Simm's Caves inon felt issue.

H

harry

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
79
Simms Plans About-Face on Felt
Posted on 06/30/2011 by admin

By Kirk Deeter

Angling Trade has learned that Simms Fishing Products told its sales representatives, and is now informing dealers, that the company plans to reintroduce boots with felt soles in its 2012 product lineup. You may remember that just a couple years ago, Simms was the company that beat the drum loudest about going felt-free, and swore off production of felt-soled boots after 2010.

As most of you know, felt has been associated with the spread of aquatic invasive species… nasty things like New Zealand mud snails, didymo (rock snot), as well as the parasite that causes whirling disease. In some states, the threats have been taken seriously enough that felt is no longer allowed. You can’t fish in felt in Maryland or Vermont, and starting next year, felt will be banned in Alaska.

The science hasn’t changed, but neither did consumers’ and dealers’ attitudes toward wearing felt—there are still many felt stalwarts who contend there is no adequate substitute for traction in a river. And apparently, a good number of dealers claimed they had plenty of customers who could not be sold on felt alternatives.

As such, Simms director of marketing and brand management Diane Bristol said that the company labored over the decision, but ultimately yielded to the demands of customers, specifically dealers, who said they needed felt in the arsenal.

“It’s ultimately about choices, and allowing customers to make their choices on boots with felt,” said Bristol. “We didn’t take this decision lightly, but ultimately it came down to listening to what our customers wanted.”

Which many will assume means it came down to a matter of money… not just for Simms, but also for dealers.

Simms says it is not disengaging from the invasive species fight by any means. Plans are to reintroduce felt on only three boot models, and the company also intends to amp up efforts to inform consumers about the need to wade clean through additional literature and labeling.

Still, Simms will get plenty of flak for the turnaround, and no doubt expects it. But keep in mind that other major boot makers like Orvis, Patagonia, and Korkers, kept right on chugging with felt production in recent years. So don’t expect any stones thrown from glass houses.

Thus, the Simms turnabout is less of a head fake, and more a situation where Simms tried to lead the market across the avenue, then got caught alone in traffic when the lights changed.

Hopefully, the industry as a whole, takes a harder closer look at the felt issue… not necessarily to regulate, rather to amp up efforts to inform the public about the effects of invasive species.

In truth, aquatic nuisances can be transported in many boot materials, not just felt. In some ways, the notion that an angler got a “free pass” from cleaning boots by buying models with rubber soles was as dangerous as it will be to allow responsible choices and encourage responsible care regarding felt.

Now the choices are more open. It will be interesting to see where consumers, retailers, and manufacturers all go with them.

 
Not a big surprise.

I never really had any issues going from felt to rubber. As far as Simms boots go, I wasn't completely sold on their streamtread soles until I put the star cleats in.

First test was Penns. No problems. I also, enjoy being able to get out of the stream and not slide all over the place. Winter = no snow platform boots.

I applaud Simms for their attempt at change. However, people are set in their ways and are hard to convince. Overall, bad business decision. Especially when Patagonia, one of the leaders in environmental friendly products didn't jump on board completely. Big red flag right there.

IMO, the best solution for limiting the human factor in invasive species transfer is education and providing a easy / readily available decon. The Gunpowder River Keepers and MDR have done a great job on educating the public and providing wash stations. Are people listening and using them? Who knows?

Our TU chapter (Codorus) has started placing Didymo warning / prevention signs on the information boards at the parking areas. Even though, we don't have it (..knocks on wood...) we are still WAY to close for comfort to the GP. I would really like to get some wash-decon stations built. Now, if only the water birds will stay south of the Mason Dixon

 
My riversheds are great! Don't get me wrong no suppstitue for felt, but makes me think I'm doing my part to wade clean. PA will prolly follow shortly in the felt ban, so I'm already prepared :)
 
Good for simms. I agree with this decision.

IMO, the option of having two pair of boots, one for infected rivers, and one for rivers with no known infections.

In between trips, clean em and let 'em dry.

IMO, this is drastically safer than the complacent attitudes created among those that wear rubber soles and feel that they're doing their part.

In the end, the solution is not banning any particular gear, but rather educating anglers. An idiot with rubber soles is only marginally better than an idiot with felts. Down with feel good regs!
 
I saw the article on Singlebarbed also. I'm not surprised either. Anglers taking care of their gear, especially those who travel to a lot of different watersheds is a more reasonable answer. I fish only Laurel Hill Creek & the Yough but I still clean my gear each week. I'd like to give an "atta boy" to all the folks on this board who have 2 sets of wading gear when it comes to fishing waters that have an invasive species. They didn't have to be told to do the right thing.
 
jayL wrote:
Good for simms. I agree with this decision.

IMO, the option of having two pair of boots, one for infected rivers, and one for rivers with no known infections.

In between trips, clean em and let 'em dry.

IMO, this is drastically safer than the complacent attitudes created among those that wear rubber soles and feel that they're doing their part.

In the end, the solution is not banning any particular gear, but rather educating anglers. An idiot with rubber soles is only marginally better than an idiot with felts. Down with feel good regs!

Dear jay,

Or maybe they just got tired of people biotchin' about falling on their butt while wearing the latest and greatest $ 200.00 pair of boots?

I visit a lot of message boards and I haven't seen many people over the age of 30 who have experience with felt soles say much good about the rubber soled boots regardless of brand.

They universally agree that the addition of $ 40.00 worth of proprietary cleats makes them almost as good as felt though. ;-)

Think about your car and when you try to plow through a puddle at more than a snail's pace, what happens? Yep, you lose contact with the road surface. Rubber when used in combination with water on a hard surface generally yields poor results. That happens because the rubber doesn't have enough voids to disperse the water fast enough to eliminate air pockets that decrease the contact patch.

It's science that made SIMM'S relent, science always wins.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

Science
 
TimMurphy wrote:
jayL wrote:
Good for simms. I agree with this decision.

IMO, the option of having two pair of boots, one for infected rivers, and one for rivers with no known infections.

In between trips, clean em and let 'em dry.

IMO, this is drastically safer than the complacent attitudes created among those that wear rubber soles and feel that they're doing their part.

In the end, the solution is not banning any particular gear, but rather educating anglers. An idiot with rubber soles is only marginally better than an idiot with felts. Down with feel good regs!

Dear jay,

Or maybe they just got tired of people biotchin' about falling on their butt while wearing the latest and greatest $ 200.00 pair of boots?

I visit a lot of message boards and I haven't seen many people over the age of 30 who have experience with felt soles say much good about the rubber soled boots regardless of brand.

They universally agree that the addition of $ 40.00 worth of proprietary cleats makes them almost as good as felt though. ;-)

Think about your car and when you try to plow through a puddle at more than a snail's pace, what happens? Yep, you lose contact with the road surface. Rubber when used in combination with water on a hard surface generally yields poor results. That happens because the rubber doesn't have enough voids to disperse the water fast enough to eliminate air pockets that decrease the contact patch.

It's science that made SIMM'S relent, science always wins.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

Science
I'm 51 which is way over 30. I have experience with both types of wading boots. I have had my $200 Simms Guide boots for three years and I have not fallen on my butt yet! I can't say the same for my felt Chota's. The rubber soles are also much better in the winter without the snow buildup. I guess it comes down to a personal choice which one you prefer. I like my Simms.
 
TimMurphy wrote:

Rubber when used in combination with water on a hard surface generally yields poor results. That happens because the rubber doesn't have enough voids to disperse the water fast enough to eliminate air pockets that decrease the contact patch.

It's science that made SIMM'S relent, science always wins.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

Science

I respectfully suggest that zero science has been presented here.
 
WildTigerTrout wrote:
TimMurphy wrote:
jayL wrote:
Good for simms. I agree with this decision.

IMO, the option of having two pair of boots, one for infected rivers, and one for rivers with no known infections.

In between trips, clean em and let 'em dry.

IMO, this is drastically safer than the complacent attitudes created among those that wear rubber soles and feel that they're doing their part.

In the end, the solution is not banning any particular gear, but rather educating anglers. An idiot with rubber soles is only marginally better than an idiot with felts. Down with feel good regs!

Dear jay,

Or maybe they just got tired of people biotchin' about falling on their butt while wearing the latest and greatest $ 200.00 pair of boots?

I visit a lot of message boards and I haven't seen many people over the age of 30 who have experience with felt soles say much good about the rubber soled boots regardless of brand.

They universally agree that the addition of $ 40.00 worth of proprietary cleats makes them almost as good as felt though. ;-)

Think about your car and when you try to plow through a puddle at more than a snail's pace, what happens? Yep, you lose contact with the road surface. Rubber when used in combination with water on a hard surface generally yields poor results. That happens because the rubber doesn't have enough voids to disperse the water fast enough to eliminate air pockets that decrease the contact patch.

It's science that made SIMM'S relent, science always wins.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

Science
I'm 51 which is way over 30. I have experience with both types of wading boots. I have had my $200 Simms Guide boots for three years and I have not fallen on my butt yet! I can't say the same for my felt Chota's. The rubber soles are also much better in the winter without the snow buildup. I guess it comes down to a personal choice which one you prefer. I like my Simms.

Dear wildtigertrout,

I've marked you down down as the first positive respondent over the age of 30 anywhere on the internet.

I'll give you the Winter part but counter with the fact that I too am 51 and I've never fallen in Winter wearing felt so where does that leave things?

It leaves the obvious.

Rubber soles blow and SIMMS made a huge mistake that is costing them money, money that they can ill afford to surrender to their competitors if they wish to stay in business.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

 
jdaddy wrote:
TimMurphy wrote:

Rubber when used in combination with water on a hard surface generally yields poor results. That happens because the rubber doesn't have enough voids to disperse the water fast enough to eliminate air pockets that decrease the contact patch.

It's science that made SIMM'S relent, science always wins.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

Science

I respectfully suggest that zero science has been presented here.

Dear jdaddy,

Think about hydroplaning, it's actually not a function of speed.

It is the result of the water not being able to be removed from between the rubber and the bottom surface quickly enough, therefore it prevents the rubber from contacting the surface.

It's the reason why rubber shower mats are no longer sold in favor of textured surface showers. It's the same reason why rubber soled wading shoes alone without studs are worthless.

Water in between the rubber and the bottom surface is a recipe for trouble.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)

 
TimMurphy wrote:
I've marked you down down as the first positive respondent over the age of 30 anywhere on the internet.








Wrong - again. We've had this argument for a bunch of years now. We're the same age, too.

You have your opinion on felt, and others have theirs. Instead of obsessively pushing your preferences on others, why don't you let them decide for themselves?

If felt soles were that great, why doesn't Simms eliminate rubber soles and go back entirely to felt? They're just pacifying the last of the dinosaurs.

:lol:

Here's your rubber shower mat:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Deluxe-Bath-Mat-Clear/10227098

Kinda looks like Aquastealth! Why don't they sell felt shower mats?
 










Dear Heritageangler,

I'd would like to see the pro-rubber crowd admit for once that SIMMS isn't responding just to dinosaurs like me, but rather to the customers they have lost?

I realize that I'll be the King of England before that happens so I'll follow your request and leave threads discussing this matter alone for good.

And I'll bet you $ 100.00 that those WalMart showermats will slide right out from under you same as they did 40 years ago if the suction cups aren't firmly afixed to the shower floor before you step on them. ;-)

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Tim - Undoubtedly, there's a lot of young guys that don't like rubber soles, and Simms is being forced to admit it.

There's also a lot of old farts like us that actually like rubber soles as well. To each their own, and that's a good thing. I don't think either choice should be eliminated, and certainly not under the guise of preventing evasives. Both types need to be used responsibly before we're guilt free, and even then, I don't feel invasives will be stopped. We're not the only species moving between waterways.

I'm not suggesting you stop voicing your opinion on felt vs rubber soles. Just remember, others don't share your view, and they're not wrong, just as you're not. It's just personal opinion, and there's no absolutes.

Maybe this will spur the boot manufacturers to find a better solution - there's certainly room for improvement.

As far as those bath mats with the suction cups on the bottom - the only use I ever had for them was to rip them up to make a fart sounding noise, followed by an "ahhhhhh". Really used to gross my Sisters out. :-D
 
Dear Ed,

Once more if I may?

My biggest beef with the rubber soles isn't about their grip but rather about how the marketing tactics ran roughshod over the practicality of the issue.

Rubber soles mounted to the exact same boots as felt soles are only marginally better at preventing invasive hitchhikers when you consider padded collars, padded tongues, thick heavy laces, etc.

Do invasives only live in the soles of your wading shoes?

Too much of this sport has become the provence of marketeers, much to the detriment of the sport itself. To me at least it seems that it's becoming more about gear and less about tactics with each passing year.

Here's what I have to say. If it works for you use it until it's irrepairably damaged. Don't always believe the hype, these companies that are your friends are also in many ways your adversaries.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Mr. Murphy,

Here is a post I made on here a while back:

Afish wrote:

"Let's face it, boots and waders have a short life for those of us that fish quite a bit. Why not buy a new pair of each BEFORE they are completely shot? You can alternate their use and let them dry out completely, and you will have a decent pair of backups for every fishing trip.

There are many on here that say "I'll give up my felts when they unlace them from my cold, dead, stinky feet!"......BS! I own and wear both felt boots and the new Vibram rubber soles with studs. The Vibram soles work just as well as felts in the stream and are 10 times safer when walking on the bank. Felts provide zero traction on dry land while the Vibram soles have traction like hiking boots. Also, for those of us that fish in the winter, the rubber and studs dig into the snow and ice while the felts accumulate ice and snow and are a real PITA.

When I buy another pair, I no doubt will opt for Vibram soles with studs. (Note: the new rubber soles are no way similar to the "Aquastealth" rubber soles of the past. I believe they were designed by a orthopedic surgeon looking to drum up more business.)

Many on here talk about conservation and doing something for our streams and rivers, here's your chance...or face Jay's snakes.

As far as spot burning the D, I guess I'm guilty as charged, but it's tough to keep things quiet this time a year when there are so many anglers looking for info. It's a great River; enjoy it, share it, and protect it...don't be a poophead!"


Chalk up one more over 30 angler that prefers rubber with studs to felt. Just for the record, Orvis sold some felt boots at sale prices and yet sales in the store are about 10-1 vibram w/ studs over felt. The new laws banning them in MD, VT, MT, and possibly NY sure have something to do with it, but I haven't yet had anyone come into the shop on crutches looking for a refund... :p
 

Attachments

  • Mr. Murphy.jpg
    Mr. Murphy.jpg
    2.9 KB · Views: 3
I too am over 40 and will not purchase a boot with felt on it. Rubber are far superior to hike in, wade in the winter, and to leave on to travel home.
Felts always wore too much to last more than maybe 2 years, after that they made my feet hurt and were a pain to resole.
The best pair that I have owned were the original Simms Guide boots, They wore like iron for 9 years before the upper wore out, the bottom were still good with the spikes sticking out 1/8 to 1/16 of an inch.
 
Tim Count me in as someone who is over 30 and LOVES his streamtread simms boots.

I think most people who made the switch are happy with it. Problem is someone gets the boots because its the new thing. He/she reads on FF forums they aren't as good as felt. He/she wears them 1-3 times, doesn't quite have the "feel" for them. Gets on some FF forum and slams how bad they are- iced bowling balls comments. Or worse yet, someone who doesn't even have the boots lurks around FF forums cataloging the number of bad posts and complaints and amplifies them on the next forum- he told two friends, who told two friends and so on.

People should consider that the first time you wear them they will feel different and you might not be able to wade quite as confidently. HOWEVER, it is also important to note that much of this is NOT because of the composition of the soles per se. Anytime you switch boots there is an adjustment period. You need to get the "feel" for them.
For me, the biggest adjustment meant having extra padding (distance) between my feet and the bottom. I changed from cheap/moderately priced boots and since the support in the better Simms boots is superior (even to some supposed high end boots from the yuppie outlet (begins with an "O"), you sort of lose touch with the bottom which makes you feel less sure and even makes you slip a little more because you don't plant as well on uneven solid substrates. Once people get the feel for it, it took me two weeks (5 trips) there is not appreciable difference in most (if not all) PA streams.
Just something to consider.
 
Dear Afish and others,

I will readily admit that my experience with rubber soles is limited to a pair of boots with studded Aquastealth soles. Without studs those things would be deadly because they are only marginally better than a pair of old Chuck Taylor's with the studs.

Based on my experience with them I am in no hurry to change, especially since I already have felt soled boots that work much better.

I suspect I will wind up with Vibram soles eventually but with 3 pairs of perfectly good wading shoes already it will be quite some time before I have to make the switch.

Regards,

Tim Murphy :)
 
Tim - You're still doing it. I have no idea what you wade like, but I have absolutely NO problems with my UNSTUDDED Aquastealth boots. They're not "deadly" at all for me. I own two pairs of Aquastealth boots - studded and unstudded.

My studded Aquastealth boots grip MUCH better than my two pairs of studded felt boots (Simms Guides and Patagonia), in my opinion. There is an adjustment period if you're used to felts, but once you learn the characteristics of studded Aquastealth, you gain confidence. My problem with them was that they gripped too much! I had to make a conscious effort to lift my feet, and not shuffle.

Aquastealth (Stealth rubber) was designed for rock climbing, and if anything requires a sure grip on rocks, it'd be rock climbing. Times change, and rubber soles have been steadily improved - and that includes Aquastealth. As I recall, you had the first generation of these soles - they've improved since then.
 
Dear Ed,

PM sent, I'm out of these wading boot threads forever.

Regards,

Chief Joseph ;-)
 
Back
Top