Tickin' the boxes...

[RavenR44]

No. The title was actually not "Tickling the boxes" people. Settle down and concentrate. :D

Tried on many bits of biker kit over the last few weeks, so much so that I've lost 2.3kg in the process. I'm now convinced that's why chickies spend so much time trying stuff on. But I digress (which should come as no surprise to any of youze KBers who've struggled through my previous efforts).

But back on topic then.

My recent focus is on boots to replace the moldering numbers now relegated to my wheelie bin. Thus far, I have narrowed the search to two pairs of touring boots - MX boots and track boots aren't an option as I can't walk around in them without serious discomfort due to even more seriously knackered achilles tendons - so I'd appreciate any and all feedback from current or past owners of the following as to any obvious negatives associated with the finalist candidates.

Diadora 'Cruise' (sounds a bit err... gay, I know, but besides that) or Alpinestars 'Web Goretex' (which suffers from 'alien' overtones in the naming department).

So, have at it friend KBers. Glowing praise may also be added if the need takes you, but as I'm already sold on both for different reasons, it's unlikely to figure in the final choice. And I shan't be buying both brands, for excellent Scottish, fiscally-conservative reasons.

Cracias, Muchachos and buenos nochos.
Andy.

[duckonin]

Goretex Alpinestars +1:2thumbsup

[pritch]

GoreTex is good stuff. In my experience it's the only stuff that actually works as advertised.

Read the instructions though, the boots are too expensive to spoil by doing something they warn against. The bumf that came with mine advised keeping your toe nails trimmed lest you poke holes in the membrane. There were also warnings about the nature of the preparations that you apply to your boots when cleaning,

Some people blithely ignore it all, but Gore Tex boots ain't cheap.

[RavenR44]

GoreTex is good stuff. In my experience it's the only stuff that actually works as advertised.

Read the instructions though, the boots are too expensive to spoil by doing something they warn against. The bumf that came with mine advised keeping your toe nails trimmed lest you poke holes in the membrane. There were also warnings about the nature of the preparations that you apply to your boots when cleaning,

Some people blithely ignore it all, but Gore Tex boots ain't cheap.

Surprisingly perhaps, both pairs are Ed Zachary the same in the pricing stakes.

I do take your warning to heart as regards the toenail thing though, (as hordes of my deceased socks could attest had they not already gone to their maker, Canterbury I believe, who have recently, in turn, repaired to their maker. Or so I have heard).

One's touring boots are only as good as one's podiatry it seems.

I have also been steered toward sundry 'snake-oil' curatives for leaky boots which often prescribe beeswax-based emollients to keep seams and stuff watertight. But I suspect that might be better left to a totally different thread.

So, besides the toenail shredding aspects, there's nowt wrong with the Alpinestars then?

Cheers,
Andy.

[scumdog]

No. The title was actually not "Tickling the boxes" people. Settle down and concentrate. :D
Andy.

'Ticking the box' - THE single most overused expression on 2009 - apart from 'like', you know like 'like....arrrrghhhh!!!!:wacko:

[RavenR44]

'Ticking the box' - THE single most overused expression on 2009 - apart from 'like', you know like 'like....arrrrghhhh!!!!:wacko:

Cool. But the parts of your post, where your personal negative experience with either of the boot brands mentioned above is detailed, seems to have fallen off. Are you able to tweak your post to re-include them?

Ta muchly.

Andy.