La Sportiva TX2 Review

Part 1: Initial Observations and Trailrunning Test (seggzy gotesox sold separately)

Background:

I've never seen the need for approach shoes. My trail runners (Montrail Mountain Masochists) have always served me well as regards weight, comfort and durability, especially on my 24-day CT thru-hike. I tend to shoe up for anything over 5.6 anyway, so I figured the extra climbability of dedicated approach shoes would be superfluous.

The TX2's crossed my radar when my buddy wore a pair to approach Atlantis in the Black Canyon. I was especially intrigued by how thin they packed with the heel strap -- easily half the bulk of my trail runners. The grippy sole seemed to serve him well on the exposed low-fifth scramble to the base of the route.

My main hesitation was how well the shoe would handle running. My trailrunners were due for replacement, and I wondered if the TX2s could cover for them. I had plans for a four-day fastpack of the Grenadiers that included some fifth-class slabbing where sticky rubber would be a plus (now postponed due to early-onset monsoon, grr). So when a good deal arose, I pulled the trigger. With my toe, just like Papa Hemingway.

This is part one of three, the trailrunning test. I'll follow up regarding climbability after a day of wearing them on 5.10-11, and then again regarding durability after I put some backpacking mileage on them.

Initial Observations:

The shoes are light. Advertised at 9.8 oz compared to MMM's 10.8, they feel comparable.

The fit is spot-on. I wear 43.0 in TC Pro's and 10.0 in MMM's. The toebox is comfortable but doesn't allow extraneous movement.

Using the attached heel bungee cord, they stow away satisfactorily. The sidewalls of the shoe are a bit stiff still, but should soften up and compress better as they break in.

The "climb zone" edging platform is surprisingly stiff, as is the forefoot of the shoe. I expect the latter to soften up over time, but the edging capabilities of the toe look promising.

Field Test:

I took the TX2's for a spin on our local chosspile 12,900, Engineer Mountain. The terrain is varied as it gains 2500' over hardpack, snow, steep mud, fluid talus, 3rd/4th class and a wee bit of 5.2. I carried two liters of water and ran whenever possible. I took my Montrails on the exact same route the week before, so I had a good basis for comparison.

The shoes were stellar for running the flats and uphills, almost as good as the MMM's. The downhills were less comfortable (aren't they always?) ... the impact was more noticeable, and my back started to hurt. Contrary to other reviewers, the shoes were not much more sensitive underfoot -- I was able to pick the same downhill lines as usual. Also, the sidewall chafed at my ankle bone slightly on the downs.

They weren't as good as the MMM's in the mud. It seems like the circular lugs didn't gain as much traction.

On fluid talus, the shoes performed as expected for their weight. I wouldn't want to do any sustained scree surfing for fear of thrashing them.

For 3rd/4th/low5th, I was suitably impressed by the stickiness of the rubber and the stability of the toe edge. Even with some mud on the soles, they stuck like champs.

Conclusion:

So far, I'm impressed. We'll see what subsequent tests yield. My biggest complaint is that the stock insoles may be too flimsy for sustained downhill trail running (but then again, these aren't marketed as trail runners). I'll try it again with some thicker ones.

The biggest advantage I can see for these will be their low weight/bulk for walkoffs, and not needing to bring separate climbing shoes for easy alpine.

In the next week, I'll push the TX2s to their limit on granite, limestone and sandstone face climbing and then report back with an update.

Just updated with Part Two: Climbing Test (5.7 to 5.11c limestone and basalt sport). Read it on http://aperfectweakness.com/2017/07/14/review-la-sportiva-tx2-approach-shoe/

I did a full day of climbing at Looking Glass Rock in NC wearing TX2s.  It was mostly slab climbing and I thought they did awesome.  The one part where I wished I had actual climbing shoes was on was when we hit "sundial crack"  would have loved that there was more rubber on teh side walls at that point.  love how stowable they are for packing. 

Jim Urbec wrote:

love how stowable they are for packing. 

Ditto! That was the main draw for me ... I don't normally wear approach shoes with sticky rubber. Super jazzed on this pair. 

My biggest complaint would be the sizing. I am a 10.5 in everything (with a slightly wide foot) and the 10.5 in these were down right painful. Even after sizing up to 11 it still took awhile for them to break in. 

How did you find them durability wise? I got about 6-8 months out of mine before they started to look like this. Admittedly I wore them as street shoes as well but only because there is a limited amount of space in the van! They did well on approaches throughout red rock, cochise, zion, moab, etc... but they are pretty slick on sandstone now that they are worn out and I've lost my footing a couple times. The rubber isn't quite as sticky as stealth.

I feel like if you are the kind of person that wears multiple shoes, this is the perfect dedicated long C2C approach shoe. If you wear them all the time, don't expect them to last very long..

yah.  they certainly are pretty lite weight and that usually doesn't go hand in hand with long term durability.

6-8 months is extremely good durability for a lightweight shoe worn daily and in the mountains. The average consensus goal in running shoes is that they last 300-500 miles, depending on how burly the construction. Most midsoles get pretty shitty after 300 miles. As someone who puts 100-200 miles and 100-200 pitches a month on my shoes, I would love for a pair of shoes to last more than a few months

Thomas Gilmore wrote:

ng C2C approach shoe. If you wear them all the time, don't expect them to last very long..

Yup, I bought them just for the Black and walkoffs. My theory on shoes (and ropes) is that you can either have few pairs that you replace often, or a lot of specialized pairs that you don't replace as often. The latter option allows you to enjoy the benefits of activity-specific products.

For example, I could own one 70m rope and use it for everything and replace it every year for five years. Or I could own five ropes and replace them all once every five years. Same expenditure, just requires more up-front capital.

(Of course, I just sold all my ropes to get a 90m Joker that will be my one and only, but that's because we have limited space moving into the van. No more toprope parties on my cord!)

I totally understand that these are lightweight approach shoes. I was not complaining about their durability just stating how much use I got out of them in my situation.

I guess let me rephrase my question about durability to the OP: as an exclusive approach shoe, how has the durability been? In my pics obviously the worn soles are from wearing everyday but the holes where my pinky toes are are from climbing in them. Have you had any similar wear caused specifically from approaching/climbing/descending? How long have you been using them?

Thomas Gilmore wrote:

as an exclusive approach shoe, how has the durability been?

Still in the early stages of testing (a couple days of trail running, a couple days of single pitch). Weather permitting, I have two trips to the Weminuche and one to the Black in the next month that should provide more data to respond accurately.

just published Part 3: Alpine Test. North Face of Storm King. 

TL;DR? The TX2's excelled, but I'm pretty sure now that I got a size too small. I bought a 43 because that's my TC Pro size and didn't realize that these approach shoes don't stretch like climbing shoes do.

Anyone else get chafing on their outside ankle bones from wearing these things?

http://aperfectweakness.com/2017/07/14/review-la-sportiva-tx2-approach-shoe/

Fritz Nuffer wrote:

just published Part 3: Alpine Test. North Face of Storm King. 

TL;DR? The TX2's excelled, but I'm pretty sure now that I got a size too small. I bought a 43 because that's my TC Pro size and didn't realize that these approach shoes don't stretch like climbing shoes do.

Anyone else get chafing on their outside ankle bones from wearing these things?

http://aperfectweakness.com/2017/07/14/review-la-sportiva-tx2-approach-shoe/

These seemed great in every way in the store until I noticed that same ankle thing (thankfully before buying them).  To me it's pretty clearly a design flaw.  I've owned a whole lot of shoes (I'm 51) and I've never encountered this before.  I've checked various other shoes that I own and any low top shoe I have (approach, running, dress shoe, whatever) all keep about an inch away from that bone (the lateral malleolus).  Bummer, because these otherwise really ticked all the boxes in terms of light, packable, and (reputedly) good climbing performance.  Anybody else encounter this problem?

My two cents: I wore a pair every day for 8mos straight, they were extraordinarily comfortable, crazy light, breathable and grippy. Only downsides were the soles started coming kff at the end, and the pull straps broke in the first few months. I love and still wearing them (with a bit of glue) but probably won’t buy a second pair unless I end up somewhere with long multis followed by long walkoffs. 

As everyday shoes: tx3 or 4
As approach specific/not every day shoes: tx2

Any word on durability comparison between the leather and synthetic tx2? Wouldn't resolve the rubber wear but seems more practical for daily use and more durable for scree/cracks

mmmmm I just looked at the leather Tx2... I think the synthetic version was the whole point of the tx2 to begins with.  the leather version is just a TX3 or 4 with the heel bungee.  As Sawyer mentioned above, the TX2 is perfect for long multi-pitch with long approaches or walk offs.  they are damn near chacos with toe protection.

Jim Urbec wrote: mmmmm I just looked at the leather Tx2... I think the synthetic version was the whole point of the tx2 to begins with.  the leather version is just a TX3 or 4 with the heel bungee.  As Sawyer mentioned above, the TX2 is perfect for long multi-pitch with long approaches or walk offs.  they are damn near chacos with toe protection.

I mean: the leather TX2 is a synthetic TX2 but with a leather upper. Both TX2's are quite different than the TX3 in terms of stack height, cushion, thickness of the upper, laces, weight, roominess of the toebox, stiffness, fit etc. Both models come in leather, or synthetic.

C. limbnski wrote: Any word on durability comparison between the leather and synthetic tx2? Wouldn't resolve the rubber wear but seems more practical for daily use and more durable for scree/cracks

The leather seems to stretch a little more than the synthetic - I find the leather much more comfortable with a pair that's sized pretty tight. If you're worried about durability though, go with the TX3.

I like them, but the laces started fraying after a couple wears. The laces are really thin and the materials in the system cause a lot of abrasion. There are spare laces in my pack because it is just a matter of time until I need them.

Laces are def. weaksauce on the TX2 (TX3 seem fine). I replace them pretty quickly. Best $1.50 upgrade you can make!

Optimistic wrote:

These seemed great in every way in the store until I noticed that same ankle thing (thankfully before buying them).  To me it's pretty clearly a design flaw.  I've owned a whole lot of shoes (I'm 51) and I've never encountered this before.  I've checked various other shoes that I own and any low top shoe I have (approach, running, dress shoe, whatever) all keep about an inch away from that bone (the lateral malleolus).  Bummer, because these otherwise really ticked all the boxes in terms of light, packable, and (reputedly) good climbing performance.  Anybody else encounter this problem?

I had the same problem on the TX4s - and have had that issue with a lot of LS trial runners too. I put a superfeet (blue) footbed in there which raised my heel up just enough so it wasn't an issue.

My favorite “approach” shoe, in the literal sense - IE I wear them when I know I’m going to need something to approach a rock climb and bring up with me in a pack or on my harness.  For that, they’re great; super sticky, secure for tricky approaches, and very light.  My only compliant is the whole cord system for hooking the shoes together is very flimsy and broke within a few months; I probably stepped on it or something, which is easy to do because the cord can slip out of its track.