[pct-l] Katoohla Microspikes vs instep crampons?

[CHUCK CHELIN]

Good afternoon, Ralph,


I hiked over snowpack in the San Jacintos this year with several people who
used the Katoohla Microspikes, and they liked them.   The Microspike points
are only about 3/8” long while my CMI instep crampon points are over 1”
long.  However, as you say, there are more Microspikes, and the engagement
of the chain pattern also adds traction across the bottom of the foot.  The
Microspikes are shown to weigh 12.5 oz. per pair while my CMIs weigh 8.9 oz.
I can’t address the durability of the Microspikes, particularly where the
chains attache to the elastic foot wrap, but I think they would be adequate
for a thru-hiker.  If I didn't already have several pairs of CMIs I would
consider the Microspikes.  There’s a photo of my CMIs installed at:
 http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=264768

Steel-Eye

Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT -- 1965

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

 http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Ralph Alcorn <rbalcorn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Saw a blog on the Katoohla
> Microspikes<http://sectionhiker.com/2009/10/21/katoohla-microspikes/
> >today,
> and wondered if they would be as good on trail runners as the instep
> crampons I have carried but never used. The spikes on the blog photo look
> almost as big as the instep ones, and there are more spikes. I realize they
> would be just as good if I never used them, but I'm wondering about
> actually
> crossing snow fields.
>
> --
> Ralph Alcorn
> http://www.backpack45.com/camino2.html
> http://timecheck00.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>