4.7 out of 5
Great for trail running and trekking
March 10, 2012
This shoe has really deep treads, which are good traction for trails. I bought this shoe because I wanted a shoe to trek Patagonia. It's quite lightweight and has good traction. I'm a bit suspicious of how durable this is, but then again, I'm trekking Patagonia with full days of trekking in these shoes. After a week of trekking, I see that the really tiny small grips are worn off. The grip of the rubber is not as good as road running shoes, but it's not that big of a problem if you are looking for grip on trails. The tread size will take care of that.Pros: deep treads, looks cool, lightweight, pocket on the tongue, Cons: rubber is not as grippy as road running shoes, durability but i may be an unusual case
Excellent for trails!
March 09, 2013
The Xodus 3.0 is an excellent trail-running shoe, and for that I would recommend it highly. The Vibram sole is rigid enough to provide stability, but flexible enough to provide comfort on the trail. The pocket in the tongue is a great feature (every running shoe should have it). As another reviewer on this site noted, the arch area is a bit narrow - but for me that's a plus! I would have designed it that way. Finally, the configuration of the lace eyelets in conjunction with the mesh side panels create a shoe that conforms very comfortably with shape of my foot. The laces pull the flexible side fabric into shape. Something I noticed might be helpful to others. The 3.0 is excellent for trails, but the strengths that make it good for trails also disqualify it for running on pavement. You will need a different pair of running shoes for non-trail running. I found the rigid sole of the 3.0 to be too rigid for pavement - either it's too rigid or simply lacks enough cushion (not sure which). My joints take a beating if I wear these to run on city streets. Over the long haul, if the 3.0 is as good as the 2.0, you can look forward to a long life from these shoes. I had two pairs of of the 2.0 (see accompanying photo), and those are still going strong. I keep my running shoes way longer than any recommended interval - easily 10 times longer than recommended. Having said that, the 2.0 is still going strong. The 2.0 was a good shoe for both trails and pavement, but I have no qualms with the 3.0. I am going to keep the 2.0 for pavement, and deploy the 3.0 for trails.Pros: just-right rigidity, lacing conforms shoe to foot shape, width of arch area is just right, Cons: would not recommend for pavement
September 10, 2012
Cushioning felt great.Over all very well made shoe. I have a pretty flat arch and these did not work out, they are fairly narrow feeling in the arch area. I really liked them and wanted them to fit.Pros: very well made, well cushioned, Cons: narrow fit
Green/ Black/ Grey, Red/ Black/ White and Black/ Grey/ Orange.
Available sizes, while supplies last, include size 7, size 7.5, size 8, size 8.5, size 9, size 9.5, size 10, size 10.5, size 11, size 11.5, size 12, size 12.5, size 13, size 14 and size 15: 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5, 12, 12.5, 13, 14, 15.