[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Re: Which footware to buy
As to those recently asking about "footware" [or, where I come from,
"footwear"0, I have not seen any of the responses warn about the
"growing foot" syndrome for long distance hikers. During the course of
a 2,000+ mile hike, many people, especially those with higher arches and
skinny feet to start with, will experience a full one, or sometimes up
to TWO size increase in their foot sizing . . . also, like with much of
your gear, no matter how well you prepare, many of your definitions of
"need" and "quality" re gear [including footwear] WILL CHANGE over time
as you hike on . . . also, if you do the traditional northbound hike,
with a mid-March to mid April start at Springer Mtn. in Georgia, you may
find you need some heftier winter boots for the first 2-4 weeks, then
followed by much lighter items . . . even approaching sandals or tennis
shoes as it gets to the hot summer months, and you learn the value of
footwear that you can stay relatively cool in, that is lightweight, and
that maybe you even WANT to walk into cool streams in . . .
However, on the other hand, there are many people to whom the need for
ankle support overcomes any other desires for lighter weight, cooler,
etc. In short, I think most would agree that one's footwear is perhaps
THE most personal item, and the biggest mystery for each person to
solve, of the whole deal! :)
Thru-thinker
Kenneth Knight wrote:
>
> Welcome to the open fire.
>
> While some people find the support and extra feeling of protection of a full boot like the Vasque
> Sundowner is necessary I personally don't. Footwear is perhaps the most individualistic gear choice
> out there (backpacks are almost as bad). While I have a failry normal feet s far as arches go I do
> tend to twist my ankles alot. You would think I would therefore love Sundowners. I used to wear them
> all the time. But, I came to realize that a lower lighter weight shoe with good heel support and
> tough tug sole was good enough. Lately that has meant my shoe of choice is the Lowa Tempest (or are
> they Renegade I can never remember).
>
> I am not a fan of trail runners like the popular New Balance 804. I have a pair and they are fine on
> easy terrain trails but for me they don't work well on more rugged trails and terrain that the AT
> often provides. However, they may be the shoe I take on an upcoming trip to Zion National Park and
> Paria Canyon since the footing will be easy and the 804s will dry quickly (I might buy something
> completley new too).
>
> With lighter shoes, especially trail runner type shoes like the 804, you will have to expect them to
> wear out. My 804s inside fabric is ruined though the outsides of the shoe and sole are still
> adequate. My Soloman Raid Winds (prior to the Lowa) wore out quicker than I would have liked but
> that is the way it sometimes goes with a lighter shoe. The Lowas are holding up quite well and
> easily have several hundred miles in them still. My point is you will have to replace your shoes
> during a thru-hike. The lighter shoes have the advantage of easier break-in.
>
> I'm not sure I'd ever wear sandals on the AT. I stubb my feet on stuff and brush against stuff too
> much. The bit of extra protection from a shoe is still worth it too me. However, to be fair I have
> not given sandals a real fair shot on anything other than desert trails. Maybe someday I will.
>
> ** Ken **
>
> On 6/10/02 at 10:26 AM, David Smith <dsmit19@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > So far I am thinking about Fusions or Vasque Sundowners...with smartwool socks and no liners...
>
> ** Kenneth Knight Web Design, IT Consultant, Software Engineer **
> ** krk@speakeasy.org http://www.speakeasy.org/~krk **
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list est. 1995
> Need help? http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!