How'd Your Trail Runner, Shoe or Sandal Perform/Last on your Thru/Section-Hike?

[BrokenAeroVT]

Hi...new here at Whiteblaze.net but not new to the AT. I thru-hiked the AT in 2010 with a 28-34 lb fully loaded pack with 3 pair of mid cuts.

Now that I'm looking at trail runners and trail shoes for the first time, I'd like to gather your experiences to make an informed planning choice on selecting trail runners/shoes/sandals by getting an idea about how durable treads/rubbers, soles and skins are on different shoes thru your relatively recent experiences.

So if you thru-hiked the AT in 2008 to the present, or at least section hiked enough miles to render your trail runner/shoe in need of permanent replacement, I'd appreciate your stories.

It would be helpful to know (but not absolutely required in order to post a reply):

1) brand, model and year of shoes,
2) the initial tread's lug depth and type of rubber (I can look it up with item 1, but it would save me time if you know off hand),
3) the section of trail the shoe died in (PA/NJ rocks eat shoes alive),
4) the autopsy of the shoe (cause of death),
5) how many lbs were bearing down on those shoes (ladies feel free to mention only pack weight :))

6) and how many miles did you get out of the tread before the tread depth became useless (were you using shoe goo to increase longevity?).

I appreciate shoe recommendations, but only if you've personally hiked that shoe to death or know someone who has and you can pass along their data.

If you felt the rocks thru your shoes at some point of the tread life, felt unstable, banged up your joints, developed inflamed arches, had lots of toe or blister grief, felt you needed an aftermarket insole, and you are sure it's not because you didn't get the right size or use proper lacing technique, that would be a plus.

If anyone had problems with warranty support while a long way from home, here's your opportunity to vent. :D (Merrell's warranty support to me in 2010 catered to my needs as a thru-hiker and was IMO fantastic.)

I already know one shoe is not the magic bullet for everyone, but I would enjoy hearing your stories nonetheless. My objective is not to determine which shoe is best, but how many of those shoes I might need to plan a thru-hike if I were to decide your shoe will probably work for me. In turn, I hope other people will find this thread usefully informative in the same regard I anticipate it will be for me.

If anyone has hiked with the Keen Newports (3mm lugs but has substantially more rubber contact area than most trail shoes or runners) I'd love to know how long that particular tread lasted.

Thanks in advance everyone!

[Driver8]

I just tried the Brooks Cascadia 7 but ended up returning them to REI after about 25 trail miles and maybe 15 gym miles. Loved the look of them and how light they were, but their sole did NOT work for my feet - both were sore every day after a hike and even after just an hour on the elliptical. Hated to take them back, but did.

I have a pair of Merrell Moab Ventilators which are about two years old, maybe 22 mos, not sure exactly. Have put a good 500 trail miles on them, I'd say, probably more, about 100 in the A.T. corridor, mostly in CT and Mass, with some VT and NH, including three trips to Mt. Washington and one each to Moosilauke and Lafayette. They're still alive, but getting pretty old, almost blowing out on the right pinky toe area - just patched that internally with a fair amt of duct tape and will test them out this weekend at Mt. Everett/Jug End area. Left foot has a major gash atop the toe box, just shoe gooed that, too, and will test as well this weekend. If they pass the test, it's back to the Whites with them next weekend.

For my feet, the Moabs fit well, are durable and comfortable. They dry quickly, which is good, since I'm not fussy about not getting my feet wet or muddy along the way. They are very durable, grip well, provide excellent support and stability. My gripe is that they are heavier than trail runners. I loved the light-as-air feel of the Brooks and hate that they were not a good match for my feet.

Am looking to buy either trail runners or simple running shoes with soles similar to the Moabs and to the old New Balance running shoes I have, which I also wear now and then on less severe trails - worn tread keeps me from taking them on steeper, slipperier stuff.

I'll be interested to hear of others experiences.

If it's OK for me to piggy back here rather than to start a whole new shoe thread, I'll also pose this question to others here - do you know of a good lightweight trail runner or running shoe which a) is good for wide feet (EEE), and (b) has an hour-glass shaped sole with a somewhat raised arch, like the Moab Ventilators? Preferably one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Thanks in advance.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I just tried the Brooks Cascadia 7 but ended up returning them to REI after about 25 trail miles and maybe 15 gym miles. Loved the look of them and how light they were, but their sole did NOT work for my feet - both were sore every day after a hike and even after just an hour on the elliptical. Hated to take them back, but did.

What exactly was it about the sole that did not work right for your foot?

[topshelf]

I am hiking this summer and running in the Montrail Mountain Masochist. They fit tight around the heel and midfoot but have the nice footbox like the New Balance shoes.

I did 20+ miles a day last week carrying 25-30 pounds and my feet felt great. This is after I have put in, by estimation, about 300 miles on them running. The next week or two will probably be the end of the life of the shoe for me. I dont take shoes past 500-600 miles. With the heavy miles I like to keep my shoes fresh, rather than wait til a blowout. The shoes have held up great. They vent well and my feet stay dry, no blisters. The tread is worn but I still get great traction. No excessive wearing of the tread. My only complaint is that the lacing across the top of the foot doesnt seem right, the shoe doesnt lace evenly. But this is a shoe that I will go back to.

[Driver8]

What exactly was it about the sole that did not work right for your foot?

Not sure. All I know is my feet like the Moab Ventilators and the New Balance running shoes I have, whose two soles are similar, as I described, while the Cascadias were flat. I think the flat is not good for my feet, but I am not an expert at biomechanics, so I couldn't tell you why.

[BrokenAeroVT]

...I did 20+ miles a day last week carrying 25-30 pounds and my feet felt great. This is after I have put in, by estimation, about 300 miles on them running. The next week or two will probably be the end of the life of the shoe for me. I dont take shoes past 500-600 miles...The shoes have held up great. They vent well and my feet stay dry, no blisters. The tread is worn but I still get great traction. No excessive wearing of the tread.

Great info. Sounds like a winner I'd like to look more into.

May I therefore ask some more details, please?

How many days did you carry the 25-30 lbs?

Have your feet gotten soaked in them and if so, about how long was it (activity or not) before your feet felt dry in the shoe (synthetic/organic sock?) I'm contemplating divorcing Gore Tex liners and the rewards of merging with the wetness of nature, and I'm a little worried about cracked feet and trench foot.

Did you have an opportunity to put a potato sized rock thru the uprights (so to speak) while hiking in them, and if so, how did that work for you? Can't tell how much toe protection there is on this shoe.

How well did the rock shield work keeping you from feeling an individual rock under foot?

Also, my measured size is 12D (medium width, 4.1 inches straight across) but I usually go for the 12.5 if they are true to size. Shoes made on a narrow last usually don't work for me in the forward area, even when they indicate my size. It sounds from what you are saying that this shoe might actually fit me well because of generous foot box space?

Was this shoe true to size for your device measured foot?

Thanks for the insights into this trail runner. Very helpful.

[BrokenAeroVT]

Not sure. All I know is my feet like the Moab Ventilators and the New Balance running shoes I have, whose two soles are similar, as I described, while the Cascadias were flat. I think the flat is not good for my feet, but I am not an expert at biomechanics, so I couldn't tell you why.

Okay, I get it. You have arched feet. Your feet cherish the arch support they get so they don't become sore with tendon stretch. I like the fit of the Moab, too. It's made on one of Merrrel's roomier lasts. Thanks very much for your reply!

[Driver8]

Okay, I get it. You have arched feet. Your feet cherish the arch support they get so they don't become sore with tendon stretch. I like the fit of the Moab, too. It's made on one of Merrrel's roomier lasts. Thanks very much for your reply!

You're welcome. What is a last - I'm curious. Are you in the shoe industry? You seem to be very highly informed about the subject, which I find interesting.

[Driver8]

I looked up shoe last. Having covered that, more to my point, BrokenAero, do you know of a trail runner or running shoe, nice and light, not too pricey, which is wide and has a sole like that of the Moab?

[BrokenAeroVT]

I looked up shoe last. Having covered that, more to my point, BrokenAero, do you know of a trail runner or running shoe, nice and light, not too pricey, which is wide and has a sole like that of the Moab?

Not in the industry, but I learned a lot about lasts from the Merrell agent who tried to explain why my 12 Medium warranty return which was replaced with a 12 Medium in a different model (due to shortage of the other boot) gave me nerve damage because of the narrower width. Feeling came back in 6 months and my money was returned as a courtesy. Merrell is great.

I have no experience with trail runners, but I have been reading a lot. The Montrail Mountain Masochist mentioned above at $100 retail and 10.8 oz (wt. of size 9 I think) looks decent after reading about it on their site. It seems to have the spacey forward foot area and arch support I need. I don't like to feel rocks through my shoes and it seems to have some protection in that regard.

I'm a little worried about knee issues though, so personally, I might go with a more rugged trail shoe which usually increases the wt. to 14oz. I've had problems with shock in the past, and sacrificing a few ounces for joint insurance might be worth it in my case. Especially toe protection. I've kicked so many rocks on the AT in PA and felt it, that I'm a little reluctant to compromise too much in that area.

Montrail had issues with their best AT shoe, the Hardrock, back 4-5 years ago, when Columbia Sportswear took them over. This went on for a few years, but recently, their quality seems to have improved according to testimonies I've read, and I've read some of the delaminating issues numerous shoes had at this time including the Hardrock may have been due to a "greener glue" that came available at the time and was experimented with. At least I read someone explaining that in one particular case--can't remember which company off the top of my head--I'm almost sure it was the Keen Targhee II. You'll have to verify that story to be sure. I read about it on a forum here where the Keen Newport was mentioned. Now THERE'S a shoe you can put a rock through the uprights and still be comfortable enough to cheer the score, haha.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Hang around for a while. Maybe someone will recommend something.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I looked up shoe last. Having covered that, more to my point, BrokenAero, do you know of a trail runner or running shoe, nice and light, not too pricey, which is wide and has a sole like that of the Moab?

I read the Keen Newport sandal has that roomy box width I like in the Moab if you're interested investigating it. I tried the Moab on in the store a year ago, and if I remember correctly, the 12.5-13 Medium had the roomy box area I needed. My foot is 4.1 inches wide at the ball. I think the Wide added another 1/4" to the width. I like the (leather) Newport's low cost ($100), airy, durable, anti-stink, quick draining, great grip in wet and space for my toes design yet still is only 14 oz. Only drawbacks I can think of is something occasionally getting between the foot and the sole and I'm still not sure how far the 3mm tread (but generous contact area) will take me. If I can do the AT in three pair, I'm sold! Much much lighter than the Merrell Outbound I finished the trail in, that's for sure.

One other trail shoe you can check out is the Teva Riva Mesh. It's more of a trail shoe, but the fit in the box is generous. I have to pull the laces close together even with the medium I purchased a year ago from Sierra Trading Post. I don't know if the newer model is still cut like that though. Incredibly comfortable. 4mm of lug. Vibram sole. Might do 800 miles on the AT but I haven't hiked more than 10 miles in them to find out. I keep these for the short hikes I do with someone I camp with who can't go substantial distances.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I looked up shoe last. Having covered that, more to my point, BrokenAero, do you know of a trail runner or running shoe, nice and light, not too pricey, which is wide and has a sole like that of the Moab?

Got The closeout Teva Riva Mesh http://www.sierratradingpost.com/teva-riva-mesh-trail-shoes-nubuck-for-men~p~3993w/ for $36 on an STP email flyer secret sale last year. Page is still there with all specs and reviews but they are sold out. The sole and fit reminds me of the Moab but far more comfortable. Like I said, I don't know if the replacement model is similar.

[Driver8]

Not in the industry, but I learned a lot about lasts from the Merrell agent who tried to explain why my 12 Medium warranty return which was replaced with a 12 Medium in a different model (due to shortage of the other boot) gave me nerve damage because of the narrower width. Feeling came back in 6 months and my money was returned as a courtesy. Merrell is great.

For someone not in the industry, you are extraordinarily well informed about the subject. How did you come to be so savvy about this specialized area?

Your prose here reads like that of a marketing or design executive for a major shoe company or of the owner of a chain of shoe retailers. I pause to state that chiefly because it may make others here shy to chime in on this thread, since there is a resistance to marketing or industry people using this site to herd the sheep directly for marketing data. People here know that such types read these boards, but tend to be allergic to direct appeals. I'm not saying you're doing that, Aero, and I appreciate your very helpful responses to me, but since I'd love to hear from several others from their own experience with shoes, I reckon it would help if you explained whether you happen just to be a highly intelligent consumer with an especially high drive to learn about hiking shoes, or if indeed you have some experience in marketing the product, perhaps in retail, as evidently you have none in its manufacture or design.

[Driver8]

OK, BrokenAero, I went and read your posts in the headlamp and backpack threads, and it seems pretty clear you are an extraordinarily bright gearhead. You do read, again, like a marketing executive or the especially smart manager of an REI, and EMS or a shoe retailer looking, in this thread, to cull insight, focus-group style, from consumers for marketing purposes. This will put others off less, if it does at all for the moment, if they get to know you better.

Whether now or formerly in marketing or not, may I ask, what is your professional background? Engineer? Patent attorney? Physician? You've piqued my interest. I happen to be an attorney in my own right, but not an engineer - I was trained undergrad in environmental biology and have done a lot of political work over the years. Do you happen to be in Vermont, as your handle suggests? I'm not far from you if so.

[BrokenAeroVT]

OK, BrokenAero, I went and read your posts in the headlamp and backpack threads, and it seems pretty clear you are an extraordinarily bright gearhead. You do read, again, like a marketing executive or the especially smart manager of an REI, and EMS or a shoe retailer looking, in this thread, to cull insight, focus-group style, from consumers for marketing purposes. This will put others off less, if it does at all for the moment, if they get to know you better.

Whether now or formerly in marketing or not, may I ask, what is your professional background? Engineer? Patent attorney? Physician? You've piqued my interest. I happen to be an attorney in my own right, but not an engineer - I was trained undergrad in environmental biology and have done a lot of political work over the years. Do you happen to be in Vermont, as your handle suggests? I'm not far from you if so.

I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Tech (VT). I try to be as specific and as cordial as possible to help people understand what information it is I'm looking for. I had no idea I might be perceived as a marketing exec, but now that you mention it...(lol).

No, I'm as you said, just a "bright gearhead". The only thing I know about lasts is what the numb toes and the sides of my feet taught me. You just can't count on a depicted shoe size because of them, not even within the same brand.

I first took up hiking in 1984 while taking summer classes at VT (Blacksburg, VA). Believe it or not, I started out with a handled bag and a clunky yellow 4 inch diameter lens flashlight I bought in a drugstore. That evolved shortly to surplus gear, US bag, pack and German pup tent, 3 years later to a 45 lb pack with the more familiar names of Gregory, Marmot, and Northface. I learned about ultralite hiking in 2005 while camping at Pineswamp Shelter near Pearisburg, and in 2010 I finally attempted and finsihed a NOBO thru-hike with a 28-34 lb pack full pack (6-9 day resupplies).

Now I'm trying to evolve my hike further, trimming it down to within true ultralight parameters, so I can attempt an endurance hike in the not too distant future. Know anything about the Bivanorak, anyone? (PM me, haha).

[WingedMonkey]

This is why Whiteblaze doesn't have a chat room.

[BrianLe]

I used Asic brand Gel-Kahana 4 shoes starting on the AT in 2010. I had used Golites before, but they changed their models so I had to switch and used up an older pair or two of Golites on the AT in combination with the Asics. I thru-hiked the CDT in the same model Asics last year, using just that model of shoe.

I can't tell you how long the Asics last because after foot surgery (following the PCT in 2008) I have a policy of replacing shoes after 500 - 600 miles or so, regardless of how good they still look. But I can say that the Asics looked very good each time I replaced them --- it really bothered me to do so, in fact. Tread depth was definitely not a problem, and the uppers were in great shape. There's a stupid back part of the heel that breaks off after a couple hundred miles, but other than inadvertent trail litter, I've not noticed any problem due to that.

I don't think that my pack weight or body weight or any of that matter much; I'm pretty "normal" for a thru-hiker on those metrics, and again --- I've not gotten near to wearing out a pair of these. I selected them primarily because they're available in wide widths --- I need a wide toe box. But they seem like a pretty durable shoe, or at least definitely much better than the earlier generations of Golite brand shoes (newer generations of those are pretty good too).

I would suggest that unless it's a real known issue with a particular brand or model, shoe durability isn't an optimal prime criteria for shoe selection. I definitely cannot say that replacing shoes more often will prevent foot problems, but I can say that foot surgery (for Morton's Neuroma for me) was expensive, time consuming, and generally a big PITA. A few extra tens of dollars to decrease the odds of foot problems is worth it to me.

To be fair, I should also say that I've known a lot of people who get many, many more miles out of a pair of trail runners than I do, and that I'm the only thru-hiker I know that has had foot surgery as a result. I don't mean to suggest that "if you don't replace your shoes often, you'll need surgery" --- far from it. I just think that since I'm pounding my feet down all day, every day, that a bit of extra cushion in terms of both the shoe itself and perhaps the shoe insert could be a good investment. I you can keep your feet working well and happy then you definitely increase your odds of success on a long backpacking trip as a result.

[Driver8]

I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Tech (VT). I try to be as specific and as cordial as possible to help people understand what information it is I'm looking for. I had no idea I might be perceived as a marketing exec, but now that you mention it...(lol).

No, I'm as you said, just a "bright gearhead".

Cool. Thanks again for your helpful feedback, Aero. I hope you get many more constructive responses here - I'll be following the conversation. The more I look at it, the more I think I'll stick with my old Merrells until they wear out, then replace them with more of the same, probably around birthday time in the fall. I'll shop in the meantime, but the Moabs are pretty comfy, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it certainly applies.

[Deacon]

I've said it in two other threads and I'll say it here. The shoe matters little, as long as there's enough room. A good insole is needed for long mile support, and I go with the Sole Ultras (molds to your feet).

[BrokenAeroVT]

I don't think that my pack weight or body weight or any of that matter much; I'm pretty "normal" for a thru-hiker on those metrics, and again --- I've not gotten near to wearing out a pair of these. I selected them primarily because they're available in wide widths --- I need a wide toe box. But they seem like a pretty durable shoe, or at least definitely much better than the earlier generations of Golite brand shoes (newer generations of those are pretty good too).

I would suggest that unless it's a real known issue with a particular brand or model, shoe durability isn't an optimal prime criteria for shoe selection. I definitely cannot say that replacing shoes more often will prevent foot problems, but I can say that foot surgery (for Morton's Neuroma for me) was expensive, time consuming, and generally a big PITA. A few extra tens of dollars to decrease the odds of foot problems is worth it to me.

... I just think that since I'm pounding my feet down all day, every day, that a bit of extra cushion in terms of both the shoe itself and perhaps the shoe insert could be a good investment. I you can keep your feet working well and happy then you definitely increase your odds of success on a long backpacking trip as a result.

I agree with you. As I've said, I've had issues with joint shock, nerve damage and rock kicking, and those things make me a little reluctant to shave off every possible ounce in the quest for featherweight ease. Those extra few ounces between a trail runner (11oz) and a beefier trail shoe (14oz) are worth their weight in gold to me. Those 3 ounces are small in comparison the 13oz per shoe I'll be unloading since losing the Merrell Outbounds.

My inquiry regarding durability is, as I've said, merely to determine how many shoes I'll need to set aside for mail drops. It also helps determine economy. The cheaper shoe isn't necessarily the cheaper shoe. A $70 trail shoe that I need 5 of is $350 for the whole trail. A $100 trail shoe I only need 3 of is $300 total. If both shoes meet my fit and protection requirements, then clearly, the winner will be the higher priced shoe that I need less of.

I hope everyone will not lose focus of my initial thread inquiry regarding durability over a discussion on gear philosophy 101. All aspects of shoes are important to me, primarily durability merely since it is the first question on the dockket. With that information, I can better afford my hike and more precisely design my hike itinerary.

Add what you know and as much as you will. Your intimate experiences with your shoes all contribute to my integrated understanding of trail shoes and what will work best for me--Including Brian's experiential information on the Asics. That has given me some insight into their economy and the general nature of that class of shoe.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I've said it in two other threads and I'll say it here. The shoe matters little, as long as there's enough room. A good insole is needed for long mile support, and I go with the Sole Ultras (molds to your feet).

The shoe durability matters a lot when it's the question this thread was created for. It assists me in determining how many shoes I need and helps me compare economy so I can properly plan my budget.

I would get that you are a very experienced hiker and have many decent examples of lifespans of shoes and how well they perform! Here's your chance to shine and help your fellow hiker!

[Rasty]

I bought a cheap pair of trail shoes once from Sears. I was short on cash and spent $30 on them. I couldn't believe I put almost 500 miles between backpacking and day hiking. Feet never hurt. Of course I could not find a second pair.

[MuddyWaters]

It is possible to over analyze.

My son wears $50 nike air trail runners. Not great tread, but works. Never a complaint . 22oz for pair.
I wear innov8 terroc 330s, didnt like them at first, now do., about 27oz for pair

You will feel rocks underfoot, the more minimal the shoe, the more you will feel. Thats OK.
Shoes midsole breaks down before tread wears out usually.
It still hurts like crap when you stub your toe.
Road and concrete can be a little uncomfortable , dirt and grass is much softer and more comfortable, thats what they were made for. Duh.
They dont dry as fast as you think. Maybe not at all depends on weather and how frequently you cross water.

I have hiked 30 miles with wet feet, crossing water about 30 times in that. 2 full days with soaking wet shoes and socks, and happy feet. Feet are more affected by pounding, and rubbing, and hot humid sweaty conditions, than cool wetness.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I bought a cheap pair of trail shoes once from Sears. I was short on cash and spent $30 on them. I couldn't believe I put almost 500 miles between backpacking and day hiking. Feet never hurt. Of course I could not find a second pair.

That's really funny. I have a vague recollection of a guy on the AT around NJ/NY I think it was who had done the same thing with a pair of $30 Walmart boots.

I have a pair of $90 Teva Riva Mesh trail shoes I paid $36 for last year with a secret sale coupon in my Sierra Trading Post email flyer. Incredibly comfortable, lots of toe box room with about 4mm of Vibram tread that could probably do about 800 miles if ventured the test, but I keep them in reserve for short hikes with my sweetheart who isn't able to hike long distances with me. As a result, they have perhaps no more than 10 miles on them. They were a closeout mode that is sold out nowl, and I have no idea what replaced them in their line.

[topshelf]

I carried the weight the whole time, 7 days. I always pack a ton of food and never eat hardly anything while out. So I end up taking a lot of food out and bringing a lot of it back. It may have gotten down to 22-23 pounds on the last day.

I' a horrible sweater so I'd say my feet were wet the whole time pretty much. There were only two days of actual rain hiking. The first day I hiked about 6 miles with wet feet. The second day of rain I was in the rain in the shoes for 10.5 hours. I was crossing 58 at Summit Cut and noticed a downed tree up the road at the end of an s-curve. A contemplated walking up to try to move it and as I stood there a shuttle bus for the creeper trail came around the corner and almost plowed into it and ran off the road missing it. So I was up clearing that in the rain for some time until VDOT showed up and cut the rest of the tree up. Then another tree came down and I was able to move it myself. I was there at Summit Cut until about 5. From there I hiked in the wet shoes from there to Thomas Knob shelter(11-12 miles). I got into Thomas Knob around 11:30. I was in the rain until about a mile from the shelter. Of course the shoes were wet the next morning. They seemed to dry out as the day went along when I stopped for lunch at Old Orchard they were pretty much dry and by afternoon when I took the off on the bridge over the South Fork they were pretty much dry.

For socks I just wear black dress socks. They are thin and dry quickly. I stop about every hour and take the shoes off and let my feet dry a bit. I try to sit in the shade and put my feet in the sun.

Hiking up Mount Rogers I had the opportunity to put many rocks through my shoes. The only problem I had with things under foot were root-filled sections. My feet started to hurt a little coming down from Old Orchard shelter because of the rhododendron roots. I am very careful about where I place my foot while hiking. If I can take things a little slower and step on flat dirt and not a rock I will. I broke a bone in my foot last year hiking because I stepped on the top of a rock. I now pay very close attention to what I'm doing. The rocks I did step on I felt no issues, but I avoid all uneven foot placements if possible. I NEVER step on the top edge of a rock or pointed rock. Again to avoid breaking my foot again.

I've never had my foot measured, but it fit fine in my usual 9.5.

But don't forget what I suggest and what works well from me may never work for you.

[BrokenAeroVT]

I carried the weight the whole time, 7 days. I always pack a ton of food and never eat hardly anything while out. So I end up taking a lot of food out and bringing a lot of it back. It may have gotten down to 22-23 pounds on the last day.

I' a horrible sweater so I'd say my feet were wet the whole time pretty much. There were only two days of actual rain hiking. The first day I hiked about 6 miles with wet feet. The second day of rain I was in the rain in the shoes for 10.5 hours. I was crossing 58 at Summit Cut and noticed a downed tree up the road at the end of an s-curve. A contemplated walking up to try to move it and as I stood there a shuttle bus for the creeper trail came around the corner and almost plowed into it and ran off the road missing it. So I was up clearing that in the rain for some time until VDOT showed up and cut the rest of the tree up. Then another tree came down and I was able to move it myself. I was there at Summit Cut until about 5. From there I hiked in the wet shoes from there to Thomas Knob shelter(11-12 miles). I got into Thomas Knob around 11:30. I was in the rain until about a mile from the shelter. Of course the shoes were wet the next morning. They seemed to dry out as the day went along when I stopped for lunch at Old Orchard they were pretty much dry and by afternoon when I took the off on the bridge over the South Fork they were pretty much dry.

For socks I just wear black dress socks. They are thin and dry quickly. I stop about every hour and take the shoes off and let my feet dry a bit. I try to sit in the shade and put my feet in the sun.

Hiking up Mount Rogers I had the opportunity to put many rocks through my shoes. The only problem I had with things under foot were root-filled sections. My feet started to hurt a little coming down from Old Orchard shelter because of the rhododendron roots. I am very careful about where I place my foot while hiking. If I can take things a little slower and step on flat dirt and not a rock I will. I broke a bone in my foot last year hiking because I stepped on the top of a rock. I now pay very close attention to what I'm doing. The rocks I did step on I felt no issues, but I avoid all uneven foot placements if possible. I NEVER step on the top edge of a rock or pointed rock. Again to avoid breaking my foot again.

I've never had my foot measured, but it fit fine in my usual 9.5.

But don't forget what I suggest and what works well from me may never work for you.

I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify your previous post. From it I gather you have about 440 miles on it now and anticipate the shoe will be retired around 580-720 based on the hiking you did extrapolated out for 1-2 weeks more of that.

You wrote you like to retire your boots before you have a blow out. Is there something you are feeling or looking at when you decide this shoe is ready for retirement rather than wait for a blowout?

It seems to me from what you wrote the shoe itself absorbed water which did not dry out in the shelter overnight, and didn't dry out until the next day after some hiking. I guess that must be transfering water into your sock and keeping your foot damp?

After consideration, It seems like I might want to avoid a shoe that absorbs water if I expect to gain anything over my former technique.

On my last thru-hike, I used GoreTex midcuts and short gaiters. When It rained, I slipped on my nylon leggings. Even though they weren't DWR, they shed the water from running down my leg and into my boot. With a thick wool sock, a thin synthetic liner and a generous sprinkling of Monkey Butt powder, my feet stayed dry. By Damascus, the Goretex started to leak and the top of my sock was wet during a rainy day--moved into another GoreTex boot. In the Whites I made the mistake of hiking two days without taking my boots off (ducked rain and had full dress sleep for a few hours on the porch of the hut that was under construction) and the sweat built up in my boot--but that was it.

If I have to stop every hour to dry my feet in the sun, gearing up leggings doesn't seem all that bothersome. But if I found shoes that drained well and used waterproof fabrics like the leather Keen Newport sandals, maybe my socks would dry quicker, or I could switch them out and not have to worry about the sock absorbing water from the shoe.

I was on top of a culvert in PA reaching down to the flow of water to soak my bandanna so I could cool off. My pack shifted and I did some crazy cat aerobatics and landed on my foot in the creek. My whole boot went underwater. Dazed, I went over to a rock, sat down and drained my boots and changed my socks. I knew it would take forever for those Gore Tex boots to dry out. But, since I was using medium weight wool crew socks and a liner, I never felt the water from the boot. I don't know if that's because the insole and the internal fabric don't absorb water or what. I was using the cordura fabric Merrel Outbounds with the Gore Tex liner.

I appreciate being able to look into your hike experience. Feel free to comment further if you think it might help, even.... gear PHILOSOPHY :eek:, lol.

[BrokenAeroVT]

It is possible to over analyze.



The only danger of over analysis (done properly in the context of its scientific meaning not the popular one) is seen in the case of when a contractor continues to research a project after funding is exhausted and cut off by the gov't. (That's a joke. :D )

[Canyonero]

I have worn the Brooks Adrenaline running series shoes for years. I can put 300-500 miles (trail and road running) on a single pair. I just got my first pair of the Adrenaline ASR trail shoes and have done about 50 miles of backpacking on them and they are great. I am hoping that the durability of the trail version matches that of the "normal" running version. They're aren't ultralight but aren't crazy heavy. Hope this helps ya a bit!

[BrokenAeroVT]

I have worn the Brooks Adrenaline running series shoes for years. I can put 300-500 miles (trail and road running) on a single pair. I just got my first pair of the Adrenaline ASR trail shoes and have done about 50 miles of backpacking on them and they are great. I am hoping that the durability of the trail version matches that of the "normal" running version. They're aren't ultralight but aren't crazy heavy. Hope this helps ya a bit!

Yes, it did. What was it about the Brooks that made you decide it was time for the reaper?

[Canyonero]

Either when the cushioning wore out or when the tread was gone and they started to slip.