Dec 19, 2008 at 10:41 am #1232741
Thomas R. ConroyParticipant
For those of you who do use CROCS as camp shoes, which model did you choose? Which is the lightest model, in your experience?
Thank you.Dec 19, 2008 at 11:41 am #1465422
@romanlaLocale: Southwest Louisiana
I got the Off Roads in hopes of using them for trips with lots of stream crossings. I haven't gotten to field test them yet though.Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 am #1465559
I use a pair of generic AirWalks – similar and $10. They weigh 240 grams per pair. I do not use them for stream crossing, and rarely take them.Jan 24, 2009 at 5:55 pm #1472675
@sbhikesLocale: Santa Barbara (Name: Diane)
I used the ordinary ones. Actually they were imitation Crocs. I actually hiked in them a couple of times. Worked great. My only complaint was that one shoe seemed to lean to the side some.Jan 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm #1472687
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
The lightest model, especially designed for BPL readers, weighs 0 grams.
CheersJan 25, 2009 at 5:58 am #1472755
@mothermenkeLocale: Upstate NY
Haven't verified their claimed weights, but supposedly much lighter than Crocs.
Also a bit more girlie looking compared to Crocs.Jan 26, 2009 at 1:09 pm #1473071
I just bought a pair of the liberty QUARKS, size 10. They weigh 5 oz each, as opposed to their advertised weight of 3.6 oz. They also feel stiffer, and less comfortable, than crocs.Jan 26, 2009 at 2:39 pm #1473082
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
Not to hijack the thread, but another alternative are XC Racing Flats. These are designed for races from 5k up to a marathon. I bought an inexpensive pair of Saucony flats and total weight for the pair is 13oz. They can be had for as little as $30 on sale on the Web. Lighter brands are available, although at a premium cost.
This type of shoe is designed to handle muddy/wet/slippery XC courses, grip the foot to be secure in turns, have minimal impact on feet such a blisters, and provide some support. Also, work well with just a sock liner or even sans socks.
These can actually be used for UL hiking (I have done it on good trails), but won't get you much life out of them in terms of mileage. Just an option I have not seen anyone explore.
Typically I use them as camp shoes when doing desert hiking that requires hauling a lot of water and wearing boots, or when hiking in areas that are very wet such as canyons with mostly sandy bottoms. For me they are a specialized piece of equipment that I do not use very often… but am glad I have them when conditions are right.Jan 26, 2009 at 4:33 pm #1473114
@beepLocale: Land of 11, 842 lakes
What about "Water Shoes" (e.g. Teva Proton 4)? 7 oz per pair according to web info.Jan 27, 2009 at 9:43 am #1473276
I know Thomas asked about Crocs specifically – I do not bring them b/c the weight vs. usefullness aren't worth it to me. There are a lot of options and it has been discussed in many threads – including this one:
I went with these as a camp shoe/stream crossing shoe. Minimal protection but it's better than nothing. Light, cheap, if you lose one (or both) you haven't lost muchJan 27, 2009 at 10:56 am #1473298
I really like Crocs for camping and use them for not only my around camp shoe but also my fly fishing wading shoe. They actually have great grip on wet rocks. I don't have the Croc brand … my wife sells Avon so I got the ones they have. $6.99 … not bad. Actually I think mine were cheaper with my wife’s discount.
– BryantJan 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm #1473318
@martycLocale: Industrial Midwest
There is a type of Crocs that are lighter and fit more securely for stream crossings: Crocs Mary Janes.
They weight 4.5 oz each shoe.
They come with two thinner straps that really secure my foot when crossing streams over rocks and debris.
Do get them in an embarassing color. Mine were striking green.
Marty CoopermanJun 18, 2009 at 4:18 am #1508997
@ejl10Locale: Mid Atlantic
To revive a dead topic…
I bought a pair of Quark Freedoms in hopes that their weight claims would hold up. The pair weighed in at 11.1oz for a W12/M10. I intended to order a M12, so they might well have come in over 12oz. The 3.4oz claim is probably legitimate for the smallest size, but few people will be able to enjoy it!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.