Inov-8 is releasing a new line of trail shoes based on their anatomic last - a last with a wide comfortable toe box (finally!). What is particularly interesting about this line is that all models are based on the same last and sole, but feature varying thicknesses of midsoles allowing a custom feel according to personal preferences. You can go as minimalist as you like, and or slowly work your way down in heel drop. Listed from left-to-right: TrailRoc 150 (0mm drop, 0mm cushion), TrailRoc 235 (0mm drop, 6mm cushion), TrailRoc 245 (3mm drop, 6mm cushion), TrailRoc 255 (6mm drop, 6mm cushion). The various colors of the midsole represent different rubber formulas, allowing for more wear resistant compounds in high abrasion areas and stickier compounds where it counts. What remains to be seen is whether or not retailers will want to handle all the myriads of SKUs that will be required to stock the complete line in multiple sizes. Even though more choice is becoming available, will consumers really be able to find what they are looking for?

I think you're spot on with your questioning.

From a consumer perspective...I have only recently accepted the 'challenge' from my old way of thinking (heavy hiking boots) to the prospect of trail runners for hiking. As such, I have read a plethora of articles on the various brands...which are good, which are not etc. etc.

I am also led to believe that Innov8 are a fantastic brand, and would like to purchase some online (noone seems to have them here in Australia) however I am already lost on which one to get.

The more variations they bring out, the more I question which is the right one for me....it's fast becoming a 'too hard basket'.

Jase in Australia

The Shoeologist in Sydney carries Inov8 although not a wide range. That may not help you in Melb though :-)

The Inov-8 range is certainly becoming rather large. Here in NZ the main stockist only carries part of the range, so my choice is simplified. These certainly look promising. Not sure if the sole would be grippy enough but looks pretty good.

Just to clarify, where 0 and 6mm are noted as amounts of cushion, this actually refers to the insole thickness, ie. the 150 doesn't have one. The midsole thickness isn't disclosed on the Inov-8 website could be they even don't have one?

Dave

It may seem confusing, but Inov-8 is actually working towards simplifying their line. For this particular model the only decision you need to make is how much midsole and how much heel you want. If you are moving from hiking boots for the very first time, you might want to go with the beefiest version, and gradually work your way down the line (lighter and less cushioning) as you buy new shoes.

In my blurb, I specify 2 numbers: the drop (in mm) and cushion (in mm). The drop is the difference in height between the heel and the forefoot. The cushion is the thickness of the midsole. So the 150 has no midsole and no heel - incredibly minimalist. The 255 has 6mm of drop and 6mm of cushion which means the total midsole thickness is 6mm at the forefoot and 12mm at the heel.

Edited by dtougas on 08/08/2012 05:56:12 MDT.

@ Damien Tougas

Great advice...couldn't agree more.

I was planning on having the highest drop and cushioning, with a view to bring that down over time. I also think the process will do wonders for my ageing, problem feet.

I'm still yet to explore what this 'anatomical last' is, and determine whether it is right for me. I have a narrow foot, very straight last, with a reasonable amount of over-pronation.

So, which is right for me...the Flyroc, Rocklite, TrailRoc?? :-) I'm looking for high breathability, good cushioning, good drop....in a good all-rounder for grip (for all terrains), with a narrow heel box (I have narrow feet) that can accommodate thicker socks if need be (for colder climes & snow etc).

Anyways, back to the OP thread, I'm glad they're responding to an emerging concern. Smart.

@ Dale Whitton
Yeah, bummer. I did notice that Sydney did have a store that stocked Inov-8...perhaps it won't be long then until they hit Melbourne...if they haven't already got some sort of arrangement in the pipes. Although, it's a good excuse to get to Sydney for a weekend! :-)

Cheers
Jase

@jase

The anatomic last is one of the many good things that has come out of the minimalist footwear movement (of which I am a big proponent - see my site http://www.toesalad.com for more details). Many manufacturers - New Balance, Merrell, Inov-8, Altra - are starting to do it. Basically, an anatomic last means that it has a toebox that allows your toes to splay on impact rather then crunch together into a point like more traditional running shoes.

Inov-8 has three lasts: Performance (i.e. pointy and narrow), Comfort (i.e. less pointy and narrow), and Anatomic (i.e. the roomy toebox). Generally they all hold well in the heel (from my experience). A wide toebox isn't just for wide feet, it is actually optimal for foot health, so I personally try to steer people in that direction whenever I can. So, based on my personal bias, I would steer you in the direction of the TrailRoc 255 with it's anatomic last. If however you want more cushioning and heel than that, then I would say go with the Roclite with the Comfort last. Either 295 or 315 (the beefiest of the bunch).

Running Warehouse has available now the 35 / 45 / 55 TrailRoc's.

Looks like a good shoe!

Damian, have any impressions of the volume of the anatomic last? I can't wear the comfort-lasted Inov8s because my feet are too thin top-bottom, I max out the laces without ever getting them tight.

The last volume seems similar in volume to the NB Minimus last (or the NB MT-110), if you have tried either of those before. Inov-8 does make a 6mm insole that you can purchase separately for most of their shoes if you need to take up some volume (the standard one is 3mm). One option for you (if you don't purchase a thicker insole) might be to just cut out a piece of something the same size as the insole and put it underneath?

No matter how great those shoes are I would never buy any of them just based on the colors!

the color of the 255 doesn't look bad to me.

I just got a pair of 255's in the mail from Zappos. They are very similar in fit to the Roclite 295 which used to be my favorite shoe. But the 295 was always too narrow in the midfoot for me. The anatomic last solves this perfectly in the 255's. The 255 will probably be my go-to trail shoe. It's actually not that minimalist and offers a pretty reasonable amount of underfoot protection. My size 10.5 US weighs 10.6 oz on my scale. I did have to go up half a size from my Roclite 295 size.

Andrew

Mine came from Running Warehouse today too. These are my first pair of Inov-8s, but I've tried on all three lasts, and this one is my favorite by far. I could handle the Comfort Last, but it was just a little narrow for my tastes. The anatomic last fits much more nicely for my foot.

I too sized up a half-size from the Roclite 295. My 12.5 US weighs 11.96 oz (339 g).

Dave, what size do you wear?

Andrew and Clayton,

How did you figure out you needed to go up 1/2 size vs Roclite 295s? Order two pairs and send one back? Or is there another shoe on the anatomical last that you used as a benchmark? The shoe is so new the fit comparison tool has no data for it.

I'm a 10.5 in the Roclite 295 and F-Lite 195, but a 10 in the Terrafly 303. I would have ordered the 10.5 in the TrailRoc 255 but now I'm leaning toward the 11 based on your comments.

The Running Warehouse fit-sizing thing recommended the 12 for the Roclite 295 based on a previous shoe, which is my usual size. It felt just a tiny bit small, so I guessed and upsized based on others experiences with Inov-8 Roclite 285s, which I found to be small by half a size. Honestly, it was a guess but it worked for me.

If you're iffy, just order both sizes from Zappos or Running Warehouse where you get free return shipping.

My OROC 280s (performance last) are 11.5s, same as most shoes for me. I'm most interested in the 150s when they emerge.

I tried the TraiRoc 235 and 245 at zombierunner and have now taken the 245 out for their first run. For me, they size the same as the RocLite 295 and Flyroc 310. I expect I will know for sure in a couple hundred miles, but so far, I am thinking the 245 is going to replace the Flyroc as my go to trail shoe.

Edited by verber on 08/09/2012 11:44:08 MDT.

@ andrew fahrland

Sounds like a winner of a shoe.

How is the breathability of the shoe? Does it feel/look like it will allow for quick drying?

Cheers
Jase in Australia

@Damien,

I have been using the Inov-8 X-Talon 212's for a few years.

Do you see any reason for bouncing from these shoes over to the TrailRoc series?

I am primary a long distance hiker, sub 5 pound BPW.

Thanks,
-Abela

@John

The biggest reason to make the jump would be for the anatomical last (i.e. wider toe box). The next biggest reason would be the zero-drop heel. If neither of those has a lot of appeal to you, then I wouldn't see any reason to switch.

Hmmmm...just got my TrailRoc 255's from FedEX. I had ordered an 11 1/2 based on two things: I wear a size 11 street shoe, and my Scarpa Epics (and in fact all my hiking shoes) are 11 1/2's.

The TrailRocs are wildly too small: it hurts to put them on. I have no possibility of trying them on anywhere near central NJ. Am I well advised to go up a full size?

Thanks for any hints!

My local running store took delivery of a shipment of Trailroc 245s earlier this week. Today I went in and tried them for size. The awesome Shoefitr software doesn't have any data for the Trailrocs yet, but RoadRunnerSports suggests going up 1/2 a size (for men). I'd concur, although for some they may want to consider a full size up.

I started with US 10.5, which is what I wear in the Roclite 295s. The anatomic last felt both narrower and possibly slightly shorter in the toebox than my Roclite, which has gobs of space for my toes to spread when hiking. My forefoot was held in place in the Trailroc 245s in 10.5, and there was 1/2-2/3 of a finger's width between my big toe and the front of the shoe. Size 11 allowed me to spread my toes comfortably, and there was no risk of toe bang. I tried the 11s on the treadmill and brought them home.

These are my first "minimal" trailshoes, although I've tried Nike Free and VFF for road and grass in the past and given up on them. In recent months I've tried on many of the NB Minimus and Vivo Barefoot lines and found them all ill-fitting. Most were far too narrow for my feet. The Trailrocs fit as I would expect a real shoe to do, comfortably and without sections of the shoe bulging out when the laces are tightened. Aside from the fit of the Trailrocs, the sole looks to be a big improvement over the one on the Roclites.

Edited for typos.

Edited by lotuseater on 08/16/2012 21:21:37 MDT.

Where did they get those colors! Yeeks! I'd go blind, trying to wear those things. I'll stick with my Merrell Ventilators in sand and brown.

I've been running the MT110s for a while now and they work perfect for me except the lack of durability. I'm looking at the 245s as my main long run and race shoe for exceptionally rocky terrain. The 110s fit perfect, the only gripe I have is once the EVA foam crushes (which I could care less) the yellow outsole rubber began to peel back. So I've been looking for a worthy replacement until the version 2 comes out.

So can anyone comment if the 245 sounds good for my situation, if not can you recommend a different shoe please? I tried going with the brooks puregrit but they are too wide and feel sloppy. Tightening the laces so they feel less sloppy causes major top of the foot pain for me.

Have logged around 130 miles on a pair of Trailroc 245 so far. Thay have been a complete delight so far. If they continue to perform as they have been, they are going to replace the Flyroc 310 on the trail and the Roclite 295 everywhere else. Unlike everyone else, mine are sized the same as the 295 and the 310 and continue to feel like they fir perfectly, even after a long day. I wonder if part of this is that I have rather narrow, low volume feet... except my toes that need more room that many people.

> Where did they get those colors! Yeeks!

my 245s aren't quite that bright. I could do without the bright yellow, but the majority of the shoe is blue and black which isn't so bad.

That is my biggest beef with low profile trail shoes. It seems like the lower to the ground they get, the less rugged they make the uppers. The truth is that the closer to the ground your foot is, the more susceptible the mesh is to abrasion. I wish they would put the uppers of the 255 on the 150 and 135. Of course they would weigh more, but I really want a low profile shoe with a tough upper.

--

Brendan, I meant to PM you but couldn't as you don't have a PM address setup. For some reason when I went to reply to your post, I clicked the edit button instead and ended-up overwriting what you wrote. Totally a brain-dead move on my part. Sorry about that. The above paragraph is not Brendan, it is me. What I wrote was meant to be a reply, not replacement! Please feel free to edit it at any time and put back what you wrote. Sorry! -- Damien Tougas

Edited by dtougas on 08/21/2012 05:41:27 MDT.

Isn't that what the Bare grip 200 (and some of the X talons) are for? Never mind the uppers on the the 135/150, you'd really not want to use those sole units off road.

Some of the Walsh things mentioned in a group review a bit back do have *seriously* tough uppers, but their sole units wear very fast and only resole from Europe anyway so I presume not an option.

Martin, we weren't talking about the Bare-X lite series (135, 150) as those are road soles and, as you say, would not be appropriate for trail use. Inov-8 will be releasing a TrailRoc 150 (shown in the photo of initial post in this thread) that has a trail sole. It is similar in design to the Bare Grip 200, but has an anatomic last.

Matching weights even for extra confusion factor ;)

From a UK perspective mind, I'd only want this sole unit if planning for mostly roads/hard tracks and then I'd want some cushioning (like the 2x5's etc). For hills? Ok it'd look entirely respectable by the standards of most brands but......
(None of them fit my heel at all anyway so a moot point.).

Mildly off topic but does this mean that the Terra fly's are sort of doomed? I've never been quite clear what they're for.

My 245s arrived yesterday and I took them on a 14 mile training run over mostly hard packed, rocky terrain, here are my early impressions. I am impressed with the traction, comfort, and locked in fit. I already prefer them over the MT110s. The trailrocs fit my low volume feet perfectly, just like the Minimus last but a tad bit more room in the toe box. I purchased the same size I wear in Minimus Trail and the fit was spot on.

Traction was nice all around - from the hardpack, loose gravel, mud, and soft pine needled track I have no complaints. The upper was 'breezy' and after a small stream crossing they drained and dried pretty well. I do like the mesh upper more than the also nice synthetic 110 upper. I did not have any debris catch or snag the mesh on my run. Also, I did not notice any debris getting through the thin mesh yet or any hotspots. I absolutely love the outsole on this shoe! I just hope it's durable enough to justify the high price tag. I believe it will put the 110 to shame in this category.

In regard to weight, I didn't really notice a difference between these and the 110s. The lower 1mm drop of the trailrocs was not noticeable to me either. I did notice a difference with lack of soreness after my usual run which I attribute to the additional cushioning of the trailroc. Or maybe it's just because the EVA foam of the 110 was crushed after the first 30 miles on mine.

Complaints - the laces. I guess NB has just spoiled me. Those thick laces just don't come untied. I had to double knot the inov-8 ones. Toe bumper is pretty much not there, it could be beefier. I also wish the tongue was gusseted higher up, it doesn't want to stay put.

Overall I am very satisfied with this purchase. The fit really is spot on, and that was one of my biggest concerns. Now if the durability is there this could be my all around go to trail running shoe. I'm excited to take them out on my long run Saturday.

I do my running/hiking on fairly tech terrain (boulder foothills & indian peaks talus) & I'm wondering how ya'll think these would fair. For reference, I enjoy the grip & glovelike fit of the 110's but found them not protective enough after long days & on trails w/ lots of loose rubble.

"Designed specifically for running on loose, rugged and eroded trails."

Sounds like you.

IMO the uppers of the two shoes provide about the same amount of protecti0n.
The outsole is a whole different story...with the 110 after a few runs the midfoot really protects against nil, the 245s and 255s have rock plates and a continuous rubber outsole as well as 6mm of cushion. I think the 245s provide enough extra protection and cushion to get the win over my 110s as my mid to long run shoe. I'll keep the 110s around for shorter runs, they just feel more nimble.

Ok I am really hesitant to even post this... but I just gotta lol.

I have been using the Inov-8 X-Talon for a few years now (logged a couple thousand miles with them) so the idea of going to a heavier shoe - and one that does not have the uber-awesome lugs that the X-Talon has, was not something I thought I would even consider.

But...

I got my Inov-8 Trailroc 245s today and wowzer!!


I honestly cannot remember a time when I had a pair of shoes that I put on that just made me go "wow" - in a good way.

Initial impressions from a guy that has not put but a lap around the block with them:

The toe space!!! OMG!! I have already had to increase my shoe size by a full size and a half since I got into hiking because of toe squeeze and normal hikers foot flattening. But these things... I ordered a half-size smaller than what I would have if I ordered a pair of X-Talon based on the comments from folks so far. Glad I did!

The sides of the shoe provide the perfect amount of support - something I lost with my X-Talon because of having to size up for toes-swelling - so that very much rocks!

The toe room is just a glorious thing! I was able to walk AND wiggle my toes at the same time!! (giggle, sorry, getting excited here over a pair of shoes)

Cushions on the 245 seems near perfect. I should note I had on a pair of Darn Tough, 1/4 Sock Cushion (1714) socks... because they were what was on my feet at the time the UPS man showed up - so there was a bit of extra cushioning/padding taking place from them. But even so, very comfortable shoe to wear. Almost reminded me of the old brooks cascadia 4 when it comes to comfort.

I gotta agree, the shoe laces did not impress me. After having used the little rope-like laces of the X-Talon for the last few years, going back to 'normal' laces was a bit odd when I went to put them on. Given my block is less than a quarter of a mile, I did not exactly use them long enough to have them come undone.

It was a hard choice for me to go with the 245's over the lighter pair (235) but the desire to have a rock plate (of some sort) kind of won out. That has always been an issue for me with the X-Talon... heaven help you if you start getting into really sharp rocks. Going to have to go find a rock pile tomorrow and see how the 245's do in regards to providing some protection.

Overall, given I only put them on and used them for 10 minutes around the block (but given I've spent my time on-trail with other similar shoes) I gotta say, these suckers are impressing me so far!

lol, "toe freedom" should be the motto for these suckers!!

I have a pair of the Bare 210s and have been wanting a trail shoe to match now I have put some kms/miles on them, however was not after the narrow fit of the Bare Grips or the Cushioning of the 235s.

Is there any indication on when the TrailRoc 150 will be available? Starting to get itchy feet and don't really want to buy 235's in the interim.

Those colors are hard to get over, even if they help explain how the shoe works.

After roughly 150ish miles of abuse on very rocky trail the lugs on the forefoot of my trailrocs are coming apart. The search begins a new. I'm going to check out the La Sportiva X Country I think. This is a shame because all the other lugs look brand new, as well as the uppers. I could've swore I read somewhere that the rubber was more durable in forefoot part of outsole too...

The X Countries aren't really that durable either... though they are one of my favorite shoes anyway. They have less underfoot protection than the 255's since they have no rock plate (can't comment on the 245's.) Sportiva is discontinuing them, so they might be hard to find. They will be replaced in 2013 with the Anakonda which should be a pretty direct competitor to the 245/255 (rock plate, lugged sticky rubber outside, low drop, 9.5oz weight) and it should be much more durable than the x-country from the looks of it.

Thanks for the info. I will check them out. Guess I'll be able to get a pair of X Countries at clearance price soon! From what I read on them the uppers are lacking durabilty. I haven't had an upper fail me yet, just outsole.

Edited by Emilio on 10/25/2012 11:38:42 MDT.

I'd recommend checking out the 255s. I have a couple hundred miles on some 245s and was worried about how they were holding up on off trail stuff and picked up the 255s. They have less than 100 miles on them, so take it with a grain of salt, but they feel substantially more durable. The mesh is much heavier duty and the rand is awesome. They still feel nice and low to the ground and the extra "cushion" is nice and firm. I'm lovin' them so far.

Thanks for the response. I was under the impression that the rubber outsole was the same on all models. I thought they just differed in drop and the fact that the 255 has a more durable upper. Also I guess I should add that I am not hiking in these particular shoes but trail running so they probably take more of a beating.

Any idea what the Trail Roc 150's weigh? Sorry if this was mentioned.

For Inov-8 shoes, the model number indicates the shoe weight in grams for a US men's size 9 (UK 8).

I've owned a pair of TrailRoc 245s since they became available this summer. My second pair of Inov-8s, after the RocLite 295s. I like the 245s a lot, but wondered if the 255s would be more durable and more comfortable over a longer distance. No-one locally has them, so I ordered a pair from Zappos, in the same size as my 245s.

What I like:
- The toebox is just as good as the 245 - really comfortable without feeling sloppy.
- The mesh and rand are much more substantial. I think they'll hold up longer.
- Black and red are less of an eyesore than blue and lime.

What I'm not sure about:
- The sole is a lot more rigid, and has significantly less flex than both the 245 and the Roclite 295. I don't know how this will impact comfort on a rocky trail, but there's going to be less ground feel than either of my other shoes.

My dislikes:
- The heel feels a lot narrower than the 245. I don't know whether it's the extra padding (there is quite a bit), the greater heel drop, the more rigid met-cradle lacing system that extends around the heel, or the combination of all three. Put simply, it's uncomfortable after just 10 minutes wear.

The heel fit is different enough that I doubt whether the 255s will ever feel comfortable in the way that my TrailRoc 245s and RocLite 295s did from day 1. I'm almost ready to send the 255s back to Zappos. For those of you with the 255s, did they feel any better after a break in period?

It's out, and I'm seeing mixed reviews on running sites. People are unhappy with the uppers, I read.

But I'd love to hear BPL opinions!

I have a pair on the way, but haven't tried them yet. When I know more I will let you guys know what I think.

Looking forward to hearing your insights, Damien!

And all other takers, of course!

first a note about the trailroc 245 and durability. I am on pair 4 now. I have gotten between 400-500 miles out of them which has been a mix of street / asphalt trails / gravel (50%), hard pack dirt (40%), soft trails (10%). In each case I wore the forefoot lugs down to nothing before anything else gave out. The uppers did great on 3 of the pair. One of the pair have the black toe cap start to separate / fray after around 200 miles but the shoe held together structurally.

I just got my first pair of 150 so they only have around 30 miles on them so far. They fit me as well, if not slightly better than the 245 and my beloved 310s. When walking I can make out the lugs because there is basically nothing between them and my feet. It's a bit like wearing 5-fingers except there isn't the enforced toe separation and they have better traction on mixed terrain. The fabric uppers are much less air permeable than the 245 or flyroc or 5-finger KSO :( On the other hand, I expect they won't collect seeds and other plant material which went right through and poked my feet.

The laces seem to be the same as the 245... but for whatever reason they haven't come undone with single knots which seemed to happen every day that I didn't double knot the 245s.

The colors have not yet grown on me. Ironically, I have had numerous people tell me they love how the shoes look. I guess there is a market for these colors, but I long for much more muted colors.

--Mark

Edited by verber on 05/02/2013 16:02:54 MDT.

Mark,

Thanks for your observations on how well multiple pairs of 245s have held up, as well as early impressions of the 150. Any reason you bypassed the 235?

I recently purchased a second pair of 245s, this time in the new colour for 2013 - red/black/grey. It's definitely more muted than the original colour. I notice two material differences between them - the upper mesh is finer in the red, and the perforated insole has been replaced by one that is slightly thicker and non-perforated. I'm curious whether either impact how well the new pair drain water and/or how much dust gets inside.

Here's a side by side comparison:

The new red 245 has the same mesh as the 255, which is about 500x as durable as the blue 245 mesh. It's insane that they think they have to put different mesh on every shoe. Figure out the best one and use it.

Ack.. I am no more fond of the red than the blue/yellow. How about a nice black/grey like the 295s?

Why did I bypass the 235? Not sufficiently different from the 245 to justify giving it a shot since the 245 has been working really well for me. The 150 is rather different, so I thought it would be worth a try.

--Mark

Thanks Mark,

You're not the first one I hear to complain about the uppers on the 150. One thing is poor breathing, but have you noticed crinckling over the toes? Some people even find it a bit painful. And do you find the toebox wide enough?

There is a bit of crinkling over the toe box, but not so much that it effects me.

--mark