Leaky Kangol Shoes

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

They are casual shoes not walking shoes.
Casual shoes are shoes for shopping, nights out, driving etc. Not ultra fancy but definitely not for long walks.

Op can't claim fit for purpose when he isn't using them for the intended purpose of 'casual' use.

The OP has never said they were used on long walks

The people arguing that the shoes are OK are repeatedly inventing scenarios the OP never mentioned. Please desist.

Casual shoes that can't cope with damp ground are slippers, not shoes. Shoes that get your feet wet in normal conditions - of which damp ground is - are not fit for purpose.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

The OP has never said they were used on long walks

The people arguing that the shoes are OK are repeatedly inventing scenarios the OP never mentioned. Please desist.

Casual shoes that can't cope with damp ground are slippers, not shoes. Shoes that get your feet wet in normal conditions - of which damp ground is - are not fit for purpose.

He said he was out walking in them. They aren't walking shoes.
It doesn't matter how you spin it but casual shoes with stitching all over them are not walking shoes to be used in damp conditions.

I have many, many pairs of shoes costing anything from €10 - €400 and I wouldn't expect any that aren't marked waterproof or water resistant to be suitable for walking. In Ireland. In December.
I have shoes that my feet would be damp walking from the car to the house - that's not a fault in the shoe it's because that's not what they are made for.

Wear walking shoes to go walking, wear casual shoes for casual wear.

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

He said he was out walking in them. They aren't walking shoes.
It doesn't matter how you spin it but casual shoes with stitching all over them are not walking shoes to be used in damp conditions.

I have many, many pairs of shoes costing anything from €10 - €400 and I wouldn't expect any that aren't marked waterproof or water resistant to be suitable for walking. In Ireland. In December.
I have shoes that my feet would be damp walking from the car to the house - that's not a fault in the shoe it's because that's not what they are made for.

Wear walking shoes to go walking, wear casual shoes for casual wear.

You are assuming "walking" in their post means fecking hiking. Either that or you slither from your car to the door.

It very clearly doesn't. It obviously just means what you insist on calling casual use which is just use. In a country where its damp for half the year, casual use shoes need to be able to deal with damp ground.

The shoes are cheap Sportsdirect junk and are faulty. End of story.

You and other posters are inventing this mad world where the OP is climing Three Rock in a monsoon when it was never even implied.

You need to return those shoes too. Anything that can't take normal exposure is a slipper not a shoe. Items have to be fit for purpose.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

You are assuming "walking" in their post means fecking hiking.

It very clearly doesn't. It obviously just means what you insist on calling casual use which is just use. In a country where its damp for half the year, casual use shoes need to be able to deal with damp ground.

The shoes are cheap Sportsdirect junk and are faulty. End of story.

You and other posters are inventing this mad world where the OP is climing Three Rock in a monsoon when it was never even implied.

You need to return those shoes too.

No actually you're inferring a meaning that isn't there.
Please stop doing that. I didn't mention hiking or climbing mountains

No one knows how far the op was walking but when the first pair of shoes got damaged wouldn't it be common sense to think 'maybe these aren't suitable for wet weather?'

I'd be interested to know though what exactly the op was doing, was it mountain hiking (haha) or a simple walk round the shops because the difference between them would mean the difference between the shoe being faulty or not.


Just cos you're a mod doesn't mean you get to say end of story

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

No actually you're inferring a meaning that isn't there.
Please stop doing that. I didn't mention hiking or climbing mountains

No one knows how far the op was walking but when the first pair of shoes got damaged wouldn't it be common sense to think 'maybe these aren't suitable for wet weather?'

I'd be interested to know though what exactly the op was doing, was it mountain hiking (haha) or a simple walk round the shops because the difference between them would mean the difference between the shoe being faulty or not.


Just cos you're a mod doesn't mean you get to say end of story

Damp ground is not "wet weather". Its Ireland

The shoes are clearly faulty. You are still inventing scenarios.

If you have new or nearly new shoes that leak on damp ground, return them as they are faulty. You clearly need to do so.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

Damp ground is not "wet weather". Its Ireland

The shoes are clearly faulty. You are still inventing scenarios.

If you have new or nearly new shoes that leak on damp ground, return them as they are faulty. You clearly need to do so.

What scenario have I invented?

I said the op should enlighten us all to the situation he was in when his feet got wet because if he was using them as walking shoes it's tough luck.
If he was using them as casual shoes they are faulty.

Until he does that this conversation is pointless

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

What scenario have I invented?

That they're going for long walks and in wet weather. Both of which are not even vaguely implied in their posts.

Ireland is damp, if your shoes can't handle being used in the damp sell them as slippers or don't sell them at all.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

That they're going for long walks and in wet weather. Both of which are not even vaguely implied in their posts.

Ireland is damp, if your shoes can't handle being used in the damp sell them as slippers or don't sell them at all.

Seriously in my last 2 posts I've said that it would be good if the op could clarify what he was using his shoes for so people could advise him properly.

Are you reading the posts at all?

Theres more than two types of shoes - outside and slippers. There's other shoes that don't like getting wet!

italodisco

I hate to sound bad but Kangol shoes? Surely this thread is someone trolling??

Were Kangol shoes not something that would have been left in the 1990s with kickers jumpers and naff naff jackets?

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

Seriously in my last 2 posts I've said that it would be good if the op could clarify what he was using his shoes for so people could advise him properly.

Are you reading the posts at all?

Theres more than two types of shoes - outside and slippers. There's other shoes that don't like getting wet!

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

Huh? Who said they weren't outside shoes?

I'm genuinely baffled now so I'm leaving this thread.

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

Huh? Who said they weren't outside shoes?

I'm genuinely baffled now so I'm leaving this thread.

You did!

You being baffled by your own posts doesn't surprise me as I've been pretty baffled by all of them.

Mech1

They are sold in Ireland and advertised as suitable for everyday use.

That means to me they should not let in water when walking on wet ground.

theteal

This thread got a bit weird. OP, they're rubber soled shoes, they should definitely not be letting in moisture from a normal wet pavement - sodden grass, jumping in puddles would be a different story. They're not fit for purpose, send them back.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

Calm down, you're feet'll be getting a bit sweaty if you keep going like this. We have shoes for Irish weather conditions, buy a pair of welliingtons (rubber = low porosity).

I hate to break it to you, manufacturers don't make shoes specifically for the Irish damp (not wet mind you) market, they make them for all markets and climates. As far as I know there is no legal requirement that shoes sold in Ireland be waterproof so they withstand damp, not wet mind you, conditions.

But here's the thing, L1011, where do these shoes claim to be waterproof? You can say they should be this, they should be that, but they do not claim to be anymore than they are. Maybe people in drier, not wet mind you, climates appreciate a little bit of porosity.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

davo10 wrote: »

Calm down, you're feet'll be getting a bit sweaty if you keep going like this. We have shoes for Irish weather conditions, buy a pair of welliingtons (rubber = low porosity).

I hate to break it to you, manufacturers don't make shoes specifically for the Irish damp (not wet mind you) market, they make them for all markets and climates. As far as I know there is no legal requirement that shoes sold in Ireland be waterproof so they withstand damp, not wet mind you, conditions.

But here's the thing, L1011, where do these shoes claim to be waterproof? You can say they should be this, they should be that, but they do not claim to be anymore than they are. Maybe people in drier, not wet mind you, climates appreciate a little bit of porosity.

Apart from my hiking shoes and walking boots, none of my everyday shoes have ever said they were waterproof. "Ordinary" shoes aren't labelled as water resistant. It is an expectation of a shoe, other than sandals and slippers, that it will keep your feet dry in everyday conditions.

davo10

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

Apart from my hiking shoes and walking boots, none of my everyday shoes have ever said they were waterproof. "Ordinary" shoes aren't labelled as water resistant. It is an expectation of a shoe, other than sandals and slippers, that it will keep your feet dry in everyday conditions.

True, but can there be a shoe for "everyday" conditions?, conditions here differ from conditions in Spain, Poland, US, etc. Brands don't make different specs of each shoe for different markets. If you want a waterproof shoe fit for our damp, not wet, underfoot conditions, then buy a shoe which has a water proof spec, if it doesn't claim to be waterproof, it isnt.

William Shakespeare once wrote "expectation is the root of all heartache", it cannot be taken as reality until it is so.

Cazale

I bought a pair of runners from Sports Direct when I was away for a few nights in Cavan. Wore them for a few hours and then started to drive home to Kildare. I had to pull the car over halfway home and let the missus drive as my feet were in agony. Absolute rubbish quality and I would never buy anything from them again.

colm_mcm

Even the cheapest Dunnes/Penneys shoes dont let in water like the OP describes.

davo10

colm_mcm wrote: »

Even the cheapest Dunnes/Penneys shoes dont let in water like the OP describes.

Ironically, those shoes are probably bought by Penny's/Dunne's with the Irish climate in mind.

Gatling

Cazale wrote: »

I bought a pair of runners from Sports Direct when I was away for a few nights in Cavan. Wore them for a few hours and then started to drive home to Kildare. I had to pull the car over halfway home and let the missus drive as my feet were in agony. Absolute rubbish quality and I would never buy anything from them again.

Same runners sold in nearly every other shops ,
With the exception of some cheap brands

colm_mcm

davo10 wrote: »

Ironically, those shoes are probably bought by Penny's/Dunne's with the Irish climate in mind.

I just think shoes are designed to not let in water through the soles regardless.

CeilingFly

davo10 wrote: »

Ironically, those shoes are probably bought by Penny's/Dunne's with the Irish climate in mind.

Cheap shoes probably won;t let water in cos they are made from plastic and a vulcanised sole.

The also won't let your feet breathe, so whilst they won't be wet with rain, they'll be damp and stinky from sweat.

In the OP's post, it suggests that they are beign used as "walking shoes" for decent long walks and they let in water on wet ground (this may be grass), but not when raining.

In my previous work in footwear distribution, such shoes that the OP bought would not be water resistant due to their design and construction. (open & low tongue, leather upper and stitched parts from just above the sole.) Most likely cause oif water ingress is the low tongue - so water probably came in on top of the toes and through the socks to the insole area.

Nothing wrong with the shoes, just the design and style will not be even mildly water resistant.

Shadylou

They are 100% not faulty. They have a leather upper which means it's breathable because leather is a skin. So if they let air in they also let water in right? Maybe if the op bought shoes suitable for the type of wear then they'd be fine or alternatively you can buy barrier sprays to keep water out? A little common sense here wouldn't go amiss

L1011

It has been said from the start of the thread that they are leaking via the soles. Random diversions to stitching, tongue shape etc are ignoring the OP

Gatling

L1011 wrote: »

It has been said from the start of the thread that they are leaking via the soles. Random diversions to stitching, tongue shape etc are ignoring the OP

Still nobody actually knows it they are actually leaking or other reason such as excessive sweating or other