So there was one or two pebbles and whatever dust that didn't escape into the room ? Lame test.
Not a good first impression of the kinda folks you've got. I'll look else where for reviews on boots which is why I visited this site.
Just because the rest of the world is slipping to the lowest common denominator....

Peace ~

15 minutes should be increased to an hour each. Doing only 15 does not represent the wear a normal pair would get. The separation issue is probably of more importance than the clips bending in as I can bend them out. But separation on the trail is a dangerous problem that even duck tape can temparily solve. If I have several hundred more miles to go, I can't have the dogs flapping their toeflaps as I trog the trail. Spin them again, because the test is a good idea.

Thanks for using the Riddle Of Steel. Good stuff!!!! Wish they were still together!

I wish they would have done a test with a pair of Zamberlan boots. I and most backpacker's feel your boots are very important and to pay 200 to 260 is not a problem if the boot fits your foot quality boots can make or break you on a long thru trail. Thank you!

I bought a pair of "last years" nike shox about 3 years ago for $59 and have backpacked in some of the roughest conditions, colorado, oklahoma, and missouri and they are still to this day the most comfortable thing I have worn yet.

Doesn't seem like a very tough test at all. I would think three days in wet rocky terrain would be a more severe test with regard to durability. It's amazing that some of the boots fared so poorly.

Doesn't seem like a very tough test at all. I would think three days in wet rocky terrain would be a more severe test with regard to durability. It's amazing that some of the boots fared so poorly.

Well, I had no problem spending $140 bucks on a pair of Asolo's. I thought my feet were worth it, and the fact that I was the ONLY one in a group of 12 with NOT ONE blister on a 75+ mile backpacking trip, proved my therory. My boots are 4 years old and my favorites. You get what you pay for.

My last pair of boots cost close to $600, but that's mainly because the price on outdoor equipment here in Norway is ridicules... But I love my Scarpa boots, and wouldn't settle for anything less. 90 days hiking every summer in mountain terrain with a 30 kg backpack requires the best boots! (And if you think the cost of boots are crazy, the price tag on a Hilleberg Soulo says $1050!!!)

quality makes a difference when you are outdoors which i learned buying cheap is what you get for like less comfort more blisters i got a pair of good boots teva alot better than cheap walmart stuff visting your local camping supplier is worth the cost

I agree with the other readers comments. I would never spend that much on boots. Also, I've been in construction most of my life and this test proves nothing. Any boot should withstand15 minutes in a bitty batch mixer as in your video.
Send me some expensive boots and I'll put em in my next batch of 4000 p.s.i. mix with limestone rock. I still bet they withstand the mixer although a bit soggy. Any half decent boot should be good to go after a good drying off, new insoles and a fresh coat of water repellent treatment.

I bought a pair of Vasque's. Expensive suckers, but very comfortable hiking in the Rockies. I'm a firm believer if you buy cheap stuff, don't expect it to last.

Seemed like a waste of time to me. For me, a weekend trip will yield more wear and tear on a pair of boots than 15 minutes in a concrete mixer. I would be more interested in seeing the durability of the midsole, ankle support, and waterproofing than whether or not they got scratched up and frayed laces.

I agree with the price range issues, I see all kinds of gear and equipment tests where the tell me a 7000.00 shotgun is better than a 300.00 dollar gun or a 400.00 pair of boots is better than a 39.00 pair. You should have a price range cross reference ie. "Best boots under 100.00 and under 150.00 and 200.00 etc

This test is interesting but also doesn't account for user weight factor against the soles or seams. This seems really to only check for material outer wear. Like he says "most of the damage was cosmetic". If you're going to do testing get a little more involved in all facets of gear wear instead of cosmetic testing and these tests will be much more credible.

This test is interesting but also doesn't account for user weight factor against the soles or seams. This seems really to only check for material outer wear. Like he says "most of the damage was cosmetic". If you're going to do testing get a little more involved in all facets of gear wear instead of cosmetic testing and these tests will be much more credible.

If you are going to spend over 100$ on boots, just make sure they have some type of warranty. My Asolo boots are about 180$ and I have hiked over 2,000 miles in them, in about 5 years. So for me they were totally worth it!

Thanks for the great product review. I appreciate all your work.

Out we go.

Reg Gupton

I totally enjoyed the test, but like one of the post above would want to see how well the boots hold up in water, and then I wouldn't mind seeing some ASOLO boots tested. All those boots were really in a decent price range, because I have found over my time in the woods that it's better to fork out the big bucks and get a sturdy pair of boots than by the cheaper modles only to turn around and have them torn up. Example: on my NOLS course this summer in Alaska I was wearing the boots I got for $80 bucks and by the end of the month I had worn wholes straight threough the toe and the soles were peeling off, these were a well known brand to and I was disappointed, but now I went a head and paid for my ASOLOs and they hold up where better than the others, even through the roughest of water wear.

If you can't afford $130 for boots find a different hobby......and job !