Footwear for offtrail (SHR)

Only you can answer this question. Saying that a shoe is “enough” or “appropriate” for tough terrain depends on your own foot and body.

With a supportive shoe you get a stable platform that can prevent injury but you lose ground feel and control of your foot (flexbility). With a minimalist shoe you lose stability but your foot can feel what its stepping on and conform to surfaces.

I only wear minimalist shoes and feel unsafe in anything else. I have walked through really nasty rocky terrain and at no point have I ever wanted to restrict ground feel or flexibility. So while some people want a stiffer, sturdier shoe for rough terrain I go in the opposite direction. But this is only my experience knowing my own body. Using minimalist shoes in rough terrain requires a lot of foot conditioning and building up your balance/reflexes. The main issue for a new user of minimalist shoes will be the impact of rocks making your feet sore which is purely a matter of conditioning.

Find a few lower angle socks and boulders

try walking/standing on em crosswise (not up and down) … Does your foot want to slide/roll or is it stable?

true minimal shoes (trail gloves, vibram FF) actually dont do too badly as theres good contact … And most approach shoes do very well

what you need to watch out for are those shoes which arent stiff enough and dont have the best contact with the rock …

Other things to look out for is having some kind of toe guard at the front of the shoes … Approach shoes and some minimal trail shoes (inoc terrocs) have this to extend the life and minimize stubbing the toe (it will happen)

also if theres any scrambling involved sticky rubber is useful

Theres a good BPL article on approach shoes … Even if you dont wear em, its a useful read for the challenges faced in rocky terrain

Ultimately the only was to tell is for you to go on an easy scramble up a rocky hill and see if yr shoes are up to snuff

;)

I used La Sportiva Explorers last summer on the SHR and was impressed by them although they were trashed by the end of the route.

Given their lack of longevity I then used a pair of Brooks Cascadia on the Wind Rivers High Route later that summer.

Both performed well, with the Exploreres having the edge (sic) in terms of better friction on rock, more stability with regard to foot rotation and better foot protection.

The Xplorers are not offered anymore, and I believe that the TX3 is the closest replacement. I bought the La Sportiva TX3 myself to do some high routing this summer, but as yet have only done day peak class 3 scrambling in them, with no complaints. I ended up taking my La Sportiva Wildcats instead on the GR20 which has some scrambling and talus action, and they were fine. In both cases, La Sportiva knows how to design shoes that grab the ankle tightly so your foot does not slide around inside while walking on all the funky rock angles. I think the matter of sole stiffness is more personal, I prefer stiffness when talus hopping. I hope to give a proper TX3 report later this summer.

EDIT: You may like the TX3’s also because of the relatively low heel drop of 8 mm. Not quite the zero drop you are used to, but lower than most nevertheless.

I will be taking the La Sportiva TX3’s on the SoSHR in a week, will try and report back my impressions. have only had them a couple weeks, taking short rugged hikes with a full pack. they seem fine so far. good sticky rubber, ground feel is adequate for me, front toe bumper is Great as I tend to not pick up feet enough and stub toe often.

Looks like you found something, but I thought I’d just offer my 2 cents since its a topic I’m interested in. I’ve tried a broad range of trail runners over the past few years for trail running and backpacking from super minimalist (trail gloves) to more maximal (hokas), and I’ve zeroed in on a pretty specific sort of shoe for talus hopping type terrain you find above tree line and on routes such as SHR and WRH. Unstructured shoes with soft soles tend to conform better to the varied terrain of talus in my experience, improving grip and lessening fatigue from constant torquing. I took hoka huakas on the wind river high route a couple years ago, and I was amazed at how well they stuck to rock, with only a couple of small patches of rubber and the rest just exposed eva (rmat). There’s just enough cushioning not to have to worry about poke through, but the lack of structure and the simplicity of the sole still give that minimalist sense of ground feel, and that your feet are controlling the shoe rather than the other way around. I felt way less fatigued at the end of long days and way more confident that my feet wouldn’t slip from steep angles. I just took a high loop in the winds this last long weekend, wearing montail fluidflex st’s, which have a bit more rubber and a minimal rock plate, and yet I felt way less confident making my way through some of the small bus sized no fall zone boulder fields we traversed. Another shoe with this sort of inherent grip that works great on talus is the la sportiva helios, although the gaps in eva at the bottom leave your feet a little too vulnerable to poke through. They stopped making huakas, but I’m hopeful that the upcoming speed instinct will have similar traits.

Thanks for all of the feedback.  I’m now leaning towards something more heavy duty than the Altra Superiors, for improved grip and front toe protection.

What is the functional difference between an approach shoe like the TX2/TX3 and a trail runner like the Ultra Raptor?  The weight is about the same, which surprises me.

realize that “approach shoe” is no more an accurate term than “trail runner” … theres trail runners out there that are basically approach shoes and vice versa …

an approach shoe is also not necessarily heavier as well … for example my older style 5.10 guide tennies weight the same as my older inov8 terrocs

usually what folks consider approach shoes have the following features (but not always)

– sticky rubber … usually stickier than whats on trail runners …
– low profile tread, or a part near the toe that has no tread … this allows you to edge and smear on rock
– a rubber encased rand up front … for climbing easy wider cracks
– a stiffer upper … so the foot doesnt shift while side hilling and to protect the foot on scree and talus … also for durability

whether you want approach shoes is up to you … if you plan to climb 4th and low 5th class then approach shoes are usually the way to go … otherwise durable trail runners or hiking boots will work, though some folks find the better climbing features of approach shoes beneficial in any rocky terrain

this is the kind of easy rocky terrain where some find approach shoes useful, not that you need them …

this old review of the previous altra lone peaks discusses the limitations of some trail runners in rocky terrain … theres also another article thats subscription only …

https://backpackinglight.com/altra-lone-peak-review-jordan/

note that if they fit your foot, 5.10 has approach shoes closeouts all the time … i bought many pairs of the guide tennies a few years ago for ~29 – 39 dollahz each

http://www.fiveten.com/us/closeouts

;)

What is the functional difference between an approach shoe like the TX2/TX3 and a trail runner like the Ultra Raptor?  The weight is about the same, which surprises me.

I have the TX2s and the Lynx, which I believe is the older model of the Raptors. As mentioned above, the trail runners have a lot more cushion but the TX2s really stick well, even on steep dirt paths they stick better than my Lynxs. The downside to the sticky rubber is it wears out pretty quickly in my experience.

I’m currently using Akashas, also by La Sportiva, which seem to have a good mix of grippy rubber (Frixion XT), more durable rubber in parts of the sole, and cushion. The downside is they don’t breath as well as the other two, and they’re a bit heavier than the TX2s.

Much good advice above; the choice of footwear should depend on your approach (minimal vs supportive/protective), and your approach should align with what your feet have been conditioned to wear.

I’ll add one point though: even within an approach, there may be good choices and bad choices.

I just returned from a quick outing on the SHR. I grappled with similar questions about footwear, not having done extended days off trail before.

Ultimately, I went with North Face Ultra TR IIs. They are pretty minimal, with good contact and flexibility in the sole. I’ve been wearing them all spring, and my feet love them. I worried about bruising, since there’s no rock plate, but that wasn’t an issue at all.

They’ve stood up wonderfully to about 150 miles of trail running and hiking so far this year. However, after 10 off-trail miles on the SHR, they looked like this:

By the time we reached Upper Basin, I had two additional holes similar to the one above. Although they weren’t catastrophic failures, they did render my gaiters useless, and led to a lot more debris in my shoes than I cared for.

Fortunately, we were doing a short trip and were only out for two nights, going from Road’s End to Upper Basin along the SHR, then returning to Road’s End via Pinchot Pass and Paradise Valley.

The point is not to dissuade anyone from minimalist footwear–as I said, I prefer it (and will continue to use it). Rather, use better judgement in specific shoe selection than I apparently did.

My experience has been similar to the above with going off-trail in the Sierra: I’ve shredded a few pairs of trail runners. The Sierra granite can be tough not just on shoes but also your pack should the pack get dragged across rocks.

Going back to the OPs post: if you’re not experienced wandering off-trail you perhaps have other things to be more concerned about than just your footwear. Footwear choice might be the least of your issues.

First, remember that the SHR is a suggested “route” and NOT a trail. The path you choose to navigate especially through talus fields or cliff bands may determine the abuse your gear (and your body) will be subjected to. It is easy to lose one’s way and end up in rather hairy situations if one’s not careful. Also, you might find that you cover less than half the distance you’re used to covering in the same time hiking on trail.

It might be best to do short off-trail segments before diving headlong on an SHR thru hike if one’s not ever hiked off-trail in SHR like terrain.

YMWV

Thanks again for all of the feedback.  @awhite4777 – great photo, and very convincing evidence.

I’m ready to move to a more “burly” shoe for offtrail use.  Given how much I like the feel of my Lone Peaks, does anyone know which of the La Sportiva models have the widest toe box, least drop (I don’t think the amount of drop is disclosed for every model?), and stickiest rubber?  I’m going to REI this weekend to try on as many as I can, but it would be nice to narrow down the list.  From a consumer standpoint, the distinction between models is bewildering…

• Ultra Raptor
• TX3 (unfortunately the TX2 is not available at REI)
• Akasha
• Bushido
• Helios / SR

The Wildcat looks good but I don’t think it has enough protection.

What size shoe do you wear? I wear a 13 and because all La Sportiva trail runners tend to run small overall, none of their shoes fit my feet. If you wear a smaller size shoe you can get away with it by sizing up a bit. Because they are built on Euro sizes you can go up or down a half size to get the fit just right. I’ve tried on the Ultra Raptors, Bushidos and Wildcats. The Wildcats had the largest toe box, and the Ultra Raptors and the Bushidos were about the same. I’ve heard that the Akasha has a wider toebox than the Bushido/Ultra Raptor so that shoe may suit you. Check out your local stores inventory online before you go. The REI closest to me doesn’t keep a lot of the sizes/styles of La Sportiva trail runners in stock, but a few others in the area seem to stock the whole range and quiver of sizes

Sean, if you get the chance, check out the nike terra kiger 3. Its an excellent on and off trail shoe with decently wide toebox, yet very performance fit. The shoe locks in extremely well on off camber terrain and I’ve found them quite durable. The upper looks as good as new after a couple hundred miles.

Sean,

I have walked about 100 miles in my TX-3s. They are very nicely built, the soles are sticky but the toebox room is about average. In fact the tongue above the toes is fairly massive and presses down onto the tops of my toes. This is probably a good feature for rock scrambling but it does not work well for me for “walking”.

In search of a wider toebox I recently ordered and just received some Mizuno Wave Kazans which I will test this weekend. The toebox is wider than average but they are not by any means burly.

Sean,

I didn’t mean to dissuade you from more minimal footwear–just to caution that some of the more minimal trail runners are certainly not able to cope with the somewhat unique (and unrelenting) lateral forces that come from off-trail travel.

Since you mentioned the La Sportiva Wildcats specifically, I thought I’d add: those are exactly the shoes I’ll use next time. I’ve done a reasonable amount of scrambling in them, and although they don’t feel as good on my feet as the orange (trashed) North Faces, I think they’ll do well in the sub-alpine off-trail Sierra. I’ll let you know in a month…

By the way, what is the “rule of thumb” when fitting shoes?  I want about the width of a thumb between the big toe and the front of the shoe?

Same as a regular shoe …

There should be an artificial ramp at the store

• no or mininal heel lift when going straight up on the ball of your foot
• toe should not be slamming the front when going downhill
• your foot should not roll when walking perpendicular to the slope
• there should be good rubber contact at all poinhs when the foot is flat on the slope

if theres a climbing wall try stepping and weighting the footholds on the wall … There should be enough stickyness and stiffness that your foot doesnt come off or feel tired

although you arent climbing … On many more rugged trails there will be climbing type moves where youll need to grab rock and branches

For the most part they should fit just like yr normal shoes except be better at climbing/scrambling and more durable

;)

You should check out the Wildcat 3.0. I did some severe downhill tests on my Wildcats before going off on a big altitude hike, and I found that the front rubber bumper was bothering my big toe. So after 100 miles of testing on those shoes I returned them to REI to up-size 1/2 size. Those half sizes are a nice unique feature of La Sportiva. And then to make absolutely sure that I would not have any problems, I took a dremel to the front bumper and cut out a part of it. They worked beautifully on my big hike with 5,000 foot descents. I thought about writing to tell La Sportiva to tell them to lose the bumper, and I now see that they have some out with the Wildcat 3.0, and they say specifically: “Softer toe cap on steep downhill trails”. Pics of my modified Wildcat and the 3.0 attached.

I have the green Wildcats (2.0?), on my third pair in 3 years actually. 90% of the miles have been off trail in the Anza Borrego desert (steep scree, steep granite boulders, cactus, brush, sharp everything) and Sierra hiking, including 3 trips on sections of the SHR. None of those SHR sections thrashed my shoes and I continued to use them for a few more months. The toe guard never bothered me and has saved me some toenails. On my 2nd and 3rd pairs, I added some shoe goo to the inside ankle before taking them out. I’ve only replaced them because the rubber wears down on me after about a year of use. They grip steep slab well and have been fine with smallish toe placements on class 3 scrambling. I’ve been super happy with them, just wished the rubber lasted longer. And my feet are never sore after a long day or week in them.

Wildcats are perhaps my favourite trail shoe; would have no hesitation on using them on the SHR.

I have been through perhaps 6-7 pairs thus far – best mileage being probably up around 800 (‘ordinary’ trails plus some off-trail in Scotland) – midsole did seem to suffer compression before that total was reached.