Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: VJ Irocks

  1. #21
    Member ponte_ricky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Mytholmroyd
    Posts
    24
    up to 5 hours is a huge day out for me, so i guess they'd be fine haha.

  2. #22
    Senior Member stumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chilterns
    Posts
    752
    Need to get myself some CTRM methinks :-)

    Anyone tried the I-Rock 3 though before I do??

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    374
    I see a new graphemes Xtalon “is about to land”. Might be comparable to the irock?

  4. #24
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    2,221
    Another quality shoe would be great for everybody... but I can’t see them matching the Irock!

  5. #25
    Senior Member stumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chilterns
    Posts
    752
    Not unless they do something about the robustness of the upper as well as the sole....

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sedgefield
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by ba-ba View Post
    I got a new pair of the 3's recently. Excellent grip, upper and fit as per. Wore them for OMM elite at the weekend, feet suffered a bit as they're not as comfy as X-talons so I'd suggest not wearing them for very long things, but up to ~5h probably great.
    Feet battering could also be due to the rough terrain as well as the shoes.
    How have you found the tongue/top of foot area? I have the 2s, love the grip and feel on my soles, but found they rubbed around the top for a while. Someone else i know had similar. Finally ‘worn in’ and really comfy, and i realise the studs are getting worn down....wondering whether to try the 3s or go for another (cheaper) of the older model and wear them in.

  7. #27
    Master PeteS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mostly Worcestershire
    Posts
    1,437
    As a long-term wearer of Inov-8 mudclaws (270, 272, 300 classic etc), I'm always on the lookout for any shoe that looks to offer any where near as much grip and preferably doesn't fall apart after a couple of 100 miles. I think the lack of a rock plate would put me off the IRocks but the XTRM seem to fit the bill and may be worth a punt as a potential replacement. Has anyone out there got any experience of both shoes and can offer any comparison in terms of fit, grip and longevity?
    Going downhill fast

  8. #28
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteS View Post
    As a long-term wearer of Inov-8 mudclaws (270, 272, 300 classic etc), I'm always on the lookout for any shoe that looks to offer any where near as much grip and preferably doesn't fall apart after a couple of 100 miles. I think the lack of a rock plate would put me off the IRocks but the XTRM seem to fit the bill and may be worth a punt as a potential replacement. Has anyone out there got any experience of both shoes and can offer any comparison in terms of fit, grip and longevity?
    Hi Pete... I've owned both...

    Fit: Both were comfortable straight out of the box for me. Although I did go down half a size on the Xtrms. The Irock is very much a racers shoe... little cushioning, but as I say, very comfortable. The Xtrm also incredibly comfortable and you could notice the slight increase in cushioning.

    Grip: I couldn't tell any difference, both appeared to be superb. Most conversations I've seen appear to indicate the grip on the Irock is slightly better, and they are slightly different, but I thought it was negligible.

    Longevity: Irocks were superb, and when the grips eventually wore out, the upper was still in perfect condition. The Xtrms I have to admit the upper gave out on me and my foot went straight through the top as I was on the Brim Fell - Conistion Old Man ridge.... however I'd spent a week absolutely battering them on the scree of the Red Cullin and I doubt many shoes would withstand that.

    Based on my experience I'd probably just plump for the Irocks, but it's very close, and if you want a rock plate and slightly more underfoot cushion, then definitely go for the Xtrms.

    Incidentally I've just bought the Scott RC fell shoes. As with all Scott shoes I've owned, the comfort is superb. I did have doubts about the grip pattern and whether it would hold, but I gave them a good test on the slippy/muddy/boggy lee Mill relay on sunday and they seemed to be pretty faultless.

    Having said that, Irocks were perfect for me and i'll probably buy them again next. Don't know why I changed really, but I do like the Scott stuff...!

  9. #29
    Master PeteS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mostly Worcestershire
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Travs View Post
    Hi Pete... I've owned both...

    Fit: Both were comfortable straight out of the box for me. Although I did go down half a size on the Xtrms. The Irock is very much a racers shoe... little cushioning, but as I say, very comfortable. The Xtrm also incredibly comfortable and you could notice the slight increase in cushioning.

    Grip: I couldn't tell any difference, both appeared to be superb. Most conversations I've seen appear to indicate the grip on the Irock is slightly better, and they are slightly different, but I thought it was negligible.

    Longevity: Irocks were superb, and when the grips eventually wore out, the upper was still in perfect condition. The Xtrms I have to admit the upper gave out on me and my foot went straight through the top as I was on the Brim Fell - Conistion Old Man ridge.... however I'd spent a week absolutely battering them on the scree of the Red Cullin and I doubt many shoes would withstand that.

    Based on my experience I'd probably just plump for the Irocks, but it's very close, and if you want a rock plate and slightly more underfoot cushion, then definitely go for the Xtrms.

    Incidentally I've just bought the Scott RC fell shoes. As with all Scott shoes I've owned, the comfort is superb. I did have doubts about the grip pattern and whether it would hold, but I gave them a good test on the slippy/muddy/boggy lee Mill relay on sunday and they seemed to be pretty faultless.

    Having said that, Irocks were perfect for me and i'll probably buy them again next. Don't know why I changed really, but I do like the Scott stuff...!
    Cheers Pete. Nice summary of the 2 VJs which clears up a few things. I guess my wording was ambiguous though on my earlier post. I really was after a comparison of the XTRM to the mudclaw ( of which I seem to remember you had a pair fall apart at Buttermere!?) How would you say the XTRM compared in sizing?
    Going downhill fast

  10. #30
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    2,221
    Ah I see...

    Yeah I had a mudclaw explode on Green Gable at Ennerdale last year.

    I seriously couldn't notice much difference between the Mudclaw and Xtrm in terms of grip quality... although that is possibly down to my technique improving since I wore the mudclaws. if you look at the pattern on an Xtrm it's more like an X-talon than a mudclaw, it doesn't look as substantial.

    I was half a size down on the Xtrm compared to the mudclaw.

    overall summary... not much in it with regards to grip, possibly a photo-finish victory for the mudclaw... but the longevity and quality of the upper is far higher on the Xtrm...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •