Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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:
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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!
Re: More INOV8 Complaints
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.
