UKC

My approach shoes (Scarpa Crux) are beginning to fall apart. They've lasted a few years, so I've no complaints about longevity. The obvious choice is just to replace them, since I've been fairly happy with them, but they aren't great at edging, or on wet mud/grass.

They aren't generally going to be used on very long walk-ins, but will be used for easy climbing (up to HS-ish / F6b), and in the UK and Kalymnos (so I don't want something super heavy and warm), and I mainly climb on limestone.

I've also been looking at Scarpa Zen Pros (and maybe Zodiacs), both of which look like the tread would work better on mud and possibly edge better. Any recommendations, or should I stick with the Crux?

Thanks.

In reply to whenry:
I used Crux for a while, but would echo your thoughts about them. Finally went for and tracked down a pair of Zodiacs and am delighted with them. Very supportive, excellent edging and much better on mud, wet grass etc. Feel like they will last much better than Camp 4s which I also liked ( except for lack of durability). Only downside is that they may be a bit too chunky for some tastes, but overall seems a very good shoe. John.

In reply to whenry:

I have been on Camp 4s for the past few years, but they are now defunct. I have bought Crux and not impressed, so I am thinking of a pair of Innov8 running shoes

In reply to whenry:

Scarpa Zens are very good but heavy

In reply to whenry:

Resole them?

In reply to whenry:

Thanks for the advice all - resoling isn't really worth it, as the sole are in reasonable nick, but the uppers have got a couple of tears in. Zodiac's seem to be as rare as hen's teeth, so will probably go with the Zens.

Henry

In reply to whenry:

If you had older Crux (2013?), I found the newer Crux to have a slightly better sole, but the laces are terrible. I have moved to Zens too, quite happy overall but they really feel heavy compared to the Crux.

In reply to whenry:
I'm on my second pair of Zen. As mentioned they work fine in mud and they edge great (for a walking shoe), especially when tight fit. First pair lasted a couple of years when the sole was worn beyond repair. Second pair was the Pro version and the upper suede slit along the stitches pretty quick. Probably because of the tight fit and too thick socks. I have used this pair more than a year now, had the heel of the sole repaired a few months ago, and they are now ready for replacement. I think I want them blue this time.

Edit: Yes they are pretty heavy.

In reply to whenry:


Really?
http://www.outside.co.uk/shop/Zodiac
http://www.v12outdoor.com/product.php/8642/scarpa-zodiac-lake-blue
http://www.climbers-shop.com/10906033/products/scarpa-zodiac-approach-shoe....

In reply to Lenin:

That's like saying I loved my Landy Defender, but hated the Freelander, so am considering a TVR.

In reply to John R:

I would be interested in the sizing between the crux and zodiacs. The crux are good and light for short walk ins and light climbing but I find them to hard underfoot for longer hikes. So I'm thinking of the zodiacs also. Size wise how do they compare with the crux and fit wise? Thanks.
Sean

In reply to Sean 1 Both Crux and Zodiac are size 44. Crux are a very relaxed fit allowing quite a thick sock which is great for walking (helps cushion the very thin and unforgiving sole) but much less good for climbing. Zodiac at the same size are much more snug, but work much better for both activities in my opinion. I use a thinner sock, but find them comfortable, well cushioned and excellent for edging. Not so sensitive for smearing, but if I'm on that sort of terrain I've usually already switched to rock shoes. Hope that helps, John.

In reply to whenry:

Cruxs are brilliant. No need to change them.

In reply to John R:

I've had a pair of Zodiacs for 18 months now. They have been great, I had a pair of cruxes before them so can compare directly.

The uppers of the Zodiacs have not lost any shape and are still pretty solid. It's a sock like fit which is still precise because the uppers haven't stretched. Underfoot they are in a different class to the crux, more like a light boot with the upper cut down. The soles of which were pretty soft. You don't feel any pebbles through the Zodiacs sole. I got mine perhaps a half size too big(42.5) and have only ever done VF in them, for which they were fine. If I'd got 40s I think I could do moderate routes in them. (Though they are not anywhere near as good as my old Sportiva Riockjocks for that purpose).

They aren't waterproof which is disappointing for a shoe that expensive, (and they are quite heavy) nevertheless they are quality footwear. I'd recommend them.

Steve

In reply to whenry:

Don't mean to hijack your topic whenry, but thanks to whenry, JohnR and Steve S Blake, the zodiacs sound just the type of shoe I'm after.