Climbing Rubber Test?

I was wondering if there have been any tests on the various brands of climbing rubber in the last few years. I remember years ago there was a study done, but the parameters were pretty minimal (i.e. only one angle of force, way less weight than an actual climber, only one temperature). 

There seem to be a ton of new brands with their own proprietary rubber - is there any objective way to rank them? Or are the variables of climbing just too vast to create a real judgement?

Vibram (Sportiva, Scarpa, others) 

Stealth (5.10)

Trax (Evolv)

Zenith (Boreal)

Dark Matter (So Ill)

Neo (Butora)

Science Friction (Mad Rock).

It will in part depend on the application. For example, the "stickiest" rubber possible is not necessarily the best performing rubber. A rubber that has a very high coefficient of friction will probably be soft and a soft rubber is going to suck for edging as you wont be able to hold fast on a small crimp. If you look at FiveTen's edging rubber, it's a slightly harder compound than their other rubber which improves edging. Friction is only part of the equation.

20 kN wrote:

It will in part depend on the application. For example, the "stickiest" rubber possible is not necessarily the best performing rubber. A rubber that has a very high coefficient of friction will probably be soft and a soft rubber is going to suck for edging as you wont be able to hold fast on a small crimp. If you look at FiveTen's edging rubber, it's a slightly harder compound than their other rubber which improves edging. Friction is only part of the equation.

Idk how true this is, i read a interview with a rubber tech at vibram and they said they found the holy grail of shoe rubbers so presumably they meant durable, sticky and great edging ability, the issue was it would have made the shoes cost twice as much.

I think that was my original point; a test that only covers one variable isn't a clear test, but climbing is so multi-faceted an objective test seems really hard to perform. I wonder how many people trust their shoe rubber based on brand association more than anything else. . .

that guy named seb wrote:

Idk how true this is, i read a interview with a rubber tech at vibram and they said they found the holy grail of shoe rubbers so presumably they meant durable, sticky and great edging ability, the issue was it would have made the shoes cost twice as much.

It is true though. 

Every rubber tech found the holy grail of compromise, that's why we have different rubbers on the market. 

that guy named seb wrote:

Idk how true this is, i read a interview with a rubber tech at vibram and they said they found the holy grail of shoe rubbers so presumably they meant durable, sticky and great edging ability, the issue was it would have made the shoes cost twice as much.

If this is true then I need to learn how to resole shoes and get some of that rubber. Charge $75 for a resole and you'll have people lined up for the unicorn of rubber. 

I wondered about the temperature aspect of this many times.  I mostly climb in the southeast and prefer stiff rubber to protect a nagging toe.  When is 85+ degrees outside everything gets so soft and my toe flares up.  I've thought about getting a pair of the supper stiff Oxygyms just for this reason but they're so slippery.  An objective test at different angles and temperatures on different shaped edges would be awesome.

I'd want to see tests comparing rubbers on different rock types, different hold types (smear vs edge), different temperatures, different "climber weights" (rubber under varying loads), and also look at how the shoe design affects the performance under these conditions (pointy vs round toe, downturned vs flat, shape of toe box, etc.)

Tianyu Yao wrote:

Stealth is still the best and soill shoes r trash both in design and rubber

The 5.10 shoes I've used were all great until they fell apart. Stickiness A+, durability, C-.

that guy named seb wrote:

Idk how true this is, i read a interview with a rubber tech at vibram and they said they found the holy grail of shoe rubbers so presumably they meant durable, sticky and great edging ability, the issue was it would have made the shoes cost twice as much.

Closest I've found is a thick coat of C4 with a stiff midsole.  The Anasazi Blanco is the best shoe I've used in terms of edging ability + stickiness.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Closest I've found is a thick coat of C4 with a stiff midsole.  The Anasazi Blanco is the best shoe I've used in terms of edging ability + stickiness.

The equivalent would be a lasportiva miura vs womens.

Taketaketaketaketake ....take wrote:

The 5.10 shoes I've used were all great until they fell apart. Stickiness A+, durability, C-.

I've had so many people tell me there shoes are not very durable but I am running a full fleet of 5.10s and I have had no durability issues with any of them. They seem to last just as long the sportivas or scarpas I have had. And I agree the rubber is better! I must just get the magical unicorn pairs each time. I hear there is only one pair like this in each batch.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Closest I've found is a thick coat of C4 with a stiff midsole.  The Anasazi Blanco is the best shoe I've used in terms of edging ability + stickiness.

Agreed. That's the one reason I put up with a poor fit on it. Anasazi Blanco is just so good on tiny edges. The stiff midsole keeps the sole from deforming enough for the c4 to slip. 

So guessing the answer is . . . no. I wonder why?

that guy named seb wrote:

The equivalent would be a lasportiva miura vs womens.

I could see that...really wish they made the Whites/Blues in my size. :(  Yellow Miuras are the only other shoes that I've worn that edge that well, but they're not quite as sticky.

mkclimb wrote:

I was wondering if there have been any tests on the various brands of climbing rubber in the last few years. I remember years ago there was a study done, but the parameters were pretty minimal (i.e. only one angle of force, way less weight than an actual climber, only one temperature). 

There seem to be a ton of new brands with their own proprietary rubber - is there any objective way to rank them? Or are the variables of climbing just too vast to create a real judgement?

Vibram (Sportiva, Scarpa, others) 

Stealth (5.10)

Trax (Evolv)

Zenith (Boreal)

Dark Matter (So Ill)

Neo (Butora)

Science Friction (Mad Rock).

So you want 7 types of rubber tested in multiple manners with multiple weights at multiple temperatures?  How many thousands of dollars are you contributing to cover the cost of this testing?  At a bare minimum you're talking weeks of someone's time.

Plus what's to the person who does this testing to gain from all this work?  The ill will of most of the shoe companies?

Yup. By asking "does a study exist" I should be funding studies. Makes enough sense. 

If the person testing this was part of a new shoe company trying to break into the market, and could demonstrate something superior about their rubber, that would be a pretty direct gain. 

OldAndCrotchety . wrote:

So you want 7 types of rubber tested in multiple manners with multiple weights at multiple temperatures?  How many thousands of dollars are you contributing to cover the cost of this testing?  At a bare minimum you're talking weeks of someone's time.

Plus what's to the person who does this testing to gain from all this work?  The ill will of most of the shoe companies?

He wasn't asking for someone to test the rubbers. Kind of a dumb inference on your part. Welcome to Mountain Project.

Unless I missed it, I figured for sure there'd be a joke in here about condoms or clucking.  MP sure has cleaned up it's act.

I like the trojan bareskins

FrankPS wrote:

He wasn't asking for someone to test the rubbers. Kind of a dumb inference on your part. Welcome to Mountain Project.

Dumb how?  For such a test to have any meaning, it would have to be performed by an independent third party.  Who is going to pay for their time and materials?  The OP would like the test, so it stands to reason he'd be willing to help pay for it.