Inov-8 F-lite 195 Shoe Review

Despite the fact that the Inov-8 F-lite 195 has been highly praised as a crossfit shoe since its initial production, and in fact Inov-8 itself now designates the model along with the rest of its crossfit specific line, I have felt the need to publicize my view of this shoe for its originally designed purpose - as a crossover trail running shoe. For a year and a half now, the F-lite 195 has been my go-to shoe for trail and mountain races up to marathon length, and for several half marathon to marathon length road races. I've also used the shoe some as a trainer on the roads. Despite having many other shoe options that I consider adequate for racing, I've continually turned to the F-lite 195 to carry me through a variety of surface conditions and distances, all while handling the intesity of racing.

The picture below was taken immediately after the F-lite 195s destroyed the old mining building in the background.

For those unfamiliar with the F-lite 195, it was originally produced as an ultralight trail running shoe with minimal features and a crossover tread that allows the shoe to perform on both trails and roads. It the exact same shoe as the highly praised X-Talon 190 with the exception of the outsole - while the X-Talon 190 outsole contains deep, widely spaced lugs to handle thick mud and wet grass, the F-lite 195 has lower profile lugs that handle basically everything else. At 195 grams (6.9 oz), it is one of the lightest running shoes on the market that is specifically built for trails, and is arguably (depending on whose measurements you trust) the lightest trail running shoe available with a foam midsole.

By my count, I've competed in 26 races while wearing the F-lite 195s. These races have ranged in variety from a cross country 5k to a road marathon, and every type of trail and mountain race imaginable within this distance range. In an effort to give a fair assessment of my experience with the shoes, I'd like to profile a number of the races that I've competed in while wearing these shoes, and use that basis to outline what I believe to be the highlights and limitations of the shoes. I'll say from the outset that I have never finished a race wearing the F-lite 195s and wished that I had chosen a different shoe. On the contrary, I have finished races wearing other shoes that I thought would perform better in the given race conditions and wished that I had chosen the F-lite 195s instead.

Xterra Beaver Creek Trail Race - July 2011
Distance: Half Marathon
Terrain: Dry, packed dirt mountain trails and roads typical to Colorado
Comments: This was the first race I ran in these shoes, and in fact was only the second time I had run in the shoes at all. This is where I first fell in love with these shoes. The course terrain was the type that I still consider to be what these shoes are ideally suited for - dry dirt trails without an over-abundance of rocks and roots, with substantial climbing and descending.

Pikes Peak Ascent - August 2011, August 2012
Distance: 13.3 mi
Terrain: Asphalt road, dirt road, dry trails, rocky trails, all uphill
Comments: For the last two years I've chosen the F-lite 195s for the Pikes Peak Ascent, and will continue to do so if I run the race in the future. The shoes have continued to prove themselves ideal for any type of dry conditions, such as are typical in this race. I should note that if I were to do the full Pikes Peak Marathon - both up and down the mountain - I would most likely choose a shoe with some additional protection for the downhill portion, such as the Inov-8 Trailroc 245.

Breck Crest Marathon - September 2011
Distance: 24.5 mi
Terrain: Dry alpine and sub-alpine mountain trails
Comments: This is the longest distance mountain race that I have completed in the F-lite 195, and was in fact the longest race of any type that I had done at the time. The shoes performed beautifully over the distance coupled with the substantial elevation gains and losses over the rough trails. If I were to run this race again today, I may be inclined to choose a slightly more protective shoe - maybe one with a rock plate - but certainly wouldn't object to relying on the F-lite 195.

Denver Rock 'n' Roll Marathon - October 2011
Distance: 26.2 mi
Terrain: Flat asphalt roads
At the time I ran this race I had been putting in some training miles on the roads in the F-lite 195, and had very comfortably raced a road half marathon in these shoes two weeks prior to the marathon, so the decision was easy to stick with the F-lite 195s. In the end, the shoes performed very well and were the best option that I had at the time for this race. Since this time I've begun doing all of my road training in the New Balance 730, which I've come to prefer for longer mileage on the roads. If I were ever inclined to run a road marathon again, I would most likely run in the 730s rather than the F-lite 195s simply because of my current adaptation to using these shoes for the roads.

Sportspectrum Trail Run - January 2012
Distance: 10 mi
Terrain: Flat, muddy trails
This was the first race I ever ran in the F-lite 195s where the terrain could easily be described as a mud bath. The flat mountain bike trails winding through the state park in North Louisiana had collected significant amounts of water from recent rains, and the surface had become a mixture of thick, sticky mud and loose, sloppy mud. Since I didn't have any other shoes with me at the time, my mind was made up for me as to which shoes I would wear, but I'm inclined to think that the F-lite 195s are the best choice that I could have made even if I had a wider selection. Given the option, I probably would have chosen to run the race in the X-Talon 190s because of their superior ability to handle thick mud, but I honestly don't know if I would have felt any more comfortable in those shoes than I did in the F-lite 195s.

Below, the F-lite 195s are seen guiding me to another race finish line, despite my best efforts to take all of the wrong trails and become hopelessly lost and off-route.

Based on my experience with the F-lite 195s, I've found that they are a superior option in a number of types of running conditions, distances, and terrains. For my preferences, the F-lite 195s are ideal as a racing shoe moreso than a training shoe. When training, especially on trails, I prefer a shoe that will provide more cushioning and protection, and is more of a comfort fit design. I'm willing to sacrifice these aspects to some extent when it comes to racing, so the "stripped down performance" nature of the F-lite 195 becomes ideal in these times. I see the F-lite 195 as being an ideal racing shoe for up to marathon length races, but would probably not be suitable beyond this distance for many people. The reason, once again, is because of the "stripped down performance" design of the shoe, which eliminates some protective and comfort features that become important in the longer distance races. The shoe is ideally suited for any type of terrain that can be described as "dry." While it certainly has the ability to handle mud, wet rocks, wet grass, etc... there are other shoes that are more specifically designed for these other terrains. Overly rocky courses have potential to cause problems with this shoe because it contains a thin foam midsole and lacks any rock protection, so the possibility of foot bruising is increased. The tradeoff of a lower weight, less protective shoe will become more significant on a rocky course the longer the distance is, and at some point (for me at about the half marathon to 25k distance) a more protective yet slightly heavier shoe will probably become ideal when racing on very rocky trails.

I have heard some complaints that the F-lite 195s lack good durability, but I find that they are largely comparable in durability to other high performance racing shoes, and in fact are more durable than many other shoes in their class. They are also very easy to repair when the high wear areas of the shoe begin to fail. I've found that I can usually count on getting 200-300 racing miles out of a pair of these shoes, with many additional miles of life remaining outside of using them for racing. Another feature of these shoes that I've always found superb is their ability to drain water quickly. This has been a very useful feature in races with lots of water crossings or standing water, and ensures that my feet will not be weighed down from hauling around excessive water loads in my shoes. On the whole, I consider the F-lite 195s to be an ideal trail racing shoe for the types of races I compete in most often. Only occasionally do I feel the need to supplement with a more protective or differently designed shoe as dictated by the course conditions, and I find the F-lite 195 to be largely suitable for most marathon and lower distance trail races.

Inov-8 Trailroc 245 Review

I'm a huge fan of Inov-8 shoes, particularly the f-lite 195 and Roclite 285 shoes. The f-lite 195s have been my go-to trail and mountain racing shoes for over a year now, and the Roclite 285s are fast becoming my primary trail and mountain training shoe. I've also raced in the Roclite 285s and X-Talon 190s several times each, and they both perform very well for racing in some of the tougher trail conditions that the f-lite 195s would struggle with. When I heard about Inov-8's new Trailroc line earlier this year, I was eager to see what they would bring to the table and have been anticipating their release ever since.

I spent a week testing the Trailroc 245s in Alaska over a wide variety of trail types and conditions. In addition to assessing the overall fit, feel, utility, and durability of the shoe, my attention in testing was focused on whether this would be an appropriate racing shoe for some of the longer, rougher trail races that I do where more grip and rock protection may be needed. In the past I have used the Roclite 285 for this purpose, but if the Trailroc 245 lives up to my hopes of being a more suitable racing shoe - lighter, lower to the ground, and more comfortable over long runs - I would gladly use it in some of the races where the lighter range of shoes does not provide the protection needed.
My review of the Inov-8 Trailroc 255s with focus on their use as a mountain training shoe can be found here: Inov-8 Trailroc 255 Review

Stock Photo of the Trailroc 245s - photo stolen from the Internet.

The Trailroc 245 shoes initially sparked my interest because they appeared to be a more rugged trail shoe built on many of the same principles as the f-lite 195 that I've been a huge fan of and have used extensively for both trail and road races. Some extra weight is sacrificed for the addition of a fully lugged outsole designed for rough trails, a rock plate for foot protection, and a slightly beefier midsole construction. These features all play to the advantage of the Trailroc 245 for being capable of handling poor and variable trail conditions better than the f-lite 195 or its' Inov-8 cousins, the f-lite 230 and X-Talon 190. The use of the anatomic last in this shoe also gives it potential for better comfort over a higher number of miles than the performance last used in the above mentioned shoes, and the 1-Arrow midole design means that the shoe retains the low heel to toe drop found in the f-lite 195 and X-Talon 190.

During my time in Alaska I put approximately 70 miles on the Trailroc 245s over a wide variety of trail conditions: dry hardpack, loose gravel and scree, sharp talus, slick packed mud, deep boggy mud, wet rocks and roots, packed snow, snow-dusted rock, wet grassy slopes, and standing water. In almost all of these conditions, the shoes performed admirably. In only a few fairly isolated cases would I have much preferred a different type of shoe to handle the terrain.

Before I get into the evaluation of the shoes over the different terrain types, it's worth noting that the sizing of the Trailroc 245 seems nearly identical to that of the other Inov-8 models I've used (f-lite 195, f-lite 230, X-Talon 190, Roclite 285, Road-X Lite 155, and Roclite 312 GTX). In my review of the Trailroc 255 I noted that the sizing felt slightly smaller than these other models, but this is not the case with the 245.

Below, my Trailroc 245s are shown ready to embark on their first run through the rainy expanses of the grassy fields and mud flats of the Alaska coast.

The advertising I've seen for the shoes seems to indicate that they were designed with more "American" trail conditions in mind than many of Inov-8's other models which have their roots in the terrains commonly found in fell running. Based on my experience, the shoes performed the best on both packed and loose dirt, dry and wet rocks, dry and wet grass, and some packed mud. The shoes also performed exceptionally well on uneven and abrasive terrain where the thick rubber lugs, rock plate, and midsole cushioning worked together to provide a huge amount of protection in a comparatively lightweight shoe. The outsoles don't have the level of grip required to truly control some terrains such as loose mud and snow as well as the X-Talon, Bare-Grip or Mudclaw models, but they act as a good intermediate to handle many of the variable conditions well.

The photo below shows the print of a bear next to the print of my Trailroc 245. The bear could probably squeeze into a size 6, but it looks like he would need some extended widths.

The Tri-C outsoles gripped most surfaces well, and I never had problems with the forefoot or heel area lugs slipping on wet rock or grass. The only times my feet slipped were when I attempted to use the lugs under the arch area of the shoe to step onto an elevated root or rock. The lugs had a tendency to slip in these circumstances, and I don't know whether it is the rubber compound used in that area of the outsole or the way that my weight was distributed while placing weight on this area of the shoe. I don't consider this to be a big deal since I don't foresee ever truly needing to rely on the arch area of the outsole for grip anyway, and had questioned why there were lugs in this area of the shoe to begin with.

When running through standing water and streams running down the middle of the rocky trails during some of the heavier rain that I experienced, the shoes seemed to drain and dry just as well as the f-lite or X-Talon models. In comparison to other brands of trail shoes, I consider these to be superior to most in terms of how well they drain.

The picture below shows an example of some of the rainy and wet conditions the shoes experienced. The creek running through the foreground of the picture is actually the trail.

The overall feel of the shoes was very impressive, with the anatomic last providing a very comfortable outline for the foot box. Although I have not done any runs longer than 20 miles in these shoes to date, I have no reason to doubt that they would remain comfortable over longer distances. As I mentioned before, the padding in the midsole and the protection of the rock plate worked very well to keep the potential for foot bruising to a minimum while still providing for a decent level of ground feel and flexibility. The light weight relative to some similar competing shoe models is truly impressive considering the amount of underfoot structure that is included.

While I was in Alaska, I ran the Lost Lake Run, which is a ~15.5 mile trail race through the mountains of the Kenai Peninsula near Seward. I'll cover the details of the race in a separate report, but in leading up to the race I was unsure whether I would prefer to run this race in the Trailroc 245s or the X-Talon 190s. In the end, I chose to race in the X-Talon 190s and feel that I made the right decision simply due to the weight reduction granted in those shoes. In the future, I plan to use the Trailroc 245 for some marathon and longer distance trail races, especially on courses with rough and variable terrain.

Below is the "after" picture of the shoes with the remnants of a week in Alaska all over them.

Inov-8 Trailroc 255 Review

Introduction

I'm a huge fan of Inov-8 shoes, particularly the f-lite 195 and Roclite 285 shoes. The f-lite 195s have been my go-to trail and mountain racing shoes for over a year now, and the Roclite 285s are fast becoming my primary trail and mountain training shoe. I've also raced in the Roclite 285s and X-Talon 190s several times each, and they both perform very well for racing in some of the tougher trail conditions that the f-lite 195s would struggle with. When I heard about Inov-8's new Trailroc line earlier this year, I was eager to see what they would bring to the table and have been anticipating their release ever since.

I will be reviewing the Trailroc 255 and 245 in separate posts, with this one being dedicated to the 255. My review of the Trailroc 245 can be found here: Inov-8 Trailroc 245 Review

Part 1: Trailroc 255 First Impressions

 

The most obvious changes to this shoe from other current Inov-8 trail models are the new tread, mesh, and overlay designs. I ordered the shoes in a US men's size 11, UK size 10, which is the size I wear in every other Inov-8 shoe model. As it turns out, the pair that I got are about 1/2 size smaller than what I would expect based on my past history with the shoes. They were not too small, but I didn't have as much gap in the toes as I might have liked. If I buy more of this shoe, I'll consider sizing up 1/2 size.

Let me back up and explain why I was so eager to receive the 255 model and what the basis is that I'll be comparing it to when trying it out. When I first started looking at the Trailroc line, I noticed that the 255 model looked suspiciously similar in design and technical specs to the Roclite 285. My thinking is that if the 255 is a good seller, Inov-8 may do away with the Roclite 285 since it is sort of an outlier in the Roclite line of shoes anyway. If this happens, I want to make sure that I either love the 255 enough to be happy making the transition to use it as a regular mountain trainer, or if I don't love the 255 I can be prepared to stockpile several pairs of the 285s if and when they're discontinued in order to hold me over until I find an acceptable alternative.

With that said, here's a look of comparison between the Trailroc 255 and the Roclite 285.

As promised by the specs, the shoes appear quite similar. The toe box of the 255 is wider than that of the 285 due to the anatomical last used by Inov-8 for this line. The 255 also rides a decent bit higher (specs say 4 mm) than the 285, and this is noticeable when running on hard ground. The mesh used on the 255 appears to be lighter and more closed than the mesh on the 285s. The feel of the mesh on the 255 suggests that it may not hold up as well to abrasion as the 285 does, but this is yet to be seen.

Both shoes use the 2 Arrow Shoc-Zone midsole design which is supposed to result in a 6 mm heel to toe drop. I have never felt that the 285 has as much drop as the other 2 Arrow designs that I've used, and this case is no exception. When I put the 255 on one foot and the 285 on the other and ran around in them, the drop in the 255 felt noticeably greater than in the 285. I put on one of my f-lite 230s (also a 2 Arrow shoe) opposite the 255 and the drop felt the same in both shoes.

The protection on the toe and upper of the 255 is something that I'm very interested in testing out to determine how it performs. In several of the Inov-8 trail shoes that I use regularly, namely the f-lite 195, f-lite 230, and X-Talon 190, the uppers are not reinforced save for the area immediately around the toe box. This results in the uppers wearing out and holes forming, usually in the forefoot flex area on either side of the shoe, as the shoes are subjected to abrasion from the outside, weathering of the mesh, and fatigue on the mesh due to forefoot flexing. I have not had this happen with the Roclite 285s because they include an extended tough protective layer further down the forefoot area of the shoe. As you can see in the pictures above, the protective material applied to the 255 supplies even more coverage toward the back of the foot than on the 285, however the material used is slightly different from that on the 285. I will be paying close attention to how this material holds up to wear.

The outsole of the Trailroc line utilizes three different grades of rubber in different areas of the tread for optimal wear. The tread itself is very similar to that of the Roclite line, however there are more lugs under the arch area of the foot. Whether these extra lugs will prove useful is yet to be seen but I would normally not consider this many lugs to be necessary.

Although the weight of the shoes is advertised by Inov-8 as 255 grams (9.0 oz) for the Trailroc 255, and 285 grams (10.0 oz) for the Roclite 285, the measurements by Running Warehouse are just about the opposite - 9.9 oz for the Trailroc 255 and 9.0 oz for the Roclite 285. Because I don't have a scale that measures this precisely, I can't confirm any of these numbers, but the weight in hand of the two shoes feels close enough that I can't tell a difference.

I will not go into the rest of the technical specifications of the shoe in detail. If you're interested in reading more about the specs, the Inov-8 website lists some additional technical details. Click here for the details on the Inov-8 website.

Part 2: Trailroc 255 Field Test Review

 

Friday evening I took a warm up run before the true test, which would occur Saturday morning. For this warm up I decided to do a side by side comparison of the Trailroc 255 and Roclite 285.

During the 5 mile side by side run, I confirmed my initial observation that the 255 does sit a little higher and has a slightly higher heel to toe drop than the 285. The 255 also has some extra cushioning that makes it a little softer of a ride than the 285. When testing out the grip while running downhill, the 255 seemed to grip the trails just as well as the 285 with no notable differences in stability.

Saturday morning I put the Trailroc 255s to the test along the Halo Ridge route on Mount of the Holy Cross. The terrain on the route consisted of several miles of smooth trails, several miles of rocky trails, lots of miles of off-trail scrambling across rough boulder fields, and some high alpine meadows. The many miles of scrambling across a sea of sharp talus blocks over the high ridge lines were a real test of the durability of the shoes, and of my lower leg stabilizing muscles.

I will caveat this to say that I would not expect for very many running shoes to truly be capable of holding up over a route such as this one. Extended scrambling through sharp rocks has a tendency to rip even very well built trail running shoes to shreds. That being said, the 255s held up very well to the punishment. In particular, the extended toe rand cover that provides protection to the uppers of the shoe held up very nicely despite taking a huge beating throughout the day. The one durability issue that I noted is that the toe edge of the outsole on both shoes began delaminating from the upper material. I don't consider this a big deal because I've had this happen with lots of different shoes and it's a $0.50 fix with some good two part epoxy. Usually I only have to make this repair once and it's never a problem again.

As Adam noted in his comment below, the extended toe rand material on the 255 has the capacity to cause some drainage issues, and this is something that I wanted to pay close attention to as I was testing out the shoes. I'm glad that Adam brought this up because I had forgotten to mention before that quick water drainage is the one slight problem I've had with the Roclite 285 that I was hoping would be improved with this shoe. When I crossed East Cross Creek near the end of my route on Saturday, I made sure to fully submerge the shoes and get them nice and soaked so I could find out how quickly they would drain. Unfortunately they didn't drain as quickly as I had hoped, and I had a couple of minutes of water sloshing in the toe area before it all got pushed out.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about the shoes that was evident during this trip is that the wider toe box and overall design of the shoe contributed to it remaining very comfortable through the entire route. I'm inclined to say that at the end of the day my feet were more comfortable in this shoe than they would have been in the Roclite 285.

Update - I have now put over 50 tough miles, including many off-trail alpine miles, on the Trailroc 255s. My overall impression is that I'm definitely a fan of the shoes and I think they're a great fit for some of the tougher mountain terrain. Whether they'll steal my heart away from the Roclite 285s is yet to be seen, but the odds are looking pretty good so far.