Modify shoe lacing system with cord lock?

there's probably a wide variety of places to buy chord/chord locks, but i'd suggest looking at lawson outdoor equipment.

http://lawsonequipment.com/All-Products-c125/

He has two types of 2mm chord and linelocks with free shipping over 10 bucks.

Perhaps I should try the same thing since I take very short breaks and remove my shoes too. I'd use the type of lock in the first picture because they lock harder with more tension, instead of normal cord locks that are more likely to slide as tension increases. I have that type of lock on one of my motorcycle boots. It says "Fixlock 194" on it.

I'm just curious…the cordlock on the Salomon is like a sliding gear that as you push it down the cord, it tightens and locks in place. To release, you pull on the slider for the gear and it releases the tension in the cord. This works well for tightening shoe laces.

I'm concerned that a simple standard drawstring cordlock would not function as well in this context.

What do you think? What is that type of cordlock called?

OK, don't know why I didn't think of this. I searched replacement Salomon laces and this is what I found:

http://www.rei.com/product/825246/salomon-kevlar-replacement-laces-2-kit

$8.50

Video:

Instead of "Fixlock 194", a better term to search for is "Cordloc 194" or "itw 194". Here are some for sale.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-sets-Black-ITW-CL-194-Cord-locks-cordlocs-/390096685948?pt=BI_Textile_Equipment&hash=item5ad3930b7c#ht_642wt_905

I wonder if the thin cord would cut the eyelets. The Salamons don't have eyelets but longer pieces of fabric. You would need to look at any reinforcement in the holes. Also the cord lock system would probably not work well if you use any kind of a lock-lace at the top of your shoe.

funny, I run in Salomons, and the first thing I do is cut the quick laces off and squeeze in my own pair of regular laces.

"I wonder if the thin cord would cut the eyelets. The Salamons don't have eyelets but longer pieces of fabric".

I had an earlier model that had the thin cord cut through the fabric loop.

I am like Art, anything fussy and the least bit "gadgety" gets chopped. The Northfacial made some shoes with a "Boa" system, you ratched the cam and it tightened your shoes….. pretty hilarious.

Tying shoes is so childishly simple and when done right will beat any fancy toggle/cordlock system, no matter how much Salomon sells it for.

I digress since I am not contributing anything positive here other than I my unsolicited criticism.

Good luck finding parts to tie your shoes and getting a deal on shipping those little bits.

Apparently we are just now learning that people have different opinions and like different things. Who would have guessed? Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. And just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you need to share that opinion. And if you do, it doesn't mean that you need to be condescending about it. I may be dumb when it comes to tying my shoes, but I'd rather have that problem than be a tough guy on a backpacking forum about my opinion on shoelaces.
Just a little friendly life advice.

Good for you Zack.

Zack, you can save your old Salomon laces and use them on different shoes, but you have to tie them to close the loop. I've done it and a search of this site may give more info. I think the Salomon laces are likely to cut into the fabric loops than the more sturdy holes found in most shoes.

The Salomon lace system and others that do not leave the strings hanging can be helpful in cases where the laces can get tangled in something as in bicycling. They are a quick lace system with possibly limited ability to tie the shoe differently for different terrains such as hiking downhill long distances. I never tie my regular laces differently anyway so that may not mean much.

Yes Zack, this is a new social concept to me, please forgive my immaturity.

"Tough guy"? Ummmm, ok, yeah that describes me to the T.

I should have ommitted my cynicism in responding to your post- my apologies. Differences are fine, but this is backpacking light, you are essentially looking for a way to increase the weight of an uber minimalist shoe by adding a lacing system to a shoe that really doesnt require it. Normally people are looking for ways to lighten and streamline the load, not add more bells and whistles. This is becoming more common here at BPL, so I should get with the times.

Good luck with the lacing system, hopefully it compliments your hiking and meets your needs.

…

I'm happy for you to have any opinion that you choose and to express it freely as you see fit. However, when you do this, it represents you and well, people will respond to that.

"…pretty hilarious. Tying shoes is so childishly simple and when done right will beat any fancy toggle/cordlock system, no matter how much Salomon sells it for."

Pedantic. Sanctimonious.

Yes. We all know HOW to tie shoelaces. It's true. This doesn't make it better, that's simply your opinion. Your implication is that if someone is to prefer a way other than yours, the only possible explanation is that they can't tie their shoes "right." Better is a subjective term.

When you combine the above with a sarcastic/condescending tone to your follow up:

"Good luck finding parts to tie your shoes and getting a deal on shipping those little bits."

a picture starts to emerge about the attitude and intentions of your response.

The free exchange of ideas is good, however, belittling others simply because they have a different viewpoint and then dismissing opposing viewpoints summarily using terms such as "hilarious," "childishly simple," etc. does NOT promote the free exchange of ideas.

I'm not offended in the least, and I will consider your opinion, however, I don't find your response in whole to add value to the discussion, so I said as much.

"Yes Zack, this is a new social concept to me, please forgive my immaturity.

"Tough guy"? Ummmm, ok, yeah that describes me to the T."
Still more passive-aggressive behavior.

"Differences are fine, but this is backpacking light, you are essentially looking for a way to increase the weight of an uber minimalist shoe by adding a lacing system to a shoe that really doesnt require it."

This is your opinion, and in no way constitutes a statement of fact as you have implied. If we are to accept your logic in the above statement, we must then automatically assume that shoes themselves are of no value for discussion on this forum as shoes simply are an attempt to add weight to already minimalist feet that don't require them.

If this was true, there would not be a range of shoes in the market with different weights and features. Everyone on this forum would own the same pair of shoes. There would be no discussion of shoes on this forum, all it would be is a list of weights and we would all buy the lightest one. I think you can see this holds no weight, and as such, neither does your comment.

"Normally people are looking for ways to lighten and streamline the load, not add more bells and whistles."

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to common practice. Additionally, this is not even common practice here, in that you are mistaken. There are countless examples of people looking for bells and whistles. In some cases, they are looking for ways to lighten them, and in other cases they are looking for ways to lighten other gear to make room for the "heavy" bells and whistles.

"This is becoming more common here at BPL, so I should get with the times."

Again with the sarcasm and another logical fallacy: the bandwagon.

"Good luck with the lacing system, hopefully it compliments your hiking and meets your needs."

I'd like to believe this was sincere, but based on your tone and word choice, that doesn't seem like the logical conclusion.

There is a way to express your opinion without putting other down simply for having a different opinion. I highly recommend that you consider this in the future as I can assure you it makes for a much happier experience for everyone involved.

"I had an earlier model that had the thin cord cut through the fabric loop."

Thanks for the input. I'll keep an eye on it.

The loc I posted feels very light and probably weighs about the same as a 1.3 gram LineLoc 3. Getting rid of the extra lace would make up some of the weight gain. Even so, given my short breaks, if it gave me back only half a minute per break, it would be well worth it.

You could check on Triathalon forums for ideas too. they use them to make transitions from bike to run faster.

There's always Yankz too. http://www.yankz.com/Yankz-Sure-Lace-System-Overview-s/21.htm

Zack,
In my experience, Eugene Smith is one of the softest "spoken" and most consistently helpful people on these forums. (The quotes around "spoken" are because I've never met him in person). Like many others here, he also speaks from a solid knowledge base. I've learned a lot from him and posters like him.

Tone of voice is hard to convey online, as I'm sure you know. Getting to know the personality of various posters helps.

Lace system came in. Weighed them. EXACTLY the same weight as the standard laces: 0.5 oz for the pair.

Checked and the lace holes are reinforced. No issues that I can see with tear through.

For me, the benefits to ease of tightness adjustment vs. time invested makes a difference.

Pick yourself up the replacement laces from REI. There is a big difference that these will give you, they are kevlar and don't stretch. I love the lacing on the Salomons, precisely because they are so simple and you don't have to worry about laces loosening up on the downhills. But I wouldn't reinvert the wheel, what you looking for exists and it works as intended, not sure the advantage of trying to duplicate.

Zach,

I am genuinely sorry for sending my sarcastic barbs in your direction, which were not in line with my character indeed, nor beneficial to the discussion within your thread.

Thanks for contributing to the betterment of this forum.

Eugene, thank you. I appreciate it. Sorry for any miscommunication.