| |
Gear Reviews
Documents
Tools
|
Women's Dunham Cloud Pileus Boots
Field
Report March 18, 2006
Boot after 56 mi (90 km) of use
Tester's Information
Name: Liz Neely
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Height: 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m)
Weight: 145 lb (65.8 kg)
Email address: liz at armory dot com
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Tester's Background:
I've been day hiking for many years, and started backpacking in 2005.
My hiking and backpacking has been primarily in the San Francisco Bay
Area of California, on well-marked trails, with occasional stream
crossings. I've been on five weekend backpacking trips, all in state
and national parks in the San Francisco Bay area. The temperatures I
encounter range from 25 F (4 C) to 75 F (24 C), the elevations are
between sea level and 3500 ft (1067 m), and my pack weight is between
30 to 35 lbs (13.6 to 15.9 kg).
Product Information:
Manufacturer: Dunham
Year of Manufacture: 2005
URL: http://www.dunhambootmakers.com
Materials: Leather, Polyurethane, Rubber
Listed Weight: not listed
Measured Weight (size 10.5 B): 3 lbs 1.5 oz (1.4 kg) for the pair
Available Colors: Brown
MSRP: Unknown
Product Description:
These are waterproof hiking boots made of Leather, Polyurethane, and
Rubber.
These are the features the manufacturer highlights on their website:
- Dryworks® moisture management membrane system provides
waterproof protection and breathable comfort in the wettest conditions
- Graphite Rollbar® is a biomechanical rear foot technology
utilizing a graphite structure to provide significant motion control at
the beginning of the gait cycle
- Dunham’s proprietary Tru-Trak® provides excellent
multi-directional traction and long lasting durability
- Abrasion resistant toe rand and mud guard
- Double-lasted construction supports an internal midsole that
brings the wearer closer to the ground for increased stability Dunham Comfort
- Internal leather lined collar and tongue combine with full grain
leathers with minimal seams to provide superior comfort and a luxurious
fit on the trail
- ABZORB® pods in the heel and forefoot, which provides
superior shock absorption and ideal underfoot cushioning for maximum
multi-mile comfort
- Full-length ABZORB® insert, with a bi-fit lasting board that
is also covered with a full length of ABZORB cushioning for additional
comfort
- Gusseted, articulated tongue with high density foams that provide
a more contoured fit to the natural shape of the foot, resulting in
superior comfort
- Polyurethane midsole provides durable support and shock absorption
- Pieced leather design protects and respects anatomical shape of
the foot
- Dunham Specific Hiking last provides a precise all day fit
- 360° fit design considers not only length and width but also
volume
- Extended sizes and widths to fit everyone
Initial Impression:
To read about my initial impression of these boots, before field
testing, please read my Initial
Review.
Field Information:
I have worn these boots on two day hikes, two backpacking trips, and
several
walks of 2-4 mi (3-6 km) on city streets and sidewalks. I also wore
these boots briefly in the snow. Each time I wore these boots, I was
wearing mid-weight to heavy-weight socks designed to wick water away
from my feet.
First Hike:
The first hike I wore these boots on was in and around Santa Cruz,
California. The hike was 9 mi (14 km) on a combination of about
50% paved paths and some sidewalks and 50% dirt paths, with plenty of
mud and puddles. It was raining for the duration of this hike, and the
temperature was around 55 F (13 C). The elevation was sea level, and
the
terrain was fairly flat.
Because I wanted to test the waterproof qualities of these boots, I
intentionally submerged my feet in deep puddles many times during this
hike. I submerged them such that the entire foot of the boot was
underwater, but the boot opening at the top was not submerged, so
water could not leak in through that opening. Upon the first
submersion, I did not feel any water come into the boot. However, on
the second submersion, I felt dampness on my left foot near the area of
the lowest eyelet on the
outside row of eyelets. On subsequent submersions, I felt dampness on
both feet in that area, although nowhere else, and nothing beyond a
feeling of slight dampness. At one point I intentionally left my feet
submerged for 20 seconds and I still felt nothing besides this slightly
damp feeling near the first outer eyelets on both feet. After arriving
back home, I carefully examined the inside of the boots
for dampness. They were damp to the touch on both the inside and
outside. My left sock had dampness covering about 80% of the sock, but
it was only damp, definitely not wet. The right sock only had two small
damp
spots on it, the rest was completely dry.
Another thing I was testing during this hike was the claim that the
boots didn't require any breaking in. I intentionally didn't wear the
boots prior to this hike, in order to test this claim. The boots felt
pretty stiff, and I could feel that it was a lot of work for my feet to
flex the stiff leather,
however, they were not uncomfortable in any way. There were two times
during this hike when I feared that I might be encountering problems
related to not breaking in these boots, but each incident lasted no
longer than 15 minutes. The first occurred about an hour into the hike.
I started to feel poking and rubbing on the top of my left foot
directly under the lowest eyelet on the
outside row of eyelets. This was noticeably uncomfortable for about 10
minutes, then I stopped noticing it. The second incident occurred about
three hours into the hike. I felt the back of my left boot rubbing
against my heel. This feeling continued for about 15 minutes, then
stopped. I carefully examined my feet after this hike and did not find
any
rubbed spots or blisters. However, two days after the hike, I found a
small spot of raw skin on my left foot where the boot
had been rubbing it near the first outer eyelet. I don't know why it
took this spot two days to appear, but I can't think of any activities
that could have caused it other than this hike.
As far as comfort goes, other than the hard work when flexing the stiff
leather, mentioned above, I had no complaints. They were nicely
padded and comfortable, and my feet never felt too hot nor too cold
during this hike.
In terms of convenience, the only issue I have to mention is the drying
time. After this hike, I set the boots near our floor heater, with the
indoor temperature ranging from 60-75 F (16-24 C), and outside humidity
between 65-85% (I'm unsure of the indoor humidity, but I'm sure it was
fairly high.). The outside of the
boots dried fairly quickly (less than one day), however, the inside
took four days to be completely dry to the touch. I do not consider
this a problem with these boots specifically, since I have this problem
trying to dry anything in the environment I live in, but I feel I
should mention it for completeness of this report.
Second
Hike:
The second hike I wore these boots on was in Uvas Canyon County
Park near Morgan Hill, California. The hike was 5 mi (8 km) of dirt
trails, covered with wet leaves in many places and loose rocks and
pebbles in some places. It was cloudy, but not
raining, and the temperature was around 60 F (16 C). The elevation
ranged from
around 1100 to 1800 ft (335 to 549 m) and there were many somewhat
steep uphill and
downhill sections on these trails.
Since these boots, prior to this hike, only had 9 mi (14 km) on them, I
was still paying close attention to the claim that they didn't require
any breaking in. After about 3.5 mi (5.6 km), I felt like I was getting
a rubbed spot on the back of my right foot. I
put a Band-Aid on that spot on my foot, and the feeling immediately
went
away. After the hike, I carefully examined my feet, and there was
no visible damage
to the skin in that area or any other areas, and no blisters anywhere.
The boots still felt very stiff and my feet felt like they were working
fairly hard when flexing them.
This hike gave me some great opportunities to evaluate the protection
and safety offered by these boots. I found that when walking over
uneven terrain such as beds of medium sized rocks, I could feel the
boots preventing my ankles from twisting. I also felt that these boots
offered pretty good traction on steep trails covered with loose dirt
and pebbles, and wet leaves. Once or twice I felt myself slipping, but
the boots quickly grabbed hold and prevented me from sliding down the
trail. I also noticed that these boots had fairly good traction when
walking on wet rocks in a stream.
As for comfort, there were several times during this hike when my feet
felt pretty hot, but, other than that, and the stiffness of the boots
mentioned above, I found these boots to be very comfortable.
First Backpacking Trip:
The first backpacking trip I wore these boots on was in Henry
Coe State Park near Gilroy, California. The hike was a total of 15
mi (24 km) over the course of two days, on dirt trails. It was cloudy,
but
not raining, and the daytime temperatures ranged from 45-65 F (7-18 C).
The
elevation ranged from 1000-2500 ft (305-762 m) and there were many
steep
uphill and
downhill sections on these trails.
Prior to this backpacking trip, the boots had about 20 mi (32 km) on
them. So, while maybe not beyond the typical break-in period for hiking
boots, they were no longer brand new either. The boots did still feel
stiff at times, but they were getting less stiff each time I wore them.
I never felt any pain in my feet during this trip, and did not develop
any "hot spots" or blisters on my feet.
I walked through several shallow streams about 2-3 in (5-8 cm) deep,
and did not encounter any leakage of water into the boots.
My feet felt hot at times during the first day, but not during the
second day, perhaps because
the second day had a lot of downhill hiking, and I tend not to heat up
as
much when hiking downhill compared to when hiking uphill.
Second Backpacking Trip:
The second backpacking trip I wore these boots on was also in Henry Coe
State Park near Gilroy, California. The hike was a total of 17 mi (27
km)
over the course of two days, on dirt and mud trails, with many stream
crossings. It was raining intermittently, and
even
snowed for a very brief period of time. The daytime temperatures
ranged from 30 to 55 F (1 to 13 C), the elevation ranged from 1000-2600
ft (305-792 m), and
there were many steep uphill and downhill sections on these trails.
At the beginning of this trip, the boots had about 35 mi (56 km) on
them. They no longer felt super stiff and my feet didn't feel like they
were doing so much work when walking in them. I did develop one "hot
spot" on the back of my left heel about 5 mi (8 km) into the hike the
first day. I immediately put on a Band-Aid and had no further problems
with it. After the trip, I found no visible raw or blistered spots on
either foot.
There were many stream crossings on this hike, and I walked right
through 3-4 in (8-10 cm) deep water four or five times with no leakage
into
my boots. I noticed that after short stream crossings, the boots would
turn a dark color, but within half an hour, they would turn light
colored again. However, after longer periods of immersion, or after
several
stream crossings close together, the boots would stay the darker color
much longer.
It rained for about the last two hours or so of the first day's hike,
and
even snowed for a short period of time; the boots maintained their
waterproof qualities and there was no leakage of water into the insides
of the boots. Upon arriving in camp, my boots were still dry inside.
My feet never felt cold while I was hiking, despite pretty cold
temperatures. My feet also never felt too hot on this trip, unlike the
previous times I had worn these boots.
Walks in Town:
I wore these boots for several walks of 2-4 mi (3-6 km) on city
sidewalks, with
temperatures around 60 F (16 C) in sunny to partly cloudy weather.
On the first walk, after about .75 mi (1.2 km), I had to stop and
loosen the laces around the toe areas of the boots because they were
squeezing my feet
too hard and making them sore and tired. It was at this point that I
discovered that I had a lot of
control over how tight the boots were across many different areas of my
feet by tightening the laces more or less in each set of eyelets. For
example,
I could make them loose around the lower foot and tight around my
ankles, or tight across my mid-foot and looser around my ankles, and
so on, simply by changing how tight I made the laces in each eyelet. I
really like the adjustability offered by this.
My feet did not develop any hot spots or blisters on any of these
walks, although they felt a bit too hot during these walks.
In the Snow:
I wore these boots before and after skiing on two consecutive days. The
usage consisted of several short walks through snowy parking lots, and
walking through and standing in ankle deep snow on the sides of
roadways several times. I would estimate that the temperatures were in
the low to mid 20's F (7 C).
The boots kept my feet completely dry
during each of these encounters with snow, however, my feet did feel
somewhat cold at times.
Summary of Feelings About These Boots:
Comfort/Fit:
I find these boots to fit perfectly, and be true to size. The width in
different areas of the foot is easily adjustable by how tight the
laces are pulled in each of the seven sets of eyelets. By playing with
these adjustments, I can tighten these boots exactly how I want them in
each area of my feet. I also find the ample vertical space in the toe
area adds comfort by letting my toes wiggle around occasionally, and
prevents my toes from ever hitting the tops of the boots.
As for the claim that these boots need little to no break-in, I have to
agree that they can be hiked in with little or no problems without any
break-in. I never had any problems with blisters when wearing these
boots, even when they were brand new and not broken in. However, I will
also add that after they have been worn for 25-30 mi (40-48 km), they
become less stiff and less work for my feet to hike in.
Waterproof:
I agree with the claim that these boots are waterproof. During my field
testing, under normal conditions, such as rain, snow, and stream
crossings, the boots remained waterproof. The only time I experienced
leakage of dampness into the boots was when I was intentionally pushing
the limits by walking through and standing in deep puddles for longer
periods of time and more frequently than I typically would be doing on
a hike. And, even under those conditions, it was only a little dampness
that
got into the boots. I did find that in my humid environment, when
dampness
does find it's way into the boots, the insides take a long time to dry.
Traction:
I'm very pleased with the traction provided by these boots. I found
that on steep hills covered with loose dirt, rocks, and leaves, these
boots provided great traction, and prevented me from sliding down the
hills.
Durability:
These boots now have approximately 56 mi (90 km) on them and are
showing no signs of wear, other than cosmetic. The cosmetic signs of
wear are minor; there is a slight discoloration of the
leather in places (see photo at top for dark spots on leather), there
are a few scuffs on the mud guards and treads, and there three shallow
cuts on the mud guards of one of the boots (see photo below for cuts.)
I don't know what caused these cuts, but I consider them purely
cosmetic damage; I do not believe this will affect the performance of
the boots in any way. I've
carefully
examined the leather, fabric, stitching, and treads, and everything is
in great condition. So
far, I am very happy with the durability of these boots.
Thanks to BackpackGearTest.org
and Dunham for giving me the opportunity
to test these boots.
Read more reviews of Dunham gear
Read more gear reviews by Liz Neely
|
