I’ve avoided this topic for a while because I haven’t had any supporting evidence, but today I found several posts on a message board that seem to jive with my thoughts and experiences.
I have been a long time fan of the Montrail Hardrock shoe for adventure racing and technical trail running. They always worked great with my biomechanics, never gave me a blister, drained well, and easily handled whatever terrain I took them through. They were not the lightest shoes, but were very versatile and totally bombproof. I have 4 pairs in the garage right now, and have retired even more than that over the years.
Imagine my surprise after buying a new pair last year and suddenly getting nasty heel blisters and achy knees. I had purchased the exact same model and size as all of my other pairs. The color was different, but everything else looked the same. How could this be happening?! I learned a little later that Montrail had been acquired by Columbia Sportswear. Surely they couldn’t have screwed up such a great shoe so quickly?! Did the manufacturing change? Did QA go straight to hell? I had no idea, but I was definitely not happy. After going through multiple pairs over several years, I could tell something was not right.
Today, I found some postings on www.whiteblaze.net that seem to agree with me. A few quotes/snippets:
Okay, there’s a been multiple threads scattered about WB regarding the problems with the Montrail Hardrock; they were great, but after Montrail got bought out by Columbia, problems came. The light gray has a different fit than the dark gray/yellow model. Less durable too.
…those appear to be the 2006-2007 models (the first batch by Columbia).
THe old Hardrocks are dark grey w/ blue stripes and with a yellow sole (pre-columbia):
http://www.protrek.com.hk/eng/images…ardrock003.jpg
Rumor has it that Columbia is revamping the shoes in 2008, partially because of the complaints from the post-Columbia takeover of Montrail.having used the bomb proof hardrocks for a number of years, I have had problems with my last 2 pairs of new Columbia sportwear made hard rocks. Old ( montrail made) stock could become like gold dust if Columbia dosn’t get it’s act together. Is anyone out there having the same problems??
So, I’ve recently been on the hunt for some new shoes. I’m hesitant to try out the new ‘08 Hardrocks. I mean, they somehow managed to totally F-up a great shoe without attempting to change it (I assume). If they intentionally change it, what will be the result?
I tried some Brooks Adrenaline ASRs on my SCAR adventure run this past weekend. It seems like a good shoe for easy trails, but after 70 miles of AT running my feet felt as if a black-masked, medieval, dungeon dude had been testing out his new sledge hammer on my soles. I could barely walk for 24 hours afterwards. The Adrenalines didn’t have nearly enough rock protection. Also, the material underneath the sock liner was torn and worn away under my heal after 30 hours of running in wet shoes. There was actually a very noticeable depression in the heel area. I realize that my SCAR run was an extreme test, but come on…damaged after only 110 miles?..that sucks. A couple of other observations: 1) they seem to have great splash protection, but I think it keeps water in as much as keeping it out. 2) No toe bumper protection…ouch!
So, I’m on the lookout for shoes that will hold up on trail ultras, have a moderate amount of pronation control, and will fit a wide foot. If anyone has suggestions, I’m open. I’ve been wondering if putting some nice insoles in a neutral/mild-control shoe would give me enough support. The Sportiva Fireblades look like a badass shoe. The local FootRX has a nice treadmill video analysis that they offer for free when buying shoes, and I think they have the Fireblade. I might have to test out that combo.
Isn’t the Adrenaline ASR just a knobby-bottomed version of the regular Adrenaline (in other words, lots of cushy but not much toughness)? Loving my Cascadias, and wanting to try version 3… no idea how they’d do for 100+ miles, though they’re great for 20.
I too WAS a fan of the Hardrocks. My last pair prior to the Montrail buyout were wonderful. Since I liked them so much, I bought another pair about 9 or so months ago. Boy was that a mistake. No matter what I did (lube, chance socks, lacing, etc) I could not wear them without getting blisters on my heels. This usually happened within a few miles of hiking/running. They TORE up my heels really bad out in the Tetons and again about a week later in the Wind River Wilderness area SE of Jackson Hole. After getting back from WY I wore them again a few times and nothing changed. I’ve since made them my gym shoes (weights, etc). Simply put, Columbia f’ed up a good shoe.
I realize your post is old, and you’ve probably already resolved the issue, but if you haven’t, I would suggest you look into La Sportiva shoes. I’ve run in Montrails for years. My favorite shoe is the Continental Divide. My current ones are on their last leg, and I’m in the market for new shoes. I, too, am weary of Montrail after their acquisition by Columbia. La Sportiva has not sold out to a big corporation (yet), and everyone I know who owns them has been happy. They offer shoes with medial posting for pronation control, but they use different densities of foam in the heel to accomplish this (as opposed to using different amounts of foam as Montrail does). Anyway, happy hunting.
Absolutly. And, with out question!!!!!!
I\’m looking to update my hardrocks. Is it only the red soled shoe that\’s dodgy then or are there yellow soles with blue out there that are also lacking in quality? I ask because that\’s the one I\’m trying to replace and I see people online still selling those models.
I got 07 Hardrocks. Best fitting most comfortable shoes for backbacking I’ve ever had in 40years! But after a couple months of intermittent use for light backpacking, the heel on one shoe collapsed on one side. I have size 15 with very narrow heel and very wide long toes. I’m getting really fed up trying to find Montrails….they say they make the 15s that fit me. BUT NOT REALLY No one has any in my size or is able to get any. Seems like stores are getting fed up as well and don’t seem to carry as many montrails.
Columbia sucks…they killed the Vitesse and the Hardrock.
Thank You Columbia Windbreaker Company
Have the same problem, wondered why, finally Googled “Montrail Hardrock” and linked to this page. The picture caught my eye and instantly told me everything. Now then, what to do with the TWO pairs of “bad” shoes I unwittingly bought at clearance price at Sierra Trading Post? Little wonder they were clearance.
For a (potentially biased) review of many of Montrail’s shoes including the 09 hardrock, check out the Montrail Ultra Runners’ blog. http://ultracup.blogspot.com/
I still have a pair of 06 hardrocks with a little over 700 miles on them and they’re still holding together. Been running in some 06 Continental Divides and they’re great for protection, but are still stiff after 300+ miles on them. I also run in Vasque Blurs, and Salomon XT Wings. My Adrenaline ASRs are bumming around only. I doubt they’d hold up on the trails and your post confirms it. After trying on the Fireblades, I think you’d need an extra insole (SOLE custom footbeds?) for protection. They’re light and fairly minimalist. Look into Innov8 if you get a chance. Good luck and happy trails!
charlie Reply:
April 14th, 2009 at 13:54 pm
Ben, Thanks for the reply and link to review of the newer models. If will be nice if Montrail quality and ruggedness has returned to its previous superb levels.
However, since that original post, my running shoe philosophy has totally changed. I’ve adopted a minimalist approach to footwear and actually ran 70+ miles in lightweight road racing flats (the same route where I previously stated the Adrenaline ASRs were too lightweight). It took 6+ months to build up my body to handle that, but I’m never going back to the “clunky” shoes I wore before. I’m currently checking out a few of the lighter Inov-8 models. The Roclite 295 is the lightest one they make that fits my wide foot. So far, I’ve been impressed with them, but still grab the racing flats if the trails are dry and clear!
I absolutely agree that the Montrail Hardrock under Columbia is not the same shoe as when it was as an independent brand.
I have owned at least a dozen pair since 2002. The last two pairs were purchased from Backcountry.com last summer. The shoe last for my size, 10 1/2, has plainly changed. I have the first turf toe I have ever had in my life.
Also, I am seeing an unusual wear pattern below the inner ankle where the upper outer shoe hits the inner. It occurred on both pairs. Two pair of Solomons and one pair of Vasque Velocities, all with more miles than the Hardrocks, show no user wear at this spot. The Hardrocks have opened up as if someone took a knife and slit open a mattress…all the inner stuffing is bulging out.
I am mailing them in Monday, March 2, to Montrail Customer Service with a legal demand. In an economy like this, I just can’t be tossing a couple of hundred dollars out the door.
I recall from my street running days that just about the time I would find that perfect shoe, the manufacturer, Nike most often, would discontinue the model and I would have to start all over. With the Hardrock, it was as consistent and reliable as it was durable. NOT ANY MORE. NOT AFTER Columbia.
Finally, two shoe department employees at two different REI’s, one a manager, confirmed they were getting a lot of Hardrocks back. The REIs in Austin, Texas no longer stock Hardrocks. They are only available on REI’s web site. Whole Earth in Austin no longer carries them either.
WHAT A BUMMER. Columbia I will avoid the rest of your brand as well.
(Moderator, please strike previous post….Patagonia….don’t know where that came from…likely from a pissed off, emotional poster…)
I’ve used Hardrock “Wides” for several years now simply because nothing else works as well for my oddly shaped feet. However, With the “08″ I have to now carefully taped my heels for runs longer than 50K. I have two pairs of of size 10.5 “08″ wide model (yellow stripes) and they are holding up pretty well – I’m 160 pounds. One pair now has about 900 miles on them and I did run the 2008 AC100 in them, they are still usable. I did the AC with only moderate carnage to my feet. I have another pair breaking in. What to do? I’d love to move away from Hardrocks but Brooks and NB shoes are a JOKE for 60 mile weeks on tough mountain trails. La Sportiva and practically everything else are TOO NARROW.
Well that’s just great…
I’ve had my Hardrocks for a while now and they still seem to be in decent shape? How do you tell when you need new shoes for trail running?
charlie Reply:
April 14th, 2009 at 13:41 pm
If they’re in decent shape, I wouldn’t worry about it. The Hardrock for ’09 has gone through two major updates since I posted this. You may have an updated pair that no longer has the same problems. A general guideline for running shoe life is 300-500 miles, but I’ve gone much farther than that. It’s probably a combination of personal preferences and body mechanics that dictates when to replace. You may notice that the shoe no longer feels as “cushy”, or start feeling more fatigue in your legs or knees after runs. Sometimes you can visibly see compression or creasing of the midsole when looking at the shoe from the side. You could also find a pair in the store to compare with your old ones. With enough experience, and if you’re observant, you can start to “feel” when they need replacing. That’s how I do it, but YMMV.
Hey there, just stumbled on this post while looking for reviews on the 2009 montrail hardrocks. I, too, have been buying hardrocks for years as they have been my favorite shoe for ultra trail running. My husband loves them, too. We both noticed a couple of years ago that our new pairs did seem to feel the same and were breaking down very quickly. We thought it was strange, but never looked into it. Duh! cannot believe I did not know that Columbia took over montrail. No wonder. The difference in the shoes was obvious. So, I now have a pair of 2008 montrail hardrocks, they seem to be a little bit better but I have only run in them twice. Does anyone out there know if the 2009 is improved or worth the money? I cannot find any reviews.
I posted previously with the same gripes that seemed to have confirmed Charlie’s original assessment of the Montrail Hardrocks after the Columbia purchase.
On the customer service side, Montrail/MountainHardware/Columbia, responded to my concerns perhaps better than I have ever experienced before in similar circumstances.
In fact, a Columbia VP sent me an email to let me know they are backtracking the best they can in time for their 2010 re-release of the Hardrock.
It is that old problem in the retail sector of retaining the best of what has worked in the past while also keeping a brand fresh and new.
The replacement Hardrocks, in the mid ankle heighth and a half size larger, are working just fine. They portage water like no other.
My old Montrail Vitesse AR shoes were the best ever! (The red trimmed ones…..) The new version (with blue trim ) fell apart in two weeks of training. Seems like Columbia hasn’t got good glues or something. If they would bring back the old glues, maybe the things would hold together……I’m disappointed and switched to Merrell.
Several years ago I had fallen in love with the Montrail Hardrocks and even used them for backpacking trips. I ran the Zane Grey 50 last year in a pair of Hardrocks I had purchased a couple of months prior to the race. On my left foot, I developed a blister on the heel that was so deep that I nearly had to drop out . Thinking that my experience was a fluke, I bought another pair and ran the Highland Sky 40 last week in them. Again, I developed another awful blister (on a different part of my foot). This will be the last time I buy Montrails and have now started to look for other shoes to do ultras (e.g., Salomon).
I agree 100% with the demise of the old Hardrock. I’m just about through with my 4th pair. I can’t find anything that comes close to the quality and comfort of these shoes. What shoes have been working for other people?
I was running in the Vitesse a couple years ago and found out they were going to dIiscontinue them. I bought all the Vitesse in my size from all the local running stores. After going through the 4 pairs I bought I found some on the internet, bought two more pairs, when they arrived they where in a different montrail box and the color was a little darker. The toe box seems smaller and the overall fit isn’t right. Had to double check the size to make sure they sent the right ones. Can’t even run in the new ones because they don’t fit right. Wasted $160. I found a couple pairs of hardrocks on sale ($49,99) but I’m not sure what year they are I love the shoes and wanted to buy more but I’m hesitant after coming across this post. Have friends that said the 08′ and 09′ suck. I never knew columbia took over montrail. Read a couple other bad reviews about the 08 and 09′s. I know alot of people running 100′s in the fireblades, but for me they don’t have the underfoot protection and aren’t stable enough (rolled ankes). Brooks cascadia 3 provide alot of underfoot protection and I’ve heard alot of good things about the cascadia 4.
I have run 23 100-milers, the last 14 in Montrails. Recently I bought several of the new models. Report:
1. The new Hardrock 09 is sh*t. No rock protection, a Fireblade without a good fit.
2. The Mountain Masochist is a horrible shoe. I ran 24 miles in it on very technical terrain at Snowbird and thought I was going to die. I felt every rock, and my sesamoids screamed at me during the 8000 feet of climbing.
3. The Wildwoods seem to be doing OK, although I need to lace them up a little tight for my narrow feet.
I still have 7 pairs of old Continental Divides and 10 pair of old Hardrocks (I saw this coming). No, they’re not for sale. I’m hoarding them for races. Meantime, for training I have been using La Sportiva Wildcats–great traction and cushion (I can’t do the Fireblades or Crosslights–just not enough rock protection, and cushioned insoles cause me blisters). Tomorrow I go to REI to try on their potpourri of Salomons. I have defected to the Italians and French!
As for Montrail, it and Columbia can go to hell. Oh, sorry. They already have.
I recently purchased some 09 Hardrocks after having had Vitesse and 06 Hardrocks and 2 days after I bought them I developed a painful blister on my right pinkie
I’m in Hawaii right now a bought a pair of ascis gel 1140′s just to I could get around
there’s a world of difference between the two shoes but it seems thus pair of hardrocks is defectve as I never have problems with shoes especially not one foot vs the other
Montrail have said they’ll warranty the shoe and also mentions that the previous prior to the merger montrail would not give up the moulds and so that’s why the shoe has changed over time
I’d like to know what became of the previous moulds but it looks like the company has changed for the worse as a result of the merger
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting post, comments and follow-up post. My two cents is that the new Hardrocks are a comfortable shoe (for me, anyway) for running on flat surfaces (good turf trails, sidewalks) but not, as it were, for running on hard rocks. I’ve done some long hikes/trail runs in the new Montrails, as well as a bit of running and, so far, have had no blister type of problems. The issues I’ve had are after the long trail sessions, in which the soles of my feet feel like, as you put it, the “black-masked, medieval, dungeon dude” was testing out his sledgehammer on your feet.
It’s possible that this is due to the rather sparseness with which I really get out on the trail. So far I’ve only put in about half a dozen 20+ mile days this year, and twice they’ve been back-to-back (a.k.a. 50-55 miles in 36ish hours). When I hiked the AT I didn’t have this pain but also hiked day in and day out. Of course, in 2007 and 2008, on old Montrails, I hiked more intermittently, and didn’t have any foot pain issues.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that these shoes seem much less durable than the old Montrails. My first pair of Montrails lasted 600 miles only because a) I’d had an ankle brace in them which mucked up the padding and b) I was in Blacksburg at a store which had new ones and the old ones were soaking wet and stinky. The second pair lasted from there to Dalton, Mass., through the rocks of Pennsylvania, which took off much of the base. The third pair lasted the rest of New England, plus a good deal of time in the White Mountains in 2007 and quite a bit of trail running/hiking in 2008. I retired them this spring because they seemed to be getting a bit worn, but might look at putting them back in to the rotation.
If Montrail re-made the 2006 shoes, I’d buy them in a second. I definitely understand your new feelings regarding thinner shoes, but I think that when you are running or hiking on rough terrain, thicker soles are a bit more useful in order to “smooth out” the ride, and I’ve found that the old Montrails do a fantastic job, with their thick soles, of mitigating the effects of rocks and roots. The new ones, on the other hand, don’t seem to do so well. Or at least that’s what my feet are saying after 60 miles this past weekend on the Superior Trail.
Very interesting thread. I just came upon it and it has shed some light for me. I bought a pair of 08 Hardrocks from a retailer for $50 because it seemed like a good deal, and my wife had been using hardrocks for awhile and has had great luck with them. I now know why they were blowing them out at such a low price. I started using them this past Spring training on the Barr Trail for the Pikes Peak races and got a nasty blister on my right heel the first time I wore them. It was a bit alarming, but I figured it was just the first time out. Nope. I wore them a second time, and same thing happened again. Needless to say that was the last time I ran in them. I purchased a pair of Merrell ST Stature trail running shoes and they’ve been great.
Charlie,
From what I know the reason of this change is that for some reason the Montrail ex-factory in Asia refused to hand over the Hardrock last to Columbia, which had to create a new one and obviously not as good…
Even though you have now adopted a minimalist approach of trail running, to me the best option for replacing the Hardrock is the XA Pro (Salomon) since they’re also bulletproof and the outsole is stiff enough to protect against tehcnical and rocky terrain.
Hope that helps to clarify this change.
MG
charlie Reply:
September 8th, 2009 at 08:05 am
I’ve heard that as well about the last. However, there were other serious problems with the construction and durability. The tread of my “Columbia” pair starting falling off after less than 200 miles. I couldn’t even use them for yard work and threw them in the trash. And did the Asia factory also withhold the heel counter? Even if they did, that should’ve been easier to duplicate.
I have a friend that swears by the XA Pro’s, but I personally never liked the lacing system that much, because it was impossible vary the tension of the lacing. I like to keep the laces tighter up top to lock the heel in place, but keep them looser near the forefoot. You just can’t do that with the Salomon lacing system. Others may not find it to be an issue though.
Ok, so I just picked up a pair of 07′ hardrocks on ebay today(April 15/2010), and wanted to let you all know that there are still a few sizes left. Notice that the 07′s are 104.00 dollars and the 08′s are 49 dollars. I cant wait to get these shoes out on my local wet Canadian mountains and trails. An avid runner and hiker that loves a great product. Scottie, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada.