No
:))
Printable View
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?