If you're not already convinced that the Trailroc 235 is the trail shoe for you, perhaps you're wondering what that Trailroc 245 is like.
If only there were someone on the Internet to compare these two Trailroc options for you so that you can decide which one to add to your shopping cart.
Well, lookie here, folks!
Aside from a handful of key features, the Trailroc 235 and 245 are very much the same shoe:
- The anatomic last is the same, thereby ensuring that the fit is the same.
- The materials and construction are essentially the same.
- Both of my orders arrived with 3mm foot beds instead of the specified 6mm foot beds (FYI).
- And, the Tri-C™ is functionally the same.
So, I'll keep this fairly succinct and focus on a few differences that are not overly obvious in pictures.
If I had to point out one major difference...
By simply comparing specs online, you might think that the 3mm heel differential is the biggest difference between the 245 and 235.
Sure, yes, why not? With the 245 having a one arrow Shoc-Zone™ and the 235 having a zero, these two Trailrocs cover two phases of the minimal-shoe transition spectrum (assuming one abides by such spectrums).
However, when you set aside those specifications and put the shoes on your feet, the most conspicuous difference will not be in the heel — it's the rock plate protection in the 245's MetaShank™ gen3 midsole. Wow!
I mean, it would take a pretty sharp rock, probably one that's attached to a high-speed drill, to inflict any kind of damage on your foot through the 245's sole. And, you know that rock plate is there when you step. It doesn't poke your feet through the insole, or anything. You can just feel the lack of feeling on the ground.
(Note that my reaction to the 245's rock protection may be somewhat exaggerated, since I am not used to wearing shoes with a rock plate. But, as far as I can tell, there's a lot of protection in those 245s!)
As a consequence of extra rock protection, the Trailroc 245 shares only a fraction of the 235's flexibility. Don't misunderstand, there's a fine and flexible forefoot in the 245.
Basically, flexiblity starts at those embedded lime-green shapes marking the Meta-Flex™ line and exists forward through the toe. But, the rest of the sole is quite dense.
So, the Meta-Shank™ rock protection should really be the deciding factor for you here. Do you want a tough midsole that will keep pretty much every sensation of pointyness away from your feet? Or, do you want a shoe that twists and folds readily?
The 3mm differential in the 245 is really not as noticeable as I thought it would be. And, I consider myself fairly sensitive to those things.
In fact, if you take a close look at the picture below, you'll see that the heel area of the 235 seems almost more built up than that of the 245. There's just extra EVA around the heel to allow for the "ZERO" on the back, I think. It is not indicative of the heel height.
Let's conclude with this video and some bonus pictures.
So, was this close to being a brief post? Be honest. Well, I hope I've imparted something useful, at least.
I'll just leave you with this video from Inov-8 that reiterates the concept of the Tri-C™ outsole. There's also some great trail imagery. And, you might like to scroll down for a few extra pictures of the Trailroc 245, too. It's blue, by the way. Did I list that as a difference?
Thanks for reading!
Posts
Hi, nice review. I got the 245 and 255 and you can notice a difference, I guess more than between 235 and 245, regarding drop and sole thickness. The 245 is in my opinion very well balanced: good protection with the rockplate, enough forefoot flexibility, whole midsole not very cushy, firm feeling, low drop. love them! I would like to try the 235 but I am afraid the lack of a rockplate would be a miss when going downhill on hard rocky paths.
ReplyDeleteThanks Óscar! The 245 really is a nice shoe. You make a great point about the shoe being well balanced in so many qualities. I imagine it is especially excellent in mountainous terrains.
DeleteHow will this hold against mud ? and water ?
DeleteThe Trailroc outsole is great in soft, shallow mud. If you're running through especially deep, sticky mud, you might want something with more aggressive lugs--the Bare-Grip 200 or X-Talon 190, perhaps.
DeleteAs for running through water, they drain well, in my opinion.
thanks a lot ! Ashwyn . I already bought them . doing tough mudder and its hard to find review from this shoes helps a lot thanks!
DeleteDid I miss it, which do you like better 235 or 245? Let us know after you get the 245's dirtied up a bit more.
ReplyDeleteHow do the Trailroc's size compared to the Roclite 285, or F-lite 195/230?
Thanks
Oh, I definitely prefer the more flexible 235. The 245 is a great shoe. But, I just don't care for that rock plate. It would be a very useful feature for other people, though, I'm sure.
DeleteAs for sizing: I wear the Trailroc in the same size as my f-lite 195/230s and Roclite 285s. However, those "Performance" shoe lasts are a snug fit while the Trailroc's "Anatomic" last is quite roomy. So, if your size xx f-lite is a bit large for your foot, try ordering the Trailrocs in a half size smaller. Does that help?
Thanks for Blogging, usually helpful always entertaining.
DeleteWhat I found.
My near end of life F-Lite 230's are a 1/2 size down from my normal shoe size and fit on the snug side, especially over longer distances w/foot swell.
I've been looking for a more trail specific shoe, and to keep the toenails that I still have so tried going a 1/2 size up from the F-Lite 230 to my normal size in the Roclite 285 ... since they're the same performance last. Unfortunately I found even with a thicker (6mm) footbed and padded trail socks there was too much vacant space which let my feet to move around within the shoe.
I ended up returning the Roclites, and ordered the Trailroc 245. The Trailroc w/its anatomic last is a bang on perfect fit in my normal size. The Running Warehouse has them scanned into ShoeFitr now, for those trying to dial-in the right size. It lines up with what I found.
The MacNair Farms 10k was the 245's first time out, so got to muddy them up some. Perfect for the course, and no negatives in dropping an arrow from the F-Lite 230.
I'm glad the 245's fit you so well. And, what a great course on which to try them out! I'm guessing that your f-lites must have been pretty snug if the 245s fit you so perfectly in a half size larger. Have fun in the Trailrocs. And, thanks again for reading!
DeleteI've been running in the New Balance MT20's and have been looking to get a new pair of trail shoes. I love my MT20's except that my forefeet always hurt during and after I run from stepping on rocks/sticks/other not nice things. So, I'm just not sure if the 235 would be enough, or if the 245 with the rock plate would be the way to go.
ReplyDeleteHI Melanie! I consider the 235 to be fairly more protective than the Minimus Trail 10 (or 20). But, if you want a drastic increase in underfoot protection, then you'd want the 245s instead.
DeleteMaybe this comparison will help: Imagine stepping on a sharp rock while wearing your MT20s. Got that sensation in mind? Okay, now, imagine that sharp rock feels more like one of those alphabet blocks, those things for kids with the rounded corners. That's what it'd feel like in the 235s. Now, imagine that sharp rock feels more like stepping on a tennis ball. That's the 245 for you. Does that help?
Yep, that helps. I think I would have more fun and not have to watch so closely to where I step if I go ahead with the 245's. I know my dogs look at me like I'm crazy when I'm cursing all of the rocks I step on. And I think I step on more because I have to pay attention to the dogs and make sure they're not going to pull me down a steep hill head first. :)
DeleteYou're so awesome for running with your dogs, Melanie. I'm sure they make it difficult to navigate around a few of those rocks, though. Have fun trying out the 245s.
DeleteJust asked the same in your review post of the 235 (before I realized about this post), excelent analogy with the tennis ball. I definitely require more protection than the MT10.
DeleteI guess for my running trails I should go for the 245 which seems to be similar to the New Balance MT1010 (another shoe Im keen to get).
But I will most probably get the 235 if I can find them later on a sale and give them a go.
Trailrocs seem to run small...
DeleteI finally received my Trailrocs 245 today, according to runningwarehouse shoe fitter tool, I was the same size in both the 245s and my 11sized MT10s (it marked the 245 even a bit wider than the MT10s, but to my dissapointment they run small, my big toe almost touches the front of the shoe, and the toebox is much narrower than the MT10. The upper seems to be stretchy but I am aprehensive on keeping them only to find once running and wearing injinji socks they might be actually small for me.
Just a heads up for anyone who has worn MT10s and wants to try the Trailrocs, get them half a size bigger than what you wear in the MT10s.
I'm surprised that the Trailrocs you ordered seem small. I definitely feel that my size 11.5 Trailrocs are roomier than my size 12 NB MT10s. But, I suppose that's just a testament to how intricately different each person's feet really are. Thanks for sharing your initial experience!
DeleteHi, excellent review, but are we talking UK or US sizing? I'm looking for something to replace the almost perfect MT110, the MT1010 I found way too roomy, and I didn't like the upper. The MT10 fits well, all in a US12. Would you suggest the 245 in a UK11 (US12), or half size either way. Sorry for the pressure, I have to order online.
DeleteHi Michael: I refer to US sizing in this review. And, personally, I find that my US size 11.5 Trailroc fits my feet perfectly, while my US size 12 NB MT10 fits my feet (as best it can). So, I'd suggest trying the Trailroc in a half size smaller than you MT10.
DeleteBut, as you may notice from the comments above, someone else has the exact opposite experience with the Trailroc sizing in relation to their NB MT10. So, it's hard to say for sure. I'd point out, though, that it's important to determine whether the MT10 you wear is the standard D width or the wider 2E width. That will certainly have a bearing on its relation to the Trailroc size you order.
Great blog post, very interesting reading, i really like your style of writing humor while still cutting to the chase.
ReplyDeleteI just saw a sneak peak of the trailroc 150, which seem to have inherited the 3 compound sole of the 245, but without the rock plate, can't wait to compare the all this autumn.
Thanks very much, Peter! I'm really looking forward to the Trailroc 150, too. It seems that it will have the flexible quality of the Bare-grip 200 and, of course, the marvelous outsole of the Trailroc line.
DeleteI run in a Tropical rainforest climate. What is the traction like on wet rocks?
ReplyDeleteThe sticky rubber compound on the outsole is quite effective at hindering slippage on wet surfaces. The outsole seems to react to moist surfaces with a tacky sensation as you pick up your feet. I've noticed this quality most often on wet planks. But, the same thing occurs on flat, wet rock surfaces, too. So, I'd say the traction is good on wet rocks. Of course, I wouldn't expect any shoe to be slip-proof out on the trail.
DeleteGreat review! I ran the Palo Duro 50 miler in the Trailroc 245s and loved every step. Question: I run roads in the Road-X Lite 155s and Bare-X 150s, but am looking for a zero drop shoe that rides like the 245s that I can take from porch to trail (including some roads). How do the 235s compare in ROAD ride to either the 150s or 155s? Or the 245s? Or...why not...the Altra Instinct 1.5s, as I'm also looking at those.
ReplyDeleteThanks!!
Mike
Hi Mike! Congrats on your Palo Duro 50-mile run! That is awesome!
DeleteIf you can imagine the 150 with a slightly softer midsole and the lugs of the 245, that would give you a good idea of what the ride in the 235 is like on pavement. So, it's not bad on roads, really. If I had 2 or 3 miles of pavement between my porch and a trail, I'd think nothing of wearing the 235s to get there.
But, if you're looking for more of an all-terrain shoe that will primarily be used on pavement, I would point you to something else. I know you want a zero-drop shoe in this case, but the first thing that comes to mind based on your criteria is actually the f-lite 195. It's toe box is narrower than the other Inov-8 shoes you have. But, there's a chance that won't bother you, because it doesn't bother me (surprisingly). And, it's outsole performs fantastically on pavement and most trail conditions.
The Altra Instinct is a really nice road shoe. But, based on what you've been using, you might not like the heaviness of it compared to the Inov-8 options. I'm just guessing on that, though.
So, yes, if you want a zero-drop option to take you a couple of miles over pavement to trails, the 235 is excellent. If you want something more road-centric with the potential to handle trails when necessary, the f-lite 195 is worth checking out. Aside from those options, you'll need to explore the other few zero-drop shoes on the market at the moment. However, none of them really ride like the 245, 155, or 150 in my opinion.
That may have been way more info than you wanted. :/
Hi Ashwyn,
DeleteThanks so much for your thorough, helpful response! As a fellow shoe geek, there is no such thing as too much info. :) I was actually thinking about giving the f-lite 195, but had discounted because it lacks the anatomical last that I love so much. Lots to think about.
I definitely prefer the lighter side to the Altras. I ran in the original Instincts for a while, but now prefer a bit less shoe. On the other hand, I am also in the market for a shoe for occasional, really long (25+ mile) road long runs. But, I'm hopeful that my feet will build up to working with the 150s and 155s for those distances.
Also, as it turns out, my trails are about 2.5 miles from my front door, so the 235 might just be what the doctor ordered.
Thanks again!
Mike
Okay, you should definitely try the Trailroc 235 first in this case. I think you'll like it.
DeleteAnd, as a professed shoe geek, you know you're just going to want a separate road shoe for those 25-plus-milers on pavement, anyway. (Although, I imagine you can handle that distance with the 155 and 150 on occasion, since you've recently run that 50 miler)
Thanks for reading!
Have loved my year running in my first minimal shoe (well transition shoe) the inov8 roclite 295. But they are now getting a bit threadbare and i'm looking to replace with the 235 or 245. My running style changed smoothly from plodder to mid/forefoot striker. The trails around me are not rocky enough to warrant the rock plate of the 245, but i'm unsure if it's too big a step to make the transition from the 9mm drop of the 295 to the 0 drop of the 235...What would you suggest?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to imagine what a Roclite 295 looks like when it's threadbare. That's a tough shoe! ;)
DeleteAs you've probably read elsewhere, zero-dropped shoes aren't for everyone. But, you don't know if it's for you until you try. So, my suggestion would be to try the 235 if that's what appeals to you most. The 3mm differential between the 235 and 245 is nominal, in my opinion. So, if you don't need serious rock protection, then the 235 is the way to go.
The 235 will definitely be a big drop downward from the the 295. But, since you're running trails, you may not have too much of a problem with the change in differential. You just need to be extra mindful of how your legs react to the change in heel height. Ideally, you'll be able to gradually get used to the lower differential, alternating between the 235 and 295 until you're finally ready to be done with the 295.
Good luck! And, thanks for reading!
Thanks for the advice. As for threadbare 295's, they've holes in both shoes at the toe fold area, at the base of the toe on the upper the heel cups have worn through. It's fair to say they've done a few miles. That 9mm drop is probably more like 6mm now!
ReplyDeleteI fancy giving the 235's a go and can alternate between them and the 295's for a bit anyway.
Hi, thanks for your comprehensive review. Based on what I've read, I'm looking at getting either the F Lite 195 or Trailroc 235/245 but need some advice. I'll primarily be using these shoes for bootcamp on grass, hiking, and a bit of road running. (Am not much of a runner, actually.) I currently use the Merrell Trail Glove and NB Minimus 10 - the thing is, while I kinda like the feel and weight of particularly the Merrell, I think I developed plantar fasciitis from using these minimal support shoes. :/ Used the Inov-8 Roclite 275 on a trail run and liked how it didn't slip, however, the sole seemed to wear out quite fast based on just one run. Would prefer something light, with a bit of support. Appreciate any advice you could give in this regard. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHi Lennie,
DeleteIt's hard to find a shoe as minimally-constructed as the Merrell Trail Glove with added support. And, by support, I assume you mean some sort of arch reinforcement. So, off the top of my head, my initial suggestions would be the Merrell Mix Master or the Altra Superior.
The Mix Master is 2oz heavier than the trail glove with a 4mm hell-toe drop. But, it has a slight arch and plenty of cushioning (without being overly cushioned). Plus, the forefoot area is nice and roomy. And, the outsole is great for both trail and paved terrain.
The Altra Superior is also fairly good on roads and trails. It's about 3.3oz heavier than your Trail Gloves. But, it has the optional inserts that add rock protection and a small amount of support.
Both the F-Lite 195 and Trailroc 235/245 are fantastic shoes. But, I wouldn't say that they provide any arch support.
Thanks for the advice. Will be on the lookout for the Mix Master, although I'm not sure if I'll be able to find it in Malaysia. Haven't seen the Altra in these shores either. And I made a mistake - the ones I have are the Pace Gloves, not the Trail Gloves. Ooops.
DeleteIf I were to choose between the F-Lite and the Trailroc though, which do you reckon would be a better bet? I'm female, which is why I prefer less bulky shoes. :) Thanks in advance.
Sorry about this delayed response, Lennie. The choice between the F-Lite or the Trailroc really depends on how much road running you'll be doing. If it's a small amount of road running, like less than 10 miles per week, the Trailroc would probably be fine. But, if there's a chance that your pavement running will comprise quite a bit of your running, the F-lite would be a better option.
DeleteI mean, the Trailroc can handle pavement if necessary. But, I really think you'd want something more efficient on the road if you were going to spend much time running there. Plus, the f-lite outsole does a pretty good job of handling off-road terrain. I've run quite a few trail miles in f-lites.
Also, whether you decide on the Trailroc or the F-Lite, do some extra calf strengthening exercises to ward off PF.
How are the 235's holding up? Do they see much use? My 245's developed vertical rips (i.e. blow outs) on the lateral side of upper near the small toe where the overlay meets the mesh at ~ 6 months. Love the outsole, and fit having used them on ice, mud, snow, Eno River, Little River, Medoc Mtn, and Uwharrie always performing well. Ordered the 235's in the 2013 color as replacements in the hope that this was a isolated Trailroc first run issue with the mesh upper that's been resolved?
ReplyDeleteHi Kurt! I only have about 140 miles on the Trailroc 235s. But, they're definitely among my go-to arsenal of trail shoes. And, I'd say they're holding up very well. I see no signs of distress on the upper. And, of course, the outsole is just a muddy version of new.
DeleteI've seen some photos of other 235s with tears in the sides of the upper. So, I've been keeping an eye on my pair. But, so far so good!
Hopefully, those quality issues were, as you said, isolated to certain production runs of the first batch and a non-issue with this season's batch. Let me know how the new ones work out for you.
Hi Ashwyn,
ReplyDeleteAmazing to read your feedback and all the replies. Those advices and suggestions help a lot to solve general questions and things that come up.
I'm kinda new to the mud, trail, obstacle races and running and I've been seeing and reading a lot of the Trailroc 245's. I'm very positive to get those.
Just a general question. I heard the red/black model is a bit "newer" and has a little of improvement than the blue/lime model.
How true is this? And the other, any future plans for getting a newer model for the 245's?
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Hello Christian,
DeleteThanks for the kind words! The red/black Trailroc 245s are the newest model of that shoe. However, I have not read anything that attests to their improvement over last year's blue/lime model. I know that there were some complaints about the durability of the uppers on a few pairs of 235s. But, I've not had any problems with the pair that I've been using.
Inov-8 has invested a lot into the Trailroc product line. So, I'm sure the company has future plans for the whole range of those shoes. However, I have not been privy to those plans yet. ;)
Thanks for reading!
Great Ashwyn!
DeleteThanks a lot for the update and info.
Always good to hear good things about the brand and how the shoes are doing.
If anything new come up, I'll let you know!
Thanx a lot!
Regards
Hi Ashwyn,
ReplyDeleteI run with Five Fingers El-X circa 4,7mm and zero droop. I wanna run ofter (5 times at week) so, my idea is to switch between the Five Fingers (for short sessions, 45 min) and a shoe with thicker sole and zero, or at most 3mm drop (for long sessions, 80-90 min.) I usually run on asphalt.
Do you thing that the 245 or 235 would work for my purpose? I was thinking also about the Inov-8 F-Lite 195, but I'm not sure, because sole is thiner as the 245 and 235. or do you have another suggestion?
greetings!
Hello Julio! If you run on asphalt most of the time, then you would be better served by something other than the Trailroc. It's outsole is definitely more suitable for trails.
DeleteBut, the f-lites are great shoes for pavement. And, they are available in two different widths and several levels of cushioning. If you are used to running in the Five Fingers EI-X, then the f-lite 195 would likely be just fine for you. However, it's toe box is somewhat narrow. But, there is also the zero-drop f-lite 232, which has a wider toe box than the f-lite 195. This link can help show you difference in the f-lites: http://www.inov-8.com/New/Global/product-select-fitness-mens.asp?L=26&A=Fitness&G=Male
Thanks for the answer,
DeleteI had an injury last year, but now I'm ok, therefore I'm looking for more "space" between the ground and my feet in order to get use to run ofter again. Thats why Im looking for a thick sole (as much is possible, but still minimalist) and zero drop, or at most 3 mm as i said...therefore the speed is not a problem in this case or the "performance" but the stress for the metatarsus bones.
can a the 245s or 235s trail sole damages my muscle or something like that, if I run on road? or is just a matter of speed? do you know how thick is the sole of the lite 232, i cannot find the info on the webpage..
Thank you so much again for your answer, you have a fantastic blog
I certainly understand your reasons for wanting more cushioning, Julio. I believe that there are several options that you could consider if you want sufficient cushioning on a zero-drop or 3mm platform. Without knowing your full running history, I hesitate to recommend specific shoes. But, the good people at http://www.optimalrun.com have a personalized footwear recommendation service that could probably give you a lot of ideas.
DeleteThe outsole of the 245 or 235 would not cause damage to your feet or legs if you use the shoes on pavement. The potential drawback is simply with regard to traction. The studs on the outsole perform very well on trails. But, the lack of surface area makes them somewhat cumbersome on pavement. It is a minor drawback in the grand scheme of things, though. So, if you happen to really like the fit and appearance of the Trailrocs, then it would not be bad for you to run with them on the road.
I am not sure how thick the sole of the 232 is, unfortunately. I'm sure it is thinner than the Trailroc 235 or 245, though.
Good luck finding your ideal cushioned shoes as you work back toward running as often as you like!
How are these shoes for long runs on pavement/concrete? I know they are trail shoes but I am looking to replace my new balance 730s (3mm drop though it feels less). The nb are fine but I have moved to the nw with a lot of wet pavement/concrete. The new balances are absolutely worthless in the wet. I was looking at inov8 155s but am concerned about the wet road traction.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon! The Trailrocs are okay on pavement. But, I wouldn't want them if I wasn't going to use them primarily for trails. The studs on the outsole would just be too inefficient on pavement after a few miles, I think.
DeleteInstead, I would recommend one of the f-lite series, which are available in "natural" and "precision" (narrower) fits as well as varied heel heights. The outsole of the f-lites performs very well on wet surfaces because of the sticky rubber. And, the shoes are great for pavement and easy trails.
Check out the product line here: http://www.inov-8.com/New/Global/product-select-fitness-mens.asp?L=27&G=Male&A=Fitness
It'll be hard to beat that appealing price of the NB 730s, though. ;)
Thanks for reading!
Thanks I do like the 730s, but as I mentioned the wet performance is tough to swallow. I will look at the natural f-lites, thanks
DeleteHi Ashwyn, thanks for this great review I know it's a bit old but I'm just getting into the "minimalist" trail runing shoe. This will be my first trail running shoe and my first minimalist type of shoe. I've been using asics for running and nike air for weightlifting at the gym. Wich version of the trailrocs would you reccomend for a newbie? I'm doing a Spartan Super in 45 days and want to break them out before the race.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question, Vale. If this is your first minimalist-style shoe, then I would recommend that you start with the Trailroc 255. One of the biggest shocks to your lower legs when you start running in reduced shoes is from the lower heel-to-toe ratio (drop). Your Asics may have a drop as high as 12+ mm. So, your achilles and calf muscle will not be used to stretching in a shoe with a much lower heel height. The Trailroc 255 has a drop of 6mm. And, that is usually a decent way to start transitioning into a low-drop shoe. But you must do it slowly. Only run a mile or two the first time you try out these shoes. If you haven't done so already, search online for "minimal shoe transition", or something like that. There is lots of guidance available on this subject.
DeleteThanks for reading! And, have fun in your Spartan race!