up to 5 hours is a huge day out for me, so i guess they'd be fine haha.
up to 5 hours is a huge day out for me, so i guess they'd be fine haha.
Need to get myself some CTRM methinks :-)
Anyone tried the I-Rock 3 though before I do??
I see a new graphemes Xtalon “is about to land”. Might be comparable to the irock?
Another quality shoe would be great for everybody... but I can’t see them matching the Irock!
Not unless they do something about the robustness of the upper as well as the sole....
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.
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?
Pete Shakespeare - U/A
Going downhill fast
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?
Pete Shakespeare - U/A
Going downhill fast
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...