Four Trail Shoe Review, part deux

[chris]

Last summer I posted a review of the four trail shoes that I used on the PCT, and thought that I would do the same for this summer's hiking. I tallied about 1800 miles this summer on the AT and on the GDT (in Canada, through the Rockies) and also went through four shoes. I have not listed weights for the shoes as I didn't pack along my scale and got the shoes as I went, except for the Brooks, which I had been wearing for about 400 miles on various weekend hikes in the Smokys, in Syria and Lebanon, and in various locales out west. Also, as I have size 15 feet, the weights would have been skewed toward the heavier side of the spectrum. I am also not listing prices as these vary from store to store, and one can frequently find good deals on shoes at close-out stores. Shoes are a personal thing and my brief reviews are based upon what I, personally, think is important in a shoe. I took the insoles out of all of the shoes and used a set of green Superfeet insoles.

The Trails: The Appalachian trail between Damascus and Manchester Center. The Great Divide between Waterton National Park and Mount Robson.

Brooks Trespass
-----------------
This is really a great shoe, although it has been discontinued in favor of the Trespass 2. Traction is superior and the sole utilizes a series of directional ridges. In the front of the shoe, the ridges angle backward toward the heel, in an attempt to improve traction as you hike uphill. In the rear of the shoe, the ridges angle foward, toward the toes, in an attempt to improve traction as you go down hill. While I have no scientific evidence that this is an improvement over a standard sole pattern, from experience it does seem to produce a shoe that is very sticky on dirt or loose rock. The shoe itself follows the normal Brooks pattern of being nice and wide in the toe box, but a little too wide in the heel for my particular needs. However, no blisters or feet irritation occured. The Trespass feels light and almost non-existent, which also means that it isn't very protective. The sole is hard enough to be comfortable while walking over rocky terrain, but if you kick rocks ro bang the sides into roots, you will definitely feel it. I wore the Trespass for about 600 miles total, including a lot of hiking in the Smokys, in the Middle East, the Grand Canyon, the Santa Catalina range in Arizona, around Indiana, and on the AT between Damascus and Pearisburg. Durability was very good, with some fabric degradation, but no holes. The soles were battered, but still quite functional when I trashed the shoes. Cushioning was starting to break down, as expected. Highly recommended.

Asics 1090 TR
----------------
I've had great success with Asics' shoes in the past and was happy to see a new trail shoe from them at a bargain price. The 1090 TR is a medium weight shoe that offers average, but acceptable, traction and protection. The shoe doesn't do anything wrong, although the cushioning began to break down after about 300 miles and the sole was not hard enough to compensate for this. Hence, in PA I began to feel the rocks rather alot. I wore the shoes between Pearisburg and Unionville, NY. Durability, except for the cushioning, is excellent and there wasn't even a sign of fabric degradation or structural compromise. The shoes are cheaper than most anything I have seen, outside of closeout specials. For the AT, I would say that they are an ideal shoe, but one must accept the (relatively) quick breakdown of the cushioning. Recommended.

Asics Gel Trabuco VI
-----------------------

Another Asics shoe that I like a lot. I used the Trabuco V last summer on the PCT and found it to be about perfect for that trail. The Trabuco VI has since been replaced with the Trabuco VII. The Trabuco VI is medium-light and very protective, especially on the soles. Traction is acceptable, though not as burly as the other shoes in this review. The sole pattern is only slight more rugged than what one finds on Asics normal road running shoes. Durability was spectacular, with almost no degradation at all. I wore the shoe between Unionville, NY and Manchester Center, VT on the AT, and for a distance of about 300 miles between Waterton and Field, BC, on the GDT. If the sole pattern was a little more aggresive, this would be my standard shoe, period. For the AT and most of the PCT, I have not encountered a better shoe for a long distance hiker.

Asics Eagle Trail III
---------------------
The Eagle Trail III has a massive sole pattern which, combined with relatively soft rubber, gives traction that is almost equivalent to my mountaineering boots. The central problem is in durability and cushioning. As with last year's model, I wore holes in the front, inside toe areas and the cushioning broke down very quickly. I would still use these shoes for hiking, but would expect to replace them every 400 miles. If Asics would put the tread pattern of the Eagle Trail on the body of the Trabuco and increase the hardness of the rubber, an ideal hiking shoe would be born. I wore the Eagle Trail between Field, BC and Mount Robson, BC on the GDT, a distance of about 350 miles.

[jags]

I'm a newbie, so go easy.
Intending/planning to do the thru-hike in 2006.

I'm amazed at the use nowadays of trail runners to do a backpack of this duration and surprised to find few complaints of sore feet, ankles and calf muscles.
As an old-timer, used to leather boots for anything other than shorter day hikes, can you fill me in on the apparent abundant use of trail shows; their weaknesses and strong points(weight is obvious).?

I'm contemplating carrying a pair of sandals or lighter trail shoes but few people ever mention backup footwear in their lists, how come.?

Thanx in advance, Jags

[Footslogger]

[QUOTE=jags]I'm contemplating carrying a pair of sandals or lighter trail shoes but few people ever mention backup footwear in their lists, how come.?
=========================================
Most likely weight and space constraints. Your "back-up" footwear is the sandal or trail shoe you mentioned.

'Slogger
AT 2003

[chris]

As packweights have come down, people have found that the need for solid foot wear has decreased, particularly on large, established trails like the AT or PCT (off the snow, that is). Runner, or trailrunners, generally have much, much, much better cushioning that boots do, which leads to fewer cases of shin splints. Moreover, the comfort level is high enough that blisters are more rare, although they still occur.

There are downsides to wearing trail runners. First, they are pretty bad on snow. If you have to kick steps, they are pretty uncomfortable. Second, your ankles will move around alot. However, I've never sprained an ankle. But, the movement can tire out your ankles by the end of the day. Third, you need to be careful where you put your feet. The soles of most trailrunners are not very hard or protective. This means that you want to avoid oddly shaped rocks. On some trails, this can't be done and you'll get some sore feet. Fourth, they are not very durable. Some brands keep their external apperance for 1000 miles (New Balance shoes, for example). However, the cushioning starts to break down sooner and you might get yourself hurt by pushing too far. For example, Asics Eagle Trail shoes break down structurally around 400-500 miles, in my experience. Asics Gel Trabuco shoes seem to have a longer life of around 700-900 miles. I've burned through 8 pairs of shoes over the last two summers. Boots are cheaper. Fifth, trail runners do not protect your feet on bushwhacks. This isn't a problem on the AT, but my feet got chewed on a few instances on the GDT last summer, including one episode where I ripped a 2 inch gash through the shoe.

All in all, however, for established trails I find trailrunners to be a superb bit of footwear and I will never hike in boots unless the situation (i.e, I'm on a glacier) demands it.

[Basilio]

Hi chris, I stick to trail runners too and perhaps wouldn't go for boots under no circumstances. Still I never thought of making such a detailed analysis. That's superb man.