There are a lot of ways to be a responsible outdoor enthusiast: practicing Leave No Trace principles, telling someone where you鈥檙e going, carrying enough water. But how does a responsible trail user choose the right footwear? Many of the standard manufacturing processes used to create products like hiking and running shoes produce excessive amounts of waste. So, to get outdoors responsibly, you should build out your wardrobe with responsibly made shoes.

No matter the season, Rossignol has been making great strides to innovate with an eco-conscious mindset via its program, embracing its role as a steward of the environment. By partnering with (ACBC), a leader in applied sustainability, Rossignol created the 鈥攁 light hiking and trail running shoe that raises the bar on eco-friendly footwear. And there鈥檚 no compromise on everyday comfort. Here鈥檚 how it works.

Sustainability

As a change-maker partnering with brands in the outdoor industry and beyond, ACBC uses scientific data on the sustainability process to help create products with smaller environmental footprints. The SKPR 2.0 is the output of one of its many successful collaborations. This shoe integrates responsible materials with the comfort and cushion necessary for light day hikes and trail runs, or just everyday use around town. The upper is made of a breathable mesh, providing a light, airy fit that doesn鈥檛 hold sweat or moisture. But most importantly, it鈥檚 made with a recycled material: 100 percent recycled polyester that is, in part, created from recycled water bottles. Plus, the midsole is 45 percent bio-EVA based on food industry waste. Even the outsole does its part in creating Rossignol鈥檚 most eco-conscious active shoe yet. Made with 25 percent recycled rubber, the outsole integrates pre-consumer factory waste material like that from automotive tires. All of these strategic choices result in a shoe that鈥檚 made from 50 percent bio-based and recycled material.

Performance

A sustainably made shoe wouldn鈥檛 be worth anything if it didn鈥檛 fit and perform well. As an expert in alpine and Nordic ski boot engineering, Rossignol has spent decades studying foot mechanics, providing a nice head start when moving into active footwear. And the brand鈥檚 expertise shines in the SKPR 2.0 Active Shoe. The outsole features a lugged, multi-angle tread to give you solid grip on steep terrain and loose gravel. Rossignol also employs Sensor 3 technology, which bolsters comfort and shock absorption. It works by using three different densities of sole material that are overlaid against the three pressure points of the foot. The result is a supremely cushioned ground feel that will keep your feet comfortable on short-and-fast hikes or runs. And an 8-millimeter drop between the heel and forefoot encourages an ergonomic posture that propels you forward with every step.

Responsibility for protecting the environment falls to both the consumer and the gear maker. Outdoor recreation shouldn鈥檛 be a paradox鈥攖he gear you choose can help protect where you use it. With ACBC methodology and Rossignol鈥檚 industry expertise, the SKPR 2.0 promises the no-compromise, environmentally conscious gear that all brands should aspire to.

Born in the French Alps, is an iconic mountain sport and lifestyle brand with more than 115 years of technical innovation and competitive success. Intrinsically linked with the history of skiing, Rossignol today offers year-round access to the mountains through a comprehensive range of winter sports equipment, mountain bikes, technical soft goods and footwear.

The post First Look: Rossignol SKPR 2.0 Active Shoe appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Runners are known for putting their gear through the wringer, pushing items like shoes, socks, and clothing to their limits. Thus, durability can often be a main factor driving runners鈥� consumer behavior. A current trend across the outdoor industry is investing in gear that uses sustainable manufacturing alternatives and eco-friendly recycled materials to create a greener industry. But it鈥檚 here, at this intersection of durability and eco-conscious production, where tests have shown that recycled products are , often turning out to be less 鈥渟ustainable鈥� than manufacturers intend because of how quickly they have to be thrown away. How do we, as runners, navigate this?

Longevity Versus Recyclability

In order to support truly green trail running gear, some manufacturers have begun to focus on longevity in conjunction with recyclability. Because, while recycling is used as a strategy to reduce the industry鈥檚 carbon footprint and keep materials out of the landfill, recycled materials aren鈥檛 always necessarily made to last and, therefore, aren鈥檛 sustainable. As with most everything, it鈥檚 complicated.

鈥淚t is proven that longevity is a crucial factor within circularity. Keeping durable products in use for longer helps reduce the environmental footprint caused by new production,鈥� says Martina Lux-Arenz, global footwear strategic marketer for GORE-TEX.

While 100 percent recycled products often in durability compared to their virgin counterparts, one way to change this reality is by using material blends. 鈥淥rthoLite insoles contain a range of recycled content, from 5 percent up to 98 percent,鈥� says CB Tuite, chief sales officer for OrthoLite, a company that produces high-performance running insoles. 鈥淩eusing post-production waste is part of our 鈥榮ecret sauce鈥� With our recycled formulations, our head chemist has found a way to effectively blend both virgin and recycled chemistry to deliver the highest-performing sock liner technologies.鈥�

The main drawback with this strategy is that some blended materials are much harder to recycle, which therefore causes disruptions to true sustainability downstream.

The Costs of Eco-Friendly Production

If you go to your favorite running brand鈥檚 website and compare the cost of a recycled pair of socks or shoes with virgin ones, you鈥檒l notice that there isn鈥檛 much of a price difference.

Often it costs manufacturers more to create recycled products than virgin products, so many of them are taking a hit on profits to create greener alternatives. Recycling is extremely labor and energy intensive. Recycled materials have to be cleaned, shredded and melted. Virgin materials, on the other hand, skip a few of these steps, making them more affordable to make.

鈥淰ariability of raw [recycled] materials vary to a greater degree when compared to virgin material. This requires more testing and also requires us to build in some additional buffers to compensate for possible variability of such raw materials. This additional effort in quality control increases the cost of making the products, but we strongly believe there is value to include this in our product strategy,鈥� says Lux-Arenz.

鈥淭he demand is increasing for recycled raw materials, so the supply is still lagging which can cause modest pricing differences,鈥� says Alex Lauver, senior director of Materials Innovation and Sustainability for Outdoor Research. 鈥淲hen creating a new product, this small difference is easier to mitigate but established, legacy collections sometimes see a bit of a cost increase that needs to be offset. We either take a bit less margin or we have to slightly increase the retail [cost].鈥�

What鈥檚 more is that many brands assume the risk of adopting recycled products. Brands like GORE-TEX apply their 鈥済uaranteed to keep you dry鈥� promise, even their recycled running jackets, meaning that the consumer doesn鈥檛 assume the financial risk of supporting recycled products.

To better understand the relationship between eco-friendly and durability, we put three product categories鈥攕hoes, socks, and insoles鈥攈ead to head to see how they differ.

Shoes, Socks, and Insoles

SHOES: AllBirds Trail Runner SWT Versus Brooks Divide 3 Trail Runner

Running shoes are one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions in the outdoor space. The typical pair of running shoes produces of carbon emissions from its inception to the end of its life. The manufacturing process is the largest contributor to this figure. (Comparatively, the standard pair of socks produces of CO2.)

While brands like Brooks have been able to reduce that figure by nearly , by turning to bio-based solutions, there鈥檚 still a significant problem; most recycled running shoes still end up in the landfill because they are manufactured in a way that makes it impractical to recycle them.

Brands like AllBirds take things a step further by manufacturing carbon-neutral products that offer a consistently high performance. And since AllBird shoes are made with merino wool, eucalyptus, and sugar cane, it鈥檚 easier to break the shoe down after it鈥檚 reached the end of its life. They also intend to double the lifespan of their shoes by 2025, reducing the need for further production. While attempting to reduce overall production isn鈥檛 exactly the most intuitive business model, it does seem to support sustainable running solutions.

The Trail Runner SWT is one of AllBirds鈥� most durable shoes, and it manages to achieve a lifespan of 8-10 months of moderate use depending on the number of miles athletes put on them. The Brooks Divide 3, while not specifically known for its sustainable properties, takes a classic shoe and allows runners to get about 500 miles out of it, leaving us with a potentially longer-lasting shoe. The price point of the AllBirds Trail Runner is slightly higher than the Divide, too, costing $140 instead of $100. But it doesn鈥檛 lack in quality or integrity that would contribute to premature deterioration. Due to their carbon-neutral practices and simple material construction, the AllBirds Trail Runner SWT has a slight edge over the Brooks Divide 3 when it comes to sustainability.

SOCKS: Darn Tough Quarter Ultra-Lightweight Running Sock Versus Girlfriend Quarter Crew

Darn Tough socks are famous for their lifetime guarantee; they鈥檙e arguably the most durable sock option on the market. With sustainably sourced wool, these socks can last for thousands of miles. But since they utilize a blend of wool, nylon, and lyrica, they can be somewhat difficult to recycle.

Comparatively, the Girlfriend Quarter Crew Sock is made out of plastic bottles and a small amount of spandex. Pricewise, the virgin fiber Darn Tough socks are slightly more expensive than the Girlfriend socks, costing $19 per pair as opposed to $14. They can also be swapped out for a new pair at no cost to the consumer. And they will likely outlast the Girlfriend socks in a high-performance environment.

While materials like wool are highly recyclable on their own, it becomes more impractical to recycle those materials when they鈥檙e blended with something like polyester, unless they are repurposed or upcycled for things like cushion filling. Both Darn Tough and Girlfriend socks use blends, so the difference boils down to longevity and cost, even if the marketing campaigns claim that their socks use 鈥渉ighly recyclable materials,鈥� which makes Darn Toughs a top contender.

INSOLES: Tread & Butter Versus Superfeet Run Support High Arch听

Tread & Butter is a climate-neutral certified brand that鈥檚 best known for its cork running insoles. The brand鈥檚 insoles are made in Portugal at a plant that uses cork dust to partially run the plant. These insoles, though lesser known among runners, are both built for performance and marketed to the sustainably-conscious, eco-friendly consumer. Compared to petroleum-based plastics and EVA, cork is far less energy intensive. But as a lightweight material, these insoles could wear faster than plastic alternatives.

Comparatively, Superfeet Run Support High Arch insoles come with durable components like a carbon fiber cap. They also have a lifespan of about a year, depending on the level of activity. Since the average insoles last anywhere from , Superfeet鈥檚 Run Comfort insoles do a good job of pushing the limits of durability.

Tread & Butter insoles cost $39.95 to $49.95 while the Superfeet Run Support High Arch insoles cost $54.99. Tread & Butter insoles are likely easier to recycle, but Superfeet鈥檚 Run Comfort insoles may take the take when it comes to longevity.

The Bottom Line:

Most consumers are willing to shell out a bit of extra cash for a plant-friendly, eco-friendly product, but even we have limits. Studies show that when a product cost becomes 20 percent higher than the industry standard鈥檚 cost, only about of consumers will opt for the recycled option.

In the end, labeling gear as 鈥渟ustainable鈥� suggests that manufacturer鈥檚 have made it to the end of the road, and greenwashing is too often used to motivate buyers to invest in a specific product. Without having access to a brand鈥檚 transparent manufacturing and recycling processes, it can be difficult to determine whether or not recycled gear is truly sustainable.

鈥淐onsider second听use or donating your shoes rather than throwing them away,鈥� says Lux-Arenz. 鈥淭ry to maximize the longevity and durability of your shoes through regular wash and care in order to minimize the carbon and environmental footprint.鈥�

The post Can 鈥淓co-Friendly鈥� Running Gear Also Be Durable? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.