After owning a pair of trail gloves and mainly using them on the road, wearing the tread down over the course of about 700 miles, I thought I'd get a pair of road gloves. Makes sense really. The trail gloves were, and still are, a rare treat and the road gloves are an improvement. It has a close fit but is 'softer' around the upper part of the foot while still with enough space in the toe box for my odd shaped feet. They are a good fit in that my feet don't rub or move around inside them. They really are a treat to run in, comfy, flexible, spacious, light and well made. I can't rate them highly enough. I do all my running in them now, except on the fells - what I need now is a 'Fell Glove' to complete the set. Keep up the good work.

Recently bought both the road + trail glove on the back of a good review on the Runblogger website. Reviews are of limited value as our feet are all so different and there are so many permutations as to how they interact with shoes. On face of it these trainers are great. They really do look fantastic and I loved the inner lining allowing sockless running, the lightness, the upper, the colour schemes + the glove feel. As somebody with wide feet the toe box was also just about roomy enough (although could have been more so) and this was encouraging. However, during the v. initial stages of getting a feel for them before going for a proper run it emerges that they were too stiff for me and bruised the top of my left foot and aggravated a former toe injury. I made the call that injury would have resulted had I properly run in them. That was not a risk I was prepared to take. For me trainers have to be good to go from the outset as anything else is too risky. And this is coming from someone who is familiar with barefoot/minimalist running technique and knows how to'tread lightly'. I need my trainers v. flexible from the sole up & I found the vibram soles stiff. Perhaps Merrell would be better sticking to their own ones. If the foot is naturally flexible why make a barefoot trainer stiff & constrained? Does that not defeat the purpose? Of course, this is just a personal opinion. It should mean nothing to anyone else than me. But to me it means a lot! I'm not saying the shoes are bad at all. I couldn't claim that. But I can say they do not interact well with my particular feet. My gripe is not the shoe (these might work a treat for some folks) but the returns policy. I was only allowed to send them back if they were 'unworn' but how could I tell if they would work for me without wearing them? I understand the predicament of the company as regards resale but this is hardly putting the customer first. Even wearing trainers around the house is not enough to make an accurate assessment. I could only make that after walking & v. gently jogging in them outside the house on about three occasions. But then I wouldn't lie, pretend I hadn't worn them and try to blag a refund or a credit note. That's not my style. My only option is ebay where I'm lucky to get half of the cost price (neither the trail or the road glove sold). So, as a consumer, I lose out. Of course, I understand why a retailer will not accept worn shoes returned. Yet it is also the case that some shops do allow you to wear & return. This to me is quality service because it prioritises the customer's needs and not the company's.

These are my first minimalist shoes, and so far I love. the lack of support forces you to put all of your weight on your toes, and as a result i feel a lot more nimble, and my running technique has greatly improved. word of warning for people who've never used barefoot shoes before, you're calves will hurt. a lot. but they will adapt eventually.