[pct-l] shoes

[chwillet at indiana.edu (Christopher Willett)]

I went through four pairs of shoes last summer and bought them as I went.
I would call or use the internet from various towns and have new shoes 
and socks sent to me up trail.  I wear size 15 in running shoes, so 
buying from an outfitter along the trail isn't really an option.  Here 
is a review of the shoes that I wrote for an AT website.  In brief, I 
hated the NB806, but loved the others.

Reviewer: Chris Willett aka Suge aka Sugarmonkey
Age: 29
Height: 6'4"
Weight: 193-215 lbs (during the testing)

During my Pacific Crest Trail hike, I used four pairs of shoes. Since
their are a plethora of trail running shoes out there, this might help
people make a decision. All the shoes were size 15, 1 size larger than my
normal, street shoe size. All cost in the $80-90 range.

Brooks Adrenaline GTS
--------------------------
I really liked this pure running shoe for the the hot, hot Southern
California section of the PCT. There is enough mesh in the shoe that when
the wind blows, I feel it in my toes. Keeping my feet ventilated was very
important in a land where the ambient temperature would get into the upper
90s or low 100s on a daily basis. The surface temperature was
correspondingly higher. I wore this shoe from the Mexican border to
Mojave, CA, a distance of 563 miles.

While the sole is a standard running pattern, the rubber is soft enough
that I had only a few slipping problems. Traction is certainly better than
the NB 806s listed below. Durability was good, with only one small tear in
the side mesh of the shoe and some chunked up areas on the sole. Since
this is a road shoe, your feet have much less protection than with other
shoes. Walking on rubble is not fun with these shoes. I could have gotten
another 150 miles out of the shoes, but wanted something with big time
tread for the Sierra.

If I were to hike the AT, this would be the shoe that I would use through
northern Virginia to Vermont.

Asics Eagle Trail
-------------------
I wore the Eagle Trail from Mojave to Sierra City, traversing the length
of the Sierras, a distance of about 630 miles. The Eagle Trail have a
massive tread on them, better than my regular hiking boots and only a step
below my mountaineering boots. I can't believe Asics put such a sole on a
running shoe! Traction is very good. You get a stiffer carriage and a bit
more protection than the Brooks shoe, but still less than I would like.

The Sierra consisted of a lot of big mountains, scores of raging rivers,
and tons of snow. My feet were wet all day, every day, for the better part
of 3 weeks. The shoes took an absolute pounding and looked it. From
kicking steps in frozen snow and constantly bouncing off rocks, I grew two
large holes near my big toes after a few hundred miles. There were rips in
the sides as well.

Despite what seems like a durability problem, these would be my perfect
trail shoe if Asics would put in a more protective sole and if REI
continued to carry them in size 15 (Asics makes them in size 15). The
shredding of the shoes is a testament to the terrain that I went through,
rather than design flaws in the shoe.

Were I to hike the AT, I would wear these shoes from Springer to central
Virginia and in northern New England.

New Balance 806
--------------------

I really hated this shoe, even if it is about the most popular model out
there. Others love the shoe. I wore the NB 806 from Sierra City to
Sisters, OR, a distance of around 780 miles. The NBs are built like tanks,
and there was absolutely no damage to the shoes when I ditched them in
Sisters. Internal cushionning was going, but structurally the shoes were
still good. The shoes have very little mesh in them and are the least
breathable of all the shoes I wore. These shoes were also the most
protective, making rubble walking easy and painfree.

The NB shoes did not fit me as well as I might have hoped. The toe box was
a bit too narrow and the heel cup a bit too wide. The result was a
sequence of small cracks or cuts on the pads of my toes. Some days these
would be rather painful. The shoes might fit you better than they did me,
but I have a fairly standard shaped foot. The traction of the NB 806 is
substandard. There were times I would slide on things I could take my
wingtips down safely. When things got wet, the situation got worse. The
tread pattern is poor and not aggresive enough. The rubber used is very
hard, whi ch helps to protect the feet, but limits how grippy the shoe can
be.

I would not wear these shoes again and cannot recommend them. I won't use
NB products until they improve the traction (I had similar problems with
the 904 model).

Asics Gel Trabuco V
------------------------
I wore these trail runners from Sisters, OR to the Canadian border, a
distance of about 670 miles. I liked these shoes alot, as they provided
fairly good traction and a much better fit than the 806s I had been
wearing previously. It took about 10 days for my feet to recover from the
damage the NB shoes did. After that, I had happy feet the rest of the way
to the border.

The Gel Trabucos are a lot like a running shoe, only a little stiffer and
with a grippier, more protective sole. There is a lot of mesh, which helps
keep your feet cool, but also lets in mud and micro rocks.

The durability of the shoes was very good, with no noticeable wear on them
when I finished. They now have a tear on the top. I wished for more foot
protection, but the amount the Trabucos provided was adequate. Traction
was second best to the Eagle Trail.

Were I to hike the AT and could not get the Eagle Trail, I'd use these
shoes.


----------------------
Christopher Willett
Department of Mathematics
Indiana University
831 East Third Street
Bloomington, IN. 47405-7106
(812)-855-1883
chwillet@indiana.edu
mypage.iu.edu/~chwillet