volleys

[geoffmallo]

Who here uses the good old dunlop volley? I've always used boots that are probably too heavy like scarpa's SLs etc. I've heard of people using them for the Western Arthurs. Anyone done this or similar? What do you think?

[kantonysen]

Dunlop Volleys used to be the in foot ware used by numerous mainland walkers coming to Tasmania. They were very much throwned upon by Tasmanian bushwalkers as they offer little support, just last an extended trip, and are poor in snow. Wet feet used to be a complaint but many boots now tend to be quite water resistant ; whereas volleys will ensure constant wet feet. These days there are numerous light weight boots available that offer a better alternative, but for extended trips when carrying a heavy pack heavier duty boots are the best way to go.

[MichaelfromQLD]

OK here's a rant from a Volley supporter.

I'll argue the case for the dunlop volley, as it offers several advantages over both traditional and modern bushwalking footwear.

Dunlop Volleys used to be the in foot ware used by numerous mainland walkers coming to Tasmania. They were very much throwned upon by Tasmanian bushwalkers as they offer little support,

To a walker accustomed to boots this may be a problem, but regular volley wearers will have developed stronger ankles and don't require the support of a boot.

just last an extended trip,

Define "extended trip" as I found volleys to last several trips while also being worn as everyday footwear (people don't take brand new white volleys on trips either).

and are poor in snow.

This is true, but so are boots without snowshoes.

Wet feet used to be a complaint but many boots now tend to be quite water resistant ; whereas volleys will ensure constant wet feet

The Volley's single layer of breathable canvas and removable insoles dry out surprisingly well overnight, how about the boots? They might resist a bit more in the way of splashes but after crossing a swamp or a creek they'll stay wet for days. All that fabric and padding can absorb a lot of water which is also a lot of extra weight on the feet.

These days there are numerous light weight boots available that offer a better alternative, but for extended trips when carrying a heavy pack heavier duty boots are the best way to go.

I'm not denying that under a HEAVY pack boots, or at least outdoor shoes with arch or ankle support are useful, but someone with a normal 3day load or a lightweight 6day load won't need them.

Other advantages:

The light weight of a volley means it is no burden on the foot to carry. 100g on the feet are worth 700g in the bag, or so "they" say.

The thin soles give the feet a good "feel" for the ground, useful for scrambling and indeed rock climbing. The grip offered by the soles is much better than boots on a smooth sloping rock surface.

Due to the above "feel" one tends to tread more softly in volleys than they would in a stiff-soled, hard edged boot and this would reduce the impact when walking in sensitive areas.

In conclusion: Tasmanian walkers can frown on the volley all they like, the enlightened (pun intended) volley wearer is more than happy with their footwear choice and finds boots heavy and restrictive.

On a personal note, the reason I no longer exclusively wear the volley myself is that I now carry a heck of a lot of my wife's gear as well as my own, and I need the arch support of a low-cut hiking shoe to help me cope with the weight of the pack, while the volleys get used for shorter and more technical walks.

[under10kg]

The boot verse runner debate never goes away!
There is an alternate the the volleys that have a great grip, are lighter and dry out faster called invoc. My brother used them on a 125 k NZ walk I did with him were we had to cross fast flowing braided rivers about 30 times in one day and 15 times the next day. Now imagine doing this with the average boot and having wet heavy boots. We also walked over a snow pass and they seemed to grip the snow well when I wished I had crampons on my runners. He found they dried out pretty well after a hour of walking. To date, no one stocks this brand in Australia but I have heard that Tim from wildside is getting a small shipment in within the next couple of months. Invoc have a low boot model that is much lighter than any boot on the market. Unfortunately, I find the invoc model I used do not fit my feet well. I usually use new balance runners for all my walking. Hopefully other manufactures will bring out similar products to invoc, super light with superb grip that dry out super fast.

[alliecat]

The boot verse runner debate never goes away!
There is an alternate the the volleys that have a great grip, are lighter and dry out faster called invoc.

Do you mean inov-8? (Google turns up nothing for "invoc and shoes".) If you do mean inov-8, then I have a pair of the roclite 318 GTX and absolutely love them. They are light, grippy, waterproof, comfortable and the best shoes I have ever walked in. If somebody wants lightweight boots with ankle support, I would seriously recommend them checking out the roclite 390 gtx. inov-8 have a huge range of shoes, so I'm sure poeple can find something that suits. I bought mine from zombierunner.com and couldn't be happier with them.

[kantonysen]

I have worn volleys in the past on an extended trip into Vanishing Falls in 1974. We had much horizontal scrub to go through which involved constantly having to lift your feet above knee height. Later, in the same year I wore volleys into the Walls of Jerusalem where we had snow overnight which had not been expected. The volleys had been very uncomfortable to say the least. I had very strong ankles at that time but even so was very conscious of what happens if you roll your ankles just a bit too far. I have not worn volleys after the Walls trip. The risk of rolling ankles just too far, when carrying a fairly heavy pack, being too great a risk.

So while volleys might be ok for very strong fit walkers, in my opinion those people who occasionally go walking should consider footwear offering much more support.

[sarge]

I've always used boots that are probably too heavy like scarpa's SLs etc

Hi Geoff, just curious, why do you think that traditional walking boots are too heavy? Do you have problems with sore knees, ankles or back? Not knocking anyones choices but as this is not a dedicated lightweight walking forum, I am just curious what is leading people to think this way. I am probably only asking because you added the 'probably' to your post.

[DaveNoble]

Who here uses the good old dunlop volley? I've always used boots that are probably too heavy like scarpa's SLs etc. I've heard of people using them for the Western Arthurs. Anyone done this or similar? What do you think?

I have worn Volleys for most of my Tasmanian walking since 1975. This includes trips in Summer, April and May. The only trips I have worn boots have been winter walks (and then I also carried Volleys - and wore them for the non snow sections). The last tassie trip I did - was in April on the Central Plateau - and for that one i wore walking shoes.

On my first Tassie trip - i was the only one out of the four in the party to wear Volleys - and i also had a second pair (in one of the air drops) - but didn't really need them. This was a long walk in the south west (about 23 days). On subsequent trips - all my companions on that first trip wore Volleys rather than boots. But - i guess it is what you (and your feet) are used to - I like Volleys because you can still feel the terrain under your feet, their excellent grip on rock, they dry quickly and they are fairly light (and also cheap). Their major disadvantage is that without a heel - they do not grip so well in mud. Another consideration - and i feel this is important - is that they have much less impact on the terrain than boots or walking shoes. Partly because they do not have a heel and a big tread that can rip out vegetation - but also because the Volley walker has a different style - looking where they are going, treading on rocks etc.

Volleys do wear out quickly in certain types of country - eg off track in buttongrass and some other types of scrub. I think the acid in the buttongrass bogs may rot the material in Volleys. But a new pair should be fine for any trips of 12 days or so.

I have walked in both boots and Volleys in snow in Tassie - and had cold wet feet in both types of footwear.

In 2004 i did some walks in the Sierras in California - and found in that granite country - that the Volleys tended to develop a split under the ball on the foot (this was not catastrophic) - and so i took walking shoes on my next overseas trip to Europe in 2006 - and they were fine. I also wore those same shoes for a summer of walking in NZ and last April in Tassie (Central Plateau)

I find my ankles provide "support" - and so avoid boots whenever possible.

Dave

[Penguin]

I did a walk today in a pair of HiTech runner style shoes rather that the usual boot. The lightness is pleasant but I found the same thing today that I have found in the past. With the more flexible soles I find the balls of my feet feel sore after a while walking on rocks. I find the firmer sole in the boot less "tiring" on my feet when I walk any distance on rough terrain.

Just another variable is this good discussion.

Has anybody worn waterproof socks, like sealskins, with volleys in boggy country?

[jay590]

i vote volleys. have never hiked in anything else. there the only pair of choes i own ( i own 3 pairs) there light, cheap, dry quickly, can be used for rock climbing

[Penguin]

How do you go in thick scrub without gaiters? Or do you wear long trousers in these circumstances. My gaiters are about four years and they look like they have been through the wars.

I have seen a few people with bushwalking runners wearing putties. At least that would stop grass seed and dirt to get in in teh soft stuff or when off track. Maybe somebody will make a bush runner with a stiff sole and matching gaiter.

Watched the football, AFL tonight and they all wear runner type boots rather than the old full length boots. Now watching the basketball and they are still wearing a runner with full ankle support. Who is right?

[geoffmallo]

why do you think that traditional walking boots are too heavy? Do you have problems with sore knees, ankles or back.

I used to wear Scarpa (first Treks and then SLs) for every trip and have been most satisfied with them. I have recently been working towards everything to be lightweight. I'm down to a about 7kg including food for a 3 day walk. I have had a major back injury and so going light was the only way for me to get into the bush (spinal fusion of which I've snapped a titanium screw!). I'm currently using a pair of Keen Targhee II Mid (http://www.keenfootwear.com/product_det ... x?sku=1217) that I got in the US far cheaper than they are here. I really like them for a lot of what I do but have been thinking they're not up to the Western Arthur/Feda trip we're planning. I'm not convinced they'd work for the mud bashing I remember and not sure they'd be that good for the heavier pack weights we'll be carrying.

I would be interested in trying out the volleys for a few shorter walks to see if they work for me. But for now I think I'll be going with a traditional heavier boot and try to save weight somewhere else.

[tim]

Not knocking the volleys, but there is no way I would head out in anything with that little impact absorption!

I wear volleys casually, but have found that during even reasonably short walks on pavement my knees feel every impact. I will probably even move away from them as casual shoes for this reason, I just dont thinkt they are doing me any favours.

I still rate them as a good, grippy equivalent to Teva's or booties for water work, and have heard that they make ace poor-man's climbing shoes. I don't climb, but mates have told me that people heat up their volleys and scrape the toes into a point for climbing...true all-rounders.

[walkinTas]

Not knocking the volleys, but there is no way I would head out in anything with that little impact absorption!

I'm with you Tim. I walked Mt. Rufus early last summer in the wrong footwear and then spent six weeks with a bruised left instep. I need and want good impact absorption and arch support. People who walk long distances over rough ground and don't wear good supportive footwear are asking for long term problems with their knees and lower back.

[corvus]

I have a pair of well worn out Volleys which were used as Camp/Hut shoes and on my roof when fixing things, as for walking in them I believe that it is an OZ "macho" thing which is fair in my opinion however I don't believe that anyone could honestly state that on our last BWT-strollers trip in the snow conditions we experienced that they would have been comfortable in Volleys.
Having said that I don't really care what anyone uses anymore just so long as no lives are lost nor injuries incurred and you are happy doing it.

[johnw]

Ah, the ubiquitous Dunlop Volley. Always guaranteed to stir emotions and strong opinions . I own a pair that are used casually, household DYI etc, and have occasionally been taken on bushwalks for river crossings where underwater slippery rocks had to be negotiated.

I once walked in them for a few kms in and out of the river and along sandy/rocky banks. OK for occasional use on easy tracks, but I decided that they are not for me as general bushwalking footwear. Too little cushioning for comfort. However I accept that others find them perfect for their own applications.

Anyway here's my analysis:

Pros:

• nice and cheap (I've bought them for under $25 when on sale)
• lightweight
• breathable in hot conditions
• low environmental impact
• grippiness on slippery surfaces/wet rock (I believe they are used by the roof tiling industry; not sure but I think they may actually be mandatory footwear for some commercial canyoning trips in NSW Blue Mountains...Dave Noble?)

Cons:

• not a lot of protection (compared to boots etc)
• relatively little cushioning (may increase the chance of impact injuries etc)
• lack of thermal comfort in cold conditions
• can wear out fairly quickly in rough terrain

[Penguin]

I have been using "Holes", a form a crocs for river crossing. Good grip, dry out very quickly and very light to carry. Also god as a hut shoe, with socks in the cold weather.

[NickD]

I don't know how one can argue that 100g on the feet weighs 700gs on the back, where is the science in that?
Having correct footwear with proper arch support and more importantly with big packs, a full carbon support shank, alinge the ankles, knees and spine to carry a pack correctly. The heavier the footwear I have used, the faster and easier I have walked because of less work needed to be done by the rest of my leg muscles to support me. The human foot, if you look at our bone structure, is designed to bend at the toes, but definately not in the centre piece. This is why brands apply a proper support frame.
I had fairly supportive boots (Raichle Scouts) but after I developed shin splints, as well as achy knees on bushwalks I switched to a stiffer boot (full grain leather Aku's) since then I haven't had any leg troubles, but I cant even walk 20 minutes to work in my softer Columbia shoes without pain in the legs.

I know of people walking the Overland Track in Teva sandals, but I also know & hear of numerous leg traumas being sparked by inadequete footwear.
The waterproofness and durability arguement aside, I still think old school Volleys are completely innapropriate.
But thats just me I suppose...

[tas-man]

I have settled on boots with good ankle support for off track and extended walking in Tassie, but did try a pair of light/med weight Hi-Tek boots for a few years in the 1990's. I liked the way they dried out much quicker than boots, but then I seemed to get wetter quicker as well, even with my gortex boot liner socks. Ultimately the sole was not stiff enough for my liking when off track, and I went back to full leather boots. I climbed Cradle several years ago in light weight joggers after discovering that my boots had been left behind. I recall being very careful about looking after my ankles when the track got rougher, but enjoyed the extra security and "feel" of the joggers on the rock scrambling near the top - you could feel your feet were gripping the rock texture over more area of sole. But when it came to the decent, I was left behind carefully placing my feet while my mates with boots virtually jogged down the mountain! Weighing up both options, I personally feel that the ability to jam a good stiff boot sole between rocks, especially when wet or icy, allows me to move over rough terrain using less energy than if I am having to concentrate more on every foot placement. Obviously the light weight footwear "rocks" when not on rocks and using boardwalk or formed tracks. My lightest weight footwear experience was a pair of 1970 rubber thongs that I had to resort to on one of my extended PNG trips when on the last day of the trip I had to deal with tropical ulcers on the top of one foot. I recall that there was probably a 50/50 split in the use of boots/volleys in the Brisbane Bushwalkers in the 1970's, with a lot of the sandshoe users getting the "new" Italian Vibram soles glued and stitched to the soles of their new volleys.

Re super light weigh footwear, I was very happy with my pair of imitation Crocs @ 140gms each for river crossings with pack on the south coast Track last Easter. Great around camp and surprisingly warm on frosty mornings when nature calls.

[whiskeylover]

I suppose it is once again a case of each to their own. I must put in my two bits worth along with Corvus and others, that you may for many years do something which has so far not caused you a problem and therefore conclude that it is ok. Faulty logic I think. Before recommending to others one can't just go from one's own or even a small groups limited experience - really you need to look at scientific research. The evidence shows that modern boots are getting better all the time and lighter. They are designed to prevent injury and stop you from tiring by the stiffer sole propelling you along with minimal effort.
On the personal experience side, I couldn't afford a good pair of boots until about 10 years ago - I'm onto my third pair now - close to fourth. The difference between wearing boots and the old KT26 sandshoes was huge for me - new found confidence - and much less track skirting - which by the way is what does the environmental damage - not necessarily the boot wearers - as they are more likely to walk through the bog then skirt and make it wider.
Who cares if your boots dry overnight or not? They'll be wet again fairly soon the next day anyway! I also take crocs for camp wear now, used to take TEVA sandles, so my feet are dry in camp and then wet for walking - they will be anyway on a lot of Tassie tracks. I very rarely, if ever, have trouble with my feet since buying boots. I only need to walk about a kilometre to have trouble with feet in volleys as they have no arch support or cushioning effect - they may be good for some applications but imho you're asking for eventual trouble bushwalking in them. On the statistics side I note that most of the volley wearers are not Tasmanian - maybe they are suitable if you are used to them and walking on mainly dry, flat tracks. There are many times I have nearly had my boots sucked off by a deceptive bog - imagine trying to find your volley back in those - glad some of you take two pairs! Frenchman's must have claimed a whole truckload of them by now.

[sarge]

I had fairly supportive boots (Raichle Scouts) but after I developed shin splints, as well as achy knees on bushwalks I switched to a stiffer boot (full grain leather Aku's) since then I haven't had any leg troubles, but I cant even walk 20 minutes to work in my softer Columbia shoes without pain in the legs.

I know of people walking the Overland Track in Teva sandals, but I also know & hear of numerous leg traumas being sparked by inadequete footwear.

I have had a similar issue when switching from cheaper boots to better quality ones. For many years I have had no end of trouble with blisters, arch soreness and shin splints but since buying my Scarpas a few months ago I have been blown away with the difference. Last weekend we hiked 15km with 650m climbing on a local track (with a full pack) and had no foot trouble. In the past I would have had to heavily tape the balls of my feet and heels before even setting out and then suffer soreness for a few days afterward.

The scarpas were the third pair of boots I have tried in 2 years (others being a pair of hi-tecs and columbias - both were too soft on the soles I found). An expensive exercise but worth it in the end.

I have very flat feet so I couldn't imagine hiking in volleys except for on a flat track, but everyone's feet are different. With all the trouble I have had I really envy people who can put on any shoe and be comfortable.

I have a pair of Tevas used primarily as hut shoes and also a back up walking shoe - (I have an irrational fear of a sneaky pademelon running off with one of my boots in the night!).

[alliecat]

I don't know how one can argue that 100g on the feet weighs 700gs on the back, where is the science in that?

Surprisingly that is one bushwalking "truth" that gets thrown around that does actually have some science behind it. The US Army did some experiments to compare the effect of extra weight on the boots vs extra weight in the backpack and they found that the impact on distance covered in a day by soldiers worked out to being "1 lb on the feet = 7 lb on the back". I believe follow-up studies since then have shown that to be roughly correct with results showing ratios ranging from 1:4 to 1:9.

A simple physics model shows that the feet move about 6-7 time more (vertically) than a point on the spine when walking, so the energy expended to carry 1 unit of mass on the feet is 6-7 times the energy expended the carry the same weight on the back.

Sorry to inject facts into a discussion about footwear - I know they have little place there, and I'll try not to do it again

[tas-man]

I don't know how one can argue that 100g on the feet weighs 700gs on the back, where is the science in that?

<Snip>
A simple physics model shows that the feet move about 6-7 time more (vertically) than a point on the spine when walking, so the energy expended to carry 1 unit of mass on the feet is 6-7 times the energy expended the carry the same weight on the back.
<SNIP>

This "fact" (1lb on the feet = 4lb on the back) was often mentioned in the 1960/70's when I first took up bushwalking and as perviously mentioned, in SE Qld, the volley's/boots debate was going strong there. However another aspect of the energy expenditure during bushwalking that was explained and demonstrated to me by an "old timer" in the BBW was that you need to "glide" over the terrain as much as possible by careful foot placement, avoiding unnecessary vertical "jogging" movement to your torso and pack, so that you minimise the energy use in raising and lowering your centre of gravity as you walk. Smoothly changing your elevation takes much less energy than rapid changes, especially when recovering from a slip or loss of balance. I recall this "old timer" moving so apparently effortlessly through the bush and seeming to have more energy at the end of the day than us young turks who were jumping all over the place! Walking smarter can conserve energy perhaps more than the extra effect of wearing boots compared to volleys and the like.

[NickD]

I don't know how one can argue that 100g on the feet weighs 700gs on the back, where is the science in that?

Surprisingly that is one bushwalking "truth" that gets thrown around that does actually have some science behind it. The US Army did some experiments to compare the effect of extra weight on the boots vs extra weight in the backpack and they found that the impact on distance covered in a day by soldiers worked out to being "1 lb on the feet = 7 lb on the back". I believe follow-up studies since then have shown that to be roughly correct with results showing ratios ranging from 1:4 to 1:9.

A simple physics model shows that the feet move about 6-7 time more (vertically) than a point on the spine when walking, so the energy expended to carry 1 unit of mass on the feet is 6-7 times the energy expended the carry the same weight on the back.

Science unfortunately doesn't however take into account I guess other 'X-Factors'
I don't think you can put a weight/price on good support. With a proper support frame in your shoes, it will align the rest of your body, that being; heels, ankles, knees, hips and spine correctly - which will only lead to your pack fitting more securely and correctly.
Security of your feet for ease of walking aside, i still think that simple human science as opposed to physics would surely put this debate to rest!?!
But then I work in a gear store, maybe thats been hammered into me for the last few years

[corvus]

Sorry cannot help myself, if Volleys are so good how come they are not number 1 in the world for trecking /fellwalking /alpine walking /bushwalking ? dont reply because we both know they are not and to my knowledge they dont even use them for Tennis ,triffik on roofs but eh!! We all know that it is an OZ thing invented by penurious BW Uni Students in the sixties and that the myth perpetuated from there.
corvus

[Joel]

You could get volleys from kmart in launceston, or at least you could 2 years ago. I bought a pair and use them a little bit, but I can not think of any reason for walking in them and I totally agree with corvus on this one I think. Man, a couple of weeks of 10 - 25 km per day over dolerite.....I'd rather not! I also know if I destroy a pair of SL's every 8 - 12 months volleys would probably last a week and probably be more expensive. Good on anyone that uses them though ... hardcore!!!

[Son of a Beach]

If you get a year from the Scarpa's you'll get two from Zamberlan's up there.

Can you get Zamberlans in Australia anymore? I tried to find Zamberlans for ages (having loved the pair I'd tried a few years earlier) before buying my Raichle pair. The stories I got from several shops was that the Australian importer had upset the Zamberlan people for some reason, and they no longer exported to Australia. That was a couple of years ago now, so it may have changed. I hope so, because I'd love to go for Zamberlans next time.

Just as an aside, my brother's first pair of Zamberlans fell apart on their first big walk. He phoned the company for a warrantee claim, and they had no idea what to do, because they'd never had a claim before (for this region, at least). But he sent them back, and they sent him a new pair, and he reckons they're the best shoes he's ever walked in.

[alliecat]

A simple physics model shows that the feet move about 6-7 time more (vertically) than a point on the spine when walking, so the energy expended to carry 1 unit of mass on the feet is 6-7 times the energy expended the carry the same weight on the back.

Science unfortunately doesn't however take into account I guess other 'X-Factors'
I don't think you can put a weight/price on good support. With a proper support frame in your shoes, it will align the rest of your body, that being; heels, ankles, knees, hips and spine correctly - which will only lead to your pack fitting more securely and correctly.
Security of your feet for ease of walking aside, i still think that simple human science as opposed to physics would surely put this debate to rest!?!
But then I work in a gear store, maybe thats been hammered into me for the last few years

Oh I wasn't suggesting that the weight of footwear is the main factor to consider - I agree with you there is so much more than that. But it is true that all other things being equal, a weight saving on the feet has a higher benefit that the same saving in the pack. The tricky bit is the "all other things being equal". But as materials get lighter and stronger we should see boots that are as tough as we need without weighing a tonne. But it is hard sorting out the facts from the marketing hype.

Footwear is such a personal thing too - there are certain basics that are needed in terms of support and durability, but beyond that, it comes down to individual fit. And everybody's feet are not only differently shaped, but they move and flex differently when we walk, and our ankles and legs move uniquely etc. I don't think there's a lot of science in the industry now - it's mostly marketing. So it's a case of finding a par of boots or shoes that fit you, support your feet and enable you to do the walks you want in safety and comfort. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a magic formula for finding the best boot or shoe for an individual, I think we're still at the "try it and see" stage and that leads to people putting up with poorly-fitting footwear because they are just too expensive to throw away.

To make this somewhat "on-topic" I can't see how volleys provide even a basic level of durability, support, and protection. Surely we've moved on from those days?

[Son of a Beach]

Thanks Nuts, that site looks good. I should have bought them at the exchange rate of 2 weeks ago (if I needed them right now)!

[walkinTas]

Oh I wasn't suggesting that the weight of footwear is the main factor to consider - I agree with you there is so much more than that.

The heavier the combined weight of pack and person the stronger the boot needs to be. If you and your pack weigh in at 130Kg, then you are going to need a stronger and sturdier boot than say a person weighing 60kg and carrying a 12kg pack. The heavier the load the more important you get support from your footwear. So, as you say, weight of footwear is not the only factor.