Are Scarpa boots durable/comfortable?

[jose]

Oh and another question; I want to go to Tasmania for a hiking trip, so I need a boot that is water resistant. However, the man trying to sell me the Scarpa said that no matter what boot I wear my feet will become wet in Tasmania; is this true?

I find getting wet feet is not generally a problem while I'm walking and moving about. It is when I get to camp that I need to be more careful to keep my feet warm and dry. Like many other walkers do, after I've changed into my dry socks, I wear plastic bags over the socks before putting my feet back into the wet boots. I make sure I bring bags with strong seams so they won't split and leak. That way my feet and socks stay dry for the evening and I'm quite comfortable.

Is there any other hiking shops in South Australia? Seems like there's only two options; cheap quality stuff from Aussie Disposals or the incredibly over priced stuff from that hiking place. Not trying to sound like I'm whining or anything just I only have so much money.

It may be worth trawling through Vinnies and other thrift shops now and then. I know other walkers who have found good goretex waterproofs, gaiters and thermals for a few dollars at thrift shops. I haven't been that lucky but I've bought shirts, shorts and waterproof pants suitable for bushwalking for from 50 cents up to $3 and I've had good wear out of them.

[juney]

Hi Maxwell,
I am another Scarpa fan and own SLs, Mustangs, plus my alpine and climbing shoes. To answer your questions on comfort and durability, the Trek Pro is definitely durable, but is one of Scarpa's less comfortable models(I have a couple of friends with them and they think they are comfy, they are just not as plush as the SLs - I'm fussy). This is because it is an "old school" leather upper and blake stitched sole with no cushiony layer in between. The SL is both durable and exceptionally comfortable but significantly more expensive. I bought mine to travel overseas for a year cos I wanted comfort and durability. After that year they had been through a lot and the sole had barely worn down at all.
The trek pro, if looked after will last you a long, long time.
Re. boots lasting one year. I have spoken to a guide on the Overland Track wearing SLs that said they (guides) only get 1 year out of them, but can't find anything else that even comes close because they are so hard on their footwear, so it remains their boot of choice. Mine are now 5 years old and not even close to being worn out.
Re. shape. I have low volume feet and have to add an innersole to make by boots fit.
Re. length, you should have 1cm to 1&1/2cm room at the end of your big toe when your fitting them on on the flat, but no movement in the heel when you walk. Like Brett said, width can be firm but not tight.
Re. wet feet, I have never had wet feet in my SLs. Like others here, I keep them well treated with Sno seal and wear a goretex gaiter.
Spend the time and money to get your boots and pack right. My first boots and pack were bought "on sale" and were a terrible introduction to both pain in the wilderness and how a sale item isn't necessarily value for money!!
Good luck.
Juney

[vagrom]

I haven't read the wealth of ideas on the problem but have gone through two pairs of Scarpa SL's now and would recommend going lightweight and local with a pair of Rossis.
I wore a near new pair of Rossi Mulgas on a 12 day trip to Mt Hean last year. They needed a bit of attention at the trip's end but they're so much lighter than the bricks i'd worn up till then. There has to be a trade off between lightness and foot protection and in Tassie, foot dryness ,except on daywalks, is out of the equation.
Light weight Mulgas or similar mean you don't have to remove boots with every stream crossing as they dry out a lot quicker than heavy boots. Tassie bogs really give any leather a serious workout and unless you're devoted to keeping them in good nick, the cost of replacement becomes a big issue. Rossi is, I think, the last locally made Australian bushwalker and they get orders from Europe and the US, so they must be doing something right. ( I only know Mulgas)
Plus, you can get about on town and transport while you're down in Tassie a lot easier in a mid-range boot for all seasons.
I'm going to have to read back into the posts to find out opinions on fully synthetic/Goretex lined boots. They would possibly dry out pretty fast. They'd be a lot warmer. But cost to durability could be an issue. As with Scarpas you pay big dollars quality as quality goes up. That's how the shops survive.
In starting out, it's going to be smarter to err on the side of quality and therefore expense, especially in everything that Tassie can throw at you but once you've got a handle on those conditions, you can start to replace gear more affordably.
Heading out with one of the big three clubs, as a visitor walker, will really get you to places you'd never otherwise get to.

[Liamy77]

well i have always worn Blunnies... but with thew same loyalty they showed Tassie... the next pair of boots i buy will be aussie made and owned Rossis!

[vagrom]

and as for bootlaces . . .look further than Tobby Laces, made in Austria. The rounds, not the flats. They're chunky enough to be just grippable when it's wet and cold and so chunkier than any competitors that i've met. They're generally available in the better camping stores.(~$7 a pair?) See website.
Even when you double the knot to ensure they stay done up and pull the knot tight, they're fat enough for semi paralysed fingers to have a better chance of dealing with.
They're quality laces and as such, just the thing for any number of emergencies. Tying off that umbilical cord? No worries!

Sooo, happy campers, when thinking of boot laces the only thing to ask, existentially that is, is: "Tobby,or not Tobby, that is the question!"

[vagrom]

Mulgas have only 5 sets of eyes from top to bottom, for the laces.(140cm brown rounds -enough to double the knot easily ).
Sea to Summit are the only gaiters i've used in Tassie. The doubled over Velcro at front acts as something of a shin guard if you slip and cannon into something sharp or hard.
But the problem with a small (and light!) pair of boots like this is that though the gaiter under-strap still works fine, the front, metal hook is now too far forward to be effective. If left loose it soon grabs stuff as you walk and spins the gaiters around. Very frustrating.
But the problem is easily solved by tucking the hook under, in between the two layers of Velcro where,from my experience, it is well gripped. The gaiter under-straps continue to hold the gaiters down effectively. Though the greatest punishment occurs on the forward, upper parts of the gaiters (something Sea to Summit might reinforce one day and label Tassie Specials), the under-straps are suprisingly long lasting, considering the number of times one uses that part of the sole to maintain traction on sharp dolerite surfaces.

[tasadam]

though the gaiter under-strap still works fine, the front, metal hook is now too far forward to be effective. If left loose it soon grabs stuff as you walk and spins the gaiters around. Very frustrating.

Some spectacular falls amongst the Bauera when that hook comes out from the laces and catches it. Walking off track in some Bauera, uphill, not pretty with the hook that doesn't want to stay on the lace.
My new (replaced) Quagmire hook is a little more than a semi-circle hook, so it actually clips on to the lace at the front of the boot - much better, a real improvement.

[Seniorwalker]

Hi, I wish I had have read this post before I lashed out and bought a pair of Scarpa NANGA-PA-XCR's, especially the bit about Scarpa being "Italian so read narrow". They were made in Romania, not that this seems to make any difference! Unfortunately, I have to say that they are the worst pair of hiking boots I have ever had in my quite long life and are largely responsible for me being unable to complete a recent attempt at the "Coast to Coast" walk in England. I usually buy Hi-Tec and have found them very good on many day walks; the Milford Track (2000); the Overland Track (2011) etc. but Paddy Pallin (my store of choice) no longer stock them and recommended Scarpa and made a resaonable attempt at fitting them lengthwise but NOT widthwise! Although they were well worn in before I left for England, albeit in a Melbourne winter, the 70-year English heatwave conspired against me to make my feet swell and suffer two bruised toes (and "popped" toenails) on each foot as a result of some of the steep descents on the first few days of the walk. Once my body recovers, I'll be consigning the Scarpa's to the rubbish and dusting off my faithful old Hi-Tecs - and confining my hiking to Australia. The "Coast to Coast", in my opinion, is seriously overrated.

Scarpa make a wide range of boots from the heavy and tough as nails to more flexible and lighter versions. The quality has generally proven to be extremely good but be aware that the lighter versions will not last as long as the traditional heavy all leather boot. Scarpa are Italian so read narrow, especially in the toe area and low in foot volume. By that tight fitting. They make various last (models of feet) with BX being one of their standard widths and BXX being designed for the UK foot that is normally wider and has more volume. This is a case were your genetic make up will decide if Scarpas are for you. If you fit into the Scarpa last then I personally can not think of any boot that is better but if you do not fit then life will be hell as a strong well made boot does not stretch much, a little width but none on length. Do not be a size victim and assume that because you are size 44 that is the size boot that you should be take. You might be 45 or even a 46. If you are paying full retail price then make sure you get the person to fit the boot correctly. And this can mean an hour or two wandering around the shop. Also check if wider or narrower last exists in the model you like as way too many people have brought the wrong last and condemned boots where had they got the correct last they would be praising them. Sadly many shop assistance do not understand fitting footwear so if you find a good one that is worth the extra money, at least in my humble opinion.

Big warning. Check where the boots are made. You are paying top dollar so you should be paying for Italian labour rates but if the model is made in China then avoid that model or pay significantly less for it. Many great brands have been brought by shokey marketing types and then made in China with the marketer claiming that nothing has changed. This might be the case but if you buy the Italian made ones then this will be the case. More boots are being made in Romania by the likes of AKU and they appear not to have suffered on the quality front but in quite wee small hours of the morning the owner might just hint that their original Italian made ones were better, if ever so slightly.

As for the wet foot comment, this seams to be a common trend with mainlanders view of Tassie. I have Scarpa SL along with a few other brands of boots and wet feet is something that only happens when my foot get stuck in a creek and water goes over the top. The vast majority of times my feet remain dry. A leaking boot is a sign that it has not been correctly made, damaged or cared for. All leather boot have stitching and this means water will leak through if the stitching is not sealed by Snow Seal or some other non rotting sealer. I have been told that Snowseal is near useless in warmer climates as it melts and washes out once the temperature gets past thirty degrees so if you are into hot summer walking in the tropics then a Gore-tex lined boot might be the go. But for Tassie a traditional leather boot should serve you well plus appears to be more robust.

Cheers Brett

PS

And welcome to the forum. You will find numerous views and opinions so have a check around find what body of opinion that suits your type of walking and expectation.

[wildernesswanderer]

I have a pair of the Scarpa Trek Pro's and they were the only boot that fitted my foot right, I have the wider BXX model and they fit great, wire them for about a week before doing the crosscut saw hike in Victoria and they were great, no blisters, no foot problems and I have foot problems, I'm a Type 2 Diabetic and my feet swell after a few hours walking but two pairs of socks and these boots and I was fine for 5 days walking though the alps. Love them and I tried on a lot of boots and most are way to narrow

[matagi]

Seniorwalker, I would have thought fitting a pair of boots involved both length and width, so hardly fair to blame the boots.

[matagi]

Forgot to add: Scarpa use several different lasts. If you look in the specs for a particular model, it will say which last was used - and they do vary quite considerably. The upside is once you know which last fits your foot, you just avoid models which don"t use that last.

[Scottyk]

I will put my vote in for Scarpa SL (Italian made Bxx)
Stiff as a board, very water proof when son-seal is used properly and comfortable.
Best this is that they are nearly impossible to roll an ankle when wearing them and carrying a 15kg + pack. Sure they might not be the most plush boot out there they will always get you through the day without any damage to your feet or ankles.
Having said that if you have wide feet then yeah maybe not the best option!

[wildernesswanderer]

Hi, I wish I had have read this post before I lashed out and bought a pair of Scarpa NANGA-PA-XCR's, especially the bit about Scarpa being "Italian so read narrow". They were made in Romania, not that this seems to make any difference! Unfortunately, I have to say that they are the worst pair of hiking boots I have ever had in my quite long life and are largely responsible for me being unable to complete a recent attempt at the "Coast to Coast" walk in England. I usually buy Hi-Tec and have found them very good on many day walks; the Milford Track (2000); the Overland Track (2011) etc. but Paddy Pallin (my store of choice) no longer stock them and recommended Scarpa and made a resaonable attempt at fitting them lengthwise but NOT widthwise! Although they were well worn in before I left for England, albeit in a Melbourne winter, the 70-year English heatwave conspired against me to make my feet swell and suffer two bruised toes (and "popped" toenails) on each foot as a result of some of the steep descents on the first few days of the walk. Once my body recovers, I'll be consigning the Scarpa's to the rubbish and dusting off my faithful old Hi-Tecs - and confining my hiking to Australia. The "Coast to Coast", in my opinion, is seriously overrated.

Who paid for them and had them on their feet and they didn't fit right and still bought them. Don't blame a pair of boots because you bought a pair that didn't fit you. Hardly the boots fault is it.

[Strider]

Especially when you already knew that Hi-Tec's fit you and worked well for you.

[Pongo]

There's some good advice in this thread. In particular I find myself very much in agreeance with Ent. As I have said in another recent thread:

"If you're a bit of a book worm this book had a good section of how to fit boots: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140005 ... UTF8&psc=1"

I switched to Scarpas after my old bulky boots became too much for me. So I went with something a little less hardcore, saved on price, eliminated blisters, it made me a happy hiker. FWIW I picked these up (on special):

http://www.paddypallin.com.au/scarpa-na ... -mens.html

These have seen a fair amount of hiking (the overland, a handful of overnighters and at least a dozen day trips), and I can say I'm noticing that the soles are wearing down a bit. However the tread is very deep and it's going to be a while before this becomes an issue. Stitching is fine and I couldn't give two hoots about waterproofing etc... I like river walking too much for that.

All up, I'm very happy with this boot, but don't buy until you've tried... thoroughly. Don't get too attached to the brand and be prepared to walk away (pardon the pun) from a boot if the fit isn't just right. No amount of brand loyalty is going to make those blisters feel any better... And to get my point across...

[slparker]

What's the deal with the new SL Activ? It only appears to come in one last... Is it bxx or bx?

[TerraMer]

I went through 4 pairs and 3 pairs were not water proof after being worn frozen, I am assuming the gortex membrane cracked before it thawed if that is technically possible(?). The 4th didn't go to the snow and stayed water proof without waxing or sealing. Each pair covered about 1,400kms before the sole split and that is both Vibram and pre-Vibram but the heels wore down uneven (my gait) by 1,200kms on all terrains, sand, snow, mud, bitumen, rock, dirt, grass.
I would only wear Scarpa again if they were donated toward the walk around Australia but wouldn't waste my money on them.
Otherwise, they were very comfortable and supportive, especially the rigid base, the women's styles are too narrow so I bought the men's boots, but I guess if you're a man it makes it difficult if you need to go wider.

[GPSGuided]

Buying boots is harder than buying regular shoes. The increased contact surfaces and durable material add so many possible points of mis-fit. Major variations can be brand to brand, model to model, sometimes even shoe to shoe of the same size and model. So it's rather silly to blame a shoe brand for comfort or discomfort. It's a matter of individual variation. The only thing worth discussing on a shoe brand is their general quality of work and functional design. As for Seniorwalker's story, I'd blame Paddy Pallins than Scarpa for poor advice and fitting review. I would have second thoughts on keeping them as the store of choice.

[biggbird]

^Agree with the gist of that post GPSGuided. I wear Scarpa SLs and love them, find them to be extremely comfortable, and only had blisters on my first use. Since then, they've been a dream! Spoken to a couple of people who tried them though, and were still getting blisters a year later and hence had to give up on them. I really think it's just to do with the shape of your feet vs the shape of the boot, meaning it's important to be able to try them on first!

I think a number of people will go through multiple pairs of boots until they find their ideal too. Can get expensive I suppose, but I guess it's worth it when you find something that you get along with.

Interesting to see the number of people commenting on how Scarpas fit narrow, as I have quite broad feet and find my (older model) SLs to be perfect, no real pressure on the side of my foot at all.

As for waterproofing etc, I end up with wet feet regardless of the type of walking I'm doing or the conditions, simply due to sweating inside the boot. I definitely ended up wet this weekend after SAREX, thanks to all the snow around. I regularly treat my boots with sno-seal, but certainly wouldn't think that anyone should expect to have bone dry feet after any walk in Tassie, it just doesn't happen.

Agreed with the comments re: ankle support though, I've had numerous times where I've gone slightly over on my ankles, but suffered no ill effects thanks to the support of the boots. Especially nice when you do a lot of walking over slippery roots and across boulder fields, pretty rough on the ankles!

Can't really comment on durability, I've had my SLs about a year now, and still going very strong, can't really see any wear on the soles at all. Surely you can get them resoled anyway?

Anyway, I like my Scarpas, but can see why other people might not. Horses for courses and all that!

[vagrom]

Remember that the heavier your boot is when dry, the heavier it'll be when soaked. A kilogram on each foot and the strength required to suck it out of a bog.

But if it's bog-free, dry walking then the SL's certainly beautiful. Very hard to roll an ankle as noted; there's just so much boot wrapped around your foot.

The bulbous nose box is certainly part of this, almost like wearing steel caps. But when clambering on rocks and trees, makes it difficult to get toe purchase.

[Joomy]

Hi

Scarpa make a wide range of boots from the heavy and tough as nails to more flexible and lighter versions. The quality has generally proven to be extremely good but be aware that the lighter versions will not last as long as the traditional heavy all leather boot. Scarpa are Italian so read narrow, especially in the toe area and low in foot volume. By that tight fitting. They make various last (models of feet) with BX being one of their standard widths and BXX being designed for the UK foot that is normally wider and has more volume.

Scarpa's newer boots don't use BX or BXX any more. They have a whole new range based on their "Biometric" sole unit which is wider and higher volume than even the old BXX. The new last is "BD" and it is quite high volume, wide enough for my medium-wide foot at the front and too wide for me in the heel. So don't write Scarpa off just because you have wide feet.

That said, I find Scarpas to be very, very heavy. Yes they are extremely durable (the more expensive, Italian-made ones anyway) to last but personally I am not a fan of lugging 1.5kg bricks on each foot.

[Joomy]

Agreed with the comments re: ankle support though, I've had numerous times where I've gone slightly over on my ankles, but suffered no ill effects thanks to the support of the boots. Especially nice when you do a lot of walking over slippery roots and across boulder fields, pretty rough on the ankles!

I must say I don't really get the boot-for-ankle-support theory. It's an almost ubiquitous idea but I find a cheap ankle-brace from a chemist provides as much support as any boot and is lighter and cheaper when paired with a good pair of shoes...

Can't really comment on durability, I've had my SLs about a year now, and still going very strong, can't really see any wear on the soles at all. Surely you can get them resoled anyway?

Depends on whether they are using the old or new sole unit. The new "Biometric" sole cannot be re-soled.

PS: Anyone know why I can't edit my last post?

[wildernesswanderer]

Agreed with the comments re: ankle support though, I've had numerous times where I've gone slightly over on my ankles, but suffered no ill effects thanks to the support of the boots. Especially nice when you do a lot of walking over slippery roots and across boulder fields, pretty rough on the ankles!

I must say I don't really get the boot-for-ankle-support theory. It's an almost ubiquitous idea but I find a cheap ankle-brace from a chemist provides as much support as any boot and is lighter and cheaper when paired with a good pair of shoes...

Can't really comment on durability, I've had my SLs about a year now, and still going very strong, can't really see any wear on the soles at all. Surely you can get them resoled anyway?

Depends on whether they are using the old or new sole unit. The new "Biometric" sole cannot be re-soled.

PS: Anyone know why I can't edit my last post?

I see a lot of people mention this that they don't get the boot for ankle support theory, ever played ice hockey or inline hockey, there is a reason for high stiff boots for ankle support. Hiking boots while no where near as stiff as hockey skates provide the same protection as hockey skates do just to a lesser degree.

[Spartan]

The older model SL's are the duck's guts of durable and comfortable leather boots.

All the best.

[Joomy]

I see a lot of people mention this that they don't get the boot for ankle support theory, ever played ice hockey or inline hockey, there is a reason for high stiff boots for ankle support. Hiking boots while no where near as stiff as hockey skates provide the same protection as hockey skates do just to a lesser degree.

I get that high top boots can be somewhat effective for ankle support, which some people need (especially with mammoth pack weights), my point is that since hiking boots don't do that great a job at providing ankle support it seems to me that a sports ankle-brace + low-cut hiking shoe/trail runners would do just as good a job as a stiff boot at stopping ankle injures if not better, and for much less weight and cost. I suppose there are other reasons one may want a boot (higher waterproof section, scrub/rock protection?) but I think in many cases a sturdy gaiter (which you would wear with boots anyway) would solve these problems.

[Miyata610]

This particular pair uses the AG last. It works for me. As does the DL.

It's just plain silly to recommend a boot, we all have different needs and different feet.

I sometimes carry rather heavy loads. I therefore choose very stiff, high boots. This pair has NO flex in the sole at all.

They went scrub bashing last weekend, in some steep and difficult terrain with snow and ice and spent too long fully submerged. They performed exactly as I expected them too.

That's enough for me.

[MickyB]

I see a lot of people mention this that they don't get the boot for ankle support theory, ever played ice hockey or inline hockey, there is a reason for high stiff boots for ankle support. Hiking boots while no where near as stiff as hockey skates provide the same protection as hockey skates do just to a lesser degree.

I get that high top boots can be somewhat effective for ankle support, which some people need (especially with mammoth pack weights), my point is that since hiking boots don't do that great a job at providing ankle support it seems to me that a sports ankle-brace + low-cut hiking shoe/trail runners would do just as good a job as a stiff boot at stopping ankle injures if not better, and for much less weight and cost. I suppose there are other reasons one may want a boot (higher waterproof section, scrub/rock protection?) but I think in many cases a sturdy gaiter (which you would wear with boots anyway) would solve these problems.

I 'did' my knee when I was younger when playing football. I had my ankles strapped (taped) and fell awkwardly which resulted in the knee injury. I believe if I didn't have my ankles strapped I would have just rolled my ankle. The strapping put more pressure on the knees. To me the same theory applies to high top boots. When I am out hiking I would prefer to roll my ankle than injure my knee.