Can't decide between the two Innov8 Bare -x lite 155 and the Bare-x 180.
Anyone offer advice on pros and cons of each?
Their website inov-8.com explains the differences and what are the best options dependent upon how experienced you are with minimalist footwear.
They have differences in the shoc-zone, differential, mid-sole, footbed and sole compound
Yeah thanks, I've read that too. I was really seeking some thoughts from users of these shoes.
im looking at the bare x-lite as well, reviews ive read are good, im currently on 4mm and merell zeros but fancy trying the inov8 bare as well so any reports welcome!
Haven't tried any of the bare x range, as they don't seem to offer much in the way of width improvement over the f-lite 195s I typically use.
I did just buy a pair of these though and have so far been pretty impressed. Huge toe box, light, really flexible, and the sole has just the right amount of cushioning that you can still be a bit clumsy in them.-
Plus you have the bonus of telling people they're skechers..
Not that this answers the OP's question though.
I've got both the 150's and the 180's, actually I've got the baregrip 200's too. All my runs less than 10 miles are done exclusively in 1 of these pairs of shoes and I've done way over 150 miles in each shoe.
Seen as though your question is focused towrds the 150 and 180 I'll direct my response to those.
First up; the Inov8 website says that they are built on the same last but I'm not convinced of this as the 180 is much longer and marginally narrower than the 150.
Even though the 180 is heavier it is by far the most minimal of the two as it uses a durable rubber compound in the whole outsole which, up untill now, is holding up ver nicely. Because its only the outsole between your foot and the ground these shoes are pretty unforgiving if coming from a minimalist shoe like a Kinvara or Nike Free 3.0; having said that I think they are absolutly brilliant.
The 150 uses a fairly thick midsole material with an integrated outsole; as the sole is less dense than the 180's you actually get lots more cushioning for a lighter weight shoe. unfortunately, if your form is a little bit off the soles tend to wear excessively. If your coming from the Kinvara/Free 3.0 type shoe i reackon the 150 is a perfect introduction to a zero drop road shoe....but work on your form.
Other things; the lace system on the 150's is brilliant, the laces on the 180's are about a foot too long. A UK11 150 weights 214g, a UK11 180 weights 230g.
If you want any other specific comparisons give me a shout.
If i was only going to have one pair (i bought the 150's first for £50 from Wiggle, then noticed the 180's reduced to £55 on SportsShoes) I'd go for the 180's. The 150's are a little luxury for my feet.
I decided to take a punt on the 150s, and received my pair yesterday. I went for 1/2 size smaller than my previous Brooks and Saucony, as I read they fit large.
They fit perfectly -the anatomical last is ideal for my shaped feet. I took them for a quick spin last night in the gym to make sure they're OK, so will now venture outside in them.
Oh wow. am lovin' that idea
sean Oc 4 wrote (see)
Look brilliant don't they. And the best bit is if you come in from a rainy run into a dry garage they leave skeleton marks on the floor.
i want them!! sean, i have just done 30miles today in 4mm drop and am fine, i havnt had long to get used to them but i seem to be ok in them. for me the lightest shoe with lots of flexiblity are what i find easiest to run in-dyu think the bare xlite 150 would be a good drop down
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |