UKBouldering.com

History of the climbing shoe (Read 30716 times)

soapy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 844
  • Karma: +37/-2
    • maskon
#50 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 08:24:13 am
historical fill-in detail:

what was it dawes wore on the very big and the very small?

my mind subconciously threw up "lince's"..?


boreal did a lined fire, suitable for wearing under one-sport mountain boots

they also supplied the short lived "ron fawcett" red and white boot, a great big floppy flipper of (sticky) rubber

monkey boy

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1194
  • Karma: +65/-0
#51 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 10:09:02 am

BTW, i'm gagging for the results of yr friction test..

esp as I have just gone retro on 5.10 velcros (blue ones cos they fit me better than the *male* version) - stealth C4 not the nu stuff.. ? called onyx is alledgely 16% stickyer but harder and takes more to bed in...

 i'm seriously considering new scarpa velcros - with their funky inturns and downward pointy wierdness - over new green lace ups for the summer..... rubber comparision would be v interestin.. you could get a sample of the nu scarpa range from the works (probably)


Doing the friction tests on wednesday on limestone, grit, sandstone and maybe granite. So should be able to let you know soon.
I am testing a pair of chili, boreal, 5.10, mad rocks, sportivas, evolv and montrail. Dont have any scarpas to test and cant ask the works cause i am in leeds. If anyone has an old pair of scarpas, not too smelly and fancies contributing them to the test that would be great. I know its very short notice!
The boots unfortunately are all varied ages, some have been used more than others so that may affect results but i am looking for the relative scores between each companies shoes.
Will be comparing results to what companies say about their boots as well!

Cheers

GCW

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • No longer a
  • Posts: 8172
  • Karma: +364/-38
#52 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 10:22:30 am
Not being funny, but for a proper comparative trial it sounds like you are introducing errors and inconsistencies by using different ages of boots.  I suspect it makes a difference as older boots are softer and may well be more sticky than brand new, rigid boots.  But I may be wrong!!!
Ideally it would be best to get brand new pairs of each boot, cut out a specific size of rubber and bond it to a standardised backing to eliminate flexion variations.  Does it matter which rocks you test them with- this means you are testing rock types rather than the rubber itself. Why not just test on a standardised surface with a known CoF?
Sorry to be picky, but I'm sure company X will say the same when you tell them how crap their adhesiv8tion rubber is!!
Good luck, and let us know results.

monkey boy

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1194
  • Karma: +65/-0
#53 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 10:41:49 am
I understand exactly what you are saying but i cannot afford to buy new boots and none of the companies i wrote too got back to me (except Red Chili but they could not provide any samples).  :boohoo:

I am not going to tell any company that their rubber is crap. I am simply going to use my results to compare the boots.
The whole report is really on boots in general, the history, current market, future research, future ideas and progression. The friction testing will just add to the project and hopefully results will not be too far off. All the boots actually look to have had similar wear.

The rock type will just give me more results to look into and i think it will be interesting to see if sterotypical thoughts are true.
I wish i could have had new boots from a wide range of companies as this would make the whole thing more valid and reliable but ah well. Also this gives me a good way in critiquing my own work which you always get marks for! Haha! And can say for future research this perhaps should be done!!

I am also using a proper expensive machine used in earth sciences when calculating friction and the machine that is used for many of Trail magazines friction test reviews!

But as i say completely understand what your saying!

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#54 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 10:45:52 am
Quote
what was it dawes wore on the very big and the very small?

my mind subconciously threw up "lince's"..?

He wore Linces on a lot of his Welsh routes of the late 80's (including the Indian Face) but I seem to remember he wore Sprints for the VBVS. Pop Quiz time: Whose boots was JD sponsoered to wear prior to the Linces?

I'm not sure whether any dissretation can pass without mention of Britain's contribution to rock boot manufacture; Croft they sponsored Mick Lovatt for a while and a couple of others (anyone remember?). Their boots were rubbish (though I doubt they were worse than some of Hanwags later models like the Wildcat). Also, post Hanwag Crack Specials, Ron Fawcett launched a UK made boot with Clog which was also crap.


SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29221
  • Karma: +630/-11
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
#55 Re: History of the climbing shoe
February 20, 2007, 12:38:39 pm
As I said earlier, my first pair were Croft B3s. Pants, but better than trainers.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal