Printable View
Bought some of the yellow ones today from the Start Fitness stall at the Northerns. I didn't wear them for the race itself (although bearing in mind what happend to my spikes perhaps I should have). Had them on for a warm up of about a mile and a half. I had to go up a half size but very comfy and great grip. Just need to try them on a longer runs out on the fells, but for 25 quid I don't think you can go wrong really.
How flexible are they.. can you bend the toe box into the heel cup...
Mine arrived yesterday. The black / yellow ones, very smart.
Not run in them yet, although they handled walking round Bredbury Co-op very nicely. Seem surprisingly light and comfortable. Gritstone trail tomorrow for a proper test
just ordered a pair....run off against kanadias coming up.
Don't think that's a very important consideration for an off road shoe, where support, grip and protection come higher on the list of priorities!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland
Be interested to hear your thoughts, I'm a Kanadia fan, but always intrigued by other options (especially cheap ones!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Would disagree... flexibility is key to a good fast foot-strike and maintaining maximum contact with the ground for grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
I'd partly agree with that. However, it's a darn sight less important with a 25 quid training shoe.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Can't see how the flexibility of the shoe has much bearing on the speed of your foot strike, and on off road terrain, most of the time the surface is more likely to mould to the sole than visa versa. On harder or more gnarly terrain, protection is likely to be the more important consideration.
The obsession with flexibility comes from outside fellrunning, I would suggest..
Totally disagree. In my opinion, flexibility is the highest priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
Still totally disagreeing... run with stiff planks on your feet and your foot-strike will be slow, plodding and laboured. Flexible soles allow you up on your toes when climbing but the flex means that more of the sole remains in contact with the ground. The rest of the time a more flexible sole deforms to the terrain far better, a bit like running mtb or cross tyres at very low pressure. Best grip I've ever had was from Inov-8 BareGrips for this very reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
so why aren't crampons made from rubber then?
A stiff sole on sketchy ground at least gives you some purchase to push off from no?
"running/hiking crampons" are flexible http://www.kahtoola.com/hiking_crampons.php ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam
To be fair to the Cheviots, I've not found the flexibility to be an issue.
Don't know about the Mk 2's but I found the Mk 1's to be like diving bootsQuote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Flimsy feet syndrome?:closed:
The mark 1 Cheviot is a slightly ‘clumpy’ shoe, compared to my previous Wave Harriers but I haven’t noticed any huge disadvantage with that once I got used to it. For long runs over mixed terrain they give better protection – your feet take more of a pounding in the much softer Wave Harriers – and the grip is much better on mud or wet grass.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Bear in mind we are talking about shoes which are all pretty flexible really, if compared to walking boots for instance. To say the Mark 1 Cheviots are “like diving boots” might sound clever but it is miles from the truth.
I should add that I have a long history of running in ultra-minimalist Walsh PB racers and these are still a favourite for ultimate performance, yet even those are combination-lasted so are less flexible than a slip-lasted shoe.
The Dunlop Green flashes or Greengates that fell runners of old used to manage with were the ultimate in flexibility but it didn’t take fellrunners long to realise that there were more important attributes in a fell shoe!
PS – I have a pair of Cheviot2 but haven’t tested them yet. If their flexibility turns out to be somewhere between the Cheviot1 and the Wave Harrier (which is how they feel in the living room) they will be great!
How is the sizing on the Cheviot 2 compared to Cheviot 1s?
Been running in a pair of size 8s and they are just right (normally I'd be an 8.5 or 9 in other shoes).
BTW no complaints about the flexibility and while the shoes initially felt clumpy wouldn't say that now, worn in quite well.
Never had the Cheviot 1's but had to go up a half size in the 2's.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmacewan
Two of our girls bought the 'mark 2' from the retailer who was up at the Stanbury Splash a couple of weeks ago;
http://www.rundirect.co.uk/
They'll be using them for training/general off-road running/snow (if we get any more)
I've got the '1s' & use them as above (stick to Mud-Claws, Roc-Lites & OROCs)
Hi there can you shed any light on Dominion sports and them stocking this product ? I ve tried to find them but struggled ?
As David Cameron used to say, I agree with Nikalas. If someone could come up with a cheaper alternative to the sublime red x-talons (key test: can you roll them up in your hands like sushi), that would be most welcome!Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Cheap alternative to X talons (if they have them in your size) would be the la sportiva XCs at Pete Bland for £40 a pair or £70 for two. Not quite as flexible, but comparable to a well worn pair of mudclaws so not too far off.
Er, key to what exactly...??Quote:
Originally Posted by eardstapa
You can buy a pair of pumps at TK Max that will pass THAT test. :p
True - might try that! But anyway, to answer the question, key to being really comfy grippy. Well, they suit me anyway. Just wish they weren't so "reassuringly expensive" and quick to wear out. I reflected on this as the slush on Pendle oozed in through the huge holes in the uppers last Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
OK, so my Cheviot 2's have just arrived.
Flexible...yup. Toe box folds into the heel quite easily.
You want lugs? They got lugs! Biggest I ever seen. Look like they would grip like a b*stard on mud and wet grass.
Seem well put together although I predict early failure mode will be where uppers are glued to midsole in the midfoot zone. There is no rand to protect the join and the upper material does not look very abrasion resistant.
Sizing? Yes, I agree half size up from your regular street shoe. But that is the same for other sports shoes. I have the same size as my Kanadias. The fit is excellent.
First impressions are very good indeed....much better than I was expecting for the money.
Running test this weekend.
Flexible you say
I wore mine for the first time on Wednesday on a military orienteering event north of Otterburn ranges. Good mixture of terrain - open fell, bog, grassy slopes and woodland. The Cheviots were comfortable and the grip was superb. I can't say I had any issue with flexibility - they seemed fine to me. The only downside for me was whilst contouring. They felt a bit unstable and my foot was right over the edge of the shoe. The Cheviots are more roomy that any Inov8 or Walsh shoes I've worn. Overall though they are better than I expected and cerainly worth the modest financial outlay.
So the Cheviots are good for...well, the Cheviots!! (...well almost!?) :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oven Gloves
Grip, flexibility and weight are more important to me than ultimate support and protection... Praise the lord for Talon 212s....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
So, first running test, comments in comparison to adidas kanadias.
Fit. Perfect. No lateral or longitudinal foot movement. Heel cup stays in place when ascending.
Flexibility. Very good. Can feel the undulations under foot.
Protection. Fair. Uppers seem good with limited water ingress but you can feel small stones between the lugs. May need a sorbothane insert.
Grip. Superlative. Took shoes on muddiest, slippiest and steep route I use and they were unfazed.
Comfort. Excellent. No slipping or rubbing. Flexible and no clumpiness.
I will be interested to see how long they last for because by any other measure, they are spectacular value for money. But even if they last only 6 months, at 25 quid a pair, who,s complaining?
My kanadias will be consigned to summer use only from now on.
Grip? The Cheviots are at least as good as Mudclaws (but the Walsh PB sole is still the best when ALL conditions are taken into account)Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland
Flexibility? Mark 2 better than Mark 1 but both adequately flexible for a training shoe. NB neither are as flexible as a pair of ballet pumps but better for descending Scafell Pike!
Weight? All these shoes are lightweight, and the difference between 212 and 300 grammes is completely irrelevant once they are soaking wet or caked in mud!
Its ok Fellhound, if your happy running in those clodhoppers thats fine by me... I`ll be sticking with the ballet shoes... ;)
Ballet shoes for special occasions, clod hoppers for hopping clods
Yess!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
I find it odd these shoes getting compared to shoes 2-3 times there price.
They are dirt cheap but effective training shoes. If you're going to compare them, do it with a pair of £25-30 shoes.
Been using these for a month now. They've done about 150 miles. So far, they are still in top condition with no noticable wear (other that minimal wear on the sole). Uppers are fine. They've been used on all the high and low fells around Keswick. I haven't raced in them yet, but that's only because I haven't been to any. Grip is superb, as is the fit. They came up as the same size as Inov. I'll be wearing out my Inovs, then doing all my training and races in these. I certainly won't be spending money on Inov and Walsh in the near future.
'Scuse me but how much do you think kanadias are??????!Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
(Hint....check sports direct)
Was more aimed at the talons/300 comparisons I've seen. Not just on here either.
kanadias are fair game.
Gonna have to check these out. For the price its worth giving 'em a go.