trail runners in New Hampshire

[old geezer]

Are trail runners acceptable for hiking the Presidential Range from hut to hut in July.
I used them instead of boots from Springer to Newfound Gap--seems like more rocks in the Whites, but I loved my trail runners.
Thanks

[rafe]

Depends on you and your feet. I've climbed Jefferson in New Balance 991s or some such. Lafayette and Moosilauke as well. Sure, it's rocky, no doubt about that.

[Meriadoc]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: What Rafe said. You may want a rock plate to prevent stone bruising. Many trail runners have these.

[Feral Bill]

The added agility may be an advantage. I rarely use boots anymore.

[Unitic]

I used them and would do so again. The only time I wished for some beefier soles was on certain parts of PA

[ChinMusic]

I wore trail runners for my entire '13 thru. PA, NH/ME bruised up my feet a bit. I still think the trail runners were kinder to my feet than boots would have been.

[garlic08]

The hikers I saw with heavy boots on long hikes in the Whites seemed to be struggling more than those I saw with light shoes. That's a sweeping generality and I'm biased, so take it for what it's worth, as always.

[peakbagger]

I live in the whites and hike in the whites and unless its mud season I use trail runners. That said, I hike often enough that my feet are in condition for it. I also use trekking poles. Heck if the conditions are right I use trailrunners with microspikes to hike up to Tuckermans in spring snow conditions.

There definitely is a conditioning period for most folks switching to trail runners in rocky conditions, basically all the structures that support the feet have to get toned up and I don't know of any home exercises that would do that.

I used to have a lot more foot issues with standard hiking boots and once I switched I never looked back.

[FarmerChef]

I wore trail runners through the whites and had no problems. It was actually helpful in some of the tougher climb/descent sections where I needed to use my toes to grip a rock. Haven't worn boots in the whites so can't comment there.

[RedBeerd]

Ive hiked a bunch of the 4ks in Vibram 5 fingers. You've got to know what your feet can handle. But I'm much happier in NB trail runners now. But yes.

[Slo-go'en]

Actually, the best boots have a stiff shank in the sole so you can toe step up the steep rock climbs with out the boot flexing. It's also good to have a distinct heel to catch on the edge of rocks so the boot doesn't slide off when going down hill. The old leather boots with Vibrum lug soles were the best. Too bad thier so darn heavy! My knees would probably be in better shape had I not hiked so many NH/ME/VT miles in Limmer boots, but it was nice to have bullet proof feet.

[peakbagger]

I used limmers prior to trail runners. I used them a lot and wore out a set of vibram soles in three seasons in the whites. I got the limmers resoled and they lost some width. After switching to trail runners I never looked back. The biggest PITA is New Balance changes models every year so if I find a pair I like one summer, its gone by the next.

I will admit trail runners only last about one season in the whites before they get shredded.

[rafe]

I have two very old pairs of heavy stiff leather boots, the kind "real hikers" wore a generation or two back. Haven't hiked with either pair for... lessee... maybe 15 years now. They're useful around town or short walks in snow or mud.

I did running shoes through the HMW and the soles of my feet were hurtin' by the end. New Balance 659, these days. I guess that's more like what a "trail runner" is supposed to be.

[rafe]

The old leather boots with Vibrum lug soles were the best.

Judged solely (ugh, pun, sorry) on the basis of traction... I agree. I'm sometimes miss that Vibram traction, mostly on slimy boulders and rock escarpments. Maybe my search for the perfect hiking footwear isn't over.

[Old Hillwalker]

Actually, the best boots have a stiff shank in the sole so you can toe step up the steep rock climbs with out the boot flexing. It's also good to have a distinct heel to catch on the edge of rocks so the boot doesn't slide off when going down hill. The old leather boots with Vibrum lug soles were the best. Too bad thier so darn heavy! My knees would probably be in better shape had I not hiked so many NH/ME/VT miles in Limmer boots, but it was nice to have bullet proof feet.

I still backpack in Limmers. I had a pair made for me in 1980, and my current pair that I had made in 2010. I use them due to a pair of feet damaged from immersion foot suffered while participating in the South East Asian War Games (RVN) 1968 and 69. They are custom made to fit my unholy feet.

My 500 mile walk across the Spanish Pyrenees his summer will be in my trusty Limmers. 177652 feet of vertical in 485 miles

My 1980 boots cost me $180, my 2010 pair $670. Now that's inflation! Bye the way we came in second in the S.E.A. "War Games".

[Just Bill]

Are trail runners acceptable for hiking the Presidential Range from hut to hut in July.
I used them instead of boots from Springer to Newfound Gap--seems like more rocks in the Whites, but I loved my trail runners.
Thanks

Since you have already done some trail it sounds like your ankles will hold up fine (one plus for boots if you need the support) and all I would suggest is getting a good stack height. With the popularity of minimalist shoes there is great variety in the thickness of the shoes now. Although it gets a bit confusing a stack height in the mid to upper 20's will give you some extra cush, and a shoe with a rock plate (thin layer of plastic) in the sole would be my only requirements.

If you really want soft shoes these just came out- http://www.altrarunning.com/fitness/...en/olympus-men
36mm stack height versus my preferred shoe http://www.altrarunning.com/fitness/...e-peak-15-mens with 23mm.

Altra's are zero drop shoes though and take getting used to. Many companies make great shoes now, good fit, rock plate, and mid twenties or better on the stack height and you should be set.

[rafe]

What's stack height? What's zero-drop? Oy, this is getting way too technical.

[Just Bill]

What's stack height? What's zero-drop? Oy, this is getting way too technical.

I'll answer both your questions here- Merrell is one of the big users of Vibram soles- but really for our purposes it's just marketing. Vibram makes rubber and has spun their name and reputation into the trail shoe market. It's just shoe rubber. Vibram 5 fingers are simply shoes made by the company directly- but the main business is making the rubber portion of many shoes.

Zero Drop- traditional shoes have a heel. Picture a dress shoe, flat sole with a heel glued to the outside. The height the heel is raised relative to the ball of the foot is the drop. A "zero" shoe has no difference in height (like standing barefoot). A typical running shoe has a 12mm or so heel height. Depending on the marketing a "minimalist" shoe has a 6, 4, or zero heel drop. Anything higher than 6 is considered a traditional shoe, although some market these shoes as hybrids or other marketing goop.

The main thing- the shoe goes from dead flat (zero) to being wedge shaped. The bigger the heel height- the more dramatic the wedge.

Why?- if you are a heel striker, increasing the heel height allows them to put more cush under your heel while saving money on the rest of the shoe. EVA foam is one of the most expensive parts of the shoe. Also- blame Nike.

Nothing new- Chuck Taylors, soccer shoes, racing flats, etc- all shoes we all used to wear for athletic activities used to be zero drop and/or minimalist shoes.

Stack Height-
Simply the composition of the sole of the shoe. Outsole- the rubber. Midsole- the cush (EVA Foam) Insole- the removable part. Regardless of marketing- stack height will tell you what you bought. It's the thickness of the three layers the shoe is made from. This shot from Altra also shows how you add a stone guard and a cush layer (A-bound).
A1353_Red_xl1.jpg

Here's a zero drop full minimalist shoe. http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Prod...e?dimensions=0
if you look in the specs you see, zero drop (heel height), zero cush (no eva), no insole listed, and a 5.5mm stack height (the thickness of the outsole, made by Vibram)
Some call this a "true" minimalist shoe- no insole, no cush, no heel.

Compared to the trail run ascend glove- http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Prod...e?dimensions=0
zero drop, 6 mil cush (midsole), and a total of 10.5mm stack height (4.5mm rubber)

Here's a trail runner (Patagonia)- http://www.patagonia.com/us/product/...shoe?p=79069-0
Men's Stack Height (heel/toe): 24mm/20mm; footbed: 6mm/4mm; insole: 1mm; midsole 19mm/15mm; sole: 1.5mm web, 2mm lugs

They list the heel and toe with different stack heights- which shows a 4mm drop.

Long story short- stack height tells you what you are walking on all day and what it's made of.

[colorado_rob]

Actually, the best boots have a stiff shank in the sole so you can toe step up the steep rock climbs with out the boot flexing. It's also good to have a distinct heel to catch on the edge of rocks so the boot doesn't slide off when going down hill. The old leather boots with Vibrum lug soles were the best. Too bad thier so darn heavy! My knees would probably be in better shape had I not hiked so many NH/ME/VT miles in Limmer boots, but it was nice to have bullet proof feet.

Merrell Chameleons (lows) are the best of both worlds; very stiff sole for stability and ankle support, great traction (vibram soles), but still relatively light, much lighter than any full boot. I've worn nothing but Merrell Chameleon Lows for years now (for hiking and climbing, that is).

[rafe]

Thanks for the info, FB. Got to admit I've never paid a lick of attention to those numbers. Maybe I will next time...