@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.