Cons?
Currently, it feels like the Terrex Solo is trying to occupy a middle ground between stocky/durable/stiff approach shoes (like the Five Ten Guide Tennie or the Salewa Mountain Trainer) and light/flexible/breathable approach shoes (like the Patagonia Rover).
I’d rather see Adidas either (a) stick with the synthetic/mesh upper and highlight the mesh, bringing down the weight significantly and putting an emphasis on minimalism and breathability, or (b) decide that they’re going to move towards warmth and durability and use leather/nubuck/etc. instead of synthetics.
I feel similarly about the sole: the Terrex Solo has a relatively flexible sole, and the shoe accommodates twisting and bending really well. However, the sensitivity of the shoe is relatively low despite this flexibility, largely because of the amount of its thick and cushy padding. Again, I think the flexibility is nice, but I’d rather lose some of that padding to shed some weight and reduce the profile of the shoe.
This would simultaneously address my last issue with the Terrex Solo: the large volume and high profile. The Terrex isn’t particularly light, weighing 14 oz in a size 9, though it’s not especially heavy, either. It’s on par with the Five Ten Guide Tennie, and even a few ounces lighter than the La Sportiva Boulder X. However, it is a relatively large volume shoe and takes up a lot of room in a pack or on your harness.
The comfortable nature of the shoe is a real strong point. But ultimately, the Terrex Solo wears like a running shoe, but just has too much weight and bulk to be used that way.
Fit / Sizing
The Terrex Solo runs true to size and fits great. I have a medium volume foot (for a size 13, anyway) and I found the Terrex to fit well without an excess of dead space. I have more room in the Terrex Solo than in the Salewa Mountain Trainer, and ever so slightly more than the Patagonia Rover. The Five Ten Guide Tennie is probably closest to the Terrex Solo in terms of fit.
Bottom Line
While the Terrex Solo is a cushy, comfortable shoe, I think Adidas could improve it by putting it on a diet and trimming down the profile. It’d still be quite comfortable but less bulky.
Hi Dave, 1 Question: How well does the sole grip on different wet grounds? Thx.
Good question: it does pretty well on wet ground overall. Granted, sticky rubber of the sort found on approach shoes really loses it’s magic once the rock gets wet, but the sole pattern on the Terrex (almost tessellated triangles, sort of like other “dot rubber” soles) is good at finding ripples and such in the rock. The smooth toe, which is good in dry conditions, suffers some when it rains, but not dramatically more so than other approach shoes. I’d sum up like this: If the Terrex fits you well and is a good shoe for what you’re interested in doing, it’s performance on wet rock shouldn’t deter you.
Thanks for the update. Yesterday, I bought the “big brother” of the solo, the scope. I was told that it would be the better choice for longer hiking, because the heelpart is more lifted. So I did a 4h Hike 5500 ft. up (1700 meters) and now I am not sure, if I choosed the right shoe: The Scope’s grip is fabolous, the precison is good (for that much cushioning) but the weight and the sole’s stiffness seem a little over the top for what I was asking (alpine approach, rocks, allround hiking, scrambling in not-so-wet conditions, light baggage). The sole is as stiff as in my mountain boots. Maybe it will soften up a little after a few more walks and scrambles. I am pretty sure footed, so for the moment I think, the solo would have been enough as a complement to my mountain boots. On the other side: I was quite impressed by the soles profile and the heavy-terrain capabilities of the scope. Maybe I will appreciate that in more challenging hikes and scrambles than yesterdays…
Thanks for the review! How do you think these shoes would do scrambling on routes with lots of scree?
Travis,
I had no problems with them in scree. If by “scree” you mean small grain sizes, closer to gravel, then these would charge up that stuff (provided you don’t mind dealing with a heavier shoe). If you’re thinking about smaller boulder-sized talus, then I might prefer something that’s a bit lighter and more precise for rock hopping, etc. In general, scree won’t shut these down.
Great review, thanks.
I’m wondering what you thought of the shoes when it comes to flexibility and ‘climbability.’ I’m used to the evolv cruzers and I really enjoy them for their sensitivity and relative sticky rubber. However, I’m hoping to buy a bit more of a durable approach shoe that still maintains the ability to climb pretty well since I tend to enjoy climbing routes as hard as 5.5 in my cruzers. When it comes to flexibility it seems unlikely that you’ll find anything more flexible than the cruzers but I’m wondering if these are even close or are they significantly more rigid and less sensitive?