Scarpa Atom

1. Scarpa Atom – weight 250 grams (8.8 oz) mens 9, 4mm drop, $119.00 (specs via Scarpa)

My first experience with Scarpa was with the TRU which I reviewed in a roundup last year.  Overall I like the fit and design of the shoe but found the midsole to be quite harsh.  My biggest worry about Scarpa’s otherwise great looking 2016 lineup was that the midsole material would be super firm like the TRU.  I’m happy to report that the Atom (along with the Neutron and Proton) all have much better feeling rides.  The Atom has really grown on me over the summer for technical mountain terrain.  It has a very precise ride that inspires confidence on tricky terrain.  The Vibram Megagrip outsole is fantastic and really ties together the otherwise pretty minimal shoe.  Additionally the upper is nice and secure while still being pretty comfortable and sock like. My only wish was that there was a small rockplate in the forefoot to help just a bit with some rock protection on harder surfaces.  It is pretty minimal overall and just every so often that fact is brought to my attention in really rocky conditions.  That said though, it is one of my favorite mountain running shoes ever and the best I’ve tried this year.  Go check them out!

Well padded tongue, lace pocket (yes!) and secure yet comfortable upper.

I did trim the midsole up a tad to increase sharpness…result was good.

The Neutron is also a great option, that while not as nimble, offers a ton of protection and is still precise enough for tricky terrain.  The Proton is very durable and protective and runs much better on hard terrain than the Atom or Neutron.  All in all Scarpa definitely hit the mark with their new lineup and quickly moved to the top of my list when I look for a shoe to handle technical routes.

Scapa Neutron – Great all around mountain shoe with tons of protection, traction and good upper comfort.

Scarpa Proton – super durable, good fit and not as clunky as it looks. Nice high mileage and more hardpack friendly option from Scarpa

2. Salming Elements – weight 277 grams (9.8 oz) mens 9, 21mm Heel/17mm FF, $140.00

Salming has been on a roll over the last couple years and they haven’t really introduced a bad shoe yet. At first I wasn’t sure they could carry the magic over to the the mountain running segment since it tends to be a niche that more technical/moutnain oriented companies better understand.  The Elements defies the odds though and Salming came through with a great shoe for steep, loose and soft terrain.  The fit is secure and yet quite roomy in the forefoot compared to many other mountain/fell running shoes.

A fairly wide toebox for a mountain shoe and good overall upper padding too…something not always present on mountain shoes.

Super deep lugs do well in soft terrain and the shoe is very stable and natural riding like most of Salming’s lineup.  Other than the slightly higher price tag (a common theme with Salming) I really can’t find too many issues with the shoe when you consider its end use.  I might also like a light rock plate on it like the Scarpa Atom so as to expand the type of terrain it can handle. I’m a big fan of plates for lower stack shoes since you can add a ton of protection at a low weight penalty and little change to the ride.

3. inov-8 Arctic Claw 300 – weight 300 g (10.5 oz) mens 9, 8mm drop, $150 (specs via inov-8)

Arctic Claw 300 on bottom and Arctic Talon 275 on top

Spiked mountain shoes are a very niche category and typically, other than Icebug, Salomon with the Spikecross and Merrell with the All Out Terra Ice, inov-8 has been the only other brand producing these types of models.  Arguably they’ve been doing it the longest, at least on a larger scale, and I’ve run in the inov-8 OROC 280 and 340 for many winters.  The 340 was and probably still is the gold standard for me in a spiked shoe.  However, one area that I’ve yet to see a company succeed is in making a spiked shoe with a roomy upper.  That was what intrigued me about the Arctic Claw 300 initially is that it is built on inov-8s wider Standard Fit where as all of their other past spiked models (and pretty much any other spiked shoe ever produced) has been quite narrow fitting.  The Arctic Claw comes through in providing a fairly roomy toebox but still manage to have the rest of the shoe perform with aggressive lugs, spikes and even, to some surprise, a little bit of cushion in a technical shoe.  If you’ve shied away from spiked shoes in the past for winter or very wet running because of fit, the Arctic Claw 300 is worth a look.

Arctic Claw 300 on right has a significantly wider toebox and midfoot fit than the Talon 275 on left…I like both but for different reasons

The companion Arctic Talon 275 is also quite good and more in line fit wise to the OROC 280 and 340.  inov-8 continues to do well in these more niche categories where as I’ve felt they’ve struggled a bit in making good all around trail shoes in the last few years.

4. Salewa Lite Train – weight 260 g (9.2 oz) mens 9, 18mm heel/12mm FF, $129.00 (specs via Salewa)

I was intrigued when Salewa introduced their Lite Train earlier this year.  It has a lot of features I look for in a mountain and lighter shoe (medium to low drop, rock plate, full outsole, secure lower volume upper but with medium to wider toebox) and I’m always happy to see new entries into my favorite shoe category, particular from companies with mountain expertise that haven’t yet taken a stab at a running shoe.  Of course along with this comes some growing pains and rarely do brands nail it on the first try (the Salming Elements above is probably the biggest exception to this rule that I can recall).  Mainly this comes in the form of the upper being slightly overbuilt with a very heavy and hot suede-like material lining about 75% of the inside of the shoe, backing the mesh.  This results in a very secure fit but the shoe is hot and the upper doesn’t move as freely with the foot as I’d like and is particularly an issue where the tongue is sowed on the upper which is very thick and has irritated the top of my foot.  The last shape is really good though and the foot hold is fantastic so some bright spots in the fit there.  The outsole is also quite nice with Michelin branded rubber which seems quality so far.  A forefoot rock plate adds just the right amount of protection for a light shoe.

Good last shape and overall a well done first attempt.

Really the biggest issue besides the slightly overbuilt upper is the midsole material, and thus ride, is sub par and is pretty noticeable compared to many offerings now on the market.  For shorter outings and on really rough terrain it is not as noticeable, but on hardpack trail the shoe just doesn’t inspired much in the ride department.  That said, I like the feel, ride and fit better than something like the Salomon Sense and Sense Softground so it really is not a bad shoe, just still room for some improvement.

5. adidas Terrex Agravic (and Agravic GTX) – weight 328 g (11.6 oz) mens 9, 28mm heel/22mm FF, $135.00

Agravic GTX

Man, I cannot tell you how high my expectations were for the Terrex Agravic.  I’d seen glimmers of greatness with the Terrex Boost (now call the Skychaser) and was hoping that the Agravic would essentially keep the good elements (great outsole and midsole/ride) of the Skychaser and address the upper comfort issues and produce in in a slightly lighter and more nimble package.  I tried everything to get the Agravic to work for me, including modifying the lacing and upper to get better security and relieved high lacing pressure issues but to no avail.  The Agravic upper simply is just not cut out for the job.  The EVA tongue design is awful, stops zero lacing pressure and is super sweaty on the foot.  The mesh is mostly comfortable but adidas chose to put a stitched overlay right at the pinky toe and side of the 1st metatarsal which are not comfortable.  Additionally, the upper just doesn’t hold my foot on the platform so taking advantage of the great Continental outsole is not possible.  The midsole, while similar to the Skychaser, is actually a little less precise, especially in the heel area which moves it in the wrong direction for me.

Agravic on top GTX version on bottom. Tried everything I could to salvage Agravic upper including punching new lace holes and removing the offending forefoot overlays.

Super thin eva tongue…a design I hope not to see again from adidas

A huge bummer, but I really can’t recommend the shoe.  I will say the GTX version doesn’t have all the issues of the regular.  With the GTX membrane it has more support in the upper and also the eva tongue isn’t full length like in the regular version.  I can actually see using the GTX version some this winter, but wouldn’t consider it in any temps above 35 deg F.

Up until last Summer and Fall, I hadn’t done much experimenting with different running shorts. Partly this was because I didn’t want to spend the money on something that I didn’t think could be improved upon that much, and partly because there just weren’t that many shorts that deviated from the basic short design with one zipper pocket and a basic material/liner. After meeting with some of the brands at Outdoor Retailer last year, they sent me a small selection of apparel to try out based on my preference for shorts with lots of storage and inner boxer liners. Below are the shorts I was able to try out. Disclaimer: All of the the apparel other than the inov-8 shorts were provided free of charge by the respective manufactures.

From Top Left to Bottom Right – inov-8 Race Elite 140 (my go to for last 2 years), Brooks Sherpa 2-in-1 7″, The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short, Dynafit Enduro Dry Short, Dynafit React Dry 3/4 Tight.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 (now called Race Elite 6″) – 6″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 1 gel pocket, 1 zipper pocket, elastic waistband. $65 available from Wiggle.com in UK.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 Shorts

I’ll start with the inov-8 since I’ve used it extensively over the last 2 years. It was the first short I’d tried with an inner boxer brief (as opposed to just a regular brief), and for long mountain outings that is super nice. The liner is very thin, not hot like you would think, and like many other heavier boxer liners are. I’ve done ultras in these with no need for Body Glide, and ran them at Western States where they were wet most of the race and had no issues. Also, the waistband is thick and elastic so I can get it tight to hold my Simple bottle, wind jacket, gloves and other things I want to stick in there without them falling down. The biggest downfall is the lack of pockets. Only one gel pocket on the back right side, and a small zipper pocket in the center. Still one of the best shorts out there, just hard to find in the US for some reason. (Running Warehouse Europe has the 2, 6 and 8″ shorts)

One small gel pocket on back right and zipper pocket center back.

Brooks Sherpa 7″ 2-in-1 Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium sized hip pockets, 1 back zipper pocket and 1 pocket on right thigh on liner, $64 and available at Running Warehouse

7 inches is about as long as I like for running.

I really enjoyed the Sherpa short. It has minimal, yet functional pockets, with plenty of storage for most runs, and the liner is very soft and comfortable without being too hot. It is also probably one of the better looking shorts out there that blend in a little more in the summer and don’t as loudly scream “Runner!” as some split road shorts do if you go get lunch after your run :). All in all, a great short for daily training and races, and probably the most versatile out of all the ones I tried as it works good on the road too.

Very comfortable inner brief liner and 1 gel pocket on right thigh.

The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium back hip pockets, 1 zipper pocket, 5 pockets on the outer thigh of liner (3 smaller on right, 2 larger on left), $65 and available at Running Warehouse.

Longest fitting short to me even though they are supposed to be 7″ like the Brooks. Very light outer material with a thicker liner.

The Long Haul Short gets the nod for the most storage of all the shorts I tried. The outer pockets are very similar to the Sherpa short by Brooks, but it adds quite a bit of storage for smaller food items on the outer thigh of each side of the liner. This concept was new to me before these two shorts, and my take away is that it works decent for small items like gels, but not so much for anything larger because then the shorts don’t move very well and look weird too. The Long Haul Short is better suited for colder Fall/Spring weather due to a hotter and longer boxer liner, and I don’t prefer how long the liner is (also 7″ so it comes right to the end of short – they do make these shorts and 5” and 3.5” versions as well). I prefer the liner to be a few inches shorter than the short so it doesn’t show when running, and also it holds less heat too. All in all a great short to carry quite a bit of stuff in cooler weather.

Left side has 2 larger pockets, right has 3 small gel specific pockets.

Dynafit Enduro Dry Short – 3.5″ inseam, 2 Large hip pockets and 1 zipper pocket on short. $65 for short on the Dynafit website and at Backcountry.com.

Shorter, near split short style with a great, light but tough fabric.

The Dynafit Enduro Dry Short is probably the best designed split, roadie style short that caters to the mountain/trail runner that I’ve come across. I used to run regular New Balance or Nike road shorts all the time and always had trouble putting gear in them because they usually have very little or no pockets, and are made of light and cheaper materials. The Enduro short has the best pocket setup of any short I’ve tried, with two super large back hip pockets, and one zipper pocket in the center. You can fit a lot of stuff into these pockets – they would fit windjackets, gloves, hats, burritos, etc. and not just gels. The biggest issue with all of this is that there is no drawstring on them!?!?! Thankfully, I’ve been told by Dynafit that it will have a draw string in the 2016 version, and I would highly recommend waiting till then to pick them up if you are interested…I sure will be getting myself a pair with the drawstring as they are definitely the best mountain short I’ve tried. They don’t have a boxer liner, but would probably need to be 5″ inseam or longer to realistically incorporate one. Regardless, such a great short for summer mountain outings in minimalistic style.

Huge hip pockets of stretchy material. Such a nice design.

Dynafit React 3/4 Tight -3/4 tight has 2 small hip pockets, 1 zipper and large right thigh pocket. $85 for the 3/4 tight again from Dynafit’s site.

Great fabric on them.

The Dynafit React 3/4 tight is equally nice in design as the Enduro short. The fabric is thin, stretchy and comfortable. It is also a 3/4 tight that that works in a range of temps from 35-55 degrees and will be awesome in the rain. My other 3/4 that I have I’d probably only wear up to 45 degrees as it gets too hot above that. The pocket design is great as well, with 2 smaller gel pockets on the back hip area and 1 zipper pocket in the middle. The most unique feature is a very large pocket on the right thigh. A thigh pocket on a tight is a fantastic idea, and doesn’t come with the problems of the the thigh pockets on liner shorts like the Sherpa or Long Haul Shorts above. Very cool tight, but again no drawstring to help utilize all the storage?!?! Unfortunately the 3/4 tight is not continuing in the line so there will be no updated version with a drawstring. I’m hoping to make one for them; they are that good.

Huge thigh pocket. Why don’t more tights have this type of design? Fantastic idea.

I’d love to hear what shorts work best for you when you have to carry a fair bit of items. Let me know in the comments below!

by David Henry

I’ve been looking forward to trying the inov-8 Race Ultra 270 since I first knew it existed back over a year ago.  Details at that point were sparse, but I already liked what I saw from the then soon to be released Race Ultra 290 (which made my list of Top Trail Running Shoes of 2014).

What I liked the most about the Race Ultra 290 was the versatility of the platform, and forgiveness of the ride even on roads (something that is not typically a strength of inov-8 shoes). I assumed most of these characteristics would be preserved in the 270, but with a lower stack height and heel-to-toe drop (4mm compared to 8mm for the 290), and a racier feel.  After many miles, including a 50k in January nearly out of the box, it unfortunately hasn’t lived up to my (possibly too lofty) expectations.  Read on to see why.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Race Ultra 270 weighs in at 9.6 oz in men’s size 9, and has stack heights of 17mm heel, 13mm forefoot.

Similarities to the Race Ultra 290: Outsole and Protection

I think it might be easiest to start off by detailing some of the things that are similar to the Race Ultra 290, and some things that aren’t.  First off, as the name indicates, they both share the Race Ultra outsole (typical of inov-8 who usually name their shoes by the outsole type).  It is a mix of various types of rubber that is harder in high wear areas and softer in lower wear and/or areas where more traction is desired.  I really like the outsole design for many types of terrain, and with over 300 miles on my Race Ultra 290 I know the durability is great as well as the performance.  It is nearly as grippy as the Trailroc 245 on loose terrain, but rides very well on hardpack or even roads.

Both the 270 and 290 also have the Gen III meta-shank, an embedded 5-fingered rock plate of sorts, that is also in the Trailroc 245 and 255.  This shank does a great job of protecting against rocks and also helping with foot fatigue on long efforts by providing longitudinal structure without making to the shoe as rigid as a single rock “plate” would.  Both the outsole and meta-shank are high points in the 270’s design.  Unfortunately, to me, that is probably where the greatness ends.

Differences from the Race Ultra 290: Midsole, Upper, & Fit

Although you can’t tell from a picture, the midsole feels quite a bit firmer and is less resilient (bounces back less) than the injection molded EVA of the 290 and other inov-8 shoes.

Moving on to the midsole you see the first big difference between the 270 and 290. The 270 is one of very few inov-8 shoes (the only other I know of is the F-lite 235, which is a purpose-built Crossfit shoe) that uses compressed EVA, where as most other inov-8s in the past have used either a standard EVA (mainly older models, but some recent ones like the Roclite 295/282/280) or injection-molded EVA (most of their current lineup including the Race Ultra 290). While the injected EVA is no adidas Boost or adiprene (my personal favorite midsole compounds), I find it on par with much of what is on the market today and arguably more durable (probably from inov-8’s use of full outsoles and denser midsole setups) than many of the compounds used on most modern road shoes.

I’m not sure I can entirely attribute the difference in ride between the 270 and 290 to the type of EVA used, but I’m also not quite sure what else to attribute it to. The 290 ran firm, but was still quite forgiving, and there was noticeable cushion on hardpack trails and roads. The 270 feels as if there is hardly any cushion at all, and runs quite rough to me on hardpack downhills and roads. This is not because of its relatively more minimal stack height as I’ve run many miles in the Trailroc 245, F-Lite 262 and others that have less stack height and they don’t run as harsh on these surfaces. The latter shoes run appropriately firm and minimal as expected.  It also doesn’t mean the 270 is not protective. It is quite protective from rocks, more so than the Trailroc 245 even, but its ride is definitely more unforgiving. I find this odd as on paper it should run closer to the Race Ultra 290, which is one of inov-8s most cushioned and forgiving models. The only thing I can attribute this to is the change to compressed EVA in the midsole.

Fit compared to my trusty F-lite 232s (on left).  Notice more bunching of upper of 270 and less conformation to foot due to thicker upper material and stiffer overlays/different shape in heel.

Let’s move on to the upper and fit. The 270 fits a little lower volume in the midfoot than the 290, but has a more spacious toe box feel. The latter is most likely due to the use of all welded overlays instead of the stitched rand of the 290. This was a positive attribute, and it looks like the 290 will be following suit in this regard when it gets an upper update this summer. However, that said, the mesh on the 270 looks to be two layers of mesh mated together – this differs from most of inov-8’s other shoes that use a simple, single layer of mesh.  It is much thicker/stiffer than the Trailrocs and F-lites and therefore runs much warmer than either of those. It is also noticeably less comfortable since it doesn’t move as freely with the foot. Furthermore, the heel collar is quite stiff, slightly higher than either the Trailroc or F-lite collars, and has a significant (for inov-8) counter in it.  I find it adequate, but not ideal and less comfortable by far than either the Trailrocs or F-lites.

Inside of shoe shows heavy duty lining material from midfoot forward which contributes to the hot upper and stiffer feel.  Granted they will hold up a lot longer, but I think that should be saved for the 290 with the 270 focusing more on lightness and race day comfort/heat management rather than long term durability.

Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations

Overall, the inov-8 Race Ultra 270 has loads of potential.  It was probably the shoe I was most looking forward to this spring, but in the end I feel that something got lost in the process of translating the 290 to a lower and racier platform.  I think part of the problem is the EVA midsole foam (compressed vs. injected), but I also feel that the upper design of the 270 is too conservative and ends up being more like the upper that the 290 should have. It just feels overbuilt for a racier shoe like the 270.

I think inov-8 needs to look at why a runner would pick the 270 instead of the 290, and for me it would be for a more racing shoe feel and fit with the rock protection, durability, and versatility that the Race Ultra platform brings. To achieve this I think the shoe needs to have a significantly more stripped back upper (like an F-lite or even the forthcoming Terraclaws) with a single layer mesh and the softer, more fitted heel collar that inov-8 typically puts on their shoes.

Comparison in heel design betweent he Race Ultra 270 (left) and the inov-8 F-lite 232 (on right).   In addition to the different shape there is a huge softness and comfort difference between the two with the F-lites being far superior in both areas.  Some may argue that the Race Ultra platform needs the upper support (which I would partially agree with for the 290), but I don’t think the 270 does, especially considering how low and wide it is.

Additionally, I’d like to see the 270 with injected EVA in the midsole instead of the compressed EVA that inov-8 decided to use. I personally feel this contributes to the downfall of the ride, and even if injected EVA is heavier than compressed the extra weight would be worth it to me. I make a similar trade off for Boost in adidas shoes, and generally the extra weight is worth it in the quality of the ride.

Despite my concerns, the Race Ultra 270 is still a really good all around shoe, but I would simply recommend the 290 instead because if offers a lot more shoe for a very similar weight (only 20 grams difference even in my size 13s between the two shoes) and features a much better ride.  If you want a more stripped back experience, something like the Trailroc 245 does a much better job while still giving the protection needed for rocky terrain.  I have faith that inov-8 will get this sorted and differentiate the two models better in the future but for now I, unfortunately, can’t wholeheartedly recommend the Race Ultra 270.

The inov-8 Race Ultra 270 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Wiggle (UK). Purchases form these retailers help to support this site – thanks!

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.

I’ve run in a number of Inov-8 shoes over the past few years, but I don’t have any of their more luggy trails shoes. In part that’s because I’d heard that their performance last tends to run a bit narrow and I was worried that the fit might not accommodate my foot very well (thanks to The Clymb I now have a pair of F-Lite 195’s and the fit is fine). Thus, when Inov-8 released the Trailroc line on their anatomical last I decided to take the plunge and buy a pair.

The Trailrocs come in three flavors based upon your requirements for protection and heel-forefoot drop. Per Running Warehouse, the Trailroc 255 is a 6mm, 9.9oz shoe drop shoe; the Trailroc 245 is a 9.2 oz, 3mm drop shoe, and the Trailroc 235 is an 8.3 oz, zero drop shoe. All three share a similar lugged outsole, but the Trailroc 245 and 255 have an additional rock plate for added protection. I debated long and hard about which shoe to order, and ultimately decided on the 235 after reading Ashwyn Gray’s comparative Trailroc review on the Another Fn’ Runner blog. Here’s what Ashwyn reports as the main difference between the two shoes:

“I mean, it would take a pretty sharp rock, probably one that’s attached to a high-speed drill, to inflict any kind of damage on your foot through the 245’s sole. And, you know that rock plate is there when you step. It doesn’t poke your feet through the insole, or anything. You can just feel the lack of feeling on the ground…

As a consequence of extra rock protection, the Trailroc 245 shares only a fraction of the 235’s flexibility. Don’t misunderstand, there’s a fine and flexible forefoot in the 245…

So, the Meta-Shank™ rock protection should really be the deciding factor for you here. Do you want a tough midsole that will keep pretty much every sensation of pointyness away from your feet? Or, do you want a shoe that twists and folds readily?

The 3mm differential in the 245 is really not as noticeable as I thought it would be. And, I consider myself fairly sensitive to those things.”

Given that I like flexible shoes, and that I don’t tend to run very rugged trails all that often, I opted for the Trailroc 235 even though I I’m a sucker for a blue and yellow shoe(must be my Swedish heritage…).

I’ve now run in the Trailrocs over just about every terrain I could find. Trails, acorn-sized gravel road shoulders, ice, snow, road, sidewalk, leaves, mud, etc. They have performed phenomenally well on all surfaces. I’d go so far as to say that they’re one of the grippiest shoes I have ever worn (keeping in mind that I don’t own any super-luggy shoes like some of the fell running shoes that Inov-8 makes) – traction is fantastic even on crusty ice and snow.

The sole is what really makes the Trailroc a great shoe. The lugs are prominent enough to provide solid traction, but flat and even enough that you can run comfortably on a flat, hard surface like an asphalt road. As a result, this is an extremely versatile shoe. Stack height is reported to be 13mm in the heel and forefoot, so it’s relatively thin – the shoe definitely feels firm underfoot. The rubber outsole is pretty solid and tough, and as a result I never found the lack of a rock plate to be a big problem. The 235’s offer a lot more protection than say the New Balance MT00, which is also a zero drop trail shoe without a rock plate. I’ve had no issues running over chunky gravel or ice in them – you will feel stuff underfoot, but it’s not the piercing pain you might feel when catching a rock in just the right spot in a less protective shoe. I haven’t run more than 5-6 miles in a single run in these shoes, so your experience may differ if you are a long distance trail runner (which I, as yet, am not).

As mentioned above, the Trailrocs are built on Inov-8’s anatomical last, so it’s a fit I am very familiar with from shoes like the Bare-X 180. The heel and midfoot are snug but not constrictive (midfoot fit is an issue for me with some of the New Balance shoes). Forefoot width is amply roomy, and the upper is stretchy enough to allow my feet to flex up and down without restraint. The upper material is a more traditional soft fabric, not the plasticky mesh that is so popular these days – this is a good thing, though I have seen isolated reports of it tearing in areas adjacent to the overlays along the mid-forefoot. There is no hard, plastic heel counter, just external overlays that wrap around the back of the heel. The insole is removable, but the footbed is not finished underneath so I have only used them with the insole installed. The Trailroc 235 runs true to size for me.

If I have one complaint about the 235, it’s a very minor, mostly cosmetic one. The toe bumper on the shoe is very small, and as a result the material at the tip of the forefoot tends to fold and crease as the shoe flexes. It doesn’t bother my feet, but it makes the shoe look a little flimsy up front. Oh, and the price ($120 MSRP) is a bit steep, but not that far off what other shoes in the zero drop trail shoe niche cost.

Summary

The Inov-8 Trailroc 235 is a grippy, zero drop trail shoe that provides adequate protection even in the absence of a rock plate. It works well on varied surfaces from roads to rugged trails, and provides a roomy fit that minimalist runners have come to expect in zero drop shoes. I think highly enough of this shoe that it ranked 2nd on my best hybrid trail shoes of 2012 list – highly recommended!

(Note – for those wanting an even more minimal Trailroc shoe, Inov-8 just release the Trailroc 150. I’ve shared some photos and my first run thoughts on the Trailroc 150 on the Runblogger forum.)

The Inov-8 Trailroc 235 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Zappos.In Europe, they can be purchased at Wiggle.

Lately I haven’t been running all that often in minimally cushioned footwear (I tend to prefer a small amount of cushion underfoot), but I still find value in doing some amount of barefoot or minimally cushioned running on a reasonably regular basis. I view these runs as form workouts, and I feel like they help to reset my system and force me to concentrate a bit more on my movement. The Bare-X 180 is a near ideal shoe for this purpose.

In contrast to my running preferences, for most of my non-running time I prefer shoes that are flat and that have as little cushion as possible. I have been zero-drop nearly full time outside of running for quite a long time now, and the Bare-X 180 is one of my top choices for casual wear – I’ve even worn it to work on a few occasions (like today – being a professor has its perks, and one is a tolerance for casual attire).

What I love about the Bare-X 180, and about most Inov-8 shoes for that matter, is that it’s a no frills shoe that serves its intended purpose very well. Inov-8 has done a fantastic job avoiding the whole “pronation control” model of footwear production, and instead makes a variety of shoes that vary in weight, last shape, cushioning, heel-toe drop, etc. There are combos suited to nearly every preference along the minimal spectrum, and the Bare-X 180 fills the ultraminimal, barefoot-style niche.

Weighing in at just over 7oz, the 180’s are lightweight, zero drop, and have zero cushion beyond the approximately 4mm thick insole. If you take the insole out, the only thing between your foot and the ground is a 4mm thick piece of firm rubber. Without the insole, ground feel is thus about as good as you will get with any shoe currently on the market. This is good if you like minimal material between you foot and the ground, but not so good if you plan to run anywhere near rocks or gravel – you will feel every stone!

The upper of the 180 is a fabric mesh that seems plenty durable, and the fit is fantastic. Sockless wear is no problem. The 180 is on Inov-8’s anatomical last, so it fits snug through the heel and midfoot, and has a very roomy forefoot. There is no arch support to speak of beyond the curling of the insole up the medial side of the midfoot – remove it and the shoe is flat internally. Flexibility is outstanding – this is a shoe that can be rolled up into a ball.

There’s really not much else to say about this shoe – it’s designed to be simple and minimal, and it achieves these goals perfectly. If I have one complaint, it’s that the rubber outsole gets a bit slick as it ages, so traction is not great, but then it’s not designed to be a trail shoe (and Inov-8 makes some awesome trail shoes – I’m absolutely loving the Trailroc 235). If you’re looking for an ultraminimal shoe, you can’t go wrong with this one, I’d put it right at the top of my list in the category, rivaled only perhaps by the Merrell Barefoot Flux Glove. Huge thumbs up for the Inov-8 Bare-X 180!

The Inov-8 Bare-X 180 is available for purchase in the gray/red colorway at Running Warehouse, and in a white/blue colorway at Zappos.

Recently, Inov-8 released a new line of shoes called the Road-X series. The Road-X line differs from other Inov-8 shoes in being specifically designed for road running (which is my most frequent running surface), and they are built on an anatomical last that provides a roomier fit, particularly in the forefoot. There are currently 3 shoes in the men’s Road-X line (one female shoe for now), and they present a gradation from less to more minimal. I like this approach a lot, as it gives people options for where they would like to jump into a more minimalist style shoe, and allows for a very gradual transition for those who plan to take it very slowly. Below are the three current Road-X shoes, with stats and descriptions provided by Running Warehouse:

Inov-8 Road-X 255

Description from Running Warehouse:

“When efficiency counts, run natural in the Inov-8 Road-X 255.  Utilizing a 9mm difference from heel-to-toe, this shoe offers runners a mild transition into the realm of midfoot style running. This low-to-the-ground performance trainer uses an ample amount of underfoot protection, which allows it to be worn as a daily trainer or racer. The Road-X 255 is lightweight, super comfortable and offers a responsive ride.”

Weight: 9.7 oz (size 9)

Stack Height: Heel (21mm), Forefoot (12mm) = 9mm drop

Inov-8 Road-X 233

Description from Running Warehouse:

“Inov-8, the original minimalist trail shoe brand, now makes great lightweight road shoes. The Road-X 233 is best suited for the runner who wants to move toward the less is more concept. With a 6mm heel-to-toe height difference and a low-to-the-ground foot position, the Road-X 233 is a big step toward minimalist road running without being at the extreme end of the spectrum.”

Weight: 8.8 oz (size 9)

Stack Height: Heel (17mm), Forefoot (11mm) = 6mm drop

Inov-8 Road-X 155

Description from Running Warehouse:

“The Inov-8 Road-X 155 is a lightweight, natural running shoe that offers the utmost in proprioception for the minimalist or elite runner. Unlike other Inov-8 models, the Road-X 155 doesn’t incorporate Dynamic Fascia Band but rather relies solely on foot strength from the runner. The Road-X 155 offers a 5mm heel-to-toe height difference that allows the runner to run in a smooth natural running style.”

Weight: 6.1 oz (size 9)

Stack Height: Heel (10mm), Forefoot (5mm) = 5mm drop (Inov-8 lists it at 3mm drop, not sure why the discrepancy)

My initial thought when considering which of the Road-X shoes to buy was to go for the 155 since it has the lowest heel differential and weighs the least – in other words, it would best suit my personal taste. However, one of the most common shoe questions I get asked in emails is for a comparable alternative to the Saucony Kinvara. The Kinvara tends to be a bit narrow in the forefoot for some people, and durability has been an issue for some as well. Some also don’t like the softness of the Kinvara’s sole. The 155 has no rubber on the sole, and is much closer to the ground, and is thus a step further toward the minimal end of the shoe scale from the Kinvara. Thus, for comparative purposes, I opted instead for the Road-X 233, knowing in advance that the heel differential would be just a tad higher than I typically like.

My first impressions of the Inov-8 Road-X 233 was that it was a good-looking, well-built running shoe. The upper of the 233 is made of a synthetic mesh, with overlays welded from the sole to the laces on either side to provide a snug fit around the midfoot. Aside from a flexible heel counter, there are no other noticeable stability elements in the upper.

Internally, the sockliner is thin, and there is only a small amount of contour under the region of the arch. The inner lining of the upper is soft and comfortable and allows for sockless running. My one complaint regarding internal comfort is the fact that the sockliner is perforated (you can see this in the photo below), and this causes some rubbing under my big toe (I have noticed the same problem with other shoes that have extensively perforated sockliners – e.g., the Scott T2 Comp). Swapping out the sockliner with one from another shoe is an easy fix for this.

In terms of fit, the last of the Road-X 233 matches my foot quite well. The forefoot is plenty roomy, and does offer a bit more space than that of the Saucony Kinvara, which makes this a viable alternative for those looking for a moderate-drop, transitional shoe with a bit wider forefoot. Among shoes I have worn, I’d say the fit is most similar to the New Balance Minimus Road or New Balance MT101 (perhaps just a bit narrower) – the latter is among the most comfortable shoes that I own.

The midsole of the Road-X 233 rides a bit closer to the ground than that of the Kinvara, and is considerably firmer. As a result, ground feel in the Road-X 233 is better – not at all spongy like the transitional shoes made by Saucony. The 6mm heel lift is noticeable, and if I had one complaint about the shoe it would be that there almost seems to be a a slight increase in firmness under the front half of the heel. This firmer area puts pressure on the region near where the plantar fascia attaches to the heel bone, and is quite noticeable when standing in the shoes.

The outsole of the Road-X 233 is ample and I would expect durability to be very good – unlike the Kinvara, there is plenty of rubber under the lateral forefoot to reduce wear in this region for forefoot strikers. Sole flexibility is good, particularly in the forefoot where the outsole is divided by what Inov-8 calls the “meta-flex” region.

In preparing my review of the Road-X 233 I took an unusual approach (for me) by running exclusively in this shoe for 2 consecutive weeks (about 50 miles). Overall, the experience was positive, though I found myself wishing the midsole was a tad softer. I actually prefer the softer midsoles of the low-drop Saucony shoes, but that is likely just a personal preference. If a shoe is going to be very firm, I prefer very little midsole at all (think Merrell Barefoot, Vibram Fivefingers, or Vivobarefoot Neo). If you like a firm midsole, then this shoe would be a great choice. Again, my only major complaint is the odd feeling firm region under the front half of the heel.

I view the Inov-8 Road-X 233 to be a competitor to shoes like the Saucony Kinvara, New Balance Minimus Road, and more traditional racing flats. In fact, in terms of feel it is much more similar to the Saucony Grid Type A4 than it is to the Kinvara, though the Road-X is a lot more roomy than the A4. It’s also a more flexible in the forefoot than the Minimus Road. Thus, if you are looking for a firm, reasonably flexible shoe with a moderate heel-forefoot drop and a fairly roomy fit in the forefoot, the Inov-8 Road-X 233 fits the bill nicely.

The Inov-8 Road-X 233 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.