- five ten comparisons
Unless they’ve changed the Aescents, they have very little padding, they were originally designed to be a shoe that you could both walk and climb very easy stuff in, hence they have no padding at all under the forefoot to allow enough feel and flex to rock climb a bit. They wouldn’t be any use on the bike, far too thin and soft.Posted 4 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
The Freeriders are excellent- better allround shoe than the impacts IMO, less blocky and clumpy. Less protection and from memory a slightly less stiff sole, though, they’ve changed the Impact slightly since I had mine , new insoles etc.
Still no real weatherproofing and they still take a long time to dry, though not as bad.Posted 4 years agoMSPSubscriber
I am struggling to get a new pair of impact low’s in my size. I like the protection and underfoot padding of them, being quite a big and heavy guy I find them quite comfortable all day in the alps.
I would like to know what peoples experience of other 5-10 shoes are in comparison, ie the freeride and aescent models, do they give the same level of protection to the sole of the foot.Posted 4 years agojohnheSubscriber
I’ve got Sam Hills (Impacts) and Freeriders. The Freeriders feel just as good as the Sam Hills on the bike and look less outlandish. I love them and would buy another pair tomorrow. A biking buddy of mine bought a second pair of Freeriders and wears them as his casual shoes.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘five ten comparisons’ is closed to new replies.