Verbose answer: I been wearing the last several generations of Brooks Cascadias (except the 14's on which the upper disintegrated after a couple days of wearing around the house). They have rock plates, and are robust enough for off-trail travel in the Sierra. I'm guessing in a shoe with a mile thick sole such as Hoka One One's the rock plate would be unnecessary for on trail hiking, but I wouldn't dare take a high stack shoe off-trail.
Post by FamilySherpa on Jun 7, 2021 5:07:10 GMT -8
I keep 3 pairs of trail running shoes going at all times. GTX, rock plate, & no plate. If the trail has a lot of loose gravel, i wear the rock plate pair. But for long runs, I prefer to wear the pair without a rock plate, which seems to cause hot spots on my feet during 10+ mile runs.
Post by walkswithblackflies on Jun 11, 2021 5:39:43 GMT -8
I loved running in my shoes without rock plates, feeling the earth beneath my feet... until I'd inevitably step on a root/rock. My current and future trail runners have rock plates.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
I've found the Salomon speed cross 5 to have a good balance of light and sturdy. I'm on my second pair, I don't know if they have a "rock plate". If they do, I'm a fan. I use them as hiking shoes, not running shoes