lightest camp shoes

[michael levi]

6.6 ounces for the pair! They are some of the lightest non – disposable sandals though.

[JCH]

Very intrigued by this shoe. Seems like it would provide a great deal more protection both around camp and crossing streams/rivers than the Sockwa but…

Zappos claims 7oz for a size 12 on their website. Live chatted with Mary and she said the 7oz was for one shoe. My size 13 Sockwas are 7.5oz for the pair.

Several people here have stated their Ultras run about 4oz each. Was Mary just wrong?

[Bob Shaver]

just bought some Aqua Sport Socks on ebay, $7, Aqua Sport Socks. They say 1.5 oz, but maybe that is per shoe. The have a bit of a sole, probably not much. Looks like I can use them while wearing socks. The sole is neoprene, so not going to do much trail walking with them. My hiking bud bought Xero shoes, so we'll compare notes and weights.

[Link .]

Yes Jim, the Mizuno's are 6.4oz for the pair, my women's come in at 2.2oz or 4.4oz per pair

[Anonymous]

I just made a pair of those posted by Hikin Jim. Came out of 1.05oz for the pair for a size 9 foot. Only tested around the house but are comfy and will most likely get the job done if just used around camp.

[Dale Wambaugh]

My size 45 Vivobarefoot Ultra model shoes arrived today. They have the molded "exoskeleton", a sock liner and a separate tongue. This is NOT the "Ultra II" model.

Each exoskeleton (the main shoe) weighs 4oz each. The sock style liner is 3.8oz each and the tongue is 0.4oz each. The liner is held in place with two molded fittings that snap into matching holes in the shoe. If you decide to wear the shoe without the liner, you can add the tongue that snaps into the forward hole used to retain the sock liner. The shoes are molded resin that is similar to Crocs.

I wear a US size 11 and the fit is fairly loose with the sock liner. Thick wool socks approximate the thickness of the liner and adding the tongue helps. I plan to use them for stream crossings and camp, so the distances covered would be very short and the fit without the sock liner is fine for those purposes. They won't absorb water, so they will be dry in camp after stream crossings or wading/fishing. I guess I could "wash" my socks at the same time :) If I had a chance, I would probably get a 44 vs a 45. Note that I do have low volume feet.

I would not expect stellar wet traction with this material. They should stay on well for stream crossing and provide toe and side protection where flip-flops fail.

I don't think they would be good for longer distance water travel like canyoneering as they would fill up with sand and small rocks. I have the same problem with Keens too. That is a common issue with sock style water shoes in general. My wife was a nurse at a summer camp on a saltwater beach and the kids destroyed their feet with sock style water shoes. Teva and Chaco style sandals with straps fared better.

The zinger is that the sock liners would make very good camp shoes. They have 3D mesh sides and a thin sole with a honeycomb pattern like the outer shoe. I have made an inquiry with Vivobarefoot asking of the liners are sold separately.

UPDATE: Vivibarefoot does not sell replacement liners. They do have quick email response!

Left Lane Sports and 6pm.com have some sales, particularly in women's models.

Note the hex shaped plug on the back of the liner and the matching hole in the heel of the shoe

Likewise the rectangular plug on the instep of the liner and the tongue with the mating hole just below the laces on the shoe.

[Dennis Park]

There was one reference to using these as hiking shoes. Can any owners confirm if the traction is decent enough esp for granite and wet conditions? Is it durable enough for "shorter" 6-8mi treks? Examples of terrain would be Sierras, Desolation Wilderness, Trinity Alps.

[JCH]

Dale,

Thanks for the amazingly complete information and review. I wear a 13 and ordered the Ultra II in size 47. I suspect there will be no size difference in the "exoskeleton" between the Ultra and Ultra II, but glad I ordered from a place with free returns in case they run large as you found.

I'll post what I find about the Ultra II.

[Dale Wambaugh]

"There was one reference to using these as hiking shoes. Can any owners confirm if the traction is decent enough esp for granite and wet conditions? Is it durable enough for "shorter" 6-8mi treks? Examples of terrain would be Sierras, Desolation Wilderness, Trinity Alps"

The traction is going to be much like Crocs and they get as the outer coating wears off and any surface texture wears down. I've had a painfil fall with wet Crocs. You do get the advantage of extreme flexibilty, which should aid traction.

They are barefoot style shoes with no support and a very thin flexible sole. You will feel the contour of every rock and root you step on. The soles are one step up from an insole (pardon my pun), and much like those uber minimalist sandals with cord straps.

I wouldn't walk 300 yards wearing them with a pack. I'm not a runner at all and I wouldnt run 50 feet in them. If you're really into the barefoot thing, then you might like them for distance walking.

[jdman .]

Agreed on the Crocs Swiftwater, I use these for creek crossings and as camp shoes (with socks if it is cold. I think the big plus with these over regular Crocs is not the weight which is still very similar but more that they don't take up anywhere near the same room when packed as regular Crocs.

JD

[Dale Wambaugh]

Do you know the actual weight?

[Sumi Wada]

>> My size 9 crocs are 16 oz!! Ouch.
If you like Crocs, the secret is to buy cheap knock-offs. The cheaper the lighter. We go to Mexico almost every spring and I buy them there; US$5 and 8oz (for the pair) for my son's size 9.5. In the U.S., the cheap knock-offs are getting harder to find. Some Walmarts may have them.

I like camp shoes and I like my (knock-off) crocs. Easy to slip on with or without socks. Waterproof. Unbelievably durable.

[Gregory Stein]

Hi,

As a barefoot/minimalist runner I ran in Saucony Hattory and Vivobarefoot Ultra Pures.

Hattori's first pair held well – some 2000km and after that upper mesh torn and I got some pretty nice holes for venting my thumbs. Saucony stated they will last for 500km :) I bought another pair I ran and walk with today. They have AMAZING traction! I actually rock-run in them even on wet (big rocks on sea shore).

Vivobarefoot ultrapures – I loved running in them better than in Saucony (they are wider, lighter, simpler). But those wore out too quickly and at first that tongue rubbed my skin until they were full of blood after 5km run. I had to stop and walk back 5km barefoot. After that I removed the tongue and WOW they were amazing until I got some pretty nice holes in the sole just after 200km, right under my thumb. I wouldn't recommend to cross streams in them because when wet they are very slippery (not to mention possible algae on rocks…)

IMHO, there is a better solution:
0) for camp& water crossings – use your light hikers (I use Innov-8 235 for everything). They dry really fast (2 hours hiking – complete dry out) and no need to switch to another pair. At worst when crossing cold streams, remove socks, cross, put on your socks back and some WP (Rocky's goretex) socks over them. Hike some 2 hours and remove WP socks. For camp I have never needed something special.
1) camp shower slippers. This is another story. You can't take a shower with those shoes (In VBF UP you could), so what if you MYOG the blue foam ones like in the post above and apply some Velcro instead of ductape. You can open them flat and insert back into the CCF sleeping pad (or sit pad) for night. In this case they will weigh 0 oz. Oh, some velcro probably 5 gram?

[Dale Wambaugh]

Thanks, Gregory. Your feedback is valuable.

Most mountain streams in the PNW are too cold and fast for algae buildup. We're talking glacier or high snow pack runoff. It is more a game of wedging your feet between large boulders.

Shoes won't dry very fast in shaded forests with no direct sun, cool temperatures and high humidity. The east side of the Cascades is much warmer and drier in summer and shoes will dry there. I would much prefer crossing with stout shoes or boots, but that means wet feet for the rest of the day if not longer.

We call the "thumb" of the foot a "big toe". That made me think for a second :)

Shalom!

[Sam Farrington]

So why don't folks follow Roger's advice and use trail shoes in camp?
Best guess is they muck up the trail shoes and get them sopped, or they don't fit well in the first place, or both.

There is another way. Masochism does not have to rule.
First find a really well fitting trail shoe or light mid.
Protect them (and your feet). Wear a WPB gaiter for scree, sun and rain, and keep the shoe well treated with DWR sprays, and use Limmer or other grease for any leather.

But for crossings, use a water shoe – more below – and keep the hiking shoes dry.
If the hiking shoes are kept dry, and fit, they will be great for around camp, and they and your feet will last longer.

Now comes the water shoe. Must be light a la BPL.
So a trip to Wally World for the lightest EVA sole.
Found – Boston Red Sox shower sandals (No parochialism intended). No annoying thongs, just a wide Velcroed strip over the forefoot and very sturdy
.
Add a really light neoprene ankle sock so feet won't freeze while crossing (water shoes are most needed in runout conditions when water is deathly freezing).
Sew on a light buckled heel strap (light twill) to keep them tightly affixed.
Result, about 8 oz/pair for men's size 11. Have read these threads for years, tried all the lighter suggestions – NG for fast water and rocky stream bottoms. Too flimsy.

OK – these are NG for sloshing in slot canyons. But am NOT about that. Am backpacker, who used to be long trekker when the bod was acheless. So this is good.
One niggle – OK for cold streams, but not sucking mud on river bottoms – it will pull anything off that is not solidly laced on.

After a little more testing will post on MYOG. Works! Most happy feet. Ahh, and no wet sox to dry. Another victory over stupid light.

[Russell Lawson]

not exactly the lightest, these are experiment shoes made of 10oz duck canvas, 2 ply. Glued onto sanuk soles from leather shoes that I trashed. I plan to make lighter ones with zeroshoe sole material 6mm and maybe try a dyneema fabric with silk or dridry lining

total weight per shoe is 8ounces

[JCH]

My size 47 Vivobarefoot Ultra IIs arrived today. Really pleased with the fit, construction and feel. My current camp shoes are Sockwa G4s and these are a much more protective camp shoe on rocks/roots/uneven ground. For stream crossings the Ultras win by a mile…I think the Sockwas would be marginally functional at best in that role.

Only problem is mine weigh 14.16 oz for the pair! I'm pretty bummed about this since Dale reported his Ultras (minus sock and tongue) were only 4oz in size 45. The tongue is easily removed but it does NOT weigh 3 oz. Not sure if I'll keep these as they are way heavier than I had hoped. Looking at Dale's pictures I'm having a hard time figuring out how we can be seeing such a large difference in weight.

Considering trying to find a pair of the Ultras just to see if they are inherently lighter than the Ultra IIs.

[Randy Nelson]

" Another victory over stupid light."

Not to derail the thread as I can understand that some people like to bring camp shoes, just like I bring my Slinglight chair. It's worth it to me. But not bringing them is certainly not "stupid light". I'm perfectly comfortable hiking in wet trail runners. I just air dry my feet when i get to camp if my shoes are still wet, put on my sleeping socks, slip some newspaper bags over them, and put my shoes back on. My feet are dry and warm. It works fine. And I'd much rather cross streams in my real shoes. Last year in the Winds there was one day with 7 stream crossings. Changing shoes 7 times would have been a real PITA as far as I'm concerned. When I hike with friends who don't just walk through, I end up waiting for them looking for a place to rock hop or cross on a log, then giving up on that and changing shoes, crossing, drying feet, changing back. Not a big deal if it's one crossing. But that time adds up when you have to do it a bunch. Personally, I'd rather be hiking. YMMV , of course.

[Stephen M]

I clean my feet and put on dry socks and then a pair of Rocky Goretex socks, I then loosen up the laces on my trail runners and put them back on. Nice and comfy.

[Philip Tschersich]

My size 45 are also 4 oz each sans liner and sans tongue. For a little more underfoot protection around camp you can pull the footbed out of your trail shoes and slip them into the Vivos.

[JCH]

Thats good enough for me. The Ultra IIs are going back. The Ultras are getting pretty rare, but found a pair of 46s and ordered. Hopefully they run a little large, and if not it may be fine as I won't be covering any distance in them. Hopefully they come in near 4 oz each.

[Philip Tschersich]

A peek at the vivobarefoot site seems to indicate that they added some (much needed for general use) sole puncture protection in the new version of the Ultras, and some rubber inlays in the sole to help durability. They original Ultra Pure (the model they sold without the liner) was truly minimalist, but the updates will be welcomed by a lot of consumers who will like the durability the extra couple of ounces brings. Too bad for us, but then I stocked up on the original version a while back. :)

[Sam Farrington]

Randy,
Ah, another slosher. It doesn't work fine. Sloshing in wet shoes all day in challenging weather and terrain is not OK for the feet. Why is it in the USA speed is so often the priority.

When I do a crossing, I must do it 5 times: over and back for first pup, over and back for the second, and over with my pack on. I take my time and am very careful so no harm comes to the pups.

So we have totally different priorities. Yours are the norm, mine are the exception.
Once in a while, it is worthwhile for folks to hear about the exception.

BTW, I always carry a camp chair, MYOG and posted on this forum – around 1 lb. 6 oz.

[Dale Wambaugh]

"Only problem is mine weigh 14.16 oz for the pair! I'm pretty bummed about this since Dale reported his Ultras (minus sock and tongue) were only 4oz in size 45. The tongue is easily removed but it does NOT weigh 3 oz. Not sure if I'll keep these as they are way heavier than I had hoped. Looking at Dale's pictures I'm having a hard time figuring out how we can be seeing such a large difference in weight."

I reported 4oz each for the outer shoe alone, 0.4oz each for the tongues and 3.8oz each for the liners. Where is the issue?

[Philip Tschersich]

Dale W- your weight is correct. John H is reporting the weight for the new, updated Ultra II, which is porkier due to durability 'upgrades'.

[Author]

Posts