This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The original sticky rubber boots were much stickier than the modern versions, which aren't that sticky at all. With older sticky rubber if you walked across a carpet the boots would pic up every bit of dust off the floor. If you tried you could even stick two boots together, sole to sole and one completely upsidedown, and the rubber was sticky enough to hold them together. This can't be done with the newer rubbers because they're not actually sticky.
My understanding is that the newer rubbers work by indenting more easily and thus mold over irregularities on the rock better. Whilst I can see this working well on certain rock types like gritstone I'm not sure they're as good on smoother rock and in particular polished limestone (ie most sport climbing).
Interested to know what others think and if any boots are still made with the proper sticky rubber - or even if you can get resoles with such rubber.
My understanding is that the newer rubbers work by indenting more easily and thus mold over irregularities on the rock better. Whilst I can see this working well on certain rock types like gritstone I'm not sure they're as good on smoother rock and in particular polished limestone (ie most sport climbing).
Interested to know what others think and if any boots are still made with the proper sticky rubber - or even if you can get resoles with such rubber.
2
4
In reply to stp:
are you saying my vintage rock boots are stickier than 'Stealth'?
are you saying my vintage rock boots are stickier than 'Stealth'?
Post edited at 20:35
1
In reply to stp:
I want my boots to stick to rock, not carpet fluff or my left shoe.
Seriously though, I don't remember there ever being a 'sticky rubber' better than what is available today, and I can't imagine manufacturers of climbing shoes ever putting an inferior product out when a superior one is available to them (and their competitors).
I want my boots to stick to rock, not carpet fluff or my left shoe.
Seriously though, I don't remember there ever being a 'sticky rubber' better than what is available today, and I can't imagine manufacturers of climbing shoes ever putting an inferior product out when a superior one is available to them (and their competitors).
3
1
In reply to stp:
If Chris Sharma and Adam Ondra can climb 9b routes with 'non-sticky rubber' then I think we should be able to manage.
If Chris Sharma and Adam Ondra can climb 9b routes with 'non-sticky rubber' then I think we should be able to manage.
7
1
In reply to stp:
Slight digression, but I've known this since they replaced El Caps with Mescalitos. (10-12 plus years ago).
> The original sticky rubber boots were much stickier than the modern versions,
Slight digression, but I've known this since they replaced El Caps with Mescalitos. (10-12 plus years ago).
2
In reply to Le Chevalier Mal Fet:
The rubber on the original Fires was really sticky, you could hear it unpeel from the rock, it wasn't particularly soft either though there were some other makes that were soft and wore down quickly. In some cases you had to pull your foot off the rock rather than just lift it away.
The rubber on the original Fires was really sticky, you could hear it unpeel from the rock, it wasn't particularly soft either though there were some other makes that were soft and wore down quickly. In some cases you had to pull your foot off the rock rather than just lift it away.
1
1
In reply to stp:
I think you pretty much summed it up with your description. It isn't that great if the rubber sticks to other stuff but at a composition that gives it a low shear modulus. The rubber needs to remain stuck to itself also
On your point about indenting rather than pure "stick": this seems to work much better along with better rand design. Used to be that if you over aggressively rolled a knee into a foothold while transferring weight on to it, that the really sticky stuff felt to have a tendency to lift and pop the foot. The more deformable stuff seems not so bad at this as it moves "into the hold" rather than "rolling up it." I think this is what leads to getting more out of the foothold. It probably means that we can get marginally more of the less sticky rubber onto the hold and with a geometry that will take more force in a given direction that the "stickier alternative." Probably means there is less propensity to travel across the hold too while other points of contact are in motion.
I think you pretty much summed it up with your description. It isn't that great if the rubber sticks to other stuff but at a composition that gives it a low shear modulus. The rubber needs to remain stuck to itself also
On your point about indenting rather than pure "stick": this seems to work much better along with better rand design. Used to be that if you over aggressively rolled a knee into a foothold while transferring weight on to it, that the really sticky stuff felt to have a tendency to lift and pop the foot. The more deformable stuff seems not so bad at this as it moves "into the hold" rather than "rolling up it." I think this is what leads to getting more out of the foothold. It probably means that we can get marginally more of the less sticky rubber onto the hold and with a geometry that will take more force in a given direction that the "stickier alternative." Probably means there is less propensity to travel across the hold too while other points of contact are in motion.
1
1
13
1
In reply to stp:
Yes its a real shame they've stopped using it. Now folk will have to climb using skill alone.
Yes its a real shame they've stopped using it. Now folk will have to climb using skill alone.
2
1
In reply to malk:
Anything's stickier than Stealth
> are you saying my vintage rock boots are stickier than 'Stealth'?
Anything's stickier than Stealth
3
2
In reply to Le Chevalier Mal Fet:
Well there are all sort of reasons manufacturers choose one product over another - not necessarily what's best for the consumer. With fruit and veg they don't pick the most tasty varieties but usually the ones with the longest shelf life.
But with boots, and globally, perhaps most climbers don't have to climb on polished rock as much as we do in the UK. Even here there are plenty of rock types that aren't polished and those newer rubbers maybe work better on. Maybe they're cheaper, easier to work with, almost as good for most people, or perhaps some other reason?
> I can't imagine manufacturers of climbing shoes ever putting an inferior product out when a superior one is available to them (and their competitors).
Well there are all sort of reasons manufacturers choose one product over another - not necessarily what's best for the consumer. With fruit and veg they don't pick the most tasty varieties but usually the ones with the longest shelf life.
But with boots, and globally, perhaps most climbers don't have to climb on polished rock as much as we do in the UK. Even here there are plenty of rock types that aren't polished and those newer rubbers maybe work better on. Maybe they're cheaper, easier to work with, almost as good for most people, or perhaps some other reason?
1
1
In reply to stp:
Well I distinctly remember that Firés were actually slippier than non-stickies when it came to very highly polished rock, but the number of holds that were so polished as to make a difference was very small so overall they were still much better.
Now recently we were in Kalymnos, my wife was complaining about slipping on polished holds but I could hardly feel any problem - turned out that my Zenith-soled shoes were coping much better with the polish than her older model. This is also the rubber that, when it was launched, showed Yuji hanging one shoe from the other toe-to-toe, so maybe we've now come full circle but addressed the polish issue too!
Well I distinctly remember that Firés were actually slippier than non-stickies when it came to very highly polished rock, but the number of holds that were so polished as to make a difference was very small so overall they were still much better.
Now recently we were in Kalymnos, my wife was complaining about slipping on polished holds but I could hardly feel any problem - turned out that my Zenith-soled shoes were coping much better with the polish than her older model. This is also the rubber that, when it was launched, showed Yuji hanging one shoe from the other toe-to-toe, so maybe we've now come full circle but addressed the polish issue too!
1
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Very true. Ever been to symonds yat though? I'm pretty sure a few of the beginners routes are polishing themselves towards being 9b
Very true. Ever been to symonds yat though? I'm pretty sure a few of the beginners routes are polishing themselves towards being 9b
2
1
In reply to john arran:
I remember Firés being really good on polished rock so long as you squeaked them up and stepped carefully on the rock to avoid dirt sticking to the soles and negating the stickiness.
One thing that made me bring this subject up was when my foot slipped off a polished hold the other day and I was thinking that I don't think that would have happened with the older rubbers.
I remember Firés being really good on polished rock so long as you squeaked them up and stepped carefully on the rock to avoid dirt sticking to the soles and negating the stickiness.
One thing that made me bring this subject up was when my foot slipped off a polished hold the other day and I was thinking that I don't think that would have happened with the older rubbers.
1
In reply to stp:
Strangely I have a very different memory. Cleaning Firés didn't help and only seemed to add extra slippiness. We even started adding chalk onto particularly polished holds as it helped add friction - something I've only ever found to reduce friction with any shoes before or since. We're talking really glassy limestone here, notably the rock insets in walls like the Poly wall and Altrincham. Disgustingly shiny!
Strangely I have a very different memory. Cleaning Firés didn't help and only seemed to add extra slippiness. We even started adding chalk onto particularly polished holds as it helped add friction - something I've only ever found to reduce friction with any shoes before or since. We're talking really glassy limestone here, notably the rock insets in walls like the Poly wall and Altrincham. Disgustingly shiny!
1
In reply to john arran:
My memory is that the very early Firés were amazingly sticky and you could stand on ridiculous stuff - until you ended up bruised on the ground.
There was no transition , no warning you were just suddenly "off".
I suspect when they select rubber this is one of the trade offs - absolute grip vs a gradual transition. I know car manufacturers deliberately build this sort of feedback into suspension at the cost of absolute grip. - it's one of the reasons F1 drivers get the big bucks.
My memory is that the very early Firés were amazingly sticky and you could stand on ridiculous stuff - until you ended up bruised on the ground.
There was no transition , no warning you were just suddenly "off".
I suspect when they select rubber this is one of the trade offs - absolute grip vs a gradual transition. I know car manufacturers deliberately build this sort of feedback into suspension at the cost of absolute grip. - it's one of the reasons F1 drivers get the big bucks.
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
In reply to stp:
Shoes may or may not be getting stickier but holds are definitely getting more and more polished...
> One thing that made me bring this subject up was when my foot slipped off a polished hold the other day and I was thinking that I don't think that would have happened with the older rubbers.
Shoes may or may not be getting stickier but holds are definitely getting more and more polished...
4
1
In reply to stp: Stickiest shoes ive had were probably evolv defy,but ive just bought a new shoe just to give them a try,boldrini apache light,anyone tried these out,whats performance like on smearing and small holds.
1
In reply to stp:
I reckon there's a difference between being sticky and having good friction. Gaffer tape is really sticky but probably rubbish for resoles
I reckon there's a difference between being sticky and having good friction. Gaffer tape is really sticky but probably rubbish for resoles
3
1
2
2
In reply to stp:
Stp's post is really interesting, and worth a little research too.
I also remember the initial contact between old Firé rubber and some polished holds being better than with current rubbers. You really did have to squeak your boots though!
Some years ago, this was explained to me as being the result of more emphasis being placed on the lower rebound rates of more contemporary rubbers - their ability to mould to the rock - rather than the "stickiness" of initial surface contact.
The process of moulding to the rock takes a little time, and can explain why sometimes a foot can slip unexpectedly.
Here's a great little article which explains things rather better than me:
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/hill-skills/monday-tip---making-the-most-of-st...
Next time I slip off a route, I'll just say I was trying to climb too quickly!
Stp's post is really interesting, and worth a little research too.
I also remember the initial contact between old Firé rubber and some polished holds being better than with current rubbers. You really did have to squeak your boots though!
Some years ago, this was explained to me as being the result of more emphasis being placed on the lower rebound rates of more contemporary rubbers - their ability to mould to the rock - rather than the "stickiness" of initial surface contact.
The process of moulding to the rock takes a little time, and can explain why sometimes a foot can slip unexpectedly.
Here's a great little article which explains things rather better than me:
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/hill-skills/monday-tip---making-the-most-of-st...
Next time I slip off a route, I'll just say I was trying to climb too quickly!
1
In reply to stp:
Is this old rubber also the stuff reputed to harden up over time? The only pre-1986 boots I've used had very hard rubber. Or just the original batch of Fires?
I never see anyone actually squeak their boots properly - i.e. to squeaking point. If I do that they'll pick up fluff.
Is this old rubber also the stuff reputed to harden up over time? The only pre-1986 boots I've used had very hard rubber. Or just the original batch of Fires?
I never see anyone actually squeak their boots properly - i.e. to squeaking point. If I do that they'll pick up fluff.
1
In reply to DAVETHOMAS90:
Interesting article. This bit is significant to what I was saying:
Not only is the rubber relatively soft, but it's designed to wrap around microscopic rugosities in the rock so more of the sole is in contact with the surface which increases the surface area in contact with the rock, which you feel as increased grip.
So my hypothesis is that on polished rock there aren't any microscopic rugosities for the rubber to wrap around. They've all been worn away by the polishing process. So the newer rubber loses its advantage. For the older sticky rubber this won't make a difference since its the stickiness that makes it stick and not its ability to mold around the roughness of the rock.
I'm not saying this is correct, just a suggestion. It seems to make sense and there's definitely a difference between the older and newer rubbers. It would be good to test out but if those older compounds are no longer available I suppose that's not possible.
Interesting article. This bit is significant to what I was saying:
Not only is the rubber relatively soft, but it's designed to wrap around microscopic rugosities in the rock so more of the sole is in contact with the surface which increases the surface area in contact with the rock, which you feel as increased grip.
So my hypothesis is that on polished rock there aren't any microscopic rugosities for the rubber to wrap around. They've all been worn away by the polishing process. So the newer rubber loses its advantage. For the older sticky rubber this won't make a difference since its the stickiness that makes it stick and not its ability to mold around the roughness of the rock.
I'm not saying this is correct, just a suggestion. It seems to make sense and there's definitely a difference between the older and newer rubbers. It would be good to test out but if those older compounds are no longer available I suppose that's not possible.
1
In reply to Adam Long:
Fires came out in 1984. I think that sticky rubber was used well past 1986. I think Boreal Lasers used it, though I'm not certain.
If it does harden up over time maybe that's a reason they don't use it anymore?
Fires came out in 1984. I think that sticky rubber was used well past 1986. I think Boreal Lasers used it, though I'm not certain.
If it does harden up over time maybe that's a reason they don't use it anymore?
1
In reply to stp:
I've had lasers and vectors in the old rubber, and then another pair of lasers with the 'new' fusion sometime around the early nineties.
The old rubber would harden with age from the outside in, and if you hadn't used them for a few weeks they'd create a layer of hard rubber on the outside which wore off after a use or 2. Sometimes we used to give them a light sanding down to get the softer rubber from underneath.
They sorted that out with the Fusion which was more stable chemically, as well as performing better, but it wore off incredibly quick.
P.s. Climbing rubber is not meant to be sticky in the literal sense of the word. Stickiness is not what keeps you in the holds but friction.
I've had lasers and vectors in the old rubber, and then another pair of lasers with the 'new' fusion sometime around the early nineties.
The old rubber would harden with age from the outside in, and if you hadn't used them for a few weeks they'd create a layer of hard rubber on the outside which wore off after a use or 2. Sometimes we used to give them a light sanding down to get the softer rubber from underneath.
They sorted that out with the Fusion which was more stable chemically, as well as performing better, but it wore off incredibly quick.
P.s. Climbing rubber is not meant to be sticky in the literal sense of the word. Stickiness is not what keeps you in the holds but friction.
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Exactly friction is the key and this is an old article that set out to objectively test and compare the friction of different types of rubber...
https://web.archive.org/web/20081208125710/http://www.spadout.com/r/climbin...
I'm sure people can and will pick holes in it. For example we don't stand on regular uniform surfaces such as those used in the test.
Its the best testing I've seen yet though (it would be interesting to see the research companies do in developing their rubber compounds but I doubt they'll be publishing such details any time soon).
> Stickiness is not what keeps you in the holds but friction.
Exactly friction is the key and this is an old article that set out to objectively test and compare the friction of different types of rubber...
https://web.archive.org/web/20081208125710/http://www.spadout.com/r/climbin...
I'm sure people can and will pick holes in it. For example we don't stand on regular uniform surfaces such as those used in the test.
Its the best testing I've seen yet though (it would be interesting to see the research companies do in developing their rubber compounds but I doubt they'll be publishing such details any time soon).
Post edited at 09:50
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
The frictional coefficient is derived in various ways. I think it's misleading to focus solely on properties of the rubber, but different approaches have been tried.
With higher rebound rubbers, emphasis was placed on tackiness of surface to surface contact. Some rubber was claimed to have been impregnated with resin to provide this effect.
On that point alone, I experimented with poff (resin) before heading to Font quite a few years ago. I'd been trying a problem on the wave at the Foundry climbing wall, but my feet kept popping from smears at the crucial moment. I tried the poff, and was amazed that I could step off the footholds as though I was stepping off the ground.
I think the point of the thread is being lost slightly, in that the earlier "sticky" rubbers were higher rebound ("harder", though this is misleading) and relied more on tackiness in the surface to surface contact for their effect. I used to squeak my boots endlessly before trying anything hard, and I'd say I think they were more effective in certain situations than the lower rebound rubbers that we have today are.
That is not to say they were "better" rubbers on balance, but that the friction was derived in a slightly different way. The OP was reporting certain situations where he'd noticed the difference.
> P.s. Climbing rubber is not meant to be sticky in the literal sense of the word. Stickiness is not what keeps you in the holds but friction.
The frictional coefficient is derived in various ways. I think it's misleading to focus solely on properties of the rubber, but different approaches have been tried.
With higher rebound rubbers, emphasis was placed on tackiness of surface to surface contact. Some rubber was claimed to have been impregnated with resin to provide this effect.
On that point alone, I experimented with poff (resin) before heading to Font quite a few years ago. I'd been trying a problem on the wave at the Foundry climbing wall, but my feet kept popping from smears at the crucial moment. I tried the poff, and was amazed that I could step off the footholds as though I was stepping off the ground.
I think the point of the thread is being lost slightly, in that the earlier "sticky" rubbers were higher rebound ("harder", though this is misleading) and relied more on tackiness in the surface to surface contact for their effect. I used to squeak my boots endlessly before trying anything hard, and I'd say I think they were more effective in certain situations than the lower rebound rubbers that we have today are.
That is not to say they were "better" rubbers on balance, but that the friction was derived in a slightly different way. The OP was reporting certain situations where he'd noticed the difference.
1
In reply to stp:
Your hypothesis matches up with the asperity contact theory of friction covered in my tribology module this year, a reasonable explanation of this can be found at the bottom of this page:
http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm
As a route receives traffic the peaks of the asperities are snapped off reducing their overall height, this means that a greater normal force must be applied to the surface to achieve the same amount of friction. If there is a grain of sand on the sole of your shoe the asperities in close contact with it, due to the very limited contact area between the two, will be subject to a much greater amount of stress than if in contact with the sole of the shoe which deforms around the asperity therefore maximising the contact area between the two surfaces. Obviously the grains of sand also act like ball bearings against the rock which considerably decreases the amount of friction at the shoe rock interface. This explains why sandy shoes polish rock very quickly, decreases the friction between shoe and rock.
Your hypothesis matches up with the asperity contact theory of friction covered in my tribology module this year, a reasonable explanation of this can be found at the bottom of this page:
http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm
As a route receives traffic the peaks of the asperities are snapped off reducing their overall height, this means that a greater normal force must be applied to the surface to achieve the same amount of friction. If there is a grain of sand on the sole of your shoe the asperities in close contact with it, due to the very limited contact area between the two, will be subject to a much greater amount of stress than if in contact with the sole of the shoe which deforms around the asperity therefore maximising the contact area between the two surfaces. Obviously the grains of sand also act like ball bearings against the rock which considerably decreases the amount of friction at the shoe rock interface. This explains why sandy shoes polish rock very quickly, decreases the friction between shoe and rock.
1
In reply to spenser:
I think that what the OP is referring to, is the way that different rubbers will perform in those circumstances.
I like the explanation of how the newer, low rebound rubbers work, given in the article I posted a link to:
" Give It Time To Work
Knowing how sticky rubber works can actually help you to make the most of its grip. If you simply step onto a polished hold and push off, you may find that your foot slips slightly. To make the most of the grip, place your foot on the hold then weight your foot to put some pressure on the area and wait for a few seconds.
The weighting and waiting gives the chance to the rubber compound to conform to the surface of the hold and quite often you'll find you can now stand up on a hold which previously felt way too slippery to use. It's a trick that works with both rock boots and sticky-soled approach shoes."
(Reference here to the newer "sticky rubber")
Perhaps A lower asperity surface will reduce the effectiveness of this?
> Your hypothesis matches up with the asperity contact theory of friction covered in my tribology module this year, a reasonable explanation of this can be found at the bottom of this page:
> As a route receives traffic the peaks of the asperities are snapped off reducing their overall height, this means that a greater normal force must be applied to the surface to achieve the same amount of friction. If there is a grain of sand on the sole of your shoe the asperities in close contact with it, due to the very limited contact area between the two, will be subject to a much greater amount of stress than if in contact with the sole of the shoe which deforms around the asperity therefore maximising the contact area between the two surfaces. Obviously the grains of sand also act like ball bearings against the rock which considerably decreases the amount of friction at the shoe rock interface. This explains why sandy shoes polish rock very quickly, decreases the friction between shoe and rock.
I think that what the OP is referring to, is the way that different rubbers will perform in those circumstances.
I like the explanation of how the newer, low rebound rubbers work, given in the article I posted a link to:
" Give It Time To Work
Knowing how sticky rubber works can actually help you to make the most of its grip. If you simply step onto a polished hold and push off, you may find that your foot slips slightly. To make the most of the grip, place your foot on the hold then weight your foot to put some pressure on the area and wait for a few seconds.
The weighting and waiting gives the chance to the rubber compound to conform to the surface of the hold and quite often you'll find you can now stand up on a hold which previously felt way too slippery to use. It's a trick that works with both rock boots and sticky-soled approach shoes."
(Reference here to the newer "sticky rubber")
Perhaps A lower asperity surface will reduce the effectiveness of this?
1
1
In reply to stp: Fires weren't even the stickiest kids on the black - Calme's , either as sold in that name or as Clog Ron Fawcetts were even softer, , stickier and very short lived.
I heard it was something nasty they put in the rubbel that become illegal to use as it was toxic for Spanish shoeworkers - so blame the EU !
I heard it was something nasty they put in the rubbel that become illegal to use as it was toxic for Spanish shoeworkers - so blame the EU !
In reply to wbo:
That's really interesting. So it was changed because of the law rather than the newer rubber compounds being superior.
That's really interesting. So it was changed because of the law rather than the newer rubber compounds being superior.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...