In my constant attempts at lessening the load I have tried over the last 4 months to lessen the load on the feet...loving and swearing by the LLBean Crestas I was still studying alternatives.
The first attempt was the Nike ACG Air Zoon Talac which appeared wonderful by fitting nicely out of the box. This Nike failed however on the downhill from Amphitheatre Lake in the Grand Teton National Park...the uphill was wonderful but on the down (and this is a 5 mile down) I developed a severe toe cramp where the big toe meets the foot-it was almost incapacitating and made many of my knee woes seem trivial at the moment. After considering the possibilities I returned to reviews of this boot and realized that I have a lot of 'foot volume' and that this boot is not for one with such-though I didnt know I had such volume until trying a boot not designed for it...Disapointed to say the least because this Air Zoom Talac was 1/2 the weight of the Cresta...so back to the Cresta for a few hikes and then enter the:
Montrail GTX Storm. The Montrail was taken to New Zealand and used extensively for the last 3 weeks, in fact we just returned 3 days ago from that trip. The Montrail GTX storm weighs in at 1 pound 3 ounces-an ounce more than the Nike but in almost 35kilometers of hiking in all conditions (major ups/downs, sand, dirt, boardwalk (the Rakuira Tract has 16k's of boardwalk since you can't walk on the ground there without sinking in or destroying the vegatation)....
both of these boots have Goretex linings, the Nike never got to the wet test since it failed much earlier, but the Storm survived too many puddles and river crossing to name without failure.
At first I thought the Storm too tight--it was a 10.5 but not a wide like I normally wear (and I dont think available), but after some breakin they felt great for all of our long walks (tracts in their terminology)...
you can find either of these boots in a yahoo search and my intent here to not to slam the Nike-maybe you have a low volume foot? but to def. praise the Storm....it has cut my foot weight by almost 1/2 and that aint to shabby!
Prices were similar for both boots-around 125$
I dont think either can be re-soled.
Ankle support? yep in both, and I was surprised by how much for mid cut boots.
Appearance? I am traditional in my love for the leather look which neither of these boots have, personally I think both are ugly but my back and knees dont think so.
Traction? great on both, surprising so on the Storm which has a proprietary sole (not Vibrams), and the Storm's rubber is very sticky and grabbed rock when I never guessed it would.
Lacing....no speed lacing on either, just fabric friction to maintain friction on the shoestrings (bootstrings eh)//////
One more positive on the Storm, post most hikes the first thing I do at camp is get the boots off and my feet into the Nike Usurper (my campshoe of choice) but on the longest of our walks I forgot I had the Storms on!
Here (hopefully is a link to the Storm:
http://www.montrail.com/goods/prod_description.cfm?id=12&gender=male
And here for the Nike:
http://www.altrec.com/shop/detail/15659/ACG

[QUOTE=After considering the possibilities I returned to reviews of this boot and realized that I have a lot of 'foot volume' and that this boot is not for one with such-though I didnt know I had such volume until trying a boot not designed for it...

Simva.....
Pls define "foot volume"? Do you mean wide?

I have also been looking-via the net- at the Nike Tallac for the same reason. But my perfect size is 12.5 D and I am always searching for something else, generally a 12 built on a wider last, as few make a 12.5, and 13's seem to long. I have been using the Air Wallowa with the vibram sole, which lasts longer-for me at least -than the New Balance 80whatevers, which is still a great shoe. And I get it in 12 EE which fits fairly well.

Anyway, just curious.

its not width or length but height in the metatarsals or exactly the area concerning the first joint of the foot/toe, especially the big toe (kinda like measuring depth of a kayak I believe.....what I have learned is that
generally speaking Nike has less volue than New Balance....
More experience with the Montrail has now led me to believe that it is too narrow, and is only offered in a normal width. I am in the grey zone between
a normal width and needing a wider shoe/boot...so I am back in the proverbial, never failed me, but heavy (at 21b2oz)LLBean Cresta.
I wish the Air Zoom Talac had worked, even more so with the Montrail but so is the travail of life--->always looking for a better mousetrap or lighter boot that still provides the confidence if not the safety factor that each of us as individuals measure out.
When we did the Raikura Tract I knew there were to be no rock gardens and took the Montrail, last week it was the second before and including Dragon's Tooth-read rock gardens galor-so I took the Crestas knowing that rock would be less of a problem (psychological?)....anyway good luck with the Talac....

I have also been looking-via the net- at the Nike Tallac for the same reason. But my perfect size is 12.5 D and I am always searching for something else, generally a 12 built on a wider last, as few make a 12.5, and 13's seem to long...
Anyway, just curious.

Nikes run small. I'm a 12, and wear a 13 in any Nike shoe, so the 13s might be just the ticket for you.

Frank

Nikes run small. I'm a 12, and wear a 13 in any Nike shoe, so the 13s might be just the ticket for you.

Frank

Thanks for the reply.

I am in constant search of shoe that fits my darned feet and i find it increasingly more difficult. I dont know if others have the same problem but in my size 12 it seems that not only are there no two manufacturers consistent in their last (shoe last, mold or whatever they call it) sizing but often different models by the same manufacturer have different volumes and fit differently.

Anyway, I ordered the tallac in 13 D and it was way to big, heel slipped and back it went. I dont mean to criticize the shoe, just that that particular size didnt work for my screwed up feet. Perhaps a 12 would have but i lost interest. The Montrails are also, like the Nike, built on a narrow last. A 12 D is to tight and often to short in the toes; the 13D is to long. I must have tried 4 or 5 of their different models and they are great shoes otherwise-just not for my feet, regrettably.

The Nike is another good shoe. I use the Air Wallawa for my long speed walks exercising and find their 12D is also short and narrow but i once used it prematurely and couldnt take it back. It does have the best lugged sole of any of them and doesnt slip anywhere like the New Balance 804-5, etc does. But the New Balance, with their 12EE fits me perfectly. I am probably going to try a size 13d in the Nikes, just because that sole is so great but try a Mid height instead of low. Don't know why, just that they "look" better. Anyway, Frank, if the 13 worked for you.......might just work for me

I just found a new shoe I have never tried before-a Salomon Exclaim, low cut model in same 2 Lb, plus weight class and their size 12d fits me perfectly; its built on a roomier last. Plus it appears to have a good, gripping sole. I am trying it out now to see how it goes.

I go through a lot of shoes. About 30+ years ago, both feet were regrettably messed up and I have had 3 operations getting them back to order, as much as could be, and i find that if i walk them about 100 or so miles a month it helps them tremendously and keeps them looser. Hence, I am always on the lookout for a shoe that "hurts less" and only get from 200-400 miles on a pair, with the higher mileage coming from the "trail runner" variety.


I do believe that our feet are dissimilar as our fingerprints and when one model is good for one person it may not be for another. The reverse is also true and it is not because of the shoe but of the feet. So, we should read shoe reviews with more than just a grain of salt, especially as far as "fit" is concerned. Now wear is a different story... :D