Arc’teryx Acrux² FL Approach Shoe 1-Year Review

Easily a year after Arc’teryx entered the footwear market with the release of the Acrux approach shoes and Bora hiking boots, I finally feel comfortable giving a real review of the Acrux² FL approach shoe – and they have already changed their line-up quite a bit:

The Bora and Bora2 Mid GTX hiking boots are now also available in more-classical leather versions (in men’s and women’s);
the way-more-extreme Acrux AR mountaineering boot has been added (here available, online only, from REI via affiliate link as well, if you want to support me);
the Acrux line still features the Acrux FL and Acrux² FL (with non-removable or removable liners, respectively) and has been expanded with a more light-weight Acrux SL (“Super Light”) version;
and an Arakys approach/belay shoe has also been added.

I have  had my Acrux² FL with removable Gore-Tex liners for something over a year now, since their release; though to be exact, they are not the same shoes I showed in my preview:

The impression of a strange fit was due to them having been a bit too large; when I sized down slightly, things worked out better.

In fact, they worked out very well…

Arcteryx Acrux2 FL on trail 3

There are quite a few comments that the shoes run small, and they are certainly not wide in the toe box, but one also needs to know that the “Adaptive Fit” (especially in the version with removable liners) seems made to wrap around the foot rather tightly.

Where other shoes should offer a finger’s width in front of the toes, here the fit works best when the liner booty is almost snug with the foot, including the toes – think of it as something more like a sock, and if you have any chance at all, play around with them for a while to see where the sweet spot of sizing lies for you.

(When it comes to the shoes with a non-removable liner, I’d be more careful to get them a bit larger, but still only somewhere in between the size of elegant shoes and the “go up one number” often recommended for running shoes.)

So, I exchanged the Acrux shoes I got at first for a better-fitting size, and that version I’ve now had for a year, if not longer:

For a shoe that looks so plasticky, the Acrux had two surprises in stow:

One, less good but alright, was that the shoes felt like some breaking-in was required. They felt usable from the beginning but became rather more comfortable over time.

On the first longer hike with them, carrying my 40l backpack, for example, the edge of the one shoe’s liner rubbed my Achilles tendon open a bit. Later, this never happened again.

Secondly, they got scratched against rocks quite a bit, but there are very few if any traces of wear on the upper. I wore the Acrux² FL not just for hikes in the mountains but also as everyday wear, the sole got reduced a bit, but they still look pretty much as they did from the beginning, overall.

The Vibram MegaGrip sole is interesting, by the way.

It works very well on the terrain it is meant for, i.e. rocks, and it has been relatively abrasion resistant.

Arcteryx Acrux2 FL on trail 4

Wear does show, though, and the grip on the polished stone floors of our subway stations is like the grip of standard Salomon soles on ice: hardly any. (There’s a reason I love Icebug shoes for special conditions, but that’s a different story.)

The liner did develop a stink, and when it comes to that, I’m happy I have the version where I can replace the liners. And I should finally do so; even two washings in the machine and treatments with a shoe spray didn’t change much when it comes to the smell they developed.

(Maybe one should just put them in the washing machine a bit sooner, together with other Gore-Tex or similar sports stuff…)

The liners are not cheap, but still a lot less than a new pair of (such) shoes. So, +1 for long-term use.

Light downside: I thought about getting the non-Gore-Tex liners for the summer, but those are still only available (if at all) in red while the Gore-Tex liner is in blue and the piece of fabric that Arcteryx had to add underneath the lacing of the GTX Acrux² FL (to keep stones out) is the same blue.

So, unless I wanted to go for black shoes with a red-and-blue inner (visible under the laces and around the ankle), I guess I’ll need to stick with the Gore-Tex liner or get another pair of shoes.

[Edit: I just re-checked and found that actually, the liners are now (almost) all offered only in the newer “moraine” grey color. A bit of a mix-and-match of colors again, but making for a better combination than blue-and-red in black would have been.]

Of course, as so often, one pays for “The Bird” and the attention to detail that goes into their products. The Acrux² FL were and remain pretty expensive at around 270 dollars/250 Euro – but they’ve held up well and in more conditions than they were made for.

Arcteryx Acrux2 FL on trail 2

The newer SL shoes don’t have removable liners and are less tough – but also lighter – and are much more in line with standard prices for shoes, coming in at 150 Euro (USD 170 at REI, at the time of writing). In Europe, anyways, where all such gear is pretty expensive, that’s somewhat okay.

After a year with the Acrux² FL, I’m tempted to try those for my everyday wear, as well… and they’d even come in colors that would get noticeable but not too clownish. (The latest Acrux² FL is available in the “Big Surf” black-blue I have or with a “Genepi” neon yellow upper…)

If you’re in the US, you can get most models – except the Acrux² FL I reviewed here, as it happens – from REI and support me with the (affiliate-link) purchase:

Same (including the Acrux2 FL) with Backcountry.com:

Thank you and see you on the trails!

And what's your take?