Recommendations on Hiking boot: Style/Performance

[threeleggeddog]

This is kind of a style/lifestyle thread, but I figured it fits better here for SF'ers. I've been looking for a hiking boot that offers both excellent performance and style. I don't necessarily care if the boot to looks good WHILE I hike, but may want to clean it off and wear it off the trail (I'm thinking excursion vacation).

I was looking at these (especially since I can get 40% off at Tanner goods because they were slow with an order).

http://www.tannergoods.com/products/danner-mountain-light-lownsdale-olive-chromexcel

Can anyone offer any feedback here? My thought is that the Chromexcel leather boots will look awesome over time, but probably are blister prone and less practical for actual trail hiking.

 

[Hodaddy]

You need something with much more style. May I suggest:



A Tricker`s Stow - Waxy ...

 

[Ich_Dien]

Diemme appears to offer some good versions, as does Fracap. That is, if you're looking for a very vintage hiking boot.

There's a thread around somewhere if you search.

 

[fritzl]



You need something with much more style. May I suggest:



A Tricker`s Stow - Waxy ...

walking the dog is not hiking, imo.

 

[chogall]

You need something with much more style. May I suggest:

A Tricker`s Stow - Waxy ...

As much as I love Tricker's Stow/Keswick, there are much better choices for hiking boots or work boots. Danner and Redwing comes to mind for hiking and work boots respectively.

 

[Harold falcon]

I hiked about 50 miles in Alaska in my AE Bayfields. After being broken in they were a surprisingly good hiking boot.

Still use them for hiking back here in PA on weekends. I have a backup pair of Merell Sawtooths and a very old pair of Herman's Survivor Boots (before the sale to Wal-Mart) that I occasionally wear as well.

 

[El Gordo]

Those boots that you posted would be fine. Danner makes boots that you can actually hike in and once they are broken in you won't have to worry about blisters. Diemmes are another good option in the price range. I would avoid anything with a leather sole and a non-hiking insole unless you want your feet numb and bruised by the end of a day of hiking

 

[stevent]

Where do you plan on hiking. I personally prefer running shoes / trail running shoes since they are much lighter and breathe much better. I went through Nepal in a pair of running shoes and thick wool socks.

Ankle support may be an issue but I'm a relatively heavy guy at ~175 pounds + 30 pound pack and I haven't ever really had problems. Then again porters carry 75 pounds in flip flops.

 

[chogall]

Where do you plan on hiking. I personally prefer running shoes / trail running shoes since they are much lighter and breathe much better. I went through Nepal in a pair of running shoes and thick wool socks.

Ankle support may be an issue but I'm a relatively heavy guy at ~175 pounds + 30 pound pack and I haven't ever really had problems. Then again porters carry 75 pounds in flip flops.

barefoot will beat all shoes. but unfortunately most of our feet are not conditioned to walk the way we were born to walk.

 

[threeleggeddog]



barefoot will beat all shoes. but unfortunately most of our feet are not conditioned to walk the way we were born to walk.

Good points with regards to less support- I actually usually do all my exercising (crossfit, running, most hiking) in five-fingers. However, I recently moved to LA and have been hiking crazed. I've been thinking of planning a longer (>1 week) backpack hike. To be honest, I used to zoom up 11 mile day hikes with five-fingers - once you get used to the lack of support, the lightness of the shoe lets you fly. But they're ugly as hell and ****** if you start to add load to your back (which is amplified by exceptionally rocky terrain). My thought was to get a cool looking, all leather hiking boot and use that when the five-fingers don't work. And for casual bar trips, the (right) hiking boot could still fly. With regards to the sneakers, I hiked about 40 miles of the pacific crest trail in ecco trail running shoes which worked well. From a performance standpoint, I think the only real benefit of the boot is the waterproofing/lower chance (almost zero chance with the Danner's) that it's going to blow out (this is obviously only an issue on longer hikes). I don't buy the ankle support theory either - if you can't support the weight you're carrying with your ankles, drop some weight. Let's be honest - in the end, I just dig the all leather boots and want an excuse to wear them for their designed purpose. And..

I hiked about 50 miles in Alaska in my AE Bayfields. After being broken in they were a surprisingly good hiking boot.

Still use them for hiking back here in PA on weekends. I have a backup pair of Merell Sawtooths and a very old pair of Herman's Survivor Boots (before the sale to Wal-Mart) that I occasionally wear as well.

Awesome pic. I don't have the balls to wear AE's on a hike, but I definitely give whoever is exercising that dapperness in the wild some major props.

 

[Thrifter]

I use my Danner Mountain Light II around the city as well as on multi-day backpacking trips - ie not crushed gravel path

Looks awesome with Raw denim.

Another key thing to remember is that the Danners have a fiberglass shank in the foodbed which really helps with the extra weight and support. It's not an ultra light hiker (read: running shoes) that will fatigue your feet on a multi day trip.

 

[romafan]

There shouldn't be any blister problems once they're broken in, and that sole looks like it would break in a little more quickly than a heavier lug-type. And, to boot, the Danner/Tanner looks great , but why only EE?

 

[threeleggeddog]



I use my Danner Mountain Light II around the city as well as on multi-day backpacking trips - ie not crushed gravel path

Looks awesome with Raw denim.

Another key thing to remember is that the Danners have a fiberglass shank in the foodbed which really helps with the extra weight and support. It's not an ultra light hiker (read: running shoes) that will fatigue your feet on a multi day trip.

There shouldn't be any blister problems once they're broken in, and that sole looks like it would break in a little more quickly than a heavier lug-type. And, to boot, the Danner/Tanner looks great , but why only EE?

I read on the Danner site that the Mountain Light is built on a narrow last. My guess is that the EE is closer to a D, so Tanner decided to use that as the average size to limit cost.

 

[Thrifter]

I find the toe area is a little narrow but the rest is pretty normal. I'm somewhere between a D or E width in AE PAs and I bought the standard width Mountain Lights. They will definitely take a bit of time to break in (wear them for a few months and on a few day hikes before a serious backpacking trip!) but the leather will mold to your feet and provide extra width where necessary.

 

[privateer]

The most important recommendation is to try every one of the boots on and see how they fit your feet.

Also, your boot should match your style of hiking. If you go ultra-lite, don't get clunky boots. If you are hiking very rough terrain or have weak ankles, don't get running shoes. I'm picking up a new pair of boots myself, but I am not bothering to check for style. Comfort is the most important thing as having trouble with your feet will ruin your trip!

The last thing is the type of hike you go on. Day hiking, short backpacking trips, and thru-hiking all have very different requirements. While many on this forum would most likely buy more than one shoe/boot, thats not me. Since I often do multi-week thru-hikes, thats the style of boot I wear.

I'd recommend checking out backpacker magazine's gear guide reviews and going to REI as a starting point. Of course, you won't be nearly as fashionable.