Printable View
Is it just me or are the new Mudclaw 272 absolutely USELESS on any wet hard surface.
I have only had a pair a few days and I have already slipped over on my patio, on paved paths on Mam Tor and on a bit of downhill road.
Fab grip on grass, yes! But on hard surfaces, no grip.
I have other Inov8 shoes with sticky rubber soles and they are excellent on all wet rock/road etc.
Have I got a duff pair or do they need wearing in a bit?
Need wearing in abit, mine are awsome the best shoes ive ever bought will never buy anything else for the fells now.
I suggest you visit your GP asap:pQuote:
Originally Posted by #1Spookster
On a serious note, no rubber sticks on wet rock!
ydt
Could be there's still 'mould release agent' on the rubber making it a bit slippery. I guess these shoes are never going to be brilliant on hard wet surfaces because the pointed studs give you less contact surface area, compared with, say, x-talons, mudrocs or even roclites with their flat studs.
Used to have a pair of 270s but found them very unstable - heel going over to either side so much that I wore down the seams at the heal (still managed to get them exchanged though :D). Any idea whether the 272 are an improvement in this respect? - could do with a shoe like this again for the mud.
This is the second shoe review recently where there have been widely differing opinions on grip on wet hard surfaces - the other being the Sportiva Crosslites. Is it just that they all need to develop some roughness underneath before they can grip? Or does some sort of outer coating need to wear off?
Interesting this as I am tempted to invest in a pair. Did 8 miles this morning over Baildon/Ilkley Moors in the mud, in my Roclite 312's, and was all over the place in the mud ! I've used 312's/320's for the past few years, but having done the FTOP the other week in my 212's have decided that I need more grip & less cushioning. Especially in winter when the ground is soft.
tried my new 272's this weekend.....i have wide feet, and the excessive width of the shoe made them feel very poor on steep descents & coupled with the useless laces, far worse than my old 330 which are a closer fit.
i also thought the 'grippy' rubber studs seemed a bit more flexible and not give the traction of a more solid stud.....Walshes next i think...too much BS with inov-8
Horses for courses i think there mega grippy i ant slipped once (maybe not fast enough), i also love the mizuno like lacesQuote:
Originally Posted by trilathon
Jez, I plod around much the same area that you run, and I recently got hold of some Walsh Ultra extremes (or whatever!). The grip is excellent, jand being as they all seem to have the same sole unit, it might be worth trying them.
For what it's worth, in my experience a lot depends on the kind of rock you're on; If it's wet limestone, NOTHING seems to grip, it's just a fact of life. Smooth stones under water are a bugger too, flat slabs can be awkward in the wet, but the walshes seem to cope better than most with wet rocky paths such as crisss-cross Ilkley Moor.
and there was you when we first met telling me you didn't fancy walshes - converted?Quote:
Originally Posted by plodding bear
...provided the soles last, quite possibly! I went for a 14 mile plod based around Pen y Ghent the other day, in horrendous wind and misty rain, and had no probs with them at all so that was encouraging. No issues going around Ilkley Moor, so although I've not had 'em long, I am impressed so far.
The reason I went for them was the bargain price I was offered at Sportsshoes in Bradford - effectively got them for thirty quid!
My pair arrived yesterday. Not worn them yet, but have to say, didn't realise how aggressive the mud-claw tread pattern is, its ridiculous! Can't see how I'll be slipping on anything for a long while! :)
Hope the off centre lacing system works, only gripe is that they don't have the same laces as my f-lite 195s as they are miles better than the thin laces.
I'll be getting a pair of the 272s when my 270s die. I've found the grip on the 270s superb on off-road stuff. I can imagine they wouldn't be great on paving slab-type rock, but on rougher rock stuff (i.e. general Lakeland business) they've been spot on. Fit and off-centre lacing suits me, but it's all personal I guess. If I come across paved paths (e.g. last weekend at the Rab in Hayfield) I just run to the side, more to save wear on the grip, being the frugal Yorkshireman that I am.
Quick Walsh update; I've now got TWO pairs of ultras, and the spirit lites. The grip is superb on most terrain. My only gripe with the ultras is the flat laces, which refuse to come undone once wet, especially if approached with cold fingers! I'll just have to try them with round laces, not hard really.
I saw some inov8s in Skipton the other day, or rather a 'coming soon' kind of promotional poster...ninety quid, they want. I think sales of Walshes will be on the rise again soon!
On the Walsh front I bought Mrs STL a pair of the Spirit Lites for Christmas (I know that is a really romantic gesture). She has had a couple of runs. Her opinion is these are the most comfortable and best fitting off road she has had (previous include montrail highlanders, x-talons and slate/orange 330s). She was impressed with the grip and I think with the comfort of the fit gave her more confidence on the descents.
lmao ! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ukhursty
plodding bear, I replaced my walsh ultra laces with some oldkook Snakes (Skateboard) Shoelaces 46", wanted something to avoid the throug back to 1970's football laces which walsh seem to like. Did add a 3mm footbed to stop foot rolling slightly and have no complaints now
DR, I think the footbed thing is very much to do with how the shoes actually fit, a personal thing. The laces though...just as soon as I can be arsed to take them out and measure them, they'll be gone!
Well my Talons have lasted 12 months with quite a lot of use with no major slipping issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
I think it really is more down to how you run and place your feet, rather than the amount of tread.
Although many people like to get years out of their trainers, so 12 months is a short life-span to some :)
I had 3 pairs of 330's in that time! 2 pairs were returned although despite the studs being ok I was told they were not faulty??? Even the shop I bought them from were stunned at the reply?! so won't be getting any more mudclaws in the near future, £69 for a shoe thats designed to last 4 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukhursty
Edit- I am happy with the grip though...
My new 333s look pretty sturdy but I've only had them since Xmas. Great shoe and grip I just hope they don't fall apart within six months!Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Looks more impressive than it is. Nothing much wrong with the grip but no better than the Walsh PB, in fact the Walsh has the edge when brand new but soon loses (the edge) as the studs wear. Walshes are not the longest lasting soles but then they are made of softer rubber - that's why they grip so well - AND you can resole them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukhursty
Simply to say that a shoe has lasted 12 months without giving an idea of how many miles you have run in them and over what sort of terrain is completely pointless. I can easily destroy a pair of Walshes in 4 or 5 months but in that time I will have run about 800 miles in them and had them resoled once. I'm quite happy with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukhursty
I wish Inov8 would get rid of these thin laces!Quote:
Originally Posted by ukhursty
I thought Insider said they where getting rid of them for this shoe?
Well I'll see how they do anyway.
Can't really speak about Walshes as I've never had any, but its good there are choices in the market!
272's They're a bit red aren't they?
Mudroc 280's have a very grippy sole - I try to save these for races where there's likely to be wet slate, e.g.The Moelwyns.
I agree regarding the Mudroc 280. The sole doesn't look particularly aggressive but they grip remarkably well, especially on rocks.
IanDarkPeak, did your studs come away on your mudclaws? I've just found that mine are breaking away on the heels of both shoes and one is coming away mid-sole even though they aren't worn down much. I have had the shoes for a year and half but they haven't been worn enough (in my opinion) to be that knackered already as I tend to alternate with my roclites for longer runs/races and do some trail and cross country running using different shoes (and road...but lets not talk about that ;) )
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
No studs are fine they just literally fall apart at the seems...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hes
First run out in mine today on Pendle, absolutely overwhelmingly impressed with the grip.
Felt a completely different shoe to the Talons, maybe a touch higher up, but the grip was solid, feet felt planted and steady over all of the terrain I hit today, and it was especially muddy and wet.
Top marks.
I like my 272's on the fells in mud and snow but I consider them total off roaders and for my first 3 Peaks in April I've been thinking I could do with more of a trail type shoe. I was thinking the Wave Harrier would be better for 3P, would anyone agree?
... not if it is wet - they are no good on wet rock ....
Been using the Walsh spirit lite trail for a few months now and think they are great, plenty of cushioning in them for the longer runs and good grip, I have done about 100 mile on the fells in the peak district in them and had no problems ,even in the snow and mud, so far no blisters.
Same here for the walshes, only shoe ive worn for the last year. Supportive and plenty enough grip in my opinion.