Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

face-plant installed by microspikes

Have an interesting or epic climbing story? Post it here.
User avatar
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Breckenridge

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby Breckskier » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:16 pm

I have size Large on 9.5 Nepals and they fit well until the way down on my first hike. The rear spikes shifted to one side and at first I just figured the ground was uneven under the snow. When I took a closer look the rear spikes were hanging off the side. I had no issues on the way up and they worked WAY better than my buddies Yak Trax that blew out 2hrs into their first hike, most likely cause they were too small. 9.5 seems to be the size right on the cusp of the M and L. The box says it would fall under M for non insulated boots but L for insulated ones. I dont feel that the Nepals are a very heavy volume boot so I'm wondering if I could trade down a size.
"If you don't do it this year you'll only be 1 year older when you do." -Warren Miller

User avatar
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Boulder

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby DaveSwink » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:34 pm

[quote="Johnson"]Darin and all, for the last couple of years I used size medium with a size10.5 asolo hiking boot and they did well for me and fit snug. I used them also with my 10.5 Nepal but they finally blew out in June. I decided that if I went with the size large there would be less stretch and fatigue of the material. The thing is, on my last hike, they would not stay correctly positioned on my boots. The toe would roll and the chains in that area would be on the side of my boot and not under it. I don't recall having that much of an issue with the old medium pair. I was on rocky/uneven terrain but it still seemed like excessive shifting. What size are you 10.5ers using and how are they working out for you?[/quote]

I wear 11.5 and my size large Microspikes are a bit sloppy/loose so the spikes would shift around on the front of my boots. I have added a mini-bungie cord to the Microspikes for more tension across the top of my foot, but removing a link sounds like it might work better.

I carry a multi-tool and six inches of heavy gauge wire for repairs too. My three-year old Microspikes just broke a fourth link on Humbolt last Saturday. I have put lots of miles on them so I guess it is time for a new pair. :D

User avatar
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: Denver

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby wooderson » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:22 pm

Johnson wrote:Darin and all, for the last couple of years I used size medium with a size10.5 asolo hiking boot and they did well for me and fit snug. I used them also with my 10.5 Nepal but they finally blew out in June. I decided that if I went with the size large there would be less stretch and fatigue of the material. The thing is, on my last hike, they would not stay correctly positioned on my boots. The toe would roll and the chains in that area would be on the side of my boot and not under it. I don't recall having that much of an issue with the old medium pair. I was on rocky/uneven terrain but it still seemed like excessive shifting. What size are you 10.5ers using and how are they working out for you?


Well I wear a (women's) size 9 boot and I believe I have size medium spikes, but it seems like I could probably switch to a small to eliminate the slack in the chains. And I definitely have the "toe roll" issue you describe, which is damn annoying, and I'm sure it must be a result of them being too large. I find that you have to really pull the rubber thing way up on your boot all the way around in order to prevent this, and even then it will eventually wind up off-kilter after several hours of wear.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Fort Collins

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby Johnson » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:32 pm

wooderson wrote:
Johnson wrote:Darin and all, for the last couple of years I used size medium with a size10.5 asolo hiking boot and they did well for me and fit snug. I used them also with my 10.5 Nepal but they finally blew out in June. I decided that if I went with the size large there would be less stretch and fatigue of the material. The thing is, on my last hike, they would not stay correctly positioned on my boots. The toe would roll and the chains in that area would be on the side of my boot and not under it. I don't recall having that much of an issue with the old medium pair. I was on rocky/uneven terrain but it still seemed like excessive shifting. What size are you 10.5ers using and how are they working out for you?


Well I wear a (women's) size 9 boot and I believe I have size medium spikes, but it seems like I could probably switch to a small to eliminate the slack in the chains. And I definitely have the "toe roll" issue you describe, which is damn annoying, and I'm sure it must be a result of them being too large. I find that you have to really pull the rubber thing way up on your boot all the way around in order to prevent this, and even then it will eventually wind up off-kilter after several hours of wear.


Yeah, I'm thinking smaller is better. The medium is to fit from size 7 up to 10.5 and the large is 10.5 to 14 if I remember correctly. For my boots, I really need to stretch the rubber material to the them on but at least they stay better. One downside though is that it seems to put a lot of tension on the material which negatively affects the product life. IMO
In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. - Psalm 95:4

"I would be doing myself a disservice and every member of this band if I didn't perform the hell out of this." - Gene

User avatar
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:32 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:41 pm

:shock: My pair of microspikes must be an odd one out. My snowshoe boots are a 12, and my mountaineering boots are a 13. I have a size "large" microspike and they still seem to be a tad loose. They dont hang off the bottom, but they rearrange themselves regularly requiring adjustments.
"All dolled up in gabardine..."

User avatar
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:16 am
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby d_baker » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:43 pm

I'm sure a tighter fit will help with most problems, such as slack in the chain. But to a point, I don't know if it will always keep it in place (i.e., keep it from slipping side to side or whatever).
If you're going across a slope, the rubber is going to have a tendency to move due to the force applied to each step. They're not like crampons where they're fixed to a boot.

Going over a variety of terrain -- such as rock, snow, and bushwacking areas, the chains can and will get caught. No doubt.

My near fall was because the chain on one set was busted and the connecting wire (between links) snagged the other when my instep came too close to the other. I just need to walk better!
I'm glad I wasn't going down the incline, because it would have resulted with injuries, most likely.

I like the micro's for the Manitou incline or local snowpacked/icy trails sometimes, but I don't always use them in the mtn's nor do I always carry them on peaks. That's my personal preference and comfort though.

User avatar
Posts: 2388
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:59 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby MountainHiker » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:52 pm

Johnson wrote: One downside though is that it seems to put a lot of tension on the material which negatively affects the product life. IMO

I choose to affect product life if it means better safety for me! :-k
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby alpinenut » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:43 pm

I wear mediums with 10.5 Asolo 3 season boots and 11 Scarpa Winter Boots. I agree too large is bad. I almost fell in a creek a few days ago as my spike caught on something (that's my story and I'm sticking to it). I guess that's the price you pay for preventing multiple potentially dangerous slips.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Fort Collins

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby Johnson » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:47 pm

MountainHiker wrote:
Johnson wrote: One downside though is that it seems to put a lot of tension on the material which negatively affects the product life. IMO

I choose to affect product life if it means better safety for me! :-k


No doubt and I agree.

Perhaps I should have expanded just a bit more. The issue I had with the large was more of an annoyance than a safety issue. I still had more traction than if I had nothing. As for product life issues, I ended up returning the large pair as the constant battering they took down climbing while twisted to the side bent the front placement wire into a "V". So, the medium pair lasted almost 2 years, the large lasted Mount Arkansas.

I guess I am just curious what others are have success with based upon recommended sizing verses that people are actually using.

And as Darin pointed out above, they will slip a bit and have to be readjusted. I just don't remember being so disgruntled with the mediums. Guess I'll stick with those for now and see how they go.
In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. - Psalm 95:4

"I would be doing myself a disservice and every member of this band if I didn't perform the hell out of this." - Gene

User avatar
Posts: 1702
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Canon City, Colorado

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby mtgirl » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:01 pm

Johnson wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking smaller is better.


Most women would disagree. :lol:
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away."

User avatar
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:16 am
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby d_baker » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:03 pm

mtgirl wrote:
Johnson wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking smaller is better.


Most women would disagree. :lol:

:lol: =D> :lol:

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Fort Collins

Re: face-plant installed by microspikes

Postby Johnson » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:32 pm

mtgirl wrote:
Johnson wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking smaller is better.


Most women would disagree. :lol:


mtgirl, mtgirl, mtgirl........ I have several witty anecdotes but will refrain....
In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. - Psalm 95:4

"I would be doing myself a disservice and every member of this band if I didn't perform the hell out of this." - Gene

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests