Author Topic: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?  (Read 9238 times)

Forkbeard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #15 on: 20:31:57, 12/11/14 »
My HiTecs have lasted me 2 years.  I've no idea how many miles they've done but they have certainly been treated badly and put well and truly through their paces on terrain they really aren't meant for.  I'm happy with that and sad to see their smooth-soled semi-retirement into gentle walking terrain.  For the price I paid for them I'm not complaining  :)
 
I do also wonder if a boot's (the sole at least) longevity also has something to do with the weight of the person wearing them as well as the type of terrain being walked on  ???


I've often wondered the same thing. There's more pressure being applied so maybe this is the case.


Anyway, in the interest of science, I've decided to buy the same boots as last time and record how many miles I've done at their time of retirement. They are extremely comfortable, non slippy(unlike a pair of much more expensive big name ones I tried) and for the price there's always going to be a trade off somewhere. I'm pretty sure if I don't  wear them every day, they'll last a couple of years too.

Peter

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3707
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #16 on: 20:59:29, 12/11/14 »

I do also wonder if a boot's (the sole at least) longevity also has something to do with the weight of the person wearing them as well as the type of terrain being walked on  ???


Seems obvious doesn't it? If you walk along grassy or even muddy paths, the soles will wear less than if you are hitting paths of millstone grit?
Peter
sometimes I fall off the learning curve....
Join: Yorkshire Dales Walking Buddies
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1783012625307

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6900
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #17 on: 21:36:46, 12/11/14 »

Seems obvious doesn't it? If you walk along grassy or even muddy paths, the soles will wear less than if you are hitting paths of millstone grit?

Logical Spock, but I think it is even more subtle than that.  I bought a pair of Meindls when I lived in Anglesey and walked Snowdonia.  The heel of one boot disintegrated in a little over 2 months.  I took them back to Cotswold who gave me my money back.  I got a better set of Meindls in their sale and these lasted well in Wales but when I moved up to the Pennines the leather started to split on the toe creases despite all the care I had lavished on them from the day of purchase (no point in not looking after an expensive boot).

I suspect the reason is that the walking I have done has been a lot wetter with rather less rock.  This has transferred the "stress" from the sole to the upper and, despite all the creams and waxes, after a walk the boots tended to end up white rather than the brown the manufacturer intended.

The Meindls gave up the ghost this year (internal stitching in the heel split) and were replaced with Mammuts.  These seem to be lasting much better in the prevailing conditions.
Solvitur Ambulando

pathcruncher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #18 on: 16:04:35, 16/11/14 »
It’s never easy to make up one’s mind as to which boots to go for, one thing for sure is that the pair that is really comfortable in the shop is not necessarily as comfortable after 15 miles in the hills.

Way back in the past I never paid enough for my boots and I always suffered for it. I am now on my third pair of ‘Meindl Burma Pro MFS’, and as most of you will know, are a ‘Gortex’ leather boot and are of a medium weight and very waterproof. They will last me 2000 miles, by which time the soles will have worn down and one or both soles are close to coming detached.

 They are so comfortable that I would not want to risk an alternative. The price is now down below £150 so 7.5 pence per mile  --  wrap them up I’ll take them know  O0

Forkbeard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #19 on: 13:03:38, 23/11/14 »
I finished up going for two pairs - another pair of cheap Hi-Tecss for everyday wear and a pair of Merrell Norshund Omegas dedicated to hill walking etc. I'm going to embrace my OCD side and record the distance walked in the Merrells.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merrell-Norsehund-Omega-Waterproof-J39499/dp/B007YHCB90/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416747733&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=merrell+norshund

Theo Frum

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #20 on: 14:23:08, 23/11/14 »
A few years ago I compared the cost of walking, cycling, train and car. I've long since lost the piece of paper now, but there was surprisingly little difference. It depends greatly on what assumptions you make of course, particularly with the fixed costs like road tax and insurance, and the train cost depends whether you count mileage the way the train goes, the way the road goes, or the way the crow flies. Walking and cycling work out pretty expensive if you include the cost of accommodation and time.

CallMeSteven

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #21 on: 14:39:04, 23/11/14 »

"Walking and cycling work out pretty expensive if you include the cost of accommodation and time."


Agreed - but think of the health benefits of each one!

Theo Frum

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #22 on: 14:47:25, 23/11/14 »
Exercise is very good for you, provided it's in moderation, but this is a thread about cost.

CallMeSteven

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #23 on: 19:07:05, 23/11/14 »
Exactly - poor health costs us more than a pair of walking boots  ;)

forgotmyoldpassword

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #24 on: 16:14:45, 25/11/14 »
A few years ago I compared the cost of walking, cycling, train and car. I've long since lost the piece of paper now, but there was surprisingly little difference. It depends greatly on what assumptions you make of course, particularly with the fixed costs like road tax and insurance, and the train cost depends whether you count mileage the way the train goes, the way the road goes, or the way the crow flies. Walking and cycling work out pretty expensive if you include the cost of accommodation and time.

I'm curious how this was looked at, and coincidentally had the same discussion whilst walking last weekend as to the overall costs of walking versus cycling and other hobbies such as the gym, and outdoor running as an alternative to that. 

There are certainly a few ways of looking at this 1) functional locomotion for work 2) functional locomotion for recreational use (riding to the cinema, for example), and 3) recreational locomotion.  I very much doubt that the maintenance cost of cycling is much greater than £150-200 per year for daily use, which would cover a service, oils, and at a push, tyres.  The same with hiking, the expense will be damaged equipment, required washing materials/electricity use to do so, versus a direct method of moving.

To the question of boot wear, the factors would seem to be gait (distribution of weight across the boot and walking motion), and the weight of the individual, coupled with what materials they are walking on.  The physical material 'limit' of the method used to bind the boot together will be matched or exceeded more frequently when a walker has an atypical gait or weight, and will likely lead to increased wear. 

Bear in mind that this will likely be compound degradation, though, and extremely hard to model due to the interaction of the boot with the movement of the foot, and the difficulty in modelling a standard walking surface (since jumping, pushing, kicking, walking and even running motions will all have different impact on those material limits).  There is also the problem of one component of the boot failing and causing a cascade of other failures do to the increase in stress on other components, a case in point being stitches which tend to fail in groups.

If I was modelling it, I'd just record how far I walked in a walking log, and make a point to make a rough note of conditions - and crucially, maintain your boots well.  Clean them after use, frequently wax them, and make sure you don't "kick off" mud or use them as a form of blunt force instrument - all factors which are likely to have a much greater effect on the integrity of the boots than pure miles walked.  It is worth considering, if you walk for one day a week, every week a year, then you are likely a very keen walker - yet you will only be wearing your boots directly for 3.5% of the year.   It is why I'd considering putting some thought to regular cleaning/storage/ventilation and damp if you have a quality pair of boots and want them to last.

youradvocate

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #25 on: 18:25:23, 25/11/14 »
I reckon I get about 3-4 years out of my Brasher boots, I'm on my third pair. I think the life span has decreased as I remember buying a pair of Czech leather boots in the mid 70s and although I did not hike so much then as I do now, I was still wearing them in the early 90s. The only reason they had to go was the stitching had just rotted away, the upper leather was still fine and the soles still had life in them. My boots today wear mainly at the rear heel, when I buy again I'm going to inquire if they still make those circular heels that can be turned by hand to keep the wear even.

northern star

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #26 on: 08:54:41, 27/11/14 »
I've always worn brashers and I've had my latest pair about a year, they do get some serious mileage, no idea how much, and they get cleaned after every trip, but for this pair and the previous pair, they have split on the top where my foot bends, I reckon it's probably just the way I walk, but either way they haven't lasted longer than a couple of years

hikeview

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #27 on: 09:22:48, 27/11/14 »
I have a pair of Montrail boots I bought in 2011, still in great order except that the GoreTex gave up after about 5 years so they are no longer water tight. Still really comfortable though, so I can't bring myself to chuck them. I had a pair of Hi-tecs which I wore the sole out of in about 3 years, but they were really comfortable. I have a pair of leather/goretex Ecco boots that my brother-in-law was given but never used so he passed them to me, fantastic build, but the weight of them and the fact that they are a slightly wider fitting than I take mean that I rarely use them for anything other than short-ish walks when the rain is torrential.


Overall, given that (as I understand it) the goretex in a boot will give up after a few years, and I much prefer a light boot, I will go for Hi-tec most of the time as they typically fit me very well and I know I will get 3 years or so out of them. I got a good deal on a pair of Merrell shoes lately though, also very good, but even in the shop they said the soles will wear in a few years. Also like a pair of trail runners and sealskinz as another option when the terrain suits.

sussamb

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7418
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #28 on: 10:17:10, 27/11/14 »
Bought in 2011 ... goretex failed after 5 years ... which time zone are you in  ;D
Where there's a will ...

hikeview

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: Cost to Mileage Ratio of Boots/Soles..?
« Reply #29 on: 11:15:16, 27/11/14 »
Ha! Yes, bit of a slip of the fingers :-) I meant 2001