Another shoe thread

Check out the trailroc 150, very aggressive traction but the sole is super minimal.

Have you tried the trail glove?

If you want something cushy but minimal then the ascend glove is good.

check (try on) Inov-8 before purchasing, I found the toe box not roomy enough for me, they do have a couple of lasts (some narrow, some roomier) so also check that

I'm on my fourth pair of PI N2's (I retire them after ~ 500-600 miles) and have used them running (and backpacking) in the gnarliest conditions the mountains can throw out; the fit for me is perfect, roomy toe box but still good support mid-foot and heel, they are light but still provide very good protection, grip is excellent (found myself in some Class 3-ish climbing on a run last weekend :))- the drop is 4mm, a sweet spot for me I've found

Sean said:
"Anyway, I'd like a minimalist shoe with sufficient underfoot protection….a roomy toe box"

Of the shoes you listed I've used the Roclite 295 and the Bare Grip 200 and I don't think either of them meet your criteria. I wouldn't consider the Roclites a minimal shoe and the Bare Grips offer zero underfoot protection. Neither has a particularly roomy toe box, but the bare grip is especially narrow.

The bare grip also has a road running sole that wouldn't be good at all on dirt trails.

Justin wrote:
"The bare grip also has a road running sole that wouldn't be good at all on dirt trails."

You must be thinking of a different shoe. The Bare Grip has an extremely aggressive lugged sole. Running on roads is actually uncomfortable in that shoe. I use it in soft snow and muddy conditions. I don't like it on rock or hard packed conditions.

Wow, those are some intense lugs.

Yeah I was thinking of a different shoe, can't remember the name but it was a flat soled minimalist running shoe. Something with "bare" in the name.

"Yeah I was thinking of a different shoe, can't remember the name but it was a flat soled minimalist running shoe. Something with "bare" in the name."

Yeah probably thinking of the Bare-X. Great shoe, but at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Bare-Grip. Not something you'd want to take off road, or even in the rain for that matter.

And in an attempt to bring this back on topic, I'd recommend the OP give the F-Lite 195 shoe a look. Has the stickiest grip that I've used in a running shoe and is on par with the NB Minimus line for weight and flexibility. The last is narrower though. But the material of the upper is extremely supple and forgiving so it can work for wider feet to a point. Unfortunately you lose the toe protection you desire as a result of the soft upper.

You might also try the NB MT110. I found the "grip" lacking, but my desire was for a shoe that sticks well on rock and wet rock, not necessarily deep lugs. You'll want to avoid the v2 version as the toe box is narrow. The v2 grip is superior but the toe box rubs on my pinky toes, and my feet are narrow.

I'm a big fan of the Roclite 295s. I've been on my first pair (older style) for about a year and a half, wearing them for all of my non-winter hikes and trail runs (guessing around 300 trail miles), and as my primary casual sneaker, and they still look relatively new. I bought a few backup pairs because I like them so much.

They have great toe protection, and the toe box is plenty roomy for my average width/size feet. The tread has provided excellent traction in everything I've thrown at them, and they have an amount of cushion that is enough to keep my feet comfortable at the end of a long day, but minimalist enough (for me) to give good ground feel.

I have a pair of the F-Lite 195s mentioned above for road running, and they are definitely a much more minimalist shoe than the 295s. They may work as a trail shoe for some, but I prefer the protection and traction of the 295s.

wow, the innov 8 and the altra shoe bias is pretty strong here. I don't like the fit of either, and altras made me feel like I was walking on wooden boards, not agile at all. And it was only recently that innov8 came out with a trail shoe that didn't seem custom built for fell running (big lugs for grip in mud & grass etc, unstable on rock IMO)
Just trying to keep this place from becoming an echo chamber.

For grip on rocky terrain like the sierras, I like something soft and grippy on the bottom like a la sportiva helios. They seriously make you feel like a lizard. The forefoot and toebox is wide enough to be anatomical, but close enough to give a performance fit. I've done many long runs and backpacking trips in these including an 8 day packrafting trip in escalante almost entirely off trail and over slick rock (think heavy packs, uneven ground) but after having one nasty sharp rock poke through this year I think I may need a little more protection.

Another one that fits your criteria, also with excellent grip is the saucony peregrine 4. Its fairly flat, but with plenty of toe and sole protection. The grip is excellent, but (due to its stiff sole) not as good on rock as the la sportivas(which I think use something similar to climbing rubber.

My favorite shoe in that category (minimal with protection) is the montrail fluid flex II. They are soft and fairly protective, but flex with your feet and with the terrain, which helps with agility and efficiency. They can also be had for like $70 from runners warehouse with the runblogger discount.

Speaking of which, runners warehouse is a great way to try on a bunch of shoes for comparison, since you get free 2-day shipping and free returns.

Thanks for all the feedback.

I now remember trying the F Lite 195s when I purchased the NB Minimus. I recall strongly preferring the NB because of the wider toe box. I think this means I will prefer the "Natural" fitting Inov8s over the narrower "Precision" fit.

The Roclite 295s are not minimalist but look like a step in the right direction over my current Salomons. I'll probably also try out the Trailroc series. The 245 or 235 might hit the sweet spot in terms of balancing some minimalist aspects with foot and toe protection.

The Altras also look attractive but I'm worried about durability based on some other threads. I'll also look at some of the other shoe recommendations mentioned here.

Thanks also for the tip on the Running Warehouse. I love the Shoefitr app. But how is Zappos? They have a bit more selection in the models I'm looking at.

Finally, how much time do you spend with a shoe before a longer distance hike like the JMT? As much as I would like to start it with a new set of tires, I think caution warrants using my Salomons for one last adventure.

I recently have gone to Altras. I have a pair of Lone Peak 1.5 and 2.0. For me, it's the best, out of the box, hiking shoe I have found. I have wide feet and always tried to get some sort of New Balance trail shoe that I could get in a wide and then a bit larger. Never was totally satisfied, but all was okay.

My son fast hiked the JMT last year in 5 days with some minims shoes and really tore up his feet. He went looking for another shoe. He started using Altras and seems to like them a lot. He is almost done with his PCT hike as he just got into Washington the other day and is on his 3rd pair of them.

There are a few things I like about them.

First, they have some sort of "rock guard" in the shoe. It really makes a difference on rocky terrain. I think the Sierra and thru hiking the JMT is real hard on the bottom of your feet. These seem to have a real nice rock protection layer. Besides local hikes around my house, I've only been out 2 times this year but I really like the protection they offer.

Zero Drop: the shoe is basically neutral. I was heading that way so it feels good to me. They suggest working your way towards zero drop if you are hiking/running in traditional shoes, i.e. do not get them the day before you start hiking!

Wide foot box which should let your toes splay naturally. For my feet they feel great. Zero issues right out of the box.

So, that's where I am right now.

Good luck on finding a shoe. It took me awhile to do so also.

Thanks again for all of the feedback. I ordered a few models from Zappos to evaluate.

In doing some additional research, I noticed that Patagonia sells some trail runners that look competitive based on price and specs. But I haven't seen any recent threads on these shoes. Has anyone tried them?

http://www.patagonia.com/us/shop/mens-shoes-footwear-trail-running?k=1D-6E-3m

Also, do people tend to like the changes of the Lone Peak 2.0 vs. the 1.5?

Reviving this thread. I looked at a pair of Lone Peak 2.0s yesterday, and I'm on the fence about them. I have and love the 1.5s. I also have and loathe the Olympus. The 2.0s feel like a compromise between the two. The stack height, midsole protection, heel cup padding and weight have all increased. I'm not saying the 1.5 is a minimalist shoe, but it felt just right for hiking in three season conditions. The 2.0 seems overbuilt but I like the improved tread, and I think I would like the slightly narrower toebox. Anyone taken the 2.0 out on the trail yet?

I thought backpackinglight was supossed to have a review months ago?? Ryan was wearing the 2.0's in one of his trip reports.

I’m currently using the same Salomon model you are and I have the exact same complaints. Especially the grip—I like to do a lot of scrambling and it’s just terrible.

I have my eye on a pair of La Sportiva Bushidos as a replacement. Haven’t pulled the trigger yet, so I can’t offer firsthand experience, but I tried them on in REI and they were very comfy. I had to size up, but once I got the heel and width right there was plenty of room in the toe box. And the grip is amazing. I tested it on a bunch of hard surfaces in the store and it beat out every other brand I compared. La Sportiva is a climbing shoe company, so it makes sense that they make good sticky rubber.