need trail runners for very rocky/talus/scree conditions

the Masochists are a very popular shoe w/ the mountain ultra runners- good protection, good wear, good grip and not too bad on the weight- if they would have fit I probably wouldn't be looking at all these different shoes :) they aren't "narrow", but the toe box is slightly sloped vs "boxy"- unfortunately I need the "boxy"

^^ I never got try on a pair of 255's- not a pair in the entire state :( if I don't find a suitable shoe, it's still on my list- encouraging they are working out for you

the old Montrail Hardrocks were the stiffest shoes I ever owned, didn't care for them.

the old Montrail Continental Divides were Excellent shoes, but verrry heavy by modern standards.

the Salomon XT Wings offer similar protection as the Continental Divides, but a bit more support in the mid foot, which you may or may not like. they are a modern mid to heavy shoe.

I'm still voting for the Cascadias for anyone who needs a lot of protection under foot. Similar weight to the XT Wings but a more neutral shoe.

Jim, I haven't worn the Flyroc 310's but my understanding is they are almost the same shoe as the Roclite 295 which I've worn extensively. Personally I would have no problem hiking that popular 211 mile trail in them. Inov8's meta-shank thing works pretty well for underfoot protection as long as you are at least a little bit careful where you step.

well the Helios’s aren’t going to work :( they feel great in the heel and mid-foot, but even though I have a good thumbs width from the top of my toe, they are too tight laterally in the toe box

it’s too bad, they feel very good besides that

not sure if the photo shows it well, but I can see side by side that the PureGrits have more toe room

a pair of N1’s on the way

Mike, +1 on the Ultra Raptors. I'm in the same area and have spent time dealing with the same conditions. I have "duck feet" (narrow heels, wide forefoot) and have spent way too much time and $ trying to find good trail runners that don't squish my toes. I measure 11.5 and generally wear 12's in most trail runners but went to a 46.5 (12.5+). They seem to have a more rounded toe box that avoids the problem with the Helios.They have plenty of cushioning and a good rock plate. Might be worth checking out.

Mike – you seem to be as crazy for shoes as me …

just reread your original post, and what you mean by roomy seems to simply be longer. not wider, since you have long toes.
can't you simply size up by a half size in whatever shoe you really like ?

also, you say you're looking for a beefy shoe yet you are searching in the minimal and near minimal categories. you aren't gonna find a beefy shoe that weighs 300g or less. a bit of a disconnect between your claimed needs and your search.

lighter weight is not better if it doesn't protect what you need protecting.
although for shorter races (50K or less) you can suffer thru with a light shoe as long as it fits well.

what is the heaviest shoe you are willing to consider ?

Art- not crazy about shoes- just need to find the right ones :)

my toes aren't just longer than average- they are all the same length (except my little toe)- so there isn't the classic taper from big toe to little toe, because of this they take up a lot of volume laterally- the Helios were long enough, but cramped my toes from the side, going a half size larger I'm 99% sure wouldn't help in this regard

I should also note that the PureGrits are a 9.5 (all Montrails were 9.5 as well) the Helios a 10, so I did size up a 1/2

the N1's coming are also a 10, I tried both a 9.5 and 10 in this shoe- the 10 was the better fit

I'd like to go light, w/o going too light :) I also am enjoying the lower stack height and drop of the PureGrits, so would prefer a shoe that has those traits, but they aren't deal breakers if I find something that will work in rock AND fit

fit is definitely where I'm running into problems- I think the Cascadia and Xodus would be fine shoes for running in rocky conditions, but when I size up to get adequate toe room, the heel and mid-foot is too loose (even using your trick w/ the lacing, btw the knowledgeable gal at the shoe store knew this trick as well :))- the Helios felt wonderful in the heel, mid-foot, but too constrictive in the toe box

the Lone Peaks did have very ample toe room, I worry a little about the 0 drop- maybe needlessly????? they seemed a little light for rocky conditions, but thats just a perception- they may be more than up to the task????

once I do find a suitable shoe, I'm very likely to stock up on them :)

Mike

the N1’s arrived on Friday,tried them on while they felt a little “funny”- no fit issues I could point to Saturday was a long run, so didn’t want that to be their maiden voyage, had an easy 6 miles this morning that I ran w/ the N1’s- they felt pretty good, no cramping in the toes

I’ll get 3 or 4 shorter runs w/ the N1’s and if all is still going well, give them a go on a long run

they are actually pretty similar to the PureGrits- fairly lightweight, low stack height, kind of a rockered profile when viewed from the side- they are definitely beefier and firmer than the Grits in the mid and outsole though

view from the top, you can see the seamless design of the N1 and the relatively rounded toe box- both contribute to room in the toe box

appears the N1's are going to work, at least in the fit department- I've got ~ 35 miles on them (nothing over 8 miles however) and they feel pretty good- they have a firmer feel that the grits, firmer/denser mid-sole is my guess???

I've got a 13 mile trail race next weekend, but the country isn't overly rugged so I'll probably go w/ the Grits, I do plan on bagging Stuart Peak two days later which is a 19 mile day hike w/ some scrambling- I'll give the N1's a shot at that

Mike – did you ever try the N2's as a comparison to the N1's ?
yes I know more drop which you apparently don't like, but also a bit more protection and cushion.

Art- to be honest I didn't know they offered a N2, 4mm drop isn't a problem for me as that is what the Grits are. I wonder if fitment is the same between two? I'll have a some time to experiment w/ the N1's, if they prove to be too little for the rock/scree- I'll definitely look into the N2's

and here I thought I had researched everything so carefully-doh!!! :)

Mike

Mike,

The Pearl Izumi N1's have been my staple shoe the last several weeks since picking them up. In a nutshell- I freaking love them. Ran the nasty rocky bits coming down the length of Guaje Ridge on the Jemez race course last weekend and never felt like I lacked any protection. However, I definitely wouldn't want to run anything longer than a 50K in these if I had a choice, but that's only because I favor cushion and protection for the longer runs these days. I feel pretty confident going up to about that distance comfortably without my feet feeling trashed. My longest run in the N1's was a 23 mile run a 3 weeks ago in the Franklin mountains on rocky trails and that was about the threshold.

They're a little stiffer than the Pure Grits that I had been using for well over a year, but offer similar amounts of cushion and a nice wide outsole platform. The lower stack height on the N1's is definitely felt over really "jagged" rock sections and I find I have to be fairly conservative in my running to not have any sharp foot strikes. I think the N2 is going to be a better shoe overall with the added midsole cushion.

I'm ordering the N2's this week as my long run/trainer and will throw in the N1's into the fold for shorter duration runs. I'll let you know my comparison.

Check out the Pearl Izumi EM Trail M2 as well. The M2 still has a neutral shoe platform and basically the same design as the N2, but has mild stability in the midfoot.

*fwiw. I've experienced cramping in the toes in the past and from what I remember it has always been attributed to a sloppy fit. If heel fit was sloppy and allowed any foot slip in the shoe my toes would compensate by curling and "flexing" in to keep my foot from slipping further in the shoe. I'm of the camp that likes a secure/snug fit vs. a voluminous fit in the forefoot. I tried sizing up a 1/2 size in the Pure Grits but experienced toe cramping on long runs over rough trail due to a heel fit that wasn't as secure as it could have been with my feet, so I dropped back down to my regular size 12.

Pearl Izumi’s new line offers the N1, N2, and M2

Pearl Izumi

Eugene- very encouraging on the N1's- thanks That would be outstanding if you could give me a report on the N2's :) my Grits are a 1/2 size smaller (9.5 vs 10) than the N1- that was the runningwarehouse fitter recommendation and it appears to be pretty spot on.

went to Art's link and the fitter shows the N2 and M2 being the same size (9.5) as the Grits- so they must be sized slightly different than the N1

they all have seamless uppers which might be what is helping my longish toe situation???

funny different places show different drops for the PI's, might because they have a fairly good rocker shape and would depend on where you measure???

Mike

a little more feedback on the N1’s now that I’m creeping up on a 100 miles- I like them :) they fit well- roomy toe box, but the heel and mid-foot are secure, cushioning is adequate at least on moderate rock conditions (nothing hardcore yet)

they don’t have much traction in the snow though :)

Finished a 55k w/ the N1's, had one surprise- early in the race I got a bad blister on top of my left big toe, of course I let it go too long (waiting for the next aid station) and it bled through the shoe a little. I put a little Benzoin and some Luekotape and it never gave me any further trouble. I'm still not even sure what caused this blister????????

The course was not technical, but very rocky (w/ several stretches of loose gravelly rock) so I was pleasantly surprised that my feet were in good shape at the end (I wish I could say that was the case w/ the rest of my body! :) )

I did order a pair of N2's, but haven't ran in them yet. They are beefier than the N1's, but surprisingly not much heavier. Looks like the fit is going to be very similar, if so they should be up to the task for more rugged conditions.

well I had to send my N1's back as they developed a hole near the top of big toe on the left foot- kind of a weird spot??? about 250-ish miles on them, got a new pair back (was within 60 days of road runner purchase) yesterday

I've been running a little in my N2's since my N1's were sent away, only have a bout 50 miles on them, but they feel good- have had them in some really technical, rocky stretches and they performed very well, might be pushing things a bit w/ them, but will use them tomorrow for the Elkhorn 50k- a course that has a lot of rock

Hands down you are looking for the Hoka Mafate. For running long distances on rocks this shoe is a blessing and a very popular ultrarunning shoe for rocky conditions. Where I live (Utah), if you go to a big race like the Wastach 100, Wasatch Speedgoat, Squaw Peak 50, Bear 100, you will see a large % of runners using these shoes. The main reason is that trails in Utah are VERY rocky. Karl Meltzer, the guy that has won more 100 milers than anyone swears by these shoes (okay, they are a sponsor of his). He ran the entire length of the Pony Express Trail in multiple pair of Hokas. That is 2000 miles.

I personally own a pair and love them for trails with a lot of rocky downhills. If you can get past the silly clown shoe look, these might be the shoe you can consider. Good luck.

Mike – funny, I developed a blister in the exact same spot wearing the N1's. It didn't bother me on the hike/run, just noticed it later when I took my shoe off. (Then again, I didn't go 50K.) Otherwise the shoe is really great. Curious to hear how you like the N2 after putting some time in them.

Sara- I saw a couple of folks w/ Hoka's yesterday, they definitely look cushy. We have a couple of running stores here, not sure if they carry Hoka or not- if they don't have a large toe box then it's non-starter

Chris- yeah, it's a cray spot for a blister- must be the toe flexing??? The N2's performed great yesterday, lot's (and lot's) of rock and my feet were great the entire 50k, lots of water too- my feet were wet probably half the race and not even a hot spot. I do need to shop for a new stomach though, hurling halfway into 50k is not overly fun :)

I don't log as many miles as you but I've had good luck with Patagonia's line of trail running shoes. I wore through one a pair of their 9 trails and have the tsali 2.0's now. Both of those shoes are lightish implementations of the classic-drop running shoe that have enough protection and traction without being overtly techie.

The EVERmore looks like it is designed to be just what you want…a minimal drop shoe for above tree line terrain:
http://www.patagonia.com/us/product/mens-evermore-shoe?p=79000-0-818

We are in Hamilton and feel your shoe trying on pain…we even stopped at mountain gear's retail store in spokane on a trip west and were disappointed by their in store selection.

Mike
Brooks Cascadias work really well on rocky rugged terraine. a bit clunky if you're a front of the pack guy, but less clunky than Hokas in my opinion.
I use them for all my 20 & 30 mile training runs and feet feel great after.
don't really need them for something as short as a 50K race.
but if you ever decide to do long mileage :-)

I own a lot of Patagonia stuff, but have never tried any of their shoes- a couple of reviewers mention wide toe box which is definitely a necessity w/ my alien like long toes :)

Art- I tried a pair of Cascadias on and they were a little tight in the toe box for me, they did look beefy- after yesterday's 50k, I've put 50 miles completely out of my mind :)

^ the N2's out of the box look like the cartoon, but after 30+ miles of slugging through creeks, mud, dirt, rocks- they lost all the neon pizzaz :)

My Hoka's have a huge toe box (almost too big). I read about a lot of ultrarunners who say this. The key is a good lacing system that keeps your foot snug in the shoe yet allows your foot to move around inside the toe box. Nothing worse than the unrelenting bashing of your toenails against the front of your shoe. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

I also wear Brooks Cascadia. I've owned the last three seasons except this year (I heard there is a recurring issue with the lacing system that plagues this year's model.) I absolutely love this shoe for trail running, fastpacking, backpacking. Too bad they don't work for you.

You should also take a look at anything by New Balance. If I remember correctly, they have wide with shoes you can order. I definitely don't recommend the MT110s or Minimus as they only have the most rudimentary rock plate. I'm sure they have beefier models.

Have you shopped online at Zappos? These guys are great because you can return shoes at any time if something doesn't work out for you.

Good Luck!