes and prevents foot sliding forward on steep down grades. Properly snugged, you never feel your toes jamming into front of shoe. They literally fit like a glove on my feet. The Merrill Moab's I just picked up do not perform nearly as well in this regard. Upsizing for a footbed could compromise this performance aspect. Which footbeds do you use for hiking boots?
 
My 2 cents.... I have worn Asolo 520's for many years..multiple pairs. The soles are softer and better quality compounds then many other cheaper shoes..Made to cling or grabb. But they are $300 a pair. worth every penny. I've tried on many pairs of so called high quality hikers...none had the comfort of fit right in the store..
 
Hill Junkie said:
I may well get another pair for shorter, more technical hikes (I haven't done Huntington yet).
Click to expand...

You could try the Mammut Ridge Low shoes. They are heavier than typical approach shoes and have comfortable footbeds. I got mine at Sam's Outfitters in Brattleboro.
 
CaptCaper said:
My 2 cents.... I have worn Asolo 520's for many years..multiple pairs. The soles are softer and better quality compounds then many other cheaper shoes..Made to cling or grabb. But they are $300 a pair. worth every penny. I've tried on many pairs of so called high quality hikers...none had the comfort of fit right in the store..
Click to expand...

Boots have more rubber and therefore last longer than trail runners. They also weigh a lot more, thus their plummeting in popularity. I was on the AT (Wildcat/Carters/Moriah) last weekend and every thru hiker was wearing trail runners. I'd be happy if I could get a single summer season, 2-300 miles, out of a pair of $125 +/- trail runners. So far, I've gone through 1+ pairs of Salomon Speed Cross 3s, because I cannot find the hallowed La Sportiva in my size :mad:

Tim
 
bikehikeskifish said:
Boots have more rubber and therefore last longer than trail runners. They also weigh a lot more, thus their plummeting in popularity. I was on the AT (Wildcat/Carters/Moriah) last weekend and every thru hiker was wearing trail runners. I'd be happy if I could get a single summer season, 2-300 miles, out of a pair of $125 +/- trail runners. So far, I've gone through 1+ pairs of Salomon Speed Cross 3s, because I cannot find the hallowed La Sportiva in my size :mad:

Tim
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think the masses may be on to something. I tried on a pair of trail runners at REI and was impressed enough to take them. Alas, after walking around the store with them, I left them behind. Guess, I'm not ready, but I'm getting closer.;)
 
You know, we switched from boots to trail runners about 15 years ago. I was not sure how it would go, but the first trip with heavy packs, we wore trail runners and used hiking poles, and it was unbelievable better than with heavy boots. We felt like cats running along the trail. Now with age, I don't feel like that very often any more no matter what I'm wearing...but I recommend trying trail runners if you have not.
 
Tried trail runners for a few years, had to switch back. I have way too many foot problems and they just took a beating. I liked the weight and flexibility, but the damage was too great for me.
 
Ditto. I went from Limmers to nylon boots to trail runners and I'm not looking back.

I found the Merrill Moabs fine but hot- and it took them too long to dry out. Currently I'm using Salamon XA 3D, which I like better. Both of those shoes come in a wide version, which I need. I use green Superfeet in them.

I'm want to try the Altra Lone Peak. I have a pair of Instinct 3.5s and they're the best running shoe I've ever owned.
 
Hill Junkie said:
Very fair question. As JFB just commented, approach shoes are not the most comfortable for long hikes. They are stiffer and have minimal underfoot padding. I've grown fond of linking multiple peaks together in bigger loops, so most hikes now go over 15mi. Longest hike so far was 24mi. Usually light summer pack weight of 10-15#, which is mostly 100oz water. I plan to do the Pemi loop soon. My feet would fare poorly over 30+ miles in the Scarpa Crux approach shoes. Hot spots and blisters would result. I've probably gotten close to 500 miles out of them. Many of those miles were through our mild winter with microspikes on them. The uppers are in great shape still, but tread is worn off smooth at pressure points. I may well get another pair for shorter, more technical hikes (I haven't done Huntington yet).

Adding a footbed is worth trying. I have added footbeds to Nordic ski boots with some success. I'd have to see if I can find shoes in half a size bigger. One thing I like about the Scarpa approach shoe, which may be true in general for approach shoes, is the lacing goes down to the toes and prevents foot sliding forward on steep down grades. Properly snugged, you never feel your toes jamming into front of shoe. They literally fit like a glove on my feet. The Merrill Moab's I just picked up do not perform nearly as well in this regard. Upsizing for a footbed could compromise this performance aspect. Which footbeds do you use for hiking boots?
Click to expand...

I've been using this heat moldable model : http://www.backcountry.com/sole-ed-viesturs-signature-edition-footbed?s=a It has really helped my foot comfort on longer hikes (my typical hike is 12-16 miles but I've gone as long as 29 miles with a pack weight of 16-20 lb). There is another popular brand of heat moldable insert that was recommended to me on this forum that I am drawing a blank on. I've been using these in my Summer and Winter boots. I remove the shoe's factory foot bed and replace with these so it really doesn't affect the overall fit very much. Not sure if the foot bed in an approach shoe can be removed or is permanent.

To CaptCaper's reference to Asolo I agree 100%. I had been wearing the Asolo Fugitives the past three years and they have a good grip to the sole and I was getting 500-600 miles out of them before the sole really started to wear. Found them to be an excellent boot overall but they were a little too tight in the toes for me which led to discomfort on longer hikes. I caved in and got Keen's this Winter because they are known for a wide toe box and they were very comfortable so I got a pair of Keen Summer boots this year too. I find the sole is pretty good but they seem to be wearing out pretty fast all over the boot so I don't know how long they'll last.

Thanks for the approach shoe details. I think I will take a look at these for shorter, more technical hikes. Sounds like a quality boot.
 
sierra said:
I'm starting to think the masses may be on to something. I tried on a pair of trail runners at REI and was impressed enough to take them. Alas, after walking around the store with them, I left them behind. Guess, I'm not ready, but I'm getting closer.;)
Click to expand...

It is very tempting but I just can't talk myself into it either. My biggest fear is spraining an ankle without the higher sides (which routinely save me from "half-rolls" on hikes). And then I think of the mud and water in New England and river crossings. When I did Marcy last weekend I passed a group of 10-12 people all in low cut sneakers crossing an unavoidably muddy section that they all pretty much sunk in over the ankle bone on. My feet were nice and dry. Don't know if I could give that up. Even with a gaiter I'm sure the water still gets through. I've been out in the rain on long walks in my running shoes and the wetness led to blisters. If you can keep your feet dry and you aren't on overly rugged terrain I'm sure it has to be nice but I just can't part with the security of the big, clunky boots.
 
I have heard the argument that non-GTX trail runners dry quickly and thus you just walk through water and mud. I have not found that to be entirely correct, however, in drier conditions, my sweaty feet are much drier than in non-breathable footwear, such as heavy/clunky boots (and presumably, GTX trail runners). No doubt, the more material, the longer they last, and the softer the rubber can be giving better grip. My LL Bean Crestas were awesome in terms of comfort, grip, and longevity (first boot I hiked in) but they weighed a TON. I replaced them (when they wore out) with Scarpa Kalish which were just about as awesome, but lighter and with a corresponding decrease in longevity.

Roughly speaking, I have gotten

- Cresta, 2 pairs, 800-1000 miles before they start slipping enough to make me uncomfortable
- Kalish, 2 pairs, 400-500 miles
- Salomon SpeedScross 3, 100-150 miles (1st pair), onto a second pair, at about 100 miles, still looking pretty good, but this pair has harder rubber so I expect it to last longer, and have (which it does) corresponding lower traction.

I have also heard the argument that boots with ankle support mean your body doesn't naturally adjust (strengthening stabilization structures) and you are more likely to roll an ankle, or tweak a knee (alpine ski boots being an extreme example) or an ACL.

Tim
 
bikehikeskifish said:
I have also heard the argument that boots with ankle support mean your body doesn't naturally adjust (strengthening stabilization structures) and you are more likely to roll an ankle, or tweak a knee (alpine ski boots being an extreme example) or an ACL.

Tim
Click to expand...

I can anecdotally back that claim up. I used to have terribly rolly ankles, having double-fractured an ankle from a roll several years ago. Plate, screws, pins, the works. It is one of the reasons I avoided hiking. When Tim invited me on a Presi traverse last summer, I started hiking with nylon lace-up ankle braces. Very uncomfortable, but I wasn't going to break an ankle from a roll in those. Experience over the years suggested higher top boots and shoes did very little in ankle support for me. Just not stiff enough.

As I gained confidence in my abilities on rocky terrain, I stopped wearing the braces but still took them along just in case my ankles got wobbly. Eventually I did not even take them with me. I surmise two things have happened. One, as Tim suggested, is my stabilizing muscles and and connective tissues have gotten much stronger. My ankles adapted to the new stress and now have "built-in" ankle braces. The other I believe is this. I have become much more agile on my feet. I find when an unstable condition develops, it seems corrective muscles fire automatically and prevent a roll. It's as if the brain doesn't even enter into the picture, it just happens. Of course, this doesn't mean I'm immune to future ankle injury, but a year ago I never imagined doing hikes I do now without frequent ankle mishaps

I bought some high-top GTX boots for winter use, but I really didn't like much hiking in them, having gotten used to really light weight approach shoes. And when they get wet inside, they stay wet. I still gravitated back to my very low cut approach shoes for most winter hikes this past winter since we had very few powder days. Low top shoes don't restrict range of motion like some boots do. I just like the light feel and sense of agility they provide. It's a personal preference thing I suppose.
 
bikehikeskifish said:
I have also heard the argument that boots with ankle support mean your body doesn't naturally adjust (strengthening stabilization structures) and you are more likely to roll an ankle, or tweak a knee (alpine ski boots being an extreme example) or an ACL.

Tim
Click to expand...
It has also been discussed here that higher top boots are more prone to ankle rollover because of the bottom of your foot being higher (longer) from the ground. Therefore more leverage is apparent from the swing point. Analogous to using a longer wrench.
 
Hill Junkie said:
I can anecdotally back that claim up. I used to have terribly rolly ankles, having double-fractured an ankle from a roll several years ago. Plate, screws, pins, the works. It is one of the reasons I avoided hiking. When Tim invited me on a Presi traverse last summer, I started hiking with nylon lace-up ankle braces. Very uncomfortable, but I wasn't going to break an ankle from a roll in those. Experience over the years suggested higher top boots and shoes did very little in ankle support for me. Just not stiff enough.

As I gained confidence in my abilities on rocky terrain, I stopped wearing the braces but still took them along just in case my ankles got wobbly. Eventually I did not even take them with me. I surmise two things have happened. One, as Tim suggested, is my stabilizing muscles and and connective tissues have gotten much stronger. My ankles adapted to the new stress and now have "built-in" ankle braces. The other I believe is this. I have become much more agile on my feet. I find when an unstable condition develops, it seems corrective muscles fire automatically and prevent a roll. It's as if the brain doesn't even enter into the picture, it just happens. Of course, this doesn't mean I'm immune to future ankle injury, but a year ago I never imagined doing hikes I do now without frequent ankle mishaps

I bought some high-top GTX boots for winter use, but I really didn't like much hiking in them, having gotten used to really light weight approach shoes. And when they get wet inside, they stay wet. I still gravitated back to my very low cut approach shoes for most winter hikes this past winter since we had very few powder days. Low top shoes don't restrict range of motion like some boots do. I just like the light feel and sense of agility they provide. It's a personal preference thing I suppose.
Click to expand...

Many year's ago, I came across a theory on " Involuntary Actions ". Basically, it's an action that occurs without conscious choice. I found this very interesting and decided to try and apply this concept to mountaineering. My experiment was to improve my footwork by forcing myself to make all my steps fast with little time to consider foot placement. I set out to perform semi running descents on almost all my hikes. I continued doing this for year's actually. To this day, I can descend steep rocky trail's, barely looking at the terrain as I descend. This also helped me prevent almost all ankle injuries such as "rolls" as I was able to stop them fast before injury. It also strengthened my leg and ankle muscles to a degree that I would not have achieved just hiking at a normal pace. I brought this up, because any subject relating to traction, footwear and terrain is anything, but cut and dry.
 
Last edited:
skiguy said:
It has also been discussed here that higher top boots are more prone to ankle rollover because of the bottom of your foot being higher (longer) from the ground. Therefore more leverage is apparent from the swing point. Analogous to using a longer wrench.
Click to expand...

This is actually one of the main reasons I liked the Asolo boots. Their tread was far thinner than other models I tried yet provided very good grip. Other models I tried in store I could feel the ankle pivoting on the high platform. I didn't get that in the Asolos. Then again, I severely wrecked my ankle in my Asolo's in Sphinx Col a few years back. At that point though I was really in my first year of serious hiking though and didn't have the ankle strength I suspect I have now. A few times each hike I usually start to roll my ankle but catch myself before it's a full blown sprain. Maybe I should trust my ankles more than I do. It does seem intuitive that the closer your foot is to the ground the less likely it would be to roll.

But there is still that water and mud......I guess the only thing to do is just get a pair and see what happens.
 
DayTrip said:
A few times each hike I usually start to roll my ankle but catch myself before it's a full blown sprain. Maybe I should trust my ankles more than I do.
Click to expand...

If you find yourself rolling your ankles, maybe you should analyze where you're placing your feet. If you're applying forces to the ankle joint that exceed the strength of the muscles and you need to strengthen the joint by wearing high-top boots, doesn't it make sense to also try to reduce the forces applied by being more careful about how you load the joint?
 
Last edited:
jfb said:
If you find yourself rolling your ankles, maybe you should analyze where you're placing your feet. If you're applying forces to the ankle joint that exceed the strength of the muscles and you need to strengthen the joint by wearing high-top boots, doesn't it make sense to also try to reduce the forces applied by being more careful about how you load the joint?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it's bad foot placement. It tends to be in fairly flat areas when I do it, no doubt because I'm not 100% focused on the footing. Occasionally it is hitting a submerged object hidden under mud or a stone that comes loose but mostly it is lack of concentration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Abandoned Downes Brook Slide trail
Replies
3
Views
3K
TEO
TEO
U
Mt Washington Sunrise Hike - 5/27/17
Replies
0
Views
2K
Unregistered
U
Driver8
Starting the Second Dozen - Wet Wild Hancocks Hike, 6/28/2014
Replies
1
Views
883
Driver8
Driver8
BIGEarl
Whiteface & Passaconaway, 5/16/2014
Replies
0
Views
2K
BIGEarl
BIGEarl
jniehof
R2R2R 5 April 2014 (long....)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Ed'n Lauky
Ed'n Lauky

Latest posts

Top