Inov-8 Mudclaw 265

[lantern rouge]

By the end of Sedbergh Hills, my 265s were three quarters worn out....a bit disappointing really as they have only been fairly lightly used. While there, I did by another pair from Pete Bland (support the people that support the sport), but he had some of the previous 272s on offer... Of course they weren't my size.

However, for me, they are a better shoe....just as grippy and comfy, but lasted twice as long. Inov-8, please note....I can't afford £80 every couple of months, so a more durable sole may stop me looking elsewhere.

And yes, I know...everyone has different views; everything is a compromise and Inov-8 have to make a living.

It is a blimmin' good shoe, but I, and I suspect, many others are balking at paying £80 for a shoe that's knackered in no time.

[Splatcher]

By the end of Sedbergh Hills, my 265s were three quarters worn out....

Well that's my question answered then - no 265s for me. I've been disappointed at how quickly 272s wear out - not nearly as hardwearing as the old 270s. If 265s are even quicker to fall apart then they're not worth looking at for me. Uppers disintegrating before the soles show much wear? That just shouldn't happen.

[The devil's own]

Well that's my question answered then - no 265s for me. I've been disappointed at how quickly 272s wear out - not nearly as hardwearing as the old 270s. If 265s are even quicker to fall apart then they're not worth looking at for me. Uppers disintegrating before the soles show much wear? That just shouldn't happen.

Stolly's knocked out over 400 miles in his so don't count em out just yet. His review can be found over on his blog

[lantern rouge]

Well that's my question answered then - no 265s for me. I've been disappointed at how quickly 272s wear out - not nearly as hardwearing as the old 270s. If 265s are even quicker to fall apart then they're not worth looking at for me. Uppers disintegrating before the soles show much wear? That just shouldn't happen.

Andy, just to be clear, the sole on the 265s have worn fast. It was the uppers on the 333s that fell to bits, and that was very disappointing.

The 270s and 272s were, in my experience, a much better shoe.

[Splatcher]

Andy, just to be clear, the sole on the 265s have worn fast. It was the uppers on the 333s that fell to bits, and that was very disappointing.

The 270s and 272s were, in my experience, a much better shoe.

I should have been clearer: it was my 272s where the uppers disintegrated in no time. I wasn't referring to 265s, I was just assuming that the soles were the same. I've always been happy enough with Mudclaw soles, I'd just like some shoe to be attached to them for a reasonable length of time.

[shughoppy]

Mudclaw 265s are the best fell shoes I have ever used (and I've tried quite a few) - like slippers - good grip, uppers are tough but soles probably do wear a bit quicker than I would like. Mine have had a good work out and many miles in rough terrain in the Lakes, Wales and Scotland. Despite the soles wearing less well than the old 333s I will definitely be buying another pair (I have nothing to do with inov8 by the way)!

[Woodzy]

Three runs 23 mile and the studs are starting to shear off not good! wont be buying these again, they fit wider than the 300s grip much less but do feel better underfoot similar to the 212s even though their only 1 arrow and not 2.
looking forward to trying the new 212s hope they haven't changed too much from the old ones!

[Buhnting]

Three runs 23 mile and the studs are starting to shear off not good!

Same has happened to my 212's after just 4 races (36 miles of running). Also not impressed with the 265's. For me it's a completely unstable shoe. I can go over many times on both ankles whilst running off path on my local fells. Never have this in 212's or even the old 270's which were a much better fit imo.

[Woodzy]

Is that with the new 212's Buhntig. yeah got to agree their wider fitting than most I thought the flat heal would be an improvement but im not sure it is?

Same has happened to my 212's after just 4 races (36 miles of running). Also not impressed with the 265's. For me it's a completely unstable shoe. I can go over many times on both ankles whilst running off path on my local fells. Never have this in 212's or even the old 270's which were a much better fit imo.

[ianlovatt]

Is that with the new 212's Buhntig. yeah got to agree their wider fitting than most I thought the flat heal would be an improvement but im not sure it is?

I'm about to get a new pair of something for the OMM this year. The 300s look interesting in terms of width as I notice they have the original sole unit but the 265 heel seemed like a plan (til I read the above) given my left ankle's tendency to roll. Having read the debate I'm going to try them both on and compare.

I started off back in 07 in the 270s- best fit I've ever had with my scrawny feet. After the second pair of 270s wore out I tried the grey 272 and but the fit had ballooned plus 1 less lace eyelet meant you couldn't tighten around the fore foot like on the 270s. Boo.

Instead I got some x-talon 195s but the grip isn't as good, the uppers don't like rough going and the thin sole requires more concentration on sharp rocky ground to avoid getting a painful poke. I rate the shoe well as a minimalist shoe but isn't as good for MMs.

I resorted to some black (narrow) walsh which worked ok. Rubber felt more skittery on rock and the fit felt they'd used a chipolata for the last (tight width but still had dead spots where the 270s would be snug). Anyway the right one delaminated down the front on the rabMM last week-end so if feet first can't save them as part of a resole that's them condemned!

Why have inov8 made their shoes progressively wider since the 270 era? Have we all put on weight? My mate got some 333s and got blistered contouring (foot rolling in the shoe) on our last OMM for the first time. He'd been in 270s until that point and never had a problem.