Inov-8 Mudroc 290

Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Discussion
Inov-8 Mudroc 290

Reader Reviews

27 user reviews of Inov-8 Mudroc 290 See all

Overall reader score
A great shoe for of road running, all year round. If we have hot dry conditions (do we ever?), a more cushioned shoe would be more comfortable, but in normal conditions, these are ideal. I even get some tractio Continue reading...
Ignore the reviews, don't touch them if you don't want damaged feet! Continue reading...
good shoe for this wet summer. keeps my feet cool and provides good grip. Continue reading...
A fantastic off-road running shoe, its benefits far outweigh any negatives. I've run in underfoot conditions that have stopped my running partners due to their shoes not being able to find grip.

After a mudd Continue reading...
These shoes were a revelation after using standard trail shoes. I find them very confidence inspiring, because they grip my foot so well and the soles grip the ground well too! It's worth softening the heels wi Continue reading...


I'm new here and have found a lot of good discussion, so I thought you'd be the group to ask (sorry for the long post): for those who run in Inov8 shoes, I'm a little confused about which to buy. It'll be by mail (my only option) so I can't see or try them on.
Mudroc 290 or Flyroc ?
The inov8 webpage says the flyroc is for trail running but the terrain matrix has the mudroc better on every surface except hardpack and tarmac (not an issue).
I'm looking for a race shoe (10K - half) that is lightweight, without overbuilt heel, excellent traction, for all sorts of offroad surfaces (mud, grass, wetrock, stream crossings, muddy hills, some dry/hardpack dirt). I always thought I was a trail runner, but my trails are not just hardpack.
What has been your experience with either of these shoes on the surfaces you run on and distances you run ?

Posted: 01/04/2005 at 22:46

i bought the mudroc 290 for cross country and they were fine on mud, grass, hills, (and in some races patches of tarmac). Didn't run on wetrock. They weren't very comfortable for a few minutes after getting wet, i.e. after crossing streams.

They were ok straight out of the box but then started to rub for some reason. After a bit of breaking in the are OK now.

i found them Ok for running cross country which are around 10K with enough cushion.

If you decide to buy on the web (I bought them in a shop and tried them on), I bought the same size as I wear in formal shoes and they are a good fit.

Try using the forum search engine for further info. There have been plenty of threads on inov8.

Posted: 02/04/2005 at 21:13

Any hard stuff - tarmac, forestry trails, etc - I'd go for the Flyroc. Don't discount the Terroc - there's really not that much of a difference except marginally better grip on the Flyroc and marginally better cushioning / protection from stones on the Terroc. Flyroc and Terroc are almost the same shoes with different outsoles.

Mudroc excels in muddy or soft ground. However, the very low heel counter has caused some people problems (myself included) and they have almost no heel raise at all which has caused me aching calves after some long runs. They are also narrower so less suitable for people with broad feet.

Posted: 03/04/2005 at 11:59

Thanks, that's all helpful. Anybody have any thoughts on whether the mudroc would be suitable for Pose-type running / or runners with forefoot/ball-of-foot foot strike ? On the Pose forum they are always talking about too much heel, too much cushioning, need for minimalist shoes, etc. I don't want to argue the merits of one form or another here (do whatever works for you is my philosophy), just if the low heel rise on the mudrocs would facilitate that sort of technique ?

I had some calf problems too when I transitioned to flats last year (for "road" training), but no so much now, although my mileage is still pretty low. One of the reasons I was looking at mudrocs is because they have been described as offroad flats (so have the flyrocs) and that is what I am looking for. Now that my normal routes have emerged from the snow and daylight is lasting longer, I'll be increasing mileage, so we'll see what happens.

Posted: 03/04/2005 at 18:02

I just got some flyroc's this morning - and they are beautiful. Just wondered if anyone around could answer me a question about fit?

My road running shoes are a full size bigger than my ordinary shoes - because I get black toenails - do I need the same with trail shoes?? Or will I be too slidy if I do that?

Posted: 04/04/2005 at 09:49

dogrunner, I use flyrocs on all sorts of surfaces, deep mud, hardpac and short sections of road and found them fine. On stoney surfaces they can be a bit uncomfortable after a while as the stones tend to come through the bottom as greyhound as said. Not tried any other inov8's so can't compare models.

Tallbird, you taking your new inov8's on sunday?

Posted: 05/04/2005 at 09:43

I definately am Ed - they are lovely. Took them on the canal yesterday - probably about a mile on road, 3 off, and they were great.

Did get a stone in one and could feel it, but managed to dislodge it before it did any damage.

Pretty comfortable though first time out - just hope I feel the same way after 16 miles!

Posted: 05/04/2005 at 10:09

"However, the very low heel counter has caused some people problems (myself included)"

I hate the back heel on innov 8's

I have mudrocs as a fell or very muddy short distance cross country shoe. They have great grip, loads of feel and are faultless for storming down slippery hills.

However that back heel seems to put strain on my achilles and gets very uncomfy on anything more than 10 mile.

Posted: 05/04/2005 at 12:17

i love my flyrocs but if you want a lower profile then what about NB Xterrain or another fell shoe? i can feel the ground much more in my XTerrain than the flyrocs - which is great as long as there aren't too many hard, stony miles

Posted: 05/04/2005 at 14:59

Glad to hear that I'm not the onlt one with heel problems on Mudrocs. The Terroc and Flyroc don't produce that problem.

I was thinking of trying NBs as a (hopefully) better solution for fell races than Walshes, which I've always found too narrow for my dinner-plate-wide feet! Meantime the Flyrocs are seeing active service.

Posted: 05/04/2005 at 20:32

I'm bored of telling everyone who posts about Inov-8's just how good I think both the originals (Mudroc 280's) and Terroc's are, and about how I did a couple of 4hr fell races in the former and a 3hr race in the latter without any problems - so I'm not going to.

Posted: 06/04/2005 at 09:07

I just ordered Mudroc 290s. It's an experiment I suppose. The low heel counter, low heel appears to be more similar to my road flats than flyrocs/terrocs. I'll find out how they work out (in my never ending quest for THE trail shoe ;) ). I might have to get one of the others at some point, as long as they are roughly the same color as the mudrocs, which are not too different (especially after their first mud bath) with my shoes from last year. Makes it a bit harder for my wife to track how many prs of shoes I buy :D

Posted: 06/04/2005 at 14:22

I ran the OMM this year in a pair of Mudroc 270s (the green n black ones) after breaking them with quite a few 10k mud n sand runs. Also used them in the Hellrunner.

Great grip but they seem to have caused me some painful problems with my achilles - where the tendon inserts onto the sides of the heel bone. Never had any grief there in the past and I can only think it's because of the low heel on the Mudrocs.

One of my mates has had similar problems with his Mudroc 310s. Anyone else?

Posted: 07/12/2006 at 10:48

I haven't come across Mudroc 270s or 310s. Must be losing touch :oS

I've got 280s (fluorescent greeny-yellow and black) and have had no problems whatsoever with my feet even after wearing them wet out on the hills in Scotland for days on end. I can see how they might cause problems for people whose ankles are shaped a little differently from mine though.

Respect for doing OMM, Brian :o)

Posted: 07/12/2006 at 12:49

I've got Flyrocs that I've used for the past year on all sorts of terrain and distance(including the 186 mile Pembrokeshire Coast Path), they are not a bit worn, i.e. uppers wore through, and I have thought about Mudrocs for their presumably better grip of steep wet grass (up and down) but I am not really sure.

Some of my running does involve sections of road, up to 2-3 mils over 15.

Would Mudrocs be a problem for this and should I get another pair of Flyrocs?

I'm favoring the Flyrocs and a replacement pair at the moment.


Posted: 07/12/2006 at 13:16

Er, yes, Velociraptor - 270s, 280s, 310s - memorising the numbers not my strong point ... the green n' black ones with the slightly fluoro touch is probably the most error-free way of describing them.

Colin Watts - the Mudroc 280s are definitely not for road running - the soles are very 'sensitive'. Only for off road use really I reckon.

Posted: 08/12/2006 at 07:40

Thanks Brian,

I'll replace my Flyrocs with another pair.

But I'm also contemplating some short S Wales Fell Runs. So do you think a pair of Mudrocs purly for these would be a good idea or should I just try the Flyrocs until I decide to do more of this Fell Running stuff.

I think I know now having typed the question in! Use Flyrocs until I decide if I Fell Running is for me.



Posted: 08/12/2006 at 09:05

Colin - I guess if you have the cash to spare and you are entering some fell races which are likely to be muddy / grassy then you could benefit from a pair of the Mudrocs.

But ... I've never owned a pair of Flyrocs so don't know about their mud performance.

For mixed terrain with a little road I tend to use Salomons or Montrails.

Posted: 11/12/2006 at 20:04

Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Discussion

RW competitions