Salomon Speedcross 3 as light hiker?

[Arden]

Hi;
I am a trail runner, but also a hiker. I am in need of both hiking boots and trail running shoes.
I am thinking that I can satisfy both of my needs with one shoe. The Salomon Speedcross 3:
http://www.amazon.com/Salomon-Speedcross-Running-Silver-Metallic-X/dp/B004LB4V90/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431004405&sr=8-1&keywords=trail+running+shoes+men%27s

I have done day hikes with a light pack in my Asics Gel Trabuco's, and have found them to be very nimble and grippy on the trails. But I'm thinking that the Salomon's would be an even better choice.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Arden

[wormer]

I think that you may satisfy the trail running need with the Salomon's, but as far as hiking boot if you step in a wet area you feet will get wet in the Speedcross 3. The Speedcross 3 lack ankle support and the durability of a hiking boot. Most of the Salomon's that I have run narrow. If you have a foot that's not of normal width, they can be very uncomfortable. The tread on my Speedcross 3 are soft. My feeling is you will have great grip until the cleats wear down or break off. It seems to me that when I find somethings I like about a hiking shoe, sooner or later I discover that something else was given up to achieve it.

[Arden]

Thanks for the good info. I wasn't thinking about those muddy/wet spots that I find so often on the trails. I guess I should just stick with the Asics Gel Trabuco for trail running, and get a new hiking boot.
My old Asolos served me well, but the soles are worn so there isn't nearly the grip they used to have. The uppers are still in good shape though. Someone suggested the possibility of having those boots resoled, but didn't think it would really be worth the effort/cost, and the results would probably not be what I had hoped for.
Perhaps near the end of the summer I can get some good deals on the hikers.

Arden

[burger]

Any trail runner is the perfect hiking shoe. Boots are overkill--too heavy, too slow to dry, to much work to lift step after step.

If you're already used to being on trails in trail runners, just wear trail runners. You've already proven that you can wear trail runners on trails. Your foot surely strikes the ground with more force when you're running than it will while walking with a pack. It's a myth that you somehow need more support for backpacking than for running.

[bigcranky]

I use light trail runners for backpacking. Yes, my feet get wet when I step in a puddle. Also, and I know this is shocking, they get wet when it rains. And when I cross a stream. My three-season shoes are all mesh, so they dry very quickly, and I wear light wool socks so my feet stay comfortable. I much prefer a light, cool mesh shoe to a hot heavy leather shoe or boot that takes forever to dry when it gets wet.

Those Speedcross look a lot like the Inov-8 Roclites that I used on the LT last summer. Very grippy on soft trails and wet rocks, very light and flexible. Perfect for those who prefer a light trail runner for hiking.

[bigcranky]

Also, let me add that "ankle support" from a boot is a myth. The only boot that will prevent you from rolling your ankle is a plastic ski boot.

If you truly need ankle support, like you are rehabbing a torn tendon or broken ankle or something, talk to your doc or PT about an Aso brace. These fit inside your shoe or boot and provide excellent support -- much like a good tape job from a trainer, but portable and you can put it on yourself. I wore mine this past weekend on my first overnighter since injuring my ankle last summer.

[Kerosene]

Any trail runner is the perfect hiking shoe.Certainly this is true for smoother trails. For more rugged conditions, such as NH and ME, the lightweight Inov-8 317's I used were a bit too light for the conditions. The fit was great and they were airy and comfy, but they weren't stiff enough for the terrain and I ended up spraining the outside half of my right foot somewhere north of Rangeley. I would "re-sprain" that foot every morning, no matter how carefully I was walking. Of course, I wish I had found those boots for all of the miles south of New England where I suffered in heavier GTX low-top boots.

I walked with an eventual thru-hiker through Georgia who eventually ditched his trail runners somewhere mid-trail as his feet were so battered and bruised from the rocks, but maybe he was even more sensitive than I.

[burger]

Certainly this is true for smoother trails. For more rugged conditions, such as NH and ME, the lightweight Inov-8 317's I used were a bit too light for the conditions. The fit was great and they were airy and comfy, but they weren't stiff enough for the terrain and I ended up spraining the outside half of my right foot somewhere north of Rangeley. I would "re-sprain" that foot every morning, no matter how carefully I was walking. Of course, I wish I had found those boots for all of the miles south of New England where I suffered in heavier GTX low-top boots.

I walked with an eventual thru-hiker through Georgia who eventually ditched his trail runners somewhere mid-trail as his feet were so battered and bruised from the rocks, but maybe he was even more sensitive than I.

You are overgeneralizing badly. Just because you chose the wrong shoe and ended up getting hurt does not mean that trail runners are inappropriate. I have hiked through some of the roughest sections of ME and New England in trail runners with no problem. I saw a survey somewhere from this year or last showing that 50% of AT thru-hikers are using trail runners now.

What your comment does point out is that it's important to choose the right trail runner--one that fits well and is supportive enough for your individual feet. "Barefoot" type shoes that are basically just thin soles with no support may not be enough. But regular trail runners with some cushioning should be fine for almost anyone.

[Water Rat]

Hi;
I am a trail runner, but also a hiker. I am in need of both hiking boots and trail running shoes.
I am thinking that I can satisfy both of my needs with one shoe. The Salomon Speedcross 3:
http://www.amazon.com/Salomon-Speedcross-Running-Silver-Metallic-X/dp/B004LB4V90/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431004405&sr=8-1&keywords=trail+running+shoes+men%27s

I have done day hikes with a light pack in my Asics Gel Trabuco's, and have found them to be very nimble and grippy on the trails. But I'm thinking that the Salomon's would be an even better choice.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Arden

I think it would depend on how the Salomons feel on your feet and what terrain type of terrain you normally cover. I looked at the Speedcross 3 (briefly) when they came out. I love Salomons and am always wearing them when I am not wearing my Keen Newport's. I opted to go with a different version of the Salomon just because I worried about the lugs getting worn down a little too quickly. I tend to scamper mostly in Maine and New Hampshire, so the granite can be a tad harsh on shoes.

I absolutely love my Salomon XT Wings 3. They are awesome and fit my feet perfect. I am also very happy that I purchased a couple of pairs because they have discontinued this version. The shoe that looks to be the newer version of this shoe is the Salomon Wings Pro. They aren't super stiff and clunky, but they are also not flimsy and the tread holds up. I love the traction I get on the rocks and they have just the right cushion for my feet and knees.

I would suggest heading to store and trying some on to make sure the Salomons would work for you.

[Walkintom]

As Water Rat suggested you should go try on shoes before buying. That tends to get the best results.

[bigcranky]

I ended up spraining the outside half of my right foot somewhere north of Rangeley. I would "re-sprain" that foot every morning, no matter how carefully I was walking.

Sounds like a stress fracture, not a sprain. It's a classic overuse injury (it's not really a fracture). Yes, very flexible shoes can be a culprit.

[Singletrack]

I think it would depend on how the Salomons feel on your feet and what terrain type of terrain you normally cover. I looked at the Speedcross 3 (briefly) when they came out. I love Salomons and am always wearing them when I am not wearing my Keen Newport's. I opted to go with a different version of the Salomon just because I worried about the lugs getting worn down a little too quickly. I tend to scamper mostly in Maine and New Hampshire, so the granite can be a tad harsh on shoes.

I absolutely love my Salomon XT Wings 3. They are awesome and fit my feet perfect. I am also very happy that I purchased a couple of pairs because they have discontinued this version. The shoe that looks to be the newer version of this shoe is the Salomon Wings Pro. They aren't super stiff and clunky, but they are also not flimsy and the tread holds up. I love the traction I get on the rocks and they have just the right cushion for my feet and knees.

I would suggest heading to store and trying some on to make sure the Salomons would work for you.
I have been using Salomon since 2000. I also now use the XT Wings 3. But just ordered the Wings Pro, on sale for $90 at Amazon now. (Mens) My understanding is that they are the same as the XT Wings 3. According to Running Warehouse they have the same stability and weight as the XT Wings. What information do you have that they may be a bit different? Thanks.

[changed]

I switched to the SC3 in New Hampshire and absolutely loved them. They're comfortable like slippers the day you put them on. Quite honestly, they are terrible on slippery rock, but otherwise they are great. I would sacrifice the rock-grip for overall performance and will probably wear them again on the PCT.

[Gambit McCrae]

I hike in my speedcross 3s year round. They dry very quickly and with the combination of the smart wool phd's I am on my second pair

[Wyoming]

You are overgeneralizing badly. Just because you chose the wrong shoe and ended up getting hurt does not mean that trail runners are inappropriate. I have hiked through some of the roughest sections of ME and New England in trail runners with no problem. I saw a survey somewhere from this year or last showing that 50% of AT thru-hikers are using trail runners now.

What your comment does point out is that it's important to choose the right trail runner--one that fits well and is supportive enough for your individual feet. "Barefoot" type shoes that are basically just thin soles with no support may not be enough. But regular trail runners with some cushioning should be fine for almost anyone.

No the poster is not overgeneralizing. He points out real issues.

This bolded bit is just not accurate. Very large numbers of thru hikers are getting injured all the time wearing trail runners. All one has to do to understand this is read lots of trail journals at the beginning of the year. Significant numbers of new hikers end up with foot problems which eventually end their hikes. Many people are far better off in the good 'walking' shoes - and we are NOT talking about 'boots' either. Top quality walking shoes weigh almost exactly the same as the top trail runners, they have a much better sole on them which not only protects the feet much better but they wear far longer. Many people wearing trail runners end up needing 4-6 pair for a thru hike when a walking shoe like I wear can often go 2000 miles. If one has tendencies to get very sore feet when walking long distances for weeks on end, a tendency towards stress fractures or tendon issues the walking shoe with its stiffer sole helps tremendously with those issues. So if one has a tendency towards foot injuries or is trying to minimize costs the walking shoe can be the right choice.

I think if we are giving advise to new comers we should make an effort to provide information and balance. There are no right answers. Each person has different needs and has to figure this out for themselves and they can only do that if we provide them sound advice.

From my observations of footwear and hikers over the years I would hazard that, on average, a brand new hiker should error on the side of the walking shoe as that type of footwear has the least negatives. Then if they do well in those shoes and want to try a trail runner type of shoe they have a much higher base of conditioning and strengthening to help make that transition with less chance of injuries. And if it then turns out that the trail runners work fine for them there is no loss, but if the trail runners are not sufficient they will realize it quickly and can switch back to the more rugged shoe before they do real damage.

I am a perfect example of this situation. I started my AT thru hike with Montrail Hardrocks like 'everyone' was wearing then. By Damascus my feet were killing me they hurt so bad. But I bought a new pair there and stuck with them because everyone else was and all of them were complaining about how much their feet hurt too. At Harpers Ferry I went into the outfitters and told them to help me as I was not going to make it much further because my feet were in agony. They said to throw away the Montrails and put me in a pair of Vasque Breeze's and told me they were switching people into harder soled shoes several times a day. Immediately I was better off as the rocks did not bruise my feet anymore. The feet never stopped hurting but they stopped getting worse. It was several months after my hike before the feet were pain free. I have subsequently hiked a good 7000 miles in the walking shoes like the Breeze and have never had bad foot pain again.

The mention of 50% of hikers wearing one type of shoe tells us little. What we need is a statistic which shows the ratio of hikers getting off trail due to foot injuries and what kind of shoes they have been wearing. I would guess that the vast majority would have been wearing trail runners and running shoes. Another good statistic would be to sit at Katadhin and ask how many of the finishers had switched shoes from when they started and from what to what. I bet you would not find hardly any who switched from a walking shoe to a trail runner or running shoe. But you would find many who went the other direction.

[changed]

No the poster is not overgeneralizing. He points out real issues.

This bolded bit is just not accurate. Very large numbers of thru hikers are getting injured all the time wearing trail runners. All one has to do to understand this is read lots of trail journals at the beginning of the year. Significant numbers of new hikers end up with foot problems which eventually end their hikes. Many people are far better off in the good 'walking' shoes - and we are NOT talking about 'boots' either. Top quality walking shoes weigh almost exactly the same as the top trail runners, they have a much better sole on them which not only protects the feet much better but they wear far longer. Many people wearing trail runners end up needing 4-6 pair for a thru hike when a walking shoe like I wear can often go 2000 miles. If one has tendencies to get very sore feet when walking long distances for weeks on end, a tendency towards stress fractures or tendon issues the walking shoe with its stiffer sole helps tremendously with those issues. So if one has a tendency towards foot injuries or is trying to minimize costs the walking shoe can be the right choice.

I think if we are giving advise to new comers we should make an effort to provide information and balance. There are no right answers. Each person has different needs and has to figure this out for themselves and they can only do that if we provide them sound advice.

From my observations of footwear and hikers over the years I would hazard that, on average, a brand new hiker should error on the side of the walking shoe as that type of footwear has the least negatives. Then if they do well in those shoes and want to try a trail runner type of shoe they have a much higher base of conditioning and strengthening to help make that transition with less chance of injuries. And if it then turns out that the trail runners work fine for them there is no loss, but if the trail runners are not sufficient they will realize it quickly and can switch back to the more rugged shoe before they do real damage.

I am a perfect example of this situation. I started my AT thru hike with Montrail Hardrocks like 'everyone' was wearing then. By Damascus my feet were killing me they hurt so bad. But I bought a new pair there and stuck with them because everyone else was and all of them were complaining about how much their feet hurt too. At Harpers Ferry I went into the outfitters and told them to help me as I was not going to make it much further because my feet were in agony. They said to throw away the Montrails and put me in a pair of Vasque Breeze's and told me they were switching people into harder soled shoes several times a day. Immediately I was better off as the rocks did not bruise my feet anymore. The feet never stopped hurting but they stopped getting worse. It was several months after my hike before the feet were pain free. I have subsequently hiked a good 7000 miles in the walking shoes like the Breeze and have never had bad foot pain again.

The mention of 50% of hikers wearing one type of shoe tells us little. What we need is a statistic which shows the ratio of hikers getting off trail due to foot injuries and what kind of shoes they have been wearing. I would guess that the vast majority would have been wearing trail runners and running shoes. Another good statistic would be to sit at Katadhin and ask how many of the finishers had switched shoes from when they started and from what to what. I bet you would not find hardly any who switched from a walking shoe to a trail runner or running shoe. But you would find many who went the other direction.

My experience on the AT this year completely contradicts this.

I only saw people switching to trail runners, never going from trail runners to boots. Wearing boots on such a wet trail is simply dumb. Your feet are going to be wet all the time. I started in boots, I know.

[Water Rat]

I have been using Salomon since 2000. I also now use the XT Wings 3. But just ordered the Wings Pro, on sale for $90 at Amazon now. (Mens) My understanding is that they are the same as the XT Wings 3. According to Running Warehouse they have the same stability and weight as the XT Wings. What information do you have that they may be a bit different? Thanks.

I didn't say anything to indicate that the Wings Pro were any different than the Wings 3, except that the Wings Pro is now the latest version of the Wings 3. They discontinued the Wings 3 and created the Wings Pro.... When my pairs of Wings 3 wear out, I plan on purchasing the Wings Pro. They work for my feet and I have not had issues after thousands of miles in Salomons.

To comment on the more recent entries - Wear walking shoes if they work for you, wear hiking boots if they work for you, wear running shoes if they work for you... NEVER wear what someone else wears just because that is "what everyone is wearing."

What works for one, doesn't necessarily work for all. Try shoes on before you buy them. I have hiked in sandals, in boots, in walking shoes, in running shoes. I continue to hike in sandals (my Keens), in boots in the winter months (when there is too much snow for my running shoes) and in running shoes. ALL of these choices work for me. I just normally tend to hike in sandals, or running shoes. I have never had foot issues... This is most likely because I try my shoes before buying and I pay attention to what works for me. Who cares what the label says? Wear what works. There are many forms of footware out there - Choose what feels good on your feet and take it from there. Does this slow down the buying process? Sometimes, but it is better to take the time and find what works for you so that you can avoid foot issues.

[Traveler]

I like the my trail shoes/runners, but didn't like their performance as much in difficult terrain. So I pulled the trigger on a pair of Salomon X Ultra Mid 2 GTX Backpacking Boots as a way to split the difference between a decent boot and a low shoe.

These lace up further and provide some ankle protection and a little more rigidity in the shoe itself, but not so much you have to walk like Frankenstein. The Goretex seems to work very well and allows my feet to wick dry under hard use, something my Merrills low shoes were not real good with. Light to medium rain events they stay fairly dry and once wet they dry out a lot faster than other boots and shoes I've had. Their weight is right at 2lb for the pair, fairly light for what they are. They grip very well, especially on wet rock where I need them too. My only negative is the bottoms of my feet get a little tender after about 10 to 12 miles, but my other trail runners did the same thing in less than 8 miles.

I thought if anyone is looking for a good shoe that is in-between a boot and a low runner they may want to look at these as a good option.

[SteelCut]

I didn't say anything to indicate that the Wings Pro were any different than the Wings 3, except that the Wings Pro is now the latest version of the Wings 3. They discontinued the Wings 3 and created the Wings Pro.... When my pairs of Wings 3 wear out, I plan on purchasing the Wings Pro. They work for my feet and I have not had issues after thousands of miles in Salomons.

I'm a long time Salomon wearer and have been looking these models for a while. I've wondered about the tread pattern on the Wings 3 and Wings Pro. I'm curious, how is the tread in wet conditions on rocks and how well does it wear.

[Water Rat]

I'm a long time Salomon wearer and have been looking these models for a while. I've wondered about the tread pattern on the Wings 3 and Wings Pro. I'm curious, how is the tread in wet conditions on rocks and how well does it wear.

I love the tread pattern on these shoes (speaking specifically about the Wings 3 because those are my current shoes)! I have heard others say they have issues on wet rocks, but I personally don't think these shoes are much different than most shoes on wet rocks. Or, perhaps I just place my feet differently? Hard to say... I know that mine have not given me enough issues for me to think it is the shoe that is the issue. At any rate it is not enough of an issue for me me switch shoes. And there are plenty of wet rocks in Maine and NH!

I am always walking/hiking, so my shoes get have used. However, I tend to wear out the cushion in a shoe before I wear out the shoe itself. For this reason, I stick Sof Sole inserts in my shoe and keep going. I still have pretty good tread at around 1200 miles on my current Salomons. I have an athletic build, am by no means overweight, and rarely carry a heavy/overstuffed pack. I think these factors contribute to my shoes lasting a bit longer. I do go off-trail, but rarely get into serious bush-whacking these days. Mileage may definitely vary, but I am quite pleased at how these shoes have held up. When they get gross, I throw them in the wash machine and get them clean (air dry in the sun). I have used them in the high desert, the mountains, on Katahdin, fording streams....in the ocean... They have been put to the test.

[SteelCut]

I know that mine have not given me enough issues for me to think it is the shoe that is the issue. At any rate it is not enough of an issue for me me switch shoes. And there are plenty of wet rocks in Maine and NH!

I am always walking/hiking, so my shoes get have used. However, I tend to wear out the cushion in a shoe before I wear out the shoe itself. For this reason, I stick Sof Sole inserts in my shoe and keep going. I still have pretty good tread at around 1200 miles on my current Salomons.

Thanks for the info. I'm the same way with the Salomon XA Pro 3D's that I wear now. The cushioning goes way before the shoe wears out. I use to use SuperFeet but have just switched to the Sof Sole and so far I really like that insole.

I'll definitely give the Wings a try when my current pair wears out.

[Mykneeshurt]

I wore these exclusively in 2013 hike. Six months of comfort!

[Aram]

Has anyone worn the Solomon Speedcross 3 AND the (Brooks Cascadias OR Saucony Xodus)? It is valuable to be able to compare and contrast.

Ive worn every model on the Saucony Xodus (except the original version) for a combined >2,000 AT/LT miles and the Brooks Cascadia (6 and 8) for combined > 1,000 AT/LT miles. Both were excellent but different. I also have tough feet and other improvements which may not apply to everyone and affords me some flexibility in shoe choice.

Am very curious about the SC3 especially in contrast to the Saucony Xodus.

[wormer]

My Speedcross 3 have about 70 miles of Maine AT on them and they are coming apart fast. The rubber toe guard is starting to separate from the shoe. I am also having problems with the traction knobs being ripped off the soles. Some of the knobs are taking the thin layer of rubber sole with them when they come off. In general the knobs are wearing down faster than I feel they should. On tree roots and wet rocks they are still very slippery, even with the knobs. On mud they grip real well on the AT. The rest of the shoe looks nearly in perfect condition. For me these shoes are really comfortable and light that is what they have going for them. My Salomon XA 3D are holding up very well with way more miles on them than the Speedcross 3.

3204732048