...and how about the Inov-8 Griproc 325?

...and the new vasque scree, looks much like the old catalyst...

MoapaPk wrote:The inov Roclite 295 advertizes "sticky rubber" outsoles. Do you have a feeling if this rubber compound matches well against 5.10 stealth rubber? Why do the lightest shoes seem to be the only ones advertized with sticky rubber (the heavier, beefier versions have "endurance rubber" (?))?

http://www.irunfar.com/2011/01/inov-8-r ... eview.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002NP ... 4SV91R11Z8

cant tell you about the roclites ... but my terrocs rubber is softer than the steath rubber ... the tennies are definitely better climbing shoes for anything mid 5th class or above ... but generally id put on rock shoes for that anyways ... its also the function of the tread, the flatter tread of the tennies make them better climbers

for actual approaches and not climbs .. the inov terrocs do just fine for me, being more useful on the hike in and the scramble up

Daria wrote:It may come not as a surprise to people, but all those fancy approach shoes special materials and advanced technology is a marketing ploy to get your $$$$$. It is not about what shoe you wear, its all about your technique and skill. You can get regular good quality running shoes to do what you want them to do if you know what you're doing.

That's a rediculous statement. You can climb 5.10 in double plastics if you know what you're doing, but that doesn't make it sane.

Approach shoes fill a niche, which many climbers appreciate. But there seems to be this idea that just because you're approaching a climb, you need an approach shoe. That's luridcrous. In many cases the approach is one-dimensional, and you probably already own suitable footwear.

If you're walking along the carriage trail at the Gunks, Old Navy flip-flops are probably the best way to go.

If you're hiking 20 miles of trails, trail runners or light hikers would be the tickets.

If you're covering miles of snowfields and talus slopes, maybe you should bring your mountaineering boots, eh? The Trango S climbs pretty hard as an approach shoe.

For most cragging I do, there's a moderate walk-off, and I climb with shoes for the descent. I bring the lightest shoes I own, right now NB Minimus trail runners - they don't down-climb like Guide Tennies, but they are half the weight hanging on my harness on the way up. Some places (Gunks) I just down-climb barefoot. Even lighter.

Where approach shoes come in is when the approach (and/or descent) is some of everything, but largely 3rd and 4th class rock. If there's no 4th or easy 5th, then approach shoes make little sense, since for the most part they are just light hikers with sticky rubber.

Also, Guide Tennies and the Ganda are on the extreme climbing performance end of the spectrum. You can easily climb mid-5th class in them, so they work best for things like aid climbing where you want to come out of the aiders and pull some free moves, approaches with lots of 4th class or easy 5th class, or entire mountaineering days where the whole climb is easy enough that you can ditch the rock shoes altogether.

The Camp 4 and similar shoes offer real tread, so you can do serious hiking in them. Why anyone would look at the Guide Tennie's sole and think "boy, let's take this on a snowfield!", I have no idea. If you need sticky rubber AND a comfy hiker that can handle mud and snow and such, they probably need to look like a hiking sole.

Autoxfil wrote:That's a rediculous statement.

it's a rediculous shoe!

MoapaPk wrote:

Autoxfil wrote:That's a rediculous statement.

it's a rediculous shoe!

Gonna throw my vote in for these Exum Guide's as well. I was thinkin of dropping some cash on another pair of boots but than I saw
these babies and thought they would fit the bill at half the price. So far, great trail runners and scramblers. Really looking forward to getting these on
some talus on the higher crags and some 4th class material. Though with our snowpack, that might be a while.
Great approach shoe so far!

Daria wrote:SI have used my asics gt 2160's for years and have worn out many pairs and can't seem to find a better replacement.

I just noticed that some asics are made with sticky rubber outsoles -- like Gel Trabuco-- is that what the gt stands for?

You've made me think more about what I want; more trail-running shoes are being made with sticky rubber these days

Jugged and Climbed over 2000' the last two days in em.

Simply put, Awesome, Solid and Perfect!

MoapaPk wrote:...and the new vasque scree...

Just picked up a pair, I think they will make a nice complement to my Scarpa Zen. Only wished the lacing extended closer to the toes.

96avs01 wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:...and the new vasque scree...

Just picked up a pair, I think they will make a nice complement to my Scarpa Zen. Only wished the lacing extended closer to the toes.

I'm liking mine too after a couple of weeks. The lugging on the sole is a little more aggressive than I think is ideal (it can be a mud magnet), but that will wear down in time.

The Chief wrote:Jugged and Climbed over 2000' the last two days in em.

Simply put, Awesome, Solid and Perfect!

Chief, which shoe is it?

That's the Camp 4.

MoapaPk wrote:That's the Camp 4.

I think that's the one I'd like to have. . .

Autoxfil wrote:

Daria wrote:It may come not as a surprise to people, but all those fancy approach shoes special materials and advanced technology is a marketing ploy to get your $$$$$. It is not about what shoe you wear, its all about your technique and skill. You can get regular good quality running shoes to do what you want them to do if you know what you're doing.

That's a rediculous statement. You can climb 5.10 in double plastics if you know what you're doing, but that doesn't make it sane.

Stegosaurus wrote: you really can't approach any wilderness climb safely and comfortably across talus and scree wearing a set of super-light running shoes - there's simply not enough reinforcement in the sole and rand.

Wrong. Any one of you suckers want to bet $500 that I can use these to dayhike Clarence King and Mt. Williamson??:





Fresh from thrashing around for 12 hours in Beveridge Canyon:





I'm sorta sick of all the distinctions and selections: approach shoes, running shoes, climbing shoes, hiking shoes, trail runners.....wtf??? Seriously, its headache inducing.

The camp four a tiny bit too bulky for my liking and its hard to find a size 11 for sale. The toe box is too boxy. Why can't someone just make the perfect shoe?

Daria wrote:The camp four a tiny bit too bulky for my liking and its hard to find a size 11 for sale. The toe box is too boxy. Why can't someone just make the perfect shoe?

We just don't have perfect feet!

Someone else mentioned the inov8 shoes, and they seem to be much lighter... and some have a sticky rubber. Alas, sticky rubber generally wears down faster than hard rubber. I'm going to give them a try.

The folks who pioneered a lot of the hard technical routes in the Sierra, in the 30s and 40s, used rubber-soled, canvas athletic shoes... back when ropes were made of hemp, and people gave standing hip belays. Plain soft rubber can be pretty sticky; just doesn't last long.

The Camp 4 toe is wide, but they are very stable. The lace-to-the-toe style actually cramps my toes a little too much. The soles are a little too flexible for crampons, and my biggest complaint is: they are hot, and my feet stink so badly that I'm embarrassed to have someone else in the car after a long day. It's one of the terrible gender inequalities we men must accept... we have stinkier feet.