Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

EDIT: OWNER REVIEW --Travis-- Merrell Chameleon II Stretch shoes

Expand Messages
  • edwardripleyduggan
    Hello Travis, Your edit follows. I thought this was a good first OR, and the majority of cavils I have are quite minor. I d like you to edit as suggested
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Travis,

      Your edit follows. I thought this was a good first OR, and the
      majority of cavils I have are quite minor. I'd like you to edit as
      suggested below, and then put the edited version on this list with
      "REPOST" substituted for "EDIT." A version in HTML form in the Owner
      Review folder on BGT at

      http://tinyurl.com/7p4t6

      would be helpful. You will need to log in first, or register if you
      have not done so.

      Best,

      Ted

      BGT OR Editor


      --- In BackpackGearTest@yahoogroups.com, Travis Beals <trbeals@...> wrote:
      >
      > This is my first owner review. Be gentle :-)
      >
      > ------------------------------
      > Merrell Chameleon II Stretch shoes
      > June 26, 2006

      ### EDIT:

      Owner Review Merrell Chameleon II Stretch shoes
      June 26, 2006

      >
      > Reviewer Information:
      >
      > Name: Travis Beals
      > Age: 25
      > Gender: Male
      > Height: 6'0" (1.83 m)

      ### EDIT: 6' 0" [space]

      > Weight: 190 lb (86 kg)
      > Shoe size: 9.5 US (9.0 UK, 43 EU)
      > Email address: trbeals (at) gmail (dot) com
      > Location: Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
      >
      > Backpacking Background: I've been camping since I was a kid, and was
      > a Boy Scout for a while, but only really got into backpacking about
      > four years ago. I started with "traditional" pack weights of 40 lb
      > (18 kg) for a three-day trip, but have now pared down to 25 lb (18
      > kg) total weight, or about 14 lb (6 kg) base pack weight, putting me
      > in the light-to-ultralight range. My wife and I do several trips year-
      > round, ranging from overnighters to up to five days. We usually
      > backpack either in the Sierra Nevada range, but sometimes also do
      > snowshoe trips in the Canadian Rockies and the Canadian Coastal range
      > in the winter. When I'm not on the trail, I'm a physics graduate
      > student.

      ### EDIT: We have a limit of around 100 words in this section. I
      suggest dropping the last line "but sometimes also do snowshoe trips
      in the Canadian Rockies and the Canadian Coastal range in the winter."
      This could be rewritten in fewer words if you wished.
      >
      >
      > Product information:
      > Manufacturer: Merrell, www.merrell.com
      > Year: 2005
      > Weight (listed): 2 lb 3 oz (993 g)
      > Weight (as measured): 2 lb 2 oz (975 g)
      > MSRP: $99.95

      ### EDIT: MSRP: $99.95 US

      > Description: Merrell bills these shoes as being for "speedhiking" and
      > general outdoor recreation. The shoes have Vibram soles, Nubuck /
      > mesh uppers, an elastic lacing system, and a snug, stretchy collar to
      > keep out debris. As compared with the regular Merrell Chameleon II,
      > the Stretch version has more mesh and more flexible soles and uppers.

      ### EDIT: A little more information on the construction of the shoe
      would be useful here. Height on the ankle, lace type, a bit more about
      the way the lacing system is constructed, and so on. This doesn't have
      to be technical; I'd just like to see a bit more information than is
      provided.

      >
      >
      > Review Summary: Although generally a good shoe, I was disappointed by
      > the amount of wear the Chamelleon II Stretch showed after 8 months
      > and roughly 250 - 300 miles (400 - 500 kilometers). Unlike other
      > shoes that need "breaking in", these shoes are what-you-feel-is-what
      > you get.

      ### EDIT: "what-you-feel-is-what-you-get."

      This is a good thing, but don't expect minor fit issues
      > noticed at the shoe store to go away with wear.

      ### EDIT: This sentence is mildly projective, telling the reader what
      their experience will be rather than describing your own. I'd suggest
      a rewrite as:

      "This is a good thing, but I found that minor fit issues I noticed at
      the shoe store did not go away with wear."



      > Pros: Excellent breathability, collar keeps out dirt, no blisters
      > Cons: Poor durability, no wide sizes available, somewhat heavy for
      > trail shoes

      ### EDIT: While a "pro and con" section is not absolutely essential,
      it is helpful as part of the summary of conclusions. However, usual
      practice is to put the summary the end of the text. This is not a hard
      and fast rule, but as it is the form followed by 90 percent of ORs, I
      think it's better to be consistent.

      ### EDIT: Missing here is a section on field conditions. I do realize
      that you touch on some (but not all) of this in your text below. It
      doesn't necessarily have to be broken out under a separate heading
      (though many do), but should run along these lines (quoting from a
      recent OR I wrote):

      "The lowest temperature at which I'm comfortable wearing the ... is
      around 20 F (7 C), and I've worn them up to about 85 F (29 C). This
      pair has been used almost entirely in mountainous terrain, on outings
      between 500 ft (152 m) and 5000 ft (1520 m), in the Catskills and
      Adirondacks. I estimate that they have seen somewhere in excess of 75
      days of hiking and backpacking, in rain, snow and shine, both on-trail
      and off."

      You don't need to copy this format exactly, but weather, temperature
      range, elevation range and type of terrain in which testing was
      conducted is essential information to a reader evaluating how your use
      matches theirs.


      >
      > Fit and feel:
      > My feet pose quite a challenge for most shoes, as they are wide (US
      > "E" width), and have very high arches. These shoes felt great in the
      > store, with only a few minor issues apparent at the time, which I had
      > expected to disappear with use. What I didn't realize is that these
      > shoes don't have the usual break-in period found in most other shoes,
      > and so those problems never went away. Most people probably won't
      > have the same issues I had, but keep this in mind when trying Merrell
      > shoes. On the positive side, even though my feet tend to sweat
      > heavily, the excellent ventilation in these shoes keeps them
      > relatively dry.
      >
      > Field testing:
      > I tested these shoes in a wide variety of conditions. While I
      > initially purchased them for dayhiking and ultralight backpacking, I
      > ended up using them as "everyday" shoes for four months in the winter
      > while visiting Calgary, Alberta, Canada, since the other shoes I had
      > brought weren't up to the snow and ice. Considering it wasn't what
      > they were designed for, these shoes handled Canadian winter
      > conditions very well. This use comprised the bulk of the miles I put
      > on these shoes.
      >
      > I used these shoes for a lightweight overnight trip in Point Reyes
      > National Seashore, California, U.S.A, as well as a few dayhikes at
      > the same location. Tested terrain was easy to moderate dirt paths,
      > sandy in places, with occasional bushwacking.

      ### EDIT: bushwhacking

      The shoes handled all
      > of this well, and the elastic collars kept out the worst of the sand
      > and dirt. The weather was dry with no rain, and only a small amount
      > of mud, which might otherwise have posed a problem for the mesh. On
      > the longest of the dayhikes (10 mi / 16 km), the soles of my feet
      > were quite sore, although I didn't have any blisters.
      >
      > More recently, I tested the shoes on a steep trail in Mount Diablo
      > State Park, California, U.S.A. This trail had a lot of stretches with
      > loose dirt and gravel, and some short rocky bits. Ascent was no
      > problem. On the descent, the shoes did quite well on the solid rock,
      > but only average on the loose stuff, slipping and sliding in a few
      > places. During the descent, my feet would occasionally slide forward
      > far enough for my toes to touch the front of the shoes even though
      > the shoes fit snugly. This wasn't a serious problem, and may be an
      > unavoidable consequence of the stretchy nature of the laces and shoe
      > uppers.
      >
      > These shoes seem well-suited for light to moderate trails dirt trails
      > with a light pack, and are also capable of handling a fair bit of
      > scrambling in rocky conditions. Although breathability usually comes
      > at the price of water resistance, after applying a water-proofing
      > treatment, these shoes were also able to handle short exposures to
      > water without soaking through.
      >
      > Durability:
      > Lack of durability is my biggest criticism of these shoes. The right
      > shoe has developed holes in the inner lining material in the heel
      > area (see picture, temporary URL http://tinyurl.com/zh6qe ), and the
      > left shoe shows signs of wear in the same place. This is after an
      > estimated 250 - 300 miles (400 - 500 kilometers) of use, most of it
      > on gentle terrain.



      >
    • edwardripleyduggan
      This is a resend, as a couple of points got garbled. Hello Travis, Your edit follows. I thought this was a good first OR, and the majority of cavils I have are
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a resend, as a couple of points got garbled.

        Hello Travis,

        Your edit follows. I thought this was a good first OR, and the
        majority of cavils I have are quite minor. I'd like you to edit as
        suggested below, and then put the edited version on this list with
        "REPOST" substituted for "EDIT." A version in HTML form in the Owner
        Review folder on BGT at

        http://tinyurl.com/7p4t6

        would be helpful. You will need to log in first, or register if you
        have not done so.

        Best,

        Ted

        BGT OR Editor


        --- In BackpackGearTest@yahoogroups.com, Travis Beals <trbeals@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is my first owner review. Be gentle :-)
        >
        > ------------------------------
        > Merrell Chameleon II Stretch shoes
        > June 26, 2006

        ### EDIT:

        Owner Review Merrell Chameleon II Stretch shoes
        June 26, 2006

        >
        > Reviewer Information:
        >
        > Name: Travis Beals
        > Age: 25
        > Gender: Male
        > Height: 6'0" (1.83 m)

        ### EDIT: 6' 0" [space needed]

        > Weight: 190 lb (86 kg)
        > Shoe size: 9.5 US (9.0 UK, 43 EU)
        > Email address: trbeals (at) gmail (dot) com
        > Location: Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
        >
        > Backpacking Background: I've been camping since I was a kid, and was
        > a Boy Scout for a while, but only really got into backpacking about
        > four years ago. I started with "traditional" pack weights of 40 lb
        > (18 kg) for a three-day trip, but have now pared down to 25 lb (18
        > kg) total weight, or about 14 lb (6 kg) base pack weight, putting me
        > in the light-to-ultralight range. My wife and I do several trips year-
        > round, ranging from overnighters to up to five days. We usually
        > backpack either in the Sierra Nevada range, but sometimes also do
        > snowshoe trips in the Canadian Rockies and the Canadian Coastal range
        > in the winter. When I'm not on the trail, I'm a physics graduate
        > student.

        ### EDIT: We have a limit of around 100 words in this section. I
        suggest dropping the last line. and also "but sometimes also do
        snowshoe trips
        in the Canadian Rockies and the Canadian Coastal range in the winter."
        This last could be rewritten in fewer words if you wished.
        >
        >
        > Product information:
        > Manufacturer: Merrell, www.merrell.com
        > Year: 2005
        > Weight (listed): 2 lb 3 oz (993 g)
        > Weight (as measured): 2 lb 2 oz (975 g)
        > MSRP: $99.95

        ### EDIT: MSRP: $99.95 US

        > Description: Merrell bills these shoes as being for "speedhiking" and
        > general outdoor recreation. The shoes have Vibram soles, Nubuck /
        > mesh uppers, an elastic lacing system, and a snug, stretchy collar to
        > keep out debris. As compared with the regular Merrell Chameleon II,
        > the Stretch version has more mesh and more flexible soles and uppers.

        ### EDIT: A little more information on the construction of the shoe
        would be useful here. Height at the ankle, a bit more about
        the way the lacing system is constructed, and so on. This doesn't have
        to be technical; I'd just like to see a bit more information on the
        shoe than is provided.

        >
        >
        > Review Summary: Although generally a good shoe, I was disappointed by
        > the amount of wear the Chamelleon II Stretch showed after 8 months
        > and roughly 250 - 300 miles (400 - 500 kilometers). Unlike other
        > shoes that need "breaking in", these shoes are what-you-feel-is-what
        > you get.

        ### EDIT: "what-you-feel-is-what-you-get."

        This is a good thing, but don't expect minor fit issues
        > noticed at the shoe store to go away with wear.

        ### EDIT: This sentence is mildly projective, telling the reader what
        their experience will be rather than describing your own. I'd suggest
        a rewrite as:

        "This is a good thing, but I found that minor fit issues I noticed at
        the shoe store did not go away with wear."



        > Pros: Excellent breathability, collar keeps out dirt, no blisters
        > Cons: Poor durability, no wide sizes available, somewhat heavy for
        > trail shoes

        ### EDIT: While a "pro and con" section is not absolutely essential,
        it is helpful as part of the summary of conclusions. However, usual
        practice is to put the summary the end of the text. This is not a hard
        and fast rule, but as it is the form followed by 90 percent of ORs, I
        think it's better to be consistent.

        ### EDIT: Missing here is a section on field conditions. I do realize
        that you touch on some (but not all) of this in your text below. It
        doesn't necessarily have to be broken out under a separate heading
        (though many do), but should run along these lines (quoting from a
        recent OR I wrote):

        "The lowest temperature at which I'm comfortable wearing the ... is
        around 20 F (7 C), and I've worn them up to about 85 F (29 C). This
        pair has been used almost entirely in mountainous terrain, on outings
        between 500 ft (152 m) and 5000 ft (1520 m), in the Catskills and
        Adirondacks. I estimate that they have seen somewhere in excess of 75
        days of hiking and backpacking, in rain, snow and shine, both on-trail
        and off."

        You don't need to copy this format exactly, but weather, temperature
        range, elevation range and type of terrain in which testing was
        conducted is essential information to a reader evaluating how your use
        matches theirs.


        >
        > Fit and feel:
        > My feet pose quite a challenge for most shoes, as they are wide (US
        > "E" width), and have very high arches. These shoes felt great in the
        > store, with only a few minor issues apparent at the time, which I had
        > expected to disappear with use. What I didn't realize is that these
        > shoes don't have the usual break-in period found in most other shoes,
        > and so those problems never went away. Most people probably won't
        > have the same issues I had, but keep this in mind when trying Merrell
        > shoes. On the positive side, even though my feet tend to sweat
        > heavily, the excellent ventilation in these shoes keeps them
        > relatively dry.
        >
        > Field testing:
        > I tested these shoes in a wide variety of conditions. While I
        > initially purchased them for dayhiking and ultralight backpacking, I
        > ended up using them as "everyday" shoes for four months in the winter
        > while visiting Calgary, Alberta, Canada, since the other shoes I had
        > brought weren't up to the snow and ice. Considering it wasn't what
        > they were designed for, these shoes handled Canadian winter
        > conditions very well. This use comprised the bulk of the miles I put
        > on these shoes.
        >
        > I used these shoes for a lightweight overnight trip in Point Reyes
        > National Seashore, California, U.S.A, as well as a few dayhikes at
        > the same location. Tested terrain was easy to moderate dirt paths,
        > sandy in places, with occasional bushwacking.

        ### EDIT: bushwhacking

        The shoes handled all
        > of this well, and the elastic collars kept out the worst of the sand
        > and dirt. The weather was dry with no rain, and only a small amount
        > of mud, which might otherwise have posed a problem for the mesh. On
        > the longest of the dayhikes (10 mi / 16 km), the soles of my feet
        > were quite sore, although I didn't have any blisters.
        >
        > More recently, I tested the shoes on a steep trail in Mount Diablo
        > State Park, California, U.S.A. This trail had a lot of stretches with
        > loose dirt and gravel, and some short rocky bits. Ascent was no
        > problem. On the descent, the shoes did quite well on the solid rock,
        > but only average on the loose stuff, slipping and sliding in a few
        > places. During the descent, my feet would occasionally slide forward
        > far enough for my toes to touch the front of the shoes even though
        > the shoes fit snugly. This wasn't a serious problem, and may be an
        > unavoidable consequence of the stretchy nature of the laces and shoe
        > uppers.
        >
        > These shoes seem well-suited for light to moderate trails dirt trails
        > with a light pack, and are also capable of handling a fair bit of
        > scrambling in rocky conditions. Although breathability usually comes
        > at the price of water resistance, after applying a water-proofing
        > treatment, these shoes were also able to handle short exposures to
        > water without soaking through.
        >
        > Durability:
        > Lack of durability is my biggest criticism of these shoes. The right
        > shoe has developed holes in the inner lining material in the heel
        > area (see picture, temporary URL http://tinyurl.com/zh6qe ), and the
        > left shoe shows signs of wear in the same place. This is after an
        > estimated 250 - 300 miles (400 - 500 kilometers) of use, most of it
        > on gentle terrain.

        ### COMMENT: Wear in this area is often evidence of heel slip.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.