For the last few years I've always bought Meindls, they tend to fit fairly well in all areas except for the heel and to be honest I've not found anything else better, even with different lacing techniques I always get some heel lift which after about 15 miles starts rubbing.
My last couple of sets of magics I've worn away the back and then end up using gaffa tape to stop the plastic support rubbing, so this time I thought I'd try something different.
I've tried on a set of the Salomon XA Pros and the Inov8 Mudrocs and they're both very comfortable, if anything the Invo8s are slightly more comfortable with no heel lift at all (and they're a much better price). My concern though is that the Invo8s have little cushioning and that over distance I'm going to end up quite foot sore.
The Salomons (XA pro) are OK on rock or dry weather - but absolutely lethal on wet grassy hills. Seriously I went flying on a number of occasions wher I never have before. They are pretty flimsy in construction - I sent a pair back to Salomon for replacement afetr 2 months of owning them and the replacements are pretty shagged after 8 months further use.
On advice from folk on here I looked into Inov8 and bought the mudclaw 330 it has a heavier build than some of their shoes and has lasted well. This shoe provides traction in really wet conditions over steep grass and moorland - a superb shoe.
However the Salomons can be worn in general use around and about. I would only wear my inov8s for running. The inov8 mudclaw 330 has no real support or protection and does take a few runs to bed in - but I have to say it now feels as comfortable as any other shoe on the type of terrain that I run. The inov8s give me no sore points or rubbing / blisters etc.
My answer to your question would be another question - What do you want the shoe to do?
If it is to cover a range of activities then you will have to compromise somewhere along the line.
The mudroc-290s are dreadfully slippy on wet rock, as I know from scary experience. Not so much sore feet as a sore arse. The mudroc 280s are reputed to be superb, though very much a pure fell running shoe. My favourite for the hills is the Mudclaw O330 - a beefy outer with incredible studs which give sensational grip on and a surprising amount of shock absorption. I'm just back from Braemar where I blagged a dozen munros in three and a half sunny days in my 330s and they were great. Utterly secure grip. Jogged down rocky paths and steep trackless wet hillsides without a thought. Put your foot down and it sticks. And on hard surfaces the studs soak up a lot of shock (though they will wear). I haven't tried the XAs, but the sole doesn't seem to be very well lugged, so I would have thought they are much more suited to hard dry trails than anything with a wet muddy fall-line.
Shoes are going be use for a mixture of trail running and lots of walking. My Meindls at the moment are used as a daily casual shoe plus walking. I have set of Nike trailrunners (which are crap but really cheap) and New Balances for road use (started running last year and bought these, great for road but useless off road. So the next shoes I get i want for trail walking (biggest use) and trail running.
I've recently stopped using boots for anything apart from mountains, mainly because I need the ankle support coming down, I'm working on this so might trail shoes for the next hill walk.
The Inov8s were definatley more comfortable and I was leaning towards these, I was just concerned over the sole thickness.
The Mudrocs that you mentioned, and the Mudclaws that me and Fossil Bluff rate, are all studded shoes, absolutely designed for traction and grip in wet muddy steep conditions. The downside is that for stony/rocky/hard trails they aren't such a good deal as the studs will wear quickly. Until you have descended a mountain in studded shoes, you don't know what you are missing - you may think you need boots to support your ankle, but in fact when your footplant is reliable and secure, as it will be in mudclaws, you won't feel insecure or needing support at all - in fact, you should be able to descend some kinds of hill quicker than you can go on the flat.
I'm going to have to try a set of Mudclaws on soon, unfortuately Cotswolds don't sell them, if the fit is simlar to the mudrocs, I'm tempted to just order a set from Wiggle.
Just to throw another one in, whats the flyrocs310 like?
Fair comment on the sole thickness, as fell running shoes typically assume for the most part it's the ground that will be doing the cushioning, which is a good assumption over grass, mud, moss and heather but not necessarily such a good one on a lot of paths.
For your less cushioning, however, you get a lower shoe which means you get better control and will be less likely to turn an ankle (the more of a midsole you have the less stable, the extreme example is a ballet shoe which has no cushioning at all, but practically no facility for levering a foot over). For fell running, control tends to be more important than comfort (sore feet or broken ankle, sir?), but the balance may go elsewhere for walking.
If you like New Balance note that they do walking, trail and fell running shoes. I use NB fell shoes (RX Terrains in the 2E rather than D width fitting) as they just fit me better than my previous Inov8s, but that's me and not necessarily you. I wouldn't really want to use them for walking unless I knew the particular job was steep grass and mud. Ditto my previous Mudclaw 270s, really not much fun at all on a rocky path.
Peter - there is abundant cushioning on the O330s - the studs are 1cm deep, fairly soft springy rubber that work like little cone springs, and there is another 2cm of sole behind them - far more cushioning than in NBs (or walshes). I've just been walking up and along and jogging down rocky paths in mine and had loads of fun! The upper is much more protective and I would guess long-lasting than the race-oriented 270s too.
Matt - the Flyrocs are definitely worth a look, especially for mixed use - the sole still has deep cleats for wet and mud, but perhaps makes a bit more sense for trails and general use than the mudrocs/mudclaws. Specialist shops like Pete Bland Sports are good for advice.
P.S. Another shoe to consider, especially for mixed use, is the Mizuno Wave Harrier.
Have you looked at the inov8 Roclite range? I have a pair of the goretex 318s, great shoes, well padded for inov8s, and very grippy on anything. The only drawback is that being a soft compound, the sole wears a bit quicker than usual.
I also have the 315s, which aren't goretex and so are not in the least waterproof. But once you accept that your feet will get wet, it isn't a problem and the shoes dry out fast as well. They aren't great on wet rock, but the grip is fine on everything else, and the cushioning is good for inov8s (although not quite as good as the 318s).
I've done the yorkshire 3 peaks in them, in just over 8 hours, and my feet were fine.
For running off road I mostly use Puma Trailfox. They're pretty good on wet grass and bog and seem to suit my feet quite well. However, the version that I have (I understand this has improved on the latest model) is not especially grippy on rock. I went to Pete Bland's and they advised me to buy some flyrocs. My intention is to keep using the Pumas for most of my running but to use the flyrocs for running in areas which are rockier than where I do most of my running (so, flyrocs for the lakes and pumas for boggy moors). I've actually only worn the flyrocs once, which was for a very wet and slippery run/walk round the Newlands Horshoe and they were perfectly fine. The grip did seem to be better on rock than I would get with my Pumas.
I'm not entirely sure that most shoes work equally well for running and walking. I use my old running shoes (I have several pairs of the Pumas that have done too many miles for more running, but which are still in OK nick generally) for bimbling up and down to crags and so forth but for lengthy walks I'm not sure they quite feel right. Maybe the flyrocs would be OK for walking. Hmmm ... that might just be me being a bit weird though!
If you're going to be walking in them all day over a typical route (road, hard tracks, grass etc) with the odd bit of running, then i would look for cushioning first. If mainly off-road/track running, then grip. For instance, i walk all day in my Keen Targhee's and run in them too, when the mood takes me. I wouldn't wear them for a set running session though. Go for studded Walshies or Innov8's for pure off road running. Really, you're looking for 2 pairs of shoes. It won't cost you in the long 'run', and may save you from injury.
Good man! For what it's worth, at the fellsman event last weekend, (62 miles of hills, moors, bogs, stony tracks, etc) there were quite a few pairs of roclite 315's in attendance - so it would seem quite a few people rate them for walking, or a mix of running and walking as well. Me included!
Mick I have the 320's as well which have a bit more cushion and more upper construction to it but what it adds it detracts from the mobilty of the 315. When I buy again it will be the 315.
I don't understand what Inov8 say about the Terrocs 330s - "Trail running and walking shoe with high levels of comfort and performance. Ideal for hard surface tracks and trails."
I started with Terrocs and found them really lacking cushioning on hard trails, so much so that the soles of my feet got that burning blistered sensation over a long day (without actually blistering). I moved onto Roclite 315s which are much better cushioned and have seen use on and off trail from the Lakes to Scotland to the Pyrenees to Dartmoor, with both daysack and backpacking load. The grip is possibly not quite as solid as folk are describing with the Mudclaws but it's not at all bad.
Some of inov8's shoes are let down by hideously garish colour schemes...
I also have some terrocs, and I must admit that the lack of cushioning is strange at first, but these shoes have certainly grown on me. They are now looking a bit battered, but they do the job still - up and down the dales, the moors and so on. Comfy, too.
I find the Terrocs fine on softer ground like moor and fell, and even ok on rocky ground where foot-strike is irregular, but not comfortable of hard, regular trails. They've become excellent mountain-biking footwear though!
PS. I agree about the colour schemes, although I can handle the Roclite orange!
I went to the New Balance factory shop in Shap (not that they make much there any more) and bought one of their trail shoes. More of a canal towpath sort of trainer, but I only use in gym so ok.
Inov8 have a selector tool on their website. You select some options and it places the styles in order of the greatest suitability. Go have a play! You'll be surprised with some of th options as they seem to mix the different styles up, for example a heavier flyroc might be suitable but a lighter mudroc might also be rates (or something like that). The point is they mix up the styles and weights for different uses so it is not nessessarily as simple as mudclaws good on rock and mudrocs bad.
