View Full Version : Trail Runners and Traction
_terrapin_
09-21-2008, 23:43
I've been fortunate not to have to hike much in the rain. My last major AT section was done mostly wearing a pair of New Balance 907s (in a very dry season.) At this point they've got 300-400 miles on them.
Today I found myself slipping and sliding on wet rocks, descending a steep trail in the Whites (Israel Ridge, off the Presidential ridge.) Whether the moisture was from the heavy humidity or overnight rain, I don't know. All I know is that the traction was seriously lacking.
So my question is: are there certain brands/models/styles of trail runners that are known for traction on smooth, wet rocks? Or is this a generic weakness (compared to those ancient stiff leather hiking boots with Vibram soles?) Or is 300-400 miles considered "end of life" for a pair of trail runners?
sbennett
09-22-2008, 00:06
I've always heard that 400-500 miles was sort of the end for a pair of trail runners. However no one ever distinguished whether this was usually due to compression of the midsole or the actual deterioration of the tread, with the latter causing slippage.
I think most brands have certain shoes that are more "grippy" than other and I think there are several trail runners around these days with vibram soles (for instance, the North Face Hedgehog GTX uses a Vibram sole). The Gryptonite sole used by Montrail on their Continental Divide and Hardrock trail runners are advertised as being quite grippy on slick surfaces. I have a pair of Hardrocks, and wore out a pair of Namche's last year, and have never had a problem.
I'm not sure a lack of grip is an inherent trait in trail runners but I would guess that they would all be less stable than a stiff hiking boot. Maybe try an approach shoe for a good compromise? They tend to have pretty sticky soles but I don't about their comfort over the long haul.
I will also freely admit that I know nothing about New Balance trail runners.
stranger
09-22-2008, 02:03
I've put about 800 miles on some Asics Trabuco trail runners (2 different pairs), they don't seem overly slippy or anything, but I don't think anything compares to the good ol Vibram.
My current pair has about 600 miles on them and the tread is still OK, not great, but there, I would still use them but the sole split on the ball of the foot, good shoes though!
There are three types of shoes that look fairly much alike:
Running shoes
Trail runners
Cross trainers
The main difference between cross trainers and the other two is that they have Vibram soles. Not all Vibram soles work equally well on wet rocks. I am currently using last year's model of these (different color) and last weekend I descended Albert Mountain's rocks SOBO in the worst possible condition of wet rock and did not slip once:
http://www.rei.com/product/748515
fiddlehead
09-22-2008, 10:11
When i shop for trail runners anymore, I go to a shop near my home here where they sell second hand shoes and must have 10,000 pair.
I go to the runner/walking shoe section and spend a good hour or two inspecting the soles of the shoes 1st. When i find the most rugged soles, in my size (plenty big), i put them on a pile. After an hour or two, i usually have at least 8 pair that i am ok with.
Next, i look at the weight and pick them all up and compare them with each other. the lightest go on the next pile.
Then i try them on and walk around in them.
When i'm finished with that, i probably have 2 or 3 pair left that i am ok with.
THEN, i look at the price and buy the cheapest.
The pair i bought a few weeks ago are New Balance 600 (i think) and cost me about $7 at todays exchange rate.
In other words: The sole and it's amount of traction is no. 1 importance to me.
fiddlehead
09-22-2008, 10:14
Oh, one more thing.
It is of my opinion that 400 miles is about when they are just getting broken in.
I often get another 800-1,000 after that break in period.
(that is for Montrail Vitesse's anyway which are very solid shoes and i see Karl Meltzer was wearing them on his speed thing) (assault? battle? contest with nature? whatever he calls it?)
Anyway, THEY (Vitesses') are very sticky shoes IMO
_terrapin_
09-22-2008, 10:39
In other words: The sole and it's amount of traction is no. 1 importance to me.
So how do you test that, in the store? :-? Particularly the ability to hold on smooth, slippery rocks?
When purchasing a new pair of boots or, now, trail shoes, one of my criteria is that they have a definite heel, one with a pronounced sharp ridge where it joins the rest of the sole. I find a design with such a well defined edge is able to grip most rocks, wet or dry with more security that a smoother more gradual transition from heal to insole. That said, I have found my Vasque trail runners to be pretty comparable to the softer Vibrams that I've used. As someone has already pointed out, not all Vibram soles are created equal either.
fiddlehead
09-22-2008, 10:52
So how do you test that, in the store? :-? Particularly the ability to hold on smooth, slippery rocks?
Lots of tread (not smooth)
Stick my thumbnail into the knobs and i want them not too hard.
The cheap "no brand" names will usually be much harder rubber.
wrongway_08
09-22-2008, 10:58
I used the New Balance trail runners, mt908 model http://newbalance.com/outdoor/trail?cat=2&subcat=6&ptype=1&page=2 for my thru hike - put over 1100 miles on them (from Harpers Ferry to the Summit at big K!) and while they were worn, they gripped fine.
I also used the Mt1110 model for 750 miles, still have miles left in them, just switched the for the mt908 at Harpers Ferry because I knew the mt1110 wouldnt make it for the 2nd half of the thru-hike. They gripped great in wet,dry,muddy and angled climbs.
*you can see from the website photos, these shoes do not have big arse lugs on them, when I got to around 600 miles the tread was wearing pretty good and by 900 miles, the tread was almost gone but they still gripped fine, even up the summit of "K".
I found that adjusting the angle you step on wet rocks/roots made a big difference in the bite of a shoes sole. Even the angle you step on big slabs of smooth rocks while climbing up the sides of mountains in dry weather made a big difference for grip.
Your 907 are basically the same soles as my 1110 and 908, I would try adjusting how you are approaching the rocks and roots. Also how you transfer your weight while stepping on the rocks will make a big difference in the bite of any shoe, lean too far forward and your foot will slip backwards - sending you forwards, no fun with a pack on!
Blissful
09-22-2008, 11:23
That's a lot of mileage on them for the terrain. My runners have these little nodules on the soles for gripping, and for sure they would be the first things worn out on them. So its likely time for a new pair in that kind of tough terrain. More moderate terrain, you'd probably be okay for another 100.
(hey and congrats on your completion of the AT one year ago!)
dessertrat
09-22-2008, 11:44
So my question is: are there certain brands/models/styles of trail runners that are known for traction on smooth, wet rocks? Or is this a generic weakness (compared to those ancient stiff leather hiking boots with Vibram soles?) Or is 300-400 miles considered "end of life" for a pair of trail runners?
The tread on my lightweight Dunham boots (which are basically "high top" trail runners in design) is just about gone, and I've put about 500 miles on them. I could probably do another two hundred miles before they become totally slick, but the traction is getting questionable now.
I think, also, that trail runners just won't have the traction of a heavy vibram sole, even when new.
I had a hiking buddy who switched to 5-10's and was amazed at the traction provided. They are marketed as a climbing shoe, but I sure couldn't tell the difference between them and trail runners. But he swore by them and the main selling point for him was the traction.
_terrapin_
09-22-2008, 11:54
I found that adjusting the angle you step on wet rocks/roots made a big difference in the bite of a shoes sole. Even the angle you step on big slabs of smooth rocks while climbing up the sides of mountains in dry weather made a big difference for grip.
Your 907 are basically the same soles as my 1110 and 908, I would try adjusting how you are approaching the rocks and roots. Also how you transfer your weight while stepping on the rocks will make a big difference in the bite of any shoe, lean too far forward and your foot will slip backwards - sending you forwards, no fun with a pack on!
Interesting post. I'm not sure if I'm doing it right... but it's the way I've been doing it for the last 30+ years or so, and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks. :D I may be a slow hiker, but (knock wood!!!) I've managed to hike without serious injury.
I cut my hiking teeth in the Whites, and during the "early" years wore heavy boots with gnarly Vibram lug soles, like everybody else. In the last 5 years or so I've "modernized" much of my gear and many of my hiking routines, but at the same time, I've done much less hiking in the high peaks of the Whites. So... sliding down Mt. Jefferson yesterday, I began to wonder if I'd taken it too far.
dessertrat
09-22-2008, 12:25
The big change in modern footwear is the absence of a pronounced heel, which you can use for traction over rocks (they catch on the rocks' edges). Most of them today are almost flat.
WetBottom
09-22-2008, 12:55
I was considering switching to trail runners, or something lighter. I currently hike in some sort of Merrel hiking sneaker type thing, and they are nice, but I'm not sure they are right for me.
I wouldn't consider having to replace something every 400 miles unsuccessful...
So, is the general opinion of trail runners for hiking up and down mountains good, or bad? Maybe I should stop dreaming of lighter shoes, and start thinking about heavier shoes instead?
I don't have money for shoes for me right now anyway. You know winter is coming... and my horse will need her winter shoes... which cost $125... It's a good thing she's cute.
_terrapin_
09-22-2008, 13:03
So, is the general opinion of trail runners for hiking up and down mountains good, or bad? Maybe I should stop dreaming of lighter shoes, and start thinking about heavier shoes instead?
In spite of the topic of this thread, there are still lots of good reasons to hike in light shoes.
Pokey2006
09-22-2008, 13:39
I've been hiking in a cheap pair of Champion sneakers (Payless, $15), and was shocked at how well they gripped the rocks in the Whites recently -- even when the rocks were wet. I didn't slip once in 5 days, though I did trip over my feet a couple times. The sneakers did much better than my more expensive leather hiking boots. I wonder if that's because they are fairly new sneakers?
wrongway_08
09-22-2008, 14:31
I bought a pair of Nike flip flops, the ones with just a plastic band across the foot - no toe strap or back foot area strap - was using these for camp shoes, they only weighted a few ounces each. Paid $20.00 for them.
Wore these for the first 3 days in the whites and about a week before going into the whites. They had great grip, didnt hurt my feet (when used with hiking socks) and they didnt shoe much wear after all the rocks/rain/mud.
Only reason I stopped wearing them was every now and then I would catch a rock across the back of my foot as I stepped or a large pile of rocks.
Would have sent home the New Balance and just worn these if i had tried them out earlier as hikng shoes.
I've been hiking in a cheap pair of Champion sneakers (Payless, $15), and was shocked at how well they gripped the rocks in the Whites recently -- even when the rocks were wet. I didn't slip once in 5 days, though I did trip over my feet a couple times. The sneakers did much better than my more expensive leather hiking boots. I wonder if that's because they are fairly new sneakers?
Blissful
09-22-2008, 14:58
Trail runners are great. No breaking in time, much less blister and nail issues than boots, dry quicker and I believe they were much better to navigate boulder fields and rocks like that in PA, etc. The only time I could have appreciated boots is the scree areas in the Presidentials of the Whites.
WetBottom
09-22-2008, 15:03
Blissful- Do you have a guesstimate on what % of the whites you would prefer boots to shoes? I know, that's a nitpicky question, but I'm just curious if it's enough to justify boots all the time.
No high-top, heavy leather boots for me . . . never, ever again! Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt! :eek: :p
Blissful
09-22-2008, 15:12
Blissful- Do you have a guesstimate on what % of the whites you would prefer boots to shoes? I know, that's a nitpicky question, but I'm just curious if it's enough to justify boots all the time.
You can get through them with trail runners. It's just the way the rocks were in the Pesidentials from Mt. Washington to Madison that made it tough with the size and the spacing. I started the trail in GA with boots and by the time I hit VA I had ongoing blister and toenail problems and a pulled calf muscle. Switching to trail runners helped me immensely. I did sprain my ankle in them once in MA - but I slipped downhill on green leaves just cut by maintainers (love those crews and all they do, though). But I slipped numerous times in my boots too. Poles really helped me keep my footing, IMO. That and building strength in your ankles.
Take a look at INOV-8.Great shoe.
WetBottom
09-22-2008, 21:47
I had to look up what "vibram" was, and I found these. http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
Has anyone tried something like this? Think it's a good idea, or a great way to get hurt?
Go to extremes in the Complete Trailfox II XCR trail running shoe from Puma. For the neutral runner, this low-profile performance shoe is lightweight with a Gore-Tex® water-repellent, breathable mesh upper. KMS 100 in the midsole cushions, while the EverGrip outsole provides maximum grip and traction for any terrain.
Item # 135641
Style Number: 182975 01
Water-repellent, breathable mesh upper
Molded forefoot TPU protection plate
ArchTec (http://www.onlineshoes.com/techpop.asp?id=1178)
IdCELL (http://www.onlineshoes.com/techpop.asp?id=1186)
Weight: 10.2 ounces
http://s.onlineshoes.com/images/clear.gif
Quick drying lining
Forefoot flex grooves
EverGrip Outsole (http://www.onlineshoes.com/techpop.asp?id=1180)
KMS 100 Midsole (http://www.onlineshoes.com/techpop.asp?id=1188)
if you are still sliding and slipping whit this...you are on ice :D
TwoForty
09-22-2008, 22:53
I'd love to know what kind grip the best too. Every vibram soled boot I have owned has gripped like glue. Every pair of trail runners I've had has tried to dump me on my ass.
I think it's a few things. Mainly is that trail runners don't have very deep lugs. I am think the rubber is harder and less sticky. Another problem is that boots are stiff so they transmit friction very well. Most trail runners are flimsy and can't transmit loads very well.
I think the manufacturers of Vibram have tried to enter the 'runner's world' and in so doing have designed Vibram soles that don't create drag or slow you down as much as their conventional boot lug design. The result has been less drag for runners and more slippage for hikers. As I said previously, my Merrell Moab Ventilators are of the 'cross-trainer' variety and grip quite well.
_terrapin_
09-22-2008, 23:03
F.M.W. and others: I'm not a moderator, just the "OP" on this thread. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I put this thread under "straightforward" and I'd really like to keep it focused on the particular issue of traction. Thanks.
_terrapin_
09-22-2008, 23:46
I appreciate your post, Slo-go'en. Seems like I may have run into one of the weaknesses of trail runners. (Could it be ?!?!?! :eek:) I walked by the junction to Emerald trail yesterday, but frankly, I was eager to get my weary butt off the mountain. Israel Ridge was enough of a challenge, and it was the most direct route.
gonewalkabout
09-23-2008, 13:28
I have a pair of Saucony's trailrunners. Can't remember the neam but the sole has xt-900 and EBO molded in it. The first hike I wore them on was in the Catskills in the rain. I step on a flat pice of Catskill Shale and slide forward almost landing on my back. I've walked on the same trail same wet rock many times in my Merril Wilderness boots with virbim soles and had good traction. The grip has improved slightly with wear but these shoes are still dangous on wet rock. I would not wear them on steep slabs in the Whites or Adirondaks. I guess trail runners dont run in the rain on rocky trails I agree that techinque makes a difference but as I have done some high angled slab climbing I think I know how to walk up and down lower angled rock. I watched a freind take two bad falls on rock in vasques low cut hiking shoes and at the time belived it was from not know how to climb rock, but don't belive that is the case for all.
gonewalkabout
09-23-2008, 13:35
PS I have about 400 miles on the Saucony's and think they go for 100-200 more. I also love the trail runner over a boot for three season hiking and backpacking. Cooler, lighter, dry faster and no weight wasted on camp shoes. Also more comfrotable on road walks and less shin splints. If they get wet and I need to wea them in camp I put a gore tex sock over my dry and put my wet shoes back on. I just prefer boots big rock and western scree and trilous (sp.) slopes
_terrapin_
09-23-2008, 19:20
So does anyone have a positive experience with trail runners on slippery rocks in the Whites?
Blissful
09-23-2008, 19:44
So does anyone have a positive experience with trail runners on slippery rocks in the Whites?
Well...I survived it without any falls. :)
That's what was so strange, slipping and twisting my ankle in green leaves in MA (in fact, I had two big falls in MA on pine needles and the leaves) but getting through NH and ME pretty much unscathed except the mental aspects of the journey...oh, and a bad case of stomach flu.