Forum Replies Created
Jul 19, 2020 at 8:04 pm #3665552
Did you happen to test the hip belt pockets? They are mentioned, but not shown. I was curious as to how they held up.
I purchased the similar Aquilo pack in 2015 for my CT hike, and absolutely loved the suspension design. The design was lighter then than it is now, but it remains the best riding pack I’ve ever tried. Unfortunately, I had 2 sets of size large hip belt pockets fail over the next few years in exactly the same fashion – separation along the zipper. Matthew was very helpful and provided the second set of pockets for free, and I was actually talking with him about a 3rd set when a combination of frustration and life getting in the way resulted in my not following through. I should probably email Matthew again directly, especially as I think he was working a solution, but I was curious as to whether you saw similar issues?
For what it’s worth, I still love the pack design, though my Aquilo is now relegated to light duty because the Aluminum stay is starting to show through the fabric at one of the top 2 corners where the stay makes a 90 deg bend. My pack probably only has 400 miles on it, which is not as great as I was expecting, though I have to say that the rest of the pack is virtually unblemished. (My hiking has been in CO, UT, and AZ, and hasn’t always been on-trail.)
Thanks!Aug 19, 2019 at 8:51 am #3606688
Apologies for going silent, but the week got away from me…
Thanks, Daryl. As I mentioned, I already size up my trail shoes to a moderate extent, and have been most recently sizing up the width as well, from my normal D to 2E. (This was the more noticeable improvement for me.)
I would prefer a shoe actually designed to have a sufficiently wide toebox, however, rather than sizing up the entire shoe to a more extreme degree. This is especially true as my left foot, which doesn’t have added length due to posterior calcaneal bone spurs like my right foot, would quickly be swimming if I sized up to such an extent to accomodate my right foot. And regardless of size, I still need the 10-12mm heel-toe drop, neutral stability, and to meet the other criteria expressed in my initial post.
As information for any future interested parties searching for similar information… I did get a quick 7.5 miles in today using my new NB 840 walking shoes. It was by far the most comfortable my feet have been on a trail in a long time, though the lack of trail tread was challenging in spots despite the fact that the trail was really quite benign. I couldn’t take my grip for granted and had to be much more deliberate in rockier sections, which did slow my pace. They seemed to hold up ok from a wear perspective, though they are clearly not as rugged as other trail shoes I’ve owned. This is the most my toes have been able to spread out in any shoe, and the benefits were actually most apparent going downhill, but enjoyed everywhere. I’ll keep looking at other brands, while hoping that the Fall refresh of the NB trail shoe lines includes some new options using the same SL-2 last as the 840 (or the descriptively equivalent OL-1 last).
(Though I’m amazed at the number of shoe companies that have removed the use of email as an option for contacting support. Phone and text chat work fine for many things, but the asynchronous nature of email is hugely beneficial to someone that doesn’t have time to reach out during even extended business hours. Bummer!)Aug 12, 2019 at 1:48 am #3605687
Thanks for the additional feedback.
Stumphges, we’re having very similar thoughts. I didn’t think that a trail specific shoe with a roomy toebox and larger heel-toe drop would be this hard to find.
I looked at Topo in several stores and online, but 5mm of drop is smaller than I’m willing to risk at the moment. I’m finally able to hike almost comfortably again, but will likely have the bone spurs in my right Achilles for life as well as a tendency to re-irritation, so any transitions I do decide to risk back toward lower drops will be very conservative indeed.
No luck at a specialty running store this afternoon, but I did pick up a pair of New Balance 840’s at a dedicated NB store. I’d gone to try the Summit K.O.M. model, but they tapered too fast in the toe box. The 840’s are standard (non-trail) walking shoes, but the fit was the best I’ve found so far. I figure that even without real trail tread I can use them for less aggressive ‘every day’ or training hikes. Same neutral platform, 10 mm drop, and wide toe-box of the 880 model, but with a bit more internal volume that better accommodated the addition of my orthotics. The heel cup seems at risk of being a bit wide, but hopefully I can manage it with lacing if it becomes an issue. Interestingly, 9.5 was the right size in the 840, but 10 was the right size in the 880. The difference was that the layer of supporting/stiffening material around the front of the toe cap was inside on the 880, and outside on the 840. Putting it outside removes the (admittedly minor) seam from the inside, and adds a tiny but of debris protection to the toe cap.
Still open to ideas for true trail oriented shoes that fit the initial description. Many thanks!Aug 11, 2019 at 7:11 am #3605592
Sam, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. I know exactly what I’m looking for based on having tried shoes with a combination of traits for years, plus the advice of multiple doctors. I have closet full of shoes that failed your suggested “trial and error” that led me to the criteria I specified – I simply have yet to find a single shoe that meets them all. If you have a specific suggestion, I’d very much appreciate it.
Bill, I was able to try on the Salmon X Ultra 3 and XA Pro 3D, both in wide. Despite the 2E designation, the cut of the toe box tapered in too fast for comfort, as you alluded with your “pushing narrow” description. I wasn’t able to find the Odyssey Triple Crown yet, but I’ll keep looking. Thanks!Aug 9, 2019 at 6:16 am #3605332
Good reference, Bill – thanks!
(I didn’t think to mention socks, but I usually wear either Darn Tough or the Icebreaker anatomically sewn hikers.)
Looks like Salomon has slim, standard, generous, and wide fits, with the Triple Crown being in the ‘generous’ category (w/10mm drop) and the X Ultra 3 and XA Pro 3D both being in the ‘wide’ category (w/11mm drop). Of course, the width doesn’t guarantee anything about the cut of the toe box, but it narrows the field at least. Maybe I can wander by REI tomorrow and check a few of them out…
Thanks!Aug 9, 2019 at 5:35 am #3605329
I appreciate the response, Sam, though I intentionally kept the details of my ‘journey’ somewhat limited in order to focus my post a bit. Whether you call it a struggle, a process, a journey, or something else, I’ve certainly completed most of it, and thus have a very good idea of what I’m looking for in a shoe (as described)… I’m just having a hard time finding one that meets that description. Thus my request for specific product recommendations from those that may have hunted for similar products.
(Note that my orthotics were custom fitted by a very talented DPM that I see regularly for treatment of my injured Achilles. I still use certain SuperFeet myself on occasion, such as in my mountaineering boots, but I now wedge them with adhesive backed felt strips to approximate the lateral tilt that my custom orthotics provide to address my supination. Thus my expressed preference for a higher volume shoe.)
Re-reading my post, I realize that I referenced the 860v9 rather than the 880v9 that I meant to specify. Same basic shoe, but the 860 is the stability (pronation control) version, vs. the neutral stability 880. I don’t want the shoe working against my orthotics. If New Balance would just use that last in a trail shoe with 10-12mm of drop, I’d be home free!Aug 30, 2018 at 8:14 am #3553795
These options are new to me, so I was excited to see the LC10 mass value, but as I look at it closer, I’m struggling to make the math work vs. common power banks. I have a 2014 vintage Ravpower 8400 mAh bank that weighs 191g with the USB cables/adapters included. (Ignoring the Lighting cable for the moment.) I’d love to beat that system mass for the same or better storage capacity. An LC10 plus (3) NL1835HP cells would add up to 10500 mAh @ 27.8g + (3) * 49.9g = 177.5g. Definitely better, but not as dramatic as I’d have hoped, especially for the cost. (And I assume I’d want a better model wall charger for home use to charge the cells more efficiently than the LC10 itself would allow.)
Having said that, I’m awash in the sea of battery options… was there a better battery choice that would have improved the numbers appreciably? (I just kept sifting through the drop down menus to find the highest mAh cells I could find.)
(For reference, if I stick with the more traditional power bank, I’d probably look at the $30 Anker 10,000 mAh unit that comes in at roughly 182g.)Aug 30, 2018 at 4:39 am #3553786
I believe that the total still needs to be updated. I still see 12 + 7.4 = 26.4, rather than the expected 19.4.Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 pm #2009527
Great work, Roger!
Your stove looks like just about everything I've looked for in a remote, inverted canister stove.
The one place where a more traditional upright canister stove would seem to have an advantage is in its ability to convert into a hanging system for use inside a tent.
Looking at your design:
1) Is the fuel tube long enough to reach a canister hanging just below the pot legs?
2) would it be possible to add notches or something similar to the underside of the pot legs such that they could retain the rolled lip of an inverted canister? (A wire "basket" anchored off the legs would likely be simpler, if less elegant. Or maybe a rubber/silicone ring that could slide over the inverted canister with small holes that would allow clips to connect it to the legs…)
3) If you tried to suspend the setup by running your suspension wires to the outermost cutouts on the legs (likely using a spreader bar or two on the wires), would it be stable enough if you had the weight of canister hanging below it? (Worst case would obviously be a full pot and empty canister, and I suspect that it might be too unstable.)
This may be a level of flexibility beyond your interest, but it intrigued me, so I thought I'd ask.
Thanks!Jul 30, 2011 at 12:03 pm #1764676
Is the Skaha still for sale?
I assume that since it wasn't mentioned that this is the version without the front pockets?
Thanks!Mar 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm #1704119
Thanks guys – much appreciated!