Oct 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm #1295299
Looked at these in a shop and they felt quite comfortable. They also said the "stealth" rubber is gripper than vibram.
Any experience with these shoes?
MikeOct 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm #1923191
@aerikssonLocale: Austin, TX
I can only comment on the rubber as I don't have those particular shoes, but I do have a pair of the Impact lows which feature the same rubber compound, and in the case of the Guide Tennie, the same tread pattern. Overall I've been extremely pleased with the soles of the Impact. The stealth rubber is at times almost too tacky and rewards foot-dragging with, well, no dragging just sticking. As I started looking for dedicated backpacking footwear the Stealth rubber set the bar in terms of tackiness and resiliency.
The problems though are somewhat major… First, the dot pattern sole is worthless as soon as you get anywhere near some mud. Even if you're not stepping in it, simply looking at it will make it materialize on the soles of the shoes, caked on and creating the nicest pair of hiking ice skates you've ever worn. They essentially do the opposite of shed mud, which is a total bummer. The other problem is that the tread isn't aggressive enough to keep me from sliding on thin laters of mud on top of otherwise hard trail. There's a brief and jarring 3" of slip before I catch myself on each step, then realize I have to walk funny to keep it from happening. No good at all.
Where they excel is on rocky terrain, boulders, and well armored trails that are heavy on stone content and light on dirt. On a recent trip up a trail that gained 400' of elevation in about 500' of distance, I ascended with goat-like prowess. A fat out of shape goat. But a goat regardless. This was also in a light rain, so I can attest to the quality of the rubber on damp rock as well. The level of grip on rock surface is shocking, but this is from someone who's never worn actual rock climbing shoes to put it into perspective.
So overall I would say that for a dedicated dry, rocky terrain where the trade-off on sketchiness on mud/grass is outweighed by the sheer awesomeness of their rocky grip, they're probably great. However if the weather turns and you end up within a 1/4 mile of some mud, expect it to show up to the party on the bottoms of your shoes and refuse to leave until you call the police.
My recommendation is to look at the Dome and Dome Mid shoe because they also use the same rubber but a more luggy, less dot/oval-like, tread pattern that should be better all around. They basically made my short list of shoes before I ended up buying a pair of Vasque because I couldn't find the FiveTens to try on. I'm not sure if I'll regret that decision but we'll see this week when the Vasque Velocity 2.0's show up.Oct 20, 2012 at 2:48 pm #1923207
what are you going to be using them for?
here's mine …
and here i am climbing in emOct 23, 2012 at 2:17 am #1923825
Just thinking of using them for general hiking. The "guide" model are mid height. The reason I liked them is that they fit me well – which isn't trivial for my flat foot.
But if indeed they cannot take the wet thatight be an issue
MOct 23, 2012 at 3:11 am #1923826
@richard295Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
Excellent combo tread for wet rocks AND mud. Same last as the other Five Ten shoes. This model started out as my favorite packrafting shoe and then replaced my Hard Rocks for UL backpacking.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.