More INOV8 Complaints

http://www.bike-eu.com/news/article.asp?id=1952


now onto why your soles are wearing out fast :)
this last 3 years has seen a massive hike in rubber prices because of the shortage of rubber which means lower quality rubber has entered the markets of the UK .
things like tyres, soles , and stuff although the prices have not risen quite as much as other products like metal and timber we are using cheaper quality rubber to offset this.

oh and beware if you like cheese this is set to double in price over the next 12 months:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

Anybody out there really love their inovs? As someone above said, in the interest of balance...!

---

lots of pennine lads swear by them , i think they even put them by the fire in the royal after a training session:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

lots of pennine lads swear by them , i think they even put them by the fire in the royal after a training session:D

---

You bet. I can just smell the aroma now!!

The wife wears Innov8 I wear walshes. Neither is that happy with the our shoes durability, but in terms of fit and grip we are both happy. I do feel the market is open for a more durable shoe, like the Montrail Highlander seems to be. I understand this argument that the perfect shoe won't be a success, but come on 200 miles out of a pair of trainers? That's 1 month of running!

Sadly the Montrails are too narrow, and at the moment the best I can find are the Walshes, but each time I look around and have tried other trail shoes. My Solomans, have now lasted almost a year, and a good 500 miles easy, the laces snapped, and they were replaced FOC, but they aren't that grippy so wet grass.

You missed my point. There is no way that an inov-8 shoe costs the same to produce as a montrail or Asics shoe. I'm certain that if inov-8 used the same pricing model as Montrail - the shoes would sell for less (say £40 to £50) - they have managed to get us to accept a substandard product at the same price as the compeition. Very well done to them.

Yes it's a shame that most shoes are made in the east by individuals paid peanuts but why should we accept this as ok cause it's market forces. If the consumer doesn't change then the companies won't so it's up to us to make a more considered choice.

I've ran my own profitable business for years. I'd rather not be in business than sell a poor product! I'm in business to provide the best possible service and product not something that the consumers find acceptable. Thankfully I'm in the minority and it makes my job far easier!

The Daz H business model is bang on. There was a famous case of a bike component manufacturer (can't remember the name) years ago who made such durable components that they never got any repeat business and went bust.

How long have inov-8 been around? Maybe it's a case of selling at a premium early on to create the perception of quality and then once all the early adopters have got their fill, they can start to reduce the price (like apple recently did with ipods).

I personally like Inov 8 products, shoes seem durable enough (as per my last post) the rucksacs are great as well....but...my wife has some 270's that shred her right heal and the rucksac's chest strap doesn't adjust enough to be comfortable, she want's to try the 4l bum bag now though :rolleyes: .

I seem to be the right shape and fit for their products and as for quality we shall see how my new FlyRocs perform/stay together compared to the old ones.

Ok, I'll put my hand up - apart from the 280's now infamous heel shredder, which is now sorted - I've had great life and comfort from the 310's and my son's and I all use the 330. They've also coped well with regular seawater immersion.

Typically we wear out the insides before anything else goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soft southern whelp

apart from the 280's now infamous heel shredder, which is now sorted

---

Did you steam them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanAzz

Did you steam them?

---

yeah waste of time danazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amadablam

You missed my point. There is no way that an inov-8 shoe costs the same to produce as a montrail or Asics shoe. I'm certain that if inov-8 used the same pricing model as Montrail - the shoes would sell for less (say £40 to £50) - they have managed to get us to accept a substandard product at the same price as the compeition. Very well done to them.

Yes it's a shame that most shoes are made in the east by individuals paid peanuts but why should we accept this as ok cause it's market forces. If the consumer doesn't change then the companies won't so it's up to us to make a more considered choice.

I've ran my own profitable business for years. I'd rather not be in business than sell a poor product! I'm in business to provide the best possible service and product not something that the consumers find acceptable. Thankfully I'm in the minority and it makes my job far easier!

---

so one minute your happy to pay for a better product that lasts longer but you would also be happy if innov 8s were about £40 quid.:confused:
like i say its really down to us if we buy them or not, i suspect the market will settle and those who hate them will go back to what they obviously thought was crap in the first place or they wouldnt have changed to innov 8.
personally i think a lot of runners changed to innov 8 cos they looked good and didnt look like an old style of fell shoe, perhaps this is why they sold so well.

i bought a pair of inov8 end jan 2007 and have used them just for racing in ,they are just about hanging in there hopefully till wansfell.
in the past i have bought 2 pairs of walshes in 1 year so i reckon they are ok,
also i have never had a blister or any probs with them i find wet before you t tighten you laces they give no probs and tie your laces well 3 times and tuck them in.
everyones feet are different i hated ETAS but others loved them

It's not that others think other shoes arecrap, I just think the willingness for people to try new types of shoe shows that people are not yet content with what they are getting. Doesn't mean they are crap, but I think people do feel there could be better.

On the roads I buy almost the same make and type every time, yet on the fells I try many of the new or different types. I'm happy with my road shoes, my walshes are OK, but I wouldn't say they last long enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

Anybody out there really love their inovs? As someone above said, in the interest of balance...!

---

When I returned to the fells 2 years ago after a lengthy absence I bought a pair of Mudroc 290's (A rare pair in black). I've worn them for all manner of fell / cross country running, and although the soles were starting to get a little worn down the uppers were as good as new, except being covered in crap - although they were machine washed on a couple of occasions (short cool wash).
I'd still have them and still be wearing them if I hadn't lost one of them back in May. They were a really comfortable pair of shoes. I also have a pair of Mudclaw 270's, which I don't think much of. They're just the wrong shape. When are they going to make a decent pair of Mudclaws which don't weigh as much as the 330's and don't have the crappy lace design of the 270's?

Fast forward to this summer and I bought a pair of Walsh PB Trainers. The uppers looked wrecked after a couple of runs and I reckon the studs are going to start falling off soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

When I returned to the fells 2 years ago after a lengthy absence I bought a pair of Mudroc 290's (A rare pair in black). I've worn them for all manner of fell / cross country running, and although the soles were starting to get a little worn down the uppers were as good as new, except being covered in crap - although they were machine washed on a couple of occasions (short cool wash).
I'd still have them and still be wearing them if I hadn't lost one of them back in May. They were a really comfortable pair of shoes. I also have a pair of Mudclaw 270's, which I don't think much of. They're just the wrong shape. When are they going to make a decent pair of Mudclaws which don't weigh as much as the 330's and don't have the crappy lace design of the 270's?

Fast forward to this summer and I bought a pair of Walsh PB Trainers. The uppers looked wrecked after a couple of runs and I reckon the studs are going to start falling off soon.

---

im sure you wrecked them at black rocks you got them to wet and chucked them in the boot , ive got witnesses:rolleyes: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellrunner

You used them over 8 weeks before you found out you didn't like them? In most shops you would get to jog on the spot for 10 seconds before making your decision.
Seems a fair comment by the shop in my opinion.

For the record, I tried Inov8's a couple of years ago. I bust a pair after 2/3 short races, got a replacement pair, same thing happened & never bought another pair since.

---

When they started falling apart I bought a pair of montrails from Ambleside. I have run further and had them longer with no complaints!

That is the kind of shoe I would expect for £65. The opinion of the shop was that they woul replace them no problem, so it isnt really a fair comment.

surely a shoe should be fit for purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

Anybody out there really love their inovs? As someone above said, in the interest of balance...!

---

Again:

Since INOV-8 came on the market I have raced in no other shoe and I race over 50 times a year.

If INOV-8 were £120 (like Asics Kayano?) I'd still buy them over a £50 Walsh and I ran in Walshes for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Again:

Since INOV-8 came on the market I have raced in no other shoe and I race over 50 times a year.

If INOV-8 were £120 (like Asics Kayano?) I'd still buy them over a £50 Walsh and I ran in Walshes for 20 years.

---

graeme this thread has gone silent
now you can prob afford £120 per pair, but come on you state you ran in walshs for 20 years , why the sudden change. please explain in detail .
you cannot tell me you suffered for 20 years
i really appreciate your advice , 20 yrs experience is a lot of time on the fells
can you give us a really detailed reason why you changed , dont just say you switched , tell us why
your knowledge is appreciated by myself
thanks
daz h

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

graeme this thread has gone silent
now you can prob afford £120 per pair, but come on you state you ran in walshs for 20 years , why the sudden change. please explain in detail .
you cannot tell me you suffered for 20 years
i really appreciate your advice , 20 yrs experience is a lot of time on the fells
can you give us a really detailed reason why you changed , dont just say you switched , tell us why
your knowledge is appreciated by myself
thanks
daz h

---

Daz,

Runners may not believe it at 21 but sooner or later every fellrunner will suffer serious injury. The more cushioning there is in a fellshoe the further away that day will be.

I did not suffer in my Walsh days: I just think the inov-8 range is a better product for me (eg because of cushioning) and eg the grip of the Mudclaw is unsurpassable.

I have dug out the review I wrote 3 1/2 years ago (for a local news paper) and I still think it covers a lot of bases although since then inov-8 have brought out the Mudclaw which is now my shoe of choice. I threw my last pair of Walshes away virtually unused, nothing wrong with them but I just never wore them.

Graham

inov 8 Mudroc 290
To challenge Walsh in the fellrunning shoe market a manufacturer needs confidence, deep pockets and a better product. Most shoe makers have tried, and to some extent they have been pushing at an open door because many fellrunners resent the cost of the spartan Walsh and wonder where the money goes, but decades after its introduction the Walsh brand remains ubiquitous.

The newest competitor in the field is the wittily named inov 8 Mudroc accompanied by a technical and comprehensive website - www.inov-8.com. Although the shoes in the four model range are primarily aimed at mountain runners and have a couple of recent victories in the Snowdon race to their credit, the website includes side swipes at the "stagnation in development" of traditional fell shoes so it is appropriate to judge the Mudroc against the Walsh benchmark.

Fellrunners are not impressed with bells and whistles or striped laces that adorn the Mudroc and they may also feel that two finger-tags per shoe is two too many. When a fellrunner sees someone in a new shoe he asks questions like "do they grip, are they comfortable and how much?" and not "tell me about the biomechanicals."

The Mudroc looks like the trail shoe it is, rather than a fell shoe which it is not and the reward for the extra ounces in weight over a Walsh PB, which is not noted for its ability to absorb shock, is the side and mid sole cushioning and the larger sole area. Mudroc studs are stubbier but therefore less precise than those on a Walsh and the sole is thicker and the footprint bigger which all helps shock absorption. It may be relevant that inov 8 feature rock, rather than grassy banks, in their advertising.

The heel surround is much firmer and higher than fellrunners expect but this good heel hold is likely to cause blister problems, at least initially, for some runners.

Overall the contours of the shoe look strikingly and perhaps peculiarly different and by including such refinements as sole volume adjusters the buyer may feel that his £60 is buying a lot of technology.

This reviewer raced in the Mudroc effectively "straight from the box" on the 12 mile Mickleden Straddle, an act described by a fellow competitor as proof of madness. In traditional tight fit fell shoes it would have been because Mickleden, with its long down hill rocky paths and ascents up streaming paths, although not much pure fell, is as testing a trial as you can get. The comfort of the Mudroc was astonishing and it coped with everything. Even the striped laces stayed tight.

Trail runners who do not experience particularly severe or varied terrain could love the shoe. However for fellrunners the drawback to the shoe is the corollary of its virtues. Fellrunners do not wear a Walsh for comfort but as fit for purpose. A Walsh is like a second skin to ensure precise, positive positioning of the foot in conditions where a slip might send you down a mountain side. The comfort of the Mudroc is paid for by a sensation of more sponginess and bulk than fellrunners like and a concomitant lack of confidence when placing the foot. Inov 8 claim buyers get used to the new sensation and one would have to because when a fellrunner is powering down a mountain side confidence is all.

Most fellrunners will have no need to spend £60 on the Mudroc that tries to be all things to all off-road runners in contrast with a Walsh which, by sticking to its last, continues to be the benchmark for, say, steep grassy terrain and sheep trods.

Whether the shoe has durability will require future testing on some lakeland scree but fellrunners who have never run comfortably in a Walsh could find the Mudroc is the answer to their plight and even Walsh enthusiasts might decide that for races like The Three Peaks with its long lengths of track and rocky descents the Mudroc is worth a try. I do and I have sent my Peaks entry in already.

Graham Breeze
29.02.2004

If Inov-8s cost 120 quid, you'd want them to last a whole heap longer than they do.

My New Balances cost 32 of your English pounds, and they've outlived my Inov-8s by orders of magnitude. So have a pair of Montrail Highlanders, which cost the princely sum of 39 pounds...it's a no brainer. You can buy almost 2 pairs of something half decent (if you look around a bit) for one pair of nice, trendy Inov-8s.

To be fair, they're nice products in a tiny market, but it's a case of being prepared to take the risk. They work for some, but not everyone.

Rhiannon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Daz,

Runners may not believe it at 21 but sooner or later every fellrunner will suffer serious injury. The more cushioning there is in a fellshoe the further away that day will be.

I did not suffer in my Walsh days: I just think the inov-8 range is a better product for me (eg because of cushioning) and eg the grip of the Mudclaw is unsurpassable.

I have dug out the review I wrote 3 1/2 years ago (for a local news paper) and I still think it covers a lot of bases although since then inov-8 have brought out the Mudclaw which is now my shoe of choice. I threw my last pair of Walshes away virtually unused, nothing wrong with them but I just never wore them.

Graham

inov 8 Mudroc 290
To challenge Walsh in the fellrunning shoe market a manufacturer needs confidence, deep pockets and a better product. Most shoe makers have tried, and to some extent they have been pushing at an open door because many fellrunners resent the cost of the spartan Walsh and wonder where the money goes, but decades after its introduction the Walsh brand remains ubiquitous.

The newest competitor in the field is the wittily named inov 8 Mudroc accompanied by a technical and comprehensive website - www.inov-8.com. Although the shoes in the four model range are primarily aimed at mountain runners and have a couple of recent victories in the Snowdon race to their credit, the website includes side swipes at the "stagnation in development" of traditional fell shoes so it is appropriate to judge the Mudroc against the Walsh benchmark.

Fellrunners are not impressed with bells and whistles or striped laces that adorn the Mudroc and they may also feel that two finger-tags per shoe is two too many. When a fellrunner sees someone in a new shoe he asks questions like "do they grip, are they comfortable and how much?" and not "tell me about the biomechanicals."

The Mudroc looks like the trail shoe it is, rather than a fell shoe which it is not and the reward for the extra ounces in weight over a Walsh PB, which is not noted for its ability to absorb shock, is the side and mid sole cushioning and the larger sole area. Mudroc studs are stubbier but therefore less precise than those on a Walsh and the sole is thicker and the footprint bigger which all helps shock absorption. It may be relevant that inov 8 feature rock, rather than grassy banks, in their advertising.

The heel surround is much firmer and higher than fellrunners expect but this good heel hold is likely to cause blister problems, at least initially, for some runners.

Overall the contours of the shoe look strikingly and perhaps peculiarly different and by including such refinements as sole volume adjusters the buyer may feel that his £60 is buying a lot of technology.

This reviewer raced in the Mudroc effectively "straight from the box" on the 12 mile Mickleden Straddle, an act described by a fellow competitor as proof of madness. In traditional tight fit fell shoes it would have been because Mickleden, with its long down hill rocky paths and ascents up streaming paths, although not much pure fell, is as testing a trial as you can get. The comfort of the Mudroc was astonishing and it coped with everything. Even the striped laces stayed tight.

Trail runners who do not experience particularly severe or varied terrain could love the shoe. However for fellrunners the drawback to the shoe is the corollary of its virtues. Fellrunners do not wear a Walsh for comfort but as fit for purpose. A Walsh is like a second skin to ensure precise, positive positioning of the foot in conditions where a slip might send you down a mountain side. The comfort of the Mudroc is paid for by a sensation of more sponginess and bulk than fellrunners like and a concomitant lack of confidence when placing the foot. Inov 8 claim buyers get used to the new sensation and one would have to because when a fellrunner is powering down a mountain side confidence is all.

Most fellrunners will have no need to spend £60 on the Mudroc that tries to be all things to all off-road runners in contrast with a Walsh which, by sticking to its last, continues to be the benchmark for, say, steep grassy terrain and sheep trods.

Whether the shoe has durability will require future testing on some lakeland scree but fellrunners who have never run comfortably in a Walsh could find the Mudroc is the answer to their plight and even Walsh enthusiasts might decide that for races like The Three Peaks with its long lengths of track and rocky descents the Mudroc is worth a try. I do and I have sent my Peaks entry in already.

Graham Breeze
29.02.2004

---

thanks graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Daz,

Runners may not believe it at 21 but sooner or later every fellrunner will suffer serious injury. The more cushioning there is in a fellshoe the further away that day will be.

---

Is there that much cushioning difference between the Inov8 fell shoes (not trail) and the Walsh fell shoes, comparing like for like?

I'm not sure there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amadablam

You missed my point. There is no way that an inov-8 shoe costs the same to produce as a montrail or Asics shoe. I'm certain that if inov-8 used the same pricing model as Montrail - the shoes would sell for less (say £40 to £50) - they have managed to get us to accept a substandard product at the same price as the compeition. Very well done to them.

Yes it's a shame that most shoes are made in the east by individuals paid peanuts but why should we accept this as ok cause it's market forces. If the consumer doesn't change then the companies won't so it's up to us to make a more considered choice.

I've ran my own profitable business for years. I'd rather not be in business than sell a poor product! I'm in business to provide the best possible service and product not something that the consumers find acceptable. Thankfully I'm in the minority and it makes my job far easier!

---

I would like to add something to this guys, as I work in the footwear industry, originally working as a manufacturer in the UK and laterly in the Far East where most production is now based.

Firstly the Inov-8's may well cost as much as the Montrail or Asics. There is a matter of tooling costs and in the UK market, total sales are perhaps only 15,000 pair per year for Fell Shoes for all brands in total. So if Inov-8 have 33% - 5000pair, with perhaps tooling costs of £50,000 = £10 per pair before you start with materials, labour etc.
These are educted guess figures used to illustrate.

Maybe this is why Walsh are still with the old, but reliable design? The investment required for such a small market is huge.

I can tell you that the most expensive shoe on the market is the Swoop. The cost of development was such that the shoe should retail at double the cost, but the market will not stand such a product.
Adidas would probably not have developed it if they could have their time again.

And remove from your mind the peanuts wages in the Far East. Most of Asia eg. Thailand, Korea etc is well developed. In China wage inflation in the footwear factories is running at huge levels with one factory reporting a 300% increase in 1 year of the rates of pay for it's sewing machinists.

I think that Fell Shoe choice will continue to be a problem, but you have to be realistic and accept that the demands of the terrain would cause havoc with most footwear and you can make a more durable rubber compound but would lose the grip properties that are crucial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Is there that much cushioning difference between the Inov8 fell shoes (not trail) and the Walsh fell shoes, comparing like for like?

I'm not sure there is.

---

Well I don't recall the relative weights now but my recollection is that inov-8 generally weigh more and most of that seemed to be because of the bulk in the sole: the more "stuff" there is between your foot and the ground the better (in simple terms).

As for "no-brainer": well Mudclaw 330 are actually only £5 more than PB Trainer and I believe they are a far better product.

I am not on a retainer for inov-8 (Wayne?): my comments are merely because I believe in a balance of views.

I do disagree but I'm a walsh wearer. I'm not sure there's that much difference. I've worn both but the main thing is walshes fit me better - end of story.

The reason I prefer Walshes, is when they are worn out I can still use them for walking, some running, as they fail due to the grip getting too flat, whereas the Innov8's have ALL failed due to technical failure, a break in the sole. That's 5 pairs now where the sole unit has actually snapped or the sole peels off as is the case with my roclites.

I think neither shoe is perfect by a long way, as more people move to light weight hiking/running I think we'll see more makes of shoe and more competition, which can only be a good thing. My Solomans have out lasted all my fell shoes, but they've been used as a trail shoe, kinder terrain. Whereas my fell shoes are regularly used on terrain which really tests the shoe and sole units.

Maybe no shoe just can take the abuse of pure fell running for 500 miles, I think it should though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

the Innov8's have ALL failed due to technical failure, a break in the sole. That's 5 pairs now where the sole unit has actually snapped or the sole peels off as is the case with my roclites.

---

5 pairs? :eek:

Why did you keep buying them? :confused:

My 2nd pair of flyrocs are developing holes in the uppers and worn studs, but have been my training shoes for the past 12 months. Will definitely be replaced by a 3rd pair.

Mudroc 270s probably on last outing tomorrow at Kirk Fell. Soles and upper badly worn, but 18 months old and used for all my races. More 270s when I've the money.

Bought some 330s some time ago when I thought the 270s had had it. They hurt the side of my foot and I can't run in them. Waste of money.

Lessons - different shoes suit different people, but light weight fell shoes with good (ie soft) grip have a limited life and are best used just for racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feet in the Cowclaps

5 pairs? :eek:

Why did you keep buying them? :confused:

---

At the time they were the only shoe that fitted me well.

i dont no what you lot think because i think that the fittings of the shoes are very diffrent, i find the 330 amazing but abit heavey, but the 280 i find rub my within 5-10mins of running in them!

I had bad blister problems with my innov- 8 330s when I first bought them.

However, I now think they're great for my needs. I previously had Adidas Swoop (an old model) and i found thses lacked cuhioning and were also likely to slip on rock or tarmac, and were useless in very thick mud.

I find the 330s to have far better cushioning and also have great grip on all surfaces. I also find they hold my feet in place well, whereas in the Swoop my big,flat feet used to roll over-I had no sense of support.

i think the Swoop are a good light shoe for dry conditions, but find the 330s suitable for everything - their cushioning even means that you can do a fair bit on the road or hard ground without your knees being too hammered.

Re wear - well the studs are wearing down after about 1 year, but my Swoop also did this.

Re my previous post - I had the blister problems with the 330s for a couple of weeks, but now there is no problem with this. The shoes fit well.