Inov-8 Talon 212 Is the weight a worthy trade-off?
- This topic is empty.
-
I tried out my Inov-8 X-Talon 212 shoes this weekend, on a 40 mile hike through varied and rocky terrain in temperatures approaching 90 degrees.
I'll be comparing these to my most used Inov-8 Roclite 285, since they are very similar.
Appearance:
I think they look sharp. I've never had another hiker comment on my footwear before this weekend.
They appear to be constructed almost entirely of a fine grey mesh. They even look a little delicate.
Looks can be deceiving, and as such is really my only complaint about these shoes.Breathability:
When I got them out of the box, I realized that they weren't really mesh. Well maybe of a sort, but not what we normally refer to as mesh.My experience seemed to back-up my impression, in that they really don't breath all that well. Better than many, but no where near as good as the Roclite 285.
To show this, I placed my light inside both shoes.
In a dark room, camera on manual, (shutter 8 sec, f 5.60) so that the auto exposure wouldn't try to properly expose the light coming through the mesh, I got this result:
Virtually no light came through. The light in the upper center is escaping around the edge of the tongue.
Compared to the Roclite 285, there is no comparison!
The Roclites look pretty porous in that pic, but I never get sand or dirt through the mesh.I hike in very thin sock liners only, and my feat sweated a little more than I've been accustomed to in the Roclites, but not nearly enough to cause concern. The real problem is that they don't drain or dry fast enough.
The material does seem to be very tough, and doesn't feel fragile at all.
Fit and feel:
I thought they felt a little confining in the toe box at first, but that went away quickly. I normally wear a US size 9 and ordered these (like my Roclites) in 9.5 and that is fine. Both shoes are narrow and hold your foot firmly over the sole. May take a little getting used to for some (and many order a whole size up to compensate).
The cut and fit seem to be virtually identical between these two models.I was actually surprised at how similar both shoes fit and performed (breathabilty issues aside), but the Talon 212 was noticeably lighter.
The X-Talon has one fewer eyelet than the Roclite and doesn't keep the tongue opening closed as well. Tends to bulge open a little between the first and second from the toe.
Weight:
While I noticed the weight difference instantly when I laced them up, it was not as much as I expected. As you can see in the pictures, I have installed Lock Laces on both shoes. I weighed them first but can't find the data, sorry.
Here are the weights with Lock Laces and the stock insoles.
Roclite 285 – 274g
X-Talon 212 – 241g
I don't understand the discrepancy in manufacturers specs here. The stock laces weigh about 3g and the Lock Laces weigh about 7g each, so that doesn't account for it. The insoles are different, about 3 grams heavier in the X-Talons. I like them better. Granted the ones in my Roclites are worn out, but they were never as nice as the ones on the X-Talons. I would like to order a set (the 6mm insoles are in the X-Talons).Soles:
The soles are also very similar:
The intermediate layer appears to be the same density and thickness, and the black sticky rubber appears to be the same. I could tell no difference between the two models as far as sticking to wet rocks on stream crossings. Both are absolutely fantastic in that department.
They both have the same groove in the sole to facilitate bending at the ball of the foot, but I wouldn't really call them flexible. They are fairly rigid and resistant to torsional twisting.
The tread "studs" are fewer and spread further apart on the X-Talons, making for a more aggressive design, but otherwise they appear to be of the same depth. I expect that this will impact the life span of the soles on the X-Talons. In the photo, remember that the Roclites have about 500 miles on them and the X-Talons only have about 40.
Longevity:
I don't expect an extended lifespan out of any shoe with a sole as soft and sticky as these two models, but I think the trade off is worth it. High performance tires, with a stickier tread compound perform better, but wear faster. Particularly, the X-Talons, with their widely spaced, aggressive tread, would not fair well on asphalt, before being ground away to nothing!The toe cap on the Roclite seems tougher and the heel cup seems more solid than on the X-Talons… perhaps that's where the weight was cut.
I have not had ANY construction problems with the Roclite 285 shoes (and expect none with the X-Talons), and if I can get new insoles, they will be my shoe of choice again.
In my case, the weight difference is not enough to justify the difference in breathabilty, and my perceived drying time, with the fit and traction being virtually identical.
I ordered a pair of the Roclite 315s and the 310s from Zappos. The 315s fit super small for me. I normally wear 12 1/2 to 13, I think I would have needed a 14 in the 315s.
The 310s fit great. I swapped the 315s for the 212s. The 212s definitely fit more narrow than the 310s. I took my little family on a dayhike this last weekend into the Narrows in the Wichita Falls Mountains wearing the 310s.
The 310s provided plenty of grip and seemed to grip as well as my old hardrocks on wet rock. I was carrying my MLD Ark with raingear and light insulating gear for 5 plus 5 water bottles. Along with the Ark I had 90% of the time my 25 pound daughter on my shoulders as well.
I have not worn the 212s any wear but on concrete and asphalt but they seem almost grippier than the 310s. They feel like the rubber used on the 5.10 and La Sportiva guide style of shoes. The fit feels slightly more narrow than the 310s or 315s. The best way I can describe them is soft shell gloves for your feet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
