Boot Question

[boudreaux76]

Currently I have a pair of Asolo TPS 520 GV's that I love. Full grain leather uppers, great grip, amazing support - - unfortunately they weigh 3 lbs.

Overkill for a 70-80 mile section hike through GA in mid-June?

[boudreaux76]

I forgot to say - they are well broken in and extremely comfortable and I have about 70-80 miles in them already.

[Venchka]

Howdy from Houston. For 57 more days. Then I'm gone! Hallelujah!

Any footgear that fits, is broken in & doesn't cause blisters should be worn and treated with respect.
I also own a pair of Asolo 520s, but I haven't worn them enough to make a decision on whether they are good for my feet or not. Mine weigh 3 lbs 12 ounces.

Wayne

[Venchka]

If you really like the 520 boots, you might want a second pair while you can get them.

http://www.rei.com/outlet/search.htm...nk=rank_outlet

A sure sign that these boot's days are numbered.

Wayne

[Traveler]

I forgot to say - they are well broken in and extremely comfortable and I have about 70-80 miles in them already.

Lets see, broken in, good support, no foot problems, extremely comfortable.... I'd say you answered your own question.

[Harrison Bergeron]

3 pounds for full grain leather? Wow. A pair of sneakers would be 2 pounds! Wear 'em!

[Venchka]

3 pounds for full grain leather? Wow. A pair of sneakers would be 2 pounds! Wear 'em!

My men's size 9 520 Gore-Tex lined boots weigh 3 pounds 12 ounces. I can't speak for the OP's boots.

Wayne


Sent from somewhere around here.

[boudreaux76]

My biggest concern would be that they are crazy hot and not worth the hassle that time of year.

[sliverstorm]

My men's size 9 520 Gore-Tex lined boots weigh 3 pounds 12 ounces. I can't speak for the OP's boots.

Might be a per-boot vs per-pair miscommunication. 3lb 12oz is likely per-boot

[Venchka]

Might be a per-boot vs per-pair miscommunication. 3lb 12oz is likely per-boot

No, my Asolo 520 boots weigh 3 pounds 12 ounces for the pair.
My all leather, no Gore-Tex Pivetta 5 boots in size 9 weigh 4 pounds for the pair.

Wayne


Sent from somewhere around here.

[Grampie]

Don't believe all the hype about hiking with trail runners vs boots. The additional weight of a boot means very little compared to the benefit of using a pair of well broken in boots. With boots your feet will stay dryer. You will benefit by the increased ankle support and protection.
I thru-hiked the AT using one pair of Montrail AT Hiker boots. They weighed almost 5lbs. Never had a foot problem.
I was 66 years old and my pack weight was around 35 lbs. most of the time.
Use your boots and enjoy your hike.

[aka.cyberman]

You just answered your own question

[Casey & Gina]

Don't believe all the hype about hiking with trail runners vs boots. The additional weight of a boot means very little compared to the benefit of using a pair of well broken in boots. With boots your feet will stay dryer. You will benefit by the increased ankle support and protection.
I thru-hiked the AT using one pair of Montrail AT Hiker boots. They weighed almost 5lbs. Never had a foot problem.
I was 66 years old and my pack weight was around 35 lbs. most of the time.
Use your boots and enjoy your hike.

The most popular footwear on the AT not that many years ago were Vasque Sundowner leather boots - many people completed thru hikes in them. I have done a lot of miles in Vibram Trek Ascent LR's which seems insane to many, even with a heavy pack which supposedly dictates needing more supportive footwear. However after a couple winter hikes I am convinced that good waterproof boots are a necessity for me, and most likely something I will end up using during the rest of the year as well, as when a good pair of well-fitted boots is broken in, it's hard to beat the comfort. Lighter weight shoes will need replaced more frequently. Really good boots with stitched welts can be re-soled rather than replaced. Hard to say which is more cost effective since the up-front cost of good boots is significantly more, but the repair cost is less than replacement cost of the cheaper options. What matters is the conditions you'll be hiking in and personal preference. If you like feeling the ground more directly you want a thinner sole without a shank, and an overall design that does not limit your foot's ability to bend around what is under it. If you want a more dependable feeling with every stride then a sturdy sole with a shank does the job. Of course the strength or flexibility of the upper should be matched to the sole. There are tradeoffs between waterproof and ability to dry out given warm enough conditions. Heavier footwear will require stronger muscles, but not to worry, your body will adapt to what you wear.

[smokey mtn hiker]

My biggest concern would be that they are crazy hot and not worth the hassle that time of year.

With wicking socks, shouldn't be a problem. I would wear them.