Are We a Dying Breed?

[GBKDalton]

Millennial speaking here!

So regarding the boots... I had a number of boot disasters in the early years, and then on my AT thru-hike, and I settled on Keens for summer and Columbia for winter, and never changed brands again. What I heard about Limmers at the beginning was that there was a two year wait and they were really heavy and expensive. The last thing I needed was another expensive disaster. Not interested now either, as the heavier the boot the worse my blisters. I also read bad reviews back then from people who said the boots never broke in, even after 1-2 years of steady use.

I owned the same tent and other gear for a decade and have recently started replacing some of it, some due to curiosity and finally wore out.

Dunno who can afford a 600 dollar jacket to walk the dog in. I couldn't even cough up 300 to replace my poor ll bean down jacket this year, and I really wanted to. Losing feathers all over the place. Of course I hastened its death (over 5-6 years) by wearing it to the barn all winter. Probably not it's intended use!

Bottom line, if it works it works, and I will use it till it dies and replace it. I take care of my gear and am not too hard on my boots, and they normally last a number of years at minimum (excepting down jackets). I am more concerned with weight then longevity, though I do expect stuff to last a few years of steady use. I'm not going to be told I need to go back to hauling a 50-60 pound pack so my gear can be bombproof.

I appreciate this site because the members actually know what they're talking about when they make hiking and gear recommendations. I don't read the Facebook groups because many of the posters drive me nuts with their condescension, when they really have very little experience beyond day hiking in perfect conditions.

 

[peakbagger]

Older folks probably have forgot how bad the use groups were and millennials were not even around to have known how bad they were. I dont pretend to deal with facebook but I would be hard pressed to envision if it could be as bad as rec.backcountry and its subgroups had gotten. Trolls and clueless folks were the norm and flame wars were expected. Mention certain topics, like Boy Scouts and hundreds if not thousands of replies would clutter the use group. I knew folks who remembered the good old days on rec.backcountry but by the time I finally had dial up access to the internet it had degraded to anarchy. There were regional sub groups that covered the whites but the noise to useful information ratio got quite low. Once the internet became commercial and the world wide web came into existence, VFTT and the AMC forum popped up as an alternative to the use groups and were moderated. AMCs board unfortunately was moderated with a heavy hand and the "party line" of AMC was enforced aggressively, it eventually became irrelevant and went away. VFTT tended to have far more even moderation although on occasion cries of favoritism did arise (and still do). Originally membership was open to all but along with that came spam and one post wonders. The sponsored membership policy was brought in to cut down on the spam albeit with a loss of membership and a two year slow down in approving new members, really knocked back membership. There were a couple of borderline trolls on the site that were tolerated to a limited extent but as their noise to signal ratio increased they usually were given multiple time outs and eventually grew up or went away.

 

[Kimball]

As to the question in the original post, I think outdoor retailers should carefully consider what happened to GoLite. One of my friends really liked their products, unfortunately the company lost focus on what they were really good at, and attempted to broaden appeal which resulted in chapter 11.[/I]

GoLite is back as a new brand called My Trail (stupid name IMO) and they say they learned their lesson.
https://mytrailco.com/pages/our-story

I'm not sure they have. TrailsNH is a My Trails affiliate. They seem to be doing a crappy job in the affiliate space.

 

[datbrew]

25 here. I come from a running background that includes years of Track and XC training. At one point I must have had over 5 different pairs of running shoes for different types of training, races, and field events. This way of life has translated into my shoe selection for hiking. For shorter hikes I wear Salomon Spreedcross 3's which are a type of aggressive trail runners. They pretty much are a running shoe with great traction (All of my trail running is done in these). For longer hikes or fringe season hikes where traction may be needed I use Salomon XA PRO 3Ds. I've seen these mentioned before on other VFTT posts...I recommend trying them if you haven't already. Great hiking and everyday shoe. They are marketed as a trail runner but I find them too heavy and stiff to run in. They function as a very sturdy waterproof sneaker that provides enough protection from jagged rocks but also the mobility needed on a long hike. I hear many people choose them for the AT. Winter is a little different...I wear a Vasque Snowburban. As you can see I prefer having a low-cut trail-runner/sneaker whenever I'm doing any physical activity other than in the winter when I obviously care about warmth and safety over speed/weight.

I've tried heavier boots but I could never find one that didn't either give me toe-bang issues or blister problems. I cracked on a Bonds traverse a few years ago and swore I would only hike in sneakers until I found a solution. That solution was the XA Pro 3Ds. Since then I found the Snowburban's actually fit me well enough but I would never go back to a classic hiking boot for summer hikes.

I know my shoe choices may end up more expensive as I have to replace the speedcross and XA Pro 3d fairly often. I buy a new pair of running shoes every year and the idea of doing the same for hiking just makes sense to me. To me, it's like choosing the high performance summer tires that wear down way quicker than the all-season ones, but man do they grip the road better! I clearly don't look for shoes (and other gear) that fills all of my needs as the article mentions but I also don't have a preference for gear that will last years and years as some of you have talked about!

 

[DougPaul]

Older folks probably have forgot how bad the use groups were and millennials were not even around to have known how bad they were. I dont pretend to deal with facebook but I would be hard pressed to envision if it could be as bad as rec.backcountry and its subgroups had gotten. Trolls and clueless folks were the norm and flame wars were expected. Mention certain topics, like Boy Scouts and hundreds if not thousands of replies would clutter the use group. I knew folks who remembered the good old days on rec.backcountry but by the time I finally had dial up access to the internet it had degraded to anarchy.

I'm one of those older folks who still remembers the good old days on rec.backcountry... I didn't find it that hard to skip the trolls and flame wars. There were some very knowledgeable folks there (it was also international) and I learned a lot from them. I also liked that it was unmoderated--one could post opinions that weren't PC without fear of them being deleted. (Of course, one needed to pick and choose one's groups to avoid those that were dominated by noise.) Since the decline of usenet, much of the similar discussion has been spread out to the point that IMO it isn't worth trying to follow it. (Obviously I read VFTT, but it serves a different purpose for me than rec.backcountry did.)

I may have gotten on it earlier than most here. (I have had arpanet/intenet access since 1976 and usenet started in 1980.) I also read it by downloading the groups of interest to my local machine and reading them locally which gave me instant response--no waiting for a slow connection or server. In addition, a text-based threaded news reader is IMO more efficient than a web browser. Usenet still exists and there are still some active groups with a good signal-to-noise ratio. I still read several groups using the same old paradigm: download the groups of interest and read them with the same old text-based threaded reader...

BTW, rec.backcountry isn't completely dead--there have been a few posts in the last few days. A gear question which was promptly answered by a familiar poster.

Doug

 

[Stan]

Count me as a lightweight boot fan, Vasque Sundowners for me. I still have two pair from the days they were made in Italy and each has been resoled at least once. Trouble is, as I've gotten older my feet have grown about a half size and over a long day the old boots aren't as comfortable. I may try bringing a pair to a shoemaker (yep, there are still a few of those around) to see if it is feasible to stretch them at all.

A question for those who have been hiking in trail runners and the like for many years, say over 15-20 years: Has it had any effect on your feet that may require eventual orthopedic treatment or orthodics? I've always felt that feet take a beating with heavy loads over rough terrain and I've always relied on a good shank to absorb some of that abuse.

 

[TCD]

I've been in trail runners for about 15 years; age 62. Feet and ankles seem stronger than ever. Many very heavy loads (climbing packs).

 

[peakbagger]

I did most of the AT over 10 years with trail runners and have been using trail runners for around 18 years and to date, no foot issues. I used to get significant sprained ankles with heavy boots including Limmers, once I switched to trail runners that didnt happen anymore. I occasionally roll my ankles and end up stopping, saying more than a few cuss words and then go on my way, slowly at first but within a few minutes I am back up to speed. When I sprained my ankles with heavy boots it was gimp out to the car and end up with a several day recovery. I use Montrail inserts that have a partial plastic heel cup and arch support. I am real advocate that trail runners build up the muscles and ligaments in the feet so that they are far more resistant to ankle rolls.

A general note, I think it was 1999 when many AT thru hikers dumped conventional boots and went to trail runners, specifically New Balance 801 ATs, They were the dominant trail runner that year. Compared to today's trail runners which are one step from slippers with sole, the 801 series was lot beefier. They were so popular that New Balance did a release in 2006. THe bummer was every year they came out with a new model and like Microsoft Windows versions every other model was usually good with the intermediate models not so good.

 

[GBKDalton]

I have semi-custom orthotics that I use only in my hiking boots, and that has improved some of the blister and footsoreness problems I used to have. Probably also helping extend the life of my feet.

 

[peakbagger]

A general observation about New Balance trail runners is that the stock inserts are useless. First thing I do is yank them out and put in my Montrail heat moldable inserts.

 

[DayTrip]

A general observation about New Balance trail runners is that the stock inserts are useless. First thing I do is yank them out and put in my Montrail heat moldable inserts.

That seems to be true of almost all boots now. I think I've replaced the insole on every hiking shoe I've ever bought. Even some of the higher end boots I've bought had a crappy insole. The one exception: my La Sportiva Ultra Raptors. For whatever reason the sole in those is very comfortbale, even to my misshapen problem prone feet.