Reviews > Clothing > Socks > Ullfrotte Sport Socks > Roger Caffin > Initial Report

Initial Report - Ullfrotte Sport Socks
Roger Caffin

Product Information

Preamble

This Test was advertised as being for the Sport socks, but when I looked at the Ullfrotte web site I was greatly taken with the Wildlife socks (shown to the right). This was because the Wildlife socks are quoted as being '600 g/m² (2 oz/sq ft)' rather than the lighter Sport socks at '400 g/m² (1.3 oz/sq ft)', and I find thick padding goes well with the very light footwear I use. However, it was not clear from the web site what the real differences were. In the event, Ullfrotte shipped both the Wildlife and the Sport socks, which was very nice of them and this will let me explain the differences. I had requested the Middle size, to suit shoe sizes 7 - 10 USA (40 - 44 Eu), but they sent the Large size as given above. However, I do not think this size 'error' will matter, as explained below. They shipped black in both sorts: I am not fussed about the colour. I will mainly report on the Sport socks, but I will also draw some comparisons with the Wildlife socks as the web site does not adequately explain the (fairly small) differences.

Initial Impression

The socks arrived in a fairly small padded bag with just a 'picking ticket' (aka packing slip). However, I can't see how they could get damaged in the post, so that was fine. Each pair of socks was packed in a cardboard sleeve covered in all sorts of technical information. There's a listing of the different 'sock weights' available and what they are good for, a diagram of the action of the needles in a knitting machine, a diagram of the knit construction (it's a sort of terry knit with loops on the inside), a scale indicating 'wool quality in microns' with a ring around 22, a picture of merino sheep in front of an Australian windmill / water bore, and a sizing chart. I have to say that none of this was much use, but I guess it filled the space. Apart from the picture on the front the two sleeves looked the same.

Down the bottom of the back of the sleeve were the washing symbols, and this information I had not been able to find on the Ullfrotte web site. My wife was a little concerned lest the socks, being wool, required hand washing. But no, the symbols indicated that a mild machine wash (60 C or 140 F) without bleach would be fine. They can also be ironed (!) and tumble-dried, but neither is likely here. In effect, they will get the same treatment we give our Thorlo walking socks.

It's always fun when two versions of one item arrive: comparisons make life more interesting. In this case the results from the comparisons proved quite different from what I had expected from the web site. I had expected that the Sport socks would be lighter than the Wildlife socks since they are quoted at 400 g/m² vs 600 g/m². Well, they are lighter, but that is not the full story. The Sport socks seem to have a fairly thick knit around the foot but a far lighter ankle cover. The Sport socks (but not the Wildlife socks) have a coloured logo woven into the ankle. I believe they are also available without the logo. The web site says the Sport socks with logo are article 8414, but the cardboard sleeve says they are article 976. The Wildlife socks have a uniform thickness all over, maybe 25% thicker than the Sport socks, with the thick ankle section coming up about 230 mm (9") from the heel. They are article 8416 on both the web site and the sleeve. For what it is worth, the cardboard sleeve for the Wildlife socks is about 50% thicker than the one for the Sport socks, reflecting the thicker foot section plus the much thicker ankle section.

On closer examination

The web site had suggested these socks were a wool/nylon blend. The Sport package does say 65% wool 35% polyamide (60/40 for the Wildlife), so that seems to match. The surface of the socks has a definite 'wool' feel: very soft and fluffy as it were. But there is also a Lycra logo on the side of the cardboard sleeve, which suggests there may be a few percent of this superbly elastic fibre in the mix. Now this does alter things quite significantly: the Lycra should make the socks 'cling' to my feet a whole lot more. Indeed, putting the socks on showed exactly this sort of feeling. Actually, I have to say I rather liked the feeling: can socks feel 'sexy'?

Ullfrotte shipped a larger size than I requested, but the Lycra makes the socks pull in on my feet. A very brief trial of the socks around the house suggested that this larger size could be OK. It will be interesting to see how this works out. However, I did notice after half an hour that the slim ankle section had already expanded a bit to accommodate my moderately thick lower calf muscles. But then, the ankle section as delivered was extremely narrow.

The tip of the toe has been sewn together in the conventional sock-making manner. (The machines which do this are rather cunning devices.) There is a faint ridge where the sewing is, but nothing to cause me any concern. The top of the ankle on the Sport socks was turned in and downwards a little way and a broad band of softer elastic woven in. This looks reasonable for holding the ankle section up - not that I ever worry about this. The Wildlife socks roll outwards just slightly at the top, and seem to have a couple of strands of stretchy (elastic) yarn there. I think this elastic will hold the top of the sock together, while the outwards roll should stop the elastic from pressing into my ankle. This is a fairly cunning bit of design.

The ankle section of the Wildlife socks has the same terry pile construction as the foot. This would make them a bit warmer than the Sport socks, which are plain. I am wondering which would be better for Australian conditions. The web site really gave little information here apart from the nominal weight/area figures.

I mentioned above that we (my wife and I) normally wear Thorlo socks. These are 'engineered': they have thick padding under the ball and the heel of the foot and some thick padding over the arch of the foot. Elsewhere the sock is much thinner, such that there is no pressure on the underside of the arch. We have found this works very well, reducing fatigue. The Ullfrotte socks are more conventional, with a uniform thickness around the foot. Walking around the house I could feel the sock under the arch of my foot: will this make any difference to my feet at the end of the day?

Test Plan

As ever, my basic test plan is to go walking with the socks. We do an extended walk (4-8 days) every few weeks, and some day trips in between. During the Field Report period these walks will include some of our best wild country and Alpine regions of course, but may also include some 7-14 day track walks we have in mind. Later on, during the period between the Field Report and the Long Term Report, we will be in Europe for 6 - 8 weeks. We will be walking in the Pyrenees, and the socks could be tested there if they survive the Field Report period. Last time we were there it rained nearly every day for an hour or two - sometimes lightly, sometimes heavily. Our feet were very often wet, and that would certainly give the durability of the socks a good work-out.

Things I will be looking at include:

• Fit: is the initial shape of the sock a good approximation to my foot?
• Size: is the larger (than requested) size still functional?
• Stretch: do the socks stretch and conform nicely, or do they stretch and sag (does the Lycra work)?
• Creasing: do the socks have any tendency to develop folds - which usually lead to blisters?
• Padding: what is the initial padding like, and how well does it cushion?
• Engineering: can I feel any difference with the uniform thickness around my foot?
• Felting: it's going to happen with wool, but how much, how badly and where - how good is their fibre blend?
• Wear: how fast do the high movement areas (mainly the back of the heel for me) wear out?
• Smell: we all know about this one! But wool has a bad reputation: how bad is it with these?
• Washing: do the socks recover their spring when they are washed?
• Fabric Softeners: are these necessary or useful to keep the socks in good condition?
• Ankles: do the ankles stay up, or do they sag quickly?
• Sweating: frankly, my feet usually end up sweaty, even if I haven't been in the river. I do not expect socks to keep my feet dry in Australian conditions, but it will be interesting to see what happens all the same?
• Warmth: I have rarely had cold feet unless my shoes were far too small and cut off the circulation. But will they prove too hot?

Reviewer Details

Reviewer:	Roger Caffin
Age:	58
Gender:	M
Weight:	64 kg (140 lb)
Height:	166 cm (65")
Shoe size:	42 Eu, 8 UK, not sure about USA
Email address:	r dot caffin at acm dot org
Location:	Sydney, NSW, Australia

Backpacking Background

I started bushwalking (the Australian term) when I was about 14 years old and took up rock climbing and remote exploration walking at University with the girl who became my wife. Later on we took up ski touring and canyoning. These days all our trips involve just the two of us. Over the last few years we have become converted to the concept of ultra-lightweight walking, and we have been cutting our total pack weights down from 18 - 20 kg (40 - 45 lb) to about 12 kg (26 lb) for week-long trips. That's not counting climbing rope or extra water for a dry camp - both happen. Our preferred walking trips in Australia are long ones: about a week in the general Blue Mts (east coast of Australia) and Snowy Mts (alpine region), and up to two months long in Europe and the UK. Ski touring trips would also typically last up to a week. We favour fairly hard trips of some length and prefer to travel fast and light. Many of our trips are exploratory in wild country which sees few other walkers. In between these long trips we do some day walks, often exploring the start of longer trips. On average, we would spend at least two days per week walking or ski touring. The country we travel through is quite harsh, and this tends to be rough on our socks.

Reviews > Clothing > Socks > Ullfrotte Sport Socks > Roger Caffin > Initial Report