Mudclaw 'O' +340

I got a shipment of some Mudclaw 270, 'O' 330 and 'O' +340's the other day for testing and sale. They look great as conveyed in the photos. The Mudclaw and possibly some of the other sole patterns of the Inov-8 line of terrain shoes has the promise of a really good O-shoe, light but adequately cushioned with good support and excellent construction. Most impressive is the very aggressive studding AND, on the 340's (pictured,) dobb spikes.

A jog in the redwoods included some steep ups and downs in deep duff and a downhill on a steep downslope with loose gravel. No problem
with the traction. The shoes are light light ( and comfortable for me. The high studs tak a bit of getting used to especially for me as I wear orthotics. This caused some heel slippage on the uphills. Really cinching down on the laces took care of most of this as might a half size smaller.

The Inov-8 web site, from England, shows a lot of attention to research and design, something that would be good to see from other manufacturers. A page with "reviews" is suspiciously short on negative comments.

Personally I would like to see the uppers a little higher in the heel area. Others will appreciate low tops for flexibility and lack friction. For some the long and numerous studs may take getting used to but for traction on the steep Bay Area hills, they may be the ultimate now that full spikes are no longer available. For those that find them overkill, the Mudroc 280 appears to have something close to a conventional O-stud. James and I plan on checking out the 270 next.

Before the shipment arrived I discovered that Vladimir Gusiatnikov wears the 270 and 330. The meat of what he had to say:

From Vlad on 12/14
I have two orienteering-suitable pairs: Mudclaw 270 and Mudclaw 330.
Both are more of a running shoe than an O-shoe in terms of fit and feel. For my technique, the 270 is clearly better. The 330 is bulkier, the heel sits higher offthe ground, and is heavier. And, I got a huge blister with the 330.
The main benefit of the 270 vs. the Integrator or the Falcon is that it is stable on my feet. They don't rotate, and when they get wet, they keep the original shape. They are about as light as the Integrators. So, I would rather contour around a Bay Area hill in the 270s than the Integrators.
Neither the 270 nor the 330 has metal cleats, a clear disadvantage on wet rocks or slippery eucalyptus branches like last Sunday at Tilden.
Vladimir

And on 12/19
At 16:14 14 12 06, you wrote:
>Thanks for the feedback. I take it that you give the shoes a generally favorable recommendation. Any thoughts on durability? In looking at reviews, a common complaint is about shoes that "fall apart."

I don't know. Too early to tell. There are no signs of fallingapart in either shoe yet, after less than a month of use. When theydo fall apart, my Attackpoint log should give the fall-apart mileage.

>Do you see any advantage to the 330 over the 270 other than your fit? How about otherwise for support? Apparently it has more in the way of cushioning which may be counterproductive as to weight and stability.

Correct. I did the Muir Beach Trail Run in the 330s, and was happy about that over the 270s. On the downhills, the cushioning came handy. I think the steep, hard trails in the Headlands may be too much for the 270s. On the other hand, jogging at Bon Tempe felt fine in the 270s. In either case, I'd say I had a better experience in the Inov-8s vs. the Falcons or Integrators.
In summary, the fit of the Inov-8s may contribute to the feeling that you may go out of control on the downhills and the sidehills, but it's just the opposite. I was never close to twisting my ankle.
Vladimir