Durability
Not too long after I started wearing them, the sole began to delaminate from the rand in the front of the shoe. After the initial delamination, the problem progressed only slowly for a while, until I finally bound the sole back to the rand with some epoxy. This fix has worked just fine, but it’s still the kind of home solution I don’t want to be doing on a $125 pair of shoes. Having said that, I’ve spoken to other folks who own the Rover and haven’t had this issue, so my experience might have been an aberration.
Other than the delam issue, the shoe has held up reasonably well. Without a doubt, the lightweight mesh and thin, synthetic materials that comprise the upper aren’t designed to handle rough cracks, so I wouldn’t go feeding these to a crack at Vedauwoo or J Tree, for example. (Then again, there’s no way I’d go running in the Salewa Mountain Trainer (effectively a low-cut hiking boot) or the Five Ten Guide Tennie (a skate-like design).
Fit
Lengthwise, the Rover feels true to size. And like most minimalist-style running shoes, the Rover runs relatively wide—it’s wider than both the much stiffer and burlier Salewa Mountain Trainer and the more casual / stripped-down Evolv Cruzer, and similar in width to the Five Ten Guide Tennie.
Bottom Line
So what is the Rover, and where does it work best?
On the one hand, it’s not the climber that other approach shoes are, either for cracks or edging. Then again, it’s not often that I find myself attempting difficult moves in an approach shoe of any sort anyway. And because of how comfortable the Rover is, I find myself wearing them more than any other shoe I own around town and on easy walks into local crags. Ultimately, for 75% of the instances in which approach shoes are appropriate, the Rover is lighter and more comfortable than most other options.
I would wear them on an alpine climb only in warmer conditions when I wouldn’t care as much if my feet got absolutely soaked in a rain storm (which, with all this mesh, they do). Similarly, if you’re looking for a light hiker for trying to go fast on a ridge scramble up a 14er, or do something similarly mellow like the Bierstadt-Sawtooth-Evans traverse, these could be ideal shoes. For most people, this is enough to make the Rover a winner.
While they’re fine to get wet in warm temps where they’ll dry quickly, the Rover would be a real liability in cooler temps (think shoulder season climbs in the Rockies, Cascades, or High Sierra, where there is a benefit to keeping your feet dry).
If I were only buying one approach shoe, I would think hard about something that gave me a little more alpine versatility. The calculus that informs that thought process, though, is very dependent on the type of climbing that I do throughout the year, and may or may not matter to someone who doesn’t have much interest in colder alpine climbs. Additionally, since I’m a climber first and a runner second (a distant second), sacrificing the ability to run in my approach shoes is an easy price for me to pay.
But if you’re looking primarily for a supremely comfortable around-town shoe that works great for both shorter trail runs (~2-5 miles) and warm-weather cragging, then the Rover would make a whole lot of sense.
Do these hold up for extended talus climbing/slogging? Also how do think these would do for a week-long hiking/scrambling/ridge traversing trip, not enough support or just fine?
Nick,
I think these do fine in talus and scree- they’ve held up well for me other than the delamination issue that I talked about in the review. Talus and scree are pretty tough environments on shoes; hopping between sharp granite boulders will chew through sole rubber on any shoe or boot given enough time. In that environment, the Rover doesn’t wear down appreciably faster than any comparable shoe. That said, the Rover, like other approach shoes, does have sticky (read: softer, less durable) rubber on the sole, rather than a beefier rubber that might appear on a full-on backpacking boot. This is great for security when scrambling, or wandering up fourth or easy fifth class terrain (as you would on a ridge traverse), but if you’re looking at mostly well-groomed trail, you likely won’t make much use of the technical rubber and could probably trade it for a harder, more durable sole material in another shoe.
As far as support goes, they’re a hybrid running/approach shoe, so the generally the support factor is low. As a low cut shoe, needless to say there is no ankle support whatsoever. If you’re asking about support in the way that it is normally talked about in the hiking world, meaning support against rolling from side to side, then these don’t offer much. I don’t personally believe that that sort of roll support (like you might get from a high top boot) is of much use, and I’d much rather have a lighter shoe if I’m going for hundreds of miles. Especially on a ridge traverse, I would take light weight and agile over supportive and bulky 10 times out of 10.
If, on the other hand, you mean under-foot support, say, for your arch, my experience with the Rover hasn’t made me suspicious of them. I have low arches, and I’ve not taken them out for a week straight (more 1 and 2 overnights loaded down with climbing gear), but I’m not aching in them on day 2 or 3 or anything like that.
I hope that answers your questions, let me know if you’ve got anything else you’d like to know. Just out of curiosity, do you have a scramble/traverse in mind?
Dave
great review……very thorough