Inov8 Trailroc 235 v. 255 fit

I've used both. The 255s are definitely a bit smaller in the same size and the toebox isn't quite as wide. They are a significantly stiffer shoe. Are you looking for more beef underfoot? Just more durable? It might be worth checking out the new wider fit x talon 212s. The 212 uppers are totally bomber and the new ones have a different midsole that's supposedly a bit denser/ more protective. The traction in all scenarios is about 1000x better than the trailrocs. I've got a pair coming in the next day or two so I can give an update when they arrive.

Something stiffer underfoot and with a hair more cushion. More durable uppers would be ok as well.

The 245s have pretty much the same fit as the 235s with a bit more protection underfoot. I liked em a lot more than the 255s. I should have the new wider 212s tomorrow from running warehouse and can tell you how they compare.

The X Talons with a wider forefoot is good news, quite interested. I like the Trailroc 235 fit, but they're still at the point where they cause excess fatigue when hiking with a heavier pack. Need something on the stiff side for fall hunting loads. Not a fan of the Trailroc rubber, however.

It was my understanding that the 235/245/255 are exactly the same shoe, but with 0mm drop, 3mm drop, and 6mm drop. That means at the tippy-toe the sole thickness should be the same across models, and in the 255 the heel should be 6mm thicker.

Hope that makes sense and also that I'm correct. :-)

LOVE my 236s (chick version of 245) to death!

Andrea

Andrea, I do not believe it is that simple.

I bought a pair of Altra Lone Peak 1.5s today. The original version had a heel cup which was way too big for me, so it was a pleasant surprise that the new ones fit very well. I'll be generously seam gripping the uppers to guard against blow outs.

Hi David,
I have both the 245 as well the 255. The 245 shares the same upper as the 235, but the 245 has a rock plate.

The 255 is a tiny bit snugger than the 235, but nothing significant (the result of the beefier design). I would go for the same sizing.

The sole of the 255 is significantly stiffer, as is durability. My 245-pair started to disintegrate by the mile while off trailing in – scree infested – Iceland. My 255 still looks brand new.
Obviously, toe protection is far better with the 255-model.

The 255 is a good shoe for e.g. week long backpacking trips on rocky terrain (it will be my shoe for the SHR this September).

Wim

PS: I would highly recommend the Patagonia Fore Runner Evo for non-rocky terrain and/or boggy terrein: it drains far better, is lighter and takes up less water. Durability is again top notch (it has a reinforced rand, with drainage holes).
But it lacks a rock plate. I took it for a week long backpacking trip in the High Pyrenees (read: plenty of rocky use trails), but I was sometimes longing for my 255’s.
If Patagonia would incorporate a rock plate in their shoe, my quest for a – durable – all round backpacking shoe would probably be over…

The Patagonia Evermore is a notch to economic with cushioning for long backpacking trips and the durability is not that great.

edit: typo

The 255s sound good. If the Altras don't shake out they'll be my next choice.

Interested to get feedback on your Altra's. I've been looking at the Inov8's as well, but also interested in the Altra's, especially since their headquarters is 20 miles from me.

I've actually enjoyed my Lasportiva Wildcats, but looking for something slightly lighter and less padded.