Comments (0)

By Jimmy, 2010/05/16 11:23 pm

I really want to love Icon (www.rideicon.com).  These guys work extra hard to present a brand that acknowledges everyone in the sport bike crowd, and they pump out first-rate gear that keeps you safe while looking good.  Their jackets are visually stunning and well-made, and most of my experience with their other products repeats that impression.  With all that in mind, I decided to feed my recent boots kick with their heavy-duty Field Armor boots.  These mid-height boots are Icon’s most protective footwear option with buckles and armor around the shins, heels, and toes.  I think one would be hard-pressed to find something at the $130 price range that is this sturdy.  The Field Armor boots represent a nice compromise between usability and protection.  The boots are short enough to mean that break-in will enable adequate walkability.  As well, the side zipper allows for ease of entry, and mesh panels prevent your feet from getting too hot.  The armor is substantial and the lug-sole, while not very grippy, seems acceptable.  Here are some points that stuck out:

1. The yellow Icon logo in the rear is rather ridiculous looking.  I’d prefer it if the logo was absent as I’m not a flashy rider and having a cartoonish logo on my heel is not my style.  At least make it black!

2. The buckles were extremely hard to release.  I’m not sure if this will get easier with more use, but for me, it literally required using a screwdriver to leverage enough torque for the buckles to open up.  This almost makes using the side zipper for entry mandatory.

3. I think the shoelaces are unnecessary.  One could simply make the buckles the only means for adjustment.

4. Height-wise, the Field Armor boots will protect up to your lower shin. The front plate feels solid, however there is no armor on the sides or rear at that level.

5. The interior of the shoe is roomy with wide toe space and a heavily-padded tongue.  Comfortable.

Comments (0)

By Jimmy, 2010/05/08 10:03 pm

Recently, I’ve been interested in replacing my short Alpinestars Ridge boots with more substantial full-length ones.  My requirements were that the boots: a) be protective b) be waterproof c) have a lug sole d) be walkable.  After much searching, I settled on checking out the SIDI (www.sidisport.com) On Road boots ($325) and the Alpinestars (www.alpinestars.com) Scout boots ($279).  Both boots offer good protection over the shins, excellent construction, a comfortable footbed, and a completely waterproof/breathable interior.  The On Road presents a cleaner, more attractive look, which fits well with wanting footwear that would be acceptable for a short walk around the city.  However, the Scout offers slightly more protection and a flexible clasp-based enclosure.  Those two factors, combined with a lower price-tag and better usability, makes the Scout a better deal from my perspective.  I feel that one can’t go wrong in choosing either pair of boots, but each targets a different kind of rider.  Here is a quick break-down of my observations.

SIDI On Road Boots

1.  The SIDI On Road uses 3 Velcro panels for attachment.  The bottom 2 panels can be adjusted slightly wider through a second loop.
2.  The On Road features hard protection around the heel, toes, and inner ankle.  The shin section is simply leather with no added armor.
3.  The On Road works better with pants going over the boots instead of inside.  Tucking pants inside proved very difficult.

Alpinestars Scout Boots

1.  The Alpinestars Scout has a Velcro panel at the top and 3 adjustable clasps.  The clasps feel sturdy once in place, and they open/close with firm application of force.
2.  The Scout’s lug sole is prone to picking up small pebbles while walking due to the tight tread pattern.
3.  The Scout features hard protection around the heel, toes, and inner ankle.  There is raised padding and semi-rigid protection in the front of the shin.
4.  The Scout works great with pants on the outside or tucked in.  The adjustable clasps and wider top opening allowed for a better fit.