Comments: This is my second FluidFlex after wearing out a Version I. All the stuff I liked in the initial offering remains in Version II (lightweight/flexible/modest drop). In fact, I would say the mid and outsoles are identical. The original had an odd upper design that pressed on my big toes which was removed in the II. I appreciate the wider laces and more conventional lace pattern on the update as well. One notable difference is the II is a bit longer and wider than the I in the exact same size (9 in my case). This is not a high traction (mud or sand) trail shoe. It does well in all my offroad activities--groomed trails, gravel, moderate rock&root. I'd buy it again.
From: Bryan, OR, USA. September 11th 2014
Comments: Not good, sorry for the negative comments, but I tried this shoe on several training runs prior to running a 100 a few weeks back. The shoe felt good, however I received the biggest blister on the bottom of my foot, never had one like that after 27 hundred milers. After about 150 miles, the shoe fell apart. I had a blow out on Sunday with my foot exiting the shoe. Poor construction and they should really improve on that. I am not sure if they do any field testing, but if not, they should. Thanks
From: John, Magnolia, TX, USA. August 18th 2014
Comments: I picked up the FluidFlex II with a coupon given to me at a race by the Montrail rep. This is one of the only shoes I did not initially order from running warehouse. I have run quite a few trail miles in the shoe. It works well in mud, rocks, roots, and pretty much any terrain I have experienced. Drainage of water is fine, too. I find good cushioning but still feel the ground fine. I will probably run my next 100 mile race with these shoes. Low drop and good cushioning are a good combo for me.
From: Burke, Greensburg, LA, USA. July 2nd 2014