The Adidas Adizero Prime Parley is a great shoe, maybe one of my all-time favorites. It wasn’t sent to me by a brand or marketing agency – in fact the model I have is old and has been updated. I don’t have the update, but it looks to be pretty similar. I found this shoe totally by chance – it was on clearance for like $25 at a local Burlington Coat Factory (which along with Marshall’s and TJ Maxx has become a favorite store for footwear “treasure hunting” – this shoe had an MSRP of $200). I saw it on the rack and recognized the paired Boost midsole and Continental rubber outsole as being quite familiar – it’s basically that of the Adidas Adios, another of my favorite shoes, and the one my oldest son wore for most of his track season last year. But the sole was paired with a one-piece, knit upper – very intriguing given that Nike Free Flyknits are my preferred shoe to wear during the day at work. They were size 11, but I tried them on anyway and they fit well. For $25, why not give them a try?

I’ve run nearly all of my miles in these shoes this summer, and they have proven to be one of the best treasures I have found at a discount store. If you’ve run in the Adidas Adios you already know what they feel like underfoot – the Boost midsole is bouncy but seems to firm up at higher speeds, and I’ve used them on the track and the road. I also ran my first race in a long time in them earlier this month. The upper is ridiculously comfortable – I love a knit upper that I can slip on and off easily without ever needing to untie, and they hug the foot without any slop while running. I didn’t realize until recently that the upper of the Parley model I have is made from recycled ocean plastic – another plus in my book. Parley is an organization dedicated to ocean conservation, and they have collaborated with a number of companies to use recycled ocean plastic in products.

In an effort to keep things short and to the point, I’ll finish by commenting on sizing. The pair I have are size 11, which is atypical for me, but they fit well when I tried them on (and they didn’t have any other sizes on the rack at Burlington). I wear a 10.5 in most shoes, and just yesterday I was at Marshall’s and they had a bunch of the adizero Prime on display. I tried on the 10.5 and it felt tight around the forefoot – I would definitely recommend at least a half size up. I would have bought another pair at Marshall’s for myself if they’d had an 11, but alas no such luck (my son, who has the same shoe size as me, also wanted one – we share similar tastes in footwear, though he is more into soccer cleats).

So, if you happen to be at a discount store and see the Prime Parley, I’d highly recommend giving them a try (they seem to be making the rounds of these clearance stores right now). It’s a great shoe, and highly versatile. The newer model looks like it has the same sole with a different upper, and even these can be had on clearance right now at Running Warehouse. If you have tried the newer version, leave a comment about the upper – I’m curious if it’s mostly similar to the model I have. Finally, for another take check out the Prime Parley review on Believe in the Run.

End of the first day at the Fat Dog 120 mile. Enjoying a high alpine section on a perfect evening before what would be my biggest struggle of the year through the night resulting in my only DNF for the year.

Yes, unfortunately it is now February and a best of 2016 post is old news, but better late than never. While things were a little lighter on the blogging front for me, I still had a full year of running, racing, and got to try out tons of new shoes and gear in the process.  I ran the Carlsbad Road Marathon in January, Gorge Waterfalls 100k in April, Quad Rock 50 mile in May, Bighorn 100 mile in June, Fat Dog 120 (DNF at mile 80, 25 hrs in) in August, and the North Face 50 mile in San Francisco in December.  All in all, it was a good year of improvement and continuing to learn more about my self as a person and runner. Some big goals on tap for this year and hoping to start things off well at the LA Marathon in March (despite a recent injury setback last week, my first in 3 years).

I’ve done a “Best of the Year” post every year and thought I’d put together another one with the addition of some great gear that I’ve used a ton as well.  Hopefully this won’t be too long and some will find it useful!

Best Shoes of 2016

-Road Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Skechers GORun Forza, adidas adizero Boston 6, and Salming Miles.

1. Skechers GORun Forza – The Forza didn’t blow me away when I first tried it in February last year, but it has really hung on in my line-up and is on the short list of road shoes I turn to for most road runs other than really fast days.  The shoe holds up super well, fits and feels like a lighter shoe and offers great structure without ever getting in the way.  Such a great shoe from Skechers and foreshadowing of some big improvements that are just now coming with their 2017 lineup (See GORun 5, GOMeb Razor and GOMeb Speed 4 all of which are fantastic!).
2. adidas adizero Boston 6 – It took me a long time to get around to trying the Boston 6 despite my affinity for v5 on dry trails.  While the Boston 6 is still great on trails, adidas really improved it’s feel on the road with a softer feeling forefoot due to a new outsole which is softer and yet still very durable; great stuff from Continental.  The new seam-free toebox is a great change as well.  The Boston 6 is one of the best all around shoes out there that will literally almost do anything well.
3. Salming Miles – Salming was a big surprise for me last year and ended up with my road shoe of the year in the Distance 3.  They didn’t really revamp their mainline models much in 2016 other than some new midsole material on them, but did launch a new road shoe in the Miles.  All of my complaints about durability in the Distance and Speed have been completely abolished with the Miles.  It is probably one of the more durable shoes I’ve ever used and feels completely natural riding in Salming’s usual style and feel.  Great high mileage (likely a 750+ Mile shoe) trainer particularly if you don’t want a higher drop training shoe.

Honorable mentions: adidas adios 1 Haile (great re-issue of the adios 1 and super versatile shoe…can’t find it anymore so hopefully they re-issue the re-issue :) ), adidas adios 3 (incremental update, but still a great shoe) and Nike Pegasus 33 (light and versatile; great on trails),

-Trail Shoes

From Bottom to Top: My modified Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3, Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3, and New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi.

1. Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3 – Yes, I know this shoe was out in 2015 even (hard to believe) but I really didn’t begin to use it till this last year and actually ended up using it in most of my races this year at some point or another.  The biggest reason it took me so long was that it took modifying the midsole profile to narrow the shoe up, which transformed the shoe and quickly made it much more nimble and it made a world of difference in the overall feel.  The upper on the Wildhorse 3 is also second to none on the market it my view.  It is light, breathes well and dries out quickly while allowing me to run very long in them sock less with zero issues.  One of the best, well rounded trails shoes ever made.  Version 4 is on the way in April and very much looking forward to that update as well as the Kiger 4.  Take a look here from a preview pic of both of them from Kaci Lickteig’s twitter.
   

   Unmodified Wildhorse 3 on top, modified on bottom. Basically I’ve shaved the midsole down to a narrower more nimble profile and really like the results.

   

   Doesn’t affect the shoe in any negative way and really tightens up the ride while being an ounce lighter. Win, win.

2. Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3 – The Ultra 3 was a real surprise for me and after logging quite a few miles in it (in a couple different versions: standard, Climate All-Weather and a custom version with the GOTrail rock plate in it which is amazing).  It has become a very nice tool to reach for in my rotation and the just released GOTrail Ultra 4 is even better with an improved upper in nearly every aspect as well as a bit firmer midsole which is also nice.  If you haven’t tried the Ultra 3 or 4 grab a pair, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed and it offers a very unique ride that isn’t really similar to much else in the market.
3. New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi – I waited till November to try the Gobi and that was too bad.  After feeling that the Zante was loosing some of its initial luster for me due to some subpar (in my view) foam that breaks down way too early.  The Zante also had an upper that isn’t quite as supportive as I’d like to see.  Well the good news for me was the Gobi has a great upper with much more support in addition to the added lugs to the outsole which really improve the feel of the ride in my view.  The foam still breaks down too soon, but really at the price they go for (under $100) there isn’t much to fault in them.

Honorable Mentions: Hoka One One Speed Instinct (best Hoka to date for me; well cushioned yet still enough pop to run fast and the best fit by far in any Hoka for my foot…like a Nike Kiger with more plush feel), Topo MT-2/Hyrdroventure (great light minimal-esque shoes and fantastic update to original MT…there is a new version of the MT-2 with an updated upper material that just came out) , Skechers GOTrail (good new entry for Skechers that runs well in a variety of conditions with a faster/lighter feel than the Ultra 3, but similar fit and finish), Montrail Caldorado (solid all-around new shoe from Montrail…really looking forward to the Caldorado 2 upper update which could address biggest issues with first version), Montrail Trans Alps (super burly, durable and surprisingly runnable beast of a shoe; also looking forward to upper update)

-Mountain Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Scarp Atom, Scarpa Neutron, and Salming Elements.

1. Scarpa Atom – Scarpa really nailed their 2016 launches and overall came out with the best technical mountain footwear of the year in my view.  Other than some overly wide heel profiles which, while not a deal breaker, could be narrower in my view, the shoes are remarkably well made with sticky Vibram Megagrip, low drops and secure uppers.  The Atom, being the most minimal of the lineup fits snug but comfortable and creates a mountain slipper like feel in both the upper and ride.  Such a fun shoe to run technical terrain in.  I do think it could be improved with a forefoot rock plate to help with the occasional sharp rock and extend the length of outings it could handle, but even so it is still very good and one of my top 3 mountain shoes of all time….I rarely buy 2nd pairs of shoes these days and I’ll be buying another pair of Atoms.
2. Scarpa Neutron – The Neutron is a burlier and more luggy option from Scarpa and despite needing just a bit narrower midsole profile in the heel, it is a really sweet mountain option with tons of protection, a decent ride, secure upper and great traction.  Check Scarpa out if you frequent some technical or mountain terrain and keep a look out for the forthcoming Scarpa Spin that aims to strike a balance between the Atom and the Neutron and has tons of potential.
3. Salming Elements – Salming’s first entry into the mountain running scene and they got a lot of things right.  The upper needs just a bit of work in cleaning it up from stitchingand making it a touch more secure and the shoe could use a forefoot rockplate with its relatively low forefoot stack height, but the grip is quite nice in mud and loose terrain and it is one of the best non-UK designed (i.e. inov-8 or Walsh) fell running shoes I’ve come across.  Hopefully, Salming doesn’t give up on the shoe and makes a few tweaks in the direction they appear to be going with their forthcoming Trail 5 and Snowrace with improved uppers and Vibram outsoles.

Descending near of the top of Mt. Olympus outside of Salt Lake City in August.

Best Gear of 2016

-Hydration Gear

From Top to Bottom: Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo (Hi-Fi fronts on both), Salomon Sense Set and Sense Ultra Set and Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0.

1. Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo waistbelts – I would have never thought waist belts would make a post of any sorts let alone top my list of hydration products but UD blew me away and totally revived the waist belt as a useful running tool.  I used the Stereo which holds two 500 ml soft flasks (the Mono holds 1 500 ml flask) at the Bighorn 100 in the heat and it was incredible to have my torso clear to vent heat and yet still carry enough water comfortably.  The Mono is something I use multiple times a week in training and literally you can’t even feel it on. I can carry a phone and multiple gels (with Hi-Fi front pouch, which comes with Stereo…they are interchangeable) in the front and 500 ml of fluid in the back without even noticing (used this setup at the North Face 50 and it was flawless).
2. Salomon Sense Set and Ultra Set – What UD did for waist belts Salomon did for hydration vests…I’d almost not call these vests but hydration shirts or apparel they fit so close to the body.  Great versatility and can carry a fair bit without any encumbrance.  When I needed more gear than the UD belts could carry I used one of the Sense vests (i.e. nighttime at Bighorn or other races or training outings where jackets and lights were necessary).  Salomon is revamping the line this year with new bottles with wider caps/opening (yes!) that should go back into the vest easier and upping the capacity from 1 and 3 to 2 and 5 for these vests in addition to adding a new 8 L model (see new line here).
3. Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0 – The AK vest moved from the most minimal of UD’s vests to a more robust 10L capacity and includes extra pockets and features like ice axe loops for more ambitious outings.  I used the vest at the Fat Dog 120 mile in Canada which had a pretty large mandatory gear list and it was great for that heavier load which would have been too much for the Sense Ultra.  Great for adventures and more involved races and offers a nice blend of capacity and streamlined design.

-Other things I Liked this last Year

Altra Casual shoes, Buff and Dynafit running hats and GU Hydration and Nutrition products.

1. Altra Casual Shoes – Altra released the Tokala and Desert boot and they really hit a nice balance of lightweight design and comfort, while still looking like a normal shoe and feeling like a running shoe.  They’ve been great especially going to work after runs where they have plenty of room for feet to spread, relax and recover.
2. Light running caps from Buff and Dynafit – the Buff Cap Pro and Dynafit React Cap have been awesome this last year.  They are super light, very packable and both allow the bill to be flipped up when you are climbing steeper trails or otherwise want more visibility.  Great design, particularly in more mountain environments.
3. GU Energy  – I used to not be that picky about energy and hydration products in the past and felt that sugar was sugar, but after making some effort to dial in my nutrition for 100 milers (after some issues with hydration at Western States in 2015), I needed to deal with sodium levels better as well as have a wide variety of gels and chews to keep things interesting for calories.  The GU Hydration (formerly GU Brew) product had become a go to for electrolyte replacement for long outings and it also contains 70 cals per serving so there is some added sugar there too.  The big difference for me is that the GU Hydration doesn’t have a super sweet taste or aftertaste that many others do for me and this is huge when going through lots of volume of liquid.  GU Roctane drinks are also great for workouts in training where I want to simplify my calories and hydration into one drink.  GU gels, which are now offered in bulk with a GU designed soft flask (yes!) have a wide variety of flavors with many being very palatable for me (some favorited are Salted Chocolate Roctane, Cucumber Mint, Root Beer, Salted Watermelon and Salted Caramel but many other good flavors). I still will use Clif Shot Bloks, Clif gels and Honey Stinger Gels to mix up the type of sugars here and there, but I’ll use GU the most and their drink is by far the best in my view (Clif’s Hydration drink mix is also decent).

Another shot near the bottom of the Mt. Olympus trail.

Hope you all found something of interest with this post and hang in there with the site as we try to figure out how to balance everything out with our busy family lives and careers.  Doesn’t mean we aren’t getting out running and trying new things still!  I’d love to read any comments you may have on any of the shoes or gear I mentioned and always on the lookout for new things that work well for folks.  I like good design of all sorts and always curious for new innovations and ideas that work well.  Happy running in 2017!

Good luck in 2017 everyone! Pic of some of my recent single digit F marathon training conditions….not exactly ideal for a SoCal marathon, but that’s part of the challenge!

Scarpa Atom

1. Scarpa Atom – weight 250 grams (8.8 oz) mens 9, 4mm drop, $119.00 (specs via Scarpa)

My first experience with Scarpa was with the TRU which I reviewed in a roundup last year.  Overall I like the fit and design of the shoe but found the midsole to be quite harsh.  My biggest worry about Scarpa’s otherwise great looking 2016 lineup was that the midsole material would be super firm like the TRU.  I’m happy to report that the Atom (along with the Neutron and Proton) all have much better feeling rides.  The Atom has really grown on me over the summer for technical mountain terrain.  It has a very precise ride that inspires confidence on tricky terrain.  The Vibram Megagrip outsole is fantastic and really ties together the otherwise pretty minimal shoe.  Additionally the upper is nice and secure while still being pretty comfortable and sock like. My only wish was that there was a small rockplate in the forefoot to help just a bit with some rock protection on harder surfaces.  It is pretty minimal overall and just every so often that fact is brought to my attention in really rocky conditions.  That said though, it is one of my favorite mountain running shoes ever and the best I’ve tried this year.  Go check them out!

Well padded tongue, lace pocket (yes!) and secure yet comfortable upper.

I did trim the midsole up a tad to increase sharpness…result was good.

The Neutron is also a great option, that while not as nimble, offers a ton of protection and is still precise enough for tricky terrain.  The Proton is very durable and protective and runs much better on hard terrain than the Atom or Neutron.  All in all Scarpa definitely hit the mark with their new lineup and quickly moved to the top of my list when I look for a shoe to handle technical routes.

Scapa Neutron – Great all around mountain shoe with tons of protection, traction and good upper comfort.

Scarpa Proton – super durable, good fit and not as clunky as it looks. Nice high mileage and more hardpack friendly option from Scarpa

2. Salming Elements – weight 277 grams (9.8 oz) mens 9, 21mm Heel/17mm FF, $140.00

Salming has been on a roll over the last couple years and they haven’t really introduced a bad shoe yet. At first I wasn’t sure they could carry the magic over to the the mountain running segment since it tends to be a niche that more technical/moutnain oriented companies better understand.  The Elements defies the odds though and Salming came through with a great shoe for steep, loose and soft terrain.  The fit is secure and yet quite roomy in the forefoot compared to many other mountain/fell running shoes.

A fairly wide toebox for a mountain shoe and good overall upper padding too…something not always present on mountain shoes.

Super deep lugs do well in soft terrain and the shoe is very stable and natural riding like most of Salming’s lineup.  Other than the slightly higher price tag (a common theme with Salming) I really can’t find too many issues with the shoe when you consider its end use.  I might also like a light rock plate on it like the Scarpa Atom so as to expand the type of terrain it can handle. I’m a big fan of plates for lower stack shoes since you can add a ton of protection at a low weight penalty and little change to the ride.

3. inov-8 Arctic Claw 300 – weight 300 g (10.5 oz) mens 9, 8mm drop, $150 (specs via inov-8)

Arctic Claw 300 on bottom and Arctic Talon 275 on top

Spiked mountain shoes are a very niche category and typically, other than Icebug, Salomon with the Spikecross and Merrell with the All Out Terra Ice, inov-8 has been the only other brand producing these types of models.  Arguably they’ve been doing it the longest, at least on a larger scale, and I’ve run in the inov-8 OROC 280 and 340 for many winters.  The 340 was and probably still is the gold standard for me in a spiked shoe.  However, one area that I’ve yet to see a company succeed is in making a spiked shoe with a roomy upper.  That was what intrigued me about the Arctic Claw 300 initially is that it is built on inov-8s wider Standard Fit where as all of their other past spiked models (and pretty much any other spiked shoe ever produced) has been quite narrow fitting.  The Arctic Claw comes through in providing a fairly roomy toebox but still manage to have the rest of the shoe perform with aggressive lugs, spikes and even, to some surprise, a little bit of cushion in a technical shoe.  If you’ve shied away from spiked shoes in the past for winter or very wet running because of fit, the Arctic Claw 300 is worth a look.

Arctic Claw 300 on right has a significantly wider toebox and midfoot fit than the Talon 275 on left…I like both but for different reasons

The companion Arctic Talon 275 is also quite good and more in line fit wise to the OROC 280 and 340.  inov-8 continues to do well in these more niche categories where as I’ve felt they’ve struggled a bit in making good all around trail shoes in the last few years.

4. Salewa Lite Train – weight 260 g (9.2 oz) mens 9, 18mm heel/12mm FF, $129.00 (specs via Salewa)

I was intrigued when Salewa introduced their Lite Train earlier this year.  It has a lot of features I look for in a mountain and lighter shoe (medium to low drop, rock plate, full outsole, secure lower volume upper but with medium to wider toebox) and I’m always happy to see new entries into my favorite shoe category, particular from companies with mountain expertise that haven’t yet taken a stab at a running shoe.  Of course along with this comes some growing pains and rarely do brands nail it on the first try (the Salming Elements above is probably the biggest exception to this rule that I can recall).  Mainly this comes in the form of the upper being slightly overbuilt with a very heavy and hot suede-like material lining about 75% of the inside of the shoe, backing the mesh.  This results in a very secure fit but the shoe is hot and the upper doesn’t move as freely with the foot as I’d like and is particularly an issue where the tongue is sowed on the upper which is very thick and has irritated the top of my foot.  The last shape is really good though and the foot hold is fantastic so some bright spots in the fit there.  The outsole is also quite nice with Michelin branded rubber which seems quality so far.  A forefoot rock plate adds just the right amount of protection for a light shoe.

Good last shape and overall a well done first attempt.

Really the biggest issue besides the slightly overbuilt upper is the midsole material, and thus ride, is sub par and is pretty noticeable compared to many offerings now on the market.  For shorter outings and on really rough terrain it is not as noticeable, but on hardpack trail the shoe just doesn’t inspired much in the ride department.  That said, I like the feel, ride and fit better than something like the Salomon Sense and Sense Softground so it really is not a bad shoe, just still room for some improvement.

5. adidas Terrex Agravic (and Agravic GTX) – weight 328 g (11.6 oz) mens 9, 28mm heel/22mm FF, $135.00

Agravic GTX

Man, I cannot tell you how high my expectations were for the Terrex Agravic.  I’d seen glimmers of greatness with the Terrex Boost (now call the Skychaser) and was hoping that the Agravic would essentially keep the good elements (great outsole and midsole/ride) of the Skychaser and address the upper comfort issues and produce in in a slightly lighter and more nimble package.  I tried everything to get the Agravic to work for me, including modifying the lacing and upper to get better security and relieved high lacing pressure issues but to no avail.  The Agravic upper simply is just not cut out for the job.  The EVA tongue design is awful, stops zero lacing pressure and is super sweaty on the foot.  The mesh is mostly comfortable but adidas chose to put a stitched overlay right at the pinky toe and side of the 1st metatarsal which are not comfortable.  Additionally, the upper just doesn’t hold my foot on the platform so taking advantage of the great Continental outsole is not possible.  The midsole, while similar to the Skychaser, is actually a little less precise, especially in the heel area which moves it in the wrong direction for me.

Agravic on top GTX version on bottom. Tried everything I could to salvage Agravic upper including punching new lace holes and removing the offending forefoot overlays.

Super thin eva tongue…a design I hope not to see again from adidas

A huge bummer, but I really can’t recommend the shoe.  I will say the GTX version doesn’t have all the issues of the regular.  With the GTX membrane it has more support in the upper and also the eva tongue isn’t full length like in the regular version.  I can actually see using the GTX version some this winter, but wouldn’t consider it in any temps above 35 deg F.

adidas was kind enough to send me a pair of the adios Boost 3 for review purposes, and I’ve been running in them regularly for the past few months. Like its predecessors, v3 is 10mm drop (23mm heel, 13mm forefoot), and it weighs in right around 8oz in men’s size 9 (per Running Warehouse). Similarities with v2 don’t end there, however. Although adidas made some minor updates to the upper and sole in v3, the changes are very minor, and the shoe essentially feels exactly the same to me. As such, I’m going to keep this review relatively short.

The thing I love most about the adios Boost is the sole. The heel is softish and cushy, but as the Boost midsole thins out under the forefoot to only 13mm, the feel is distinctly firmer and more responsive. Longitudinal stiffness from the midfoot forward is increased by the plastic Torsion System, and this helps give the adios Boost a snappy ride at faster speeds.

Torsion system extends from the midfoot to a bit under the forefoot.

Much like the New Balance 1400 and Asics Hyperspeed, I could use the adios Boost for races spanning distances from 5k to the marathon. It’s a very versatile shoe, and that’s one of the reasons I would justify spending $140 on it (that and the fact that the Boost midsole and Continental rubber outsole are quite durable – I think I could get more miles out of the adios Boost than the NB 1400 or Hyperspeed).

The upper of v3, though different, is very similar to that of v2. It has a throwback look that I really like, with a classic mesh and suede overlays. Like v2, the interior of the upper is pretty scratchy and not one that I would risk using without socks – this is one thing I’d like to see changed in a future iteration (NB fixed a similar problem in v3 of the 1400). The fit is not wide, but not so narrow as to be uncomfortable – going up a half size makes for a bit more room (I recommend sizing up in v3 as I did in v2).

Perhaps the biggest change in v3 is the outsole, though from a function standpoint I can’t really feel any difference. The durable Continental rubber compound is still in use in v3, though adidas added a bit more rubber under the forefoot, and got rid of the two strips of rubber nubs that extended from the midfoot forward in previous versions (see comparison photos below).

Soles of the adios Boost 3 (top) and adios Boost 2 (bottom). Different structure, but functionally pretty similar.

Conclusion

If you’re a fan of the adios Boost and liked v2, then you’ll most certainly like v3. Changes are minimal – in my opinion this remains one of the best all-around shoes on the market.  If you haven’t tried the adios Boost and are in a mood to spend a bit of cash, it’s definitely worth a look, and the combo of versatility and durability justifies the price (though I’d still like to see it drop about $20-$30 before I can rec it over shoes like the NB 1400 or Asics Hyperspeed). Kudos to adidas for not messing too much with a great shoe!

The adidas Adios Boost 3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse. You can also customize a pair of adios Boost 3 at adidas.com (resisting the urge!!!).

Also of note, I choose to segment the trail market into what I call, for simplicity’s sake, “trail” shoes and “mountain” shoes.  Trail shoes are those designed for smoother, well marked trails, dirt roads, and tend to have less lug depth.  Mountain shoes are designed for the more technical terrain that is usually, though not always, found in the mountains, though any very technical or steep trail can demand similar requirements from a shoe.  What I list below are those shoes that I (not necessarily the manufacturers) deem as the mountain offerings I saw at this years Outdoor Retailer, and is the last in my series of preview posts.  You can see my other posts here for: road racing, road training, and trail shoes.

adidas

adidas terrex Agravic – weight 11 oz men (311 g), 9.4 women, drop: 6mm, available: February 2016, Price $135.

 Such a big improvement in the upper from the Terrex Boost. No speedlaces, seamless, simple.

The terrex Agravic is probably the shoe I’m most excited to try for Spring 2016.  It’s built on a similar platform to the terrex Boost that is currently out, but with a thinner rock plate/shank, seamless and stripped back upper, along with an aggressive Continental rubber outsole. The terrex Boost surprised me with how precise and nimble it was for such a protective platform.  Other than the fact that it was just a tad heavy, and the upper a little stiff, it is one of the best riding mountain shoes I’ve ever tried.  If the Agravic runs similar, but with the lower weight and more comfortable upper, it is going to be nothing short of amazing for long, technical outings in the mountains.

Fantastic outsole that is pretty aggressive, but should run ok on the occasional harder trail.

adidas terrex X-King – weight 10.5 oz (305 g) men, drop: 6mm, available: Spring 2016, Price $150.

Such a slick shoe all the way around, and kudos for adidas (again) putting out some unique designs. Between this, the XT Boost, and Riot Boost, they have some of the more interesting new designs out there.

The terrex X-King is another unique design from adidas.  The upper is entirely vulcanized to the outsole (no glue or stitching), and the midsole is added through a footbed. adidas is only offering the one footbed for now, but is considering multiple options in the future if the X-King design proves successful.  I was too busy geeking over the shoe that I forgot to take pictures of it, but it is super flexible and has a fantastic Continental outsole on it.  It is by far the most aggressive of adidas’ offerings and looks to be a fell running type option similar to an inov-8 Mudclaw or X-Talon.  I am expecting a pair to test out fairly soon and will get a review posted sometime late winter.

terrex Skychaser – Slight update to terrex Boost with only a name change and minor change to the overlay in the toebox  Everything else is the same as the current terrex Boost.

The terrex Boost gets a name change to the terrex Skychaser and a slight upper modification to make the toebox a bit more comfortable.

Dynafit

Dynafit Feline Vertical and Vertical Pro – weight 8.8 oz (250 g) men, 7.4 oz women, drop: 4mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $129.95 for Vertical, $149.95 for Vertical Pro

Great looking upper and design all around. Minimalist at its core, but enough shoe to consider for full on racing and training. Feline Vertical in pic.

The Dynafit Feline Vertical and Vertical Pro are a pair of shoes that are right up there for ones that I’m most excited about.  The only reason they don’t top the Agravic for me is that the midsole material is an unknown in the Dynafit, whereas I know I like the Boost and design of the Agravic.  Regardless, Dynafit’s last is spot on, with a meduim width forefoot, and snug low volume fit elsewhere. The shoe also has a Vibram Megagrip outsole and rock plate on a 4m drop platform.  Check, check and check.  It has all of the things I ask for in a technical/mountain shoe, and all that is left is to run in them and see how it all turns out.

The Vertical Pro will come only in this colorway with one shoe pink and the other green. It offers a carbon fiber rockplate where as the regular Vertical is TPU.

Fantasic Vibram Megagrip outsole that should be pretty versatile and sticky.

New Balance

New Balance Vazee Summit – weight 9.3 oz (263 g) men, 7.5 women, drop: 10mm, available: April 2016, Price $99.95.

The Vazee Summit. Pretty nice looking shoe all the way around, and great upper.

The Vazee Summit is a successor of sorts to the MT110v2, but also blends that shoe with the RC1400 with a racing flat geometry and last (NBJ).  The result is a stripped back mountain shoe that should run well on trails with its marathon shoe geometry, but also handle rockier terrain with its fairly deep lugs and rock plate.  It has an Acteva midsole (think MT110v1/101) that offers a little more durability and protection than REVlite, a welcome change to me (not big on REVlite).  While I have some concerns that the shoe is trying to blend too many categories (marathon shoe with mountain shoe outsole setup), having seen the shoe in person it is quite nice with a fantastic upper that should hold the foot super well (if you’ve run in the 1400v3 you know what to expect).  I’d love to see a version of this shoe with everything the same except a lower profile lug design, but also looking forward to testing this one out soon.  Also of note is the $99.95 price tag which is pretty rare in a full featured shoe these days.

Nice overall outsole design for rough terrain; maybe a tad much for the type of platform it is on though.

Salewa

Salewa Lite Train – weight 8.6 oz (245 g) men, 6.5 oz women, drop: 6mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $129.00.

Salewa Lite Train. A fantastic looking light and fast shoe with minimalistic design features.

Up to now, Salewa has focused more on alpine hiking and approach shoes, but they are branching out into what they are calling a Mountain Training category with the Lite Train and Ultra Train (see below).  The results are some very technically focused mountain running shoes with great design features.  The Lite train is the more minimal of the two with a 6mm drop and very stripped back, seamless upper.  Both are on great lasts similar to Dynafit, and both have rock plates and sticky rubber from Michelin (which I have yet to try on any shoe).  Pretty excited to try these out.

Nice outsole design that might be a tad busy visually, but should perform well on a variety of surfaces.

Salewa Ultra Train – weight 10.2 oz (290 g) men, 8.11 women, drop: 8mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $139.00.

A more robust upper that looks like it would take some abuse, but wasn’t stiff or uncomfortable feeling in hand.

The Ultra Train is a companion shoe the Lite Train and offers a little more cushioning and durability in all aspects of the shoe with still featuring a similar straightforward design focus.  The shoe felt more flexible and nimble than the specs would suggest and I think will run very nicely, especially, as its name would suggest, for longer technical ultra races.  Salewa definitely wins the prize for best debut trail offering at Outdoor Retailer.  Great overall shoes from a new player in the trail/mountain shoe scene.

Again, nice looking outsole that has more rubber and probably more versatility than the Lite Train, but still slim in shape.

Scarpa

Scarpa Atom – weight 8.8 oz (249 g) men, 7.5 oz women, drop: 4mm, available: Late Winter 2016

Very nice upper design and I know the last is good based on running in the Scarpa TRU recently (a short review for that one coming soon).

The Scarpa Atom is another exciting shoe from yet another smaller, mountain focused company.  This was the story of OR for me with the smaller mountain companies really nailing the technical trail shoes much better as a whole than the bigger running brands.  I like nearly everything about this shoe, though I’ll admit to being a little leery of the compressed EVA in the midsole.  Given that it is a pretty low stack height and meant for steeper terrain, this will be less of an issue, but I still would prefer injected EVA.  Regardless, fantastic design all the way around and Vibram outsole to round out the package.  Exciting line refresh from Scarpa.

Racy and minimal lug design that will grip well, but feel fast.

Scarpa Neutron – weight 9.7 oz (275 g) men, 8.2 oz women, drop: 6mm, available: Late Winter 2016

Great looking upper – a touch more durability than the Atom, while still being super comfortable looking.

The Neutron could be a really nice long run shoe that runs more like a racing shoe.  It has a full feature set with rock plate, all around mountain outsole, and medium 6mm drop on a more durable upper design.  Again, a little concerned about the compressed EVA making the ride harsh, but the Vibram outsole may smooth that out a bit.  Like the Atom, the Neutron has a fantastic overall design, and is another shoe I’m anxious to try this Spring.

A little more meat to the lug while not being overkill. Still streamlines though with a narrow midfoot and heel just like it should be.

Well, that’s it for now. Lot’s of exciting shoes on the way, would love to hear of any that might have caught your eye that aren’t mentioned here!

Specs

Price: $140

Weight: 260 g (9.2 oz) size 9 men, 230 g (8.1 oz) size 8 women

Stack Height: 29mm Heel/18.5mm Forefoot; 10.5 mm drop

Specs from adidas

Fit is pretty typical of adizero lineup and just how I like it. Snug heel and midfoot with a medium toebox.

Gaiter is neither too tight nor loose, and is effective at keeping stuff out.

Upper and Fit

The XT Boost sports one of the most unique uppers on the market today.  When I first saw the shoe, I was a little leery of the upper and figured it would either work really well, or completely ruin the shoe.  After putting some miles on them I can say that I really appreciate the upper, and feel it is a real asset for the shoe. For example, sometimes I’ve reached for the XT Boost when heading out on a run simply for the extra coverage the built-in scree gaiter provides.  It keeps all debris out in the mountains in the summer and fall, and even did a pretty good job with a recent run in 3 inches of fresh snow (although the rest of the shoe is not intended for winter and is pretty breathable).

Aside from the gaiter, which is great, the rest of the upper checks most of the boxes for me and fits like most adidas in the adizero line (i.e. pretty close to the adios in fit – same last I believe).  The shoe is randed from the forefoot through the midfoot, holds the foot pretty well, and is sufficiently breathable.  It is not as seam-free as I’d like, but I still haven’t had any issues running in them up to 2.5 hrs without socks.

As an aside, adidas was planning on releasing a Primeknit version of the XT Boost with a full knitted upper – I was drooling over it, but unfortunately it was canceled before release.  Such a shame and I sure hope they reconsider releasing that shoe at some point!  Overall though, the upper on the XT Boost is a great example of a company trying something new, in a thoughtful way, and I think it pays off with a very unique and effective end result.

Great midsole with adios style geometry, Boost in forefoot and a unique randed, yet simple upper.

Midsole and Ride

adidas usually excels in this area for me, and the XT Boost is no exception.  The XT Boost keeps a more marathon shoe midsole geometry like the XT 5, with a 10.5 mm drop (really 6mm would be ideal, but not a huge problem) and a pretty low forefoot stack height (similar to the adios).  The ride is quite different from the XT 5 though, and even from the adios Boost for that matter.  While still racy and fairly precise, the XT Boost is softer, less structured and more flexible than either of those shoes. It’s still protective enough for 50k, and maybe even up to 50 miles if one is used to lighter footwear.

With Boost just in the forefoot, it creates a more specific feel to the shoe with a firmer rear half and a responsive but more forgiving forefoot.  I usually like the opposite (firmer forefoot/softer heel), but I think in this case it works pretty well since Boost is still responsive, but gives the forefoot a good deal of flexibility which helps when climbing and on technical terrain.  The heel shape is probably the only area I’d tweak on the midsole.  I simply think it is too wide and bulging.  They could keep a narrower heel design and not lose any stability or ride quality. Other than that, even though I never had protection issues, I’d like to see a thin rock plate/torsion shank (like in the Terrex Boost, but quite a bit thinner) in the XT Boost. I think the extra protection and structure provided by a rock plate for long runs is worth the weight tradeoff.  If the shoe was sub 8 oz., I might reconsider (although I like rock plates a lot :)).

You can see the bulge of the heel design. One of the few things I don’t like about the shoe as I think it should cut pretty straight down following the line of the heel counter rather than flare out, especially in a shoe this light and nimble; it only gets in the way when side-hilling and on the downhill. Doesn’t ruin the ride, but could improve it if altered.

Outsole

adidas’ partnership with Continental has been around for awhile, but I feel the new round of trail offerings for both 2015 and the forthcoming 2016 lineup are the best yet.  They are simple in design, full coverage, black rubber, with repeating lug patterns that run well while providing market leading grip.  The XT’s outsole is the most low profile of all the adidas trail offerings, yet is still pretty aggressive overall, and I would consider it to be an all-mountain type outsole.  It has the ability to run well on both trail and in the mountains/off trail while not firmly in the Trail or Mountain category.  These types of outsole setups are particularly great for routes that have you starting low on smoother trails and finishing on a peak or with off trail sections up high.  This outsole would be perfect for a race like the Rut 50k that I did last year where there is an equal mix of smooth single track and rugged off trail since it would not be unpleasant on either.  If you are looking for outsoles that provide great traction on a variety of surfaces, but don’t get in the way on smooth trail, the XT Boost, Terrex Boost and Response Boost have some of the best out there.

Great outsole design as with the rest of the recent adidas trail lineup. Don’t think they need to expose the Boost in the forefoot, but doesn’t hurt it a ton. Lug depth might be a tad much for this shoe, but adds to the versatility, especially with the gaiter on the upper.

Conclusion

Not much else to say.  I really like the shoe and it ranks as one of the best I’ve tried all year.  I’ve been wanting trail shoes with marathon shoe geometries for quite some time and the XT Boost is one of the few shoes that provide that in the current market.  The fact that they do it in a shoe with such a unique and effective upper even further sets it apart.  It rides like a mix of the adios Boost and to some degree the Takumi Ren 3 (which also only has boost in the forefoot), and has great traction for a wide range of conditions. It also runs decently even on the few road sections I’ve been on with it.  If you’re looking at a trail shoe on the lighter/faster end of the spectrum, this is the first shoe I’d recommend.

The adidas adizero XT Boost is available for purchase at Zappos in the US and Wiggle in the UK.

Also of note, I choose to segment the trail market into what I call, for simplicity’s sake, “trail” shoes and “mountain” shoes.  Trail shoes are those designed for smoother, well marked trails, dirt roads and tend to have less lug depth.  Mountain shoes are designed for the more technical terrain that is usually, though not always, found in the mountains, though any very technical or steep trail can demand similar requirements from a shoe.  What I list below are those shoes that I (not necessarily the manufactures) deem as the trail offerings I saw at this years Outdoor Retailer.  A subsequent post will preview the mountain shoes.

adidas

Very unique upper design that could be too much or could be a highlight. I’ve liked the XT’s unconventional upper so will hold judgement on these till I try them.

adidas Supernova Riot Boost – weight 12.6 oz men, 10.2 women, drop: 10mm, available: February 2016, Price $130.

Given the quality of adidas’ newly Boosted trail lineup launched this summer, I’m pretty excited about the potential this shoe has as a unique all around trail option.  The lugs are shallower (5mm) than both the Raven (6.5 mm) and Response Trail (8mm), and it has a very unique upper design that is similar to the XT Boost, but looks a little thicker and more protective.  Not sure this will be that great in the summer, but could be very nice in poor conditions.  The outsole is also notable in that it uses what Continental calls their Gator Skin process which allows them to mold the outsole at a minimum thickness of 1 mm instead of 3 mm so they can reduce weight.  A puncture resistant layer between the outsole and Boost midsole is added to protect the foot and midsole.

Laces then hook and loop enclosure to wrap over the laces.

Great outsole design as usual with adidas/Continental. Notice how thin it is in the center.

Altra

The Olympus is every bit as substantial as any Hoka.

Altra Olympus 2.0 – weight 10.8 oz men, zero drop, price $149

I haven’t run in any of the Olympus models to date, but I know many runners (especially in the ultra scene) that love them for long races.  They’re zero drop, wide and cushy.  The 2.0 gets the welcome addition of Vibram MegaGrip rubber and a complete overhaul on the midsole and upper as well.  I was told the toe spring/taper was tweaked a bit to be more gradual.  Interested to see how it runs compared to the Skechers GOtrail Ultra 3, which is probably its closet competitor.

Nice looking outsole on them. I personally can’t see using them on anything but flatter outings, but you never know!

Altra Superior 2.0

The Superior 2.0 gets an upper update and a pretty minimal one at that.  The biggest change is that Altra fixed the sizing issue from the original 2.0 where they ran 1/2 to a full size small. Other than that, it’s the Superior 2.0.  I’ve recently run in a pair of 2.0s and liked them overall.  As with most Altras, they run a tad heavy to me, but the Superior is one of the first Altra shoes to be secure enough for me in the upper, and I’m interested in having some zero drop options in the rotation.

Slightly new upper and sizing issue corrected.

Brooks

Brooks Cascadia 11 – weight: 11.8 oz men; 10.1 oz women, drop: 10mm, available 01/01/16, price: $120

The Cascadia is one of those classic models that’s been around quite some time, relatively unchanged and….I’ve never run in a pair.  I do have a pair of Cascadia 10s that I just need to get out on a run with.  Updates are subtle in the upper and that’s a good thing if you like the Cascadia series.  A very popular shoe on the trails that should handle the gamut.

Fairly unchanged from v10, but still an all-around solid looking option with more traditional protection and geometry.

Dynafit

Dynafit Feline Ultra – weight 12 oz men, 10.2 women, drop: 8mm, available March 2016 , price $139.95

New upper on the Feline Ultra that is simplified and refined from the Panterra that it replaces.

The Feline Ultra is an update to the Panterra and looks to mainly update the rubber to Vibram MegaGrip and streamline the upper design, which will be a good thing.  I’ve run in the Panterra a bit and while it isn’t a horrible shoe by any means, the upper was pretty stiff and the shoe overall is quite stiff.  Some improvements in those categories could help with what is otherwise a shoe that is designed with great materials.

Black rubber section is now MegaGrip where it was Vibram Mapping Compound before.

Hoka One One

Hoka Challenger ATR 2 – weight 9.5 oz men, drop: 5mm, available 1/1/2016, price $130.00

I’ve run just a few times in the Challenger ATR, and while it is still a bit soft for my tastes, I can see the appeal and I know many runners that love them.  The ATR 2 is an upper update that adds more security and durability in the overlays, and might help with what is generally a somewhat sloppy fit in my opinion for a shoe with that much stack/cushion.  The Challenger was definitely a hit this year for Hoka, and some refinement will only help.

Nice update to the overlays and I’m liking this colorway.

La Sportiva

La Sportiva Helios 2.0 – weight 8.35 oz men, 6.45 oz women, stack: 19mm heel/15mm toe, available 4/1/16 price $125.00

New upper that might modernize the fit a little.

The Helios series, which birthed out of the midsole/outsole platform of the Vertical K, is one that I’ve not had much luck with from both a fit and function standpoint.  From the fit side of things, the Helios and Helios SR just fit small all the way around.  Normally not a huge issue for most folks as you can size up, but I’m a 47.5 in La Sportiva and that is the largest they make.  The thing is all the other models of Sportivas fit just fine.  I was told that the Helios 2.0 fits a little more true to size which would be great if true.

From the function standpoint, I’m just not sold on the Morpho Dynamic midsole/outsole design (the “waves”), especially for technical trail.  The midsole ride quality is not good enough to justify the shoes as a trail racer, yet the protection is lacking for true technical terrain, mostly due to the fact that there is just too much exposed EVA on them. Well the Helios 2.0 doesn’t change the platform, but adds endurance (AT) rubber and their “cushion platform” insert.  A new upper gives me hope that the fit might be a bit better.  All in all, if you like the Helios or Helios SR (which stays in the line), the Helios 2.0 is a little more differentiated from the SR while still retaining the qualities the platform is known for.

AT rubber throughout (blue FriXion “x”)

La Sportiva Akasha – weight 11.35 oz men, 9.80 oz women, stack: 26mm heel/20mm toe, available 4/1/2016, price $140.00

Nice and clean upper with an open toebox and good overlays. Short of trying it on, it looks pretty good.

The Akasha is an interesting entry from La Sportiva.  Mainly being that it is a much more cushioned option than they typically offer, and yet it tries to retain the technical profile of most of Sportiva’s offerings.  Cushioning and technical performance are usually not things that go hand in hand, but having seen the Akasha in person, I’m definitely holding out hope that they can pull it off.  It looks like a nice and comfortable upper and quality injected EVA.  The outsole looks great, which Sportiva usually excels at (their rubber compounds are fantastic), so overall a shoe to watch this next season.

Solid outsole design with Sportivas XT rubber which is a mix of XF (sticky) black rubber and AT (durable) red rubber in certain areas.

Montrail

Montrail Fluid Flex FKT – weight 9.2 oz men, 7.7 oz women, drop: 4mm, available 2/1/2016 , price $110.00

Great new upper with refined overlays and seamless design.

I tried a few runs in the original Fluid Flex, and tried on the Fluid Flex 2 – I really was not into either.  The foam was too soft and unstable to me, and the uppers didn’t hold the foot well.  I recently received a pair of the Fluid Flex ST from Montrail for review (coming soon), and have been pleasantly surprised with the changes they’ve made.  First, they added a co-molded EVA rock plate in the forefoot and completely changed the ride for the better with their Fluid Guide midsole. This allows them to put denser foam in the midfoot (on both medial and lateral sides) in a gradual way, and it works great with the ST providing more structure, sharper edging and stability to the platform while still allowing for a cushioned experience.  The FKT retains the rock plate and fluid guide of the ST, but gets a slick new seamless upper that may just perfect the shoe into one of the best lightweight trail offerings around.  Excited to give this one a try come February!

Co-molded EVA rock plate in the forefoot (white color) and harder midsole in the midfoot that you can’t see visually but can feel when you hold the shoe.

Montrail Caldorado – weight 11.0 oz men, 9.1 oz women, drop: 8mm, available 2/1/2016, price $120.00

Caldorado upper and profile is nice and clean and should be a nice all around platform. Excited to give them a try.

The Caldorado is a new entry for Montrail in addition to the Trans Alps (more on that one below).  Montrail is attempting to get back to its roots with a full featured and functionally focused trail lineup.  The Caldorado is on a completely new platform, but if it runs like a more robust Fluid Flex ST then I’m definitely interested.  I like the look of the full coverage outsole and seamless upper, but the drop and weight might be just a bit higher than my personal preference (especially considering the Trans Alps is the same drop and not that much heavier).  A 10 oz, 6mm drop Caldorado would have really been the sweet spot I think, but regardless it looks like a solid entry that should compete well with the likes of the Pearl Izumi trail lineup and shoes like the Nike Wildhorse 3, but potentially with a little more precision via a narrower midsole profile (which I like).

Good looking full coverage outsole design with rockplate in the forefoot. Check and check.

Montrail Trans Alps – weight 12.5 oz men, 10.9 oz women, drop: 8mm , available 2/1/2016, price $130.00

The Trans Alps has a more traditional upper with more support, low rand, and a little more supportive midsole design.

The Trans Alps is another new offering for Montrail, and it looks to aim at rough trail and mountain conditions.  My one concern with this is that the profile may be a bit too wide and high for this application, but you can’t always tell just looking at a shoe.  Midsole densities and geometry can play a role, as can the fit, so I’ll reserve judgement on it.  Otherwise, it looks like a nice, no frills offering that should give it some versatility.  It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against some other similar shoes like the La Sportiva Akasha and Scarpa Proton.

More lug (6mm depth compared to the Caldorado 5mm) and more aggressive pattern in addition to a rock plate means this shoe will take some abuse. I’m worried this will be at the cost of the ride quality, but I hope I’m surprised.

New Balance

New Balance Leadville MT1210v3 – weight 10.35 oz men, 8.75 oz women, drop: 8mm, available January 2016, price $124.95

Full redesign on the Leadville v3. Mostly seamless upper with straightforward overlay setup.

The Leadville (1210) is one of those shoes that should run better than it does.  I’ve run in v1 and just couldn’t get into it for some reason.  It’s light, the upper is smooth and the outsole design is decent enough.  Unfortunately, to me the ride quality is just not what I look for in a trail shoe.  It is quite soft and unstable on uneven terrain, and also doesn’t run that great on smoother trails. The last as well is based on the PL last, but with more volume to supposedly accommodate late ultra marathon foot swelling.  In the end it just makes the shoe seem not as secure on 95% of your other runs.  The good news (if you like the 1210) and bad news (if you don’t) is that, while it is a full redesign, the general concept and geometries of the shoe are retained.  The outsole looks arguably better, but without a different fit and midsole design, I’m not sure it will make much difference to me.

Nice outsole design that is Pearl Izumi N2-esque which will be good all around.

New Balance MT10v4– weight 7.2 oz men, 5.8 oz women, drop: 4mm, available April 2016, price $114.95

A very nice looking update. The upper was super soft and although it looks a tad hot, it should be nice overall.

Now here is a NB trail shoe that I’m pretty excited about!  A full refresh for the MT10 in v4. It adds 3mm more cushion than v3, it’s still on the NL-1 (Minimus) last, has full outsole coverage, and an Acteva midsole (maybe I’m the only one, but glad it’s not RevLite).  This basically puts the shoe in a very similar profile to the MT110v1 and I for one am glad to see a more minimal option being offered by NB when many companies aren’t even putting out a trail shoe lighter than 9 oz.  Really excited to run these for shorter outings, and they should perform well on technical terrain given what I know about the specs and fit.  Good job NB!

Nice aggressive, yet versatile looking full coverage Vibram outsole on the MT10v4.

The North Face

North Face Ultra Endurance – weight 11.0 oz men, drop: 8mm, price $125.00

I like the upper design. looks comfortable, secure and durable.

The Ultra Endurance looks to be a nice new offering from North Face.  The Ultra MT took me by surprise this year (review forthcoming) with its Vibram Megagrip outsole and rockplate on a low profile mountain shoe (something not typically done…I don’t know why because it is great!).  The Ultra Endurance looks to take some of the design direction of the MT and give it a little more cushion and protection with a more trail friendly outsole design that is still Vibram Megagrip.  Overall a nice looking shoe that will expand The North Face’s somewhat lacking shoe offerings.

Great looking Vibram Megagrip outsole with a forefoot rock plate.

Saucony

Saucony Peregrine 6 – weight 9.4 oz men, 8.5 oz women, Stack: 21.5mm Heel, 17.5mm FF, available 1/1/2016 , price $120.00

Nice looking upper that seems softer and potentially a little less pointy than previous versions.

The Saucony Peregrine is a shoe that I’ve had mixed feelings about int he past.  I ran in versions 1 and 2 and liked the protective ride on a 4mm drop profile, but the last is pointy and the shoe was really stiff.  To be fair, I did try on the Peregrine 5 and it seemed to be a better fit and more flexible as well, although I didin’t run in it.  The Peregrine 6 gets a new PWRTRAC outsole, which should soften the ride a bit, and the design will definitely enhance flexibility.  It also features an Everun insert in the heel (a topsole material that goes between the midsole and footbed) – it will be interesting to see what it contributes to the ride. It has a rock plate in both the heel and forefoot, and probably the softest looking upper of the whole Peregrine series.  This all adds up to create some potential for a great shoe.  Keeping my fingers crossed!

Nice looking outsole design (albeit maybe a tad agressive?). The most flexible feeling Peregrine to me and PWRTRAC is sticky and soft (like blown rubber).

Salomon

Salomon S-Lab Sense 5 Ultra – weight 7.8 oz men, stack: 18mm Heel/14mm FF, price $180.00

Slightly lighter overlays and more open mesh design.

The S-Lab Sense is an iconic shoe in the trail world, popularized by Salomon and their marquee athlete Kilian Jornet.  In its 5th iteration the Sense continues to see only minor tweaks.  For version 5 the main updates are a modified outsole geometry that sees some lugs being removed which results in a 20 g weight savings and a much more minimal mesh upper.  The rest of the midsole, pro-feel film rock protection, and upper design stays the same as version 4.  These changes might be small but I think will bring the Sense back to its roots a bit (a good thing…the 8.5oz version 4 was just too heavy for the type of shoe it is).  I’m hoping to get a chance to run in a pair this spring so I can let you know how it feels!

You can see tissue paper through mesh…thin!

New outsole that if you look closely, you can tell they removed some lugs to reduce weight. I still think they need to fill in the gaps in the outsole.  Features a new Premium Wet Traction Contragrip that should be stickier.

Salomon Sense Pro 2 – weight 9.3 oz men, stack: 23mm Heel/17mm FF, price $130.00

Simple and clean upper with lighter overlays than v1, but fairly unchanged upper design. New midsole but similar geometry.

The Sense Pro was a great addition to Salomon’s lineup. It hit a sweet spot with many runners as it offered the feel of the Sense series, refinement of an S-Lab shoe, yet more protection and a lower price point.  The Sense Pro 2 is a full update top to bottom and looks to provide some nice improvements.  A new, softer midsole should be welcome (Sense Pro ran stiff and firm) for most and a new more well-rounded outsole should really make the Sense Pro 2 a nice middle of the road option. Excited to give these a try come spring.

Similar outsole design to the Sense 4 and should offer good varied surface grip.

Scarpa

Scarpa Proton – weight 12.2 oz men, 10.4 oz women, drop: 10mm, available Late Winter

Good upper design that is seamless and looks comfortable. Having run in the Scarpa Tru, the last is a nice shape.

The Scarpa Proton is a part of a new series of offerings by Scarpa that look to be much more refined, and also offer a nice variation of drops and feature sets.  The Neutron and Atom I’ll feature in my mountain shoe preview, but the Proton, being higher stack and bulk, fits in my trail preview since I think higher weight and bulk tend to degrade a shoe’s performance in the mountains.  The shoe may surprise me though.  The upper looks simple but comfortable, and the outsole design is simple and looks versatile.  Rock plate, Vibram rubber and mountain design philosophy.  Excited to see how the whole lineup will run.

Great lug design and placement.

Skechers

Skechers GOtrail Ultra 3– weight 11.4 oz men, 9.2 oz women, 4mm drop (30mm H/26mm FF midsole heights), available January 2016, price $120

Nice and simple upper with a more refined design, aesthetic and overlay setup. Skechers Performance is maturing.

The Skechers GOtrail Ultra 3 could be a real sleeper hit. While the GOrun Ultra and Ultra 2 have had a following, to me the shoe wasn’t that refined, and the non-rubber outsole was an issue in a trail shoe of its design.  The Ultra 3 is taking on the likes of Hoka One One with what could be a much better shoe in the end (I know the last will be better). The midsole is Skechers’ new 5 Gen material, which I’ve run in and really like. It also has some actual rubber coverage, a unique drainage system, and a new soft and relatively seamless upper design.  I’m personally pretty excited about it, even though I normally don’t prefer so much cushion.  The Gen 5 is that good and the design is flexible enough.

Decent looking outsole that will provide plenty of flex and traction. I just hope it holds up longer than it looks like it would; lots of exposed EVA that usually leads to torn off lugs for me.

That’s it for the trail roundup, stay tuned for the mountain shoes in a future post!

Disclaimer:  The adidas Response Trail Boost was provided free of charge for review purposes by the manufacture.  All opinions about the shoe are my own.

Specs

$110 MSRP; 415 g (14.6 oz) in my size 13; 326 g (11.5 oz) in size 9 and 10mm drop according to adidas.

Very soft split-bootie design and low heel collar. Comfortable and unique.

Good fit for me overall with a medium-roomy fit throughout. Could be a little lower volume in the midfoot and lighter, more functional overlays, but still works pretty well.

Upper and Fit

The upper on the Response Boost is an interesting one.  It definitely is an eye catcher and after first seeing the pictures of it I jokingly referred to it as using a mix of waterski boot design and seatbelt technology.  I’m happy to report it functions and looks much better in person!  It uses a soft padded material in heel and tongue and then employs a much more breathable mesh in the midfoot and toebox.  The upper is entirely randed (overlay material where the upper meets the midsole) which adds security and durability.  Additionally, the heel counter is very low as is the heel collar which, while still secure enough is very comfortable.  I used the shoe sock less (like I do for nearly all my runs) on a 4+ hr mountain outing summiting Chief Joseph mountain in the Wallowa mountains of eastern Oregon which featured 5,500 ft gain in 4 miles (translation=steep).  In addition this the Chief Joseph outing I also ran a 5 hr, 27 mile run the next week on flatter terrain and the Response Boost was equally comfortable on the relatively flatter, yet rocky, terrain.  While the fit is not quite as precise as I’d ideally like, it is one of the more comfortable shoes I’ve run in and does not feel sloppy.  It is noticeably wider than most other adidas shoes used and fits on the wider end of the medium fit spectrum of all shoes in the market.  I think the biggest improvement I could recommend for the upper is in the overlays.  While they provide a unique look, I think they are just plain overbuilt and the middle overlay that connects the other two, pretty much is useless in my opinion.  In addition, I think the lace eyelets need to be attached differently/more securely.  That said, it is still a really comfortable upper that doesn’t detract much from the rest of the shoe.

This frayed overlay was the only casualty on the upper, which could have been mostly the fault of my rugged route choice, but I feel also a result of the overlay design.

Ride

When I first received the shoes, I was worried that the ride would not be that great.  Instead of using Boost full length like most of adidas’ road models, the Response Trail only has it in the heel and in a rectangular patch at the ball of the foot.  In addition, the relatively higher weight heavily lugged led me to think the shoe would likely run heavy and unresponsive.  I’m happy to report that it possesses neither of those two qualities and instead is forgiving generally, yet still responsive at higher speeds (especially nice on downhills) and as not tippy nor  as clunky on more technical trail as it looks like it would be.  I was quite surprised that the patches of Boost actually work better than the full length boost found in the Raven Boost.  I think this confirms what many others have noted and I’ve found out myself:  Boost is a fantastic material, but without thoughtful and supportive design elements it doesn’t create magic just by itself.  For me the Ultra Boost road shoe and to a lesser extent the Raven Boost show that using more Boost is not necessarily better.

Boost in the heel which you can see. Boost in the forefoot that you can’t other than cutouts on outsole and if you lift the footbed up.

Outsole

The outsole on the Response Trail Boost is one of the best all purpose, yet heavily lugged outsoles I’ve used.  I provides great traction on loose and rocky terrain, but still manages to run smoothly with plenty of float on dry and hard downhills.  I didn’t expect this on a shoe with this much lug and trying to figure out how they pulled it off (my guess has to do with the lugs on the perimeter being rotated lengthwise rather than sideways like the middle lugs). It has nearly every characteristic I look for in an outsole: evenly spaced repeating lug pattern, full-length coverage, and quality black rubber.  If there is any gripe, and this is minor, is the compound may be a tad soft for the type of shoe the Response is (heavier/training oriented).  That said, the softness contributes to better grip on rocks and additionally, the wear I’ve seen may be more an indication of the terrain I covered, which was very rough/technical, than the outsole itself. I’ve literally ripped lugs completely off of other shoes in similar terrain.  In short another hit from adidas on the outsole and this is true nearly across the board on the new Boost trail models.

Great overall design. You can see Boost location at the cutouts in the outsole.

 Conclusion

The adidas Response Trail Boost really surprised me.  It’s a shoe that gets the job done and has a unique look to go with it.  I think there needs to be some refinement in the upper overlays while trying to retain the comfortable qualities of the upper, but the ride and outsole are really quite good and don’t need any tweaking for what this shoe is designed for.  I thought that the Response might be the “budget” Boost trail model, but it turns out the lower price tag is no reason to not consider the Response Trail Boost and in the end is a big plus.  I highly recommend the shoe for its versatility on the trails and comfortable fit.  It is by far one of my favorites of the many shoes I’ve tried this summer.

Be sure to keep tuned to the blog for the reviews of the rest of the Boost Trail lineup (adizero XT Boost and Raven Boost) which should be up soon!

Any questions or comment about adidas trail models or the response in particular?  Let me know below!

adidas Supernova Riot 6 on left and adidas Adistar Raven 3 on right

I’ve run in a lot of good shoes lately, and have many more that I’m testing for review later this summer/fall. In light of all of the reviews coming down the pipe, I thought it might be best do a double review of the adidas Supernova Riot 6 and the adidas Adistar Raven 3.  They are both models that I was unaware existed until recently. However, after seeing some of the models that are coming out this summer from adidas (Raven Boost, XT Boost, Response TR Boost; each will have a review forthcoming), I did some research into what adidas currently offered in their trail department – adidas trail running shoes tend to be relatively unknown in the US (at least they were to me), and I came away surprised. I wish I had heard about adidas’ trail lineup sooner!  On to the shoes…

Specs

Riot 6 – 355 g (12.5 oz) in my size 13; 303 g (10.7 oz) in size 9 according to adidas. 10mm drop.

Raven 3 – 405 g (14.2 oz) in my size 13; 340 g (12 oz) in size 9 according to adidas. 10mm drop.

Riot 6 on foot. Felt similar to adidas Glide 7 fit and design (although Glides are more seamless), but some added trail features

Raven 3 on foot. Fit is much lower volume and I did remove the speed laces after they performed poorly at holding my foot in place on steep downhills. Fit is similar to Nike Kiger 2 in many ways, with lower volume toebox and fit, but comfortable overall and slightly wider than Riot 6 to me.

Uppers and Fit

Both shoes are, as far as I know, designed on the same last that is used in adidas’ Supernova Glide and Sequence road shoes. The fit is medium in the heel, fairly snug in the midfoot, and while medium width in forefoot compared to most shoes on the market, they are wider than adidas’ adizero road lineup that more runners are familiar with (think adios boost).

For me, the winner for fit between the two is hands-down the Raven 3. This is not to say that the Riot 6 fits terribly, but there are a few things I didn’t like.  Namely, the tongue bunches a fair bit (see pic above), and there is too much padding/quilting in general in the upper. The latter feels good at first, but it gets hot and also takes on lots of water when wet.  Additionally, there is quite a bit more stitching on the Riot, and although I’ve gotten away with a 2 hour run in them without socks, I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable going sockless for much longer than that. I like the randing and engineered mesh on the forefoot of the Riot 6, but sadly that is about it on the upper.

The Raven 3, on the other hand, is quite nice, with a soft, seamless, thin neoprene-like material that, while somewhat hotter than open mesh, still stays relatively comfortable. I ran the first 30 miles of Western States in these and didn’t have any major problems.  If I was to pick out anything, it would be that the 3 white stripes are a bit thick/stiff and could be thinner and more comfortable, but they hold the foot well.

Midsole heights seem to be identical, but rides are very different.

Ride

The two shoes feel quite different on the run, despite what appear and feel like identical stack height soles. The Riot 6 is quite soft and airy feeling underfoot, which is probably the biggest reason why the weight is kept relatively low for a fairly substantial-looking shoe (i.e., it’s not a very dense midsole). It’s definitely not the signature firmer/responsive adidas ride that I was used to with their road line. I didn’t necessarily dislike the ride, but I’m not sure if it is most conducive to the type of terrain I would normally choose to use the shoe on based upon the structure of the outsole and thickness of the midsole.  That said, it performed quite well on some steep terrain, including off trail travel through a boulder field, so it wasn’t a deal breaker by any means.

The Raven 3, with a denser adiprene+ midsole, is firmer and more responsive. This denser midsole foam also provides more protection under the forefoot. The Raven 3 felt super smooth, efficient, and low for a heavier shoe, yet it’s very forgiving as well. This is the main reason I chose to wear them for the high country at Western States, and they delivered great protection without feeling like I was wearing a clunky shoe.  The Raven 3 is the winner again for me when it comes to the ride.

Raven 3 on top – notice round yellow lugs; these depress under pretty low pressure and are a part of adidas’ “adaptive traxion” system; more on that below. Riot 6 on bottom with a lightweight (due to the cutouts), but very sticky, all-purpose outsole; a high point of the Riot for me.

Outsole

For me, the outsoles are where adidas typically shines in terms of trail shoe construction.  Their use of Continental rubber, their own Traxion, and adiwear produces outsole compounds that work really well in many conditions.  One other attribute of note concerning adidas’ outsoles is the amount of float, or sliding, that they allow dry trails while still being quite lugged.  Many lugged trail shoes don’t produce this effect and instead have a much more “sticky” feeling that really takes a lot of energy out of the legs on long, hardpack downhills.  Both the Riot 6 and Raven 3 outsoles are examples of these good qualities that are usually present in adidas’ trail outsoles (including the forthcoming Boost models).

Both models are very effective on a variety of terrains and conditions.  The main differences are that the Riot 6 has a softer rubber that is much sticker on rocks, and is actually one of the stickiest outsoles I’ve ever used, even when compared to shoes like the La Sportiva X-Country and Mutant which use approach (rock climbing) shoe rubber.  The Raven 3 outsole is not as sticky, but plenty adequate for almost any trail condition.  Its best feature is the “adaptive traxion” component, which includes the yellow circular lugs that are designed in such a way as to depress at a much lower pressure than a traditional lug.  The result is that the shoe runs really well on hard and smooth surfaces, and yet is still effective on loose terrain and off-trail. It feels stable at all times. Hard to pick a winner in this category as they are both very good outsoles with very different characteristics, but I might give a slight edge to the Riot 6 due to how fantastically sticky the rubber is while still allowing float on hardpack.

Conclusions

Given that the Raven 3 is being replaced by the Raven Boost (which was just released), and the Riot 6 will likely be updated in the spring, this review may come a bit late.  However, I’ve enjoyed the Raven 3 so much that I really wanted to give a nod to what I think is a really great protective, smooth riding, yet responsive shoe that is probably one of the most well-rounded trail shoes I’ve run in.

The Riot 6 has some drawbacks for me, particularly the softer/airy ride, and an upper that doesn’t fit quite right.  With regard to the Riot 6, which is available on Zappos and discounted at Leftlane Sports, I’d suggest waiting for the Boost trail models to hit the market (particularly the Response TR, which handles everything the Riot does with a more comfortable upper, deeper lugs and more responsive midsole; review coming very soon).

If the Raven 3, however, sounds like a shoe you would like, I’d suggest grabbing a pair, especially since the forthcoming Raven Boost offers a much different ride (very soft and cushioned Boost feeling, similar to the Ultra Boost; review also coming). While a good shoe in certain ways, the Boost model isn’t really a direct successor to the Raven 3; the latter handles technical/mountain terrain much better than its Boost replacement. The Raven 3 can be found still at 6pm and Nordstrom’s of all places (also available at discount in the UK at Start Fitness). Unfortunately, adidas’ distribution for its trail models through their outdoor rather than running channel is a big hurdle to actual runners getting their hands on these.  Still scratching my head on this and hope to have some more info on adidas outdoor distribution by the time I review the Boost models.

Disclaimer: The adidas Supernova Riot 6 was made available free of charge by the manufacturer, while the adidas Adistar Raven 3 was purchased personally by the author.  All opinions, as always, are of the author.

I had some previous experience with the adidas XT 3 and 4, but both of those shoes were much more substantial with deep lugged outsoles. They were also quite heavy (10+ oz.). With the XT 5, adidas stripped the shoe back (315 g in my size 13 which is usually around 8.5-9 oz in a size 9) and created a shoe that is essentially a trail version of the old pre-Boost adios 2 with a few key differences.  Read on to find out if this is a good thing (hint: yep it is!).

Fit looking down (XT 5 on right). Notice that I moved the entire lacing up one lace hole.  It felt a bit snug at the ball of the foot, and when I compared it to some of my other shoes that fit comfortably I noticed that the lacing on nearly all of my adidas went down towards the toes an extra lace hole; moved the laces up and fit is much better with no loss in security.  I do this to nearly all of my adidas shoes now.

Upper and Fit

If you’ve run in any shoes in the adidas adizero line you probably have a good idea of how the XT 5 fits.  It has a single layer mesh upper with the three stripes logo doubling as midfoot overlays. Of note as well is that the XT 5 is on the same last as the adios road racing shoe and fits quite similar, although I would say just a hair narrower throughout the shoe.  I think the biggest reason for this is that it has an extended toe bumper that doubles as a rand (a good idea for a trail shoe and it sharpens the edging when side-hilling). It is very much a racing shoe fit and if you haven’t had good luck with an adios, Boston, Hagio or Takumi Sen then you probably won’t like the fit of the XT 5.

I will say that the upper construction could use some work (which I feel is somewhat true for many of adidas’ shoes); mainly in the area of decreasing stitching and using a slightly “softer” feeling mesh. That being said, the upside of their upper construction is that it is simple, breathable and likely keeps the cost down ($100 retail for this shoe which is great).

Modification to medial midfoot to reduce the midsole pushing into my arch.  Probably could do it cleaner next time.

I did have one small issue with the fit that dealt with the midsole on the arch area coming up too high and poking into my arch. This was especially noticeable while side-hilling and it caused some abrasion on my arch on a couple of runs.  I was able to pretty easily eliminate that with a razor blade by cutting away a bit of the midsole below the arch (see picture above).  I have a somewhat low arch so those with higher arches may not have any issues.

Great ride on this shoe with a very similar geometry to the adios.  Notice also the extended toe bumper that acts as a small rand all the way to the 3 stripes overlays…good design and really all the extra modification needed to a racing shoe upper to make it trail worthy.

Ride

This is where the adizero XT 5 shines, especially in the trail shoe category.  It takes a marathon racing shoe geometry (adios) and uses that as the blueprint for the midsole design.  It is, as far as I can tell, full length adiprene+ which is one of the most responsive midsole compounds I’ve come across. As a bonus, it’s protective from rocks as well (something Boost isn’t as good at).

The only change from the adios ride that is made on the XT 5 is that it is a little lower stack height and more flexible in the forefoot since the torsion system in the XT 5 doesn’t extend as far forward as the adios. The torsion system it is still there though, which is great for providing some structure to the shoe, protecting the midfoot from rocks, and preventing foot fatigue on longer runs.

All of this translates to a shoe that handles the more technical demands of trail and even mountain running because it is more flexible and deals with uneven terrain better than the adios 2 (which I also use on trails, both Boost and adiprene versions), but also runs like a road shoe when the trail smooths out. Not a lot of trail shoes can strike this balance very well! The ride is, by far, the biggest selling point of the shoe and is what sets it apart from many other lightweight trail shoes on the market.

XT 5 outsole; great overall design with low profile but effective lugs makes it pretty versatile, even handling some more mountain oriented terrain.

Outsole

Besides being a fan of adidas’ midsole compounds, I also generally like their outsole designs and compounds. The XT 5 has three different compounds with their proprietary Traxion on the lateral and medial forefoot (outer forefoot “ring”), adiwear on the heel (heel “ring”), and Continental rubber (which is fantastic) on the ball and middle of heel. The latter is great for traction on rocks, even when wet.

The biggest change adidas made to the XT 5 outsole from v4 was that they significantly reduced the lug depth for v5. I think this was a good call as it makes the shoe run much closer to its road counterparts than the older XT models.  It has sufficient traction for technical terrain, but it handles hardpack great and even runs ok on the road.

Overall Conclusions

Aside from a little refinement in the upper design and the midsole arch, the adizero XT 5 is really the type of trail shoe I’m looking for, would love to see more of, and I don’t understand why more companies don’t put out shoes like it. Take a marathon racing shoe geometry, add a very small amount of increased upper security (very small…too many overbuilt uppers), especially on the lateral forefoot, and put a full coverage, but low profile black rubber outsole on it.  For 80% of my trail running this is the type of shoe I want and suggest to most of the brands and shoe designers I’ve talked with.

I’d recommend the XT 5 to anyone looking for a performance trail running shoe, and especially to those trail runners that have run in shoes like the NB MT101/110 (the XT 5 is essentially the type of shoe I wish NB made with the 100 series) or Nike Kiger. Additionally, if you run in adidas shoes on the road, you’ll feel right at home with the XT 5 on the trail. The only thing I don’t understand is why adidas doesn’t take this approach with their other trail shoes (which are usually pretty chunky and more like hiking shoes, like the new Terrex Boost for example). If the XT 5 = adios trail, I’d love to see a Takumi/RC Trail (lower drop/lighter profile trail shoe for shorter races similar to the old adizero Rocket with just a slightly more trail specific outsole) and Boston Trail (a little more relaxed upper with a just a hair more cushion than XT 5).  A guy can dream right :)?  That said, adidas is making a push to put out some new trail shoes this summer, some of which made my preview post: Trail Running Shoes To Keep An Eye On in 2015.

When I personally bought the XT 5 it was only available on adidas.com.  It has since also become available on Zappos and Amazon as well as REI.com. It still is interesting to note that the distribution seems to be limited and it is carried under adidas’ outdoor line rather than their running line. I think this is a shame since it is a fantastic running shoe and should be marketed as such.  Trail running and “outdoor” are not synonymous  :)

The Adios Boost had a perfect combo of a soft heel and a firm, responsive forefoot. It ran incredibly smooth, and the fit was dialed in on my feet. Pretty much a perfect shoe for my taste, and the 10mm drop did not bother me at all (probably due to the soft heel and the fact that the relatively thin forefoot provides good ground feel; or maybe just that since dialing in my form by going more minimal I now feel I can run in just about anything).

adidas Adios Boost 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

adidas released version 2 of the Adios Boost earlier this year, and I again heard positive responses from other runners. In particular I heard praise for the new upper, which was supposedly a bit softer than the somewhat stiff, scratchy upper on version 1. I bought a pair to give them a try, and have now put about 40-50 or so miles on them, including a long run of 15+ miles and some speedwork on the track. Mainly what I’m going to do for the rest of this review is compare version 2 to version 1, and highlight major differences (there are only a few, one of which is important).

adidas Adios Boost 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

Sole

The biggest positive about the Adios Boost 2 is that adidas did not mess with the ride. As far as I can tell, the sole appears to be identical, and stack heights are the same (23mm heel, 13mm forefoot). As with version 1, weight is right around 8oz in version 2. Like it’s predecessor, the heel is soft, the forefoot is firm, and I’d describe the ride as responsive when you pick up the pace (they actually feel really good on the track). If you’ve never tried a Boost shoe before, it has a bouncy feel to it, and it retains that feel in the cold, which is a big plus for the material. The bounciness is not noticeable in the forefoot since it’s pretty thin.

adidas Adios Boost 2 (right) and 1 (left)

Upper

The upper and fit are where the adios Boost 2 departs from the original. The upper has been completely redone, and externally the material does feel a bit softer. However, it is still somewhat scratchy internally and I would not personally attempt running sockless in this shoe. And whereas v1 relied more on welded overlays (including some of the adidas logo stripes), v2 has a more traditional stitched set of overlays. In v2 there is also a prominent faux-suede toe cap, and more traditional style lace rows made of the same faux-suede material. The shoe almost has kind of a throwback/vintage feel toe it – it looks great in a very understated way.

A couple of other upper differences worth mentioning. First, it’s hard to say for sure, but it feels like the heel counter in v2 may be a bit stiffer and rise a bit higher than that in v1. Also, the tab behind the Achilles tendon does not extend up as high in v2 (see photo above).

adidas Adios Boost 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

Fit

Probably the biggest change from v1 to v2 for me is fit. I initially bough v2 in the same size as I had in v1 thinking that it would be similar. Upon initially trying the shoes on I could tell that v2 was a bit tighter up front, but length did not seem to be an issue. I think the toebox is a bit more tapered, leading to a bit more toe squeeze (this is similar to how I felt about the non-Boost Adios 2 fit). After several runs, including a long run that led to some toenail bruising, I was ready to give up on the shoes. Somewhat fortuitously, adidas sent out a pair in size 10.5 for me to try (Disclosure: they were free media samples; I thought they were sending me Energy Boost 2), and after several runs in them I can confirm that fit is much better. So, if you were a fan of v1, I would definitely recommend going a half size up in v2 to accommodate the shape of the toebox.

adidas Adios Boost 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

Conclusion

With the fit dialed in (half size larger), the adidas Adios Boost 2 provides the same great ride as v1. This is a shoe I could use for speed or distance racing, and I love the cushioned yet responsive feel of the sole. For some this might be a 5K racer, for others it might be a marathon racer depending on how much shoe you are used to. Aside from the tricky fit, my only major issue with the Adios Boost is price – at $140 it’s an expensive shoe for a racer. Adidas might counter that durability of the Boost material justifies the price, but that’s a call you will have to make if you want to try them.

The adidas Adios Boost 2 is available are at Running Warehouse and adidas.com. Outside the US it can be purchased from Wiggle. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!