John Barry wrote:
> After getting saturated on a charity ride yesterday, it occurred to me to
> ask why nobody seems to make Goretex cycling shoes. After all, plenty of
> lightweight Goretex-lined walking boots are available and they do a good
> job.
Your definition of "good job" is my definition of bleedin' 'orrible
sweatboxes I much prefer to avoid...
> Surely a cycling equivalent would be better than overshoes and other
> things?
Thing about overshoes is you can take them off when you don't want your
feet boiled alive. Many cycling shoes are designed with ventilation
quite high on the feature list, and you throw that straight out the
window if you put a goretex liner in.
Also the case that it won't stop the water that goes in through the
holes, and without the holes you won't get your feet inside! So if you
get water draining down your legs (which you probably will unless you're
in full overtrousers going over the top of an extended cuff or you're
wearing gaiters) then you'll still get wet feet, /and/ they'll take much
longer to dry thanks to your miracle membrane.
I've never been convinced that sewing goretex into footwear represents a
good piece of design, to be honest. You're stuck with it unless you
carry spare shoes, and if it holes then you have all the disadvantages
of a sweaty membrane coupled with them leaking anyway. There's a good
reason why cyclists don't ride in Goretex 100% of the time and that's
because it's less comfortable than alternatives if it isn't sheeting it
down. I don't see that shoes are any different, but they don't pack up
into a pocket so well.
For a wet summer ride I much prefer Shimano SD-60 cycling sandals. Your
feet get wet straight away, but it doesn't matter much and they dry
straight out as soon as the rain stops.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/