Altra Lone Peak 1.5 Trail Shoe Review

[Stephanie Jordan]

Companion forum thread to:

Altra Lone Peak 1.5 Trail Shoe Review

[Ken Thompson]

Thanks for the time and effort on the review. It would be nice to see manufactures build a longer lasting shoe. Especially with the cost per pair. 200 miles is mighty short.

and make more shoes available in a 15. please.

[James holden]

if yr constantly on granite and limestone scrambles … get approach shoes

the more durable uppers, and sticky rubber makes a difference

and they arent that "heavy", in some cases LIGHTER … compare my size 8 guide tennies at 346g/shoe vs my inov8 size 8.5 terroc at 349g

the tennies uppers is much more durable with leather, a durable toe box … has sticky climbing rubber … the only problem is that the traction sucks in the mud due to the tread pattern, and it takes forever to dry

i think that too many consumers these days trade away durability in shoes these days for perceived "performance" … BPL is littered with threads of shoes that seem to be worn out prematurely

;)

[Luke Schmidt]

Eric I'm not a climber but I don't think I've ever seen an approach shoe wit a wide toe box or zero drop. The Altras are the only shoes that have that and enough protection for me carrying a load on a rough trail. So for now I'll be buying Altras like Ryan till something more durable comes along.

[Mike Bozman]

I bought some Lone Peaks back in May (not sure which version) and they were the worst best shoes I have ever had. Amazingly comfortable! Unfortunately with about 100 km on them they were toast. That was one 32 km day hike and one 26 km overnight hike. The rest of the distance was a few short walks with the family and a bit of around town walking. The midsole of the right shoe disintegrated. I would almost describe it as deflating under the heel! To make a long story short, after sharing pictures and describing the problem with Altra they basically said tough luck and wouldn't warranty them. If they sort out the quality and durability I won't buy one pair I'll probably buy 3 as they really were that good for the short time I had them.

[James holden]

Eric I'm not a climber but I don't think I've ever seen an approach shoe wit a wide toe box or zero drop. The Altras are the only shoes that have that and enough protection for me carrying a load on a rough trail. So for now I'll be buying Altras like Ryan till something more durable comes along.

thats your call if you really want something with 0 drop … plenty of approach shoes have a wide toe box

but put it this way … if those shoes are slipping on easy/moderate slab when the front sole wears out … thats not very safe IMO

if yr scrambling theres plenty of places where to slip and fall is to die

approach shoes should have no problems even when totally worn on easy slab, in fact you get better friction when the lugs wear out as theres more surface contact

ive mine on this …

when they were worn down to this …

for trails its irrelevant … but when your basically scrambling on granite and limestone slabs/blocks … this is what approach shoes were made to do …

;)

[CW]

I have no experience with the Lone Peak 1.5, but am currently using the Superior which is less shoe and will be doing a review on another site.

Over the past month I've put 131 mixed miles on them with 76 being trail and 55 being road. The trail miles have been a mix of hardpack, 1-2" gravel, larger rocks, solid rock, exposed roots, and some man-made steps/ladders. The road miles are mostly asphalt with some concrete. Thus far, the outsoles show very little wear. Not applicable to wear but may be of interest to some – all but one 20.6 mile trail run have been without the insole or rock plate. I did the same 20.6 mile loop back to back weeekends, one without the plate/insole and one with. The combination definitely helps with foot fatigue and deep muscle/ligament soreness when running over those 1-2" stones, but the additional stiffness creates its own issues (at least for my feet).

I did just notice the piece of the sole that wraps up on to the toe box is starting to pull off a bit at the edges:

Minor sole wear.

Upper:

Excuse the lower quality cellphone photos. The review will have better ones, but I wanted to get some quick shots.

[Eugene Smith]

Eric

Approach shoes are a bit of a one trick pony with the exception of a few offerings that might make decent dayhike shoes with more technicality on slab. Multi day backpacks on routes with wide surface variation? I think there are better options than approach shoes. The use of sticky rubber shoes allows for great slabbing on short approach hikes from car to the crag, but are pretty shitty for just about everything else considering most of the shoes that incorporate stealth rubber have relatively flat outsoles. Holding the Lone Peaks up to an approach shoes ability to negotiate granite and easy class climbing and bouldering is slighlty lopsided, considering the shoe was intended to be a running shoe, one that works very well within that context. The Lone Peak in the context of backpacking appears to be up to the task for the most part, with the drawbacks being long term durability.

Please, show me "plenty" of approach shoes that: dry quickly, use lightweight/breathable materials, allow natural movement of the feet, well rounded traction for varying surfaces, and all day comfort with a pack on for several days on repeat. There is always going to be a compromise in footwear when dealing with outdoor footwear. Anyone can pull an example out of thin air of a shoe that excels in one discipline. Approach shoes are very much a niche in the market.

I've seen very few approach shoes from the climbing world that successfully check all of those boxes off.

The La Sportiva Anakonda may be the closest shoe I've seen recently that provides superior traction for a variety of mountain terrain in a lightweight minimal package suitable for low class scrambling, hiking, trail running, etc.. I'd pick the Anakonda over the Lone Peak, and definitely over an approach shoe.

[JW]

I've been very happy with the Altra Superiors, have about 300 miles on them. Seems like they have a better upper in terms of protection and durability, plus I like the styling more. Lots of use in the Sierras. I cut off the mud flap on the back straight away as it launches sand all the way up into one's waistline.

Altra Superiors 2013 model:

[Wes Kline]

In June of this year I used a pair of Lone Peak 1.5 in the High Peaks of the Adirondacks. While the shoe was comfortable (I use Altra shoes for road running as well, as I have very wide feet), I found the traction to be pretty awful in the wet ADK landscape. I usually use Scarpa Sparks, and found that the Altra slipped on so many wet rocks that they were quite dangerous to use. I don't have the same problems with the Spark.

So I would recommend them for a dry climate, or possibly the Rockies, but for the wet Adirondacks, they were less than ideal. Love the width though, and wish more manufacturers would offer shoes with a similar last.

[billy weinman]

I have just completed two 75-mile backpacks through the Manzanos, San Mateos and Magdalena mountains of New Mexico. Trails and cross-country at times. It's been a test for me and the Lone Peaks.

I love wearing the shoe, but my chief and immediate complaint was with the toe guard. Not tough enough for southwest conditions. Won't stop a prickly pear spine and on two occasions had to remove the shoe and tweezer out a gnarly spine from both left and right shoes. We have lots of pricklies that live just out of sight along our trails, and this is what nailed me. I think maybe only leather could have stopped them.

I'm also seeing the fabric on top of the shoe wearing and the review is correct in that they are very slow to dry.

Like the author, despite complaints, they remain a wonderful shoe to wear.

[Jeffrey Stone]

Ryan, my experience with the Lone Peaks has been the same as yours. I have a pair of 1.0's and a pair of 1.5's, and I love them for trail running, trail hiking, and general all around use. For off-trail hiking, they're not so great. My biggest issue is poor traction. I just got a pair of Sketchers GOBionics to try out. They have similar attributes as the Altras: wide footbox, zero drop (without the insoles), and light weight (3 ounces each lighter than the 1.5's, sans insoles). They are also significantly less expensive. I haven't given them a good test yet; they are very comfortable so far, and the tread pattern is more aggressive than the Lone Peaks so I'm thinking the traction will be better. The light weight worries me a bit as far as durability goes, but we'll see.

[Mike M]

Ryan- thanks for the review. I tried on a pair and they felt great- I have to have a wide toe box and they have that in spades. In the end I was a little uncomfortable w/ a 0 drop (maybe needlessly). Another shoe to look at that might better fit the bill is the Pearl Izumi N2 Trail. Wide toe box, low drop, but not 0, lightweight and they dry fast. I've got ~ 250 miles on mine including two very rocky 50k's, also some rather rough miles w/ a 20-ish # pack. I'd say they'll do another 250 w/o too much trouble.

The outsole isn't as aggressive as some trail shoes, but I have no complaint on grip w/ rock or any other surface- wet or dry.

[Craig “Pisco” Gulley]

I had high hopes for the Lone Peaks having read Anish used them on her 40+ miles per day, 60 day PCT hike. I was especially interested in them because of the expanded toe box. The old Golite Sundragons had this feature and I considered them the best fitting shoe ever made, too bad it ended there because they disintegrated the moment you put them on the trail. Maybe someday some will take this superior style of last and make it out of durable material. If only I could get LaSportiva to make a shoe like the Raptors I currently use with a larger toe box!

[James holden]

Approach shoes are a bit of a one trick pony with the exception of a few offerings that might make decent dayhike shoes with more technicality on slab. Multi day backpacks on routes with wide surface variation? I think there are better options than approach shoes. The use of sticky rubber shoes allows for great slabbing on short approach hikes from car to the crag, but are pretty shitty for just about everything else considering most of the shoes that incorporate stealth rubber have relatively flat outsoles. Holding the Lone Peaks up to an approach shoes ability to negotiate granite and easy class climbing and bouldering is slighlty lopsided, considering the shoe was intended to be a running shoe, one that works very well within that context. The Lone Peak in the context of backpacking appears to be up to the task for the most part, with the drawbacks being long term durability.

ahhh … but i did mention approach shoes are SPECIFICALLY for what are basically scrambles … places where your rubber cant slip or yr screwed, excuse the pun

for trails theres plenty of other options …

but you do have to remember that there is plenty of wiggle room in "approach shoes" … some have a deeper tread pattern, most are quite durable

most though do have upper leathers, though there are a few with mesh

in reality they are not too different from light hikers many people use, but with better traction on rock and better climbing

the point is simply if youre going to be using trail runners shoes in boulder fields, scree, slabs, rock faces,jamming them into easy cracks, etc … they will get TRASHED

now fit is a personal choice, but ask yourself if theres another shoe that isnt more durable, that wouldnt work just as well for what you want to do

if youre using a shoe in high wear/abrasion activities … perhaps something a bit tougher, and im not saying get boots, would be in order?

;)

[Luke Schmidt]

Eric I definitely would consider and approach shoe on slick rock. However I don't hike on that very often. Funny someone mentioned the Adirondacks. I only did one overnighter there but that would have been the perfect place for an approach shoe.

So for now I'm stuck with Lone Peaks. My ideal shoe would be an Altra with more durable uppers and the sole of the old La Sportiva X-Countries.

[James holden]

im actually really puzzled why manufacturers dont make their trail runners more "durable" … it wouldnt weight much more in many cases if anything …

i understand that with regular use in harsh environments, things wear out much more quickly … but it seems that everyone and their dog on BPL has issues with runners wearing out with moderate use …

i remember when i was young, we use to go scrambling around in our gym sneakers … and those things lasted forever, once my feet stopped growing i dont think i ever wore out a pair of cheap sneakers even after a decade of use … course i suspect that even the cheap tennies shoes back then were much simpler and better constructed than the $$$$ "performance shoes" these days

personally i think manufacturers KNOW that their shoes will wear out quickly and do a bit of "planned obsolescences" … the more shoes you but the better … as long as you believe that nothing else will "work" as well, youll be willing to pay the piper every few months …

it sure seems that theres more of a marketing focus than real utility … plenty of fancy colours, logo/pretty cutouts that falls apart, weird graphic designs on the sole that serve no purpose, etc ….

honestly … just build me a simple, functional shoe that works …. i dont need the marketing department to tell me there ooogles of cushioning, or that itll make me into a barefoot kenyan runner …

they still go kaput of course … but after getting good use out of em

;)

[Justin Baker]

I want to see shoe manufactures going to back to sewn on soles. No more sole delamination and very easy to repair.
I usually wear leather shoes for any situation where the uppers are going to take more abuse than the soles. Leather sucks in wet conditions but everything else is just mesh that shreds.
Why is nobody creating shoes with a simple nylon/cordura fabric for the uppers?
It seems like shoe manufactures expect everyone to be walking on well groomed trails.

[Jeremy G]

Russell Mocassin makes a custom minimalist leather hiking shoe or boot that has reports of going 1200 miles on a pair of soles and then can be re-soled. Certainly not as lightweight, but much more durable. I have not used them myself yet, but have read good reviews on them. They are zero-drop, wide foot box and customizable for cushioning, fit and type of sole. Yes, they are expensive and won't dry out as fast as a trail runner, but maybe they would be willing to make them out of a leather and cordura combination so that they could dry faster.

[Monty Montana]

I bought a pair of Lone Peaks after reading Ryan's original article and found them to be very comfortable on some of the moderate, maintained trails in Montana's Anaconda Pintlar Wilderness; however, they were absolute crap on the steep talus of the Porter Ridge approach to Warren Peak. When traversing, my foot would actually slip off the foot bed and end up half-way on the fabric of the upper; this I believe was due in large part to the lack of a stiff heel cup, and if I tried to tighten the laces to prevent my foot from sliding around, then this caused pain on the instep area. Also, because of a total lack of lateral support, crossing steep snow fields was near suicidal because it was impossible to "edge" the shoes.

In short, these are great for day hikes or short overnighters on maintained trails, but a more substantial shoe is required for serious backcountry travel. In other words, be circumspect, and don't expect one shoe fulfill all the needs.

Happy Trails!

[J C]

>approach shoes should have no problems even when totally worn on easy slab, in fact you get better friction when the lugs wear out as theres more surface contact

Friction should be proportional to the force you apply to the surface not dependent on surface area. Lugs make it a lot easier to grab small features with harder rubber.

>im actually really puzzled why manufacturers dont make their trail runners more "durable" … it wouldnt weight much more in many cases if anything …

I'm guessing it's so they can sell more shoes. They're probably trying to hit the imagined sweet spot between making people angry that their shoe has worn out too fast and proud that they've worn out a pair of shoes. A year of moderate use is probably what they're shooting for, which would probably satisfy most people. They are clearly not designed with professional outdoors-people in mind.

[Tony Ronco]

> "Friction should be proportional to the force you apply to the surface not dependent on surface area. Lugs make it a lot easier to grab small features with harder rubber."

Just a FYI … that's right most of the time … however there are applications where it is not…

So, surface area doesn't matter in terms of friction IF the contact surfaces DON'T deform …

… BUT contact surface area can indeed matter, IF the contact surfaces DO deform (or there is molecular adhesion).

For approach shoes whose soft rubber soles obviously deform to granite … it is the effects of the deformation on friction, that brings the consideration of the contact surface area into the equation … usually as a term within the coefficient of friction.

[Dean L]

I wear Saucony Peregrines for lighter soil/sandy hikes and Five Ten Camp 4 approach shoes for smoothrock/scree/rocky trails. Seems to work out well.

Dean

[John Coyle]

I hike and backpack in the Sierra, and sometimes the lower Cascade, ranges of Northern California, mostly on trail, but with some class 2 and 3 scrambling. I know shoes are a personal thing, but it's La Sportiva Wildcat's all the way for me. Don't have to worry as much about the sides blowing out because they are essentially all mesh, although it leads to a little side bruising of the feet if a person isn't careful. The soles are amazingly supportive also. If they ever discontinue that shoe I will be extremely displeased. Do you hear that La Sportiva?

[James holden]

Jeremy ..

i climb slab all the time. Usually multipitch. In yosemite and squamish. Up to the 5.10 ish range.

For climbing applications, the lugs serve no purpose, you will never see actual climbing shoes with lugs.

They reduce the surface contact when smearing or edging … Think race car tires, they have little to no tread for a reason…

Companies like 5.10 know this which is why for some of their "performance" approach shoes they have flat fronts and lugs only at the back.

The problem with using many trail shoes on boulders and slabs is that the friction of the rubber honestly sucks …

Im not saying you cant do it, but if you feel yourself slipping on friction slab when the rubber is flat, ie when you should have the most surface contact, then its might be time to consider some other shoe

Some trail shoes such as the terroc are known to have stickyish rubber and work decently for such applications if you dont want approach shoes …. They are a bit more durable as well

If yr depending on lugs on actual rock, something is wrong IMO

Rock Climbing shoes have no lugs …

Heres an easy way to practice …. Find some angled smooth rock and stand in yr runners on the ball of yr foot … Hands free

Find the angle at which the rubber fails … Thats the point at which yr screwed

;)

[Author]

Posts