Bushwalk Australia

I have noticed that in the trips of David Noble that Dunlop Volleys seem to be a popular shoe choice.

Dunlop Volleys have amazing grip because of their unique sole. So they work well on wet rock, canyoning and climbing domestic house roofs. But the hikes these guys are going on are far from that. They are full on bush bashes in the roughest terrain with really heavy packs. I am an ultralight hiker and generally wear tough runners but if I was going bush bashing in south west Tassie I would assume only leather boots would have the durability of tearing through scrub and colliding with abrasive rocks. Dunlop Volleys also have little support, the sole is thin and the shoe fabric seems like it would easily tear. At a glance they look like the exact opposite of what you would wear in the places in which they are photographed.

Clearly I am wrong as these guys have chosen these shoes time after time. Can anyone enlighten me as to why they prefer them?

I wouldn't take the new ones past the Kerb & gutter sadly [CRYING FACE]


"No half measures, but..... Never go full retard"

With all due respects to Dave and his mates I suspect their choice of gear was dictated to by monetary restraints and a paucity of choice hence the cotton garb add to that I believe the bravado of youth saying we can do this in "sandshoes" anywhere

It was another age. Think air drops - burn, bash and bury.
H-Frame rucksacks with no hip belts.
Floor less single skin canvas tents - woolen clothes, film cameras..
And corvus is right - think travelling on the smell of an oily rag.
Ahh - young people today have no idea of real bushwalking...
Actually - neither do I. My first real foray was with an H-frame with elasticized steel cap boots and heavy plastic industrial raincoats and pants, a small iron tomahawk to chop wood, but that was nothing compared to what those guys did.
The next walk was years later with much better gear.

I have a pair of modern volleys, and I do believe that the modern version is not as good as the ones I wore playing tennis as a teenager.
Dave and co were also full into canyoning, and the grip of a volley was legendary.
Will be interesting to hear what Dave tells you. I know some guys would have spare soles and glue them on to do on track repairs.

eggs wrote:I have a pair of modern volleys, and I do believe that the modern version is not as good as the ones I wore playing tennis as a teenager.

It was designed and used for Wimbeldon victories in those days.

corvus wrote:With all due respects to Dave and his mates I suspect their choice of gear was dictated to by monetary restraints and a paucity of choice hence the cotton garb add to that I believe the bravado of youth saying we can do this in "sandshoes" anywhere

Have you seen how much volley's cost once they became a fashion item? Price up and quality down. Still no shoe with a better grip on a slippery rock (and I have tried many good name brands) but they do not last more than a couple of trips in hard country so the cost/benefit relationship is not there. I am also not allowed to wear them canyoning as my partner will not go with me if I do. They offer very little support and on a long hike with a heavy pack this puts stress on plantar fascia and achilles tendons. Have problems with one of those and you will know about it for some time. The volley brigade are still out there in force so maybe one or two will get on and tell us WHY? Each to his/her own.

PedroArvy wrote:Dunlop Volleys have amazing grip because of their unique sole. So they work well on wet rock, canyoning and climbing domestic house roofs. But the hikes these guys are going on are far from that. They are full on bush bashes in the roughest terrain with really heavy packs. I am an ultralight hiker and generally wear tough runners but if I was going bush bashing in south west Tassie I would assume only leather boots would have the durability of tearing through scrub and colliding with abrasive rocks. Dunlop Volleys also have little support, the sole is thin and the shoe fabric seems like it would easily tear. At a glance they look like the exact opposite of what you would wear in the places in which they are photographed.

Clearly I am wrong as these guys have chosen these shoes time after time. Can anyone enlighten me as to why they prefer them?

Like many, I started bushwalking wearing boots, but when I joined the local bushwalking club - I soon realised the error of my ways. I was the only one wearing boots! So I soon changed to volleys and found them much better. A lot more comfortable, lighter, better for creek walking and crossing rivers, great for canyoning, good for scrambling etc. I used them on my first Tassie trip - and had no problems with them. On that trip - I was the only one with volleys, but the other three in the party all wore volleys on their later Tassie walks. In Tassie however, and on long trips in particular - you do need to worry about wear and tear. On some trips - we would take 2 pairs, or have a second pair in one of the airdrops. Mountain walking like the Arthurs did not wear the volleys out too much, but button grass plain walking did. I think the acidic water rotted the fabric. The grip of volleys was really appreciated when boulder hopping on dolerite - e.g. in the Reserve.

I'm not sure what you mean by "support"? On a recent trip overseas - I used trekking poles for support in places. But as for shoes or boots providing "support" - I don't understand this. Perhaps it is a marketing term that means nothing?

Sadly, Volleys have deteriorated in recent years. See my blog entry - http://www.david-noble.net/blog/?p=951. Just before that change, I purchased a lot of the older type (online - $10 a pair inc shipping) - and am still working my way through those and have not tried the newer ones. But I now only use them for canyoning. For most bushwalking - I now wear walking shoes (not boots).

Also PedroArvy - you should ask for permission to publish a copyrighted photograph here.

Is linking a photo in a forum post a copyright offence?

GPSGuided wrote:Is linking a photo in a forum post a copyright offence?

This is what is says at the head of my web page -

All images © David Noble. No image can be used for any purpose without permission.

So yes, permission is clearly needed to republish the photo using a link like this.

Dave

You have the position.

Thanks for your comments David.
I have removed the links and photos.
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware about the copyright.

By support I mean stiffness of the sole. A shoe with little support bends easily when you twist it or try and bend it in half. This means your foot wraps around the walking surface more easily, but personally I don't find this comfortable and it gets worse with the weight of a pack.

A good rule of thumb is to look at where the image is copyrighted. There's no fair use doctrine in Australia and thus you cannot use any copyrighted Australian photos.

Others countries allow use for certain reasons.

I think trail runners have taken up the place where Volleys used to stand. And they have the benefit of being tough enough for quite serious walks.

icefest wrote:I think trail runners have taken up the place where Volleys used to stand. And they have the benefit of being tough enough for quite serious walks.

+1

I used to wear dunlop volleys for bushwalking in my teens, even did a few mountains in them.

I think the trail runners I have now are better - the volleys in particular were not so good on loose gravel and the like where the lugs on trail runners improve the grip significantly in these conditions. Volleys were fantastic on rock but my Inov8s are very good as well.

Carrying a heavy pack and not wearing a shoe or boot that supports your foot can lead to problems as I mentioned before. It may not affect all people but as you get older your arch naturally drops and more support is needed. This comes as already said in the form of a stiffer sole or shank that should only bend at the ball of the foot and have very little twist. It also has arch support. If you subscribe to the barefoot running theory then Volley's would be your sort of shoe but I find the stress it puts on your foot and legs too much. I loved them for canyons but even then long the walk in with ropes and gear is painful. Many years ago I suffered from Plantar fascia tendon (big toe to heel) problems which was caused by running in Nike shoes. I changed to a good motion control shoe with some orthotics and problem solved however I did end up rupturing my achilles tendon some years later. This was most likely again as a result of the years of running in crappy shoes. For day walks I wear a good trail shoe but most of the pack hiking I do is in the mountains and it is often cold, wet or snowy so volleys would not cut it. People who wear thongs all the time are tending to suffer from foot problems as well. This is due to the lack of support and the clawing of the toes when walking. I think this could also be a problem with volleys when scrambling.

An important thing to note with shoes and boots. You have to use them regularly or they will fall apart. Buying a lot of what you like cheap and storing them for years may seem a bargain at the time but the glue and often the sole material needs to be worked or it loses its integrity and the sole will fall off or break apart. A bit like a car tyre when it sits around for years. Not sure if this would be a problem for the old Volleys as the one pair I had did not last anyway.

nq111 wrote:I think the trail runners I have now are better - the volleys in particular were not so good on loose gravel and the like where the lugs on trail runners improve the grip significantly in these conditions. Volleys were fantastic on rock but my Inov8s are very good as well.

Volleys are far cheaper than Inov8's offerings and I think that's also part of the attraction for Volley lovers.

GPSGuided wrote:

nq111 wrote:I think the trail runners I have now are better - the volleys in particular were not so good on loose gravel and the like where the lugs on trail runners improve the grip significantly in these conditions. Volleys were fantastic on rock but my Inov8s are very good as well.

Volleys are far cheaper than Inov8's offerings and I think that's also part of the attraction for Volley lovers.

Ditto, it's hard to compare with Inov8's, though very good, as IMHO they're in a different class (I have a pair of barefoot road ones - yet to try the trail versions). I do some volunteer bush regeneration and will often use Volleys for that. Frequently involves a fair bit of in-creek walking and scrambling on slippery rocks etc, similar to canyoning. They are great for that purpose. I'll also use them for the walk in if it's not more than a couple of kms. Longer than that and my feet tend to suffer. As I get older I'm finding that I'm more comfortable in trail shoes rather than boots, but I do switch between them. And I will use Volleys occasionally on really easy walks where the track surface is fairly smooth. The cheap price of Volleys does make them virtually a disposable item, especially on sale. Even though the overall quality may have deteriorated, the grip is still there. I admire Dave and friends' past ability to adapt to them almost exclusively. I suspect it may also be a case of forcing your feet to "toughen up" and get used to them, which is easier when you are younger .

Xplora wrote:Carrying a heavy pack and not wearing a shoe or boot that supports your foot can lead to problems as I mentioned before. It may not affect all people but as you get older your arch naturally drops and more support is needed. This comes as already said in the form of a stiffer sole or shank that should only bend at the ball of the foot and have very little twist.

What you're talking about is not 'support' but splinting. that's what stiff-shanked footwear does: splints the bones in the forefoot so that they deform less on footstrike. This can lead to loss of flexibility and muscular function in the foot... leading to the requirement for continued splinting.
Sure, a shanked or stiff boot can be advantageous in bushwalking but you're changing the structure and function of the foot if you persist in wearing them.

Xplora wrote:People who wear thongs all the time are tending to suffer from foot problems as well. This is due to the lack of support and the clawing of the toes when walking.

There is no clinical evidence for this. there have been two studies looking at the biomechanics of wearing thongs - one showed that there it could cause plantar fascitis, as plantar facia tension increases during the lift phase of walking (essentially to keep the thong on the foot); but there is no clinical studies showing correlation.

Xplora wrote:I think this could also be a problem with volleys when scrambling.

It's not. The potential problem with thongs is the necessity for the toes to 'claw' the sole of the thing to keep it on during the lift phase of walking. the flexion of the toes in flexible footwear is the opposite - it occurs during push - off and is necessary for fowrd locomotion - it's the same toe action when wearing no shoes.
This occurs when wearing boots as well but has no practical function for stability on uneven ground as the toe of the boot hinders the capacity of the toes to 'claw' the ground during pushoff. The first thing i noticed when wearing flexible soled minimilist footwear is the capacity of the toes to flex over rocks when walking downhill - providing grip which is not possible when wearing boots ( i also noticed less grip in mud which is a different story).

i am not a minimilist shoe evangelist or an anti-boot advocate. It's horses for courses. i don't agree, however, that the foot needs 'support' of any kind and i think that any footwear should be there to provide protection from injury, or increase in grip, without hindering the natural biomechanical action of the lower limb, where possible.

Clearly no-ones going to suggest wearing dunlop volleys when front-pointing up K2; but, by the same token, why wear rigid footwear when walking when your foot is designed to flex?

What I love about those old photos on David's site is these guys set off on the toughest imaginable hikes with gear we would consider totally out dated, inappropriate and uncomfortable. And I bet you those thoughts never entered their minds.

I've come to this discussion late so I didn't see what PedroArvy posted that caused Dave Noble concern, if it was a copy or copies of photos on Dave Noble's website then I agree with Dave's concern about copyright. However if all that was published was a link to photos on Dave Noble's website then I can't see that this is a breach of copyright. Links to freely accessible material on public (not behind paywall) websites doesn't appear to breach copyright. Some freely available information is here ( I have no association with the law firm) http://www.holdingredlich.com/media-ent ... hyperlinks

Watertank it was an actual photo that was posted, which was referenced to DN though this made little difference to the discussion.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Thanks Strider, that makes it clearer.

I was just trying to make DN more famous

I thought it was a 'linked' photo image with standard BBS 'img' code than a posted image. Given what David has claimed in respect to his copyright, I guess it'll be up to the lawyers to argue it out in court.

Correct GPS

slparker wrote:What you're talking about is not 'support' but splinting. that's what stiff-shanked footwear does: splints the bones in the forefoot so that they deform less on footstrike. This can lead to loss of flexibility and muscular function in the foot... leading to the requirement for continued splinting.
Sure, a shanked or stiff boot can be advantageous in bushwalking but you're changing the structure and function of the foot if you persist in wearing them.

Slparker - You can call it splinting if that is how you understand it. The many articles I have read, written by experts in the field, use the word support and that is how I understand it. I also mentioned shoes which bend at the ball of the foot which is where the foot should bend. We do so many things with our bodies that defy the natural function and some of us pay the price. I subscribe to the theory we should wear more supportive shoes carrying heavy loads but if others want to go barefoot as initially intended then it really does make any difference to me. Not my feet. There are also many experts in the field who will say wearing volleys and carrying heavy loads will change the structure and function of the foot. I guess in the end you believe what you want based on the evidence before you and your life experience. Thanks for sharing your view.

I think it's fair to say our legs and feet evolved to support our normal body weight (average of those before the modern age), not one that has 'obesity' or other weights added to it. When significantly exceeded, there'll be consequences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GPSGuided wrote:I think it's fair to say our legs and feet evolved to support our normal body weight (average of those before the modern age), not one that has 'obesity' or other weights added to it. When significantly exceeded, there'll be consequences.

The consequences are that the bony and soft tissues undergo hypertrophy in response to more loading. The point being that our feet have already evolved the processes to respond to greater stresses from weight bearing.

The feet don't need 'support', the feet are dynamic arches designed to accommodate the forces of walking.

Stiff soled boots don't support the feet (unless they contain antigravity generators) any more than being in bare feet - they just spread focused loads over a plane rather than have those forces concentrate on one point. The forces still go into the foot and even cushioning doesn't dissipate peak loading to the leg in a particularly efficacious way.

Now evening out these forces over the entire plantar surface might be useful if walking in sharp rocks although many people find this unnecessary as they have allowed their feet to strengthen the bony and soft tissues by working them on uneven ground (the 'volley wearers'). As proprioception (the sense of the brain as to where the foot is in space) is altered with sole stiffness, and as this also alters the moment of force at the ankle joint, there are also risks with this approach.

So you don't get a free lunch here - protecting the foot from focused forces also changes proprioceptivity and rotational forces at the ankle. Not protecting the foot from focused forces may cause pain until the foot strengthens or overuse injury if you're carrying really heavy loads, are on particularly severe terrain or are are naive to flexible footwear.

I have stiff soled boots that i wear for certain purposes and soft soled trail shoes for others. They have their relative pros and cons.

slparker wrote:The consequences are that the bony and soft tissues undergo hypertrophy in response to more loading. The point being that our feet have already evolved the processes to respond to greater stresses from weight bearing.

Putting the issue of shoes, which come in a massive variety of designs and function. It's hard to be categorical. On the tissue response to stress issue, it's correct. But the response also has a limit, hence the presence of stress fractures amongst other injuries. At the end of the day for the great great bulk of the evolutionary process, the body weight of human (and earlier forms) were significantly lighter than most of us (over nutritioned) today. As such, with even more weight of packs and luggage, consequences are not unexpected. Granted, there will be great variability out there.

Hi all,

I AM NOT AN EXPERT, BUT ...

I would observe that a foot that is either untrained (sedentary lifestyle), or trained in a "supportive" shoe - a relatively stiff sole that resists twisting torques but allows some bending, mainly under the ball of the foot - will need a significant period of adaptation to a "soft" shoe. This adaptation will develop strength in musculature and connective tissue so as to maintain appropriate foot "postures" during gait, without which the joints - ankles, knees, hips, vertebra - will suffer injury producing loads (as well as other possible damage like shin splints and soft tissue strains).

Because of the large amount of passive (slow adapting) tissue in the foot and shank, the adaptive process is slow and must be carefully paced, or else injury (over-training) will result.

So, if you're thinking of switching to DV's, do so slowly and gradually, building up distance, speed, terrain and load over (significant) time. I've read in the "barefoot" running literature, for example, that the transition from traditional running shoes to barefoot should take around a year. Obviously this will depend on a lot of factors, including age, gender, general fitness, pre-existing limitations, shoe type etc.

Skibug.