I'm soliciting some feedback from the list's resident long distance hikers about trail shoes.

We are looking hard at shoes for our Arctic trek. Ideally, one pair needs to last 600 miles of off-trail conditions.

The shoes need to drain well, absorb little water, because there will be a lot of river crossings, wet brush, tundra.

Durability of the sole and upper is important. There are lots of rocks in the mountains: scree, talus, shale surfaces.

Sole tread is important. Steep grassy slopes, mud, brush bottoms.

So, I'm curious to know:

What shoes are our resident long distance hikers are using these days?

How many miles are you getting out of them?

What kind of miles you are hiking (on/off trail, type of terrain - rocky, brushy, etc.)?

Where on the shoe are they failing?

How do you know they've failed if the failure is not obvious?

I would recommend sandals. Teva Cross-Tera specifically. The only times sandals don't work is for desert, due to prevalance of thorn bushes, and for wet snow and slush conditions. If you anticipate snow and wet slush, I would suggest supplementing the sandals with some neoprene booties or socks, either worn alone or worn with the sandals.

For merely cool weather, you can add some home-made cordura socks. This is what I will be using on my future trips to replace the neoprene socks I used in the past. pattern is here. Takes about 3 hours to cut and sew, working at my usual plodding pace, less for a skilled sewer. These cordura socks will also provide mosquito and tick protection. If you plan to wear them constantly for that purpose, then bring along some spares, at 5oz/pair.

Sandals with hook and look closures (such as Teva Cross-Teras) will collect crud in the grasslands, but this is mostly just an annoyance. The hook-and-loop will almost certainly not wear out in 30 days or 600 miles.

If used carefully, Teva Cross-Teras will easily last 600 miles of rugged hiking. Scree slopes and talus are not particularly hard on the soles of shoes, by the way. In particular, they probably abrade the soles LESS than ordinary concrete sidewalks in the city, because the abrasion is spread on different parts of the sole rather than concentrated. The big risk in the mountains is scraping the sides of shoes against certain types of very abrasive rock. With sandals, the sides means the straps. The straps on Teva Cross-Teras is very heavy nylon--far more durable than the nylon of most fabric boots. By contrast, the straps on Chacos is flimsy polypropolene--I sliced through those straps due to a single careless misstep and then had to throw the sandals away because I couldn't repair them on the road. I have walked in the Pyrenees, Corsica and other mountains in Europe extensively with sandals, on very rough scree slopes, and see no reason why durability would be a concern, assuming you use Teva Cross-Teras and not some other brand.

I strongly advise bringing along a 1oz tube of either Shoe-Goo or McNett SeamGrip in case the bottom sole and upper sole separate and need to be glued back together. This can happen to any shoe or boot, even a brand-new shoe or boot, due to manufacturing glitches. It takes a day for these glues to cure, but losing a day (which is unlikely in any case) is better than having the whole trip ruined because your footwear falls apart. I have only used Shoe-Goo myself for repairing shoes, but I have used SeamGrip for other purposes and feel quite confident about its holding strength.

Sandals give poor footing when they are wet and you are making steep descents, because the foot tends to slide towards the front of the sandals and the straps don't hold the foot very securely. But such steep descents with wet feet are the exception, and this one disadvantage of sandals is compensated for by a host of advantages. In particular, you don't need to worry about getting wet. Just plow right on through streams and bogs.

Here are some more suggestions regarding sandals, from the clothing writeup at my website:

• Avoid leather sandals, since these will rot in outdoor conditions (other than the desert).
  
• Avoid sandals with quick-release fasteners, since these can break. The Cross-Teras use hook-and-loop, which is much more reliable, though it tends to pick up crud outdoors (especially in grasslands). Sturdy ladder-locks are probably the best fasteners, but only if the straps are of heavy nylon. If the straps are thin nylon or polypropolene, they can easily abrade outdoors.
  
• Avoid sandals which don't have some sort of anti-microbial treatment in the topsole. If sandals nevertheless start to smell, soak them in a strong solution of bleach (sodium hypochlorite) for a few minutes, then rinse, then coat with baking soda (bicarbonate of soda) to get rid of the bleach smell. A similar treatment will remove stink from the feet (but don't let the feet soak for very long!).
  
• Avoid sandals (like Chacos) which try to support the arch or otherwise fix supposed imperfections in the design of the human foot.
  
• Avoid sandals (such as Chacos and certain models of Tevas) which use other than sturdy nylon straps. Thin polypropolene straps can be easily cut by rubbing against sharp rocks in the mountains.
  
• Avoid sandals whose straps are merely glued between the top and bottom soles, since these can pull out when subjected to strong forces, such as walking downhill when the sandals are wet. Some Teva models and lots of cheap model sandals are constructed this way. Chacos and Teva Cross-Teras (at least the older Cross-Teras, I'm not sure about the latest versions since I've not yet torn them apart to check) run the straps all the way from one side to the other, between the top and bottom soles, and thus the straps cannot pull out regardless of the force applied.
  
• Avoid sandals with flimsy bottom soles which will wear down quickly under use.
  
• Avoid sandals whose bottom soles lack traction for wet slippery surfaces. Most river sandals are specifically constructed to have excellent traction on wet slippery surfaces, like river rocks, so this isn't usually a problem with river sandals.
  
• Avoid sandals with neoprene padding on the straps, since this lacks a anti-microbial treatment and hence tends to stink after a while. The Cross-Teras have such neoprene padding on the heel strap. I removed this and then resewed the velcro back on without the neoprene padding.
  
• Avoid sandals which don't allow the toes (especially the small toe) to spread out properly.
  
• Be wary of sandals which have enclosed toes or ridges along the sides which prevent rocks from being easily shaken out. I say be wary rather than avoid, since this may or may not be a problem, depending on other factors. Keen brand sandals have enclosed toes. I haven't yet used Keen sandals.
  
• Avoid sandals with seams or connectors which sit directly on top of tendons, such as the tendons on top of the foot, as this can cause inflamation of the tendon.
  
• Flip-flops are the simplest of all footwear, and almost never cause blisters or other problems to someone with strong feet. The big negative is that they can easily fall off and then be lost, such as while fording a river. They are also usually flimsy in construction, though Chaco makes some flip-flops with a durable sole. All in all, I can't recommend them for hiking. However, if your regular footwear ever falls apart on the road and you must buy replacements, carefully considering buying flip-flops at the same time and carrying these for a few days. This way, if the replacement shoes start causing problems in the middle of the wilderness, you can use a combination of barefoot and flip-flops to get back to civilization.
  

Edited by frprovis on 03/03/2006 17:14:20 MST.

I'll be upfront and say that the only footwear I've worn in the arctic/sub arctic ( Brooks range, Cirque of the Unclimbables)were leather mtneering boots. These came off for each and every stream crossing because there was no way they would dry out anytime soon. I used Nike Aqua sox, instead.

Now on to lightweight shoes. I have been using since Fall, Montrail CTC's. These have perhaps 150 mi. on them and have held up well and the somewhat sticky soles are wearing better than expected. I use them, primarily for long off-trail jaunts in the Sierra and Trinitys, where the rubber sole compond and rands seem made to tackle Granite. The logest trip was a 65 mile portion of Steve Roper's Sierra High Route-- all off trail and on some fairly difficult terrain--- scree, talus, high angle slabs, snowfields. A great Approach shoe. I've even have used them for climbimg moves up to about 5.4-5.5.

The uppers are synthetic leather and mesh. The mesh is more durable (so far) than it looks and breathes well. On talus and scree, my Montbell Stretch Gaitors do a good job of protecting this perhaps least durable portion of the shoe. The materials are quite hydrophobic and seem to dry pretty quick. There are no drain holes-- a drawback for the conditions you are undertaking. I think a good hack would be to drill some holes in the non- fabric portions of the shoe.

The 2 areas I see wearing out 1st will be the sole ( because of the softer, stickier rubber compound used) and the heel liner--- a problem w/ most of my shoes because of my narrow bony heels which would wear through steel in time. I use these shoes w/ Superfeets ( green performance) which gives me some more torsional rigidity.

Even so, I think the shoes will have a few hundred more miles in them. The only trail runners I have used that seemed well nigh indestructable were the original Lowa Tempest Lows--well not really a trail runner.

Edited by kdesign on 03/03/2006 17:12:22 MST.

Shoes I like these days: Inov-8 flyroc 310, Salomon XA, Montrail Hardrock, Montrail Masai.

Typically I start looking very hard at shoes after about 300 miles. I've had failures in the field at anywhere between 350 and sometimes over 500 miles. Some brands and models seem to fail very early for me (Merrel, Nike), while other brands seem to last quite a bit longer (New Balance, Montrail, Hi-Tec). I haven't got very many miles on the Inov-8s yet to tell anyone how they wear, and the Salomons, while comfortable, have a sole that is slippery for me on wet surfaces so I don't really trust them for a long hike.

Typically my trips have 15-25 mile days, usually 4-10 day trips with resupply. Mostly on trails, with probably ten percent of the total distance cross-country. Some trips are almost exclusively on-trail. Quite a variety of terrain so I can't really generalize.

I've noticed that shoes are far more likely to fail in wet conditions. My personal theory is that if you are in soaking wet conditions for a solid week (think the Appalachian Trail in March and April, or the west slopes of the North Cascades in June or early July) your shoes will start to rot. This might be a great argument for sandals, but I've seen sandals rot too.

Other failure modes: usually the uppers develop quite a few holes. I'm okay with that. I've had soles crack all the way through where my feet flex them. The worst failure mode has been for New Balance shoes -- the plastic heel counter usually breaks, leaving two jagged pieces of plastic to entertain your heel. Otherwise I love the New Balance shoes but that failure mode seems fairly common.

Sometimes shoes just seem to stop working. I've had shoes with no visible damage that all of a sudden seemed to generate ankle rools and it seemed like you could feel every pebble underfoot. I've had a theory that this is sometimes due to wearing the same shoes for several weeks, but even if I take a week or two off those shoes, they still hurt when I put them back on.

Hope all that helps.

Edited by david_bonn on 03/03/2006 18:57:09 MST.

Dear Ryan,

After several thoussand miles of backpacking on and off trail all over the Sierras I have found the best shoe to be the Garmont Nagevi. The combination of mossasin fit, strong foot bed and stability, well made tongue, and padding around the ankle make it hold up very well. The soles, although quite thin, have surprising longevity and fair stickiness. They dry quite quickly imo too. Give them a consideration.

Evan

Ryan,

I agree with Evan wrote, I too really like the Nagevis. I've logged about 500 miles total on mine (all Colorado 3 season environment on and off trail) without any failures. There is no WP membrane so they dry out fairly quickly and are pretty light as well (right under 2lbs/pair size 11.5) and extremely comfortable, even with a 20lb pack.

My only caveats: The footbed (not the insole)seems to have compressed so there isn't much cushioning now (happened around 450 miles; I weigh 175lbs). They do absorb water quite easily, although I have not treated them with a DWR.

Ryan, look for one of Karsten Heuer’s books on her trips though the arctic. The descriptions might give you some pointers on good shoe attributes to look for.

the shoes I am curentlly using for road running, trail running and backpacking are salomon XA pro 3Ds.
they are very breathable and have kept my feet dry even after a day of running or walking. They are also some of the most comfortable shoes I have used. they have a great fit.

I have done more running than hiking with them so I dont know that much about durability. but I do know that the mesh used in them is much tougher then that used in my vasqe velocities and montrail hard rocks.

The lace system is very convenient, but I have found for some purposes un necessary. for running I dont even tighten the shoe at all. if you get a shoe that fits, it will stay on your foot all day wether it is tightened or not

Edited by ryanf on 03/07/2006 18:26:08 MST.

Thanks everyone for your replies. My comments.

1. Sandals do not offer the lateral support needed for steep traverses and do not offer the protection required for skiing down a scree slope. And when it's cold and windy, you're feet get really cold, especially when they are wet. Lack of full foot support, including a heel cup to maintain the heel pad, and arch support (combined with lateral stability) pretty much negates their use for the 45+ mile days through mountains we are expecting to do at the end of this trek.

2. Garmont Nagevis. I went and looked at these and wore a pair for a 25 mile hike. They are heavy, and when wet, absorb quite a lot of water. You can really feel the weight on your feet. Cushioning is thin, which is not a big deal to me usually, but probably rather important after several hundred miles, when we enter the rugged terrain of the mountains. What I did not like the most about these shoes was the water absorption, poor drainage, and very slow dry time. Other than that, they look like a great piece of footwear for lightweight hiking that would easily last the distance.

3. Karsten Heuer generally wore boots.

4. Of everything I've reviewed since starting this thread, the Salomon XA's, Timberland Delirion Pros, and the new-as-yet-unreleased Inov-8's look promising, in addition to my old standby's, the Montrail Vitesse/Hardrocks. The Montrail Highlines have less cushioning than the Hardrocks but dry much quicker and drain faster.

I will probably use pretty thin socks on this trek. Certianly nothing thicker than Smartwool Adrenaline. I'm also testing Injinji's (neat concept but skeptical of their durability), and Darn Tough Socks (the claims are being upheld so far). My Arctic socks will be some combination of these three models.

I'm also working with a local physical therapist/podiatrist to develop a new type of insole that will (1) last the distance, (2) not compress over 600 miles, especially the heel cup and arch support, and (3) won't absorb water. We have this about dialed in. I'm probably going to be using a carbon fiber orthotic embedded in an epoxied cork footbed with some very high density closed cell EVA for the cover. No "fabrics" involved, the entire thing is glued and sealed. This was motivated by never finding an insole that would last for more than 500 miles. I'll still probably take two sets of insoles and swap them out. They are light, around 3 oz/pr.

But shoes, yes, shoes, still dialing those in. I really don't want to bring two pair.

Forgive me if I misread.... but were talking about shoes for 600 miles, off trail, through the arctic.

This is probably not the place for trail runners.

Considering distance covered, terrain, remoteness, and consequences of failure (we are not talking about a "day to the next town" here) I think genuine hiking boots are probably in order.

I have worn Danner Acadias all over the world, and have put at LEAST 1000 miles on a single pair of boots. Thus far, the only failure was that a single line of stitching on a double stitched seam wore through. Shoe goop fixed that. I could use new soles, but the ones I have are still functional.

You might not need something quite heavy duty and as high leg as the Acadias, but danner boots still get a big fat nod for quality.

I have been unable to find anyone saying a bad thing about HanWag boots.... except that they might be a little expensive. Ive heard rave reviews from soldiers and backpack hunters and HanWag offers a full line of boots, from trail-walkers to mountaneering boots. Id take a hard look at the Alaska GTX for the trip your describing.

I have also heard extremely good things about Kayland Boots. They are excellent boots in general, but they offer eVent over GTX for your WPB layer. Their MTX is a heavy duty, mid weight boot, designed for mixed terrain. Probably a good bet as well.

200 miles from anybody but a caribou isnt a good place to realize your shoes arnt working like you hoped.

>> Forgive me if I misread.... but were talking about shoes for 600 miles, off trail, through the arctic...This is probably not the place for trail runners.

That would be the general consensus among the outdoor community. But it's not often that the general consensus thinks about walking 600 miles unsupported through the Arctic.

You should see what we're bringing (and not bringing) for the rest of our gear...

Yes, and we would like to see! No teasing...

Seriously, I can't wait for the gear list. But I REALLY can't wait for the trip report! This sounds wild.

Ben

"That would be the general consensus among the outdoor community. But it's not often that the general consensus thinks about walking 600 miles unsupported through the Arctic."

Its not often that trail runners are designed for walking 600 miles through ANYTHING.

Ryan, have you decided against using a waterproof sock to go w/ the decidedly non-waterproof footwear?
Sealskinz or even RBH VB sock liners? The latter seem to be comfortable for some in use above freezing temperatures, unlike other VB components. Any thoughts about this?

In 1979 I traveled 1000 miles through the NWT of Canada for 49 days. We traveled by canoe, but we had to portage on average once a day, if not around dry areas, then around ice. I wore norwegian welt "waffle stompers" by Raichle, as I recall. My feet suffered from what the doctor on the trip called, "trench foot." The name came from the experience of WWI soldiers who suffered nerve damage to their feet from constant exposure to water in the trenches. It cleared up, but it was most painful. On the flight home I couldn't walk to the plane without help. I suspect it was because my feet would get wet and then would be relatively still while I paddled; I lost circulation for periods of time.

Hiking 600 miles sounds daunting, but do-able if you get started the first day of their "Spring" and plan on wrapping it up in their "Fall." As you know, the landscape is pretty flat most places; trees are only a few inches off the ground. Some of the ground has frozen hummocks so narrowly spaced that it is difficult to get a foot between them; you certainly can't walk on top of them. It made carrying a canoe in a portage a challenge.

Eat facing the wind and bring just one bottle of DEET. Your body will build up resistance to the mosquito bites in a few weeks and you won't need that awful stuff after that. We wore those old heavy fish net underwear pieces, that Colin Fletcher likened to chain mail, under turtlenecks and long pants to keep the biting flies from biting through to the skin. We rolled our wool socks up over our pant legs to keep them off of our ankles and up the pant legs. I'd bring a pair of Event short gaiters if I were to do it again.

As a fisherman, you can catch fish quite easily to supplement your diet. We ran low on food before our bush plane arrived, so we ate Arctic Char. It may sound crazy, but it is so easy to catch fish I wouldn't take food for every meal of the trip. They'd strike anything the least bit shiny. I'm embarassed to admit that we built a fire from the green trees during our entire trip, as there were never enough dead trees/wood, and fuel for that many dinners was impractical. Granola in the morning with water and peanut butter and graham crackers for lunch for 49 days!

I wouldn't hesitate to use something considerably lighter for shoes, but I would bring extra insoles and plenty of socks! There aren't enough sharp rocks to tear up the soles and shoes in my view to warrant carrying a second pair.

I am certain you are doing your homework and know this already, but your trip brought back a flood of memories for me. I could rattle on for hours...

The best classic bonding agent is Barge cements it has been used in shoe repair trades for decades and is a true flexable contact cement that bonds and does not harm skin as severely as some of the other products. It is good also to have a good awl haft or handle with a hook style and sew lock stitch style. The cement should be applied separately let dry for 15 min to half hour depending on heat and humidity then hammer the two surfaces for tight bond then if its a shear area sew with waxed nylotex hand stitch thread pulling tight to keep the bond and seat the thread for durability. You can substitute dental floss if you can not locate nyoltex or are worried over weight in your pack.
I have professionally rebuilt shoes for 29 years with proper equipment and filled orthopedic prescriptions for an equal time

My impression is that Shoe-goo and Seam-Grip are both variants of polyurethane and work exceptionally well in bonding synthetics together, such as the top and bottom soles of running shoes, while Barge Cement was originally designed for bonding leather to rubber. But I would be surprised if their were big differences in the holding powers of these substances. All of these adhesives contain nasty solvents, so none of them are safe to work around for long periods of time without good ventilation.

The reason I recommended Shoe-Goo and Seam-grip is they come in 1oz sizes and I think the smallest size for Barge cement is more than that. Every ounce counts... Seam-Grip can also be used for repairing other things, like Goretex rain jackets, for example, though I suppose Barge Cement would also work for that.

Also, I strongly second Kevin's recommendation of SealSkinz for use with lightweight shoes or boots. Bring spares, because these things become worthless once they spring a leak (such as from your big toe wearing through the sock at the front, or from the seams giving out). Also, it is very hard to clean SealSkinz, since the laundry water won't pass through the membrane, and so they start to stink after a while. Though I guess this is a minor concern in this case.

Edited by frprovis on 03/15/2006 02:34:14 MST.

You guys have lost me on the rationale for bringing waterproof socks.

My experience has been positive with these in very cold conditions, but in temperate conditions, I've found them to be too warm and retain too much moisture, ie, the breathability is overwhelmed.

My philosophy is to let the shoes drain water, keep the socks thin, and make sure the shoes aren't made of absorbent materials. Then, you are focusing on drying your foot system fast when it does get wet rather than trying to fight the tendency for them to get wet in the first place.

I wore a pair of Keen Taos on the PCT last year. I rate them a 10/10 for comfort, 8/10 drying time, and they're really light.

Ryan: Well, you threw me with the comment about sandals being cold. My experience is that sandals without socks are comfortable down to about 40°F, assuming I am warmed up. In moist conditions (raining, tramping around in boggy ground) temperatures down to freezing are okay with bare feet, once I get warmed up. Dry freezing or subfreezing cold is another story, due to huge number of sweat glands in the feet which causes tremendous evaporative cooling. But dry cold is easy to handle. Just add some sort of windbreak, such as the 500D cordura socks which I am experimenting with now. These are quite comfortable down to 20°F in dry cold, but they don't do anything for slush.

In the past, I have used breathable neoprene socks (breathable because the neoprene has little holes bored in it) with sandals in slush conditions. These work okay once I get warmed up, but the first hour or so I feel numb. Back when I was using running shoes, I used SealSkinz in slush conditions.

Anyway, I known nothing about weather conditions in Alaska, other than it is pretty cold there. But if you are expecting snow or slush, then you need to be prepared with something. Since you're not using sandals, I'd vote for Sealskinz. And yes, they are too warm for mild conditions. Just take them off when you overheat and use thin nylon liner socks.

Joseph: what did you do when pebbles get into those Keen Taos sandal/shoes? Or was that even a problem?

Edited by frprovis on 03/08/2006 00:47:58 MST.

Ryan,

I used to use the Vitesse as my do-all shoe in the Cascades. It's not the arctic, but as you well now it can be lots of wet, slide alder, wet, scree, wet, talus, wet, brush, wet....

I eventually found them too fragile and lacking sufficient soles for any real off-trail stuff. Went with the Dunham Waffle Stomper Nimbles through a BGT test.

Simply the best backcountry shoe I've ever used. I have 3 pair now. Real Vibram sole, aggressive lugs, mesh and synthetic upper that breathes extremely well and dries quickly, and the best lateral support I've found in a trail shoe - probably due to appropriate sizing. Only real knock on them is that they aren't anywhere close to waterproof - which is another bonus in my opinion as I can't stand the heat of membrane shoes.

They're a couple ounces heavier than the Vitesse, but not noticeable in my experience. Fantastic fit options - probably the best on the market in that regard.

I'm still on my first pair (2 in reserve) with probably close to your 600 miles on them total. They're certainly not arctic miles, but many off-trail and snow miles for sure. Worn, but not worn out at all. Hundreds of miles left.

Worth a check...

-Curt

I've been trekking in Alaska several times and have difficulty accepting your starting premise of taking only a single pair of shoes for the entire 600 mile trip.

Aside from durability issues, shoes can become damaged in lots of ways. It's even possible to sometimes lose shoes through various means (like having one "sucked" off irretrievably while stepping through a deep mud hole or washed away while crossing a raging river).

If there really is no opportunity for re-supply, I'd carry a backup pair of some type. Ultralight predispositions notwithstanding, potentially having to walk a long distance partially barefoot through an Arctic wilderness is not something I'd care to contemplate if the trip were mine.

Edited by jwood on 03/08/2006 09:41:09 MST.

I'm sure you've all read similar but I thought I'd post this:

http://www.bushwhacker.ca/noboots.html

I did two traverses of the Pyrenees (Atantic to Mediterranean) in Europe in some leather approach shoes with a Vibram-style sole. They are still fit for more miles. Anything in this class which fits WELL should be fine.

Leather upper: because it tends to last longer than the fabrics. A pot of SnoSeal is essential - it can double the life of the leather, or more.

Vibram-style sole: this is what is used on full boots anyhow, and will easily last the distance. It doesn't have to be actual Vibram: some of the other sole brands are just as good - eg Salomon Contagrip.

This class of shoe will cost a lot more than the cheap joggers of course, but not as much as full boots. $/mile works out fine.

Full boots? Ah, come on. They went out of fashion about 20 years ago, for the simple reason we don't need them. They were designed for marching armies, not for lightweight walking.

Socks?
Thorlos are always good. Darn Tough Vermonts are as good. Ultimaxs are thinner, but not bad. Ullfrottes feel nice, but are too slippery in light walking shoes for safety. OK in full ski boots.

Ryan,

What did you think of Kevin's suggestion of the Montrail CTC? They seem to fit pretty well into your criteria.

Bob

I have to retract my recommendation of sandals based on further consideration of Ryan's determination to walk 40+ miles/day. I have never walked that much for more than 1 day in sucession, neither in sandals nor in any type of shoes, neither with nor without a backpack. I have no desire to push my limits.

The reason sandals work for me is that I walk on the front of my foot, which makes the muscles of the foot work extremely hard, which in turn keeps them warm in fairly cold temperatures. These strong muscles also protect me from injury, which is why the lack of any support in the sandals in no problem for me, even in the mountains, even on scree slopes. (I most certainly do not "ski" down scree slopes, or if I do, I go very slowly so as not to break a leg, and sandals work fine when going slowly.) However, I need considerably rest time each night to allow any tissue injuries to those hard-working foot muscles to be repaired. I don't see this as a problem, since I get bored after hiking more than 6 hours and so there is always plenty of rest time available. But for someone who is determined to walk 40+ miles/day, there won't be much rest time, and thus it is essential to avoid any sort of tissue damage. And so yes, all this hocus-pocus with orthotics and whatnot is probably necessary.

Personally, I think a far smarter approach would be to take the advice someone gave about catching fish to supplement the food supply. This would reduce the need to walk so many miles/day. Also, as we discussed ad nauseum in the food discussion, the only way to access the body's fat reserves is to go slow. With 40+ miles/day, the body will probably be burning lots of glucose and all this will have to be carried. Regardless of this issue, I think 40+ miles/day, carrying a heavy pack, off-trail, for weeks in succession, may lead to some sort of injury, no matter what sort of orthotics or footwear is used. Then again, some people can indeed walk high mileage day after day without stress injuries.

I have used 1 pair of Icebugs for 2 years in NZ, nearly all off trail. A considerable amount of scree and sharp moraine, innumerable river crossings, and for climbing on snow in summer with crampons. I use them with gaiters, and on the snow I used vapour barrier liners to keep my socks dry. I have not yet used them mid winter, but I am planning to try this with neoprene socks.
Most of the carbide tips have come out, so the initial superb grip has been compromised, but the shoes still function well. Also I have had to reglue the rubber where it curves up at the toe a number of times, but I have been surprised how little wear is showing after about 500 miles of very rugged use.
The light weight, quick drainage and rapid drying is
a boon compared to boots. My foot agility on rocks and boulder hopping is a delight compared to my booted companions. The weight saving on the feet notably reduces the energy drain on long days in rough country.

I realize this is "slightly" off topic for this thread (and likely an old discussion) - but this group is the best group for me to ask - so I am going to do so :-) Growing up hiking in the White Mountains (40 odd years ago) the common wisdom was that one "must" wear boots for the ankle protection in rocky terrain....and it remains very difficult for me to give up the fear of a turned ankle (especially after having to assist people with turned ankles and busted knees out of the mountains). Understanding the great weight and anti-blister advantages of trail-runners over boots, I would like to hear the wisdom and experience of this group regarding the risk of turned ankles in rocky terrain when using trail-runners (for reference, my pack weight usually comes in at 25 pounds, with food for a 3-5 day outing).

Just a few(?) comments on the sneakers v. boots.

In 1997 I suffered a high ankle sprain. Physical therapy was prescribed to increase my range of motion. I thought that I could just do my PT while hiking, but my boots were too stiff to allow me to break up the scar tissue. I converted to a low cut Lowa and then to the New Balance 80X series. I think hiking in low cut shoes strengthens your ankles and promotes a greater range of motion.

Frankly, I think that I would not have gotten the high ankle sprain if I had been wearing low cut shoes. Were the injured people that you have helped wearing boots or low cut shoes?

Trail running shoes have some advantages:

1. They dry much quicker than heavy boots. I can walk a pair of NB's dry in about two hours and they almost always dry over night.

2. Better all purpose traction. Climbing shoes look like ballet slippers.

3. Increased range of motion allows a better friction grip while bouldering and rock scrambling.

4. No break in period.

5. More nimble hiking. I have crossed log bridges in groups where I was the only one wearing trail running shoes and the are much better.

6. Cheaper, but maybe not in the long run..

7. Oh yea - LIGHTER.

Boots do have some advantages:

1. When you walk in an area with occasional puddles less than ankle deep they will keep your feet dry.

2. The aggressive lug sole is the best traction on slick mud and ice.

3. A stiff boot is needed for full crampons - but not the instep crampons.

4. They keep your ankle from getting whacked by rocks in talus and stream crossings - but gaiters and a piece cut from your sleeping pad is more effective.

5. Less rocks get in your shoes - but gaiters over NB's are better.

6. More durable than trail runners.

7. Under a heavy pack a heavy sole with a substantial shank will prevent bruising the bottoms of your feet. But if you are carrying that much weight you should confine you hike to smooth and wide trails because the heavy load makes you very unstable. Bushwhacking or rock scrambling with a heavy load is dangerous.

I have experience hiking in the Brooks Range. We call the terrain "the arctic stairmaster," because the tundra surface is just a bunch of hummocks a few feet above permafrost. So all the ground is just a huge soggy, spongy bog. With every step you sink in and then have to extract yourself. You will try to step on top of the grassy hummocks, rather then the puddles between them, and they will collapse under your feet and you will stumble with each step. You will get wet and need gaiters. We went in 1997, before trekking poles were fashionable. Trekking poles are essential and will help you keep your balance. As far as shoes are concerned, think about this:
1/ if you travel over tundra, a five mile hike is equivalent to a grueling 10 mile hike off-trail in a mountainous environment. Your feet will be soaked, unless you have a waterproof lining and wear gaiters. You needs boots with ankle support. Seriously, if you wear trail runners they are going to get sucked right off your feet into the bog.

I say bring sandles, but wear them in around camp with some wool socks in the evenings as you relax. And for crossing icy rivers.

2/ if you have a river to follow, follow it. Rivers are the highways of the arctic. Walk on gravel/rock beds and now you can do some fast walking. But your feet will get beet up on those rocks. And you'll be kicking your way through tough scrub willows and thorny bushes. It can easily tear your gear, or put a hole in a thermarest pad carried outside a pack. You will need to do some stream crossings in freezing water in rivers at high velocity. Sandals help here. And you will get rained on. A lot. I would ask you what kind of shelter you are bringing, because you will be tent-bound (or tarp-bound). You will be a lot happier if you can sit-upright in your shelter with a few buddies and play some card and slug some whiskey.

Get the book: "Alaska Wilderness, Exploring the Central Brooks Range" by Robert Marshall. It's the closest thing you will find to a guide, even though it describes Bob's expeditions in the 1930's.

To summarize: If I were going again I would bring quality, lightweight but tought boots (such as Kayland makes) with Goretex or Event liners. I would wear event gaiters. I would bring a really good camera and take a lot of photographs, the light in the arctic is incredible. Try to find a superlight but strong shelter that 4 people could hang out in and enjoy company as you wait out long-hard rains. Have good-quality raingear. Enjoy the fear and anticipation of being food for Grizzlies.

Have fun, sounds like a great trip.

Ryan-

Have you considered custom shoes like those made by Hersey?

They might be able to build you the perfect shoe to your specifications.

Cheers,

-Mike

Ryan,

Consider dabbing some seam sealer over the exposed seams of your shoes, not for waterproofness, but rather for reinforcement and protection of the seams.

Have a great trip!

Edited by Feather on 03/12/2006 07:31:57 MST.

Seam sealer is a great idea - if you use a rubbery sealer such as McNetts or Shoe-Goo or Goop. Don't use Kenyon; it hardens, won't protect the seams long and can fray stitching.

Richard - thank you for your comments. The people I have had to help out were wearing boots...and I guess the assumption was that shoes without ankle protection would be worse...but your comments about boots with ankle reinforcement allowing the ankles to weaken was never a thought - but makes sense. Certainly, given the number of people that have walked the AT or similar treks with trail runners is a testament that maybe doing so is not TOO bad an idea! These days I do not get to hike often enough that I can do a really good job of breaking in my boots - and blisters are a problem. Trail runners would be a very welcome alternative in that respect (in addition to the drying and weight issues you mentioned.)

>These days I do not get to hike often enough that I can do a really good job of breaking in my boots...


If you're not completely comfortable going straight to an adventure racing trail runner shoe, try something in-between. Montrail has "Fusion" shoes which are much lighter than boots but are a bit stiffer than most trail running shoes. I have used Montrail Kalahari (discontinued, but available now on Overstock.com for $32; size 12: 38.6 oz/pair) with loads up to 60 pounds without a problem, and without missing my heavier (Montrail) boots. I've never had a blister with any of my Montrail boots or shoes.

Ryan,

I think you are moving in the right direction.

1. A shell that is very tough, very ventilated but that does not let in fine slurry and or dust.

2. Very tough sole that is decently sticky

3. Replacement insides to provide custom support and shock absorbtion. Also, a second footbed liner is less heavy than a second pair of shoes.

Evan

RJ,

after re-reading Doug Johnsons "SuperUltraLight in the Cascades with a Sub-4-pound Pack"
I checked out the La Sportiva shoes he used. The Exum ridges. They look good but what in terested me was the Zodiac Trail sport shoes
they look almost like a low cut boot. and weigh only 30oz.

The Venture XCR and North dome shoes could also be options, but they are not as light.

They are not quite trail runners, but they are a Boot/shoe hybrid, and could be the answer

Edited by ryanf on 03/19/2006 13:24:12 MST.

Just a few thoughts:
* Fit trumps all. There are shoes and boots with comparable features from several manufacturers, so find the manufacturer and model whose lasts match your feet.
* I'd suggest taking two pairs, one slightly light and the other slightly beefier. Alternate them to let the other pair dry and air out. Maybe Tevas for the light pair, stream crossings, trails, camp?
* I'd avoid trail running shoes and look instead to approach shoes (LaSportiva, Vasque, Kayland, maybe Salomon, etc) that have a pronounced heel. Flat soled shoes are slippery on scree, snow, and mud. Approach shoes at least talk about having sticky rubber.
* I don't get the concept of Gore-Tex shoes/boots. They keep water in (sweat and water sloshed in), keep your feet hot, slow drying time, inhibit cleaning, and don't protect the bulk of the shoe material from water. Immersion foot under your conditions could be a real worry. eVENT works much better, certainly in clothing, but AFAIK Kayland is the only maker of eVENT shoes/boots (great boots, too). I'd favor ventilation and drying over membranes; that suggests synthetic uppers.
* Nothing is likely to work completely (given the constant wetness, immersion, and mud), but the best waterproofing treatment I know of is "Leather Gel Water Repellent" from McNett/ReviveX. It's not as widely available as their conventional treatment product because it darkens colors. They made it for climbers who don't care.

I'd be interested to learn the components of your first aid kit specific to foot health and treatment.

Hurricane ridge XCR

I have a pair of these with about 400 miles on them and they look like they will do 6.

I hike mostly in the desert but have had them in the snow and water on more than one occasion.

Incredibly enough I was in a snowstorm on the trail into Supai, AZ where we were walking through about 4 inches of snow and a creek of about 6 inches of water.

The shoes kept my feet reasonably warm and dry though my thick wool socks did start getting a little cold by the end of the day.

Coming back I put on some Stephanson vapor barrier socks over my wool socks and kept my feet completely dry.

I have found in the sierras the answer is to take off your socks before crossing the stream then put them back on. As long as the shoes are light weight trail runners and not leather, they will dry out quickly. This shoe dries out very quickly since it doesn't absorb any water except in the foot bed.

They have a 3/4 inch plactic shank which keeps the pointy rocks from pushing pain. They do not have sticky rubber but they have gripped on every steep surface I have ever tried them on.

I have no idea if this setup is any good for you in the "Artic" since I've only been As far north as Fairbanks but, having been there is the summer, I am confident it would have worked well there. I don't think it would work well on Denali.

Keep in mind that in the arctic, you'll most often be walking on tundra, so cushion durability won't be as critical. Wear also may be less because you're stepping on vegetation so much (with the exception of mountain passes/ridges and the days when you spend all day walking in a stream bed.) Water clearing is critical. You may go days without stepping on anything dry--beneath those tussocks is often 12" deep water--you can't afford to take your shoes off when you cross streams. However, almost any shoe without a high rand will drain fine through the fabric parts. Walking produces great pumping action. Just avoid shoes with a bunch of foam padding (sponge). I don't even try to keep my feet dry--the cool fresh water keeps my skin from blistering.
Shoe beefiness would depend on pack weight, and I have no idea how much food weight you'd have to carry to go 600 miles. Are you sure you don't want to pay a pilot to do a food drop-off? Every flight is life and death for those guys so you can depend on them. It does mean you absolutely have to reach a certain spot at a certain time though.

Ryan,

Two different methods, the Neva and the Exum River. Both work for me in wet and difficult stuff.

http://www.sportiva.com/products/prod/306


EXUM RIVER

http://www.sportiva.com/products/prod/369

Edited by be_here_now@earthlink.net on 04/04/2006 18:14:19 MDT.

Salomon Tech Amphibian Water Shoes

Adjustable, collapsible backs let you wear these with neoprene booties/socks if you choose
Kevlar quick-lace system provides secure, non-slip fit
Drainage ports ensure easy escape for water inside shoes
2 rubber outsoles deliver optimal performance on mixed terrain
Lightweight, quick-drying synthetic/mesh uppers offer support and durability

SealSkinz Waterproof MVT Socks

this is the best combo i have found!