Felt or rubber with cleats

[KeithS]

I have a pair of older Cabela's felts w/ studs that have the heads of the studs just about flush with the surface of the felt. Worked great in the water. They suck in mud. hence, my rubber with studs.

I couldn't fit the new wader's stocking feet in them so had to get new boots too. Damn.

 

[pcray1231]

Furthermore, I believe that felt soles are only noticeably superior to rubber w/ studs when the soles are brand new.

eh, in my experience the grip of rubber degrades quicker. The Simms is what I have on now, but they are wearing flat very quickly despite me not fishing much in recent years. When I do go there's plenty of rock hopping along small streams, covering distance, and that's how you wear down rubber.

Overall, in terms of grip, it's not in vs. out of water, it's what you are stepping on. Rubber is better on mud and snow and other "loose" substrates. Felt is better on big rocks. On gravel/broken rock, it doesn't matter, both are just fine.

But yes, the newer rubber/tred patterns designed for rock are light years better than the old rubber soled cheapo hippers and such. Enough to catch up to felt? Depends on where you are. But at least in the ballgame.

 

[afishinado]

pcray1231 wrote:

Furthermore, I believe that felt soles are only noticeably superior to rubber w/ studs when the soles are brand new.

eh, in my experience the grip of rubber degrades quicker. The Simms is what I have on now, but they are wearing flat very quickly despite me not fishing much in recent years. When I do go there's plenty of rock hopping along small streams, covering distance, and that's how you wear down rubber.

Overall, in terms of grip, it's not in vs. out of water, it's what you are stepping on. Rubber is better on mud and snow and other "loose" substrates. Felt is better on big rocks. On gravel/broken rock, it doesn't matter, both are just fine.

But yes, the newer rubber/tred patterns designed for rock are light years better than the old rubber soled cheapo hippers and such. Enough to catch up to felt? Depends on where you are. But at least in the ballgame.

Look a the whole ballgame, not just one at-bat:

As you stated above, rubber and felt with studs are close in traction in the water, depending on conditions.

But Rubber:

Provides better traction on the bank (even if you don't hike in very far...ever walk a muddy or leaf covered trail up and down the bank?)

Provides better traction in icy or snowy conditions as well as just with freezing temps. No need to buy a second pair for winter.

Has no regulations banning them when you travel. No need to buy a second pair for traveling.

Is non porous and less likely to pick up and transfer invasive creatures than a porous sole.

Dries quicker than a porous sole that holds moisture which may allow aquatic creatures to live longer.

Grand slam!!!.... :lol: ymmv

 

[Osprey9]

rubber scudded boots better traction compared to felt plus felt usually wears off over periodic of time compared to rubber soled boots imo

 

[redietz]

I'll never go back to felt. Simms sticky rubber with cleats beats any felt I have ever used, even in the water.

As others have noted above, not all rubber soles are created equal. I believe only Simms is licensed to use Vibram, which is the stuff mountain climbers rely on. I've used other brands that just aren't as good as felt.

 

[pcray1231]

afish,

Provides better traction on the bank

This is the only part of that I disagree with. Depends on the bank. If that bank is rock, no, it doesn't. And a whole lot of my hike/fishing are primarily on rock, or at least, the difficult parts that I'm most concerned about are.

Just like rubber is better on mud in and out of the water, felt is better on rock, in and out of the water.

The rest, I agree with. If your purpose is to limit invasives, yes, rubber is better (but don't let it give you overconfidence as soft upper parts hold water too, although some boots are better than others).

If your purpose is pure traction, then look at the situations you fish, and make a decision. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses and what's best for one may not be best for another.

Simms sticky rubber with cleats beats any felt I have ever used, even in the water.

I'm comparing studded Simms rubber to studded Chota felt. The felt is better on rock, period. The Simms on virtually everything else.

I actually wore both one day, on separate feet, just to test to make sure it wasn't my imagination. It wasn't close. That said, the Simms does get more use overall. Part of that is that it's just a better boot, above the tred. And on the "primarily rock" trips is where I value the ankle support more.

 

[Cold]

Look a the whole ballgame, not just one at-bat:

As you stated above, rubber and felt with studs are close in traction in the water, depending on conditions.

But Rubber:

Provides better traction on the bank (even if you don't hike in very far...ever walk a muddy or leaf covered trail up and down the bank?)

If you do most of your fishing from the bank, okay fine. I do most of mine from in the water. It's worth it to me to choose felt and choose a more reasonable route to the water than to trade the (imho) best traction while wading for incrementally better footing for the 8-10 steps from the trail to the water and back.

Provides better traction in icy or snowy conditions as well as just with freezing temps. No need to buy a second pair for winter.

No argument. Felt is ridiculous in the snow. That said, when the snow's flying if I'm in the water, I'm holding a shotgun, not a fly rod, and for that, 5mm bootfoot neos are the order of the day.

Has no regulations banning them when you travel. No need to buy a second pair for traveling.

I suppose if you travel a lot, that might be a valid consideration, or if you live very close to a state line...but if you don't travel much, I can't see the justification in making a purchase decision based on less than 5% of intended use...and if you're traveling a lot, an extra set of boots is likely something you can budget for.

Is non porous and less likely to pick up and transfer invasive creatures than a porous sole.

Dries quicker than a porous sole that holds moisture which may allow aquatic creatures to live longer.

That's a whole other can of worms, but suffice to say, I couldn't care less. I'm not convinced that felt is the bad guy it's made out to be, and the insides and uppers of most boots retain just as much water as the soles, so if you're drying the boot out completely, inside and out, felt isn't taking that much longer, and if you're considering the outside only, the rubber sole is actually more likely to be infectious, as the outside will appear dry long before the padding inside.

[quoteGrand slam!!!.... ymmv[/quote]

YMMV indeed. There's definitely differences, but just like rod action, it's very subjective and dependent on the requirements and intended use of the eventual owner. Also like rods, the best way to find out is to try them out, but that's a luxury we rarely get without doing it the hard way.

Luckily with my Korkers I got to try them side by side in identical conditions...I was really looking forward to liking the sticky rubber & studs, but in my experience, it wasn't even close to the same traction, so different, in fact, that I struggle to believe anyone who says they get better traction with rubber, thinking that the rather have other reasons in mind, like the ones you've mentioned.

 

[redietz]

I'm comparing studded Simms rubber to studded Chota felt. The felt is better on rock, period. The Simms on virtually everything else.

Interesting. Just as data point, the last time fell in because I slipped (about 10 years ago) I was wearing studded Chota felts. In fact, I fell twice that day, slipping on a the same slab of rock, once while fishing upstream, and once while fishing down.

I've yet to slip while wearing studded rubber. It took some getting used to at first, because I felt like I was glued to bottom.

And of course, there are all sorts of ways to fall in that even the best grip on bottom won't prevent, like tripping over a submerged obstacle, stepping in hole you didn't realize was there, having the bank give out under you, being knocked over by a passing kayaker ...

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Korkers with the interchangeable soles get my vote. In Erie I used the studded felts and had no slips. Used the studded rubber ones in NZ and they worked great. The loose gravel creeks over there are like walking on marbles. No slips and felt glued to the bottom. Walking on stream banks in mud also was not a problem. Add in the ban of felts and it was a winner. They also have a heavily studded set of soles that should work in the Salmon R,which I hear is difficult wading. GG

 

[Maurice]

For 20 years I raved about felt w/studs being best. Like walking on a sidewalk along the stream. Then the whole Didymo/invasive craze started so I got some Korkers to possibly share boots and change soles. PITA and the rubber soles were terrible on slimy rocks. Not to mention when wearing the felts with Studs I installed. Sheet metal screws under the felt) the traction was great until you hit the side of a rock with the rubber edge of the tread holder. And Down you went.

So I went to an all rubber/vibram w studs next and I can honestly say that now I am into my third pair(simms guide with full comp of studs) ten years later and I can't even remember why I liked felt so much.

My prior boots were Greys Platinums for around $100 and I loved them too but the side construction only lasted a couple years for me... twice. I hear they changed it, improved it but Jonas talked me into the simms and I am glad he did.

 

[pcray1231]

Just as data point, the last time fell in because I slipped (about 10 years ago) I was wearing studded Chota felts. In fact, I fell twice that day, slipping on a the same slab of rock, once while fishing upstream, and once while fishing down.

Some surfaces are just slick, nomatter what you're wearing!

And I can't say I've fully tested to every possible type of rock/type of vegetation on that rock, etc. It's possible that studded rubber is better on some of them. Likewise, we said rubber is better on snow, which Is true. Unless it's hard encrusted ice.

Rubber is harder than felt. Soft surfaces give better grip on hard surfaces and vice versa.

Bottom line is that rubber is better on some surfaces, and worse on others. But the one's it's worse on, it's still light years better than "old" style rubber soles. There was a time when rubber soles just weren't even acceptable for fishermen, the difference between felt and rubber was night and day. Now it's debated whether they're the best or not. That's a testament to how far they've come.

Rubber has gotten softer. The upside is better grip. The downside is longevity, they wear flat quicker.

If invasives are on your priority list, the rest is close enough that it's almost certainly enough to push the needle in favor of rubber. If they aren't, and you demand max grip, then it depends on what surfaces you are on, and rubber still could be better.

I've yet to slip while wearing studded rubber.

Early on day 1 for me. Flat dry rock, along a trail, not even in water. To be fair, my studs weren't worn yet, so the rubber didn't even connect with the rock. It was like being on skates. Studs may penetrate vegetation on rock, but they do not penetrate the rock itself!

And of course, there are all sorts of ways to fall in that even the best grip on bottom won't prevent.

True, but that doesn't help in a debate of felt vs. rubber. It helps in a debate between careful and careless. And I'd venture to say we'd all agree on that one. I'd also venture to say we've all been careless from time to time.