2013 inov-8 Roclite 295s

–

I went through several pairs of roclite 295 and 315, all older–circa 2009, 2010. Tried a pair of the '12 315s in my usual size and was totally dismayed by the build and fit. What I loved about my old inov-8s was how flexible they were right out of the box; no break-in necessary, very unrestrictive fit. With the newer ones, the last does indeed seem much narrower, and the sole and toebox are so stiff! I never had issues with durability with my old inov-8s, so I don't really understand the beefed-up materials. I put them on, walked around, and felt like I was wearing soccer cleats. No dice. Sent them back and now I'm wearing a pair of Saucony Peregrines (with the insole removed) that I picked up on super-clearance. It's a decent, somewhat minimalist shoe with decent traction. I remember when the same thing happened with Montrail after they were bought out by Columbia; what used to be a great shoe became unwearable. But as far as I know, inov-8 is still an independent manufacturer, just making poor design choices.

What a bummer. That's my favorite hiking shoe and I don't have a spare pair waiting around for my current ones to wear out.

"[T]he Comfort last is no longer anywhere near as generously sized."
Looking at Inov-8's website, it appears they no longer use the comfort last. The 295's are now built on the Endurance last, the same as the old Roclite 319s.
The risk of failure on the seam wouldn't bother me much, since I find the sticky rubber sole wear down long before the uppers start to fail. I have read, though, that the upper material is more tightly woven and less "breathable" on the new model, and this would put me off.

Not to derail this TOO much, but my new Salomons came in a few days ago and they, too, are different enough that I'm sad. Why do they do this????????????

"The 295's are now built on the Endurance last, the same as the old Roclite 319s"

Wow their website leaves a lot to be desired. The text on the product pages still refer to Performance, Anatomic and Comfort, as do the filters to select products by fit. But the Fit page and the symbols on the product pages have switched to the new classification.

Looks like I'll be sticking with Anatomic last models, and then only buying in person.

Hey guys, planning on giving the roclite 295s a try. I'm switching from the keen targhee ii mid GTX — find them to be too warm/sweaty and figured I'd give trail runners a shot.

Any issues using the 295s with a 25-30 lb pack? Open to other shoe recommendations as well.

Thanks!

I like mine and haven't had any issues with them yet but they are still new. I went from the 315's to these so I can't comment on the fit compared to last year's model.

I've worn the Roclite 286 GTX for years, and the newest pair I received I sent back as well. I used to put them on right out of the box, and be able to walk out the door. When I put a new boot sole-to-sole with my old boot, the toe box was longer and more narrow, and there was less room in the instep too. When I wrote Inov-8, they said they hadn't changed anything. The shoe shows otherwise. The Roclite 335 for women fits, much, much better, but is a little too roomy–I hope my foot doesn't slosh around and create blisters. It's a woman specific last on their Endurance fit, so it's intended to be more roomy in the toe-box.

They are also discontinuing the Recolite 190–my boyfriend's favorite lounge shoe!

I'm guessing Sales has no idea what Development is up to.

This response is directly from the shoe designer concerning the updated Roclite 295 fit:
"All I can really say is that the last is the same so the volume is the
same. The stitch and turn construction of the toe box designed to be more
durable does mean that the shoes in the toe don't have as much give.

It's always best to try shoes on so I can't say for sure if they should
size up. We are however reverting back to the old construction for next
production based on similar fit feedback.

Thanks
Graham Jordison
Design Manager, Invo-8

Good news. It's nice to see a company listening to their customers.
Thanks for posting this, Ken.

Glad to see INOV-8 listens to their consumers and adjusts products to their preferences.

I think all their shoes this year were butt ugly and looked cheap.

I have older terroc 330s that I love
I have flyroc 310s that I love. Thank goodness I bought 2 pr.

All the new ones just look like crap.
Less breathable fabric instead of open mesh
Toe fabric doesnt look like it would flex right, looks like it will wrinkle on top
molded plastic reinforcements on sides of the shoe instead of sewn webbing strips.

Colors that are pretty much awful for some models.

I think they make too many models of shoe now as well. Way too many.

This wasnt a year for subtle changes, they totally changed models that were popular and that people loved.

There is only one possible reason, to make them cheaper.

I did not see any boot design on the web-site at all, in any category. I'm hoping it's a temporary take-down, because they are fixing the mistakes they made in design this year and that they will be back up for 2014–but I'm apprehensive that they are completely going to nothing but running shoes. And, hopefully, fixing the colors on their shoes–yikes!

Apparently the grip on the new models isn't great either.

http://www.nielsenbrownoutdoors.com/2013/07/slip-slip-slipping-away-review-of-inov.html

I have the last pair of the old style 295s I could find in the air to NZ as I type. Along with my newish current pair I should be OK for some time.

"…We are however reverting back to the old construction for next
production based on similar fit feedback.

Thanks
Graham Jordison
Design Manager, Invo-8" (sic)

From what I can see on their website and in stores, inov-8 haven't finished selling that last Roclite 295 production run. They've toned down some of the more garish colours, but have continued down the path they embarked on last year.

If Altra would make me a shoe with lugs like the old Roclites, I'd be all set.

Shameless plug, but I'm selling a pair of brand new 2012 (the previous generation) Roclite 295s in the sale forum. Might be useful for someone looking to replace an aging pair.

1/2 size too small, Nathan, otherwise I'd take them in a heartbeat :-(

At long last inov-8 have replaced the much criticized Roclite 295s from 2013 and 2014. That design, with the stiff vinyl-like upper, poor drainage, and hard rubber lugs (slippery as heck in the wet) is now discontinued.

The new offroad page shows a number of new and redesigned models. The most pleasant surprise was the Roclite 295:

I called inov-8 customer service to ask about the changes. They confirmed that it was a return to the original design (2012 and before), but with updated materials. I don't know whether the rand will offer improved drainage, but this seems to be a step in the right direction.

Note that inov-8 have changed the last – again. They now only offer two – Performance (narrow) and Standard (wider). The new 295 comes in the Standard last. I was advised to order 1/2 size larger than my 2012 model for equivalent fit.

I have a pair on order, and hope to report back in about a week.

Cant wait to try them. I thought all the new shoes the past couple years were total garbage with regard to construction, and more important, design and fit.

Im not going to hold my breath though.

"Note that inov-8 have changed the last – again. They now only offer two – Performance (narrow) and Standard (wider). The new 295 comes in the Standard last. I was advised to order 1/2 size larger than my 2012 model for equivalent fit."

Actually, there are sub-lasts (so Endurance and Natural are now both Standard) and also there were sublasts before e.g. althoudh both the Roclite 315 and the Roclite 295 had an Endurance-last, the last of the two were different). I know already that the Trailroc 255 and the new Ultra Race 290 have their widest Standard-last (the old Natural).

Yikes! Gotta love Inov-8 for keeping things simple. That would explain why customer service told me the X-Talon 212 is slightly narrower than the Roclite 295, which I was using for comparison purposes.