Thanks for the follow up Eric. I will say the PI foam softens up quite a bit after 25-40 miles in them and the N1 is noticeably firmer than the N2 even out of the box. The other factor for why I prefer the N2 is that the rocker profile they have, I feel it actually just works better with a higher heel height (which I normally prefer a lower drop). I’d normally be right there with you if I had two comparable shoes, I’d go with the lighter one every time, but in this case the N2 just runs better/smoother to me for what they are trying to do and the N1 isn’t quite light/nimble enough to “feel” that much faster (even if it is lighter).

Regarding the N3, I’ve seen the specs from RW and I think they are not correct and the N3 will probably come in a fair bit heavier…I should have mine in in the next few weeks so can compare in person then. You might be right though that they might function as a better N2 and then the best option might be the N1 for a semi-light trail option and the N3 for cushion/protection. Time will tell, I do know they are updating the N2 with a v3 this July…the N1 won’t get an update till next Spring (though I haven’t seen heard anything yet…I just know it is not updated in their fall 2016 line). -David

Thanks for the response. I received my n2s about 5 minutes after writing that comment, and took them on their first run this weekend. I like them a lot, though I was surprised at how firm they were. Given that they aren’t particularly soft, I wonder if it’s actually the n2 that’s redundant. I understand youre reasons for preferring the n2, but if forefoot protection is roughly equivalent, the best option might also be to take the small weight savings and lower, more stable heel. In any event, I just ordered a pair of n1s so I can see for myself–hopefully I won’t regret it.

For more cushion, the n3 that you mentioned might replace the n2. Of course, according to Running Warehouse, the n3 has the same stack height as the n2 and weighs only 0.2 ounces more. So it definitely seems that Pearl Izumi has a problem with differentiation :).

I look forward to your eventual review of the n3.

Thanks for the comment. I did compare weights and they were about 25 grams different between the two. One caveat being though that this is in size 13 so I would guess the difference to be less in a size 9, although not as little as 7 grams, but maybe more like 10-15grams. That said, I do feel like they are a bit too similar as I say in my conclusion and yes end up recommending the N2v2 over the N1 for that reason. I have both the Kiger 3 and Wildhorse 3 and those shoes are more differentiated from each other than the PIs in my view. -David

The 240s are great too…just a bit more protection than 195s but same great fit and feel.

Topos have a snug fit, but I don’t find the arch that intrusive, but yeah not as open as something like and F-Lite which basically has zero arch structure.

THanks for the reply. Not sure about the Topos, arch sounds a bit high for me.

I’ve seen some flite 240s are still available in my size, are they more protective than the 195s?

Hi Ollie. Yeah the F-Lite 195 standard fit would be a decent choice (or 192 if you can find them still…one of the best minimalist shoes ever made IMO). Also you might check out the Topo MT-2: http://www.runningwarehouse.com/Topo_MT-2/descpage-TPMT2M1.html. Great shoe minimalist fit and ride at a good price and with an outsole that will handle everything from road to moderate trail just fine. I prefer them over the Merrell’s for sure. -David

They are indeed a shoe that performs well on most terrains and circumstances, but definitely feel more at home on dry and compact ground, at least in my experience. I don’t have access to really technical trails, but on more demanding terrain they aren’t as forgiving as other shoes with more structured uppers, and I need to pay more attention to foot position.

An improvement I’d really appreciate would be an overlay on the lateral forefoot, because the mesh covering my pinky toe often rubs against small bushes and is starting to show wear.

Regards.

I’m looking for a fairly minimalist trail shoe that still has decent protection.

Two models I’m considering are the Merrell Bare Access Trail and Inov-8 F-lite 195. Veering towards the F-lite as it looks like it can handle stretches of road. Does it have good enough protection for 10K training runs on trail though?

Terrain is a mixture of mud (though not bothered about grip), road and hardpack with some stones.

Thanks,
Ollie

Thanks for the continued feedback. I’d generally agree with your assessment and good to know the shoes feel a bit better after more miles in them. They really are pretty good all-arounders. – David

– if the mud is not too deep, I find the outsole provides me with enough traction to run with confidence;

– on wet rocks, though, the grip is pretty bad–it didn’t bother me much on flat or downhill terrain, where my foot just slides back a bit behind me, but on steep uphills it became unstable enough that I ended up hiking terrain I would have run otherwise;

– the N1s run pretty well on the road, even compared to road-specific shoes (IMO), and grip is not too bad on wet pavement . . . but on wet sidewalks the shoes felt really unstable (which might make me reconsider the Road N2);

– the durability of the outsole, though, is impressive, especially considering mine have seen some amount of pavement since I got them.

I’m liking better the way my N1s ride lately, maybe because the midsole is breaking down and compacting a bit, now the shoe doesn’t feel as high as before and ground feel and flexibility seem improved.

Great. Looking forward to your review. Thanks!