UKC

Footwear for Cullin Ridge

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 cmsg 12 May 2009
My flatmate and I are thinking of taking off up the Cullins this weekend. Was considering my footwear options. Approach shoes would probably be ideal, but I own none. Have road running trainers, but not the sturdiest things, obviously, awful on vegetation (little enough of that though, right?), and if it rains I'll have wet feet. Have some flexible leather walking boots, and also have some fairly lightweight B3s (Trango Extreme Evo L GTX).

I'd soonest avoid going shopping. Any thoughts? Flatmate has done it, and thinks he'd find boots clunky and heavy for moving fast over such ground, and was promoting the trainers. I think that such light boots, and they are a good fit, might be okay.

All input appreciated!
 Siward 12 May 2009
In reply to cmsg: Personally I would say your lightweight boots are fine. Approach shoes (ditto trainers) are all very well if you are dead set on speed and may (depending on model) be a wee bit better on climbs. But boots are fine and thousands have been up the Cuillin in them before 'approach shoes' were even a twinkle in their inventor's eyes.

P.S. have 'retreat' shoes been invented yet to cope with the turmoil of an unsuccessful day out?
 Al Evans 12 May 2009
In reply to Siward: Lightweight boots or a pair of approach shoes will be fine.
 Trangia 12 May 2009
In reply to Al Evans:

I would add that they need to be stiff enough to climb in - you don't want to be swapping and changing into rock shoes.
In reply to cmsg: Christ...if you read another recent thread here about the Cuillin, you'd think you needed top of the range stickies...

Light boots are ideal. Good luck.

 benbers 12 May 2009
In reply to Al Evans:

Do you think Sportiva nepal's are too heavy?
Slugain Howff 12 May 2009
In reply to benbers:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> Do you think Sportiva nepal's are too heavy?

Not if you only take one and hop.

Slugain - (twice in trainers and once in lightweight boots)
 benbers 12 May 2009
In reply to Slugain Howff:

haha, first 'hopping' ascent of the cullins! But no, as I don't have 'approach shoes' it'll have to be that or flipflops...
 Solaris 12 May 2009
In reply to benbers:
You'll be wearing them for a long day that covers a lot of ground and you'd want to be confident leading up to HS (or whatever grade the TD gap is now given ) in them whilst wearing a sac. Maybe now's the time to invest in some light walking boots?
 benbers 12 May 2009
In reply to Solaris:

Don't tempt me! I do really need to invest in a pair of lightweight boots, I did the WHW and FortWilliam to Aberdeen Coast to coast wearing them and did realise they were slightly heavy!
 Gripped 12 May 2009
In reply to cmsg: I’ve made two attempts so far. Once in winter I wore Trango Extremes.

Another time, one October; this was planned as a summer one day attempt, however it turned into a wild almost winter attempt at the TD gap, I had Trango Ice’s. Eventually we got about two third’s the way along before being forced to give up. I was pleased to have boots for the obvious and partly for the approach along the boggy coastal walk that heads into Coruisk, to the start below Gars-bheinn.

I almost went up last week for it again, however the weather didn’t look too good and my partner had a meeting come up. I would have used the lightest and most waterproof boots I had to hand. If the forecast was good and the ground dry I’d go in my trainers/approach shoes.
 chiz 13 May 2009
In reply to Gripped: I've always worn 5:10 guide tennies on the ridge, and they've always been fine (May, June and October, from baking heat to sleet and rain). I just wore a pair of sealskinz socks for the walk ins to keep my feet dry. I don't care if my boots get wet, just my feet. Dead light and sticky as anything
 TerryB 13 May 2009
In reply to cmsg: Hi Guys,
I understand that there is an increasing trend towards lighter footwear particularly on trails mainly brought in from our friends across the water (States).
However, please help me on this as I do not understand how the good advice on this thread to wear reasonably light footwear on the Cuillin is consistent with the advice elsewhere, on less tough ground, to wear firmer footwear. Even on the Yorkshire 3 Peaks, or some summit such as Snowdon (paths not climbs), walkers are advised to have some firm boots.
Surely, on the Cuillin, a firm sole (as in fell running shoes) and some support would be good?
I know that lighter footwear for the Cuillin is possible from our fell-running guys but for those lesser mortals should a stronger / heavier boot be the better option?
Cheers
TelB
 petestack 13 May 2009
In reply to TerryB:
> However, please help me on this as I do not understand how the good advice on this thread to wear reasonably light footwear on the Cuillin is consistent with the advice elsewhere, on less tough ground, to wear firmer footwear. Even on the Yorkshire 3 Peaks, or some summit such as Snowdon (paths not climbs), walkers are advised to have some firm boots.

Probably not consistent because it's not coming from the same source. Ask those recommending shoes what they'd use for the 3 Peaks or Snowdon and they're likely to say shoes. Ask those recommending boots for these peaks what they'd use for the Cuillin and they're likely to say boots!

> I know that lighter footwear for the Cuillin is possible from our fell-running guys but for those lesser mortals should a stronger / heavier boot be the better option?

No. Not at all if it's not needed. Light is good.

 tony 13 May 2009
In reply to TerryB:
> (In reply to cmsg) Hi Guys,
> I understand that there is an increasing trend towards lighter footwear particularly on trails mainly brought in from our friends across the water (States).
> However, please help me on this as I do not understand how the good advice on this thread to wear reasonably light footwear on the Cuillin is consistent with the advice elsewhere, on less tough ground, to wear firmer footwear. Even on the Yorkshire 3 Peaks, or some summit such as Snowdon (paths not climbs), walkers are advised to have some firm boots.

The advice to wear 'stout boots' is often overkill. Boots are good if the terrain is wet, but in many cases, decent approach shoes will be fine. I used to wear boots - Scarpa SLs - for almost all my Scottish hillwalking, but I'm increasingly tending to go for much lighter footwear. If I were doing Snowdon or the Yorkshire 3 peaks, I'd be quite happy in a pair of approach shoes.
 TerryB 13 May 2009
In reply to petestack: Heh! Heh!
There was another thread somewhere regarding is cynicism a factor of age. Perhaps, your contribution could be posted on there as well
Good point though - Thanks.
Cheers
telB
 TerryB 13 May 2009
In reply to tony: Hi Guys,
Thanks for this thread. I'll give both options a go when I am up in the Cuillin and see which is the better.
Cheers
TelB
 Dan Arkle 13 May 2009
Light boots are a good choice for most, they give you:
drier warmer feet.
are better for climbing in than trainers.
stop you breaking an ankle when utterly drained on the boggy walk out.
 Mark Stevenson 13 May 2009
In reply to TerryB: The assumption several posters are making is that the OP is wanting to try the traverse of the entire Cullin ridge. The only people who are going to attempt that with any degree of success are extremely competent all-round mountaineers who have a good understanding of the issues involved.

It is in this context that the advice on wearing approach shoes is being given.

Currently I would have a similar quandary as I haven't got anything in between pair of Nepal Extremes and some Scarpa approach shoes. If I was attempting the full ridge I'd definitely use the approach shoes but if I was spending a week walking in the Cullins I'd wear the mountain boots each day as they would certainly perform far better at the cost of being significantly more tiring to wear.
Snorkers 13 May 2009
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> I would add that they need to be stiff enough to climb in - you don't want to be swapping and changing into rock shoes.

Conversely, I wore 3 season leather hiking boots for the ridge, but carried a pair of rock shoes (an old pair of ninjas, I think) that I slipped on to lead the TD Gap, Inn Pinn and maybe one other section while my partner sorted out the rope (he seconded in boots). In that way, I was quicker climbing, felt much more secure, and because of that, placed fewer runners. I'm not much of a fan of climbing in big boots if I don't have to.

 Gripped 13 May 2009
In reply to chiz: I got a pair of tennies off a mate for a tenner, yeah they're great on rock but any mix of water/grass/vegetation and I find them lethal! I'm not convinced about there all round use to buy a pair at full wack.
 chiz 13 May 2009
In reply to Gripped: I never had any serious problems with them, especially on skye, as it tends to go from soft bog to scree and then rock pretty quickly. You'll slip on wet basalt whatever you wear on your feet.
The first time I got some tennies I wore them in wales descending a steep grassy scramble in the rain and they were slippy, but then what isn't on wet grass apart from crampons? You get used to what you wear and walk accordingly. I get a lot of use out of them all year round as they are so light and you can climb in them or clip them to harness.
 JohnDaly 13 May 2009
At least 13 people completed the traverse of the Cuillin Ridge yesterday, some wearing approach shoes and some, like ourselves, in boots. All except 2, were completing it over two days. We wore Scarpa Charmos boots and were very happy with them but so were others we spoke to wearing approach shoes. The choice is really up to you!
 petestack 13 May 2009
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
> but if I was spending a week walking in the Cullins I'd wear the mountain boots each day as they would certainly perform far better at the cost of being significantly more tiring to wear.

And I'd wear the shoes because the thought of spending a week in the Cuillin in Nepal Extremes doesn't appeal to me at all (unless it's winter) and the shoes would certainly perform far better for me. But each to their own!
OP cmsg 14 May 2009
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

We were (can't be arsed to make a trip to Scotland given the current forecast) intending to do the whole thing. We'd anticipated hopefully doing it in a day, but would bivvy at the start of the ridge, so would have overnight gear in any case. My partner has done it before. We are both competent, if not overwhelmingly experienced mountaineers. This may have been evident from the footwear I stated I possess, though I suppose you might have consigned me to the "all the gear, no idea" category. But I don't think I gave you grounds for doing so.

No, rather, we are both pretty competent guys, but I just don't have any approach shoes, and wasn't looking to splash out on more gear right now (career break / Alpine summer coming up). My partner, though, had suggested that from his experience, going light was really valuable, and I might not be happy with big boots. Hence the question.

And thank you all for the replies. Were I not dodging the weather, I'd have worn the Trangos.
In reply to Snorkers:

This is where something like slightly worn fell running shoes like Walshes score. They are suitable for climbing up to VS or even more so no problem with the Cuillin ridge; light and if you get wet feet then they are designed to dry out quickly. The only downside is that there is no ankle or rand protection which some people may find unnerving, however - "look well to each step" and all that.

The main advantages are that you don't need to keep changing footwear for the technical sections which saves time and you aren't carrying the weight of a second pair of shoes for what will only be around 200m of climbing (I've not added the pitch lengths).

ALC
Tim Chappell 14 May 2009
In reply to a lakeland climber:

I had a pair of Merrills approach shoes fall apart on me on Sgurr a'Mhadaidh on my last Cuillin traverse attempt. The sole came away from the upper. Flap flap flap, and dangerous when you're scrambling at speed. I tried sticking a spare sock over it to hold it all together, but that was destroyed within about 100 yards.

I don't think the moral is 'don't wear approach shoes'. I think the moral is 'wear brand new approach shoes'.
 Adam Long 14 May 2009
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I was about to say the same thing. Light shoes would be great on the ridge, just as long as they made it to the slig at the end. I'd expect a full week in the cuillin to destroy any, the tennies I normally wear anyway. Just one big gabbro scree run is worth a normal seasons wear.

I've always worn a pair of medium weight trad leather boots with a pair of rockboots in the sack to get me out of any trouble. Nowadays I'd probably take 5.10 daescents instead of rockboots as they don't weigh much more and I wouldn't need to swap back as quickly. I'd still want a decent walking boot for the walks in and out though.
 mike bike 14 May 2009
In reply to cmsg:
Wear what you would on an alpine rock route
 davidwright 14 May 2009
In reply to TerryB:
> (In reply to cmsg) Hi Guys,
> I understand that there is an increasing trend towards lighter footwear particularly on trails mainly brought in from our friends across the water (States).
> However, please help me on this as I do not understand how the good advice on this thread to wear reasonably light footwear on the Cuillin is consistent with the advice elsewhere, on less tough ground, to wear firmer footwear. Even on the Yorkshire 3 Peaks, or some summit such as Snowdon (paths not climbs), walkers are advised to have some firm boots.
> Surely, on the Cuillin, a firm sole (as in fell running shoes) and some support would be good?
> I know that lighter footwear for the Cuillin is possible from our fell-running guys but for those lesser mortals should a stronger / heavier boot be the better option?
> Cheers
> TelB

There is a simple answer to this "dilema", the hill walkers are talking cr@p. The classic "3 season" walking boot ought to be consigned to history along with the slide rule and tricornis.

 Al Evans 14 May 2009
In reply to davidwright: I agree David, I did it in the late 60's with what were called klettershue, the modern equivalent of which are crag approach shoes.
 davidwright 14 May 2009
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
> (In reply to TerryB)
>
> but if I was spending a week walking in the Cullins I'd wear the mountain boots each day as they would certainly perform far better at the cost of being significantly more tiring to wear.

Don't worry the nice men in white coats will be with you shortly.
 Al Evans 14 May 2009
In reply to Al Evans: Sorry, just one thing, they did have ankle protection and vibram soles but were very light. I'm sure Sutty must have had a pair.
If you are going for boots use the lightest you can get and try climbing in them first. To make reasonable time you will be soloing V Diff.
In reply to davidwright:
> (In reply to TerryB)
> [...]
>
> There is a simple answer to this "dilema", the hill walkers are talking cr@p. The classic "3 season" walking boot ought to be consigned to history along with the slide rule and tricornis.

Agree with this. I cannot remember the last time I used a "traditional" pair of walking boots in the hills outside semi-winter conditions.

ALC

 sutty 14 May 2009
In reply to davidwright:

I like my light walking boots, found a slide rule useful and want some more tricounis for greasy muddy routes.

Anyway, your whinge got me looking for some boots from the early years that a friend still uses for VF, being light but a bit stiff and ended up on the Supertopo forums finding some great early pictures of gear.
 MG 14 May 2009
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> I would add that they need to be stiff enough to climb in -

Yes. I am surprised people find approach shoes OK for scrambling/climbing. I find the edges so mushy they are useless on anything smaller than a bucket hold. Have always used full boots in Skye, although they are rather heavy.
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> Yes. I am surprised people find approach shoes OK for scrambling/climbing. I find the edges so mushy they are useless on anything smaller than a bucket hold.

Hmm, my mate was seconding E1 in them the other week.

ALC
 Mark Stevenson 14 May 2009
whilstIn reply to petestack: Several reasons I'd go for the boots for normal days out:

Firstly I've got very mobile ankles that are relatively easy to injure. Therefore I prefer good support so that if I do mis-step and catch the outside edge of my foot on easier ground, I don't put myself out of action for the rest of the week.

Secondly, at a normal walking pace (where the extra weight isn't an issue to me), stiff boots are superior on most terrain other than continuous rock or good paths. There are still plenty of steep paths, open hillsides, scree slopes and boulder fields around where that advantage comes into play.

Thirdly, terrain like the Cullin very rapidly trashes footwear and my Nepals are about as indestructible as it gets. A week or two in the Cullin could very well result in me needing a new pair of approach shoes which starts to get expensive.
 Al Evans 14 May 2009
 davidwright 14 May 2009
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> Yes. I am surprised people find approach shoes OK for scrambling/climbing. I find the edges so mushy they are useless on anything smaller than a bucket hold. Have always used full boots in Skye, although they are rather heavy.

I regularly climb VDiff/Severe in approach shoes and led the TD gap in them. I do tend to smear on holds that I would edge in rock boots but that is more to do with fit than stiffness my rock boots are far more flexable.

I have rock boots, approach shoes, a 20 year old pair of "3 season" boots and a pair of 4 season mountain boots. The 3 season boots are 20 years old because they have never worn out. Thats because I choose the most appropreate boot for the trip and even for my last 2 trips to the cullin the answer is now never a 3 season boot.

Just too hot, too heavy and too stiff for comfortable walking.
 victorclimber 14 May 2009
In reply to cmsg: i did the ridge in Brasher suede boots,worked fine on the climbing ,walking etc,
 MG 14 May 2009
In reply to davidwright:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> I regularly climb VDiff/Severe in approach shoes and led the TD gap in them. I do tend to smear on holds that I would edge in rock boots but that is more to do with fit than stiffness my rock boots are far more flexable.
>

Maybe I need closer fitting shoes. Would you find climbing in trainers about the same? Mine are similar to my approach shoes - horribly soft!

> Just too hot, too heavy and too stiff for comfortable walking.

I think something like Nepal soles with trainer tops would be ideal for the Cuillin ridge!

 davidwright 14 May 2009
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
> whilstIn reply to petestack:
>
> Secondly, at a normal walking pace (where the extra weight isn't an issue to me), stiff boots are superior on most terrain other than continuous rock or good paths. There are still plenty of steep paths, open hillsides, scree slopes and boulder fields around where that advantage comes into play.
>

So you would have no objection to me putting 10kg's of rocks in your bag on such a day then? As that is more or less the equivielent. Even at walking pace lifting the extra weight. The key is to adjust your foot plant to the terrain rather than try and use your boot to support a poor foot plant on the terrain or to force the terrain to conform to your foot.


 davidwright 14 May 2009
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to davidwright)
> [...]
>
> Maybe I need closer fitting shoes. Would you find climbing in trainers about the same? Mine are similar to my approach shoes - horribly soft!
>
Fairly similar, but less floppy as my approach shoes are a tighter fit than my running shoes. As I say you smear rather than edge on small holds. However both my trainers and approach shoes are stiffer than my rock boots and I find the adjustment less than I need to make for big boots.

Anything as stiff as Nepals in the sole wouldn't work as it would be too stiff to walk in.
 MG 14 May 2009
In reply to davidwright:

> Anything as stiff as Nepals in the sole wouldn't work as it would be too stiff to walk in.

Hmm, I think we different requirements. I have done the ridge 3 (nearly) times in Nepals or similar.

 Mark Stevenson 14 May 2009
In reply to davidwright: On many occasions I will make a conscious decision to blitz around the hills, ultra-lightweight in terms of both footwear and other equipment, normally solo. In doing so, I know that a loss of concentration for a split second on a fast scree descent or running across a boulder field will probably lead to a repeat ankle injury. Therefore I'll only do this where I'm perfectly happy to dedicate not inconsiderable mental effort to moving efficiently and quickly across technical terrain for several hours.

Other times, I'm happy to trade increased physical effort for reduced mental effort by wearing footwear that is much more forgiving in harsh terrain. Especially on occasions where my pace is constrained by other members of a group, being able to relax more on scree descents or in the wet is a compromise I'm very happy with.

 Ann S 14 May 2009
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Snorkers)
>
> This is where something like slightly worn fell running shoes like Walshes score. They are suitable for climbing up to VS or even more so no problem with the Cuillin ridge; light and if you get wet feet then they are designed to dry out quickly. The only downside is that there is no ankle or rand protection which some people may find unnerving, however - "look well to each step" and all that.
>
> The main advantages are that you don't need to keep changing footwear for the technical sections which saves time and you aren't carrying the weight of a second pair of shoes for what will only be around 200m of climbing (I've not added the pitch lengths).
>
~I'm off to Skye again for umpteenth time at end of May and have just collected a new pair of Walsh Raids from the nice chaps at the Walsh factory in Bolton; they have made me another pair with a raised ankle cuff as my first pair have finally worn out. I put up with damp feet and just take extra care coming down scree but this is a small price to pay for the extra 'feel' and flexibility that I prize on the ridge.




 ScraggyGoat 15 May 2009
In reply to cmsg:

Ultimately do the ridge in what ever you feel comfortable walking and scrambling in. People for years have done the ridge in big boots, or light boots, and more recently trainers, or 'approach' shoes and if they were comfortable and they were happy dooing the bits of climbing in them, then they all had smiles on thier faces upon completion (assuming fitness and weather).

Some have changed into rock shoes for one or two bits, others have climbed in what they started and finished the day in. It is nonesense to suggest you can't use this, or you must wear these....even more so when you don't even know the individual!!


+
 Andy Cloquet 15 May 2009
In reply to ScraggyGoat: I agree totally with your view that it's up to personal preference.

A summary of the few sensible bits that have been contributed, though: ankle protection, you are confident you can climb in them to at least VDiff. and good arch support.
aye, Andy
 summo 15 May 2009
In reply to cmsg: or these Scarpa Mescalitos,
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/uan/399

Not as good as their El Cap predecessor though.
 davidwright 15 May 2009
In reply to summo:
> (In reply to cmsg) or these Scarpa Mescalitos,
> http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/uan/399
>
> Not as good as their El Cap predecessor though.

Unfortunatly at 1.4 Kg they are exactly the classic over heavy boot that is becoming redundant.
 chiz 15 May 2009
In reply to summo:
> or these Scarpa Mescalitos,
> http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/uan/399
>
> Not as good as their El Cap predecessor though.

and they don't make them anymore either


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...