/ REVIEW: La Sportiva TX2 Approach Shoe
> yet surprisingly durable
What time frame are you basing this on?
They defo are not durable. I have a pair and if they last a year I will be shocked. The sole started to delaminate after about 6 weeks. And having spoke to a few people who also have these this is not uncommon. There are various other places that are starting to look like are gonna split as well. I bought them in the middle of summer.
> The TX2 has the lightness, comfort and grippy tread of a trail shoe without sacrificing performance on the rock...
Despite owning a pair of TX4s, I have to wonder exactly what task is performed by approach shoes that isn't better done by a pair of fell running shoes. A pair of, say, Inov-8 Mudclaws are both substantially lighter and more secure on wet grass, and perfectly adequate on rock, having done most of the Cuillin Ridge in a pair.
I've had a pair for about two years and I think they're great particularly the C2 Combo cord which keeps them tight together on the harness so that they don't interfere with other items. They're also the lightest shoe I could find
I also very much like the combo cord thing. Keeps the shoes really compact on your harness and because they are so light you don't really notice them being ther. Perfect for big routes where you are facing a big walk back down.
To be honest they seem so fragile that I've taken to just wearing when nessecery now. The climbing zone thing is a bit stupid though. I bet they sold loads of this summer with the heat.
The picture of the upturned shoe shows one sole (dotty all over), and the picture of the guy with them clipped to his harness shows another (deeper brake lugs to the heel area).
I prefer the look of the latter but could Tom - or someone - clarify which one is actually being reviewed?
Well spotted. Tom's in the Alps at the moment so I'll ask him to clarify
Sorted. Although it's not as good a photo, at least it's the right shoes. Thanks for that
> yet surprisingly durable
> What time frame are you basing this on?
It says elsewhere in the article:
'After a few months of regular wear the shoes are still in excellent shape'
So presumably durability is based on only two months use.
> Despite owning a pair of TX4s, I have to wonder exactly what task is performed by approach shoes that isn't better done by a pair of fell running shoes. A pair of, say, Inov-8 Mudclaws are both substantially lighter and more secure on wet grass, and perfectly adequate on rock, having done most of the Cuillin Ridge in a pair.
TX2s are better than Mudclaws/X-Claws in getting in and out of crags with hard sun baked clay/mud, boulder hopping along beaches, much more breathable on hot days. Basically TX2s are good for walking/scrambleing on hardpack, Midclaws are good for running thought mud. Two very different things.
Two months of use for me as a weekend warrior isn't much at all, but Tom is climbing almost daily, so if he was wearing the shoes for much of that period that's maybe equivalent to a year for a keen Weekender.
It's tough with reviews though, people want to read about the products reasonably soon, and I can't think of much gear that has fallen apart very quickly - when it has that has been the central point I make if it was a UKC review.
I’ve worn the shoes almost daily from recieving them at the start of August. Since writing the review I’ve worn them continuously and they are still showing no signs of wear and I have done a lot of rocky scrambling in them. All the rands are still intact/stuck down; there are no holes in the mesh upper (very surprising) and the sole is still in great shape.
In other words when these shoes wear out, I’ll happily buy another pair.
A public consultation is currently gathering views on the future management of the North Lees Estate, which contains a large section of Stanage Edge. The BMC is responding to this consultation and is encouraging individual climbers and walkers who are...