Choosing Off-trail Boots, Follow Logic or Hype?

If we apply common sense and an elementary knowledge of design principles, what are some of the desirable properties of a backpacking boot designed for rough-trail/off-trail use?

I suggest the following:

1/ A durable upper with a minimum of stitching to wear and fray. (Scree can tear through stitching quickly)

2/ A waterproof upper with a minimum of stitching to admit water.

3/ A lining that is comfortable; not too hot and conforms to the foot.

4/ A lining that is durable.

5/ Many different widths available, from AAA to EEEEEE, for men; AA to EEE for women.

6/ A good insole, shank, midsole, and outsole. (A 3/4 or full shank is a big help in rough ground, sharp rocks.)

7/ A durable construction method (attaching midsole to upper) which permits re-soling.

8/ Good padding of sides, collar and tongue. (Save those twisted and bruised ankles)

9/ Gusseted tongue. (Keep the little nasties out.)

10/ Light weight of total boot -- IF all above are satisfied.

Not all-encompassing, but a start. Now which of the above is available in the "typical" rough-trail boot today?

For a sample I show the Asolo Power Matic 400gv
http://www.asolo.com/content.asp?L=3&idMen=419

Of the positive properties above we can list for the Asolo #6, #8, #9, and #10. The stitching and seams are excessive, though highly decorative, and just provide many points of abrasion and water infiltration. The Gore-tex is a hot liner and does not necessarily maintain its waterproof nature. The weight of the boot is about 3.15 lbs, but since it doesn't provide most of the properties listed above, the light weight is incidental (when it blows out on you in the back of beyond, you'll not concern yourself with its weight). This boot might last two - three years of frequent multi-day hikes off-trail or rough-trail. So the retail price of $165 is amortized over that period.

Here is an example of a boot that meets most of the criteria above:
http://www.limmerboot.com/Midweight.html

You'll note that it meets conditions #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The weight is 3.75 lbs., more than a half pound heavier than the Asolo; however, the Limmer is expected to last 10-15 years (or more) with care, so it is unlikely to fail at a critical time. The additional expense is amortized over a much longer period, so the cost is actually less per year than the Asolo. The shortage of available widths is lamentable, but not uncommon today. [Danner used to make their boots in AAA - EEE, but no more.]

So, are the criteria I listed above unrealistic for off-trail backpacking or, if realistic, how many boots regularly available meet these criteria? If not, why not?

reply

There are fewer really GOOD boots all the time, this is due to hide shortages, labour costs and the relative lack of serious rough country hikers. I have carefully hoarded my 1981 Kastinger climbing boots, my Van Gorkum custom boots and a pair of 2001 Scarpas made before the big changes, these are for serious hikes in really harsh country.

Full-grain leather vamps or uppers, Norwegian or Littleway construction, full glove leather linings and NO !@#$%@#%* Gore-Tex liners are what is best for wilderness boots and these will LAST a long time. I wear hikers exclusively due to a leg deformity as a result of an accident and I use La Sportivas, Raichles and various others for this and save my good boots for trekking.

I wish boots were keeping up with the rest of backpacking gear.

reply

Kutenay,

You said:
There are fewer really GOOD boots all the time, this is due to hide shortages, labour costs and the relative lack of serious rough country hikers.

Some good points. However, I think it is "skilled" labor costs that is needed; certainly when we look at the way hiking boots today are made of scraps of material with an abundance of stitching, clearly machine stitchers are cheaper than good material. As for hide shortages, the manufacturers have tried an interesting scam there - when you find a piece of scarred or distressed hide you scratch it up into a "micronap" (destroying the waterproof exterior) and market it as Nubuck leather.

Reed

www.overmywaders.com

reply

Yup, I used to sell boots for the largest sporting goods retailer here in Canada, NOT M.E.C. and I had people phoning me for advice from all over Canada and into the U.S.A. Most contemporary boots are junk, including most of the once-superb German-Austrian-Swiss makers; I am 61 and have been at this a long time, this pizzes me off, enormously!

reply

*shrug*

These Boots:

http://www.bellevilleshoe.com/product.php?current_product=6

With These Soles:

http://www2.yoursole.com/products/footbeds/softec/ultra

Have taken me through more rough terrain, with heavier loads, under more difficult conditions than any single pair of "hiking boots" I've owned in almost thirty years, with minimal blisters or foot pain. So, I think a lot of good footwear comes with finding the right combinations for your feet and activities, instead of worrying too much about the rocket science applications of footwear creation.
And, unless the terrain is just impossibly harsh, a set of sturdy light hikers (sans Gore-Tex) are more than suitable.

reply

Obviously, fit is crucial in most types of gear and your boots should be chosen for your specific conditions. Most backpackers do not really experience truely harsh conditions, even here in B.C., which has very rugged terrain.

However, when you backpack as a part of your livelihood, carry heavy loads and that means over 75 lbs. and do this at high elevations with mininal trails, then the construction, etc. of your footwear becomes very important.

I have gone through about 30 pairs of boots since I started and I have found that the better quality boots do work better, last longer and simply feel better over time, each to his own.

reply

Well, if we're measuring livelihoods:

Those boots have worn me well for carrying an excess of 100 pounds, in rough and varied terrain in several countries. The key, for me, is to carry more than one pair ; )

reply

rdavis,

I put this topic over on the Backcountry forum, because I thought it appropriate for those who travel off-trail, not on, far from a support network, and seek to do so safely. The admin moved it here (which is fine, of course).

You said:
"So, I think a lot of good footwear comes with finding the right combinations for your feet and activities, instead of worrying too much about the rocket science applications of footwear creation."

Well, the topic is whether we should make our decisions based upon logic or marketing hype. Do you have any logical reasons for your choices in boots? Personal narratives are valuable and interesting but are not relevant in making an informed decision when making a purchase, IMHO. If I felt otherwise, I would buy only products endorsed by... some famous name.

You said:
"And, unless the terrain is just impossibly harsh, a set of sturdy light hikers (sans Gore-Tex) are more than suitable."

This does not seem logical given the nature of nature as we all know it (and as I premised in my first post) - fabric-cutting scree, ankle-twisting, ankle-bruising rocks, etc.. Please explain. I, for one, do not wish to be deep in the backcountry wearing a pair of shredded sneakers, nor do I think it practical to carry/wear more than one pair of footwear.

reply

(someone should read more Hemmingway)

Ahem.

In short, my point is all about logic: use what works, even if it's something simple. Sneakers and technical light hikers are not the same. Unless you clod hop rather then tread through difficult terrain, they are more than suitable for, as I said, anything but the most technical or rigorous approaches.
The more than one pair comment was for work uses, as Kutenay and I were discussing, not for recreational hiking.

reply

rdavis,

No thanks on the Hemingway. :)

You said:
"In short, my point is all about logic: use what works, even if it's something simple."

I do not see any "logic" in your statement. We use our reasoning ability to avoid having to "experience" everything. Life is too short - and boots are too expensive - to simply buy and wear every single make and model, hoping we find something that "works". Further, you don't even offer a definition of what "works" (though I tried to provide such as a starting point).

So, those of us whose funds and time are not unlimited, look at our needs and what the market offers to fill those needs. We consider alternatives and think. Perhaps we even discuss the merits of various articles based upon objective criteria.

Hey, wait a minute... this forum is about "Gear Selection"! You want to discuss off-trail boots and selection criteria?

reply

This has lost me, but, I am a simple soul and can only make suggestions from personal experience. I do not care for most boots made today because of relatively poor leather, excessive seams and too much "hype" rather than time-tested design/manufacture quality.

Look at the Scarpa M3 from 1998 and today's version, at the latest Meindls with their split leather that you CANNOT make waterproof and compare ANYTHING made today with Galibier Super Guides from 30 years ago. This will illustrate my point better than anything else I might say.

When you work alone in remote wilderness,such as northern BC-AB-YT-NWT as I did for years, most transportation is by helicopter and your weight and bulk limits on gear are very tight. So, I NEVER had more than one pair of boots and usually only had the best climbing-heavy hiking boots I could find. Galibiers cost $210.00 in 1970 and that was over half my monthly pay, but, they were worth it.

You cannot go wrong with high quality leather boots and I prefer to fit mine without trick innersoles or heel pads or foam pieces. It takes longer to break them in, but, once done and kept waxed well, they will last longer than any of these contemporary fabric and synthetic "hoofs" that are in vogue at present, so, the over-all cost is actually less.

reply

You might check out boots from Viberg, a Canadian company.
They offer some hiker styles that might interest you. My experience is with the work boots, though. Here's a link. http://www.workboot.com/hiker.htm

The leather and construction are first rate; and the boots are available in a variety of widths. I have a narrow foot (B width)and was very happy with the fit.

A number of other forestry folks I know, are quite happy with their Vibergs. Not for backpacking, mind you, but the taller styles for woods work and fire fighting.

The website is worth a look.

reply

I used to strongly recommend Vibergs and they WERE a superb boot, built here in B.C. to the old time standards of the great logging boots made by Heads and Pierre Paris until the '70s. However, they are not now what they once were, due to certain problems at the factory level. So, I would avoid these and, for forestry boots, I would buy Hoffman's or White's from the U.S.A.

Fire fighting, especially in typically rugged B.C. terrain and "big wood" will eat boots faster than anything; I know this from many years of it in two provincial forest services and private consulting firms.

A good pair of boots is a longterm investment and serious research into meeting YOUR specific needs is well worth the effort it takes, IMO; as rdavis points out, if a certain boot works well for you, as his choice does for him, then that's the way to go.

reply

overmywaders said

Quote:

Well, the topic is whether we should make our decisions based upon logic or marketing hype.

I wasn't going to comment on this topic, but I will just respond to this statement - Kind of obvious what the answer to this loaded question is, isn't it? Hype is hype, biased, prejudiced, unreliable carefully selected non-information. I would hope everyone, even newbies, would know that relying on hype (and "commercial messages" of any kind) is a sure way of ending up with junk that costs too much, doesn't do the job, and falls apart quickly.

Reminds me of something I keep encountering at the Outdoor Retailer Show. I stop by the booth of some manufacturer (could be packs, socks, clothing, even sometimes climbing hardware) and ask what improvements have been made for the next season's versions. All too often, I get "here are our great new colors" and nothing about function, durability, suitability, or those things that really matter. Who cares about what color your socks are when you are 20 miles into the backcountry, and they are inside your boots anyway?

reply

I would recommend Cabela's Mountain Hikers (all leather version). That's what I've been using. The fit is excellent.

They hold up well to extended backpacking trips. Plenty of ankle support. Good grip thanks to the Vibram soles.

reply

Kutenay-

Thanks for seeing my logic (reasoning, in other words. Like I _reasoned_ that simple is better, in my case) in how I choose to check boots.

My first (and only...we were pimped out to save some corporate big wigs out of Redmond's winter houses...allegedly) fire was the Tripod Complex Fire in WA and the boots I wore then were plain black leather boots, stand GI issue. They worked well for the months we worked up in the mountains. Again simple worked.

reply

I made the following spreadsheet a few years ago so it is probably no longer accurate, but it is a starting point for people looking for functional, one-piece leather upper, stitched-sole, goldang-old-school boots :
www.overmywaders.com/oldschoolboots.xls

reply

I bought a pair of OneSports (bought by I think Merrill) that worked well, except they ate my heels. I tried a couple of others, but I could not get a good fit, etc.

I am now indoor wearing a pair of Danners light hikers. They are simple, with Norwegian stitched soles, full grain leather. I bought them at the factory store. I have not tried them outside yet because I, quite frankly, am a little afraid that I really won't like them in the field. But I am also afraid to commit to any boot. I have such serious foot problems, I am worried the only boot that will work will be custom made Limmers, and I don't want to wait 4 years for that!

Any thoughts on the Danners before I break them in outside and can't return them???

reply