roclite 295s

Thanks for the heads-up, MB.

I had a pair of the old comfort last 295s I liked quite a bit. Wasn't sure about going with the newer style, but with the discount I think it's worth a try, and just ordered a pair.

I can't comment on the 2013-produced 295's, but I wore several pairs of that shoe produced in 2009 (?) and fit was as in the former Terroc's (which hag the same fit as the Flyroc's I think). The 295 uses though the sticky compound sole which wears pretty quick.
About the lasts, coincidentally I had a conversation with their headdesigner and apparantly they have only a few major lasts, but each last has several sublasts and they don't mention that at all. So I suggested to mention those and explain their properties, but no idea if that suggestion is taken up.
What I already do know, is that they're leaving their 0-3-6-9 mm cushioning and are replacing it with only 0-4-8 mm cushioning. And since the 295's had the 6 mm cushioning, that will change but I don't know how.

Heard the same that they were going to go back to their original last that they had in their first gen 295s, but that was a while (years?) ago.

Been looking for replacements for my first gen 295s with less drop and settled on Altra Olympus, wanted the cushion for rocky trails. Still on the fence about the fit. More room in the toes, less room in the mid and forefoot since the mesh doesn't stretch like the 295s so the shoe is more narrow. If the Olympuses don't work out, Lone Peaks or Trailrocs are the next step.

Found the post regarding the first gen vs second gen: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=75711

Sent an email to Invo on 5May2014
Can you answer the following questions:

Has the Invo-8 Model Roclite 295 been update this year?
Have you updated or changed the LAST from the original design?
Are you using breathable fabric instead of open mesh that is found on the
last year's model?

ANSWER…. The only change will be the colors – the shoe is exactly the same.

well, changes in colors only appears to be their standard response. And because I know 100 % that they'll provide only 4 or 8 mm cushioning and the 295 has that 6 mm cushioning, I think they will have to change at least one thing.

I now ware Trailroc 255's but I find the heelcup too soft. Apparantly, Inov-8 tried an external TPU-based design but in my eyes that doesn't work. It was suggested that the upcoming Race Ultra 290 (widest fit they have, 8 mm drop, Tri Endurance compound for the sole, …) might be something.

Ah, and the current lasts are consolidated in 2 classes, Precision (now Performance) and Standard (now Endurance and Natural). But like I said, each lastclass will have sublasts so it's not because two shoes will have a Standard last, that both will have exactly the same last.

How long have you used your Trailrocs? 290s look interesting.

only since late 13 so not enough use yet.

del

I have been using the current pair of 295's for over a year now, mostly on hard trail I have done about 500 km in them and am I expecting they will last a couple of hundred yet. I always seam seal the stitching between upper and the sole at the flex points. There is no sign of coming apart and the soles have worn down about a third.

I emailed Inov8 this week about the 295 and 315 and received this message:

"Thanks for your support of our brand with your past purchases – much appreciated! Please note that the 295 design will be redesigned for spring 2015 and will hit shelves mid-January 2015. The 315 is being discontinued."

For the last year I have been using a pair of the current roclite 295s and also a pair of trailroc 245. The trailroc's are only marginally wider in the toebox otherwise the fit is extremely similar. My feet are kind of wide at the toes and both fit comfortably. I am enjoying the toe protection and durability of the full rand on the roclite's, sadly the trailrocs are beginning to wear thru along the sides from abrasion off trail. I would recommend either shoe, although I would reserve use of the trailrocs for clean trails/jogging paths.

Well, I ordered them, tried them , and sent them back.

They are definitely wider than the endurance last my terroc 330 and flyroc 310s were made by. So, someone shouldnt be scared off by the name change on the last. It may be wider than you think.

Not in itself a bad thing.

However, the toe volume is too much, theres too much fabric there. When tightening the laces to pull the body tight around the narrow feet that INOV 8 are made for, the tongue and fabric buckles right over the base of the big toe. I recalled someone complaining of this when the redesigned 295 came out a year or two ago, I had hoped they might have fixed that problem. Nope. The only people I can think wouldnt experience this would have big bulky feet, but then they really wouldnt fit in Inov8 which has a narrow heel.

I have been wearing shoes my whole life, and I have never seen this problem on any other shoe. Not once. Its just a really poorly designed upper IMO. You can even tell looking at the profile the toe volume is too much.

I have a feeling they just tell some cheap chinese mfg what they want, get a proposal, accept it and voila. Thats what you get, crapola.

Aside from that, the shoe felt good, I would have used it. Theres no doubt its not made anywhere near as good as the old ones. It has a very cheap look and feel to it, threads sticking out in several places, etc. Oddly enough, the tongue is heavier padded than the thin tongues they used to have too.

Looks like the search continues for a replacement for my inov8s.

The thing that gets me, is most trailrunners out there, have less lug depth new, than my inov8s have with half the lug depth worn off them. I have some La sportiva bushidos coming to try out next, the toe reinforcement looks like it will solve the problem the wildcats have with upper failing in 200 miles.

These actually sound good for me. But then again–I have the exception of narrow heels and wide forefeet. Fit is always king.

Actually +1 (I think)

Got mine a couple days ago. I'm undecided.

I don't have the issues MB had with fit–there's more room in the toe box than I was expecting, but I see that as a benefit. Heel fits well. There *is* too much fabric where the tongue meets the toes box–prob. because the tongue is over-padded. The fold doesn't hit my toes uncomfortably, and perhaps the padding on the tongue will compress as the shoes breaks in.

Construction quality is definitely not on par with the older Inov8s–I would not have been happy paying full price for these. The sole is still amazing, which is one reason I bought them. Not sure if the trade-offs are worth it.

What surprised me most was how thick and over-cushioned the Inov8s seem. I've been hiking in Trail Gloves for a couple years now (good for me to about 15 miles/day, even on rocky terrain–after that, I'd like a little more padding, hence looking at the 295s again). At work, I wear Chuck Taylors. First pair of 295s I had, I really had the sense of feeling the ground, and could even feel the lugs pushing back against the soles of my feet. This time: nothing.

So either the newer 295s are more padded, or (more likely) I'm now used to (and prefer) a more minimally padded shoe.

Hmm. I may have just talked myself into returning these…

If you prefer minimal padding, perhaps the Trailrocs 245 or 235 are something that might be of interest ?

Think I just saw some if the older Rocklite 295s that you all adore so much for sale in the Clymb.

Here's the pic that was with the ad.

Thanks, Nathan. Unfortunately, it looks like they don't have my size. Unless the size 9 they list is a UK 9.