Scramble Header Logo

Notes On Walking Boots

Hot & Dry: Meindl's Desert Fox Boots

Preface

If you spend your whole time walking along designated paths, then there may not be too much of relevance in this article. If however, you have a more "as the crow flies" approach to distance trekking, and tackle territory that has not been civilised, then you'll know that some "short-cuts" are nightmarishly illusory while others are a joyous success accompanied by the (equally illusory) feeling that nature itself has been cheated. So, if you enjoy the partial lottery of venturing off the beaten path, read on ...
 

Test subject: Reference Foot Size: 9 (EU43) / Medium Width
Kit Tests: Winter, Summer
Disclaimer: None required (items not provided by manufacturers)
 

Context

Don't Let Me Down

The fit of footwear is so individual that we're not going to do our normal review. Instead we're simply going to mention a few items of footwear that have impressed us. If you're trekking in places where you cannot afford your footwear to fail, these items may be of interest.

The point of Scramble can be summed up in two words: "trekking independence". What this means is a) kit should facilitate trekking over terrain that isn't prescribed in any way as suitable "trail", and b) carrying sufficient food supplies to allow one to roam freely without being tethered to re-supply points. Due to where we test gear: Scotland and Wales (mainly Wales recently), this is simulated (i.e. it's a discipline - we simply ban ourselves during gear tests from re-supplying unless pre-planned on very long trips - thus during tests we carry between 7 and 10 days of food supplies).

Food is heavy, and amid all the gear hype in ultralight reviews it is rarely mentioned, yet carrying a lot of food will stress packs and footwear. During a trek, I'll burn approximately 6000 kcals per day, yet carry only 2200 kcals. That 3800 kcal deficit, after a few days begins to use up body fat stores. But just 2200 kcals per day (which is low) comes to around 600g (at a calorie density of 3.75 kcal / gram). 600g per day over one week = 4.2kg, 10 days = 6kg. This amount of food will take up between 10 and 15L of pack space.

Adding 5kg to your kit will put a load burden on your pack and also on your knees and ankles. At Scramble we're completely on board with much of what the ultralight community preach, but there are two categories of kit where we part company: packs and footwear.

If you're in the middle of nowhere, you simply cannot afford for either one of these to fail. So although we recommend a small and frameless pack, it's certainly not ultralight - but I'd put my house on it not failing. Likewise with footwear. But there are other reasons for our departure from lightweight when it comes to footwear, and we'll go into these in this article / review.

The Middle of NowhereThe Middle of Nowhere


Ultralight vs Durability

Reading reviews and articles from the ultralight community the impression one is left with is that ultralight backpackers cover the ground like zen monks, gliding tippy-toed across the surfaces of high grass, golden petals and shimmering rock.

Like any religion, there's often a disparity between stated orthodoxy and actual experience. There's nothing wrong whatsoever about reducing pack weight, but I would suggest that such a quest can be taken too far. It's interesting to read ultralight articles and reviews and to note a particular recommended product, then search for customer reviews in outlets selling that product. I've done this numerous times and it's quite illuminating. One often discovers customers detailing their disappointment about how the product failed, sometimes during its initial outing. Specs are one thing, actuality another.

"You also have to honestly ask yourself whether you really need the kind of protection that high boots give on the kind of trails you hike" - backpackingnorth.com

That's a fair point (from a Finnish ultralight trekker who spent a number of years in the US) and belies a particular assumption: you're actually on a path or trail. My impression, especially of the US ultralight community is that they spend an awful lot of time walking along trails. Well if I'm on a path, then of course trail shoes will suffice, but for anyone who covers many miles over uncultivated terrain, a pair of ultralight trekking sandals or trail shoes are, in our assessment, insufficient.

For example, just in Wales (see 3rd pic above), there's a great deal of marsh, often it's covered in large clumpy mounds which are in turn covered in long, wind-strewn, dry "horeshair" grass, like some demonic side-parting, which acts to cover the clumpy ups and boggy downs hidden beneath. The step differential between your foot going into bog and standing on hard uneven grassy clumps can be 3 feet; the problem is you often can't tell whether your next step's footing is going to be a solid jolt or an empty slide into bog. The army train in this part of Wales, and what do they have on their feet? Clue: Not trail shoes. I'd question Chris Townsend's claim that this simply boils down to untrained ankles: "doing exercises to strengthen your ankles is better than splinting them in heavy, rigid boots". I think you can do both. Yoga and Tai Chi will provide you with strong flexible ankles, for example.

All I can imagine is, that we're not walking over the same stuff. Deep, sucking bog and marsh simply swallows shoes; they're ripped off your feet as you yank yourself out - if you're lucky, you'll locate them; if not, you've an uncomfortable time ahead. So it's not just about ankle support.

To sum up, there are many excellent points raised by the ultralight community in regard to footwear and I'd strongly recommend the article from Backpacking North called "Give your feet a break". It provides an almost direct counter to everything I'm saying here, and for that reason alone is well worth a read.

For me it comes down to outright reliability, durable protection from all kinds of terrain (not just rugged rocky trails), support and a secure fit (i.e. something that can't be ripped, pulled or sucked off your feet).

 

Wet & Cold: Altberg's Bergen Boots

"Possibly the best all terrain combat boot that Altberg have ever made"

The Altberg Bergen Boot


Datasheet

Weight (per boot, stated / measured): 770g (9 Med) / 855g (9 Med)
Height (size 9, including heel): 20.5 cm
Upper: Leather (Anfibio cullate 2.6-2.8mm, full grain, waterproof, first grade European hide) -
Lining: Sympatex® waterproof, breathable -
Sole: Vibram Tsavo (now Masai) and micro cushion midlayer and full rubber abrasion resistant rand -
Manufacturer RRP £209.99

Manufacturer's Page


 

Altberg Bergen Boots

The history of Altberg is an interesting one and begins in the 1920s. One of the few companies that have resisted the desire to move manufacturing outside the UK, they've become the premier boot maker in the country, making boots for walkers, motorcylcists, gamekeepers, farmers, military and police personnel. The Bergens are aimed at the latter category, but it's not just the army that lug heavy loads over long distances. We do too.

Altberg offer their boots in half sizes and uncommonly in three widths (narrow, medium and wide).

For reference I'm a size 9 medium width. The Bergens fit like a glove. Ideal in cold and wet weather, I wear a thick pair of trekking socks with a very thin liner sock.

Altberg's blurb:

Lightweight, cold, wet weather boot, with a Sympatex waterproof, breathable lining, and a Vibram micro, shock absorbing sole. The Alpine design one piece leather upper is suited to more extreme conditions, and the excellent ankle support and underfoot protection are suited to rough, mountainous terrain – however, the boot is lightweight enough for use in more urban, mixed terrain, conditions. The Bergen boot has seen operational use in Canada, Finland, and Northern Germany, and has been acknowledged as one of the best cold/wet weather boots in Europe.

That's a pretty fair summary. The key is their use of just one piece of leather for the upper, minimising stitching. The lacing system is superb, locks and doesn't loosen throughout the day.

The only thing I'd add is that these boots excel in the snow, mud, marsh, bog, across streams and up in the mountains. The only time my feet have felt battered in these boots is after a long bridging road section, where I covered just over 20 miles most of which was on road and paving.

As with all waterproof boots, what keeps water out will keep water in! For this reason a pair of waterproof trousers that seal at the ankle are very useful, this can prevent ingress during a quick dash across even deep streams.

Keela's Lightning Trousers clasp tight to the ankleKeela's Lightning trousers almost completely "seal" the Bergens at the ankle


Summary

Altberg's Bergens are the most comfortable boots I've ever worn. If the world ever turns to shit, this is the boot I'm taking with me.

 


 

Dry & Hot: Meindl's Desert Fox Boots

Not just for the desert

The Meindl Desert Fox Boots


Datasheet

Weight (per boot, stated / measured): 740g (size not specified) / 780g (8.5)
Height (size 9, including heel): 22 cm
Upper: Nubuck and Cordura Mesh -
Lining: ClimaDry® (breathable) -
Sole: Meindl Multigrip -
Manufacturer RRP £164.99

Manufacturer's Page


 

Meindl Desert Fox Boots

Unlike the Altberg Bergens, which required almost nil breaking in, I found the Meindl Desert Fox boots, which are initially quite stiff, took quite a bit of breaking in and, at first I didn't like them. However, after some time giving them 3 to 6 mile mini walks and getting the right sock combination, I went on a 160 mile trek and at the end was completely turned around.

These boots are superb over hard rocky terrain, providing excellent traction over loose gravel, sand and rock. However, they're also pretty good over wetland in warm conditions. I've waded across rivers in these and they drain extremely well. Hiking when they are drenched is surprisingly comfortable.

Unlike many "desert" boots which often use a synthetic nylon upper, the Desert Fox use a robust combination of Nubuck and Cordura, giving them a good degree of torsional rigidity, which in turn makes them very stable over rocky terrain.  

They are quite heavy for a warm weather boot but they breathe very well. The ClimaDry lining helps wick moisture and the Cordura panels and ventilation / drainage holes help keep your feet cool, while preventing the intrusion of dirt and sand.

The Desert Fox boots have a thick, Multigrip sole with a noticeable drop (raised heel) and an aggressive tread. They are a little narrower than the Altberg's (and don't come in a variety of widths); they're on the narrow side of an Altberg medium, so if you have wide feet, these definitely aren't for you.  

I'm a size 9 in the Altberg's but take an 8.5 in the Meindl, though with a lighter sock: Darn Tough's Via Ferrata (which feature a mid-level cushion density under foot, but no additional cushioning above) with a thin liner sock.
 

Any Negatives?

Unlike the Altbergs these boot can't be re-soled.

Nubuck is very tough, but requires a little more after-care than some other leathers. I use Meindl's own Conditioner & Proofer, Nikwax's Nubuck and Suede Leather Proofer and spray McNett's Mirazyme Odour Eliminator inside the boot if they've been saturated over many days - they can end up pretty stinky and this gets them back to neutral.


Summary

Though ideal for use in safari and desert conditions, from Africa to the Middle East, much of South and Central Asia and anywhere arid, dusty and rocky, these boots are a great option for long distance treks in any warm weather where conditions are going to be mainly dry (i.e. no good for the jungle or the arctic, but certainly fine for UK summers, rain or shine).

So if you want a warm weather boot that's tough, durable and provides great support and comfort, the Meindl Desert Fox are certainly worth considering. Furthermore, due to these being issued to certain NATO forces in areas where they really shouldn't be, you can pick these up in new and grade 1 condition for a fraction of their retail price (eBay and army surplus stores are your friend).

 

Product Images

 


Postscript: Scramble vs Ultralight - Pack weights in context

An 8kg base pack weight (i.e. without food and water) would widely be regarded as ultralight. This upcoming Summer Kit Test, my base pack weight will be 10.5kg.

An ultralight pack (for a 10 day trek) might weigh around 800g. My Karrimor SF Predator 30 pack (1300g) with external Karrimor SF, Ortlieb and Tatonka pockets, pouches and drybags will total 1800g - so that's 1 extra kg. On top of that I'm taking additional stuff for review purposes, photography etc. These additions come to about 800g. So 10.5 - 1.8 = 8.7kg. So, discounting the choice of pack (and extras for the purpose of review) we're not far off ultralight (for a 10 day trek).

As you can see, we're absolutely not against the ultralight perspective at all. But when it comes to packs and footwear, we draw the line - choosing robust and reliable over ultralight and (potentially) failure prone.

 

Last Updated: 01/06/17



Baselayers Icon
ctive Outer Layers Icon
Insulated Outer Layers Icon
Waterproofs Icon
Extremities Icon
Sleepwear Icon
Load Carry Icon
Shelter Icon
Other Equipment Icon