this is a modification of my post on leugevity's thread "motorcycle boots". i got about a day to decide on a boot. fn decisions. before reading his thread i had a pretty good idea what i wanted, but now i'm a little less decisive. i'd managed to narrow things down to a couple of Alpinestars (Tech 2 and the S-MX 1) and a couple of Pumas (Testestretta II, Flat V2, and Desmo V2). before i continue let me stress that i'm pretty much set on Puma. i'm barely even okay with Alpinestars as a second choice. i'm a label whore; say what you want.
so there seems to be alot of negative on the idea of a low motorcycle "shoe". are there any contrary opinions? the reason i ask is that 3 of my 5 choices are lows:

Alpinestars S MX 1: http://www.revzilla.com/product/alpinestars-s-mx-1-riding-shoes
Puma Flat V2: http://www.motostrano.com/pumaflat2boots.html
Testastretta II: http://www.motostrano.com/bonneville.html

for a higher boot i've narrowed my options to these below:

Alpinestars Tech 2: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ALPINESTARS-TECH-2-BOOT-BLACK-US-9_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZalgoQ3dLVIQ26ituQ3dUCIQ26otnQ3d3Q26poQ3dLVIQ26psQ3d63Q26clkidQ3d7624054594635275459QQ_trksidZp3286Q2em7QQcategoryZ6751QQitemZ250775989782

Puma Desmo V2: http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/puma-desmo-boots

for the lows i actually like the Testastretta II over the Flat V2, but i hate that it is made of synthetic leather. for a higher boot i like both the Tech 2 and the Desmo V2, but i'm not sure if the Tech @ would be appropriate as a road shoe and i'm loving the Desmo, but have the same misgiving about the fake leather. generally, i'd sooner shoot myself in the face than wear any fake leather. period. not even so much as a "faux leather" watch band. but these are not street shoes so is that even an issue? i mean, it seems like even some of the high end boots are made of make-believe leather. can any one help me get past this aversion to synthetic leather uppers??

note: if i had an extra $100 the 1000 V2 would be my choice...

it's lorica... last longer, more abrasion resistant, and pretty much better than real leather.  sidi makes almost all of their boots out of and it's pretty hard to tell the diff now.

I own a pair of Sidi B2 boots. They come up mid-calf. Made of lorica, which I've had no problems with, though I was also initially hesitant about anything other than genuine dead cow. They've been through a crash, and came away in better shape than I did.

I wouldn't consider a "riding shoe." You want something that'll keep your foot from breaking off at the ankle, right?

The 'Desmo V2' looks nice, just taking it at a glance. Looks like it has replaceable toe-sliders, which is handy. Of the selections you've laid out, it's the only one I'd probably consider buying, myself.

Quote from: thought on March 09, 2011, 04:52:00 PM
it's lorica... last longer, more abrasion resistant, and pretty much better than real leather.  sidi makes almost all of their boots out of and it's pretty hard to tell the diff now.

kinda what i was hope/specting to hear. still a tough choice between the Desmo and the others. seems to me the lows don't offer anything near the protection of a boot, but are better than a shoe in that they offer some protection against crushing and are better able to hold up against the foot pegs and gear shift or the occasional contact with pavement?

eventually i'm planning to have at least one of each type of riding footwear, but at the moment i can afford one or the other. i can think of a lot of situations where i'd prefer the 3/4 over the full boot. really, the only circumstance where i imagine the boot being preferable is where i've broken something and just know had i not been wearing the boot it would have been much worse. will either of the lows i've mentioned offer anything significant in terms of ankle protection?

Quote from: zarn02 on March 09, 2011, 09:55:06 PM
I own a pair of Sidi B2 boots. They come up mid-calf. Made of lorica, which I've had no problems with, though I was also initially hesitant about anything other than genuine dead cow. They've been through a crash, and came away in better shape than I did.

I wouldn't consider a "riding shoe." You want something that'll keep your foot from breaking off at the ankle, right?

The 'Desmo V2' looks nice, just taking it at a glance. Looks like it has replaceable toe-sliders, which is handy. Of the selections you've laid out, it's the only one I'd probably consider buying, myself.

yeah. like i was saying, seems like the lows are more of a shoe designed to stand up against the wear and tear of motorcycling while offering marginal protection. and while some protection is better than none it's almost a no-brainer when just a few bucks more will prob'ly help keep ur foot from getting broken off...

Yup. That's my take on it.

I'm sure that the riding shoes are more abrasion resistant that most any shoes, but for my money the chief benefit of buying a riding boot is for the decreased chance of bone damage.

If you don't have the spare scratch for both a shoe and a boot at the moment, I'd totally go with the boot.

Lowest full protection boot is the Dainese Axiual Pro. Same boot Val, Jorge and a few others wear.

Just wanted to paste my reply from the other thread over here...

Quote from: Rawr01 on March 09, 2011, 03:19:38 PM
...for the lows i actually like the Testastretta II over the Flat V2, but i hate that it is made of synthetic leather. i'm also loving the Desmo, but have the same misgiving about the fake leather. is that even an issue?...

It's not fake leather like a $30 wal-mart jacket is fake leather. It's usually Lorica (or similar), which is tough as nails. I've tried on quite a few Sidi boots in the last month (which are Lorica) and they feel very heavy duty. You will most likely wear out the soles and/or hardware long before you wear out the synthetic leather on a good quality boot.

Quote from: zarn02 on March 09, 2011, 10:22:14 PM
I'm sure that the riding shoes are more abrasion resistant that most any shoes, but for my money the chief benefit of buying a riding boot is for the decreased chance of bone damage.

This.

It's all about protecting the ankle and achilles tendon. The idea is to limit the range of motion so that your ankle doesn't roll or hyperextend itself in a wreck. When I highsided my bike last fall, I was ATGATT except for the hiking boots I had on. Abrasion-wise, everything was great, but I hyperextended my foot to the point that I could have easily snapped my Achilles Tendon. I hurt (and limped) for over a week and I was only going 25-ish when I crashed. If I had been wearing proper boots, it wouldn't have been an issue.

None of the boots you have listed provide any meaningful ankle support above what my hiking boots do. The A* Tech 2 may provide some, but I don't know much about it other than it's a shorty moto-x boot, which would be very awkward on a street bike, IMO. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the style of boot you're after.

so i decided against the lows and that other boot. odly enuff i found the tech 2 in a search for alpinestars street boots. there is a version with a tan suede inner upper that's advertised specifically as a mx shoe. weird. enywayz, i went with the Desmo V2. searched it on the forum and read a lot of good things about it. i won't have anything to compare it with as this is my first motorcycle boot. funny stroy; here's what i almost WAS gonna use:



yeah... uhm, kenneth cole "motorcycle boots". hey, but @least they're made in italy. lol.
i think i made the right choice tho but i guess we'll see.

I hope the Desmo's work out for you. I think they are by far one of the best looking boots on the market.

As for me, I managed to find a pair of Oxtar TCS new in the box for $80. Werd.

those are pretty sweet too. the Desmos are my first and from what i hear i should like them, but i bet they won't be my last. lol.

i got the Puma Desmos today. great looking boot and seems to be sturdy and offer a lot in the way of protection. i'm not too keen on the zipper tho. it's like an over-stuffed suitcase type of thing. close it THEN zip it. deviate from that practice and i can see something failing. comfort? wasn't expecting much and wasn't let down. i got a 9. i wore them around for a couple hours just for fun and there was some pressure on that bump where my meta-thingy and my toe bone are connected. the width feels fine, but the toe box could be a little taller. but is that enuff of an issue to go up a full size?

Quote from: Rawr01 on March 16, 2011, 08:21:21 PM
i got the Puma Desmos today. great looking boot and seems to be sturdy and offer a lot in the way of protection. i'm not too keen on the zipper tho. it's like an over-stuffed suitcase type of thing. close it THEN zip it. deviate from that practice and i can see something failing. comfort? wasn't expecting much and wasn't let down. i got a 9. i wore them around for a couple hours just for fun and there was some pressure on that bump where my meta-thingy and my toe bone are connected. the width feels fine, but the toe box could be a little taller. but is that enuff of an issue to go up a full size?

You going to wear them to Starbucks ...or riding ?

If it's the former, than up size.

If it's the latter , than they should be alright as they break in.

Dolph      [moto]

i finally gave up on the 42s and got a 43. in US that's actually 9 3/4. idk. there's a little more room in them than i'd care for, but they are not at all uncomfortable and i am no longer in fear of blowing out the zippers. something about cycle boots is that it is difficult to feel shifts. when i ride to work i travel about 15 miles or so in full gear (armored jacket, helmet, boots, gloves), then stop and change at my folks house which is about 2 miles work from my work, all residential roads. riding, especially shifting, does seem easier in my timberlands, but for any significant distance or at freeway speeds i definetly want something that a) will stay on my feet if i ever put it down and b) will actually protect my feet and ankles.