Comments: I am a fan of the Saucony line and feel that they have really done a great job over the last several years bridging the trend between over-structured shoes and the minimalist movement. They have really managed to appeal to those of us in the middle and I appreciate a simple shoe with some padding where it counts and a low heel drop. I am an ultra runner and put in a lot of miles. Recently I tried the Kinvara trail shoe and must admit that this shoe is very narrow in the toe box. I bought a size larger but to no avail still a constricting front foot (the added length just made me catch my toe on every stump on the trail). The rock plate is good but there is NO padding on the forefoot which is fine in sand but on rocky terrain or the mountains it made for a very painful journey.
From: Gilbert, Washington
Comments: The Kinvara TR shoe is extremely narrow in the forefoot. It fits like a racing flat. The Shoefitr seems to be way off on this one. I wear a size 10 Saucony Kinvara 3, Shoefitr says a size 11.5 is the best fit for me. I was skeptical and went to my local running store to try it on. A 10 in the trail shoe is the right length but way too narrow in the forefoot. I went with the New Balance MT1010 instead. The NB 1010 wasn't as snug in the heel as the Kinvara TR but had plenty of room in the forefoot.
From: Todd, Denver, CO, USA
Comments: In followup to my last review: I put in 10 miles break-in on this shoe and ran the Speedgoat 50k, which is littered with rocks and technical terrain, and the shoe was just awesome. The rockplate, although stiff out of the box, definitely loosened up. I went sockless and I didn't get any blisters - that says a lot for a shoe with 10 miles of breakin. This is an awesome shoe for fast, bio-mechanically efficient runners. I've now also had a chance to check out the trailroc 245 and 255 and I wasn't all that impressed. I've got about 100 miles on the Kinvara TR now and it's holding up quite well.
From: Ken, Midvale, Utah, USA
Comments: This shoe is VERY narrow. I have normal width feet. The shoe fitter sizing was not available when I bought it and now that its up, it doesn't lie. very very narrow. mashed my pinky toes something fierce! This would have been a great shoe otherwise, seemed like a great balance of a cushioned shoe and minimalist shoe.
From: Greg D, East Peoria IL USA
Comments: This review is aimed more towards advanced/competitive mountain runners. I thought that this shoe was fantastic, other than the rock-plate. The rock plate is much too stiff for my preferences. The rubber on the bottom is very sticky, the material for the upper is highly breathable but keeps debris out well. The inner is the nicest of any shoe I've ever worn, much better than the MT110, very soft with some ingenious bumps to hold ones heel in place instead of a rigid heel counter. The heel and mid-foot are nice and tight, the forefoot is just roomy enough for the toes to wiggle but with a performance taper so that bombing the downhills is no problem - no toenails will be lost. I actually feel that this is the best shoe last that I've ever tried on. The tongue is gusseted with enough material on the sides so that the shoe laces don't rub your feet raw. The overlays seem like they are nicely placed as is the rubber toecap.
This shoe feels light, fast, and nimble ... except for the rock-plate which makes me feel quite clumsy. If you want a performance shoe and don't mind a stiff rockplate, then this is the shoe for you! If you want something with more flex the upcoming INOV8 trailroc 245 or 255 looks might be a better choice, though I've never seen either. The shoe may loosen up after a hundred miles or so and gain some flex but it is ridiculously rigid out of the box.
From: Ken, Midvale, Utah, USA