by malrc » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:01 pm
I also have the Roclite 290 with graphene sole and use it for both ultra marathons in soft conditions and for all hiking/hillwalking (I haven't done any true winter hiking yet, in which case these would not be suitable obviously).
Anyway, this question is essentially the debate between the benefits of waterproof footwear versus lighter, more breathable, non-water-proof options. Personally, I feel breathable and well-draining, non-waterproof, options are the way to go, paired with some good socks that insulate well when wet (eg. wool). Alternatively, socks that are themselves water-resistant (sealskinz, etc.) can be used from the start, or as a back-up if you want dry feet once shoes are wet through for whatever reason.
It's worth noting that the 'let your foot get wet' wool sock option is more effective for those looking to keep moving, and therefore keep warmer, than those taking their time, stopping more often, and/or in particularly cold conditions.
Another factor to consider is how sweaty your feet get generally whilst walking. Gortex trail shoes can keep your feet drier versus (limited) water from the outside, but will actually retain more water from inside. If you are going to have wet sweaty socks even in dry conditions, waterproof shoes will make this worse.
I've taken to starting all my walks in non-waterproof shoes with good wool socks, but always carrying at least one pair of waterproof socks to change into if I need to.
To try and be complete here... current offerings of waterproof socks are not perfect (i.e. they don't stay fully waterproof indefinitely) and do have the same drawbacks regarding sweat as waterproof shoes. That said, in all but dire conditions, they should allow you to keep your feet warm, and mostly dry, whilst still keeping moving in wet shoes.