Roclite 295 or Trailroc 255

[PeakSimon]

Hi I've transitioned to forefoot strike over the past 2 years, but have always reverted to my old clumpy mudroc for long distance.

I wish to upgrade to a more minimal shoe with enough support for an ultra

I've narrowed it to between roclite 295 (new one) and the trail roc 255 for runnning an ultra in.

Both 6mm diff, the roclite is really super bendy and feels more natural. I am concerned my foot might give up over 50 miles
The trail roc 255 has a really really stiff sole, but feels like it would give my foot more support over a long distance. All a bit weird

Any thoughts please?

Thx

[Yaks]

Do you find the mudroc 290 clumpy, can't say I did ? The mudroc is also 6mm differential, so from a forefoot striking point of view will be no different to the other 2.

[conwild]

Big benefit with the Trailroc 255 is there is something akin to a rock plate in the sole (hence the stiffness). This is a benefit in ultras when feet get lazy. I have the 255's and previously had the Roclite 315's. Haven't decided which I prefer :-) Trailrocs were defo more comfy 'out of the box' though.

[Drunkeneuphoria]

Is the 'new 295' a similar feel to 'old 285'? Same shock zone rating (as old 295 was a 'three'). If so seek old 285's for something more minimal yet cheaper.

If new 295 fit, flexibility is similar to old 285 I'd say its a good step towards a more lightweight and natural ultra shoe. Not as built up as say a 315 so your feet might suffer more of a pounding over very long runs, but the feel is more minimal, flexible and to me natural. I've transitioned through (old) 315's to 295's to 285's over the years for ultra and given a choice now I'd go with the 285's for any distance. 315's last forever and maybe the choice for most, but I can get away with less at 10st. Old 295's were a lightweight 315 and uppers failed accordingly earlier than in its brethren.

Throwing a "joker" in the pack - they still have La Sportiva Crosslite XC for £40/£70 for 2, in Pete Blands (in a few sizes). Great value in firmer, less flexible shoe than a roclite. I bought them for winter long runs and were great on the super-soft ground and good descenders (great grip). Some people have said about upper failure starting after 100-200m, but for my usage on longer runs on less aggressive terrain than some on forum (Wolds, NYMs, fields around Hull) I've not moticed that yet with 250m down. Though I'll be mostly retiring them over the summer, but great for wet conditions and I finished this years Hardmoors 55 in these with Drymax socks and my feet have never looked less-brutalised on a 50+.

[Spyros76]

Although both are mentioned as "standard fit" in Inov-8 website, the roclite 295 has a narrower toebox than the trailroc 255. Also i think that with the trailroc you fell the lugs more, the roclite has a more "flat" feeling.

[Jez Hellewell]

Another "joker" in the pack:

http://www.sportsshoes.com/product/n...oes-(d-width)/

My mate swears by these. Used them for OCT last weekend.

[Spyros76]

I have read that it has a very narrow toebox.

[dodgy]

I just bought a pair of these a couple of weeks ago from the NB shop in Keswick. The toebox is snug, but not uncomfortably so - certainly not in the Walsh PB league of snug-ness!

I've not run in them yet as I'm still recovering from achilles issues & sprained ankle, so can't rate them properly yet, but on a gentle stroll up Loughrigg t'other day they felt great - very plush, nice amount of padding underfoot, excellent grip on wet grass, perfectly even flex along the whole shoe & nice & breathable.

[Spyros76]

Is the upper breathable? Can you see light passing through?

[dodgy]

Yep, to both. You can feel wind blowing through the mesh bits of the upper.