[pct-l] Crampons

[Steel-Eye]

Good morning, 'Incredible,

I don't agree that "instep" crampons are out of the question for shoes 
without an instep.  The term "instep crampon" relates to the general 
location of the crampon rather than to any need for them to actually fit 
into an instep.  In fact, a shoe with a flat, no-instep surface provides 
better support than if the crampon teeters -- front to back -- across the 
minimal instep found on many shoes.  The strap across the top of the foot 
restricts rearward movement of the crampon and the strap behind the heal 
restricts forward movement.  I use instep crampons very successfully on 
runners or hikers that have soles as flat as a fritter.

In spite of that, I prefer to hike in shoes that have some instep because I 
wear gaiters that have a string around the bottom of the foot, and the 
instep keeps the string off the ground.  Really flat soles -- particularly 
those with sharp-edged soles -- will eat up a set of strings in short order.

Steel-Eye
http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Incredible Bulk" <taterno at cox.net>
To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Subject: [pct-l] Crampons


>I am going to need to use crampons in two weeks.  I was looking at Yaktrak 
>and Kahtoola crampons since I do not need full-blown crampons to hike into 
>the Grand Canyon.  I will be using the crampons with Merrill Chameleon 
>shoes.   Since there isn't much of an instep with these shoes, instep 
>crampons are out of the question.
>
> Is one better than the other for my purpose?  I understand there will be 
> ice on the upper partions of Bright Angel Trail, and possibly snow.
>
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Tom
> The Incredible Bulk
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l