# Five Ten "waterproof" MTB shoes letting in water?



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

After having a pair of Five Tens for two years, and finding them to be superb, l was attracted by an advert for the new "Freerider EPS" winter shoes.
The claim is that the "fully gusseted tongue prevents water and mud intake" and they are ideal for "Winter excursions"

However l have found that while the lower part of the shoe is waterproof, any water that finds itself on the tongue area,or laces, (as in the first water you ride through!) soaks straight into the shoe.

I realise that water getting to the top of the shoe is going to get in, but it seems that anywhere from the bottom of the lace area is not waterproof at all.
Making them pretty much useless for winter bike riding.

Has anybody else tried these shoes? Five Ten are a top brand and l am surprised that this has happened.

An email to Five Ten (we bought them direct) produced the reply that they are water "resistant" but soaking wet feet after the first puddle is a disappointment in shoes that cost over £100.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I don't think you'll ever stop water getting into a low shoe like 5-10s. I'd look at waterproof socks.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

That's a case of California's definition of waterproof versus a UK definition of waterproof.

Shimano and Lake make very good winter MTB shoes, but I have always kept riding the same shoes year round and added waterproof socks (Sealskinz) whenever it's cold or wet. Water still gets in the shoe but you're feet will stay warm.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

So you're saying you carefully kept track of the water coming in, and noted that the predominance wetness originated from that water which penetrated the lace region, rather than over the top. 

Sounds like a highly controlled experiment if I've ever seen one.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

Kind of a bummer indeed. A fellow riding buddy uses this exact shoe with one of my Hot Sockee half socks. He says there is much room in the toe box area even with a thick wool sock. This may be a solution for you. The neoprene half sock will keep your foot dry if water is getting past the tongue. We have a few water crossings but nothing major and his feet keep dry. Not trying to spam you but it could make the shoe a keeper.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

I got home with wet feet so l tested the shoes by spraying water at them (with a hand held water spray not a hose!) to see where the water had come in.

Really, l want to know if this is acceptable, am l expecting too much? The advertising does say that the "fully gusseted tongue prevents mud and water ingress".

If so, waterproof socks would be the next thing to try. But my regular Five Tens are fairly waterproof below the tongue. I just paid over £100 for the waterproof version and they don't seem much better! They'd be great for hiking and walking through puddles but they are being sold as an MTB shoe.

One good thing they have the same super grippy sole as the regular Five Tens and seem just as well made.
My regular Five Tens have lasted two years, about 500 rides, and been through the washing machine maybe ten times.
And they are still good.


----------



## m66 (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't think they advertise it as a waterproof shoes. They are winter shoes with additional warm isolation - EPS.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

lotusdriver said:


> My regular Five Tens have lasted two years, about 500 rides, and been through the washing machine maybe ten times. And they are still good.


I've not put mine in the washing machine but I have soaked and scrubbed them in the sink. They were saturated with mud. They came up like new! Well, not quite new but really good. They are certainly a well made and durable shoe.

They have a lot of padding though so soak up a LOT of water!


----------



## Steve_MTB_22 (Jan 22, 2016)

Many of us with these shoes in general soak them with a camping grade silicone spray every now and then.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

I use Nikwax Fabric & Leather Weather Proof. Kinda weird in that you get the leather wet first, then treat it while wet. It works well though.

To keep warm, you prevent heat loss primarily through conduction. Almost all insulation is based on using trapped air, which has very low thermal conduction. The air has to be prevented from moving around which would cause heat loss through convection. Fiberfill, down, foams and neoprene all work on this principle. They trap air and prevent it from moving around. Wind, of course, can blow through fabric weave and fibrous insulation, so very tight weaves (sometimes calendered) or membranes are often used to minimize this. 

Water has high thermal conductivity, so when it soaks in and replaces the air in any insulation, heat loss follows. Neoprene is a waterproof foam so the trapped air remains trapped even when the outside of the neoprene is wet. Scuba wetsuits work on this principle. Wet on the inside and outside, but the air trapped in the neoprene itself provides the insulation. Unfortunately, as you descend, water pressure compresses the air, the neoprene gets thinner, and the wetsuit provide progressively less insulation the deeper you go. 

Lets say you had a thin rubber waterproof sock, like rubber gloves. If you put that on your foot, then a normal sock and then your shoe, it wouldn't provide any benefit in keeping warm or preventing heat loss from water entering the shoe and soaking the normal sock. If you put the normal sock on first, then the waterproof sock, then the shoe. The situation would be much better as the water would be prevented from soaking the insulating sock. Of course, if you ride long and hard enough, your sweat would soak the inner sock and it'd lose its insulating properties.


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

That is a bummer. I was considering buying a pair. I'll try a Hot Sockee for now.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I've found that even if your feet get wet, they don't get too cold as long as the shoes don't let too much air through.

Years ago I had a pair of specialized clipless shoes that let a lot of air through. They were cold on anything but a hot day. By contrast I've done rides on very cold days and my feet have been ok, despite being wet when I change my socks at the end of the ride.

Had to walk through a bog on Luing! Feet were soaked. Actually, I haven't cleaned those shoes yet. They're in a polly bag in the shed.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I use Kiwi shoe-polish on my Lake shoes, that significantly increases the water-resistance. I've been able to step in creeks with those and my Wolfhammers and not get my feet wet, in fact today I did that with my wolfhammers. Both of these boots are not "walk in water" like wader/rubber boots. It's more for the unintentional "quick-dip". There are too many possible points of entry with most boots to consider them truly "waterproof", even when advertised.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

The problem with the Five Tens is the bottom of the tongue appears to offer no water resistance at all.
So if water splashes on the lace area, it basically runs down the tongue and into the shoe.
No amount of weatherproofing or polish is going to fix that as far as l can tell.
My feet were soaked after l rode through one pool of water in the road.
But l'll try it anyway, and report back.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I have a question, you said you tested to see where the water came in, were the shoes on your feet? 

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

If the tongue/ lace area is not gusseted then it is not going to be waterproof in that area. I don't care what you treat it with.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

That's the thing, the advertising says "fully gusseted tongue" which "prevents water and mud intake"


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

lotusdriver said:


> That's the thing, the advertising says "fully gusseted tongue" which "prevents water and mud intake"


To be fair, I do think you've got grounds for a complaint and possible refund.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

5/10...

Really dig my Impacts. The "pleather" is water resistant and it has no mesh, which to me is wonderful. That was a side note.

One pair I owned delaminated very quickly. 5/10 cut me a little break only, and I found they were not the easiest to deal with.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Take it from a construction worker, water will find a way into anything and anywhere. You could have the nicest Tyngsly rain suit and the best water proof boots, eventually you will be wet on the inside. Nothing in this world is a sure shot, only a deterrent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Perhaps you could post the actual advertisement or what ever you read that makes this claim?


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Its right on their website, he basically quoted their text in his posts.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

I took out the laces and the tongue is indeed "fully gussetted".
However it appears that the stitching or join between the shoe/tongue gusseting is not waterproof.
l'll do as suggested and try some waterproofing spray on the tongue/stitching etc.
l will report back when l have tried the shoes again in wet conditions.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

tigris99 said:


> I have a question, you said you tested to see where the water came in, were the shoes on your feet?
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


I tested them while on my feet with a water spray and it soaked the top of my socks inside the shoe.
After that l took the shoes off and tested them again to try and find out how the water was getting in.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I would definately contact them then because they advertise as water resistant : "keep out mud and water" but instead it flows right in.

Sounds like they should be spraying in there with the water repellent as you've been advised to do here. So at least there is some actual water resistance.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm pretty sure I would be unhappy if I made the purchase and experienced what you have given the claims.


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

I received a pair for Christmas. They seem to only be gusseted half way up the tongue. Even if they only stay waterproof up to that point I'll be happy.

I'll report back once I get some riding in.

Gusset doesn't extend very far but it is there.








My index finger marks the point where the Gusset stops.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

After having worked in the outdoor industry for as long as I have, I have high standards for waterproofness.

Looking at the page for the Freerider EPS, I'm going to call you out for unrealistic expectations.

Five Ten | Freerider EPS Men's MTB Shoe - Core Black

Reading the product page for the shoe, I'm seeing talk of insulation being the primary, with some thought to water ingress. But this is NOT, and I see ZERO CLAIMS that it is waterproof. What I see is a shoe designed to be warm and less likely to soak up a ton of water from melting snow. Winter in large parts of the US means subfreezing temps. Where I live, the riding is BEST when it's below freezing during wintertime. Water protection is the least of my concerns. I want something reasonably warm first. I want it to be warm while blocking wind, because it's also windier in the winter. DFL on my list is being waterproof.

But even given that, I don't assume something is waterproof without express claims of being so. When I see the only claims of water protection include fewer seams and a tongue gusset, I'm thinking melting snow, not splashing through creek crossings. Nope. If you want that kind of protection, you want a WxB inner bootie like GoreTex, eVent, or similar.

Even the Elements line of shoes doesn't go to that level of waterproofing. Those just add a DWR coating to the shoe, which is an improvement, but is still not at the level of WATERPROOF.

So I call bollocks here and say you've really got no case. Maybe 5.10 will be nice and throw you a bone for poor reading comprehension and goodwill, but I won't expect it.

This one looks like it would have better water protection. This one doesn't even claim breathability. PU coatings are definitely waterproof, though. But yet this shoe still doesn't claim full waterproofing.

Five Ten | Freerider ELC Mountain Biking Shoe - Psychedelic Red/Blue

As for me, I looked at the Freerider EPS and decided no. Yeah, the extra warmth is nice. But one of the reasons I wear hiking boots for winter riding is for traction in the snow. A more aggressively lugged sole makes a big difference. I won't go anywhere near snow with the soles of my Freeriders.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Harold said:


> I'm seeing talk of insulation being the primary, with some thought to water ingress. But this is NOT, and I see ZERO CLAIMS that it is waterproof.


Id does say "Fully gusseted tongue prevents water and mud intake". That's 'prevents', not 'reduces'. I agree that it's unrealistic to expect a shoe like this to keep your feet dry for very long but he does have a point about the tongue.

But if you want your feet to stay dry riding through water, you don't buy a shoe like this. You need a boot, possibly with gators as well. A low shoe like this is going to flood so easily that all other construction details become irrelevant.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

I accept the points raised above. I probably did not research enough. I am not expecting miracles, but hoped the shoe would keep my feet drier than my superb Five Ten Summer shoes.
The shoe is being marketed as a Winter MTB product. Water will of course get into the shoe if it gets on to your legs.
lt's actually surprising how long my Five Ten Summer shoes keep water out, despite having no claims for water resistance it's the tongue area that finally lets it in.
But l would not expect my feet to be soaked after water splashed on the laces on the Winter shoe, when the advertising says the "fully gusseted tongue prevents water and mud ingress"

However what l really want to do is get out there and ride my bike, not moan like a drain about shoes. So l have not yet followed up my complaint with Five Ten.
l've sprayed waterproofing on the shoes as suggested in their email and will try them again next time the trails are wet.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

lotusdriver said:


> The shoe is being marketed as a Winter MTB product. Water will of course get into the shoe if it gets on to your legs....
> 
> But l would not expect my feet to be soaked after water splashed on the laces on the Winter shoe, when the advertising says the "fully gusseted tongue prevents water and mud ingress"


As to my point above, water is not something I deal with in wintertime, unless it's frozen. So waterproofing is lost on me for anything insulated. It adds nothing but expense. So from that standpoint, I'm looking beyond the marketing language at the product and what it actually is. A tongue gusset, to me, without a waterproof barrier (like GoreTex) is nothing but a barrier to particles. So mud, dirt, etc. I don't expect water to be stopped. I guess that's where my time in the outdoor industry comes through.

I'll give you that their marketing language about what their gusseted tongue is SUPPOSED to do is poor. Maybe, like mentioned above, it's because the company is from Southern California. To them, maybe that IS enough water protection for a winter shoe. To me, the shoe doesn't make much sense as a winter shoe at all. As I mentioned above, the sole doesn't have enough traction for snow. The other thing that's odd to me is that the shoe offers no insulation for your ankle. Not even a neoprene ankle cuff like many winter spd shoes offer.

If there's no snow, I'll wear my regular uninsulated Freeriders into some pretty decent subfreezing temps with some warmer wool socks. But once there's snow, I want better ankle coverage and better traction, so I switch to hiking boots. And if the snow is deep enough, I add gaiters to keep snow from falling inside the boots. I have felt no need for insulated footwear riding in temps down to 0F. And I've worn uninsulated hiking boots on hikes in temps down to -20F. So yeah, these shoes are weird to me.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

I received a pair as well but unfortunately they don't fit as do other 5.10's in my size. I am guessing due to the additional insulation. Bummer.

You can see the gusset in the pic below but where I see a problem would be is in the front attachment of the tongue where the label is. If you feel the inside its just butt together and sewn. So water would make its way down the nice gusset like a drain and find its way eventually past the front of the tongue. I think other pointed this out as well. The overall design just is not rite for a waterproof shoe. It will definitely keep lots water out but big splashes would find its way in eventually it seems.









If they used a tongue cover like in this design they would work much better, but this is only available in clown puke colors. I think the design intent of the EPS must have been leaning more towards insulation rather than water proof.


----------



## dirt diggler (Jan 14, 2004)

No footwear is waterproof, unless it has a Goretex tag on it and taped seams.

FWIW - I purchased a pair of those neoprene toe covers. Hope to get them today to try out.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Really, no footwear is waterproof, unless you are wearing gaiters.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

dirt diggler said:


> No footwear is waterproof, unless it has a Goretex tag on it.


There are other competitors to Goretex. Goretex isn't the only 'waterproof' fabric game out there.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

Cleared2land said:


> There are other competitors to Goretex. Goretex isn't the only 'waterproof' fabric game out there.


For sure. We we should not even be using that word with a shoe design like the EPS. "Water Resistant" is more like it...my bad


----------



## 2wheelrevolution (Nov 1, 2006)

If it was intended to be "waterproof," I would think the word "waterproof" would be used in promotion. 
This is not the case. It is however insulated, with the intention of retaining heat.


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

Here is Vernon's take on the EPS.
Five Ten Freerider EPS - Review - Pinkbike


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JCWages said:


> Here is Vernon's take on the EPS.
> Five Ten Freerider EPS - Review - Pinkbike


About my assessment from looking at the marketing literature.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

This thread is still going? What more is there to question. No waterproof claims that I've seen.


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

Harold said:


> About my assessment from looking at the marketing literature.


Yup. Basically the same.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

Cleared2land said:


> This thread is still going? What more is there to question. No waterproof claims that I've seen.


"Fully gussetted tongue PREVENTS water and mud ingress"


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Might think about some thin neoprene socks?


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

lotusdriver said:


> "Fully gussetted tongue PREVENTS water and mud ingress"


Key word 'prevents' but is not impervious to. Again the engineering for true ingress prevention would probably cost you 500 bucks a shoe. I know with electrical devices true IP(ingress prevention) rating 6 (impervious) will run you $300 a single plug box.

Imagine that same engineering standard for a flexible shoe with eyelets and a tongue.jo


----------



## JCWages (Jan 26, 2015)

I wore them yesterday in 40deg weather with lots of puddles and my feet stayed warm and dry. When I got home I washed the bikes and sprayed the mud off my shoes (lower half and lace area) and the water didn't seep in. So for light rain and smaller puddles they work great. In similar conditions my original Freeriders would be soaked and my feet would be cold. Forget about spraying them with a hose. The EPS works for me so far.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

Yes l think l was expecting too much reading the various comments above.

I'm not going to return the shoes, they are a lot warmer in the cold weather and should at least, erm, "resist" water ingress better than my Summer shoes.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Had to cross a creek in the snow last weekend. Fell on the slope and ended up with a foot in the creek at the edge where it was shallow. With freezing temps I was not happy with the idea of a wet foot. I was wearing my 1 year old 5.10 Elements [low cut] and they kept my foot dry. I got back to the car with a shoe that was frozen solid on the outside, but my sock was dry. Thanks 5.10.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Had my current Impacts out for a slush ride.

Water does flow right in at two points along the tongue. Where the distal end of the gusset hits the corner of the tongue - ther is no stitching. There is a hole. You can easily push a ball point pen through it.

Maybe it's the same thing on the eps?

Glued that point shut with some flexible adhesive. Might throw a stitch in also if it does not hold. Smeared a thin bead of same flexible adhesive all along the entire connecting border of the gusset and bottom connecting point of the tongue. I'm pretty sure that will work.


----------

