Fishing Canoe

Question:

It’s the color and the fact, in my experience anyway, that ash is harder to work.  More inclined to tear out in the planer or on the lathe. Biggest complaint I hear about cherry is it blotches when you try to stain it.  I’ve never tried to stain it so I don’t know.  Ash certainly is hard.  It’s the stuff of baseball bats. rhg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray? James

Response:

The ash we have locally is both hard and beautiful. The vast majority is almost white or cream colored in appearance.(baseball bats) It is a very under used wood and can be had fairly cheap… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray?

Response:

I’ve got a pile of ash planks in my basement.  No, I’m not ready to give it away but I do find it more of a challenge to work.  Cherry is just easier to work.  More like walnut.  Ash is ornery stuff. bob g. Also IMHO, the natural color of cherry is more attractive.  Ash needs help and I’m no expert on stain and dye.  I work at it but it’s easier to just use a wood I like the color of without changing it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The ash we have locally is both hard and beautiful. The vast majority is almost white or cream colored in appearance.(baseball bats) It is a very under used wood and can be had fairly cheap… Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray?

Response:

Birch is a near look-a-like for cherry?  I have always considered birch to look a lot like maple and nothing like cherry. When I went on the last tour of fancy and overpriced homes in my area I frequently enquired about the wood the built in cabinets were made out of.  Many of the builders would tell me that the cabinets were maple.  When I enquired further they would tell me that the cabinets were maple ply with birch frames.  I think birch is frequently passed off for maple. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

I never have heard anyone go "ohh ash!" hehe.

but I have heard customers of ours say "Man,what a nice piece of ash!!" Jim Buffalo,NY

Response:

Weeell, if you look at a lot of "pecan" furniture, you’ll find it’s white ash.  Now what they call "black ash" is much lighter, stringier, and darker. As to birch, there’s white and yellow according to the timber buyers.  White is pallet wood, yellow is sometimes built into maple pieces.   There’s also a sort of pink "yellow" birch which is close in color to KD cherry, though the annual rings are much less distinct.  They call it "cherry birch" because of the appearance of the bark and the pink wood. Guess you need to use what looks good, regardless.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray?

Response:

Maple and birch are regularly interchanged.  Cherry my resemble birch when freshly cut, but leave it sit a few months and watch that color come through. I don’t like to stain cherry, but prefer to let the color develop on its own.

Response:

I have used birch with a cherry stain and it looked pretty good.  A knowledgeable person can tell the difference, but at first glance it can look like cherry. I have found it easy to work with.

Response:

but I have heard customers of ours say "Man,what a nice piece of ash!!" Jim Buffalo,NY

I needed to turn a pump handle.  Told SWMBO that I was going out to look for a piece of ash.  She said "Don’t bother coming back".  Lots of explaining later, pump handle is complete. Bob (Speeeder) Anderson The law Prof. from Port Perry

Response:

Ash is hands down the best wood for canoe gunwales.  Very tough, and still somewhat springy.   Right now I am using it for some canoe seats, I think most commercial ones are made from it.   I bought 12 or 14 boards, because I got a deal.  Turns out, the stuff really tears up my sinuses, gets me coughing something terrible. Otherwise, I like the looks of it.  But yes, hard to work. Anyone have a 17 (+)  foot board for sale in the Indianapolis area? Mine are all shorter.  Thinking about new gunwales for my Mad River canoe. -Dan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve got a pile of ash planks in my basement.  No, I’m not ready to give it away but I do find it more of a challenge to work.  Cherry is just easier to work.  More like walnut.  Ash is ornery stuff. bob g. Also IMHO, the natural color of cherry is more attractive.  Ash needs help and I’m no expert on stain and dye.  I work at it but it’s easier to just use a wood I like the color of without changing it. The ash we have locally is both hard and beautiful. The vast majority is almost white or cream colored in appearance.(baseball bats) It is a very under used wood and can be had fairly cheap… Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray?

Response:

Weeell, if you look at a lot of "pecan" furniture, you’ll find it’s white ash.  

If you look at a lot of 1900 "oak" furniture, you’ll find the same, just with a darker finish applied. I often finish ash with a first coat of brown ochre in wax, well brushed in as a filler to highlight the ring-porous grain, then a clear hard wax over that.  Works well for green wood furniture, Windsor chairs etc.   The filler needs to be held in wax, not an oil, as otherwise it will smear over the surface between the rings too. One thing to watch with finishing ash is that it has a tendency to look yellow. Use bleached white waxes rather than untouched plain waxes, or use a good grade of blonde shellac, not your usual garnet. Ash is often best not sawn, but split. If the grain is moderately straight, then it cleaves beautifully and will then steam bend or plane easily. If it’s less straight, it will still cleave easily but the uses are then somewhat limited. it will often steam bend and then allow the surface to be planed smooth (with resultant short grain), but any attempt to thicknes it first and _then_ steam bend it will fail due to splitting. If you’re lucky, you might even find some rippled ash, which can then get mistaken for tiger maple.

Response:

This thread started off talking about birch.  Is birch and ash similar?

The ash we have locally is both hard and beautiful. The vast majority is almost white or cream colored in appearance.(baseball bats) It is a very under used wood and can be had fairly cheap… Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray?

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

This thread started off talking about birch.  Is birch and ash similar?

Nope. -Doug

Response:

JS, All the trim, mantles, kitchen and built in cabinets in this house are birch and frankly, they are beautiful. One of the reasons (besides the view) that I bought this place was the great woodwork. Who cares what anybody thinks but you? If you like it, excellent! Andy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." As opposed to " Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made of?" "Birch miss. " " Birch? you mean the white tree growing in my front yard? " See ohh good. no ohh bad. I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

  I am just finishing a set of kitchen cabinets, buffet, and corner cabinets out of ash.  It is beautiful and, IMHO, easy enough to work.  I put a coat of Minwax Colonial Maple stain and then Target Oxford Premium Spray lacquer and it is gorgeous.   For a test spray piece, I used a defective cabinet door (the damn biscuits moved and showed through the raised panel cove cut, damn things) and sprayed it with the lacquer.  It is drop dead beautiful.   Our bed is a Mission style bed with a 6 foot high headboard and a 4 foot high foot board.  The posts and the crosspieces are all maple but the slats are all birch.  That too is quite pretty.   Anyone who has HLVP should try Target’s spray lacquer.  It sprays nice and recoats in 30 to 45 minutes.  It builds up nicely and the layers burn together so there are no witness lines when you rub out.   Last night, my spray cup ran empty and I did not notice a run.  This morning, I saw the run.  Of course, it was on the side that was going to face directly into the most travelec part of the room.  I rubbed out the run with some 400 grit and a sanding block.  I put on two more coats this am and, I cannot even see where the defect used to be. — Remove the JUNK to email me – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have used birch with a cherry stain and it looked pretty good.  A knowledgeable person can tell the difference, but at first glance it can look like cherry. I have found it easy to work with.

Response:

Birch is a good mate for maple.  Birch is a little harder in my experience and easier to split if you try to nail it.  Maybe a little less likely to have interesting grain than maple but otherwise, very similar.  I’ve never seen birch I would mistake for cherry. rhg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Birch is a near look-a-like for cherry?  I have always considered birch to look a lot like maple and nothing like cherry. When I went on the last tour of fancy and overpriced homes in my area I frequently enquired about the wood the built in cabinets were made out of.  Many of the builders would tell me that the cabinets were maple.  When I enquired further they would tell me that the cabinets were maple ply with birch frames.  I think birch is frequently passed off for maple. I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

This thread started off talking about birch.  Is birch and ash similar?

Nah. I myself switched the topic from birch to ash. The only thing they have in common is they are inexpensive, available underused American woods. The world needs a few woodworkers to help these "underdog" woods. Maybe I’ll do that? Hickory is another underdog wood. Just finished a beautiful little cabinet/vanity made of hickory. Ash? hmmm- James

Response:

Jeff Jewitt says it has 30% solids which is greater than solvent lacquer. Nothing but praise for it on his forum http://www.homesteadfinishing.com/disc13_frm.htm  Anyone who has HLVP should try Target’s spray lacquer.  It sprays nice and recoats in 30 to 45 minutes.  It builds up nicely and the layers burn together so there are no witness lines when you rub out.

Name works for E-mail

Response:

What’s wrong with it compared to cherry?

There’s nothing wrong with birch, but it sure isn’t cherry.  No colour, and (certainly here in Europe, where cherry is a rare and premium wood) the log diameter is much smaller. For small section stock this isn’t a problem, but it means there’s no wide birch to be had, and that medium sized boards may suffer from excessive warping problems (being almost an entire tree section)

Response:

I agree. I have nothing against birch or any other wood. Just trying to explain why some people prefer other woods. All of my livingroom furniture is made out of pine, so I am for sure not one who only goes for the exotics.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JS, All the trim, mantles, kitchen and built in cabinets in this house are birch and frankly, they are beautiful. One of the reasons (besides the view) that I bought this place was the great woodwork. Who cares what anybody thinks but you? If you like it, excellent! Andy I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." As opposed to " Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made of?" "Birch miss. " " Birch? you mean the white tree growing in my front yard? " See ohh good. no ohh bad. I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

I have red birch kitchen cabinets that looks like "younger" cherry (before it has achived that dark reddish brown hue; i.e. its’ only got a lighter reddish brown hue). Renata – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Birch is a good mate for maple.  Birch is a little harder in my experience and easier to split if you try to nail it.  Maybe a little less likely to have interesting grain than maple but otherwise, very similar.  I’ve never seen birch I would mistake for cherry. rhg

Response:

yeah I would assume so. I never have heard anyone go "ohh ash!" hehe.  Lets put it this way, cherry is perceived as more exotic than birch. People want stuff made out of exotic woods, and hard to get woods, therefore they are more expensive. That and the harder they are to get, the higher the price.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray? James

Response:

I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood." As opposed to " Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made of?" "Birch miss. " " Birch? you mean the white tree growing in my front yard? " See ohh good. no ohh bad.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m about to make a china cabinet and have been pricing wood; primarily white oak, birch, cherry and maybe ash.  Cherry is my first choice (as I’ve made so many things out of oak I’m getting tired of it), but birch is a near look-alike.  But, why isn’t it nearly so popular as cherry, or so traditional?  What’s wrong with it compared to cherry? Thanks, Pete

Response:

I know where I live, birch are alot more plentiful than cherry, so I would assume this is why the difference in price, and since it is so plentiful, its not really used as much. I think when people want to make something , they want to make it out of a wood with what I call the ohh factor. Example. "Wow what a nice hutch. What kind of wood is it made out of?" " Mahogany miss." " Ohhh mahogany. Thats expensive wood."

Does this apply to ash, too? It often has a beautiful grain pattern, is a hardwood according to the store owner, and is also very inexpensive. Is it the color, which is very weak, almost gray? James

Response:

Question:

Short version: After several hours of trying on shoes yesterday, I ended up with 1. yet another pair of Saucony Grid Stabils, but in WIDE this time (earlier versions may not have had wide) 2. Asics Gel Eagle Trail 3. Lowa Tempest Lo Lady for fast hiking and field work. (Because of my summer fieldwork schedule, I was looking for something that I could do some fast hiking while in the field or nearby areas to reduce the effect of running setback that summer usually causes me.) and a couple hydration packs – 1 UD Luna, 1 Camelbak Cloudwalker, 1 Camelbak Stowaway (winterized bladder that can slip into any pack) – in view of confirmation of my understanding that most trail races in Alaska were unsupported in terms of aid stations with fluid, etc. One of these should work for running, and I’ll use the other for fieldwork and use the Stowaway to extend capacity or in winter. Long version (actually, the most interesting part is last paragraph under "outdoor store" except for those that want to know what I found with the shoes): Running shoe store: I didn’t see anything that looked better than Sauconys for everyday running, and after they managed to find a pair of wides in the store (the standards felt much tighter than my old ones), I decided to get another pair of them. But I also got a thin pair of SOF gel insoles. I’ll try the Sauconys without the insoles first and see how much of an issue rocks are. If they are still an issue, I’ll add the insoles, which I think may provide just enough more protection for what I’m doing now. And if not, we’ll try a 3rd iteration or maybe the Asics will work. I did look at the Asics 2070, which they didn’t have in womens, but the sole didn’t look like it would work for me anyway – snow bunnies don’t seem to use it. They sell it strictly as a road shoe, but I, ahh, politely expanded their knowledge The salesperson uses the Asics Gel Eagle Trail for similar running to what I do and really likes the tread on it including snow in winter – and I was able to get a decent fit and couldn’t feel the tread on the floor. It has a wide sole on it – hangs out beyond the foot – which I didn’t care for, but I’ll try it and see how it works. I was entitled to a "free" pair (buy 5 get a 6th free) and wanted to explore other possibilities beyond the Saucony. On to outdoor store: They had Montrails, and I really liked the appearance of them – no/little mesh. And after I was able to *pry* my foot into a Vitesse (without orthotic), it was a truly amazing fit. There was absolutely no heel movement, even up and down the incline ramp. There was almost no need to lace because the stretch fit and heel cup held the heel so nicely with lots of toe room. Alas, my high arch / instep makes it difficult for me to get my foot into these or any of the "glove fit" Montrails – same problem I have with boots. But I see now why people rave about the Montrail fit. They did have NB 805, which I think would fit based on nearby sizes, but they didn’t have my exact size. And I’m not sure they would be that different from my Sauconys so I passed. FWIW, I had an excellent salesperson at REI, who is a runner. REI had a lot more shoe/foot capabilities than I realized – footbeds, orthotics (not prescription), etc. I won’t pass them over in the future like I have in the past. NFI just sharing experiences. I also met Roberto Ghidoni – the Italian runner that just completed the running race to Nome – all 1100 miles of it <v. big g. He looked like he could have gone out and run another 1100 miles – amazing. He just happened to be in REI buying shoes for him and his wife the same time I was. There were some people standing next to me looking at shoes, and I heard something about race and Nome. I must’ve turned quickly to look, and the lady next to me said something about the person just having run to Nome, and I asked "is that Roberto?" (couldn’t remember last name) She seemed surprise that I would know, and I explained that we’d been following his progress on the internet, which got her all excited . They’ve been surprised at how many people were following the race that way. At any rate, she introduced me to him  :-). I told you I was an impressionable kid Sidenotes: Also discovered there’s other Alaskan lurkers in this ng – funny thing happens when cyberspace hits real space. Ohh, and shoe shopping is a very expensive way of surviving low mileage week But hopefully, I won’t have to go shoe shopping for another 6 months. NFI in either stores or brands – just sharing experiences. Dot

Response:

You answered a question I was going to ask you a little later in the season, regarding whether I should bother with specific trail shoes for the Sunmart 50K.  Thanks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FWIW, I would stick with your road shoes. If you have found them to work then they are designed for you. I personally think the traction issue on trails is overblown. Those big aggressive treads sure look neat, but do you really need it? In agree with Bill but that’s not uncommon. Trails shoes reminds me of cars with oversized tires riding down the expressway – overkill. There are rugged conditions and races that these would probably work better on but not much in the NE. The problem that I have however experienced is that the bottom of feet are very sore after a run from the pounding they take on the rocks. This is where I differ a little with Bill. I still use a road shoe but prefer stability shoe with a little more heft. With my Asics 2060′s having gel in both the heel and forefoot, I don’t feel the rocks. Consequently, I have bought a pair of NB 805s to try to address this issue. Not sure how they will work as I haven’t tried them yet and probably won’t until after Bull Run Run  next month. Hell you can just about use a racing flat at Bull Run. The trails are for the most part soft dirt. Last year the first loop(16 miles) which ran right next to the river was wet and slippery and wish I had a more aggressive tread. After rummaging through my closet I realize I don’t even own a pair shoes with lugs.  Let’s hope it doesn’t rain this year. going to experiment with a new shoe with two races scheduled in the short term . Will probably not use them in any serious manner until I start my preparation for Laurel Highlands 70 miler in June. Amen to that. I have one pair of 2060′s left to get me though the HAT and BUll Run. By then I will see if the 2070′s pass muster. My motto is run in the cheapest shoe you can for as long as you can. Not me. I look for a shoe that gives me what I want, the price is secondary.  I’m like the traveling salesman that wants a comfortable car under my ass and not a Yugo. — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

– Regards, Dave

Response:

.. Unless you are on mountainous trails, you probably don’t need "extra" traction.  The one thing I DO like better about trail shoes is, alot of them are built with tougher uppers than road shoes- a feature I’ve been thankful to have over the years- alot of scraping against rocks & stuff.  Also, Montrail’s "forefoot (or full-foot) protection plate" definitely helps against sharp rocks.

<CURMUDGEONLYRANT I haven’t found a trail shoe with uppers that last more than a few weeks without help.  The stitching and wear points on any new shoes get Shoe-Gooed when they come out of the box. It’s baffling to me why off-road shoes have to have so many panels and so many feet of stitching.  If it were related to functional design, they would have some perceptible relationship to load paths or deformation shapes. They don’t.  There must be darker motives. There have been times where life and place and choice had me down to one pair of shoes, and I ran in light high-top hikers.  They worked fine.  One of the best off-road running shoes IMO was the old, old original NB Ranier. </CURMUDGEONLYRANT Fred

Response:

<CURMUDGEONLYRANT I haven’t found a trail shoe with uppers that last more than a few weeks without help.  The stitching and wear points on any new shoes get Shoe-Gooed when they come out of the box.

Ever tried Montrails? I can vouch that the Vitesse DOES take a beating.  I’ve never had to shoe goo them, and when I throw tham away (finally) the are in SORRY shape- but not in need of repair, just worn out. ELi

Response:

My feet just didn’t "like" them.  I really think it all comes down to FIT more than anything else- whether you are talking about road, trail, whatever.  All this "cushioned-stability-motion control" stuff has it’s place, and it DOES work, but none of it is as important as fit, IMO.  And it’s funny- I have found this out on my own over the years, but this is exactly what everyone has been telling me from the beginning. FIT. Period. Unless you are on mountainous trails, you probably don’t need "extra" traction.  The one thing I DO like better about trail shoes is, alot of them are built with tougher uppers than road shoes- a feature I’ve been thankful to have over the years- alot of scraping against rocks & stuff.  Also, Montrail’s "forefoot (or full-foot) protection plate" definitely helps against sharp rocks.

Thanks. Yes, my feet are hard enough to fit that if I can get something comfortable, I generally don’t mess with it. Based on the comments here and my own thinking and some experimentation today, I think I want to keep that standard waffle pattern (or something similar) for my usual shoe. More protection under the forefoot, and a lower heel, and a little more toe space, if I can find it. I slam the heel on trail downhills, even when running ball-heel. The shoe store did have another model that was a little snugger (too snug) than the Stabil, but I’m thinking that in the next 1/2 size up may be an improvement and give me space to wear my heavier socks in winter without scrunching the circulation. FWIW, this may all be academic. We got a good 8 inches of snow last night, and well, it will be awhile before I do any trail running without snow. So I went snowshoeing – too deep to snowshoe run any reasonable distance so I just walked the hilly trail for a couple hours. But I did use my NB904s – and they felt better today than they have before. When I was done snowshoeing, I did a little running in them, just to remind myself of how they felt in soft material. And they felt fine, but whether the tread was helping or not, it’s hard to say. However, those treads were really treacherous on the packed snow and ice in my driveway when I got home. And the 904s are more rubberized than the Stabils, which I like in the snow. Thanks for your help. I’ll let the list know what I end up doing – which might be 2 more pairs of Stabils. Dot

Response:

FYI: if a low heel is one of the things you are looking for, you might want to look into the Montrails – they have lower heels (than alot of road shoes) by design, for better stabilty on the trail.  One of the reasons I love my Vitesse is their low heels- give a real stable feel, and a good "feel" for the terrain. Also, the Vitesse has a good amount of toe room (more than "normal" shoes have, whatever that is Not sure about all the Montrails… I think those waffle soles (originally made by Nike) are some of the best outsoles ever. ELi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Thanks. Yes, my feet are hard enough to fit that if I can get something comfortable, I generally don’t mess with it. Based on the comments here and my own thinking and some experimentation today, I think I want to keep that standard waffle pattern (or something similar) for my usual shoe. More protection under the forefoot, and a lower heel, and a little more toe space, if I can find it. I slam the heel on trail downhills, even when running ball-heel. The shoe store did have another model that was a little snugger (too snug) than the Stabil, but I’m thinking that in the next 1/2 size up may be an improvement and give me space to wear my heavier socks in winter without scrunching the circulation. FWIW, this may all be academic. We got a good 8 inches of snow last night, and well, it will be awhile before I do any trail running without snow. So I went snowshoeing – too deep to snowshoe run any reasonable distance so I just walked the hilly trail for a couple hours. But I did use my NB904s – and they felt better today than they have before. When I was done snowshoeing, I did a little running in them, just to remind myself of how they felt in soft material. And they felt fine, but whether the tread was helping or not, it’s hard to say. However, those treads were really treacherous on the packed snow and ice in my driveway when I got home. And the 904s are more rubberized than the Stabils, which I like in the snow. Thanks for your help. I’ll let the list know what I end up doing – which might be 2 more pairs of Stabils. Dot

Response:

I’ve tried a ton of different ones, and now only use the Montrail Vitesse.  My feet like them- that’s what it came down to.  Not high-tech cushioning, or replaceable tread lugs, or blah blah blah. My feet just like them. ELi Do you use the Vitesse on road and trail or just trail? I’ve not tried Montrails, but I’ve noticed that they seem to have a gradation from road/trail shoes to more technical trail shoes.

Trails only, but they are fine for "easy" trails or rail-trails as well.  I don’t find them cushioned enough for road use.  I also use a pair as my casual shoes- because they are so comfortable. The Leona Divide is supposed to be Montrail’s "all-terrain" shoe, and while I’ve never run in them, I did try them on- the fit is different than the Vitesse.  My feet just didn’t "like" them.  I really think it all comes down to FIT more than anything else- whether you are talking about road, trail, whatever.  All this "cushioned-stability-motion control" stuff has it’s place, and it DOES work, but none of it is as important as fit, IMO.  And it’s funny- I have found this out on my own over the years, but this is exactly what everyone has been telling me from the beginning. FIT. Period. Unless you are on mountainous trails, you probably don’t need "extra" traction.  The one thing I DO like better about trail shoes is, alot of them are built with tougher uppers than road shoes- a feature I’ve been thankful to have over the years- alot of scraping against rocks & stuff.  Also, Montrail’s "forefoot (or full-foot) protection plate" definitely helps against sharp rocks. ELi

Response:

I’m looking for a better mouse trap compared with my present Saucony Grid Stabils for easy trail / road running. Don’t get me started.  Ooops.  You got me started. Many of the shoes being hyped for trail use look like cartoons – the moral equivalents to a Lincoln Navigator and just as useful off road.  And they’re getting worse.

<snipped I just bought a pair of New Balance 805s All Terrain and they have very little beefing up and feel a lot less cushioned than my Saucony Hurricanes that I use in general. I have only run in them a couple of times and I think they actually feel ‘firmer’ all round than the Hurricanes. I can’t work out, (apart from flat laces, aggressive pattern and waterproof uppers), what is supposed to make them ‘All Terrain". Good shoes never the less. Vic

Response:

I’ve tried a ton of different ones, and now only use the Montrail Vitesse.  My feet like them- that’s what it came down to.  Not high-tech cushioning, or replaceable tread lugs, or blah blah blah. My feet just like them. ELi

Do you use the Vitesse on road and trail or just trail? I’ve not tried Montrails, but I’ve noticed that they seem to have a gradation from road/trail shoes to more technical trail shoes. Dot

Response:

I run occasionally on trails, for the hills. Jeep/fire roads with some single-track, rocky in places, not too much mud (in rain, the rocks become *way* too slippery). Best shoes for my purpose have been some old (discontinued, of course), Nike air shoes, Air Terra Kimbia IIRC. Light, flexible, thin midsole, waffle tread, minimalist design w/ no bells and whistles. I don’t use them on road, as I fear cushioning would be insufficient (I run lots of hills). I’d snap up more  shoes w/ this type of design, but shoe designers seem to have gone the "Navigator" route lamented above.

ok, thanks. I think I’m seeing a recurring theme here! Dot

Response:

Dot, FWIW, I would stick with your road shoes. If you have found them to work then they are designed for you.

That’s part of my problem – the 2000 version worked reasonably well, as does the 2001 version, but there’s definitely some improvement that could be made in fit and shock absorption. Sometimes I feel like I’m running in Keds. OTOH, I don’t think I changed to ball-of-foot strike until about the same time I got new shoes last year, or maybe just before. And I’ve only had snow/ice to run in since I remembered the difference between the 2 versions. Will probably not use them in any serious manner until I start my preparation for Laurel Highlands 70 miler in June.

Good luck on that one! I know this a rambling answer to tough question,

Actually, you told me exactly what I wanted to know. And it’s definitely along the lines I was thinking. I just don’t always have confidence in my rationale sometimes, yet. but ultimately if you really want a trail shoe you will just have to bite the bullet and try a pair and see how it goes.

Yep, and I definitely prefer my Stabils for everyday running compared with the NB904 – but the NB are nicer when my feet are buried in snow – which is consistent with what everybody’s been saying. Dot

Response:

The problem that I have however experienced is that the bottom of feet are very sore after a run from the pounding they take on the rocks. This is where I differ a little with Bill. I still use a road shoe but prefer stability shoe with a little more heft. With my Asics 2060′s having gel in both the heel and forefoot, I don’t feel the rocks.

And I think that’s the driving issue that’s causing me to look for something a little better – and as long as I’m considering alternatives, I started thinking about what else wasn’t perfect with the shoe (toebox width). If I’m lucky, maybe they beefed up the Stabils this year – at least a little more something under the forefoot – and made the toe box a smidgeon wider – well, I can dream, can’t I? Even a spenco insole might work, but it’s too crowded in the shoe, and I’m not sure if that’s too cushioning. After reading Fred’s post last night, I looked at my Stabils again from a footprint perspective – how much extra garbage is hanging out. There’s not much at all – most of the sole is underneath the upper, and the waffle tread (at least I think that’s what you’re calling waffle and I’ve called lugs – still need to convert my hiking terminology to running works reasonably well for most conditions. And the footprint is definitely better than the 904′s. If my other shoes fit as well as my running shoes, I wouldn’t hate shoe shopping as much as I do. Also, I think one of the recent bios on the ultra list had somebody that used Grid Stabils for road / easy trail but used something else (Montrail something, iirc) for more aggressive trail needs. Plus the guy at the shoe store last fall had chuckled when I said I was trying to use the Stabils for trails. Suggesting that I just need a beefier Stabil. Thanks. Dot

Response:

If you plan to do some real rugged trails then you might want a knobby soul.

I’ve got a hunch that the knobby sole (although I guess a knobby *soul* might be helpful may be more looks except on mud – at least based on the soles I’ve looked at. With hiking shoes, rock traction can be as much a function of softness of the rubber (or whatever they use for soles), flexibility of the sole, and sometimes the surface of the sole (stickiness?) – more contact with the material you’re stepping on. And I don’t see that in the running shoes, but I haven’t tried running rocky areas in any of these – and don’t have any convenient places to try. However, one company, perhaps montrail, does comment on the surface of their soles, so perhaps they are different. Heck, the soles are an issue for us even for knock around shoes – some soles are definitely more treacherous on ice than others  If you tend to roll your ankles on the trails the lower profile trail shoe may offer you some help. Having said that, I wear my road shoe and if I’m concerned about rolling over, I tape my ankles. In fact I tend to tape on most of my trail runs as I tend to get lazy and clumsy in the later stages of a race. A few pieces of tape prevents me from going over and I don’t know the tape is there.

Good point. That hasn’t been an issue so far, but I’ve used mostly ankle high hiking boots – but I’m considering low top hiking shoes this summer for work to reduce some problems I had last year. Even if you decide you need say a stability shoe the selection within models and model to model vary greatly.  

I guess my point along that line was that the shoe store probably has a small selection compared to what some folks on r.r may be used to seeing in a big city shoe store. Although I think they have nearly as many women’s models as they do men’s – which is more than I can say for the hiking boot store I’ve been going to. That’s why when I find a shoe that works, I buy a boat load of them and don’t get caught up in the changes that seem to happen every 6 months.

Agreed – and I’m still looking for the shoe that works for me. Believe me, when I find one that does work, I intend to buy a few. Thanks for your help. Dot

Response:

FWIW, I would stick with your road shoes. If you have found them to work then they are designed for you. I personally think the traction issue on trails is overblown. Those big aggressive treads sure look neat, but do you really need it?

In agree with Bill but that’s not uncommon. Trails shoes reminds me of cars with oversized tires riding down the expressway – overkill. There are rugged conditions and races that these would probably work better on but not much in the NE.   The problem that I have however experienced is that the bottom of feet are very sore after a run from the pounding they take on the rocks.

This is where I differ a little with Bill. I still use a road shoe but prefer stability shoe with a little more heft. With my Asics 2060′s having gel in both the heel and forefoot, I don’t feel the rocks. Consequently, I have bought a pair of NB 805s to try to address this issue. Not sure how they will work as I haven’t tried them yet and probably won’t until after Bull Run Run  next month.

Hell you can just about use a racing flat at Bull Run. The trails are for the most part soft dirt. Last year the first loop(16 miles) which ran right next to the river was wet and slippery and wish I had a more aggressive tread. After rummaging through my closet I realize I don’t even own a pair shoes with lugs.  Let’s hope it doesn’t rain this year. going to experiment with a new shoe with two races scheduled in the short term . Will probably not use them in any serious manner until I start my preparation for Laurel Highlands 70 miler in June.

Amen to that. I have one pair of 2060′s left to get me though the HAT and BUll Run. By then I will see if the 2070′s pass muster. My motto is run in the cheapest shoe you can for as long as you can.

Not me. I look for a shoe that gives me what I want, the price is secondary.  I’m like the traveling salesman that wants a comfortable car under my ass and not a Yugo. — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

Response:

I thought that might be the case. Is there a correlation between preference of running surface and cushion preference?

I would think that cushioning is not related to running surface but more to your foot strike. For example, if you need a stability on the roads because you pronate, you will need them on the trails. If you plan to do some real rugged trails then you might want a knobby soul. If you tend to roll your ankles on the trails the lower profile trail shoe may offer you some help. Having said that, I wear my road shoe and if I’m concerned about rolling over, I tape my ankles. In fact I tend to tape on most of my trail runs as I tend to get lazy and clumsy in the later stages of a race. A few pieces of tape prevents me from going over and I don’t know the tape is there. Two years ago at the Vermont 50 I was not taped, running on some beautiful smooth trail,  watching the birds and all around enjoying the flora and fauna when wham, one root and over I went. This was mile 15, ran the next 35 miles with a gradually swelling foot. Lesson learned!!! For curiosity, I’ve noticed that some shoes have the flex creases (or whatever they’re called) going almost straight across the shoe, relatively speaking, while the Stabil has the crease start at center of toes, then curve down toward inside near center of instep – almost like it promoting rolling of shoe outside/inside rather than bending under forefoot. Any idea what the difference in function is?

Every shoe manufacturer has their "gimmick." Some air, some gel, yada, yada. On top of that some cut out chunks of the soul and add some plastic here and there while others put slits to aid and abet something. It’s just impossible to tell what they are trying to achieve with each nip and tuck. I ignore all the hype and see what works for me. The hardest part is finding what works.   Even if you decide you need say a stability shoe the selection within models and model to model vary greatly.  Hell, you can’t even trust the sizes. That’s why when I find a shoe that works, I buy a boat load of them and don’t get caught up in the changes that seem to happen every 6 months. — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

Response:

Many of the shoes being hyped for trail use look like cartoons – the moral equivalents to a Lincoln Navigator and just as useful off road.  And they’re getting worse.

Agreed! Based mostly on advice I got here, I then got a pair of Nike zoom waffle trainers that have fairly narrow soles and almost no cushioning or control, and I use them both off and on road.  They are definately not for anyone who hasn’t completely shed the heel-striking habit, but I find that they’re the answer for the roots, rocks, and sidehills.  They’re probably not the best for mud, for which you need more aggressive tread pattern.  For really sloppy slush or mud I revert to the Roosts which still have decent tread running down the middle of the forefoot.

I run occasionally on trails, for the hills. Jeep/fire roads with some single-track, rocky in places, not too much mud (in rain, the rocks become *way* too slippery). Best shoes for my purpose have been some old (discontinued, of course), Nike air shoes, Air Terra Kimbia IIRC. Light, flexible, thin midsole, waffle tread, minimalist design w/ no bells and whistles. I don’t use them on road, as I fear cushioning would be insufficient (I run lots of hills). I’d snap up more  shoes w/ this type of design, but shoe designers seem to have gone the "Navigator" route lamented above.

Response:

FWIW I have been running trails in ASICS 140s for the past several years. A very minimal shoe with not a lot of cushioning. However, the sharp rocks here in Pennsylvania the sharp rock really beat my feet up from front to back. After MMT 100 in 2000 the bottoms of my feet were sore for a week from the pounding the rocks did on them. Needless to say my form wasn’t worth a rat’s a** after about 30 hours on the trail.  Can’t find the 140s anymore so I am giving the NB 805 a try to give the bottoms of my feet a little protection. Not optimistic on how they will work. Will probably go back to a road shoe of some sort and will end up giving the shoes to my kid after I find out that they don’t work for me.  You are probably asking  what is wrong with this guy? Call it a weak moment on the phone with  Michelle at Roadrunner Sports. At least she didn’t talk me into buying some fancy socks. She was quite amused when I told her I was Wal-Mart cotton sock fan. Bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I started taking my Swiss Army knife to the soles and heels of my Adidas Roosts until they looked like the bottom shape of my Mad River canoe Holy crap!!  I’ve done some things to shoes in my time, but that’s drastic!!  Glad to hear it worked out! BTW- you’ve got some of the best thoughts on the whole "trail running shoe thing" I’ve heard in a long time. I’ve tried a ton of different ones, and now only use the Montrail Vitesse.  My feet like them- that’s what it came down to.  Not high-tech cushioning, or replaceable tread lugs, or blah blah blah. My feet just like them. ELi

Response:

I started taking my Swiss Army knife to the soles and heels of my Adidas Roosts until they looked like the bottom shape of my Mad River canoe

Holy crap!!  I’ve done some things to shoes in my time, but that’s drastic!!  Glad to hear it worked out! BTW- you’ve got some of the best thoughts on the whole "trail running shoe thing" I’ve heard in a long time. I’ve tried a ton of different ones, and now only use the Montrail Vitesse.  My feet like them- that’s what it came down to.  Not high-tech cushioning, or replaceable tread lugs, or blah blah blah. My feet just like them. ELi

Response:

Dot, FWIW, I would stick with your road shoes. If you have found them to work then they are designed for you. I personally think the traction issue on trails is overblown. Those big aggressive treads sure look neat, but do you really need it? I have been running trails in road shoes for the past 6 years hear in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in all kinds of conditions, snow, ice, mud rocks, etc. and have found them to be more than adequate. The problem that I have however experienced is that the bottom of feet are very sore after a run from the pounding they take on the rocks. Consequently, I have bought a pair of NB 805s to try to address this issue. Not sure how they will work as I haven’t tried them yet and probably won’t until after Bull Run Run  next month. Not going to experiment with a new shoe with two races scheduled in the short term . Will probably not use them in any serious manner until I start my preparation for Laurel Highlands 70 miler in June. I know this a rambling answer to tough question, but ultimately if you really want a trail shoe you will just have to bite the bullet and try a pair and see how it goes. Buying shoes is a real expensive pain in the a** and one I avoid like the plague.  My motto is run in the cheapest shoe you can for as long as you can. So far so good. Bill

Response:

I’m looking for a better mouse trap compared with my present Saucony Grid Stabils for easy trail / road running. Don’t get me started.  Ooops.  You got me started.

I had a feeling there were some trail geeks besides Doug Freese and Bill LaDieu floating around here Many of the shoes being hyped for trail use look like cartoons – the moral equivalents to a Lincoln Navigator and just as useful off road.  And they’re getting worse. It’s a precise analog to canoe hulls.  People want solid, stable feeling hulls that come up solid after tilting a few degrees, so when the dog or the kid moves around, they don’t upset it.  Put that same boat in waves or rough water and the hull does just what it did on flat water, that is align itself to the surface.  Except now the surface is up at alarming angle when you want the boat to stay level.  Good whitewater boats are hard to keep upright on flat water.

Excellent analogy that I hadn’t thought about. I’ve only used C1′s briefly in swimming pools but usually used Grummans (mostly flat water but a little class 3), so I completely understand your analogy (although I have to confess to paddling Grummans on their side in our scout camp’s lake so the keel was out of water to increase maneuverability I also know someone with a Navigator, which I chuckle about when I see it shining bright Same with shoes.  The broad toeboxes and wide-track heels that align so well on flat pavement are hell on the rocks and roots and sidehill traverses.

With snowshoes being an exaggerated example of this. Hadn’t thought about it with shoes alone until you brought it up. … Based mostly on advice I got here, I then got a pair of Nike zoom waffle trainers that have fairly narrow soles and almost no cushioning or control, and I use them both off and on road.  They are definately not for anyone who hasn’t completely shed the heel-striking habit, but I find that they’re the answer for the roots, rocks, and sidehills.  They’re probably not the best for mud, for which you need more aggressive tread pattern.  For really sloppy slush or mud I revert to the Roosts which still have decent tread running down the middle of the forefoot.

Ok, great. That explains the dragging sensation I was getting when using NB904 on pavement the other evening (I was testing something) – the lugs were hanging down farther than I was used to. Your suggestion is consistent with what I’m thinking – tread like my Stabils for most things (but I’d like little more protection under forefoot area), but more aggressive tread (like NB904) for the deeper snows and mud. Specificity in equipment as well as training Here’s a curmudgeonly challenge to anyone to come up with a coherent argument for "motion control" shoes for off-road or off-trail running. Starting with what the hell in means.  

This would explain why I’ve been confused although I think I see what they mean with respect to pronation, etc, but geez, a person’s foot is going to be going all sorts of directions on the trail or even light snow on the paved bike path that I’ve been running all winter – hmm, I just put 2 and 2 together in a different way from what I’d been thinking this winter. Or to pose a good argument in favor of ‘cushioning’ for the same service.  "Custom Ride Management" my aching bleep.

I think their "Custom Ride Management" is mostly a different density in the midsole (?) to accomodate different weights of runners and the way they like things to feel. I think the real challenge is going to be in the 15-20 models (very liberal estimate) of women’s shoes the store carries, will they have one that (1) fits me and (2) does what I want. #1 will narrow it down to 2 or 3 models at most, is my guess. Thanks for your thoughts and help. You’ve given me a different perspective Dot

Response:

Some of my confusion / question concerns cushioned shoes on trails and potential instability. This is an unending question by all of us that run trails. Some love the cushioned ride others almost a 2X4 under their feet and others somewhere in the middle.

I thought that might be the case. Is there a correlation between preference of running surface and cushion preference? That is, those that do more technical running (approaching rock climbing) tend to prefer the stiffer shoes – and possibly more snug fit. I’ve heard with rock climbing shoes (I’m not a climber!) that if it’s comfortable, it’s considered too big since they’re wedging toes into/onto small places – hence my extrapolation to trail shoes. I’m not intending to run anything like this (at least with extensive pitches like that) but many recreational trails have short pitches like that – but not ones I’m thinking of for this year For curiosity, I’ve noticed that some shoes have the flex creases (or whatever they’re called) going almost straight across the shoe, relatively speaking, while the Stabil has the crease start at center of toes, then curve down toward inside near center of instep – almost like it promoting rolling of shoe outside/inside rather than bending under forefoot. Any idea what the difference in function is? FWIW I use the Ascis 2000 through 2060 road shoe for all my running. I just bought a pair of 2070′s and they have a softer ride than previous models so the jury is still out for me. Being a stability shoe and coming in widths if works great for me. They do suck in mud. If I was to run often on muddy trails I would opt for a shoe giving me better traction.

ok, thanks. I’m not honestly sure how much mud I may get this year, but snow is / will be an issue and some of the 4wd roads are mud (slick clay in some cases), but I think I can skirt the edges. (hmmm, does this sound like I’ve been dreaming of trail running for the last few months? Part is that trail shoes don’t seem to come in cushion / stability / motion control – which might reduce some of my hassles. And I suspect that’s related to uneven trail surfaces? Roadrunner has degree of control listed in the catalog. Trail shoes in general are cut a little lower to the ground, have a more griping bottom, dark to hide the dirt but do come in degrees of control.

Ok, thanks. I’ll check that again. The pages I had looked at had the various cushion / control and then trail shoes as a separate category but hadn’t thought to try roadrunner. I have a feeling I’ll "know it when I see it" in terms of what I need this year. If the store carries it, I’m sure they’ll get me matched with it since I’ve got a better idea now of what I need. And my new book on trail running hasn’t clarified anything for me. What book is that?

"The ultimate guide to trail running" by Adam Chase and Nancy Hobbs of All American Trail Running Association. I just got it about a week or so ago (amazon.com) and haven’t had too much time to look at it in detail other than the shoe section. (I’m in the middle of a couple other books – like Glover and a couple stretching / injury books that should help things.) It seems to hit a lot of things lightly, as might be expected in a 200 page book. Some of the topics, like periodicity, I’ve already gotten more info from some of the places you’ve pointed me. It even has a couple paragraphs of what to do if you have a bison encounter as well as sections on mud (several on mud alone!) and snow running. But it definitely has much useful information, and sometimes a different view on some things so that will be helpful. Another new one is supposed to come out in April (as per Amazon.com), but haven’t seen any comments about it: Trail Running : From Novice to Master (The Mountaineers Outdoor Expert Series) Thanks for your help. Last week’s winds deposited so much debris on the ski trail and obliterated their set tracks, that I might try either walk/run (too much distance to cover to risk run/walk or running alone yet – I do learn!) or snowshoeing the trail from that trailhead – depending on conditions – this Sunday. I’ve been using the non-ski trailheads so far. I stopped by it last Sunday on my way home, and it was really hardpacked,evenly groomed so running wouldn’t have been any problem, but it’s supposed to get warm and snow again this weekend. If it snows, I’ll just go back to using one of the other trailheads. Dot

Response:

Clarification (I never seem to get these things right the first time): Some of my confusion / question concerns cushioned shoes on trails and potential instability.

This is an unending question by all of us that run trails. Some love the cushioned ride others almost a 2X4 under their feet and others somewhere in the middle. FWIW I use the Ascis 2000 through 2060 road shoe for all my running. I just bought a pair of 2070′s and they have a softer ride than previous models so the jury is still out for me. Being a stability shoe and coming in widths if works great for me. They do suck in mud. If I was to run often on muddy trails I would opt for a shoe giving me better traction. Part is that trail shoes don’t seem to come in cushion / stability / motion control – which might reduce some of my hassles. And I suspect that’s related to uneven trail surfaces?

Roadrunner has degree of control listed in the catalog. Trail shoes in general are cut a little lower to the ground, have a more griping bottom, dark to hide the dirt but do come in degrees of control.   I’ve also heard that trail shoes should probably fit more snugly for control (and I’m not sure that’s an issue for trails this year since they will be simple), but that sounds like it could promote toe problems?

More snugly? Not in my book. And my new book on trail running hasn’t clarified anything for me.

What book is that? — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

Response:

I’m looking for a better mouse trap compared with my present Saucony Grid Stabils for easy trail / road running.

Don’t get me started.  Ooops.  You got me started. Many of the shoes being hyped for trail use look like cartoons – the moral equivalents to a Lincoln Navigator and just as useful off road.  And they’re getting worse. It’s a precise analog to canoe hulls.  People want solid, stable feeling hulls that come up solid after tilting a few degrees, so when the dog or the kid moves around, they don’t upset it.  Put that same boat in waves or rough water and the hull does just what it did on flat water, that is align itself to the surface.  Except now the surface is up at alarming angle when you want the boat to stay level.  Good whitewater boats are hard to keep upright on flat water. Same with shoes.  The broad toeboxes and wide-track heels that align so well on flat pavement are hell on the rocks and roots and sidehill traverses. While I was overhauling my gait in accordance with the modern canon, I started taking my Swiss Army knife to the soles and heels of my Adidas Roosts until they looked like the bottom shape of my Mad River canoe.  It was a revelation.  My feet started to align with my ankles rather than the local ground, and I no longer ran out of them on sidehills.  Not the least of the advantages was the removal of all of those protruding tread lugs that caught on roots and the huge foam blocks that guaranteed heel-striking. There was so much more clearance that my gait improved almost overnight. Based mostly on advice I got here, I then got a pair of Nike zoom waffle trainers that have fairly narrow soles and almost no cushioning or control, and I use them both off and on road.  They are definately not for anyone who hasn’t completely shed the heel-striking habit, but I find that they’re the answer for the roots, rocks, and sidehills.  They’re probably not the best for mud, for which you need more aggressive tread pattern.  For really sloppy slush or mud I revert to the Roosts which still have decent tread running down the middle of the forefoot. Here’s a curmudgeonly challenge to anyone to come up with a coherent argument for "motion control" shoes for off-road or off-trail running. Starting with what the hell in means.  Or to pose a good argument in favor of ‘cushioning’ for the same service.  "Custom Ride Management" my aching bleep. YMMV, Fred

Response:

Clarification (I never seem to get these things right the first time): Some of my confusion / question concerns cushioned shoes on trails and potential instability. Part is that trail shoes don’t seem to come in cushion / stability / motion control – which might reduce some of my hassles. And I suspect that’s related to uneven trail surfaces? And I think if I am still going to be partly on roads and the trails aren’t that rough, that a more substantial road shoe (guy at shoe store did chuckle when I said I had been trying to use Stabils on trails) or road/trail shoe is probably better than trail because of the aggressive treads on trail shoes – or maybe one of each and just not run on the pavement to the trailhead (which I’m shying away from anyway). I’m probably going to end up getting 2 pairs anyway as I get 1 free pair of lesser or equal value when I buy my next pair at that shoe store. And I’m not sure I want to buy 2 of the same until I know they work for me. I’ve also heard that trail shoes should probably fit more snugly for control (and I’m not sure that’s an issue for trails this year since they will be simple), but that sounds like it could promote toe problems? FWIW, I haven’t had a blister since high school hockey camp and haven’t had any problems with black toe nails or even sore toes (except sideways from getting snowshoe bindings too tight) with the way my present shoes fit, but they are a little tight with heavier winter socks – yes, at -20F, I *DO* wear heavier socks and my feet thank me! I’m sensing a multiple size issue, although maybe I’m reading too many ultra reports And my new book on trail running hasn’t clarified anything for me. Thanks. Dot

Response:

I’m looking for a better mouse trap compared with my present Saucony Grid Stabils for easy trail / road running. The trails that I will be using this year, assuming the snow melts , are packed dirt (ideal surface in my mind) with some rounded cobbles and 4wd roads are dirt/mud/gravel/cobbles. There might be a possibility of some rockiness in some areas, but that would more likely come next year when I start up some of the nearby hills.  The Stabils are fine for packed dirt except on the cobbles where it really smarts when one of those rocks is right under your landing. The rumor going aroud is that those rocks will still be there when the snow melts Haven’t had them on muddy hills yet. If they had more protection / cushioning in the forefoot and a little wider toe box, I probably wouldn’t be looking for an improvement. Saucony’s have little lugs on them anyway for good traction in snow, which is what started me with them in the first place. The 2000 version was better for me than the 2001 version – slightly wider toe, more forefoot support, altough it gave a much firmer ride than the 2001. Saucony does have a thing called "Custom Ride Management" (market hype?) in their Trigon (not sure about other models) that has different levels of cushioning. I do have a pair of NB904 that have worked somewhat for snow running, but they aren’t as comfortable as my Saucony’s (to the point that I haven’t used them too much because we’ve had more ice than snow), but maybe I just need to raise heel up a little more so sides of shoe aren’t hitting ankle bones – this happens even with hard orthotics. I need a wider toe box than most women’s shoes – and men’s heels are too wide – so getting a good fit for me is always challenge, regardless of shoe (it’s actually easier for me to find running shoes that fit than everyday shoes or hiking boots). I’ll be heading into town next week primarily for shoes (running, field), starting at the running shoe store (we only have one aside from mall stores and REI – REI has Montrails that running store doesn’t have at all, as well as some running shoes, but getting good salesperson there is Russian roulette). I just wanted to get some other thoughts on what I might look for going forward since my running has changed so much since I last bought my Stabils – longer, trails. While the people at the running store are knowledgeable (at least for shorter distances <= marathon, road, not sure about ultra / trail – but some REI sales folks do ultras), I don’t think they have the video, etc capabilities that larger stores may have. One thing I’m a little puzzled about with the Stabils is that I have high arches, which most books / web pages recommend cushioning for, and the Stabil is listed with Saucony’s motion control. These same books / web pages also suggest heel striking, which I don’t do anymore. In other words, I’m not sure whether to believe them or not. I’ve seen a couple posts recently where people switched from motion control or stability to cushioned and problems went away. It’s possible the store may have put me in the Stabils to start since I was just getting over the PF/AT and had gained weight up to about 165 lb during the 1.5 years of relative inactivity / frustration associated with that. I’m back down to normal weight of 145-150lb (one field season fixed that , 5ft 8in, medium to large frame, so that may not be as much of an issue any more, although still heavy for women’s shoes. I use orthotics (3/4 length hard although a recent book that I was looking in suggested full length soft) that seem to be needed. After some recent posts about not really needing prescribed orthotics, I looked at orthotics – and there’s a definite slant to their structure, and my legs feel like they want to turn in if I don’t use them because the arch is so high – but don’t have a clue if this is normal or not. At the time I got the orthotics 2+ years ago, the doctor examined my feet, but I don’t remember any walking or running analysis – but he did notice that he had to hold my foot in vertical position (he thought I was pushing on them but I wasn’t) – which I’m assuming was tightness of hams / calves, which I am working on stretching. Anyway, any thoughts on what I might be on the lookout for or additional questions I should raise with the salesperson would be appreciated. Dot

Response:

Question:

This proved there was at least one light coat – but only on the outside – the rest was bare wood. I was somewhat disappointed in the finish.  

The finish on Mad River’s wood gunwales hasn’t been up their old standards in several years. One scant coat, not rubbed down or buffed/steel wooled. It used to be that a set of MRC gunwales, if left untouched on a canoe stored outside (but up off the ground), would last at least 7 to 10 years (here in the mid-Atlantic anyway, your mileage may vary). I recently saw an MRC in need of a gunwale replacement that was built in ’97 – only four years to rot the gunwale off. Wood gunwales means at least some minimal committment to care and re-oiling, or be prepared to re-rail the boat in 10 years. If you don’t care for either of those options don’t opt for wood gunwales.

Response:

    I use Teak Oil. I just bought from West Marine a "Kit" with a bottle of cleaner and a bottle of oil. It doesn’t last too long in Salt water, perhaps the recommended product is longer lasting?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Bob from Northern NY.

Response:

Hi  Riverman, There are a few imported by a company in Wales.  Saw my first in the summer which had been shipped home with a UK ExPats furniture on his return home. Despite the Gunwale finish its still the best thing on the Market in the UK. The current project however is the building of traditional American 1908 BN Morris Wood / Canvas 17 ft canoe – That will really get the Thames Traditional Boat Rally looking hard next year!!! Regards for now, Clive

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Clive Sherriff wrote just spent a Day paddling through the cold in high winds on the River Thames through Oxford UK  - CLIVE! Where did you find an Explorer (16′ or 17′?) in England? riverman

Response:

Hi  Riverman, There are a few imported by a company in Wales.  Saw my first in the summer which had been shipped home with a UK ExPats furniture on his return home. Despite the Gunwale finish its still the best thing on the Market in the UK.

Oh, yeah! Pretty much anywhere! Got an address or a link for the Welch company? I’m in the Baltics, and the UK is not too far to go for a MRE. The current project however is the building of traditional American 1908 BN Morris Wood / Canvas 17 ft canoe – That will really get the Thames Traditional Boat Rally looking hard next year!!!

Sweet. If you have any questions, be sure to tap the folks at rec.boats.building. riverman

Response:

I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Bob from Northern NY.

Response:

I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated.

Bob: I’ve been told that gunwale guard is similar, if not the same as a product made by Watco. It’s basically a marine grade wood finish. You may be able to find Watco or something similar at a Marina or boat parts store. I recently found some Watco Marine Teak oil at a woodworkers supply store. It’s a bit thinner than the regular marine oil but has worked very well. I apply it once in the spring and again in the fall before winter storage. There is an easy to find alternative, Thompson’s Water Seal Wood Protector. A friend of mine who builds and repairs canoes has been using it with great success. It’s available at places like Home Depot or good hardware stores. Greg B.

Response:

I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated.

I use multiple coats of a thin mix of turpentine and boiled linseed oil (raw linseed won’t dry).  In the past, I’ve used gunwale guard and deck oils, but I can’t see the difference.  Once a year, I remove thwarts and seats to make sure I get full coverage.  I use the wide blue masking tape to protect the hull so I can contain the mess.  Then touch them up a few times a season with a soaked rag. I’ve rerailed one MR in fifteen years or so, and the failure mode there was some kind of internal rot.  The rails had a hard outer shell where they had been oiled but rotten-soft at the core.  I suspect that it might have been some sort of fungal attack from storage in my basement over a few winters. That made me feel less guilty about storing them outside. Don’t get me wrong.  I think that rerailing a boat is a worthwhile human experience – one that everyone should do at least once.  But only once. hth, Fred Klingener

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Bob from Northern NY.

I have a Mad River Malicite that I’ve owned since 1976.  I’ve always used Watco exterior grade Danish oil finish.  Very easy to apply and does not harden like a varnish and thus does not scratch.  It has worked well but this boat is stored inside and well cared for.  One problem with wood gunwales is that they can develop a fungus which will blacken the wood and can get well into the grain.  Some people advocate stripping down to bare wood and then sealing with a coat of thin epoxy, sand and varnish.  If you do this, you’ll be well protected from any water damage but you’ll have to keep a good coat of UV inhibiting spar varnish over the epoxy since it will otherwise become cloudy from exposure to sunlight.  I make wood/fiberglass/epoxy boats and would recommend the epoxy treatment; in fact I’ve been meaning to treat my MR, just haven’t gotten around to it yet. George F. Johnson

Response:

yes, I rerailed my MR Explorer last year.  I hope it’s the last time I EVER have to do such work.  I’m not good with "fine detail" work and I had to cut and trim and cut and trim and finally got the rails too short to work and had to order a second set.  while I did a "serviceable" job, it certainly isn’t the kind of work a "carpenter" would be proud of. none the less, it worked.  I’ve always used a product called Deks Olje (I may be spelling it wrong) but it’s probably not terribly unlike all the other types of Danish oils folks have been talking about here. the key I think is to sand and reoil the gunwale and deck plates once a year and not wait until they start to look like they need it.  by then, it’s probably too late. — You’re never too old to have a happy childhood.

Response:

Many things can work.  One conoe guru swore by Tung oil.  It has to be reapplied every year or so.  Also Min-wax clear oil finish natural stain. You either have to seal the wood to keep it from drying out, and oil it is do the same thing.  Water by itself isn’t so bad, but oil will keep  water out as well.  Varnish is ok, but I prefer an oil.

Response:

Would anyone like to comment on this? It is from the chapter on wood decay in: Olkowski, W., Daar, S, and Olkowski, H, COMMON SENSE PEST CONTROL, Newton CT: Taunton Press, Inc., 1991. ISBN 0-042391-63-2. "An Alternative Wood Preservative "The USDA’s Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has developed an effective water repellent that contains no chemical preservatives. It can be applied to wood before it is painted. A comparable commercial product is Thompson’s Water Seal, available at most building supply and paint stores. If you want to mix your own water repellent, follow these directions: " Ingredients         3 cups (24 oz.) exterior varnish or 1.5 cups (12 oz) boiled linseed oil         1 oz (28 g) paraffin wax         Enough solvent, either mineral spirits, paint thinnner, or turpentine at room temperature to make 1 gal. (3.8 l). "Formulation:  Melt the paraffin over water in a double boiler. use an electric heat source such as a hot plate. Do not heat the paraffin over a direct flame. Stir the solvent vigorously, and slowly pour in the melted paraffin. Add the varnish or linseed oil and stir thoroughly. "Application:  The repellent can be applied before or after construction. Treatment is best done by dipping the wood for one to three minutes in the solution. If dipping is inconvenient, brush applications, with heavy treatment of all board ends and joints, can be substituted. The treated surface can be painted after two or three days of warm weather." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: rec.boats.paddle Many things can work.  One conoe guru swore by Tung oil.  It has to be reapplied every year or so.  Also Min-wax clear oil finish natural stain. You either have to seal the wood to keep it from drying out, and oil it is do the same thing.  Water by itself isn’t so bad, but oil will keep  water out as well.  Varnish is ok, but I prefer an oil.

Response:

Would anyone like to comment on this? It is from the chapter on wood decay in: Olkowski, W., Daar, S, and Olkowski, H, COMMON SENSE PEST CONTROL, Newton CT: Taunton Press, Inc., 1991. ISBN 0-042391-63-2. "An Alternative Wood Preservative

Alternative?  What can they be thinking? "The USDA’s Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has developed an effective water repellent that contains no chemical preservatives. It can be applied to wood before it is painted. A comparable commercial product is Thompson’s Water Seal, available at most building supply and paint stores. If you want to mix your own water repellent, follow these directions: " Ingredients         3 cups (24 oz.) exterior varnish or 1.5 cups (12 oz) boiled

linseed oil Varnish probably wouldn’t be as good for gunnels.  Even if people can’t agree on anything esle in this thread, they might come closest on this. Gunnels just take too much of a beating to expect protection from a brittle coating.         1 oz (28 g) paraffin wax         Enough solvent, either mineral spirits, paint thinnner,

Seems to me that using mineral spirits or paint thinner in a recipe that’s intended to avoid ‘chemical preservatives’ kinda defeats the purpose.  OK, technically, they’re not preservatives, but just read the labels. or turpentine at room temperature to make 1 gal. (3.8 l). "Formulation:  Melt the paraffin over water in a double boiler. use an electric heat source such as a hot plate. Do not heat the paraffin over a direct flame. Stir the solvent vigorously, and slowly pour in the melted paraffin. Add the varnish or linseed oil and stir thoroughly.

I use the boiled linseed+turpentine on all boating-related wood and the paraffin+turpentine for rustproofing.  It hadn’t occurred to me that I could make up one batch and use it for everything.  Incidentlally, I have a 1800s recipe book that recommends linseed + turp for waterproofing tarps and clothing.  Eat your heart out, Gore.  Mix that aroma from your coat with some Ben’s bugdope and that would be some heady cologne.  I know if I met a woman outfitted like that, I’d fall in love instantly. The 1 gallon turpentine to 1.5 cup Linseed  (~11:1 or so) sounds too thin for gunnels, though.  I use 5:1 or so. "Application:  The repellent can be applied before or after construction. Treatment is best done by dipping the wood for one to three minutes in the solution. If dipping is inconvenient, brush applications, with heavy treatment of all board ends and joints, can be substituted.

In the spring, I remove all the thwarts and seats and soak the ends in a can of the stuff.  Then swab it onto the rails and decks.  AFIC, the key is to use a thin mix and soak it into places you can’t reach with a brush. The treated surface can be painted after two or three days of warm weather."

Make sure you don’t use raw linseed.  It won’t dry, and it’ll leave a horrible mess. How do I know all this stuff?  Don’t ask. Cheers, Fred Klingener – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: rec.boats.paddle Many things can work.  One conoe guru swore by Tung oil.  It has to be reapplied every year or so.  Also Min-wax clear oil finish natural stain. You either have to seal the wood to keep it from drying out, and oil it is do the same thing.  Water by itself isn’t so bad, but oil will keep water out as well.  Varnish is ok, but I prefer an oil.

Response:

Hi Bob, When I bought my Explorer new a few months ago there looked to be no treatment on the gunwales at all – I removed all the woodwork before it hit the water. This proved there was at least one light coat – but only on the outside – the rest was bare wood. I was somewhat disappointed in the finish.  I sanded it down and put 4 coats of Gunwale Guard on and Spar Varnish on the seats, Thwarts etc. So far it has remained immaculate but no thanks to Mad River’s preservative treatment I suspect. RE Your problem – Only course is to remove – sand – apply a mild bleach to get any blackish staining out, repaint as above, and replace when dry. Make a note of which screws come from where – the Center and the Stem ends ones are just a bit longer than the rest on the Explorer. Linseed oil thinned with turps would be OK – it drys overnight and you can build the coat up nicely in a few days. Dont leave a soaked rag around though – it can self ignite !!! Yatch/Spar Varnish is good looking but does not take the knocks too well – OK inside though. Other than that its a nice boat – I’ve just spent a Day paddling through the cold in high winds on the River Thames through Oxford UK  -  Did not see another moving boat!!! and am now going to have a Scotch and kid myself how wonderful it was !!! <G Clive

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Bob from Northern NY.

Response:

Clive Sherriff wrote

spent a Day paddling through the cold in high winds on the River Thames through Oxford UK  - CLIVE! Where did you find an Explorer (16′ or 17′?) in England? riverman

Response:

I purchased a royalex Mad River Explorer with wood gunwales. It was stored outside for a couple of years and is in excellent shape except for the faded outer wooden gunwales. There is no cracking and the wood looks to be in good shape. An item called gunwale guard is recommended but is not available locally. Is their another brand or item that may be applied such as linseed oil ? Or may have to mail order gunwale guard ? I haven’t had to deal with a wooden gunwale since my dad’s canvas canoe days which was many years ago. Any advice is appreciated.

I purchased an Explorer several years ago that was many years overdue for re-oiling.  I used a product called Deks Olje and found that it looked great and has held up very well.  At the time, it seemed to be the prefered finish on RPB. I think the secret is in the application instructions.  For raw or old wood, they recommend a coat every 15 minutes or less for as much as 6 hours.  That’s 24 coats!  I can tell you from experience that it is hard to put that first coat on overly absorbant wood in 15 minutes. Thereafter, I find 1 or 2 coats a year is plenty.      Larry

Response:

Question:

…like cars?  If so, how can you tell whether a boat you’re looking at is a current model year boat or a "left-over"?

Response:

…like cars?  If so, how can you tell whether a boat you’re looking at is a current model year boat or a "left-over"?

Look at the last two digits of the serial number. (I think…) -Paul

Response:

…like cars?  If so, how can you tell whether a boat you’re looking at is a current model year boat or a "left-over"?

The last two numbers in the serial number is the year of manufacture (calendar year, not like the silliness that the auto industry uses).  E.g.  QXD97983B99 was built in 1999. As long as the change isn’t mid-year, you can use that. There are changes and enhancements that come out every few years in a given model. Sometimes they change the name a bit (Gulfstream vs Gulfstream 2000), sometimes they don’t.  For example, CD quietly changed the GTS to have a smaller cockpit a few years ago.  The only way to know is to talk to lots of folks in the business and go over the catalogues with a fine tooth comb. Mike

Response:

The last two numbers in the serial number is the year of manufacture (calendar year, <snip

Actually the last two digits are the model year.  The preceeding letter and digit are the actual month and year of manufacture.  For more info, see http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/hin.htm.  Of course, that rule only applies to US made boats. I don’t know if giving boats model years (like cars) is common on not. I do remember seeing a 2001 Mad River canoe in November 2000.    Larry

Response:

…like cars?  If so, how can you tell whether a boat you’re looking at is a current model year boat or a "left-over"? The last two numbers in the serial number is the year of manufacture (calendar year, not like the silliness that the auto industry uses).

The auto industry system comes from the tradition of closing the factories during the hottest part of the summer.  GM still shuts down the first two weeks of July.  That’s their chance to retool for the change. –Dan

Response: