let us no how you get on with em ian in the new yr, i been looking at em price puts me off! but they look as though they may suit my narrow feet?Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Printable View
let us no how you get on with em ian in the new yr, i been looking at em price puts me off! but they look as though they may suit my narrow feet?Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Will do, first run will be probably up(or down) a French Alp, dependant on snow I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodzy
Are you the guy who was asking about these on Salomon's Facebook page?Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
away for xmas, lucky you have a gud unQuote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
er...Yes:o:w00t:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Runner
I'm the guy who was advising where you might find a pair. Shoes that is. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Luckily when i went on to the website they were priced up wrong so got them cheaper, however the've corrected it now. I wouldn't have paid full price as I think they would have been cheaper in france(but not by much)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Runner
Thanks any way :)
well I'd love to write a report on these shoes but they've been lost in the post :( They say they were delivered but not signed for? I wonder why that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
I'll have a look when i get to France i guess....
Look great, but crazy price. Ah well.
I have a pair (brand new) for sale in the for sale section
only available at full price in the alps but........Castleberg have got me another pair which turned up this morning.:))Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Tried them on and they feel great, i'll for a short run tomorrow, maybe over bleaklow or kinder just to confirm conditions. But I love them so far, Full test drive at the trigger me thinks..
I've been using a pair of these since September and absolutely love them, they fit very snuggly and are very comfortable being quite low profile. The toe has an excellent degree of padding. My one gripe is I find them a bit slippy on wet stone (as I found to my cost on the Langdale Horseshoe last year). I've done a lot of training runs in them and did the full tour of Pendle without problems. The studs appear to be wearing down very slowly and the shoe itself is holding up well despite repeated soakings/mudbaths followed by cleaning in the shower and drying on a radiator.
All in all I thoroughly recommend them, well worth the cost.:thumbup:
So how different are these to the SpeedCross?
I've been wearing SC for a couple of years now and find them great, except them don't have the depth of stud to make them "ideal" on very muddy routes, and they are a bit "iffy" on wet rock. Dead comfy though and they are fairly robust construction. Also been able to pick-up SC-2 dead cheap recently (£50 ish) so £100+ for a pair of FC would be a big step up!!
http://www.salomonrunning.com/uk/blo...ross-slab.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnB
What's the differential toe to heel on them then? When I held a pair I thought they seemed too stacked up at the heel to be suitable for the really rough stuff.
Its all in the above link. 10/6 so a 4mm diff which is less than a talon212, and a mm more than a 190.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
Cheers. Interesting that. I really thought they felt quite bulky at the heel, but that's pretty impressive in terms of low profile. Grip looks good look too. Perhaps I should've tried some on. Mind you, at £125 a pop, maybe it's best that I didn't!Quote:
Originally Posted by eavesy187
They are available at £108-£110 at the moment. Still not cheap but not as bad, If they last longer than my Mudclaws then I'm happy to pay the extra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
I'd be interested to hear how you get on with them grip-wise. Having been in Mudclaws for a while now I wouldn't change for anything that didn't offer as good grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Some of you must of logged up some 1/2 decent mileage in the Fellcross... whats the verdict??
Can this shoe compete with the mighty Mudclaw... ???
No
:))
After 50 hours, 300 miles and 65,000ft it's a no for grip.
They do have very good grip but I don't think there's anything as grippy as the Mudclaw.
Overall though they're much better (for me).
-They are incredibly comfortable. Had mild blisters from the 1st two short runs in them but nothing since (I've never broken a shoe in so quickly).
-Durable. Mine still look pretty much new, apart from the laces which needed replacing after 140 miles (although I replaced them with some newish inov8 laces which have just started fraying so maybe it's the way I abuse them. I would always be lucky to get more than 100 miles out of a pair of PB laces).
-Relatively lightweight at around 270g (I think).
-Warm. For some reason my feet stay warm in them. Maybe they'll be too warm come summer but the only time my feet have been cold, even slightly, this winter was while running through an icy bog for about an hour (no special socks).
The downside is obviously the price, but as I've spent the last few years in various shoes that have either been painful or uncomfortable to run in and I know these shoes are at least moderately durable, I'm prepared to pay the same again.
If you're already happy in Mudclaws or PBs I don't think there's a good enough reason to pay nearly double for the Fellcross.
I'd go along with that, Mudclaws have the better grip but for me the the fellcross is better value(at the moment) the mudclaws fall apart far too quickly for my liking. I was going to go back to Walshes but thought I'd give the fell cross ago forst as they look so well made.Quote:
Originally Posted by keever
Love mine, so much so I've already ordered a second pair before the new batch(due out in a couple of weeks) run out.
If I was on the salomon test team I would tell them to lower the differential slightly as they are edgeing towards a trail shoe and as stated above make the studs bigger for more grip.
very wet and muddy I'd go for the Mudclaw, any thing else the Fellcross win out.
You could use the Fellcross on the PPP, probably the only fell shoe I would use in that race.
Who has them in stock?
What are they like on wet rock?
This question always amuses me. All shoes are bad on wet rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
No one as a full range but you could try the place in the dales erm erm...Castle burg??? something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
their number was on the other thread.
The new ones are due in to the country this week and due aout in 14 days or so!
True, mudclaws may have the edge...justQuote:
Originally Posted by eavesy187
but not equally bad - some are a lot lot better than others, to the extent that it makes a big difference to confidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by eavesy187
Roclite 295s and Mudclaws for instance. All to do with the compound.
So it's a fair question I reckon.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum... There may be some rare situations where it might be arguable whether the Mudclaw is grippier than a Walsh PB but taken all round, on all fell terrains, in all weathers, the grippiest shoe out there is still the Walsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by keever
:Whoop: just had a call they're ready for me to pick up!!! 2 weeks early!! :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
They sound quite good I might try a pair.
I've just looked online at prices. Does anyone want to buy a kidney, so I can afford them?
The only advantage of Walsh is that you can resole them (if the upper haven't fallen apart). I've run in both, on all different terrain and the mudclaw absolutely p1sses all over them for grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
Chain Reaction have them at £100 (not much more than a pair of flimsy Inov8s) from sizes 6.5 to 10.5.
Interestingly, they seem to have an rrp of £112.50 (were £125), so maybe they'll be coming down in price in general.
Been looking at some Mudclaws myself & found this online & if you use the code Goo15, it knocks another £11+ off, making them about £62
http://www.ratrace.com/226/products/...FZARfAod1jQSLQ
As a self confessed Salomon-aholic I cant rate them highly enough for their build quality, grip wise I would put them slightly above a speedcross, but no where near a Mudclaw. However Mudclaws dont suit my feet and I dont believe they are worth what is a pretty much equal price to the fellcross, 350miles and they still wash well and look like new.
A Fellcross upper and Mudclaw sole would be the ultimate in my opinion :-)
On Sunday at Ilkley Moor i had the chance to finally look at the Fellcross and they didn't look grippy at all and have a huge ride height on the heel...Pete Bland had them at £110 RRP £125...With fancy carbon strips & eva which has LT printed on yes they would look good on the top of the fire place...But i carnt comment on performance having not tried them.
Also you are sponsored by Inov8Quote:
Originally Posted by scott baistow 93
Add quote TEN£ & you get them for £89 plus free P+PQuote:
Originally Posted by keever
walshes wear out to quick soles and uppers, their a good price at £40ish 2 pairs for the price of 1 pair of mudclaws but as for grip id rather have a partially worn pair of mudclaws to a new pair of walshes on any terrain (honest)
as for salomon ive got a pair of the spike cross for winter snow n ice, they feel to bulky n stiff to me and heel to high so not a big fan + grip not great on normal terrain
having said that there not the fell cross
..... but some are worse than others ...... mudclaws are not as bad as sportivas for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan187
True, was just saying the question amuses me as we all know the answer yet it continues to be asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T