Bushwalk Australia

Recently bought a pair of Scarpa SL & took them on their real outing last week.

These are fantastic boots. Why? Mostly because they fit me well so there are no little niggles during long days. They are also very rigid, which with the aid of my big feet means that I can bridge all those rocks etc that would normally cause fatigue in the feet. This is also the first time I've spent a week walking in Tas (through mud & puddles etc) whereby my feet have stayed dry - no other leather or goretex boot has managed this.

These boots will not suit everyone (they are heavy, pricey, and take some considerable wearing in) but if you're considering a premium waking boot then they are worth looking at.

Cheers
N

Hi

Fully agree. The are brilliant but as said not for everyone. They tend to suit people over 80 kilograms. Lighter walkers appear to struggle to break them in.

Cheers

Ent, I disagree. I hover between 61 & 64 kg with a BMI around 19. I am well into my fourth pair of Scarpa's. The predecessor to the SL was the Scarpa Attack, their top leather boot +22 years ago, my first pair of Scarpas.
My experience with them shows me that weight has nothing to do with it.
I agree these boots are great, but your advice suggests fact rather than opinion.
I remember breaking in my first pair, a day walk of ~25km from the Glenorchy tip to the Longley pub, then it was a 3 and a half day over Frenchmans & out via Raglan Range.
I broke my most recent pair in on a milti day walk without issue, though that is not recommended.
I've only had signs of a blister on a heel once, that was more a sock issue & easily overcome with Elastoplast before the problem became an issue. (If you think some rubbing might cause a blister, tape it with Elastoplast first).

Hi Tasadam

You might be right but chatting to a few people that sell them they have made that comment. Like all gear everyone's experience tends to be different. I know mine need a lot of walking to be extremely comfortable as the leather in the front of the boot moulds to shape.

But if they fit your foot shape straight out of the box then great. Yeap four pairs on myself. Made the mistake getting the Treks and they like blister hell. Given that the sole is the same and the last I would not have thought such an issue but it is.

Cheers

I would not think "tend" a strong statement of fact. Maybe you might like to draft a rule on how to clearly show an opinion? I view most comments on this site as an opinion, Interestingly that on the Aku site the stiffer the sole the longer the trip they rate their boot.

If the shoe fits,,,

I've done hundreds of km's in mine and they are instruments of torture on track, however on offtrack daywalks have proved excellent.

They are so painful that despite still being in good condition(they are tough) I have replaced with the Zamberlan Vioz GT which are absolute heaven both on and off track. I just spent 2 days virtually running on a hardened track with close to 30kg load and the Zamberlans were brilliant. I will still use the SL's occaisionaly to extend the life of my Zambo's.

I've also had the Trek Pro's and they were much nicer than the SL's but fell to pieces very quickly.

Trouble is it's hard to tell until you test them in anger...

stepbystep wrote:Trouble is it's hard to tell until you test them in anger...

+1

tasadam wrote:The predecessor to the SL was the Scarpa Attack

Hm, are you sure? I have the Attack and they are not super heavy weight like SL. If the attacks are normal 4x4, the SLs looks more like a couple of M1 Abrams
I've had my attacks since 94 and they are still fantastic. I haven't used them nearly as much as most of you guys though. Never had any blisters but for some reason if I lace them to tight I can feel them develop.
Broke them in on my first ever Tassie walk (Tenina Bluff) and then they were good to go to Nepal

Stibb wrote:Broke them in on my first ever Tassie walk (Tenina Bluff)

LOL are you serious, Tanina Bluff, the Matterhorn of Tasmania, you are a tough woman!

It does beg the question, given all of Tasmania to choose from, why Tanina?

Lol, yeah, probably not the first place most visitors would go to.
I followed my husband-to-be to this end of the world island to visit his best friend since childhood who happens to live on the slope of Tanina (well, he is now scattered there ). Just walk out the door and straight up! Been up to the top a few times since.

All I remember about those now long gone friends (my first pair of Scarpas), was that they were called Scarpa Attack, they may have included the letters SL in their name, they were the top of the line when I bought them, and they weren't available when I went to replace them, told they were now called SL's. And the new ones were effectively identical.

Stibb wrote:Lol, yeah, probably not the first place most visitors would go to.
I followed my husband-to-be to this end of the world island to visit his best friend since childhood who happens to live on the slope of Tanina (well, he is now scattered there ). Just walk out the door and straight up! Been up to the top a few times since.

Ask a silly question and get a sensible answer .... the views to the SW are remarkable on a clear day and a grand place to have as your backyard I'm sure!
Sorry if I scratched a nerve Stibb

Have to agree with Adam and Dan sorry Brett. I weigh 70kg and the Scarpa sl's never have given me a blister except for when I had wet feet once. They are a decent shoe, but as Dan pointed out they are awful on tracks. Torture!! WAY too heavy.

Zamberlans are far more comfortable, much more waterproof, and a hell of a lot lighter.

IIRC the attacks full name is/was scarpa asolo attack and does not look at all like the current SL. There were perhaps a few different models with similar names? Can't find any current scarpas like mine. Most full grain boots seem to have GT too nowdays

EDIT Oh now I remember. I actually asked the guys at Passion8 and was told the "attack" referred to the sole. so there were probably a SL attack and an asolo attack and so on.

@ SbS No need to apologize! Lots of great memories that make me bend over laughing
And yeah, not a bad backdrop for your barbie.

I can't help but agree, Scarpas might be the Cruisers of the boot world but Zambers the Rangerover.. And never been so cheap!!!

http://www.mainpeak.com.au/outdoor/zamb ... -mens.html

Nuts wrote:Scarpas might be the Cruisers of the boot world but Zambers the Rangerover.

That's an unfortunate choice, are you saying that Zambers have a soft ride, but fall apart and cost a fortune to fix every time you use them?

Haha..Not here for a long time, might as well do it in style..

ILUVSWTAS wrote: WAY too heavy.

Zamberlans are far more comfortable, much more waterproof, and a hell of a lot lighter.

Love a light boot - in fact did the Western Arthur's in Innov8's. Best walking boot/shoe I have worn so far. But that is another story.

I also have some SL's - which are good, solid boot and comfortable in off track situations. I have only had one opportunity to give them a caning so far. With my orthotics, the SL's were uncomfortable. When I just put the normal inserts in the boots they have been great.

I have mates who have been very happy with the Zimbies, and swear by them

How light is much lighter. The new SL's on the website come it at a whooping 840gm. The 996 Zimbies are claimed at 740. Certainly significantly lighter, but I would have thought the Zimbie equivalent to the SL was in still in the heavy weight boot category.

I love the quote: "If the boot fits - wear it."

P

Nuts wrote:Haha..Not here for a long time, might as well do it in style..

Too right Nuts!! Do it in comfort!! Makes a trip MUCH more enjoyable!!
Had my Zambas a while now and still looking great!

I had been looking at the Zambo's - mostly because I had had several pairs of scarpas (trek pro) crack very early in their life (& the soles were awful). I ended up with the SL's cause they were half price - couldn't go past them really.

As an aside - what are all the Trek wearers going to do now that they are no longer being made?

nakedape wrote:I had been looking at the Zambo's - mostly because I had had several pairs of scarpas (trek pro) crack very early in their life (& the soles were awful). I ended up with the SL's cause they were half price - couldn't go past them really.

As an aside - what are all the Trek wearers going to do now that they are no longer being made?

Seem to be a lot of unhappy Trek wearers, who have been happy with other Scarpa products. Cracking and discomfort seem to be the main issues. Why did these crack well before other Scarpa products that were given similar treatment. My Scarpa Rangers seem to outlast fellow walkers Treks. The rangers were thinner leather and a more flexible last.

Anybody have any theories?

P

No theories Penguin, I didn't look after my Trek's very well at all. The discomfort across the top of the toeline came good on mine, but I was walking at least every 2 weeks and broke them in, after a month or 2 they were very comfortable, but after less than 12 months they joined the boot graveyard in my shed. They became waterlogged almost instantly and split inside and out... I did no maintenance on them so my bad....

Hi

The Treks come in the basic Trek and softer Trek Pro. They are a lower cut boot. Me thinks such a design suits some great and others not so well. My Trekx are the older model so have the stitched tongue. The "original" SLs appeared to have been made from a single piece of leather. This made them very water resistant.

Since then the SLs have been made out of an increasing number bits of leather. The Pros are made with less stitching and softer leather.

It is a matter of what suits best. For me the higher SL means less heel slip so less blisters. Others dislike the rigid feel.

Leather cracking can be due to lack of looking after a boot. I use RM Williams cream with occasional goes of Snow Seal. Plus I clean mine after a walk.

The older SL for me were hell to break in as the tongue would push back on the ankle and pinch a nerve. Finally the leather moulded and I loved them. The next model had a notch of softer leather so were great out of the box but still not ideal until the front moulded to my foot.

The Ranger I believe is made for the English foot. As mentioned a few times the Trek and SL come in BX and BXX. Or narrow and less narrow. I believe that the Ranger is even wider than the BXX fitting.

In all pays to understand the sizing as buying a BX instead of BXX sizing would be murder on your feet. The solid leather of the Trek and SL means if the boot does not match the foot well you can expect a lot of pain until the boot gives or you give up.

Scarpa leather boots appear to have strong supporters and detractors. For me a well broken in pair are better than any other footwear. I read how other struggle with the weight and comfort but find the opposite.

Cheers

A (much smarter) bushwalking friend with a phd in materials conservation once told me that the effect of treating boots was not what it seemed.

She explained it in relation to the dreams sold by cosmetics companies with their moisturisers. The fatal flaw being that leather (like skin) is waterproof (of course). Oil, wax, water based products won't penetrate to give any more than a surface coating. While keeping them clean will stop any grinding action by dirt in surface cracks, the real problem occurred within the leather itself when continually flexed. The only way to stop cracking becoming the death of boots was flat tracks and no squatting.

This was a long time ago and iv'e since been through many boots. I always kept them pretty clean and waxed them, so I don't know if it makes much difference. That is the way all my boots met their end despite treatment. That the treatment didn't really make a big overall difference does make sense. And I always prefer common sense over accepted tradition (choosing to apply it is another thing)

My 10 plus year old SL's are now up for renewal.
Not one blister and can wear thin socks with a heavy pack 25kg+++
OK I used orthotics from when I got the boots and can now walk without getting sore feet or blisters.
My old SL's have done well over 1000kms of walking and are now a bit cracked and one lace keeper has broken and the soles are wearing on the heels and the lining is coming away at the heels.
Time for new ones.
I guess at about $43 per year the expense has been worth it.
I am a supporter of the Scarpa SL.
They may not be for all people as some prefer a shoe type of thing rather than a boot (even seen dunlop volleys on the track).

I'm stoked with my SL's, both on and off track I find them very comfy, also with thin socks and often a heavy pack. Only time I find them a bit tiring is on scree and the like where a bit more flexibility and ankle dexterity would be welcome. I tend to unlace the ankle in such cases if I'm doing it for a while.

My Trek Pros started off good, but deteriorated to hurting my feet where they rubbed on the top. Also started cracking. Not in the same class as the SL.

My scarpa SLs have been short lived but great, they didnt need any walking in on my feet, i took them on a long day walk straight out of the box and no blisters. They are very rigid though, definatly recommend getting some better/softer inner soles to go with them.
I dont look after my boots at all, after a trip they get dumped in the corner of the laundry to dry out and left until my next walk as a result, 18 months down the track i have lots of holes all over my boots. So if you want them to last a long time you do need to look after them.

MartyGwynne wrote:My 10 plus year old SL's are now up for renewal.

How did you manage that??? I can't even get 3 years out of them before I've worn the sole off them or destroyed the lining.
I'm on to pair number 4 in ten years.
Saying that I was a staunch SL supporter, until recently walking on hardened track they really gave the soles of my feet some serious punishment.
I've now moved on to something much more comfortable.
I will say they are great for off track walking and difficult terrain... just not so great on track.

Also the build quality in recently years seems to be slipping, with the stitching regularly breaking and the lining tearing.
My last two pairs have both been retired because the lining has torn badly. Fairly disappointing when you consider the price.

I had a pair of old SL's but now I have a pair of Scarpa Ladakhs. They eliminate the splitting problem of the SL's by being stiffer and therefore will hopefully last longer. They are great of track too, and should be good for winter if we get any decent snow conditions in Tas this year. BUT like others have found with the SL's (and stiffer Scarpas) they are a cruel and torturous thing to have on your feet when walking on tracks such as the OLT and Arm River Track.

Wondering whether it's just me, or do those of you that wear SL's AND custom orthotics, not suffer on hardened tracks as reported in this topic?

Hi

I would have posted "I have never had blisters with SLs" but then there was the road bash that brought out blisters on me and just about everyone else on that stroll. I am not sure if you can blame the SLs as other people wore a range of brands. I just think that the repeative foot falls mean a gradual wearing of the skin in one spot and maybe (totally without emperical evidence and based soley on personal opinon ) that the more rigid footwear becomes an issue with "easier" walking. Still, once I have fully broken my boots in this is not an issue.

As for what kills mine. Leather is faultless as is the interior of the boot. The lack of tread becomes an issue, or more accruately the rounding over of the sharp edges. But the seperation of the sole starting at the toe is the terminal condition with the boot developing a leak that gets worse. I have found regluing the sole by a local repair shop just does not work. Generally board walks like the one up from Pelion Hut to Pelion Gap is deadly for catching the toe and gradually peeling the sole back. On the current pair I used Freesole to form a cap and this is working well.

Interested to read of the reduction in boot life that some have experienced. The SLs have become a "softer" boot over the last two versions and I wonder if this "softening" is compromising their life. I brought a few pairs of the pervious model as that looked to be about the right compromise for me. As said it takes a while for the boot to break in but once broken in they are as comfortable as any other alternative footwear I have used.

It is interesting looking at the "original" Italian boot with copper hob nails from the 1950's. Apart from the sole the top of the boot looked the same as my first pair of Scarpa's.

Cheers