Trail shoes versus Boots

[BenW]

I've got a pair of Merrell Chameleons that I've had since Sept 2002. That's all I wear for shoes other than sandals for reg. wear - I've worn them just about every day for more than one and a half years. They still have great support, albeit not quite as much as when I first got them. That makes me think that I don't hike enough. ; ) The soles are pretty worn though, and I'm starting to think about my next pair of shoes. I loved them so much that I got a pair of the Chameleon Mid Dry's as my boots. For hiking I switch back and forth between the Lows and the Mids, depending on my mood, terrain, pack, etc. I've tended toward the trail shoe philosophy recently though.

Speaking of "avant-garde" or "ultra minimalist" footwear, I'd always heard about the odd barefoot hiker, but finally met one a couple of Septembers ago in the pouring rain near Tirrell Pond on the NPT. He looked like he must have been having fun squishing in it. ; )

May the forest be with you.

Ben

 

[pedxing]

New Balance Trail Runners

I've backpacked up to 9 days with my New Balance 805s. Like Sherpa, I found the traction a bit lacking, at least on slippery wet rock. The trail runners require more careful foot placement, but make up for this by being much less work to walk in. Sometimes it is nice to just rumble down the trail in boots and not think as mucvh about foot placement.

I've picked up some NB 900 series shoes at an Outlet sale and will try them out to see if the traction is better.

Most trail runners don't fit me, because I wear 4Es.

 

[Johnnycakes]

Questions for jbrown

jbrown,

I had a question for you about the Exum Ridge by LaSportiva. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I can contact you by email or PM, so I hope you'll see this.

Have you had a chance to use the shoe much yet, and what do you think of it? I have only seen pictures of it. My concern is that I understand that a lot of the shoe is mesh, and I trashed another mesh trail shoe (Montrail Masai) in just two hikes. The shoe is literally ripped through in four spots already (all from snagging the toe). I'm not bashing the Masai though. It has great cushioning, it's very light, and has great stone bruise protection on the forefoot. It's probably not meant for rugged Adirondack trails.

Does the Exum Ridge look like it will hold up to a lot of abrasion and toe snags? And how is the wet traction?

You can email me or PM me if you like. Anyone else with this shoe pleas feel free to chime in.

Thanks,
John

 

[Gris]

Addendum to prior opinions:

After a weekend hike w/ some rocks and elevation gain - I can see wearing trail shoes on the ups and flats, but boots sure seem like the way to go if you want to make any time on the downs. Much better to be able to bound down a steep rocky trail with mucho underfoot and ankle protection. Perhaps the "answer" IS beefier trail shoes. That's next!

 

[daxs]

I was thinking the same thing. I love the lightness of the trailrunner but the sole needs to be a little stiffer. I have been using them for dayhikes. I just can't see carrying a full pack wearing these shoes, not without a stiffer sole.

 

[SherpaKroto]

For New Balance, the MA900 (now 901) have the stiffest sole. They are not for everyone, but they work for me. I was with Gris on the weekend hike and I wa shappy with my boot choice. Gris was experimenting with the NB806 for hiking and brought his boots in case. He switched to the boots for the descent.

Everytime this conversation comes up (boots vs trail shoes) I see Post'rBoy telling me to get rid of the boots. I guess sometimes I just need to listen to him

 

[marty]

If you want a waterproof lightweight boot with decent ankle support and good traction, try the Tecnica Vortex TCY Mid. I have thoroughly enjoyed mine. Backpacker Magazine also seems to agree (2004 Gear Guide Best Buy).

If ankle support and waterproofness are not considerations, any of the New Balance All-Terrain trail runners work well. I have the 806's and my daughter has the 801's. If you can get to one of the New Balance factory outlets (such as Lawrence or Allston, MA), they sell for $39.99 and come in many sizes and widths.

 

[Gris]

Technica TCY Mid

marty

i've been htinking about trying these very shoes/boots. Two Qs for ya: (i) do they have some significant sole rigidity/underfoot protection from rocks? (i have some NB 806s and they're OK but way too flimsy/flexy IMO for rock hoppin); (ii) what is the fit like? (i wear a 9.75 and usually go up a half or whole size to 10.0 or 10.5 depending upon general brand sizing and forefoot width).

Muchas gracias amigo

 

[marty]

Gris - good protection vs. rocks, but the midsole may wear down after a while. For fit, they run a tad short and they run a tad wide, which is good for me - I am an EE. As an example, I am measured at a size 10E, but am a 10 1/2 D for the Tecnicas. By the way, I also have the lowtop version of the same shoe. Like them a lot also. Best regards, Marty

 

[Gris]

Technica Vortex Mid TCY did NOT work for me. Notwithstanding a good fit in the size 10 - they did have a nice wide forefoot as described by Marty - and an impressively light weight, yet WP package, the problem was that the footbed did not feel good under my foot. My heel felt like it was resting on rock. Also seemed to flex a little too far forward. After two days wearing them around the house, even with Superfeet inserts they just didn't feel near comfortable enough to try on the trail. Thus, back to the shop they'll likely go. I do thank Marty for his feedback and think maybe my relatively heavy weight (5'10" 190) and high arch just demand a more supportive footbed. Thus, the search is still on for a "tweener" boot that's more supportive, grippy and WP than my NB 806 and a tad lighter than my trusty Montrail Torre GTX. I did try on some Salomon trail shoes that had a nice high arch so I may give those and another heavier duty NB model (w WP gussetted tongue) a go.

 

[Jasonst]

Gris
I too have a wide foot and very high arch. Finding shoes to accomodate my arch supports is quite difficult. Let me know if you have any luck.

J

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Gris:
maybe my relatively heavy weight (190)

Ha ha. THe last time I was 190 was 1964.

Frosty

 

[marty]

Gris - sorry the Tecnicas did not work out. You were smart to test them at home before finding out the hard way on the trail. Good luck in your pursuit of the ultimate trail shoe! Marty

 

[ADKMan]

Best of both worlds!

I recently purchased a pair of Garmont Flash XCR "boots", they are a mid height boot but are lighter than most low shoes. They fit (me) like a glove. I replaced the standard footbeds with a pair of superfeet beds and it seems like the perfect combination. I have found they provide adequate ankle support, walk like a sneaker and the vibram sole sticks like glue.

 

[steppinwolf]

Re: Best of both worlds!

the vibram sole sticks like glue.

That is what I want! I used to have Salomon boots which I loved, and when I went to replace them last year, of course they were not around anymore. So the salesman talked me into a pair of Sportiva trekking boots with the usual vibram soles, pretty lightweight and very comfortable, but I hated the traction on rocks from the very first hike. In fact, yesterday coming down from a peak, my Sportivas slipped out on me on the side of a rock slab that wasn't all that steep and sent me sprawling on one of my worst spills in a long time. Ouch! I know it wasn't just me because they seem to slip easily on the sides of rocks even when going uphill, much more than my Salomons did. BTW, ADK, what are these "superfeet beds" you mentioned?

I think I'll also look into the Tecnica Vortex TCY Mids that Marty mentioned, too. For me, the important things besides comfort are ankle support and traction.

 

[Gris]

Thanks, I'm gonna dd the Garmont to the list of candidates to try, which now reads as follows:

Garmont Flash ($120/2-4)
NB 1100 ($120/1-14)
NB 901 ($60/2-6)
Montrail Vitesse ($80/1-10)
Salomon Exclaim or Expert ($75-$85/2-0)

then again i want a gussetted tongue and don't know if all of these have that.

Looking for feedback on these models, particularly fit and foot shape of user (high arch & wide forefoot or not)

Gris

PS - the Tencias were $80 from Farm-Way of Bradford Vermont

 

[ADKMan]

The superfeet footbeds are available at most outdoor stores. They are a high quality footbed with a flexible plastic base that not only gives good support but also adds some rigidity.

Another great footbed option are the "Sole" footbeds. These can be molded (at home) for a custom fit. Just pop them in the oven for a couple of minutes, place them in your boots, step in and lace them up.

 

[eagle]

I also support the Garmont brand. I have hiked from 18+ mile dayhikes to 4 day backpacking trips in the (low top) Garmont Nagevi s and my feet always feel great. After a recent 2 peak overnight trip (15 miles), I realized, after driving an hour and having been home for a half hour relaxing outside, that my feet had not been out of the shoes since the hike. Yeah, these are great shoes.

Also, men with hard to fit feet- I have a friend (with high arches and narrow feet) who swears by women's sneakers. No, he's not a drag queen... but really, you can't tell the difference.

 

[ADK4Life]

I got a great deal on a pair of Solomon XA Pro with the Goretex XRC lining before my trip to the whites last weekend. I ended us using them on the slippery rocks at Two Lights state park in Maine, they held on to the algae covered rocks with ease.
The next day I was stuck on Jefferson for alomst 12 hours. THey kept the comfort and grip that I needed (they kept waterproof when stepping into falls), very impressive for trail shoes. I used to have Vibram soles and the Contra grip was much better. I have changed my mind about Solomon, they perform on all levels. I can only imagine how well the boots perform.