I use mid-height waterproof boots for transition season hiking - mud, lots of wet creeks, and snow. I just did the inaurgural hike on my new Columbia Newton Ridge Plus II boots: https://www.backcountry.com/columbia-ne ... -boot-mens (I got the steel grey version). I wallowed in the slush and even walked across a shallow creek a few inches deep - completely waterproof (for now).
We will see about the lifespan.
disappointing lifespan for shoes
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
yeah, mesh shoes let sand and grit inside
I have switched to leather boots. Danner Mountain 600. 22 ounces for one size 12 shoe, so a bit heavy. They have a GoreTex like lining. They weren't very breathable until I prayed them with Danner waterproofing spray.
I have switched to leather boots. Danner Mountain 600. 22 ounces for one size 12 shoe, so a bit heavy. They have a GoreTex like lining. They weren't very breathable until I prayed them with Danner waterproofing spray.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
I only use mesh shoes in the summer. Everything else is just too hot. I have hot feet and cold hands. I need gloves when I'm still wearing sandals.
- adamschneider
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
- Location: SE Portland
- Contact:
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
Do we know what makes them "Plus II"? I have the normal Newton Ridge boots.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
No, I don't know the difference, they look about the same. The Plus II were on sale and seemed to be what I needed.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
Try to find anything these days built to last more than a few years. I had same problem with boots, all the fancy stuff is garbage. Best pair of boots I ever had were all leather. Soles wore out before uppers. So I am now wearing Danner all leather. So far so good but only second year with them.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
In 1970s I had Danner all leather shoes. They lasted forever. And they were heavvvvvy. And my feet sweat a lot in them - I put Snowseal on them so they were waterproof but not breathable.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
Years ago I had some Vasque leather boots I truly adored. They lasted me a decade and when they died I grieved. Sure, they were saunas for my feet and gave me many blisters, but compared to my previous pair of leather boots that destroyed my feet on a regular basis they seemed like heaven. Those earlier instruments of torture also lasted me a decade and I couldn't seem to wear them out to my everlasting dismay.
Now my trail runners last me about a year. I hike further, get less tired and never get blisters any more. Zero blisters. I am resigned to buying a new pair every 900 or 1000 hiking miles. I can afford it and hiking is much more fun this way.
Now my trail runners last me about a year. I hike further, get less tired and never get blisters any more. Zero blisters. I am resigned to buying a new pair every 900 or 1000 hiking miles. I can afford it and hiking is much more fun this way.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
Now I've seen it all. In the pic below, notice the outsole has separated from the midsole, which has separated from the upper. On both shoes! And not just in a small zone, but along virtually the entire length. Fortunately, I was close to TH. On a long hike, this could have been a barefoot walk back to car. How is this even possible? !
I've bought two pairs of Nikes in the last five decades. I loathe and despise Nike, but these were on sale, they felt good, and the workmanship in the tongue/bellows/lacing was good, and that's something I'm fussy about. But damn, if Yugo made shoes...
It's like they're messing with us, just seeing what they can get away with. Strangely, there are people who actually believe Nike is a legitimate company that makes quality products.
My best guess on mileage: <100. They're a bit old, so maybe they would have lasted longer if they were put to use immediately after purchase. That's no excuse though. Shoes shouldn't fall apart just because they're old. Some materials do degrade with age, but if shoes start to fall right off your feet, like leaves in November, that's just outrageous.
I've bought two pairs of Nikes in the last five decades. I loathe and despise Nike, but these were on sale, they felt good, and the workmanship in the tongue/bellows/lacing was good, and that's something I'm fussy about. But damn, if Yugo made shoes...
It's like they're messing with us, just seeing what they can get away with. Strangely, there are people who actually believe Nike is a legitimate company that makes quality products.
My best guess on mileage: <100. They're a bit old, so maybe they would have lasted longer if they were put to use immediately after purchase. That's no excuse though. Shoes shouldn't fall apart just because they're old. Some materials do degrade with age, but if shoes start to fall right off your feet, like leaves in November, that's just outrageous.
Re: disappointing lifespan for shoes
Chip, you should apply to become a shoe tester for brands that fit you best. I believe you would get free shoes and they would probably value the rapid turnaround on results. There can't be many people who legitimately burn through a pair of shoes as fast as you do.