Everyones feet are different, find the boots or shoes that work for you dont base a purchase on one review of a cple of pairs. I walked for years in boots until I switched to trail runners all year round bar snowy weather and walk further, faster with no blisters or hot achy feet any more. Go try some on, know your terrain and your own limits and what matters to you. Then buy the best ones you can find within your budgets.
Title says 'boots' but shoes are reviewed. Not sure North Face are 'premium' I have had poor experience with a pair in the past, these look better and at the price may be worth a try.
Adidas has a pretty well respected hiking boot you can try, TERREX SWIFT R3 MID GORE-TEX (or the previous version R2) it is more expensive but some colours go on sale quite often
Salomon & Merrell are the top 2 brands you will see the most on any serious trail or hiking rout... It's about standing the test of time not just the first day fresh out of the box comfort test!
This section of the show is called "Shop Smart & Save Money" so i get why they're featuring 2 cheap shoes but you do raise a good point & i'd argue paying a little extra for the hardcore brands because they are proven to last a long time is "shopping smart" it's buying an £80 shoe you'll have to replace in 2/3 years vs a paying £120 for a shoe that you know will last you 6 or 7
@@DJTempa downside I've found lately across Merrell, Scarpa and Keen is that the quality of manufacture across them all seems to be reducing. I don't expect to get more then 3 years from any of them.
@@gan314159 all depends how many miles you do within that time frame and what kinda trails you're doing of course, and what kinda care you're giving them after each hike, a lot of them are actually only rated for a few hundred miles if you read the spec sheets!
I've been using Regatta shoes and boots for several years and have not been disappointed. I tend to wear a pair of shoes out in 2 years so, at around £40 a pair, I can't complain at 4p per week. If I were doing more challenging terrain with wet rocks etc, I would to double my budget to 8p per week and I might even splash out, no pun intended, on some Northface shoes for the winter.
I'm glad to be using minimalist shoes/boots. I find it better to allow for the natural flexible function of the foot and good ground-feel rather than have unnecessary "support" and excessive cushioning. It feels much nicer to walk in minimalist shoes and there are still options with some cushioning and deeper treads for difficult terrain.
I've had experience with regatta, and other, cheap walking shoes and boots, and they don't last long, with the soles wearing out quickly. Currently I'm using Scarpa and Grisport, both roughly 4 years old and going strong and still feeling very solid and supportive. I won't skimp on quality again with hiking shoes.
cheap just means they are not a desired brand, everyone knows that these days, there is zero benefit for paying over the odds for most things. "i pay for quality", bollocks.
Not entirely wrong in some cases but i think the threshold is a little higher than this for shoes in particular where you start to see diminishing returns, at these prices (since both are under 100) i think you will see a large difference in martials used etc, the cheaper one is going to use much cheaper (probably less durable) materials as well as a cheaper build process, maybe a little less stitching here, maybe a little weaker glue use there in order to achieve that cheaper price, there is no doubt in my mind the more expensive ones would outlive the cheaper ones by quite a while! not to mention the fact that they are clearly less comfortable as they state in the video.... i think it's not until you start comparing £300 shoes to £700 shoes, that's where you will see very little difference and you are essentially paying for the brand or something silly you don't need like Stirling silver buttons lol however this is one of the cheapest shoes the northface makes, especially in the hiking section it looks like they get significantly more pricey!
Somewhat agree, but I've had regatta walking boots and they were a waste of money, only lasting a few months before needing replacing. My current 2 pairs are about 3 to 4 x more costly, but they both are over 4 years old with many hard miles on them.
My walking shoes tend to last a couple of years (although I do switch to boots in bad winter weather) so we are looking at spending around 4p a week on Regatta or 8p a week on North Face. I've always been happy with Regatta shoes but I might treat myself to a pair of Northface shoes for winter, more rugged or longer walks just to see if they are measurably better.
Everyones feet are different, find the boots or shoes that work for you dont base a purchase on one review of a cple of pairs. I walked for years in boots until I switched to trail runners all year round bar snowy weather and walk further, faster with no blisters or hot achy feet any more. Go try some on, know your terrain and your own limits and what matters to you. Then buy the best ones you can find within your budgets.
Title says 'boots' but shoes are reviewed. Not sure North Face are 'premium' I have had poor experience with a pair in the past, these look better and at the price may be worth a try.
Adidas has a pretty well respected hiking boot you can try, TERREX SWIFT R3 MID GORE-TEX (or the previous version R2) it is more expensive but some colours go on sale quite often
Salomon & Merrell are the top 2 brands you will see the most on any serious trail or hiking rout... It's about standing the test of time not just the first day fresh out of the box comfort test!
This section of the show is called "Shop Smart & Save Money" so i get why they're featuring 2 cheap shoes but you do raise a good point & i'd argue paying a little extra for the hardcore brands because they are proven to last a long time is "shopping smart" it's buying an £80 shoe you'll have to replace in 2/3 years vs a paying £120 for a shoe that you know will last you 6 or 7
@@DJTempa downside I've found lately across Merrell, Scarpa and Keen is that the quality of manufacture across them all seems to be reducing. I don't expect to get more then 3 years from any of them.
@@gan314159 all depends how many miles you do within that time frame and what kinda trails you're doing of course, and what kinda care you're giving them after each hike, a lot of them are actually only rated for a few hundred miles if you read the spec sheets!
I bought Merell shoes £90 they felt like walking bricks 😱
Sounds like the Regattas are better value on the face of it, not far behind and much cheaper.
I've been using Regatta shoes and boots for several years and have not been disappointed. I tend to wear a pair of shoes out in 2 years so, at around £40 a pair, I can't complain at 4p per week.
If I were doing more challenging terrain with wet rocks etc, I would to double my budget to 8p per week and I might even splash out, no pun intended, on some Northface shoes for the winter.
I'm glad to be using minimalist shoes/boots. I find it better to allow for the natural flexible function of the foot and good ground-feel rather than have unnecessary "support" and excessive cushioning. It feels much nicer to walk in minimalist shoes and there are still options with some cushioning and deeper treads for difficult terrain.
I've had experience with regatta, and other, cheap walking shoes and boots, and they don't last long, with the soles wearing out quickly.
Currently I'm using Scarpa and Grisport, both roughly 4 years old and going strong and still feeling very solid and supportive. I won't skimp on quality again with hiking shoes.
Totally subjective. A blind test would be more appropriate
Great review 👍
cheap just means they are not a desired brand, everyone knows that these days, there is zero benefit for paying over the odds for most things. "i pay for quality", bollocks.
Not entirely wrong in some cases but i think the threshold is a little higher than this for shoes in particular where you start to see diminishing returns, at these prices (since both are under 100) i think you will see a large difference in martials used etc, the cheaper one is going to use much cheaper (probably less durable) materials as well as a cheaper build process, maybe a little less stitching here, maybe a little weaker glue use there in order to achieve that cheaper price, there is no doubt in my mind the more expensive ones would outlive the cheaper ones by quite a while! not to mention the fact that they are clearly less comfortable as they state in the video.... i think it's not until you start comparing £300 shoes to £700 shoes, that's where you will see very little difference and you are essentially paying for the brand or something silly you don't need like Stirling silver buttons lol however this is one of the cheapest shoes the northface makes, especially in the hiking section it looks like they get significantly more pricey!
Somewhat agree, but I've had regatta walking boots and they were a waste of money, only lasting a few months before needing replacing.
My current 2 pairs are about 3 to 4 x more costly, but they both are over 4 years old with many hard miles on them.
My walking shoes tend to last a couple of years (although I do switch to boots in bad winter weather) so we are looking at spending around 4p a week on Regatta or 8p a week on North Face. I've always been happy with Regatta shoes but I might treat myself to a pair of Northface shoes for winter, more rugged or longer walks just to see if they are measurably better.