After seeing a few posts about how useless SealSkinz are, I was puzzled.

I’ve always found them to do the job so long as they are not stretched on, ie buy a bigger size if they are tight.

So as I was running on the ice of the ‘Puffer today I thought I’d repeat a test I did a few years back. This time instead of a muddy puddle, I found a nice clear one.

The shoes are my lightweight running shoes, no lining, not waterproof in any way.

So I cracked the ice, immersed my foot for a count of 30, and then went on my way. In about 50 yards there wasn’t any difference between the wet foot and my other one, and the socks were dry inside when I got home.

I’ve always found them to work just fine too. Even since my wife steamed, and delaminated, them.

Don’t think I’ve heard anyone say they aren’t waterproof? The common complaint seems to be that when it’s raining hard, water can get in the top, which then can’t get out (cos they’re waterproof!) which is worse than just having a wet sock.

Repeat the test but next time go in up to your shin, then report back 🙂

Today I wore two pairs of cheap long socks with food waste bn liners between them. Same result.

zilog6128 – Member
…The common complaint seems to be that when it’s raining hard, water can get in the top, which then can’t get out (cos they’re waterproof!) which is worse than just having a wet sock.

Repeat the test but next time go in up to your shin, then report back

You’re not serious are you?

That’s the sort of thing an intellectually challenged numpty would do – complain about his wellie boots getting wet when he stood in water deeper than the boots.

The best thing about them is that when wet inside you still stay warm as they are an effective windproof. Mines do leak a bit but the water inside soon heats up from body heat and as long as the wind stays off I’m fine.

That’s the sort of thing an intellectually challenged numpty would do – complain about his wellie boots getting wet when he stood in water deeper than the boots.

But it’s the real world. The only time a sealskin is properly useful is when its wet on the ground and dry in the air.

Or wear trousers that cover the sock cuff…

Lol @ epicyclo

convert – Member
But it’s the real world. The only time a sealskin is properly useful is when its wet on the ground and dry in the air.

Dunno, I’m not using them for the swimming part of triathlons, so the top will always be above water level. If it isn’t, buy a longer pair of SeakSkinz.

Most people in the real world understand that if you allow water to go over the top of a waterproof container, then water will go in, hence you wear something to protect the top, ie trousers.

Those who find that hard to understand may be surprised to find a boat will sink if you allow water to pour over the top. 🙂

Wearing trousers in the wet, I wear shorts all year round, hate having wet trousers on my shins

Dunno, I’m not using them for the swimming part of triathlons, so the top will always be above water level. If it isn’t, buy a longer pair of SeakSkinz.
Most people in the real world understand that if you allow water to go over the top of a waterproof container, then water will go in, hence you wear something to protect the top, ie trousers.

Those who find that hard to understand may be surprised to find a boat will sink if you allow water to pour over the top

Are you trying to come over daft deliberately?

No one has ever claimed that sealskinz are not good at handling water the way your test subjected them to. If standing in puddles in shoes other than wellies they are definitely the sock of choice.

The problem everyone has with them (apart from the uncomfortable because they are a bit stiff. thing) is that if water is streaming down your leg and has access to the top of the sealskinzs it will get inside and when it does their very properties that make them special is exactly what makes them poor. I wore them in torental rain on a cycle tour once. Hand to stop every hour to empty my socks. Had incredibly painful wrinkled feet at the end of the day.

If you don’t like the stepping into deeper water test try spraying your legs with water with a hose pipe, one foot in a sealskin and one in normal sock then go for a run. Then see which feels best at the end of the run.

Use them if you like them. I like them.

They are better than normal socks in winter and wet weather. If they do fill up they are stil warmer and they don’t go all long and soggy and gritty.

Anyway, you have probably heard this but anyway….. if you are riding in persistent rain…. Buy a pair of heavy duty rubber gloves. Biggish ones. Cut the hand off the glove and slide the resulting rubber tubes over your ankles so they cover the top of the socks and act as a seal to divert water dripping down over your socks.

Sounds daft but works. It is a bit of a faff I grant you and the tubes only last a week or so of riding but I used it on various multiway trips and it helps.

You can customize the colors too. Black, pink, yellow…..

That’s the frustration. If only sealskinz had the wherewithall to employ a designer for a couple of days and generated a version with some sort of similar seal (detachabe or otherwise). It’s such a glaring issue with your product and there is a solution and they seemingly don’t have the capcity to implement it.

convert – Member
Are you trying to come over daft deliberately?

No one has ever claimed that sealskinz are not good at handling water the way your test subjected them to. If standing in puddles in shoes other than wellies they are definitely the sock of choice.

The problem everyone has with them (apart from the uncomfortable because they are a bit stiff. thing) is that if water is streaming down your leg and has access to the top of the sealskinzs it will get inside and when it does their very properties that make them special is exactly what makes them poor. I wore them in torental rain on a cycle tour once. Hand to stop every hour to empty my socks. Had incredibly painful wrinkled feet at the end of the day….

Ah, I see your problem.

The technology exists to prevent it.

Waterproof trousers will stop any water coming in from the top.

But that is not a flaw with the SeakSkinz They need a hole at the top so you can get your foot in. The same complaint could be made about waterproof boots, fishing waders etc.

If you choose to wear shorts and leave the top of the SealSkinz exposed, then I can see how your socks would fill.

Deliberately choosing to leave the top exposed and then complaining about the very predictable result is what is daft.

BTW if you want to ride dressed like that in torrential rain then thick woollie socks with sandals to allow water to drain will help your feet (ie just like the old style Ramblers).

I’m currently using a pair of the knee high version. So much better than the shorter versions I’ve had the past due to the extra length.
(Ooooh missus…)
Lets wait and see how long it takes for the cuff to go baggy……..

Deliberately choosing to leave the top exposed and then complaining about the very predictable result is what is daft.

You were running in your test right? Actually running or jog/walk/shuffling? If so I’d imagine waterproof trousers are not really on the menu (or rather they shoudn’t be). You will find you will have the same issue with running tights as you will have with bare legs in the rain. It seemingly does not matter if the tight is over the sealskin or under, through capillary action your socks will fill with water in a way that is not as good as just plain wet socks. Go try it.

Not denying that sealskins don’t have a place in more sedate activities where waterproof trousers are a possiblilty but you are on a cycling forum where most people who have used them’s idea of cycling does not involve waterproof trousers as a practical option. The only time I have seen this working is with those pretty much waterproof softshell DH/Enduro style long baggies and a pair of the super long sealskins to create an overlap around your knee.

And sandals and woolie socks 🙂 Not quite going to cut it for any of the riding I’d want to do! Wet feet in normal riding shoes/boots would be far more appropriate.

Don’t think I’ve heard anyone say they aren’t waterproof?

my sealskinz gloves that were made of the same stuff as their socks were rubbish, let me down badly in the lake district one rainy day.

Maybe it is because they have a harder time of it than the socks, as they get stretched by hand movements.

I have some of their winter mtb gloves which seem OK.

I’ve only ever personally had experience of the short sealskinz and worn with shorts, so yes, unsurprisingly I’ve found them less warm and less comfortable than a good merino sock. In this mode they simply don’t work.
One of my riding buddies has the knee length sealskinz and finds them OK with shorts so long as the tops remain covered by the bottom of his kneepads.

When I used to use Porelle (pre SealSkin) socks I used to get cold feet until I wore very thin liner socks – then they were great even in cold and wet when the water runs down your shins into the sock.
Most SealSkin gloves are useless because they don’t have a fixed liner so if you take the gloves off mid ride you can’t put them back on again.

Waterproof trousers will stop any water coming in from the top.

Yes, but then the solution isn’t Sealskins, it’s Sealskins AND waterproof trousers. And waterproof trousers are often uncomfortable on the bike.

And it is quite possibly a design flaw with the socks. Why isn’t there an option to have a rubber cuff sealing the top against your leg?

They may work for you but nope I’ve got to disagree and say that alone they do not work, in fact I would say for a lot of cyclists they dont work by themselves. Even if it’s not chucking it down when you ride, you’ll want to use them when the ground is wet and by wet I dont mean it rained for 5 minutes or its just been drizzling and you decided to go out on your bike, I mean it rained all day the day before and a day later its stopped raining and you’re going on your bike. Unless somebody has hit the trail just before you with a leaf blower you’re bound to encounter puddles, as soon as you hit those puddles at speed your legs above the sock length will get wet and this water will then run into your socks and stay there and it’ll be blooming cold.

The only way I’ve found I can wear sealskins and use them is to wear another thicker ‘woolie boolie’ pair of socks underneath them so that my feet are capable of warming this puddle water or to wear them the day after my shoes got piss wet through and I don’t want my feet to immediately get soaking wet and cold. This assumes a lack of puddles as well because dont forget as soon as you hit that first puddle, you’ll be cold and wet.

If you can get away with wearing waterproof trousers etc over the top to make a better seal then fair play to you, I’d keel over after the 8 mile marker from sheer heat and effort involved in actually riding my bike. This is wearing a normal length sock, wearing a knee high length sock would obviously fix this issue but that length sock just isn’t for me.

Maybe they’d be better if the cuff of them actually retained any decent elasticity to with stand the puddle wave however, they dont and they become baggy as heck.

Again if they work for you then woohoo awesome but as a cyclist who rides approx 5000 miles a year…. they don’t! 8)

Knee high sealskinz with knee pads tucked slightly over the top, woolie boolies in below the sealskinz too..

Works for me, common sense says you have to cover the top.

I like them, they aren’t waterproof after a few uses in my experience (5 pairs!), but as has already been said above, they keep your damp feet toasty warm regardless. That’ll do for me!

I’m currently finding thick wool socks and thick neoprene overshoes to be better. The overshoes dry out much faster than soaked shoes, so better for the evening commute after a wet ride into work in the morning.

Waterproofness is a measured by hydrostatic head (pressure) apply enough pressure and it will leak.

I ride in the merino mid-calf ones almost all winter – on the rare occasions that water does get in it warms up, because no new water is getting added regularly. I’d not be without them.

(This is over about 1000 – 2000 miles a winter for the last 9 years, in Scotland and the north of England)

The newer versions with the rubberised internal gripper do seem to reduce water ingress a bit better. It might help prevent the baginess that develops too.

convert – Member
You were running in your test right? Actually running or jog/walk/shuffling?

Does 10km in ice and slushy mud with added light sleet, plus water crossings count?

As for speed, I can keep up with my daughter in her early 20s who can knock off a half marathon in an acceptable time.

If so I’d imagine waterproof trousers are not really on the menu (or rather they shoudn’t be).

Yes they should be. I run solo in the countryside and have no wish to be the the hypothermic victim who needs rescuing if weather conditions change for the worse, or an injury occurs.

You will find you will have the same issue with running tights as you will have with bare legs in the rain. It seemingly does not matter if the tight is over the sealskin or under, through capillary action your socks will fill with water in a way that is not as good as just plain wet socks. Go try it.

You keep coming up with examples that do not make sense to me. I do not understand the logic behind wearing a waterproof sock and then allowing water to get in at the top.

No I am not daft enough to wear thin running tights. That would be plain silly – they don’t stop water getting in the top.

I wear DWR treated thermal tights (Hagloffs) and long SealSkinz.

grenosteve – Member
I like them, they aren’t waterproof after a few uses in my experience (5 pairs!)…

They do wear out, but I have found the secret is to get them big enough that they are not a stretch to get on. Then they last much longer. I also suspect stretching them on enlarges the holes in whatever membrane they are using.

Yes they should be. I run solo in the countryside and have no wish to be the the hypothermic victim who needs rescuing if weather conditions change for the worse, or an injury occurs.

Very possible to be warm and comfortable whilst wet.

It is also possible to get comfy waterproof riding trousers. I have some Berghaus ones, they have great stretchy crotch and knee bits that make them comfortable, and can be cinched in. Rarely wear them though but I have done on long wet road training rides. Nothing like being warm and cosy fully suited up in biblical rain.

molgrips – Member
Very possible to be warm and comfortable whilst wet.

Definitely. Only problem is that warmth vanishes almost instantly when you stop, but until then it’s good. I don’t mind being warm and wet so long as there is shelter when I stop.

Nothing like being warm and cosy fully suited up in biblical rain.

There should be a word for that feeling. Love it. 🙂

Almost one of smugness. Bet the Germans have a 100 yard long word for it.