REVIEW: Simms Flyweight Access Wading Boot (Photo heavy)
- Thread starter castsN2trees
- Start date
Thnks.
I searched Simms site, but I didn’t see anything saying where they are made (maybe I overlooked it?)… but according to the label inside the boot, they are from Vietnam
Thnks for all the interest/comments.
New boots arrived today.. Patagonia Forra boots… I bought these online, so the photo below was my first time seeing these boots in person. At first glance, there are some very obvious differences between these boots and the Simms Flyweight boots.
I’m planning/hoping to fish in the next couple days, and I’ll follow up with first-use impressions.
New boots arrived today.. Patagonia Forra boots… I bought these online, so the photo below was my first time seeing these boots in person. At first glance, there are some very obvious differences between these boots and the Simms Flyweight boots.
I’m planning/hoping to fish in the next couple days, and I’ll follow up with first-use impressions.
I have two pairs of Flyweights. One size 11 for summer wet wading and one size 13 for fall wading. The top lace loops on both of them have completely ripped off from normal tightening shortly after purchase. Seems like a recall issue. Other than that, they fit the bill.
Cloth type lace loops usually break down quickly…but those look more stitched heavy so maybe????
Those look great (from both fashion and function perspectives!). Love the no-metal lacing system, and the toes look solid.... Keep us posted. If I could wear something that looks that good and have it serve the purpose, I'd be tickled purple as the tongue inlay!
Divad
Whitefish
I REALLY like the stronger toe box upper.
I REALLY like the look of those! I'm more interested in initial comfort and fit. While my Orvis Pro's have held up for the better part of 5+ years (both boots and waders), I wet wade or use dive boots for much of the year, and would love to hear your review on these once you've put them through their paces.
PART 2 of 3: Patagonia Forra (first impressions, compared to Simms Flyweight Access boots).
While I was prepping for tomorrow's fishing trip, I noticed a number of obvious differences between the 2 pair of boots. I decided to lay them out in a seperate post, and then in a 3rd installment review the differences of how they perform in the river.
This is a lot of detail, I know, but it is amazing how little information there is on either of these boots....and most of that is either marketing (B.S.) or fawning reviews from retailers intent on selling $300 boots. These reviews all go the same...."I had the privilege of wearing these boots for a couple hours, and besides a couple minor tweaks, these boots could be game changers."
Cost:
Patagonia Forra: $299
Simms Flyweight Access: $279
Essentially the same costs, so I’d expect similar value between the two boots. I did purchase the studs for the Patagonia boots, but I haven’t decided if I will use them or not. I walk a lot, some on asphalt, and this can’t be comfortable in studs. Also, I don’t want to tear up the floorboard of my Jeep, or a drift boat ( on the rare occasion that I float a river). I’ve never fished studded boots, but I had a couple pairs of the Patagonia/Danner Foot Tractor boots w/ Aluminum bars…. Just like everything else, the bars added positives and negatives, so for now, I’m fishing the Forras without the studs…
Country of Manufacture:
Patagonia Forra: Made by Fitwell in Italy
Simms Flyweight Access: Made in Vietnam
Patagonia lists on their site that these boots are made in Italy, but I didn't see any mention of Fitwell. This information came off the box the boots were shipped in. A quick internet search and Fitwell has been around for 40 years making hiking boots. I don't know anything about this company, but it looks like a legit factory making nice boots.
Simms makes no mention of where their boots are manufactured on their site (that I saw). The label in the inside of the boots says they are made in Vietnam. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (I've sourced furniture and traveled in Vietnam for the last 2 decades...they can make very good product), but there is definitely less transparency with the Simms boots.
Overall Construction:
Patagonia Forra: Very bottom heavy boot. Overbuilt lug soles with a very thin upper.
Simms Flyweight Access: More balances boot. Lighter sole, upper is more padded that the Forras.
Comparing these two boots is like comparing a pair of Converse Chuck Taylor's and Nike Air Jordans. The Patagonia's have rigid sole and all the "weight-saving" measures seem to be taken in the upper. The Simm's have a much more padded upper, and therefore feel much more supportive in the ankle, straight out the box.
Soles:
Patagonia Forra: Vibram Mars Sole
Simms Flyweight Access: Vibram Idrogrip Flex
The Vibram soles Patagonia use are monster truck tires compared to the Simms. These are the same soles used by Hanwag (German boot manufacturer that make super high quality boots... I had a pair, these things are built like a tank).
Simms claims the Idrogrip Flex soles are proprietary... and even though I couldn't find another pair of shoes that claimed to use this same sole, other shoes do use Vibram Indrogrip soles. If you look on Vibram's website, under the Indrogrip sole, they show a photo of the Simms Flyweight Boot (interesting) and under "Partner Products Using This Technology," they list the La Sportiva TX Guide... If you look up these shoes on La Sportiva's site, the negative that seem to be repeated is Poor Quality/Durability (suspicously similar to the Simms boots). Also, they mention that these shoes are very narrow... Now, this is not the exact same sole as the Simms Boot...the La Sportiva uses " Dual compound Mega-Grip (Heel) and Idrogrip (Forefoot) outsole for durability and ultra-sticky performance"...but the sole durabilty issues generally reference the forefoot (Idrogrip).....and some of these reviews are 3 years old. Simms claims they used a proprietary sole for the Flyweight Access, but I'd be willing to bet they sourced an off-the-shelf sole with known quality issues, added "Flex" to the name to make it sound special (and make it unsearchable), even though the sole was narrow (WHY would you use a narrow sole in a wading boot??? That is asinine.), then shipped the soles off to a nameless shoe factory in Vietnam so they could increase the profit margin.
Insoles:
Patagonia Forra: Thinnest insoles I've ever seen.
Simms Flyweight Access: No removable insole.
(On the Left aftermarket full insert and half insert. On Right, Patagonia Insole)
I've never seen a $300 pair of shoes that didn't have removable insoles (refer to above conspiracy theory). This is really not important to me, because I replace the insoles in wading boots. I am using 2 pairs of insoles in the Patagonia Forras: an aftermarket full insole and a heel insole. The heel insole adds cushioning where you need it most (the heel), and elevating the heel gives the boots more ankle support.
Shoe Laces:
Patagonia Forra: Comes with 2 pair of laces: Black and Purple... laces look to be average quality
Simms Flyweight Access: Comes with 1 pair of thin laces.
Both pair of laces are short, with the Simms laces being the shorter of the two. I replaced the laces in the Patagonia Forra with 96" Ironlace Unbreakable laces.... I use these in my logging boots (Nicks)...massive overkill, but they are awesome. The extra length is important because it allows you to use a lock lacing technique (locks the heel for less slippage) and allows you to wrap the laces around the back of the boot. This greatly improves the ankle stability of these boots. (refer to photo below to see the difference between the Ironlace laces and the original Forra laces).
Lace Loops:
Both boots have fabric Lace Loops, however, the Patagonia lace loops are reinforced with a second layer. I didn't have issues with the Simms boots, but I'm a little concerned the Ironlace laces could saw through the fabric lace loops, so I'm glad they are reinforced.
Toe Protection:
Patagonia Forra: 1" high, rubberized layer around the bottom of the upper, and over the entire toe box
Simms Flyweight Access: Minimal
I am really hoping the Patagonia's protect my feet and prevent the wear on the upper that I had with the Simms boots. One other note, the Patagonia boots don't have a ring to hook your waders. Perhaps they intend these for wet wading, but it seems crazy not to include the ring. That said, I'll just hook the waders on the shoestring. Normally, I'd be concerned but Ironlaces have a 1500lb breaking strength, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I tried on the Patagonia boots with waders today. The replacement laces and insoles greatly improved the way the boots fit and am excited to see how they perform in the water. One trip out on the water is by no means conclusive, but hopefully it'll give me a good idea of how these boots will perform in the future. Additionally, I'm going to be fishing the same stretch of river I fished a couple weeks ago in the Simms boots (I almost broke my neck in the Simms Boots.) It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison (new boots vs. 7mo old boots) but it's as close as I can get.
Will follow up.
While I was prepping for tomorrow's fishing trip, I noticed a number of obvious differences between the 2 pair of boots. I decided to lay them out in a seperate post, and then in a 3rd installment review the differences of how they perform in the river.
This is a lot of detail, I know, but it is amazing how little information there is on either of these boots....and most of that is either marketing (B.S.) or fawning reviews from retailers intent on selling $300 boots. These reviews all go the same...."I had the privilege of wearing these boots for a couple hours, and besides a couple minor tweaks, these boots could be game changers."
Cost:
Patagonia Forra: $299
Simms Flyweight Access: $279
Essentially the same costs, so I’d expect similar value between the two boots. I did purchase the studs for the Patagonia boots, but I haven’t decided if I will use them or not. I walk a lot, some on asphalt, and this can’t be comfortable in studs. Also, I don’t want to tear up the floorboard of my Jeep, or a drift boat ( on the rare occasion that I float a river). I’ve never fished studded boots, but I had a couple pairs of the Patagonia/Danner Foot Tractor boots w/ Aluminum bars…. Just like everything else, the bars added positives and negatives, so for now, I’m fishing the Forras without the studs…
Country of Manufacture:
Patagonia Forra: Made by Fitwell in Italy
Simms Flyweight Access: Made in Vietnam
Patagonia lists on their site that these boots are made in Italy, but I didn't see any mention of Fitwell. This information came off the box the boots were shipped in. A quick internet search and Fitwell has been around for 40 years making hiking boots. I don't know anything about this company, but it looks like a legit factory making nice boots.
Simms makes no mention of where their boots are manufactured on their site (that I saw). The label in the inside of the boots says they are made in Vietnam. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (I've sourced furniture and traveled in Vietnam for the last 2 decades...they can make very good product), but there is definitely less transparency with the Simms boots.
Overall Construction:
Patagonia Forra: Very bottom heavy boot. Overbuilt lug soles with a very thin upper.
Simms Flyweight Access: More balances boot. Lighter sole, upper is more padded that the Forras.
Comparing these two boots is like comparing a pair of Converse Chuck Taylor's and Nike Air Jordans. The Patagonia's have rigid sole and all the "weight-saving" measures seem to be taken in the upper. The Simm's have a much more padded upper, and therefore feel much more supportive in the ankle, straight out the box.
Soles:
Patagonia Forra: Vibram Mars Sole
Simms Flyweight Access: Vibram Idrogrip Flex
The Vibram soles Patagonia use are monster truck tires compared to the Simms. These are the same soles used by Hanwag (German boot manufacturer that make super high quality boots... I had a pair, these things are built like a tank).
Simms claims the Idrogrip Flex soles are proprietary... and even though I couldn't find another pair of shoes that claimed to use this same sole, other shoes do use Vibram Indrogrip soles. If you look on Vibram's website, under the Indrogrip sole, they show a photo of the Simms Flyweight Boot (interesting) and under "Partner Products Using This Technology," they list the La Sportiva TX Guide... If you look up these shoes on La Sportiva's site, the negative that seem to be repeated is Poor Quality/Durability (suspicously similar to the Simms boots). Also, they mention that these shoes are very narrow... Now, this is not the exact same sole as the Simms Boot...the La Sportiva uses " Dual compound Mega-Grip (Heel) and Idrogrip (Forefoot) outsole for durability and ultra-sticky performance"...but the sole durabilty issues generally reference the forefoot (Idrogrip).....and some of these reviews are 3 years old. Simms claims they used a proprietary sole for the Flyweight Access, but I'd be willing to bet they sourced an off-the-shelf sole with known quality issues, added "Flex" to the name to make it sound special (and make it unsearchable), even though the sole was narrow (WHY would you use a narrow sole in a wading boot??? That is asinine.), then shipped the soles off to a nameless shoe factory in Vietnam so they could increase the profit margin.
Insoles:
Patagonia Forra: Thinnest insoles I've ever seen.
Simms Flyweight Access: No removable insole.
(On the Left aftermarket full insert and half insert. On Right, Patagonia Insole)
I've never seen a $300 pair of shoes that didn't have removable insoles (refer to above conspiracy theory
). This is really not important to me, because I replace the insoles in wading boots. I am using 2 pairs of insoles in the Patagonia Forras: an aftermarket full insole and a heel insole. The heel insole adds cushioning where you need it most (the heel), and elevating the heel gives the boots more ankle support.Shoe Laces:
Patagonia Forra: Comes with 2 pair of laces: Black and Purple... laces look to be average quality
Simms Flyweight Access: Comes with 1 pair of thin laces.
Both pair of laces are short, with the Simms laces being the shorter of the two. I replaced the laces in the Patagonia Forra with 96" Ironlace Unbreakable laces.... I use these in my logging boots (Nicks)...massive overkill, but they are awesome. The extra length is important because it allows you to use a lock lacing technique (locks the heel for less slippage) and allows you to wrap the laces around the back of the boot. This greatly improves the ankle stability of these boots. (refer to photo below to see the difference between the Ironlace laces and the original Forra laces).
Lace Loops:
Both boots have fabric Lace Loops, however, the Patagonia lace loops are reinforced with a second layer. I didn't have issues with the Simms boots, but I'm a little concerned the Ironlace laces could saw through the fabric lace loops, so I'm glad they are reinforced.
Toe Protection:
Patagonia Forra: 1" high, rubberized layer around the bottom of the upper, and over the entire toe box
Simms Flyweight Access: Minimal
I am really hoping the Patagonia's protect my feet and prevent the wear on the upper that I had with the Simms boots. One other note, the Patagonia boots don't have a ring to hook your waders. Perhaps they intend these for wet wading, but it seems crazy not to include the ring. That said, I'll just hook the waders on the shoestring. Normally, I'd be concerned but Ironlaces have a 1500lb breaking strength, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I tried on the Patagonia boots with waders today. The replacement laces and insoles greatly improved the way the boots fit and am excited to see how they perform in the water. One trip out on the water is by no means conclusive, but hopefully it'll give me a good idea of how these boots will perform in the future. Additionally, I'm going to be fishing the same stretch of river I fished a couple weeks ago in the Simms boots (I almost broke my neck in the Simms Boots.) It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison (new boots vs. 7mo old boots) but it's as close as I can get.
Will follow up.
Attachments
Last edited:
Part 3 of 3: Patagonia Forra: First trip out
Fished this morning for a couple hours in the same section of river I fished 10 days ago. Today I wore the Patagonia Forra boots (first trip out) and 10 days ago I wore the Simms Flyweight Access (7mos use). I only waded/walked 3 miles in the new boots, so I have limited info on them, but here are my initial impressions.
When I fished in the Simms boots, it was terribly obvious that these boots were trashed and on the verge of dangerous. Since I cover so many miles, I wade with a wading staff, and that helps mitigate some of the slipping and sliding. However, about halfway through the section, my wading staff came unbuckled and disappeared in the river before I noticed. Since the flows were managable, I decided to wade the rest of the way without any support. Big mistake. I barely made it 10ft down river before I cut over to the bank to find a stick for a make shift wading staff. I clumsily made it the rest of the way, cussing the boots the whole way.
When I fished this section today, I noticed a couple things about the Patagonias:
Sole: I would not say that the rubber sole feels particularly "sticky." It's fine, but there is no thought in my head that these could be as good as felt, but I've never thought that of any rubber soled wading boot. The sole itself feels harder than the Simms boot (less cushiony), but it also feels more planted... especially when walking in dry conditions.
Ankle/Foot Stability: This is one area that I prefer the Simms boot. Even with the modifications, I didn't feel like I had enough ankle support in these boots. There are several things contributing to this, besides the boot's construction. The Ironlace laces that I used in the boots don't tighten as well as traditional laces (leather laces tighten the best, but I don't know how they'd hold up when wet). I may have to rethink the laces. Also, I don't like the full insole I used in this boot. I think it needs a thicker, cushion-i-er insole to help offset the rigidity of the sole. Lastly, these boots are a lot roomier than the Simms boots....so much so, I was wondering how a size smaller would fit. In the winter, I'll want the extra room (bulky socks, circulation, etc), but I need to make a couple adjustments. I'm pretty confident I can get the fit right, and I'm not at all concerned about the initial fit issues.
Toe Protection: No problem whatsoever.... again, this was a pretty easy wade, and only 3 miles, but my feet felt protected in the Patagonias.
Durabilty: I have no idea..... but nothing broke, and after inspecting the boots, there's no visible change except that they are now wet and have a little mud on them. That said, I'd be very surprised if they had the same durability issues as the Simms boots... but I've been surprised before.
That leaves only (1) other area to compare: The Fishing
When I fished this section 10 days ago in the wore out Simms boots, I looked like an insurance claim waiting to happen. I lost my wading staff, one of the shoelaces busted, and I struggled to stay upright.... and I also caught the largest cutthroat I have ever seen.
Today, armed with the new Patagonias, I only managed to find this fella:
I would argue that the boots had nothing to do with the fishing..... but the fish from 10 days ago might disagree....and it's hard to argue with a 23" Westslope.
Fished this morning for a couple hours in the same section of river I fished 10 days ago. Today I wore the Patagonia Forra boots (first trip out) and 10 days ago I wore the Simms Flyweight Access (7mos use). I only waded/walked 3 miles in the new boots, so I have limited info on them, but here are my initial impressions.
When I fished in the Simms boots, it was terribly obvious that these boots were trashed and on the verge of dangerous. Since I cover so many miles, I wade with a wading staff, and that helps mitigate some of the slipping and sliding. However, about halfway through the section, my wading staff came unbuckled and disappeared in the river before I noticed. Since the flows were managable, I decided to wade the rest of the way without any support. Big mistake. I barely made it 10ft down river before I cut over to the bank to find a stick for a make shift wading staff. I clumsily made it the rest of the way, cussing the boots the whole way.
When I fished this section today, I noticed a couple things about the Patagonias:
Sole: I would not say that the rubber sole feels particularly "sticky." It's fine, but there is no thought in my head that these could be as good as felt, but I've never thought that of any rubber soled wading boot. The sole itself feels harder than the Simms boot (less cushiony), but it also feels more planted... especially when walking in dry conditions.
Ankle/Foot Stability: This is one area that I prefer the Simms boot. Even with the modifications, I didn't feel like I had enough ankle support in these boots. There are several things contributing to this, besides the boot's construction. The Ironlace laces that I used in the boots don't tighten as well as traditional laces (leather laces tighten the best, but I don't know how they'd hold up when wet). I may have to rethink the laces. Also, I don't like the full insole I used in this boot. I think it needs a thicker, cushion-i-er insole to help offset the rigidity of the sole. Lastly, these boots are a lot roomier than the Simms boots....so much so, I was wondering how a size smaller would fit. In the winter, I'll want the extra room (bulky socks, circulation, etc), but I need to make a couple adjustments. I'm pretty confident I can get the fit right, and I'm not at all concerned about the initial fit issues.
Toe Protection: No problem whatsoever.... again, this was a pretty easy wade, and only 3 miles, but my feet felt protected in the Patagonias.
Durabilty: I have no idea..... but nothing broke, and after inspecting the boots, there's no visible change except that they are now wet and have a little mud on them. That said, I'd be very surprised if they had the same durability issues as the Simms boots... but I've been surprised before.
That leaves only (1) other area to compare: The Fishing
When I fished this section 10 days ago in the wore out Simms boots, I looked like an insurance claim waiting to happen. I lost my wading staff, one of the shoelaces busted, and I struggled to stay upright.... and I also caught the largest cutthroat I have ever seen.
Today, armed with the new Patagonias, I only managed to find this fella:
I would argue that the boots had nothing to do with the fishing..... but the fish from 10 days ago might disagree....and it's hard to argue with a 23" Westslope.
@castsN2trees I appreciate your reviews. You mentioned the foot tractors not having enough ankle support for you. Do you believe cushioning/padding helps with ankle support?
I have the felt pata/danner foot tractors and really appreciate their durability, and width. And I got them really quite big, so I lace them down tight as sh*t in the ankle for support, and still have plenty of room in the toe. Works for me. Kinda like the old Gary Borger weinbrenners, but better. Don’t get me wrong, I like the comfy tennis shoe/hiking boot style wading boots; they just don’t hold up for me. Granted, I’m sometimes snorkeling a few miles of shallow river in them in addition to occasionally fishing in them. That really bangs up a boot. When I use them, I tend to use them pretty hard.
Oh and maybe try the Obenauf’s laces. They’re wax impregnated, so not only are they tough as hell, they are also slick and tighten down.
I have the felt pata/danner foot tractors and really appreciate their durability, and width. And I got them really quite big, so I lace them down tight as sh*t in the ankle for support, and still have plenty of room in the toe. Works for me. Kinda like the old Gary Borger weinbrenners, but better. Don’t get me wrong, I like the comfy tennis shoe/hiking boot style wading boots; they just don’t hold up for me. Granted, I’m sometimes snorkeling a few miles of shallow river in them in addition to occasionally fishing in them. That really bangs up a boot. When I use them, I tend to use them pretty hard.
Oh and maybe try the Obenauf’s laces. They’re wax impregnated, so not only are they tough as hell, they are also slick and tighten down.
wanderingrichard
Life of the Party
Hmmmmm.. been looking at websites for a new set of rubber treads since I started reading this.
With a 14 1/2 EEEE foot, I'd need a size 15- 15 1/2. Not many choices out there. I might go back to an old standby and find a pair of hard toe work boots, add studs and a crapload of flexible leather sealant at less than the cost of what's available.
With a 14 1/2 EEEE foot, I'd need a size 15- 15 1/2. Not many choices out there. I might go back to an old standby and find a pair of hard toe work boots, add studs and a crapload of flexible leather sealant at less than the cost of what's available.
RCF
Life of the Party
Glad you have a broad understanding of thinking outside the box
wanderingrichard
Life of the Party
These go to 15 and some folks use them as wading boots. They have Vibram soles.
You can probably find them cheaper as well.
SF
wanderingrichard
Life of the Party
Thanks.
Thnks for the tip on Obenauf laces… I’ll check them out…
For the Danner foot tractors, the rubber sole w aluminum bars are super stiff and heavy… the upper is pretty thin and very light relative to the sole…I just think a beefier upper would give the boot a more balance and supportive feel… it would add weight, but those boots are already super heavy and I doubt a couple more ounces would matter…
The furthest I hiked/waded I’m a single day in the Danner foot tractors was 18.6 miles to a mountain lake and back… wore the boots the whole way, with nothing but a pair of neoprene liners…any wading boot would have been tough, but these were pretty brutal at the end of the day… if I had it to do over, I’d wear hiking boots and carry the wading boots…
I’ve got an 8.5 EEE size foot and it can be difficult to find a foot fit…. Can’t imagine what you must go through…
