High rise boots vs low rise footwear

ryanmackk

ryanmackk

Member
Forum Sponsor
I know it might be down to personal preference, but when it comes to buying protective footwear, is there a practical benefit of one style over the other?

I am not against either style, and I would like to know if (and why) experienced riders would recommend a full boot as opposed to a sneaker style shoe.

What I am looking at is the Joe Rocket Velocity V2X for the low rise rise and the Cortech Latigo Air for the high rise boot. I understand both get pretty good reviews with the except of the Cortech boot having zipper issues. Which one would you recommend to a newbie?
 
ryanmackk said:
I know it might be down to personal preference, but when it comes to buying protective footwear, is there a practical benefit of one style over the other?

I am not against either style, and I would like to know if (and why) experienced riders would recommend a full boot as opposed to a sneaker style shoe.

What I am looking at is the Joe Rocket Velocity V2X for the low rise rise and the Cortech Latigo Air for the high rise boot. I understand both get pretty good reviews with the except of the Cortech boot having zipper issues. Which one would you recommend to a newbie?
Click to expand...
Boots protect your ankle shoe style provide next to no protection for anything, depends whether you like walking or not I guess.
 
hmm. kk. I am swaying toward the boots myself. more coverage = more protection. Who are the low rise shoes for? Like people that don't want to wear boots but want to protect their ankle skin? lol. Cus obvisouly the low rise shoes do nothing for roll
 
I like the comfort in riding in full boots. I think the key is get used to riding in gear and you'll just instinctively do it. Get used to riding in running shoes, shorts and a tshirt and you'll think that full gear is too hot, too confined, etc.
 
low rise 'shoes' are also more prone to coming off your foot in an accident. Boots = not a chance.
 
When I dropped my bike, I was sliding with the bike then I had to wiggle my left leg from under the bike. The damage to the boot (at the heel, ankle and two inches above) was enough of a convincer to never buy the sneaker style riding shoes. That's just my opinion.
 
Think of the natural movement and range of motion of your ankle. Ask yourself which boot is going to do a better of job of keeping your ankle from moving in ways it shouldn't. In my opinion, there is no point in wearing a low rise boot; I'd just as well throw on my Adidas.

Full boot, WITH ankle bracing protection. I mean, why else wear a "protection" on your feet? Worried about breaking a toe? The ankle is the weakest link; if you're going to spend money on footwear, make it count.
 
Makes me wonder why some low rise boots have toe sliders....
 
PLau said:
Makes me wonder why some low rise boots have toe sliders....
Click to expand...

If they ar past the ankle some consider them boots and offer the same "ankle down" features
 
I have both smx-1 and smx-5. So is everyone saying the smx-1 is useless???

ubadyhaz.jpg
smx1

8u2y6yze.jpg
smx5
 
It's not that they're useless (still better than running shoes) but tall boots offer so much more protection, it's not even close. There are squids who don't care about anything aside from how cool they look, then there are those people who do want to get something but aren't sure what's good. To those people, since you're already committed, pony up those extra few bucks and get yourself some nice boots with ankle support.

I'm telling you, you may never fall down but if you ever do, every bit counts.
 
Like others have said, companies will make whatever they feel they can sell/people will buy, hence the 'shoe' style riding 'boots'. I normally go by the fact that if the pros at MotoGP wouldn't be caught dead wearing something, then it's likely made more for image than actual protection from a crash/slide (with the exception of various armour products more suited to an impact on the road vs a slide on a track).

Also to add I just picked up a pair of Alpinestar Supertech Rs from GP Bikes and love them, although I haven't had a chance to try them on the bike yet. I almost bought the SMX+ instead, however I wanted the additional ankle protection of the Supertechs, plus I didn't like the closure system on the SMX+ at all as the zipper felt like it could rip over time.
 
I ride in a pair of Gaerne Balance Pro-Tech Boots that I picked up from atomic-moto.com Not water proof...more water resitant but they are actually one of the most comfortable full boot I have had after they were broken in.
 
daisoman said:
I have both smx-1 and smx-5. So is everyone saying the smx-1 is useless???
Click to expand...

I've got the smx1 too. Crashed in 'em and I was fine. It may not have been an ankle bender but it did protect me from something because my toe slider was half ripped off.

I kind of think it's false to say "safer = smarter" but in a thread like this "safer" always equals, well... safer lol.
 
If you can only buy one pair, buy the boots.

I have both boots and shoes. Shoes are for long, hot rides. The important thing is that they must cover the malleolus.
 
OliverK said:
If you can only buy one pair, buy the boots.

I have both boots and shoes. Shoes are for long, hot rides. The important thing is that they must cover the malleolus.
Click to expand...

So what are boots the used for? Short cold rides? (Serious question, not trying to be an ***)
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom