Best trail runner for scrambling low 5th class rock

I don't think the Bushidos are very good out of the box. The soft, protruding, outer lugs tend to slip around on scrambles. The lugs wear off fairly quickly though - the shoe is excellent for scrambling after they wear off.

I like the Raptor/Wildcat bottoms and the stiffness. The Wildcats shred quickly though. I'm also not sure if LS switched out their rubber, but the older models held up much better and the newer rubber shreds much faster.

Tobin Story wrote: I'm actually really surprised by this. I've been wearing a pair of Speed Cross for winter trail running for two years. They're absolutely perfect for wet, muddy, rooty trails, but I imagine they'd be terrifying on rock. Due to the *very* widely spaced mud lugs, they have minimal rubber to rock contact, which is not exactly what I'm looking for in a scrambling shoe. They might be ok if you're primarily on choss or scree, but hit any slab or any talus, and I feel like you'd wind up on your head real fast. If you need to test this for yourself, try walking on even moderately slick pavement with them - even better if there is a layer of water on the pavement!

I've used them in all terrain, including slots where I transition from water to slab but only when the shoes have been in new to mid wear condition. Last night I went out in my worn Speed Cross shoes on slab...yep it was pretty terrifying but I don't wear my worn down shoes on anything on purpose. Anyway when they aren't worn, they suit me quite well. Maybe the mud lugs give me a false sense of security. I'm going to look into what others are saying and give something else a shot on my next pair.

MyFeetHurt wrote:Has anyone tried the new La Sportiva TX2 or TX3?

I compared the TX2, 3, and 4 this past month, and I posted some of it on the Backcountry.com site. I specifically wanted a pair of approach shoes that I could also manage to run in. Not as my primary running shoe, but for the approach and descent of scrambles and low 5th class stuff. I previously wore out a pair of Sportiva Helios SRs, and I've almost worn out a pair of Vertical Ks, and neither are nearly good enough climbers for me to be comfortable scrambling exposed stuff in them in spite of their sticky rubber soles.

The TX3 and TX4 are very very similar with a synthetic upper in the 3 and leather in the 4. The 2 is very different from the 3/4. The 2 is much lighter, lower to the ground, lower in toe profile, and narrower than the 3/4. Here's the 2 on the left and the 3 on the right:


A single size 45 TX2 weighed 10 ounces, and a single size 45 TX3 weighed 13 ounces. The TX4 was just tried on in a store, so I didn't weigh it at home. Supposedly it's about an ounce heavier than the TX3. A single size 46 Ganda weighs 18 ounces on the same scale.

The TX2/3/4 are not nearly as stiff as the Ganda. I have a wide forefoot. The Ganda is too narrow for me. Though wider than the Ganda, the TX2 was still too uncomfortably narrow to be considered capable of running for me. Also less cushioned even than something like a NB Minimus.

The TX3, however, has a nice wide forefoot and more cushioning, making it acceptable for me. I kept those, and I have now run in them. Definitely not as light as my actual trailrunners, nor as cushy, but they definitely work.

I think the TX2 would maybe climb better overall than the TX3/4 simply due to its lower profile toe. The 3/4 is just a bit stiffer, so it might edge slightly better. Maybe. None would climb like a Ganda, but a Ganda is more like a climbing shoe that can hike instead of a hiker that can climb.

Any running shoe with resoled rubber works great, except for durability in cracks.

All the sportiva shoes mentioned here are great.

The Viabram Megagrip rubber is great too. I have it on a pair of Dynafits and it climbs up to 5.6 slab (flatirons) relatively comfortable.

Check out Scarpa's new offerings too. The new iguana seem sweet and I know a they climb 5.10.

Ryan Marsters wrote:I like the Raptor/Wildcat bottoms and the stiffness.

But I'm pretty sure I saw a pair of 5.10 Guide Tennies on your feet for your latest climbing adventure in Zion. ;)

Polar, my knees are still aching from one of those descents due to the Guide Tennies. I almost had to buy old man Hokas to recover. I'd summarize my thoughts on the guide tennies as such -

Pro:
-Very grippy on solid, dry rock. Aka Flatirons, granite, or clean sandstone.
-Relatively durable and light for an approach shoe.
-Reasonably stiff and protected for all types of climbing.
-Very comfortable, if there's no major de-proach.

Con:
-No grip on anything wet or loose, especially after the circles wear down. I.e. not great on icy/wet or scree/sand/Flatty pine needles on top of a hard base. They also aren't the best for trail.
-My feet and knees feel absolutely destroyed on >5 mi/2K ft descents and especially on slickrock or asphalt.
-I can't run comfortably in them, related to the point above.

I have a fairly narrow, long foot, so LS works great for me. Never really liked Solomon or Scarpa fit. The Mutants and TXs are intriguing -thanks for the reviews.

Polar, my knees are still aching from one of those descents due to the Guide Tennies.

Con: -No grip on anything wet or loose, especially after the circles wear down. I.e. not great on icy/wet or scree/sand/Flatty pine needles on top of a hard base. They also aren't the best for trail.
-My feet and knees feel absolutely destroyed on >5 mi/2K ft descents and especially on slickrock or asphalt.
-I can't run comfortably in them, related to the point above.


Were you running during your descent? Because if not that probably has to do more with your gait in relation to the fit of the shoe/ footbed. They definitely aren't designed for running though, its a harder EVA/PU (depending on the year) that puts climbing performance over softness.

And yeah no duh after the circles wear down you won't have grip on anything but clean rock. That's like saying a car tire has a con of losing grip after it's worn out. And nothing will have good grip on a loose medium over hardpack.

That comparison was in context of a trail running/hiking/scrambling cross breed, per the thread. The Guide tennies excel for their intended purpose, but they have short comings as a cross and on trail.

The knee/feet issues and stability are more a function of the shoe design and purpose - flat, smooth bottoms, stiff, and no lugs, unlike trail runners or hiker-approach cross breeds like the Exums/Camp 4s, TXs, and Xplorers, which do much better on varied terrain, obviously, with more room for error in technique.

The TX2 has the same amount of lug depth as a Guide Tennie if not less. The TX3 and 4 have only a SLIGHTLY luggier heel.

In regard to sole stability, all the Sportiva TX shoes have this weird feeling outward bulge of sole on the lateral side of the ball of the foot. Would maybe help prevent excessive ankle supination.

Ryan Marsters wrote:Polar, my knees are still aching from one of those descents due to the Guide Tennies. I almost had to buy old man Hokas to recover.

Well that didn't take very long for you to figure out, huh? :) I have fat scuba fin feet, so Five Ten has always been my brand of choice. But yeah I agree, the shoes that climb well don't usually hike very well. I have a pair of Evolv Bolt (discontinued) that climb and hike reasonably well, due to the tread pattern (climbing zone at the toes, lugged sole at the ball and the heel). But after hiking 14 miles round trip in them, I was so wishing I was wearing my more supportive hiking shoes.