by Carsten Hoever

Introduction

This is the second part of a series of blog posts about the RunLAB fullbody running analysis offered by the Swedish running shoe company Salming. The first post, which was published on The Running Swede Blog, was mostly a general description of the RunLAB and the general experience. This post will focus more on the technology used in the RunLAB, the biomedical parameters which are captured, and the outcome of my own analysis.

It is usually recommended to attend two RunLAB sessions. The first one will identify aspects of the running form which can be improved. Based on these findings the runner will be given suggestions for form changes or special exercises. The second session is typically a couple of months later to see if improvements in running form have been made. Originally, I planned to write this post after such a second visit. Unfortunately, a recent marathon resulted in acute plantar fascia issues which so far have prevented me from re-visiting the RunLAB. This means that this post has to live without an assessment of whether I have actually improved my running form or not after my initial analysis (but some information about how a friend fared is given at the end of the post). I hope to be able to provide this information in an injury-free future.

Technology

Salming currently has two permanent RunLABs in the Swedish towns of Gothenburg and Stockholm (in the US the technology was also showcased at the  2015 Running Event (more info here).

The basis of Salming’s RunLAB is a treadmill-based motion capture system. The treadmill is a professional grade model from the Swedish company Rodby. The motion capture system is from Qualisys (yet another Swedish company). In the Gothenburg RunLAB this treadmill is located in the centre of the Salming flagship store. On the walls surrounding it, there are eight special high speed motion capture cameras (see Figure 1) which can take images at 400 frames/s. Attached to each camera is a strobe which emits infrared light pulses which are invisible for the human eye but can be detected by the camera. These pulses are reflected by a total of 35 reflecting markers which are attached to the runner’s body at key locations (see Figure 2), usually at “bony” places close to joints, but for example also on the forehead. By combining the two-dimensional images from all eight cameras the motion of all 35 markers in a three-dimensional space can be recreated. With the help of the very high camera frame rate this allows a very precise analysis of full-body motion during running.

Figure 1: One of the high speed cameras.

Figure 1: Markers attached to the runner.

In a post-processing step, this data is then analysed for key biomechanical parameters such as

cadence;
step length;
ground contact time;
flight time;
pelvis height, obliquity, tilt and rotation;
knee angle;
ankle flexion;
foot rotation (pronation, supination), and contact (heel, mid foot, forefoot);
frontal/sagittal ankle path;
shoulder–pelvis flexion, lateral flexion, rotation;
elbow angle, and path;
wrist path; and
contact in relation to centre of gravity.

Figure 3: The RunLAB treadmill in the centre of the Salming flagship store in Gothenburg. While doing the analyses you can actually see a running skeleton of yourself at the big screen in front of you.

Each RunLAB session has the runner being filmed for a couple of minutes at three different speeds which are chosen based on a recent 10k race time (see Figure 3). In addition to the filming, the runner is also critically observed by a trained running coach from Salming’s RunLAB team.

After the results are compiled into sets of animations, pictures and diagrams, the coach goes through all results and explains them to the runner. As a normative reference, the data is also compared to the average results of large number of tested Swedish elite runners. Based on the data analysis, a few key areas in which running form can be improved are identified. This might also involve the runner doing another session of running or doing some other exercises under the scrutiny of the coach.

Before finishing the session, the runner is also given some hints on how to work on the problematic areas. A couple of days after the session the runner receives a link to a detailed web report, see Figure 4 for a screenshot (a full example in Swedish can be found here), which presents all the data in a very descriptive way. More importantly, the web report also contains information about the identified weaknesses and some suggestions for corrective exercises. Note that the layout of the web report will change in the coming weeks; the idea is to align it more with Salming’s so-called Running Wheel philosophy.

Figure 4: Screenshot of the Swedish web report. And yes, they got my name wrong. ;)

My case study

The most insight into the full body running form analysis is probably given by going through the results of an exemplary RunLAB session. In this case my session shall serve as such an example. Due to the extensive nature of the full analysis, it is not possible to go through all recorded parameters in this post. Instead, I will focus on a few parameters which cover the complete range from “totally normal” to “surprising” and finally, and probably most interesting, to “problematic”. In case anyone is interested in seeing my full results, this is the webreport (again unfortunately only in Swedish).

Note: the following images are taken from a PDF version of the report which was provided to me by Salming for the sake of this blog post. The PDF is neither as nice looking nor as informative as the normal web report (see linked examples above) and only includes the raw data and no further analysis, but at least it is in English (which is seen as big advantage for the sake of this post!).

Here are some of the key findings:

Stable, symmetric core motion

We will start with something very boring, a part of my running form which actually is pretty “normal”, the shoulders-pelvis angles for the (lateral) flexion and the rotation. As shown in Figure 5, my results (the blue/green lines) are pretty much in line with the Swedish elite runners results (the grey area). My flexion is probably on the edge of being too high, but not in a way that this is something to worry about. Something we will come back to later is that my shoulder-pelvis rotation is a little bit too small at lift-off.

Figure 5: Results for the different shoulders-pelvis angles. COG is centre of gravity, and LFS and RFS are left and right footstrike, respectively. The blue and green lines are my results for the different speeds, and the grey shaded areas are for the reference. Arrows added by the author for clarification.

Heel striking – Do I or Don’t I???

Popular belief often has it that the root of all running injuries and inefficiencies can be found in two causes related to the feet: (over-)pronation and heel striking. Interestingly enough, there is not only a lot of confusion about the general importance of these features, but also a wrong self-assessment by many runners who put themselves into certain footstrike or pronation-related categories with firm conviction. The RunLAB analysis gives you all the data to finally prove these beliefs…or to shatter them. For the sake of brevity, I will only focus on the footstrike in this post and leave the pronation results out.

I am what some people would call a midfoot striker, i.e. my foot touches the ground more or less flat and simultaneously with both the heel and the forefoot. There is no discussion about this, that’s how it feels when I run and that’s what the wear patterns on my shoes indicate. Only…it is not true, as is shown by the measured floor contact angle in Figure 6.

For both feet initial contact is clearly with the heel, and not even close to an angle at which it could be classified as a midfoot strike (the green area in the plot). People often claim to “get on their toes” at higher speeds, but for me this is not the case: the foot contact angle gets bigger (i.e. I am more dorsiflexing/heelstriking) at higher speeds. There is an interesting asymmetry between my left and right feet: dorsiflexion at footstrike is consistently higher for the left foot, and only at the highest speed for the left one am I getting into a large negative floor contact angle (i.e. larger ankle plantar flexion). I wonder if this is the reason why, when racing, I tend to get hot spots at the tip of my toes, but only on my left foot.

Figure 6: Results for the floor contact angle. LFS and RFS are left and right footstrike, respectively, and SD denotes the standard deviation. The lines are my results for the different speeds, and the colored areas show what classically would be classified as heel striking (blue), midfoot striking (green), and forefoot striking (beige).

So, now that I am officially a heel striker, does that mean that my injury risk is larger? Most certainly not, for this it is for example much more important where my foot hits the ground in relation to the pelvis. Obviously, the RunLAB analysis also includes this data. However, I will spare you the details now (which can be found in the linked web report) – it should be suffice to say that my running form is fine in this regard.

Sitting all day

Above I talked about my relative shoulder-pelvis motion being within the norm. The same is also true for the pelvis obliquity and rotation, see Figure 7. Unfortunately, this is not true for pelvic tilt, where my pelvis is rotated way too much backwards; a very typical trait for people like me who sit too much. This messes up the whole kinetic chain and can lead to inefficiencies and potential issues such as overstriding or problems to get the leg behind the body.

Figure 7: Results for the different pelvis movements. LFS and RFS are left and right footstrike, respectively. The blue and green lines are my results for the different speeds, and the grey shaded areas are for the reference group of Swedish elite runners. For an explanation of the different lines and markers see Figure 5.

As it is often the case, the limited pelvic tilt is only the symptom of a cause which sits somewhere else. Based on his observations of me running on the treadmill and some extra exercises I had to do after the actual RunLAB analysis, Salming’s coach concluded that my limited pelvic tilt is caused by a very stiff upper back. Based on how I feel in my upper back when I do certain movements I am not surprised by this finding. It is, however, quite interesting when you are reminded that a problem which sits rather high up in the body can affect the running form in a substantial way. To increase my upper back flexibility, I received instructions for three special upper body stretches which I should include in the warmup before every run. These have helped considerably to reduce my perceived back stiffness. If this has helped with my pelvic tilt I cannot say right now as it is difficult to judge without an outside observer.

Additionally, my pelvic rotation is too high at toe off. This is the opposite of what was observed for my shoulder-pelvis rotation. This asymmetry means that the pelvis and the upper body are not really working together, leading to an unstable posture.

Excessively static arm motion

The second major critique that I got was that my arm motion is too static. This was partly related to not being relaxed enough in the shoulders and a slightly wrong chest posture. The major issue, however, is the elbow angle shown in Figure 8. Ideally, the angle should be larger when the arms are in the backswing behind the body, and smaller in front of the body. I tend to have a rather constant elbow angle irrespective of where in the swing cycle my arms are. Arm swing can affect the motion of the legs as well, so it is something important to consider.

I was told to be more aware of my elbow angle, especially at higher speeds, and that I should generally try to be more dynamic in my arm swing (but only the sagittal plane, not in the frontal plane, where everything was good). Following this advice, I can clearly say that my stride felt considerably more powerful at higher speeds. At lower speeds, however, I am struggling a little bit to find the right amount of dynamic motion. I very quickly get a little bit too dynamic which then lengthens my stride and lowers my cadence. More importantly, the correct arm motion will also help with getting my chest posture correct, which in turn will help with the position of the pelvis.

Linking things together

So, to sum up, there are actually some things which I need to fix in my running form, and somehow, they all seem to be connected:

· a correct arm swing helps to get a better chest posture and a better leg extension,

· a more flexible upper body is necessary for a better chest posture, and

· a better chest posture leads to a better pelvis posture and is necessary for the pelvis and upper body to work together in a symmetrical and stable way.

· This in turn will help me to have more control at faster paces which should also help me to get off my heels at higher paces.

Figure 8: Results for elbow angle. COG is centre of gravity, and LFS and RFS are left and right footstrike, respectively. The blue and green lines are my results for the different speeds, and the grey shaded areas are for the reference group of Swedish elite runners. For an explanation of the different lines and markers see Figure 5.

Conclusions

This post was my attempt to convey some of the parameters which are measured in a RunLAB session, and, more importantly, how these parameters can be related to more tangible aspects of the running form. I cannot stress enough that the few titbits I provided here are only a small part of the actual analysis. Furthermore, in the way I presented these few examples, there could be the impression that some few key parameters are sufficient for an assessment of a runner’s biomechanics. The reality could not be further from the truth. An assessment of the whole kinetic chain is only possible if the motion of all relevant body parts is considered. This is the great strength of the RunLAB, as it is a true full body running form analysis which looks at the runner literarily from top to bottom. Running dynamics data as delivered by wearable devices such as Garmin’s HRM-Run cheststraps or the RunScribe footpods can be very helpful, but it always only tells a (very small) part of the story.

The captured data is only a part of the reason why a RunLAB session can be such a valuable tool. The more crucial part is the expert coach who analyses and explains the data to the runner. Salming has very wisely decided not to put the data analysis in the hands of ordinary salespersons, but true experts in running biomechanics. The captured data helps the coach to make the right decision, and the visually appealing way in which the data is presented makes the analysis more accessible and more useful for the runner. The data and the coach complement each other in a perfect way: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Regarding the potential benefits of the analysis I would like to bring up the case of my friend Jay, who joined me for the first RunLAB session and recently had his second session. His initial analysis revealed similar shortcomings in arm motion and pelvis position as I have. In his second session he had improved in both of these aspects; he could now could start working on the next area (glute activation) to improve.

Now while I am pretty positive about the RunLAB in general, there are some aspects where I see limitations or problems with the approach. The first, and maybe biggest, it the fact that the test is under “lab conditions” on a treadmill. On average I do less than ten real treadmill runs per year (not counting the few minutes at the running store trying shoes). That doesn’t mean that running on the treadmill is something I struggle with, but each time I step onto a treadmill I also have the sensation that my running form is changing slightly compared to running outdoors. In particular, I have a feeling that I heel strike more. So we have the typical science dilemma here: you are trying to apply findings from an individual lab situation (the treadmill test) to the more general case (running outdoors) which might have slightly different boundary conditions. For most runners this might be of absolutely no relevance, but there might be also other runners who run completely different on a treadmill than they do outdoors. That’s not a problem with RunLAB alone, but basically all tests done on treadmills.

Another aspect is the choice of reference group. Right now they are comparing results against a set of Swedish elite runners. Probably a good assumption as it is likely that someone who runs fast also has a good form (though there are exceptions). Still, an elite runner is also a different beast than your ordinary 30km/week runner. My tempo pace might be an elite’s easy pace, and that can have implications on their and my form at that speed. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is a generally problem with this particular choice of reference group, but it’s always good to have the context in mind.

Then obviously, the outcome of a RunLAB session might have the runner trying to change their form, with all the potential implications that entails. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is still a mantra many deem valid with respect to running form as every runner is so uniquely individual in their biomechanics. On the other hand, certain “running form rules” are surely more or less universally applicable: e.g. you will have a hard time finding a runner who benefits from overstriding. Still, there is a risk that a form change might mess up your body in an unexpected way.

I also emphasised that the analysis is nothing without the coach. Right now Salming has experts working with the RunLAB who know their biomechanics and running form and can analyse the data appropriately. This is probably a more important problem for making the technology even more accessible than just the cost of the equipment. You absolutely need to have the right people to work with it. This is probably the biggest reason why we can’t expect RunLABs to open all over the world in the near future.

Finally, to put things into perspective, motion capture analysis of running biomechanics is not really something new. However, Salming can be complimented on making the technology and the expert assessment better available to the general public. The price is not cheap, but reasonable for what you get (at current exchange rates $220 for one session, or $330 for two), and not having to go a special testing facility (like a university lab) for the assessment but just your ordinary local running store certainly also helps.

Disclaimer

The RunLAB session was provided to the author free of charge by Salming Sports AB Sweden.

by Carsten Hoever

As a European running shoe geek you sometimes have to gamble. Some shoes only make it to Europe months after their release in the US, and some shoes never officially make it over the big pond. While it is usually not difficult to find a retailer willing to ship the shoe of desire over to Europe, it is costly (think international shipping charges, taxes, and customs) and there is no safety line: if you don’t like the shoe, or if it simply doesn’t fit, you’re screwed. Yet, sometimes there is a shoe for which you are willing to take the risk. For me, the Montrail Fluidflex II was my most recent shoe gamble.

If you don’t like to read lengthy reviews, you can stop here: I won the lottery, maybe not first prize, but maybe second or third, with this gamble. With a stack height of 15m/11mm (according to Montrail; Running Warehouse reports 22mm heel, 17mm forefoot) and a weight of just 8.3oz (238g), and, according to Montrail, “a close-to-ground feel that both flexes with the natural movement of your foot, and protects it at the same time” I envisioned the Fluidflex II to be a good replacement for my Nike Terra Kigers which were nearing the end of their life. After having run close to 90km on varying surfaces and all different types of conditions I have to say that this assumption was true: the Fluidflex II shares many of the ingredients which made the Kigers (and the Wildhorse) such a fan favorite. Let’s dig into the details, from top to bottom.

Upper Construction

The Fluidlfex II upper can be described as a simple, no frills upper which is more about functionality than appearance. That does not mean that the upper is ugly; the plain black/gray design is simply a (welcome?) contrast to the nearly psychedelic colorways of many other shoes these days. The upper consists of what seems to be two different types of mesh: a more open one over the front third and lateral side of the shoe, and a denser mesh for the the rest. Relatively little material is added to provide structure; there are some seamless overlays on the medial side and around the lower heel. There is also a small toe bumper to provide some protection for the front of the foot. The heel collar is relatively soft, and there are two small “pillows” inside the shoe on each side of the heel to prevent heel slippage. For me this feature worked very well, but I could imagine that this might not be the case for everyone. The upper breathes quite well and, accordingly, also dries relatively quickly after water crossings.

In contrast, the Fluidflex II upper lacks some useful features for tougher trail conditions, such as a randing or a gusseted tongue. I have not run enough miles in the shoe to comment on upper durability, but I would assume it to be similar to other shoes of its class. The fit is ok but not as dialed in as I would have liked it, i.e. for me not as precise as the fit of the Kigers. The upper volume is about average (or slightly above) and the toebox is of medium width, which for me was acceptable as it does not taper very aggressively and there is some stretch to the upper. I should add that I got the shoe in a US10 – if I had been able to buy it locally I certainly would have tried a 9.5 as well, so take my comments on fit with a grain of salt.

Midsole

This is sweet, oh so sweet. The Fluidflex II has a simple, full length EVA midsole (called Fluidfloam by Montrail) without any gimmicks. The closest comparison I can come up with for describing the midsole material is Adidas’s Boost material. The Fluidfloam is maybe less technologically advanced, but the basic ingredients of the ride feel quite similar: It is a slightly softer cushioning but there is plenty of responsiveness if needed. It is one of the few shoes which really work well for me at different speeds, and also surfaces.

The Fluidflex II works well on the trails, but I also wouldn’t hesitate a second to run long stretches of road in it. Compared to the Kigers the ride is slightly softer, with an equal level of ground feel but more flexibility, thanks to the pronounced flex grooves in the mid-/outsole. Obviously, the flexibility is also in part due to the lack of a rock plate. This again hints at the fact that this shoe is probably not designed for the most technical of all trails. Similar to Nike’s latest trail offerings the rear part of the heel is also slightly “lifted” or “rounded”, i.e. not in contact with the ground when standing in the shoes.

Outsole

The front third of the sole, the lateral part of the heel and small bit of the medial part of the heel are covered by Montrail’s Gryptonite flavor of sticky carbon rubber with relatively shallow cube-shaped micro-lugs. The middle third of the sole consists of exposed midsole foam with some grooves and hexagon-shaped voids.

At a first glimpse it is easy to underestimate this simple outsole design. Obviously it is not made for running on deep and soft surfaces (such as mud and snow). On most other surfaces, however, the Fluidflex II provides excellent traction (better than the Kiger or Wildhorse). Especially for wet rocks (and, to a lesser degree wet roots) the traction is among the best I have seen. I attribute this to three different aspects of the shoe design: the relatively small lugs are narrowly spaced, meaning there are many of them, which increases the contact area between shoe and the ground. The flexibility of the shoe, and the softness of the midsole material, also increase the contact area because the shoe can more easily adjust to the surface contours. Finally, in my experience exposed midsole material simply provides more grip on wet surfaces than most rubber compounds.

On the downside, the Fluidflex II shed mud slightly less well than shoes with wider spaced lugs. Wear might also be an issue – after roughly 90km I am seeing clear signs of wear under the big toe area. However, this is a typical high wear area for me and the Fluidflex have seen quite some road mileage as well, so I am not really concerned. I expect the outsole lifetime to be similar to the Kigers.

2015 colorway of the Montrail FluidFlex II

Conclusion

The Montrail Fluidflex II are rather simple shoes but in a good, “let’s just get the job done”, way. They are definitely one of the better trail shoes I have run in over the past year, so my gamble was well worth it. While they are not made for super-technical off-trail runs in the high-mountains, they are very well suited for fast or slow, short or long outings on groomed trails, runnable single-track or hybrid road/trail use.

The only real critique I have of this shoe is the fit of the upper which is slightly too sloppy for my feet. However, it is difficult to say if this is a general problem or if I simply should have gotten them half a size smaller. As a final point I would like to add that while the Fluidflex closely resembles the Nike Terra Kiger in the types of runs they are well suited for, there is actually another shoe which the Fluidflex constantly reminds me of: the Skechers GoRun 2/3, albeit without the midfoot bump and a trail outsole design. Both shoes have simple uppers, are very flexible, and have midsoles of comparable thickness, softness and responsiveness. In that sense the Fluidflex II could be a solid option for fans of Skechers road shoes.

The Montrail Fluidflex II can be purchased at Running Warehouse for the bargain price of $54.88 (on clearance since a new colorway is coming – see photo above). Use code RUNBLOG10 for an additional 10% off. They can also be purchased at Amazon.com for under $50.

by Carsten Hoever

The Inov-8 OROC 280 is a shoe I never wanted to buy. After two winter running seasons with way too many sidewalks, roads, and even trails covered in snow-turned-slush-turned-solid-ice I was fed up with running on the tread mill.

What I needed for the coming winter was a shoe with enough traction to get me through ice and snow at a decent pace. At the same time I needed a solution which would work both on trails and roads, and also when there was no winter-wonderland around: where I live in Sweden even in deepest winter there is no guarantee of ice and snow everywhere. These requirements pretty quickly eliminated solutions like Microspikes, Yaktrax, or simple screws. Icebug shoes were a possibility, and seemed like an obvious choice since the Icebug headquarters are about 200m away from where I work. Their running shoes are characterized by 15 or more carbide studs mounted to the sole in a way that they partly retreat while running over hard surfaces. On paper that sounded like the ideal solution, but in reality my rather narrow and low-volume midfoot was not compatible with Icebug’s high-volume upper shoes.

Thus the alternatives became interesting again. Shoes with metal or carbide studs are actually offered by a couple of companies (e.g. Asics, Inov-8, Haglöfs, Salomon, VJ) and for once living in Sweden was actually an advantage when buying running shoes. Orienteering (think off-trail running in the forest while doing your own map-based navigation) is quite popular here and studded trail-shoes come in quite handy while running over wet roots and trees, so there was actually a local running store where I could test some of the alternatives. At the end of the day I left the store with a pair of Inov-8 OROC 280.

For those of you not familiar with Inov-8’s OROC line, it consists of the 9mm drop OROC 340 and the 6mm drop 280 which ended up on my feet. Both models have a quite aggressive tread pattern. Six of the lugs in the forefoot and three in the rearfoot have an additional carbide stud which is attached in a partly flexible/countersink way so that they don’t wear too fast on the road. As with all Inov-8 shoes the number indicates the weight of the shoe, i.e. in this case 280g (9.9 ounces) for a size 42 (US 9).

The Good

Being my first pair of Inov-8s, the OROCs have been a pleasant surprise for me. They have many typical characteristics of a more minimal shoes without sacrificing protection or durability. They are more flexible than the New Balance MT110 or the Nike Terra Kiger without sacrificing protection. Inov-8’s flavor of a rock plate is called Protec-Shank; it also acts as protection against the impacts of the carbide studs. The upper consists of a pretty lightweight, yet dense and water repelling mesh with welded overlays around the midfoot. For greater stability and durability sewn overlays are used for the final eyelets, around the heel, and as randing over the area where the upper connects to the midsole. A toe bumper adds yet another level of protection to the front of the shoe.

Comfort-wise the shoe is a sweet surprise. The upper is amazingly comfortable with a nicely padded tongue and heel, a relatively flexible heel counter and a nicely snug but in no way constraining fit through the midfoot. However, the real surprise is how well everything comes together when you finally start to run in the shoe. The combination of the metal studs, deep lugs, the rockplate and a comparably thin midsole might indicate a lack of ground feel and a somewhat harsh ride but I have not found this to be true. Ground feel and flexibility are actually quite good and the cushioning is more than sufficient for typical trails but obviously not of the “cushy” type (think somewhere in-between MT110 and Pearl Izumi Trail N1). Surprisingly, I have had no real issues when running stretches of road in the shoes, though for me the cushioning is too firm to run more than a few km of road in them. Running on hard ground I never had any issues with being disturbed by the lugs and/or the studs (apart from the characteristic sound of the studs hitting the ground). Traction-wise there is no disadvantage when running on hard surfaces or even wet rocks as the studs can retreat somewhat into the lugs when the contact pressure gets too high.

You might have noticed that I have not yet covered their usefulness as winter running shoes. There is a simple reason for this: while North America was hit by cold, ice and snow, most Europeans had a very moderate, almost too warm winter without much snow. Over the course of the whole winter I have only been able to run roughly 30km in ice and snow, all of it in the OROCs. On these few runs the shoes have mostly performed well. The water repelling coating on the upper works well against snow, especially when paired with a gaiter. Traction is exceptional on packed or loose snow and rough ice patches, but only decent on glaced ice (where more studs would be needed). The deep lugs shed snow (or mud) very well. Under less wintery conditions, the studs especially make a difference on wet roots and wood which usually are super slippery surfaces for traditional trail shoes. With the OROCs you can tackle these obstacles without having to slow down the tiniest bit.

The Not So Good

After so much praise I also have to mention one big issue I have with the shoe: the last. The OROC is based on what Inov-8 calls the Precision Fit which “ensures minimal internal movement […] (and is) ideal for racing on any terrain”. From the heel through the midfoot the fit is perfect for my feet, snug yet comfortable. The problem is the narrow toebox. Maybe not road racing flat narrow but kind of close. While I can usually tolerate a narrower toe box on a road shoe as foot motion is typically less drastic and sudden, a lack of toe wiggle space becomes a real issue with a trail shoe.

I am also inclined to to say that the shoe drains slightly worse than many other trail shoes. Obviously that is a consequence of the durable, coated upper and its randing and honestly I don’t know what Inov-8 could do about it without sacrifices in durability or foot protection. For winter running the shoes would also benefit from some more carbide studs, especially close to edges of the sole.

Conclusion

In a nutshell I would say that I am very happy with my Inov-8 OROC 280. While I have not really had the opportunity to use them in the way I had envisioned (namely for winter running), I have found them to be an awesome shoe for faster, not too long runs on singletrack in wet forests. The more technical the trail the more these shoes shine. The OROCs are my shoes of choice for shorter trail races (up to 2.5 hours) where traction in difficult sections might be more important than comfort.

In the US the Inov-8 OROC 280 is available at Zappos (in colorway shown below) and Amazon. Outside of the US it is available at Sportsshoes.com and Wiggle.