Can anyone who has used these, as they seem to have the same grip between mk1 and mk2, comment on whether they are totally impractical for hard pack stuff and the odd bit of tarmac (when linking up bits of trail).
Can anyone who has used these, as they seem to have the same grip between mk1 and mk2, comment on whether they are totally impractical for hard pack stuff and the odd bit of tarmac (when linking up bits of trail).
Just ordered a pair of the MK1s. I went for 9 (given I'm a 9/43 in Inov/Walsh). Tempted by the sleeker looking MK2, but given they're just for training on mucky trail/forest/hills, I went for the more robust looking pair. Hoping they are a good alternative to the Adidas Kanadia(?) that recently fell apart.
I have never found any make of fellrunning shoe 'totally impractical for hard pack stuff and the odd bit of tarmac'. The more mile shoes have plenty of cushioning and feel ok on tarmac.Originally Posted by barrierfreeman
FWIW I just got this reply from Start Fitness, when enquiring about the differences between the mk1 and mk2:
The main difference between the Cheviot and Cheviot 2 is the fit of the upper and improved outsole durability. It is also a slightly lower profile and race aggressive.
Just read a blog relating to the durability of these shoes...it was far from glowing!
Cheap indeed, but quality lacking it would seem.
The 1's or the 2's?
pies
The new it would seem.
Which blog?
Poacher turned game-keeper
New up an coming company produces a cracking shoe that get's lots of attention. Updates with with improvements and makes it worse.
Where have I heard that before.
pies
http://saddleworthowls.blogspot.co.u...ll-231012.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote