PDA

View Full Version : boots: heavy duty vs lightweight



Dingus Khan
12-23-2006, 12:18
You will have to excuse me since I am new to these forums but I have long been torn between the use of "heavy duty" leather hard soled hiking boots that some recommend for longer trips and the use of lightweight trail shoes.

Can someone with experience with both help me out here? Are those 3# boots really worth the extra weight or can you get by on a thru using a montrail lightweight hiker?

The two issues I see crucial are water resistance and safety, and as I perceive it, if it is pouring out, either boot or shoe is going to give eventually, and safety (ankle particularily) has more to do with personal fitness and weight of bag.
But since I have not done a thru yet with either I was curious to see what the pro's recommended. Personally, I would like to hike in sandals, and have done so for some time but only on fairweathered 4-5 day sections.

Any review links would also be helpful, I am in the market for either but cannot decide to go either way. I am inclined to head towards UL hiking but want to cover all of my bases prior to doing so.

Thanks,
dan

rafe
12-23-2006, 12:38
You will have to excuse me since I am new to these forums but I have long been torn between the use of "heavy duty" leather hard soled hiking boots that some recommend for longer trips and the use of lightweight trail shoes.

Things change. Even this old phart learns new tricks. I haven't worn heavy leather boots in years, and they're just about extinct among knowledgable long-distance hikers... except maybe for serious winter travel.

Blue Jay
12-23-2006, 12:48
There are a few problems with leather other than your having to move at least a ton of weight every mile (2000 steps per pound). One, it tears up your feet. If you want blisters, leather will not only give them to you but will keep the ones you have as painful as possible. Two, once leather gets wet, it takes days to dry. Even if the next few days are sunny you'll still have the pleasure of wet feet. There is one clear advantage to leather, once you send them home, they last forever in the back of your closet.

Blue Jay
12-23-2006, 12:53
Oh, I almost forgot, you'll hear time and time again: "I need leather because I have weak ankles". As if leather can hold up your legs. No, your ankles hold up your legs. The only way leather can "save" your ankles is if it is soooo thick and stiff you could not walk at all. If you have weak ankles, strenghten them. If you have a weak back you don't carry a wall to hold up your pack.

rafe
12-23-2006, 12:58
Oh, I almost forgot, you'll hear time and time again: "I need leather because I have weak ankles". As if leather can hold up your legs. No, your ankles hold up your legs. The only way leather can "save" your ankles is if it is soooo thick and stiff you could not walk at all.


That's a good point. The only boot that'll save your ankle is a ski boot. And then you'll have a boot-top fracture. ;)

Lone Wolf
12-23-2006, 13:00
Oh, I almost forgot, you'll hear time and time again: "I need leather because I have weak ankles". As if leather can hold up your legs. No, your ankles hold up your legs. The only way leather can "save" your ankles is if it is soooo thick and stiff you could not walk at all. If you have weak ankles, strenghten them. If you have a weak back you don't carry a wall to hold up your pack.

Same with knees. Strengthen them, then you wouldn't need no stinkin' Leki poles.

rafe
12-23-2006, 13:04
Same with knees. Strengthen them, then you wouldn't need no stinkin' Leki poles.


Pfft. I've been skiing since I was a brat. I ski moguls. My knees are the best part of my body. I've practiced Shotokan karate and TaeKwonDo. I still won't hike without poles.

rafe
12-23-2006, 13:07
I still won't hike without poles.

Oops, correction: given a choice.. I still won't hike without poles. Hiking w/o poles beats not hiking at all. ;)

Sly
12-23-2006, 13:24
terrapin, do you need to add "Pfft" when you don't agree with a poster? You sound like a spoiled child.

Lone Wolf
12-23-2006, 13:25
Pfft. I've been skiing since I was a brat. I ski moguls. My knees are the best part of my body. I've practiced Shotokan karate and TaeKwonDo. I still won't hike without poles.

Then why do you need poles?

rafe
12-23-2006, 13:32
Then why do you need poles?

I don't exactly need them, Wolf. I've walked a couple thousand miles (?) without them. These days, I prefer to use them, for any number of reasons.

shades of blue
12-23-2006, 13:32
Then why do you need poles?
Not everyone is as well balanced as you are wolf....poles have saved my butt from falling countless times. Maybe my beard isn't long enough...would that add to my internal balance?

rafe
12-23-2006, 13:34
terrapin, do you need to add "Pfft" when you don't agree with a poster? You sound like a spoiled child.

Figure of speech, Sly. Pretty mild compared to some of what I read here.

handlebar
12-23-2006, 14:04
Boots vs. Shoes. Though I wore a pair of those heavy hiking boots (all leather, no goretex) on my thru, but I was the only one I saw with heavy-duty boots. I was glad to have a stiff sole under my feet. Since my boots fit and had about 500 miles on them when I started, I didn't get many blisters and after a week they were healed. Nonetheless, I'm considering going with hiking shoes on my next long distance hike. BTW, you definately can do the AT in sandals, though they could be a bit cold in GA snow in March. I met a hiker who had on my summit day and saw many others. That said you'd need to keep your weight (both of you and your pack) down. You will go thru many pairs of shoes (at least 3 pair) if you elect that route. My boots made nearly 1500 before the soles wore thru. Fortunately, I'd planned for this eventuality and had a pre-broke in spare pair a half size larger to switch into for the last 500 miles.

No matter how well you waterproof your boots, in a downpour, they'll get wet. Count on them weighing up to a pound more each wet vs. dry. And they take forever to dry--much longer than the synthentics in shoes. On that one, non-goretex trail shoes have the advantage. (If I wear goretex, my feet just get soaked from the sweat).

Dingus Khan
12-23-2006, 22:34
Nice, thanks guys, exactly what i wanted to hear before ditching those ol' weights... I'll be in the lookout for a good deal.

dan

RadioFreq
01-02-2007, 22:26
Okay, keep in mind that I have yet to tackle the AT so I have no personal knowledge on this, but everything I have read about the Pennsylvania section (i.e. lots o' rocks) would seem to indicate you would want something more substantial for the bottoms of your feet than what you see on lightweight trail shoes. Am I wrong here?

Ridge Rat
01-02-2007, 23:24
Okay, keep in mind that I have yet to tackle the AT so I have no personal knowledge on this, but everything I have read about the Pennsylvania section (i.e. lots o' rocks) would seem to indicate you would want something more substantial for the bottoms of your feet than what you see on lightweight trail shoes. Am I wrong here?

:eek: To demistify the myth of PA. It's not a problem of the big bad rocks, its the problem of quartz rocks everywhere that play havock on your feet from being small disasters that you trip over... they just start in PA around the susquahana river and dont stop until well up north. But I would suggest a low top pair of hiking shoes for PA section from experience. I got a high ankle sprain a couple years ago from high boots. It's worth letting your ankles roll a little bit (and sometimes a whole lot). I use a pair of Vasque light hiking shoes (dont ask model I knew about 500 miles ago). They provide more than enough padding on the bottoms of my feet.:D

fishinfred
01-02-2007, 23:31
Hey Dingus
Just wanted to let you know NOT to do what I did in 05.I had been wearing heavy Vasques Hightops with all the extra support for years,then when in Damascus on my hike decided to go with the lighter shoe type .It was great! They were so light! I danced up the trail to Front Royal then flipped to Monson and hiked the Wilderness and Katahdin....BOY I really screwed up my ankles and Achilles . Couldn't finish in 05, couldnt hike (Much) last year and just now starting to feel up to finishing .
Sooooooooo if you are used to the high tops with extra support be careful when switching to the shoes. Personally I am going back to the Vasques (or cheaper version) and ridding the extra weight from my pack instead of shorting my feet.
Make sure to get the shoeboot with the most tread as you will need it on those wet boulders up there . :D
Good luck and have a great hike !
PEACE!
Fishinfred

Could have been the switching of boots or just my OLD worn out ankles :rolleyes:
but I never had a problem with the "Heavy Duties" so it's something to think about .

RAT
01-03-2007, 00:32
I no longer use heavy duty boots. My back disease simply cannot handle it. I use a medium lightweight boot (Montrail at this time) rather than the peefart lightweight shoes that I see so much of on the trail. I would consider the lightweight shoes (several pair lol) tho if I were doing a thru-hike.

RAT

PS (Wolf's beard is not why he doesnt need no stinkin` Leki poles LOL, try again)

Pokey2006
01-03-2007, 01:23
I'm in the minority. I wore heavy leather boots, and I loved them! Hi-Techs Altitudes, $70, carried me more than 1,600 miles without being replaced ONCE, and I anticipate they'll hold up long enough to get through the last 500 or so miles. Yes, I am still using the same boots I used to hike from Georgia to Vermont. They smell really bad, have to be kept in a plastic bag, but they're still usable. I haven't even had to replace the boot laces.

By the way, ONE blister. Only one in 1,600 miles. And that was from tying my laces too tight.

So pooey to anyone who says that trailrunners are the only way to go, and that leather boots are all bad. Just about everyone who wore trailrunners replaced them at least once, and suffered painful blisters with every changeover. Not to mention the money spent buying new shoes every 500 miles.

copythat
01-03-2007, 03:42
terrapin, do you need to add "Pfft" when you don't agree with a poster? You sound like a spoiled child.

how about "pishtosh"?
:-?

loughery
01-03-2007, 09:08
I have an old pair of Vasque Hiker II leather boots that are perfect for family winter camping when I need to get up, clear snow, make a fire, and then wake the kids when it's warmed up. HOWEVER, these boots kill me when doing short trips in Pennsylvania. I have switched to Merrell Chameleon's. This is my second pair of Merrell's. I swore I would never ever buy another pair until they improved their soles to last longer than a year. The Chameleon has a Vibram sole...yeah! AND, I like that the sole is much stiffer in the instep so that my foot does not curve and bend over rocks which stress the heck out of my arches. Also, the hard rubber sole comes up high over the toes. Have not tried different socks yet, but need to check them out. I suspect that the gore-tex will not allow my foot to breathe as much as I would like them too. Perhaps there is a forum for socks? :-)