Up until now, I have been a dedicated wearer of the Inov-8 Roclite 295 for my trail runs. This year, Inov-8 released a significantly updated version of the Roclite 295. In this review I share my first impressions of the new Roclite 295, comparing it against both the old Roclite 295 and the very popular Trailroc 255.
The bottom line: Inov-8 appears to nail the update to the Roclite 295. The Trailroc 255 provides a more protective option.
Typically when a shoe company updates one of its models, it does so with a lot of fanfare and discussion new technologies. Not so Inov-8 with its quiet release of the new Roclite 295 a few weeks ago. The specs on Inov-8s website indicate that the new Roclite has a 6mm heel drop instead of 9mm (in Inov-8 parlance, it is now a 2-arrow shoe instead of a 3-arrow shoe), but otherwise, they don't offer much in terms of describing the differences. I love the old version, so it was time to get hands on and see how things had changed.
So let's talk about the changes. First, this is almost certainly a lighter weight shoe. (Running Warehouse agrees: they weighed the old version at 10.5 oz, and the new version at 9.7 oz). So much for the claim that the shoe's model number represents the weight of the shoe in grams!
How was this achieved? First off, a much lighter mesh in the upper. The laces are also lighter, there is less of a protective rand around the front and the sides of the shoe, and the overlay material is thinner. My only concern is that some of this material feels a little plasticky and less likely to wear as well. We shall see.
Now lets move to the sole of the shoe. Not only does the new 295 have a lower heel, the overall height of the shoe has also dropped. I again turn to Running Warehouse for measurements. The old 295 measured 21 mm at the heel and 12 at the forefront, including the 6 mm lug height. The new 295 comes in at 17 mm and 10 mm. And yet, the shoe does not feel any less protective. I am not sure how this was achieved, but it may be through the use of injected EVA, which is becoming standard on new Inov-8 model. (The old 295 used standard EVA).
The fit of the Roclite 295 hasn't changed. A quick walkaround test suggests that the my toes will be happier now that the rand does not extend over the top of the toebox. I can no longer feel the cleats, and I suspect that these shoes will run better on pavement, when necessary. A slight concern is that the new 295s feel, less "sticky" -- perhaps the brightly colored rubber isn't quite the same, or maybe they just need to be roughed up a bit.
While the new Roclite 295 hasn't gotten a lot of attention, Inov-8's new Trailroc lineup has gotten a ton. There's plenty of information about them floating around the web, but I wanted to compare them side-by-side with the Roclite.
The biggest immediate difference is in the fit. Trailrocs are built on Inov-8s "Natural" last (formerly known as the "Anatomic" last). By contrast, Roclites are built on the "Endurance" last (formerly known as the "Comfort" last). Both provide plenty of room for the toes to spread, but from the heel to the midfoot, the Trailrocs fit like a tight glove, anchoring the foot firmly in place.
Underfoot, the Trailroc 255 has shallower lugs, but a thicker sole than even the old Roclite 295s. (Running Warehouse measures them at 22 mm at the heel and 16 mm at the forefoot). And indeed, they feel "high" to me. That height will provide protection, but at the expense of groundfeel. The sole is also narrower at the heel, so they felt a bit less stable.
The Roclite 295 is a much more flexible shoe than the Trailroc 255. In my hand, I can twist it every which way, which I can't do with the Trailroc 255. This is, part, because the Trailroc 255 includes a five-fingered shank (or rockplate) that extends all the way up to the front of the shoe. By contrast, the shank in the less protective Roclite 295 only extends midway up the sole.
As for the uppers, The Trailroc 255 seems to have a more substantial mesh. The rand is softer and more flexible, and the heel is also more flexible than in the Roclite 295. Frankly, the materials in the Trailroc 255 feel like they are higher quality, and I imagine they will get more miles before they wear out.
Inov-8's marketing suggests that the Trailroc line is designed for "dry and loose" trails, which makes sense given the amount of protection they offer. However, other reviews suggest the soles are good on a variety of surfaces. I expect that the deeper lugs of the Roclite will be better able to deal with mud, however.
I'll be running in the Roclite 295 because I appreciate its light weight, its relaxed fit, its ground feel and its suitability for a variety of trail conditions. Here in the southeast, I don't need the protection that the Trailroc 255 offers, and would feel constrained by its more substantial upper, especially when the weather warms up.
The bottom line: Inov-8 appears to nail the update to the Roclite 295. The Trailroc 255 provides a more protective option.
 |
| Roclite 295 (old version), Roclite 295 (new version), Trailroc 255 |
Typically when a shoe company updates one of its models, it does so with a lot of fanfare and discussion new technologies. Not so Inov-8 with its quiet release of the new Roclite 295 a few weeks ago. The specs on Inov-8s website indicate that the new Roclite has a 6mm heel drop instead of 9mm (in Inov-8 parlance, it is now a 2-arrow shoe instead of a 3-arrow shoe), but otherwise, they don't offer much in terms of describing the differences. I love the old version, so it was time to get hands on and see how things had changed.
So let's talk about the changes. First, this is almost certainly a lighter weight shoe. (Running Warehouse agrees: they weighed the old version at 10.5 oz, and the new version at 9.7 oz). So much for the claim that the shoe's model number represents the weight of the shoe in grams!
How was this achieved? First off, a much lighter mesh in the upper. The laces are also lighter, there is less of a protective rand around the front and the sides of the shoe, and the overlay material is thinner. My only concern is that some of this material feels a little plasticky and less likely to wear as well. We shall see.
Now lets move to the sole of the shoe. Not only does the new 295 have a lower heel, the overall height of the shoe has also dropped. I again turn to Running Warehouse for measurements. The old 295 measured 21 mm at the heel and 12 at the forefront, including the 6 mm lug height. The new 295 comes in at 17 mm and 10 mm. And yet, the shoe does not feel any less protective. I am not sure how this was achieved, but it may be through the use of injected EVA, which is becoming standard on new Inov-8 model. (The old 295 used standard EVA).
The fit of the Roclite 295 hasn't changed. A quick walkaround test suggests that the my toes will be happier now that the rand does not extend over the top of the toebox. I can no longer feel the cleats, and I suspect that these shoes will run better on pavement, when necessary. A slight concern is that the new 295s feel, less "sticky" -- perhaps the brightly colored rubber isn't quite the same, or maybe they just need to be roughed up a bit.
While the new Roclite 295 hasn't gotten a lot of attention, Inov-8's new Trailroc lineup has gotten a ton. There's plenty of information about them floating around the web, but I wanted to compare them side-by-side with the Roclite.
The biggest immediate difference is in the fit. Trailrocs are built on Inov-8s "Natural" last (formerly known as the "Anatomic" last). By contrast, Roclites are built on the "Endurance" last (formerly known as the "Comfort" last). Both provide plenty of room for the toes to spread, but from the heel to the midfoot, the Trailrocs fit like a tight glove, anchoring the foot firmly in place.
Underfoot, the Trailroc 255 has shallower lugs, but a thicker sole than even the old Roclite 295s. (Running Warehouse measures them at 22 mm at the heel and 16 mm at the forefoot). And indeed, they feel "high" to me. That height will provide protection, but at the expense of groundfeel. The sole is also narrower at the heel, so they felt a bit less stable.
 |
| Roclite 295 heel vs. Trailroc 255 heel |
The Roclite 295 is a much more flexible shoe than the Trailroc 255. In my hand, I can twist it every which way, which I can't do with the Trailroc 255. This is, part, because the Trailroc 255 includes a five-fingered shank (or rockplate) that extends all the way up to the front of the shoe. By contrast, the shank in the less protective Roclite 295 only extends midway up the sole.
 |
| Dig that flexibility! |
As for the uppers, The Trailroc 255 seems to have a more substantial mesh. The rand is softer and more flexible, and the heel is also more flexible than in the Roclite 295. Frankly, the materials in the Trailroc 255 feel like they are higher quality, and I imagine they will get more miles before they wear out.
Inov-8's marketing suggests that the Trailroc line is designed for "dry and loose" trails, which makes sense given the amount of protection they offer. However, other reviews suggest the soles are good on a variety of surfaces. I expect that the deeper lugs of the Roclite will be better able to deal with mud, however.
I'll be running in the Roclite 295 because I appreciate its light weight, its relaxed fit, its ground feel and its suitability for a variety of trail conditions. Here in the southeast, I don't need the protection that the Trailroc 255 offers, and would feel constrained by its more substantial upper, especially when the weather warms up.
 |
| Parting glance |
Joe, Thanks for the review. Is there any difference in shoe sizing between old and new roclite 295?
ReplyDeleteJoseph,
ReplyDeleteGood question! I've not been able to detect any difference. I wear a size 13, and the fit of both versions feels almost exactly the same.
Since posting this review, I've done a fair bit of running in the new Roclite and am really enjoying it. I continue to believe that the soles are a bit less grippy than the old version, but other than that it is light, flexible shoe that makes you forget you have it on. I have a few longer runs planned in the next several days, and after completing those, I'll put up some further impressions.
Thanks for dropping by our blog! If you do decide to try the update, we'd love to hear what you think.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your speedy response, I am considering to get new roclite for my long run training. How's trailroc 255 sizing compared to old roclite?
I wear a size 13 in both the Trailroc 255 and the Roclite 295, and in each case, the size feels "right". However, other people have suggested that the Trailrocs run on the small size. To test this out, I pulled the footbeds out of each shoe and measured them. Sure enough, the footbed of the Trailrocs is about 1/4 inch shorter, so they do run a little small.
ReplyDeleteJust as importantly, its worth noting that the shape of the footbed is different between the two shoes. INOV-8 describes the differences on their website:
http://www.inov-8.com/New/Global/Fit.html?L=26
This isn't just marketing - there really is a difference between how the shoes fit all the way around. I've described the differences a little above, but the only way to really understand the difference is to try them on.
Happy running!
This morning, we received the following questions from one of our readers:
ReplyDeleteHow would you judge Roclite vs Trailroc wrt. a course of mostly trail with some (lets say 20%) on asphalt/hard gravel roads? According to the hard/loose/soft barometer on Inov-8's website, Trailroc should win on hard surfaces, but the greater flexibility in the sole of the Roclite you mention seems like a win here. Are the lugs on the Roclite "too much" when hitting hard surfaces?
Another question: If you had to pick between the old and the new Roclite 295, with a price difference of about 30 % (current prices from Amazon UK), would the new version be worth the premium?
Good questions! It would help to know a little bit more about the particular trails you will be running, and also how long you will be running for. However, I feel that both shoes are suitable for a wide variety of trails, and can even handle pavement (although certainly not as well as a road shoe). The Trailroc 255 is much more protective than the Roclite 295. Many people prefer the extra protection on hard/loose surfaces, which may be why Inov-8 gives them the nod for those conditions. Personally, I stll prefer the Roclite 295, as I like to allow my feet to adapt to the surface underfoot. I don't find the lugs to be "too much" at all, and indeed, I'm not even aware of them at all, even on pavement.
There is also a very signficant difference between how the two different models fit. I would certainly try on both the Trailroc 255 and the Roclite 295 before making a decision, if you have the opportunity.
As for your question about the old and the new versions of the Roclite 295. I don't necessarily think of the new version as being "better"; rather I see them as two similar shoes, with some minor differences. The older version is a little bit more protective, especially under the heel), and the rubber is a little stickier in wet conditions. The newer version is lighter weight and more flexible. It really depends on which set of attributes you want. (I also suspect that the newer version is going to wear out quite a bit faster, so you should figure that in when thinking about costs).
I hope that helps! Let us know what you choose and how they feel!
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI have finally ordered Roclite 295 (new version) based on your valuable comments. I have just received the shoes. The fitting is just perfect and lighter than old model. Looking forward to running on these shoes. Thanks for your help.
I was wondering if somebody has compared this shoe with the Salomon S-Lab Fellcross?
ReplyDeleteWe've not yet had the chance to run in the Fellcross, though we'll post a review if we do!
ReplyDelete