Page 4 of 5

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 10:22pm
by Mick F
Yes Ian, that's the point.
Wellies are waterproof. No doubt. No-one could argue. Also the SealSkinz socks are equally waterproof. No argument. No problem.

The SealSkinz socks are advertised to keep your feet dry when you cycle.
They don't. They fill up with water when it rains. Rainwater runs down your bare legs, into the top of the socks and fill up with nowhere to go. Your feet end up wetter that if you'd worn normal socks because normal socks will drain out through your shoes.
SealSkins fill up like wellies would do.

I repeat:
Remember, I bought these socks because of the advert showing a cyclist with bare legs. These socks are designed to be visible, not hidden underneath waterproof trousers.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 17 Oct 2009, 7:46pm
by blackbike
In the winter I wear thin plastic bags over normal socks. My feet stay dry. In summer I don't mind my feet getting wet.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 12:31pm
by ianr1950
But they are waterproof and in my experience do the job that they are made for.

Wellies are advertised waterproof and often show people standing in water but if water runs down your leg and into the boots it cannot drain out so what is the difference.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 1:00pm
by mark_w
I think the point here is that the socks are meant to be breatheable.

i.e. - like goretex, the water should be able to pass one way, but not the other. I believe they do, to a limited extent.

However, this may only work for water vapour, so once saturation is reached, the water will not be able to go through the membrane and you get wet feet.

The waterproof shoes work by putting a neoprene seal round the calf, much like a wetsuit boot. However, I get the feeling these are working like a wetsuit boot too, filling up with water and sloshing around (after a hard day's surfing or diving, I know what it's like to walk around with full wetsuit booties!)

For what it's worth, I use them (Sealskinz) too (and the gloves) and they work fine for me. However, I believe this is a case in point of the phrase 'Your Mileage May Vary' :)

Sorry you had such a bad experience with them Mick.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 4:25pm
by burnsie
Wish I'd read this forum more frequently..bought some sealskinz for ctc in August. Of course we had to pick the crappiest weekend imageinable and got drenched. Feet very wet. Used socks on commute home last soaked again....not impressed at all.


Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 4:00pm
by vorsprung
Sorry MickF, although I often agree with your opinions on many things I can't see the problem you have with these socks

This whole thread reads like this to me:
"I paid 20 quid and I expected a miracle. The miracle did not occur and the socks filled up with water from the hole that all socks have in the top. I am disgusted!"

Fausto Copy's experience of the socks is more like mine. They are pleasantly windproof and vaguely useful in the rain.

What I think they really excel at is if you are on a long ride and you do get wet shoes and feet. Carry a pair of these socks as spares. They are excellent at sitting in a wet shoe and not getting your feet any wetter.

The socks are waterproof. Yes they are. You said yourself you stood in the bathtub with them on

I have a pair of northwave winter MTB boots. They have a goretex liner and are also waterproof. However they also suffer from the "hole for a foot" problem and if it does rain heavily then they rapidly fill with water and the water remains in them
I did find a way of making them pretty much water proof. I made a couple of cuffs for the top out of the sleeves of old rubber gloves. They were so tight that blood circulation to my feet was not good. But! the only moisture was a tiny amount of sweat despite heavy rain.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 1 Nov 2009, 8:28pm
by Mick F
vorsprung wrote:Sorry MickF, although I often agree with your opinions on many things I can't see the problem you have with these socks

Yes you can.
The rest of your post agrees with me.

vorsprung wrote:....... I did find a way of making them pretty much water proof. I made a couple of cuffs for the top out of the sleeves of old rubber gloves. They were so tight that blood circulation to my feet was not good. But! the only moisture was a tiny amount of sweat despite heavy rain.......

You have to modify the idea to make them as usable as the blurb says they should be. The photo shows a bloke on a bike without extra protection. It suggests he has dry feet. There's no way that he can keep his feet dry with the socks on in a "dynamic wet cycling environment" without an extra addition to the leg/sock interface.

I bought the socks - admittedly with rose-tinted glasses - expecting them to be waterproof.

They are not waterproof.

I have my money back, they have returned my socks, they haven't admitted any liability.
Fair enough.

The socks are still not "Fit For Purpose".

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 9:32pm
by mattheus
toontra wrote:I used a pair of Sealskins on LEL this year (so a very wet 4 days!). They actually made things worse, because water collected inside the sock and stayed there until physically emptied out by pouring and wringing. So my feet were sloshing about in warm water for 90 hours all told. Surprising that I didn't get foot-rot or some other tropical disorder.

And yes, I was wearing leggings going over the outside of the sock, and even used cuffs made from the wrist sections of household rubber gloves!

Hmm, LEL ...

Dad gave me my Sealskin socks the day of PBP 07 (which was of course, as wet as LEL 09, but warmer). They were great. (Mostly worn with bare ankles.) Remember the pictures of trench foot on that event?

They survived until LEL, and again did sterling service - this time I was mainly wearing longs in the bad weather. Their only failure? The flood north of Eskdalemuir. This was over hub height, but somehow one foot remained dry. The other sealskin had to be emptied out on the floor of the EDM control hallway. Happy days ... The wet foot was still warm.

So the model I have (made sometime pre-Aug 2007) are great. I would take a chance on buying more, despite the comments here, but I will be wary ...

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 9:11am
by Jonty
Waterproof socks? What piffle. And it's not even April Fools' Day. Best strategy is to avoid cycling in the wet. Or if you are mad enough or unfortunate enough to cycle when it's raining carry a spare pair of socks. In a poly (waterproof) bag of course.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 26 Nov 2009, 2:18pm
by thekelticfringe
I have knee-length sealskinz. Read this thread with interest, so thought I'd try something.

So: first, a pair of cotton socks. Then Sealskinz (approx 1 year old, many washes). Then my cycling tights (so the Sealskinz are inside the tights). Then a pair of goretex boots.

16 mile commute in the lashing rain.

Tights saturated
Boots full of water to 'tipping out' level
Sealskinz very wet on the outside
Cotton socks mildly damp most likely from perspiration.

My pair at least lives up to their promise of being waterproof (in the same way as Wellingtons are waterproof - obviosuly if you pour water down the inside in any way then they just fill up with water).

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 7 Dec 2009, 1:37am
Mick F,

Might i suggest you have a look at "Aquatherm Socks" from They are not breathable in any way, but made out of a material very similar to the black heavy duty "Marigold" gloves. Being of a very stretchy material they form a good seal around the calf without cutting off blood circulation. If any water does get inside them, your feet will still stay warm, and they dry almost immediately when turned inside out. I have dealt with the company for a number of years, being a Watersports Instructor, and found them to be great to deal with, well worth a try, might be the answer to your wet feet probs.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 7 Dec 2009, 9:16am
by Mick F
Thanks JOFF, but the link doesn't work for me.
I Googled instead:

They do sound a good!

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 7 Dec 2009, 5:05pm
by pq
It sounds to me as though Sealskinz haven't been very intelligent with their advertising. I've got a pair and think they're very good, but I use them for mountain biking in winter, and while the water eventually makes its way down my leg, my feet stay much drier than they do with normal socks. Wear them with shorts and the drawbacks are obvious and inevitable.

In summer my preferred footwear in wet weather is SPD sandals with no socks. My feet get wet immediately, but there's no nasty clammy wet sock/shoe around them, and they dry as soon as the rain stops. In winter on road I just use old fashioned neoprene overshoes which keep my feet pretty much dry in everything but the most horrendous, sustained downpour - and nothing will keep you dry in those circumstances.

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 7 Dec 2009, 5:15pm
by kwackers
I tried a pair whilst running, what I found was if you stand in some water they let it in and then don't let it out.

Shower proof I think rather than water proof.

Basically a similar (but probably better) effect can be had by wearing two pairs of ordinary socks with a plastic bag between them. That's exactly how the sealskins feel anyway so I guess their mistake is using bags with holes in...

Re: Waterproof Socks

Posted: 7 Dec 2009, 9:41pm
by thekelticfringe
Liking the "two socks and bag" plan!