New boots..

[monty_walker]

Hey all,

I am looking for some advise RE buying some new hiking boots. Up until now I have been perfectly
happy with my salomon trail runners for day walks and rogaining. However I am planning on doing
a few multi day hikes in places like Wilsons Prom and the Bogong Highlands Victoria and The Overland
Trail is Tasmania but I am unsure what is going to be the best boots for these kinds of trips.

I have been looking around and tried a few on and am leaning towards either a pair of Keen Pyrenees or
Salomon 4D Quest's. A lot of what I have read online seems to lean towards the full leather instead of the
synthetics and a few reviews have said that the salomons are a bit flexy on a long walk with a 20kg pack.

Monty

[Strider]

Buy the boots that fit you best. I prefer full grain leather - heavy but unbeatable.

[kymboy]

I do like my Pyrenees. Not sure why they aren't more widely available.

[icemancometh]

I'm not sure if it's the shape of the footwear or the rubber or both, but I don't like Keens. Not very inspiring grip wise in my opinion.

Do you really need a boot for longer walks? Think pack size, terrain and how your lower limb/ankles are. It's like the whole barefoot debate in running shoes, not having thick boots means your feet and lower limb learn to adapt as required, as opposed to relying on the so called support offered by the footwear.

There will be other opinions out there but I don't wear boots unless I need crampons or skis .

For those walks you've mentioned I wouldn't and haven't worn nothing more than trail runners (and even walked bits in thongs-just keeping an eye out for snakes).

BUT...if you must wear boots, like an earlier poster said, the fit is the main thing like all footwear.

[Mountain Rocket]

Of course fit is the most important factor when deciding on boots, but when I did research I found again and again people use Scarpa boots.
They are one the original boot makers (if not the first) and when coupled with Vibram soles (again, one of the first companies to make rubber lug soles) the combination makes for a safe bet. Of course the fit is not for everyone, being notoriously narrow like most Italian shoes - but I find most of the models stocked in Aus use an extra wide last (shoe shape/cut) which tends to fit a majority of people. My recommendation is you check them out and try a few on later in the day and give them a good walk around. There is no points for making a hasty decision so bide your time and get something that fits!

Oh and synthetic vs leather. It comes down to preference but the new thing is synthetics (read: not full grain leather). They typically don't last as long but will be more comfortable* and typically lighter. I for one prefer synthetics, but I would happily own a pair of full grains for winter (I believe they are warmer as they keep the moisture further away from your foot, but that is debatable).

* = Subjective of course.

[frenchy_84]

+1 for the scarpas and leather
I had a pair of synthetic Salomons but lost many toenails and couldnt walk more than a few hundred metres without blister protection.
But everyones feet are shaped differently.

[Ent]

Hi

OLT can be dry or a constant wet walk and while sections can be rocky it is not that hard underfoot. AKU on their website when I looked last rated boots by number of days with the idea seeming to be stronger less flexible footwear for longer days out. At 110 kg and tendency to carry twenty-five plus pack I find Scarpa SL's brilliant but if they do not fit your foot then hell awaits. I have now seen three pairs of Rossi boots de-sole on route and a pair of Hi Techs self destruct while Scarpas fail gradually to the elements and have got their walker home so I am a fan of them but the Treks blister me badly in the heels while the SL model never been much an issue except on a road bash. On that walk heel blisters were rather common to a few fellow walkers. My SLs were not are problem before that walk, nor since, so not sure what was the cause. I tend to think it might have been the socks.

Probably best advice is to stick with what has worked for you or get into testing your new footwear choice early. Socks can make a huge difference to foot comfort with the 70 Mile Creek socks over a light Wilderness Wear socks working well for me. I have a collection of footwear that I brought but simply do not like wearing so I have no magical bullet to what is the best for anyone else.

Cheers

[icemancometh]

+1 for the scarpas and leather
I had a pair of synthetic Salomons but lost many toenails

That sounds more like a sizing/fit issue than the brand I would say.

RE Scarpa, being Italian they are narrower to fit their local market.
But Australians, being from British stock originally anyway, have a deeper, broader foot on the whole. So it's surprising that so many fit the Scarpas here? Or maybe it's all the Australians with a more continental European background?

[Ent]

RE Scarpa, being Italian they are narrower to fit their local market.
But Australians, being from British stock originally anyway, have a deeper, broader foot on the whole. So it's surprising that so many fit the Scarpas here? Or maybe it's all the Australians with a more continental European background?

In the SL and Trek versions there is a BX fitting for claimed 95% (or some number near that) of the population and the BXX for wider and more "volume" fit. Most shops in Tassie that sell Scarpa tend to stock only the BXX fittings However, there are BX around so beware unless you have an Italian narrow foot and then in that case seek them out. I found when Scarpa went from the rounded toe box to a more chisel style I was forced up from 48 to 49 fitting. The Ranger is design for the UK market so apparently is a wider fit in the toe box. AKU I have found to be rather narrow while La Sportiva are a top fit in the leather hiking shoe that I used for casual wear. General "rule" to consider is a boot might be better half a size if not one size bigger as your feet swell and lengthen under load. I had my doubts over the "length" claim but are more inclined to believe that my feet lengthen slightly as the downward load comes on. The truth of that claim I think might need a Mythbusters show.

Cheers

[stepbystep]

For track walking stay away from the Scarpa SL's, they are stiff and cumbersome and act as slow torture, turning your feet into numb slabs of meat. Absolutely brilliant for off track but rubbish on firm tracks.
Having said that I quite liked my Scarpa Trek Pro's but I destroyed them within a year doing off track walking.

I am going to buy a second pair more suited to trail walking, many seem to like the Zamberlans nowadays.

[Penguin]

Of course fit is the most important factor when deciding on boots, but when I did research I found again and again people use Scarpa boots.
They are one the original boot makers (if not the first) and when coupled with Vibram soles (again, one of the first companies to make rubber lug soles) the combination makes for a safe bet. Of course the fit is not for everyone, being notoriously narrow like most Italian shoes - but I find most of the models stocked in Aus use an extra wide last (shoe shape/cut) which tends to fit a majority of people. My recommendation is you check them out and try a few on later in the day and give them a good walk around. There is no points for making a hasty decision so bide your time and get something that fits!

Oh and synthetic vs leather. It comes down to preference but the new thing is synthetics (read: not full grain leather). They typically don't last as long but will be more comfortable* and typically lighter. I for one prefer synthetics, but I would happily own a pair of full grains for winter (I believe they are warmer as they keep the moisture further away from your foot, but that is debatable).

* = Subjective of course.

I love these discussions on equipments. We all like to defend what we buy and what works for us. Robert, I think you have summarised well. Fit and use are the keys.

I have a few sets of boots, in varying stages of decay. A heavy pair of Scarpa SL's. Very comfortable but still wearing the heal in. I am prone to blisters on my heal and it takes a few months for me to distort the heal cup to the shape of my heal to stop the friction. Tried multiple socks, liners, designs etc over the years. With a heavy boot nothing beats wearing the boot in then it is great for a few years. These are replacing a set of Scarpa Rangers which have died - the leather cracked through. A softer last on the Rangers - which I liked.

I also have a lighter synthetic pair of Raichle boots, which are great for travelling and short walks. Pretty water proof. Still get the heal issue but less wearing in time.

An finally Scarpa track shoes. Comfortable, no wearing in time. But last less than twelve months.

I am loking at shoes for longer hikes that get wet but dry quickly with a more solid last than the track shoes. Over a few days the soles of my feet get very sore is the boot is too flexible.

Work out the walking you want to do, the needs for your feet and make sure front of your feet do not touch the toe box.

Cheers

Penguin

[ollster]

a set of Scarpa Rangers which have died - the leather cracked through.

Had you been regularly waxing them?

The only time I've had that happen to any boot was when I failed to maintain them and let them dry out and go unwaxed and still walked on them. Eventually the leather fatigued around the lower eyelets and where it bends/flexes over the ball of the foot. They weren't worth maintaining at that point anyway as the sole was gone.

[Nuts]

Iv'e done a few walks in shoes lately. They all seem a bit flexible with heavier loads carried. It hasn't caused any dramas but doesn't seem the best. i had a pair of Zamberlan approach shoes that laced to the toes. These were good but GTX, hot, soggy, ddn't drain well.

Really like Keen shoes and boots but the soles are slippery stuff.

Zamberlan make great leather boots. Trek/vioz a smidge lighter and initially more flexible than Scarpa SL3. Wide enough fitting H size.

With 20odd kg I imagine any shoes are borderline.

[Penguin]

a set of Scarpa Rangers which have died - the leather cracked through.

Had you been regularly waxing them?

The only time I've had that happen to any boot was when I failed to maintain them and let them dry out and go unwaxed and still walked on them. Eventually the leather fatigued around the lower eyelets and where it bends/flexes over the ball of the foot. They weren't worth maintaining at that point anyway as the sole was gone.

Yep. Always let boots dry out after a walk, cleaned and then rewaxed - I use a leather cream.

The Rangers are a thinner leather and they cracked at the rand where the crease at the back of the toe box forms. This has never happened to me before with a boot. I really liked the lighter weight than the SL style and the more flexible sole. But I fear that these advantages are at the cost of longevity. Water sits in between the rand and the leather on the Ranger design and no matter wheat I tried to do seal the area and the leather it just cracked through.

What I have also been noticing on newer Vibram soles, ie over the last five or six years, is that they loose their grip after a while. I have a few very experienced walkers who have changed boots after a few seasons of extensive use because the soles have "gone off". Maybe is is like modern car tyres. After a while the material hardens and they loose grip. I always dread what happens with those people where the 4WD spare has sat for years on the back of the vehicle uncovered, the rubber goes off and they then put the tyre on the car in a rainy day.

I hope to own the SL's for a while so keep treating the leather and leaving them in the cupboard when not in use.

P

[sthughes]

For me:
Light to moderate pack and good track = Keen Oregon PCT
crap/off track or very heavy pack = Scarpa SL M3

I find the Keen soles quite grippy in the dry, but in mud etc. they don't even compare to the Scarpas.

Feet get wet in the Keens, damp in the Scarpas.

Had Scarpa Trek Pros - aren't even close to the SL M3's.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Best advice I've ever got about hiking gear was with regard to hiking boots.

I was told that you should try on as many as you possibly can (sales people won't like this) and the one you choose should be INSTANTLY comfortable. Not "walk around the store and adjust and feels okay" comfortable - "pull on, lace up averge and should be super comfortable for the entire foot instantly" type comfortable.

I followed this advice, and a lot of good brands got thrown to the side instantly. Ended up going with Columbia Pagora Mid (not a leather boot). Haven't ever had so much as one blister, they are just supremely comfortable and supportive.

And take your hiking socks and use them when you are trying boots out, not normal socks or shop borrowed.

[Wetsox]

In the SL and Trek versions there is a BX fitting for claimed 95% (or some number near that) of the population and the BXX for wider and more "volume" fit. Most shops in Tassie that sell Scarpa tend to stock only the BXX fittings However, there are BX around so beware unless you have an Italian narrow foot and then in that case seek them out. I found when Scarpa went from the rounded toe box to a more chisel style I was forced up from 48 to 49 fitting.

Ent, you may have just answered my dilemma. I have had three pairs of Scarpa Treks. The first two fitted like gloves after initial break in and lasted for about 5 years each until a hole developed in the leather at the crease point. The third pair have given me hell for the last 3 years. Blisters on heals and the first two toes which seem to be in contact whenever weight is applied. When I inverted one of the older boots to marry the sole with the newer pair for comparison I discovered the newer pair, while being the same length, were about 5 mm narrower at the widest point. It seems I must have been sold the narrower fitting last time and just put the different feeling down to new boots. You pay for silly mistakes.

I had just about written off leather boots for the future and last week tried on a pair of synthetics. They were immediately very comfortable but felt a bit sideways bendy, not so good for crashing through the bush or holding an edge on rock. Maybe leather boots are worth a closer look.

[ignavus davus]

Best advice I've ever got about hiking gear was with regard to hiking boots.

It
Worst advice I ever got about hiking gear was with regards to hiking boots: 'buy scarpa's, they are the best'. They are a very good quality/well made boot (I wish they fitted me better) but my feet are like me - short and stumpy; they just didn't fit right. It was over a decade ago that I had these boots and I can still remeber the pain in my feet. SAH gives good advice - try many pairs and several brands. My most recent pair of boots is a full leather Garmont boot (GTX or something like that)- reviews are nowhere near as good as for scarpa's but they just fit my foot perfectly WITHOUT a breaking in period. I'd never even heard of the brand when I first tried them. My only complaint is the goretex liner - doesn't let water out when it gets in through the top of the boot. They are very waterproof though.

[walkinTas]

Buy the boots that fit you best. I prefer full grain leather - heavy but unbeatable.

This is good advise. The most important factor to consider is not the brand, and not what suits other people, but what fits your feet. Next, think about purpose: do you need waterproof, rigid sole, good grip, ankle protection, light or heavy, etc. in summary, the boot must fit your foot, then fit your purpose.

Sent via taptalk.

[Ent]

In the SL and Trek versions there is a BX fitting for claimed 95% (or some number near that) of the population and the BXX for wider and more "volume" fit. Most shops in Tassie that sell Scarpa tend to stock only the BXX fittings However, there are BX around so beware unless you have an Italian narrow foot and then in that case seek them out. I found when Scarpa went from the rounded toe box to a more chisel style I was forced up from 48 to 49 fitting.

Ent, you may have just answered my dilemma. I have had three pairs of Scarpa Treks. The first two fitted like gloves after initial break in and lasted for about 5 years each until a hole developed in the leather at the crease point. The third pair have given me hell for the last 3 years. Blisters on heals and the first two toes which seem to be in contact whenever weight is applied. When I inverted one of the older boots to marry the sole with the newer pair for comparison I discovered the newer pair, while being the same length, were about 5 mm narrower at the widest point. It seems I must have been sold the narrower fitting last time and just put the different feeling down to new boots. You pay for silly mistakes.

I had just about written off leather boots for the future and last week tried on a pair of synthetics. They were immediately very comfortable but felt a bit sideways bendy, not so good for crashing through the bush or holding an edge on rock. Maybe leather boots are worth a closer look.

The Treks share the same last as the SL so yes you probably have the BX model. Assuming it has not worn off it will be marked on the underside of the tongue.

I prefer a solid sole and foootwear that can shake off sharp rocks. When I look at my older Scarpa's I can see some very deep gashes that have not gone through the leather. A lighter leather and the boot would have been penetrated. Not sure on synthetic's cut resistance but there are some very strong synthetics materials out there so probably more a case of brands quality than synthetic not being as cut resistant.

With size 49 feet I spend a lot of time not having a full foot hold so I like a solid sole that does not flex when using a toe hold. I have a little theory with the Scarpa debate. If you are say over 90 kilograms they break in nicely but if under 70 kilograms they seen not to break in. Does not apply in all cases and not very scientific but I have noticed people that do not like Scarpa leather boots tend to be lighter framed and carry less pack weight.

I find with my Treks I get heel blisters but not with the SLs. The SL is a taller boot so me wonders if that what does it? Also with the SLs you can ford quite a depth before water goes over the top.

Cheers

[monty_walker]

Thanks for all the info guys!
I'll head out on my day off this week and keep trying things until I find a good fit.
I've never had Scarpa's before but I do hear about them a lot so they could be a good way to go!

RE the problems of GTX not letting water out once it gets in, It's pretty hard to get boots which dont
use a waterproof liner of some sort these days.

[slparker]

I've been thinking a lot about this.... I have been wearing trail runners a lot lately and recently returned to tassy to do some walking up in the mountains using my salomon shoes and my older traditional stiff soled boots. I found the trail runners excellent for day walks but after rockhopping the soles of my feet were mildly sore that night. I did a couple of overnighters using my boots (which I hadn't worn for a while, admittedly). I found the boots better for insulating against the rocks, better for preventing rock abrasion and pinching and also better for preventing undue flex on the foot when propping over two rock points (often encountered on talus fields etc). I did get my usual big toe callus rubbing from pushing against a rigid sole.
I also found that I was losing balance more, I attribute this to the stiff sole which changes the proprioception feedback from the foot. An example of this is when a soft soled shoe is worn the foot tends to curl over the rock/track and immediate feedback is provided to the brain by nerves in the forefoot. This leads to immediate postural adjustment. When stiff boots are worn the proprioception is via the nerves at the base of the ankle (as the forefoot does not flex against the rigid sole), feedback to the brain does not necessarily match the position of the foot against the rockface. I reckon that this is the reason why many walkers (in the old days) wore kt26s or dunlop volleys without ankle strains but many modern walkers get ankle strains wearing boots (i think there are other discussions about this - the rationale being that proprioception from the ankle base and leverage from the rigid sole on the ankle increases force amount and force timing on the talus joint). Also why rockclimbing shoes are like slippers.
So it's a choice between sore feet from rock strike or abrasion or sore feet from heavy rigid soled boots (with more potential of balance/ankle problems). My gut feeling is as the severity of the terrain increases and load increases a more protective boot is necessary - I personally would not like to negotiate a scree field with a pack on without a reasonably robust boot. I reckon a scarpa SL is overkill for most walks but in steep, rocky terrainwith the chance of snow or ice it would probably be a good idea to wear a mountain boot. Off-track walking would for most people would also necessitate a more protective boot.
Most popular walks I have done in tassy would be fine in trail runners with gaiters.
Beware of claims of a higher boot giving more ankle support...errant nonsense unless you are wearing downhill ski boots.

[Penguin]

slparker

I like you logic. It explains well my own experience.

What would happen with trail shoes with a firm last?

P

[icemancometh]

Yes I find the proprioception from soft runners means I have much better footing and is much better for me than stiff boots where I've almost gone over on as I can't feel what I'm actually standing on. As I said, if you're not attaching skis or crampons, trail runners will do. Build up your legs and joints with shorter walks first though. Re the sore feet, you just have to get used to it-your muscles aren't adapted yet.