XC shoes - Mudclaws?

333 or 272 or ...

21 to 26 of 26 messages
08/11/2012 at 15:51
Marc.S wrote (see)

they are ok on bridleways and toe paths etc, but they suck on tarmac if you need to any road miles to get to the trails. and are comedy bad on things like wet wood if you have to cross any bridges.

Agreed!
Especially the 'banana skin on wood' aspect of their soles


 

08/11/2012 at 20:07

cheers guys

10/11/2012 at 09:32

which would the appropriate Walsh shoe to throw into the mix?

12/11/2012 at 13:32
Simonx9 wrote (see)

which would the appropriate Walsh shoe to throw into the mix?

Any of the PB trainers/racers really - try a few on.

18/11/2012 at 11:48

I was wanting to get the 272, but they seem to have been discontinued as has been said, so most places only have a couple of tiny or huge sizes left in stock.

 

Mail ordered some Walsh PBs, and they're the weirdest fitting shoes I think I've ever seen. I have narrow feet, but they pinched at the sides, were too long at the front and had an ultra-low heel cup that I was practically stepping out of on the carpet. Totally useless as mud-shoes for me, so sent them straight back.

19/11/2012 at 13:34

Yep - you really need to try walshes on before you buy.

The new Mudclaw 300 is not too dissimilar from the 272.


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
21 to 26 of 26 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums