Skechers GOTrail Ultra 4

The Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3 was my favorite max cushioned trail shoe last year and one of few max cushioned shoes I feel comfortable running in.  I’m happy to report that the Ultra 4 takes what worked so well for the Ultra 3 and just improves upon it.  The main differences are: a slightly firmer midsole which makes the shoe a bit more stable, while still being very plush and well cushioned; better, more secure upper with what feels like a noticeably wider forefoot despite it being on the same last (I think this is due to a new no-sew toebox on the upper); lastly a super nice and streamlined tongue on the shoe really finished it off well.  The Ultra 4 is still my go to shoe if I want a well cushioned ride without feeling like I’m changing my stride, something I still have problems with when using most max cushioned shoes.  Great work Skechers Performance!

Great upper with slightly tweaked, more stable ride. Still the best max cushioned out there in my view.

Hoka One One Challenger ATR 3

The Challenger ATR 3 is a great sign for Hoka One One.  In addition to the Speed Instinct released last year that made my Honorable Mentions list for 2016, the Challenger ATR 3 gives me hope that Hoka is slowly tweaking their shoes in the right direction.  The ATR 3 fits so much better than the ATR (never tried the ATR 2) and yet it doesn’t seem to be substantially different in design.  Reportedly on the Clifton 3 last, it makes a huge difference.  Better toebox width, more secure overlays and a perfect amount of tongue padding and it is probably the best fitting Hoka to date in my mind (I’ve got high hopes for the Speed Instinct 2 and Speedgoat in this regard too).  The ride also, while similar, seems slightly tweaked, but in a good way.  Foam is a bit more responsive and not just soft (dare I say energy sucking) and dampening like the original.  It runs fast and yet very forgiving and light all at the same time.  I’m still not in love with the oversized bucket seat heel and rocker (something the Speed Instinct goes with out more or less) but it works in this shoe and, while I can feel it, it is never distracting or problematic and actually kinda nice if I’m tired but don’t want a heavy shoe.  If you’ve avoided Hoka in the past for the reasons I have, it might be time to take a second look.

Upper is WAY better than previous Challengers and previous Hokas. More refined and comfortable across the board. Enjoying the shoe this spring.

Brooks Caldera

The Caldera kind of came out of nowhere for me.  While I’ve liked the idea of some of Brooks past trail models, they just never seemed to excel in terms of fit and ride for me.  The midsoles tended to be on a firmer/harsher side and the fit of many Brooks shoes just seemed to be super tapered in the toe box and using odd upper design choices (Pure Grit series comes to mind for me in this regard).  I’m super happy to say that the Caldera pretty much erases all of those problems for me and is the first Brooks trail shoe I can wholeheartedly endorse.  The upper is secure, but much more forgiving in fit, while still feeling similar to a Brooks fit (does that make sense?).  I love the straightforward lacing, lace garage (seriously, more lace garages!) and just-right amount of tongue and heel collar padding for a long run/well cushioned shoe like it is.  The midsole is lively and responsive while not seeming as big or as large on the run as the stack height and look would indicate.  It reminds me of the Pearl Izumi N2/N3s but with a much more responsive ride and more secure fit.  These are great things and I sure hope Brooks sells well in this model since I’d love to see some of their other models move in the direction of the Caldera design wise (this doesn’t mean they all need to be higher cushion, but the design approach/material usage could be translated to other types of models).  The outsole is also surprisingly adequate despite its sparse application.  No problems for me with durability yet and I’d expect it to last at least as long as something like the Challenger ATR 3 above.

Such a cool design on the Caldera (bonus points for that!). Great all around shoe and perfect Pearl Izumi replacement if you are looking for one with PI now out of the running business.

Topo Athletic Terraventure

Topo had a great year last year with the MT-2 and Hydroventure and has built upon that with a more heavily lugged and slightly higher cushioned Terraventure.  The upper is classic Topo with light material and seamless overlays throughout.  The last feels slightly roomier than past Topos and slightly longer than the Ultra Fly/Magnifly which is a good thing.  It is definitely a wider platform in the midsole and outsole than the MT-2 which might be one of the only things I’m not as crazy about, but I guess makes sense for a longer more comfort oriented shoe.  The only reason I say this is that I really like Topo, and grab them off the shelf, for that very secure and nimble/natural feel and the Terraventure does move away from this just a little.  I’d love to see them tweak the Terraventure just a bit and put a midfoot shank of some sort on top of the midsole between the strobel, in addition to securing the upper just a bit more.  With that added structure I think the shoe would feel just a bit more tied together and be a much more appealing and capable long run shoe.  As it is, it runs and feels more like an MT-2 PLUS where it is basically the same feel and fit of the MT-2 with little more shoe underfoot but it ends up losing the nimble and light MT-2 feel in the process.  That all said, it is still a great shoe and one I’d compare to the Altra Lone Peak, but much prefer over the Lone Peak for my preferences in fit and feel.

Classic Topo (which is a good thing) with super clean and simple design. More shoe here and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing although hoping for a few small tweaks in an update.

Altra Superior 3.0

The Superior 3.0, for me marks a new era for Altra trail shoes.  While it was quietly released (in my view) and only slightly tweaked in design and appearance, the changes (much like the ones for the Hoka Challenger ATR 3) are just the right things that needed to be done to make the shoe fit and feel like it had the potential to all along.  The biggest differences are the new last which is just a hair longer than the old PFS last and as a result fits much better for me because you get the extra length/room with the right level of volume (a problem with sizing up to get the extra length).  This culminates in effectively achieving what I hoped Altra could all along: a shoe with a wide toebox that you can actually enjoy because it holds the rest of your foot super well.  A wide toebox with a wide back half (unless your feet are high volume, which is just fine :) ), doesn’t work out too well for me and produces a sloppy fit which detracted too much from the advantage of a wide toebox.  The Superior 3.0 is the first Altra trail shoe to get this right in my mind.  In addition to the much improved fit, Altra added a more substantial rand to the shoes which helps in security in the front half and durablity as well.  The midsole and outsole are slightly tweaked and run a bit more responsive.  Additionally, it should be slightly more durable too.  They still utilize the cutouts in the outsole which is the only piece I’d recommend changing on the shoe.  Other than that, it is one of the best medium cushioned, natural trail shoes ever made in my view.  Hint for future posts: Altra is doing a lot of things right lately and I have some other posts coming that will highlight some of the great things going on in both the road and trail offerings new for this summer.

Best Altra to date for me. Great fit and feel and probably one of the best natural, medium cushioned trail shoes on the market period even if you aren’t specifically looking for a wide toe-box or zero drop.

Scarpa Atom S

Undoubtably the best winter specific shoe design I’ve seen. Scarpa is on a roll in the technical mountain space.

When it comes to a pure mountain winter running shoe, this is it folks!  Scarpa pulled out all the stops on the Atom S and came away with the most comfortable and functional shoe of its kind.  The upper is lined with Outdry all the way up to the top of the gaiter, thus making the shoe waterproof all the way to the top.  The gaiter seals up on the calf with no zippers and disappears after a few minutes.  The midsole is stiffened up a bit from the Atom with what I believe is slightly firmer foam and a harder strobel material.  The outsole is Vibram Icetrek and works great on everything I’ve taken it on.  While the Atom S is currently only available in Europe, I believe there will be an Atom S Evo that is coming this next winter that carries over a very similar upper while putting the new Spin midsole and outsole on it.  Should be even better!

The North Face Ultra MT Winter

A really comfortable winter shoe and probably the most well rounded of the bunch. Enough lugs for the snow and ice and yet still runs decent on regular trail.

I really hope the Ultra MT Winter is not a one off shoe (which is what I expect).  They pretty quietly put out this shoe this winter and it is fantastic.  The Ultra MT Winter has a super comfortable upper on a winter shoe and in a bit lighter, less mountain specific application (non-waterproof back half and gaiter which helps with breathability).  Vibram IceTrek outsole as well on this shoe and I’ve got nothing but good things to say about the compound.  It is the MegaGrip equivalent for winter.  The Ultra MT Winter also has the distinction of being the only shoe with speedlaces that I’ve not yet felt the need to cut off.  The ample tongue padding and thicker/softer lace cord (hint hint Salomon and others) really take care of the major issues of speedlaces and haven’t been a problem for me.  Well done The North Face and I sincerely hope this isn’t the last winter shoe they produce.  Yes, these types of shoes probably don’t sell in big numbers but for a company focused on producing mountain specific product, they give credibility to that aim.  They are on sale now and I’d highly recommend grabbing a pair for the mountains this spring or even for saving for next winter.

Nicely padded tongue and speed laces that actually work well with the top of my foot…note the thicker cord diameter.

Altra Lone Peak 3 Neoshell Mid

The best version of the Lone Peak 3 in my opinion. A stiffer midsole and harder rubber compound with a more supportive upper really dial it in.

I’m a big fan of Altra’s application of Polartec Neoshell on their Lone Peak series.  I enjoyed the original Neoshells last year and was very excited to hear of a boot version coming down the pipe for this year.  I’m happy to say that I was not disappointed.  The Neoshell Mid is THE shoe I would use for long winter slogs and currently would be the option I would go with for a winter 100 miler if I was to tackle one (Susitna 100, White Mountains 100, Arrowhead 135 for ex).  Since knowing about the Iditarod Trail Invitational and running a 45 mile winter race in Alaska in 2014, I’ve always been evaluating winter shoes for their potential utility in these long and insane winter races and the Neoshell Mid tops the list for me so far.  The wide Altra toebox, stiffer midsole and harder outsole compound relative to the regular LP 3.0 is welcome and actually makes it run better than the LP 3 in my view.  The upper is super comfortable and warm and does not pick up any water weight…huge bonuses if you have to be out all day in the cold and or wet.

Salomon S-Lab XA Alpine

The most specific and technical shoe of the bunch. Salomon’s clean design aesthetic on full display.

The XA Alpine is no doubt the most niche of all the shoes I tried this winter and I love that about it.  It is at the same time a nimble trail running shoe, with gaiter, great wet-grip contragrip outsole and designed to use flexible crampons (Kahtoola KTS for example).  The fit is one of the best of any Salomons I’ve tried and the midsole, while stiff is adequately protective and runnable.  The shoe just has great design style and construction as well (a continual strong suit of Salomon).  I wouldn’t recommend them for the average runner just looking to keep snow out or stay dry on trails in the winter, but as a tool for mountain travel in the winter or even spring/summer in the high mountains it is very specifically designed and nothing else comparable exists on the market (…yet,  Scarpa has the Atom Tech releasing next winter which should be comparable). The XA Alpine adds to Salomon’s technical credibility and I respect Salomon for pushing a shoe like this out there to the general public since they could easily just make these for their high caliber athletes only.

Basically a Sense upper underneath the gaiter.

Saucony Razor ICE+

A nice and light gaitered shoe. Outsole is most unique factor and most limited as well.

I was pretty excited to see Saucony get back into the winter running shoe market with Razor ICE+.  They were one of the first to do such a shoe with the original ProGrid Razor and the ICE+ has a nice clean and light design aesthetic.  Of all the shoes in this round-up, it most reminds me of the old New Balance Winter MT110 which was and still is the lightest winter specific shoe out there.  The 110 Winter’s big drawback was the lack of winter traction and adequate cushion for frozen ground.  The Razor thankfully rectifies some of this but still comes up a bit short in the traction department.  The Razor ICE+ has decent cushion for a lightweight shoe and I’ve had no problems in this regard for runs up to 2 hrs (haven’t taken it out longer than that).  The traction scenario is a bit perplexing.  While, on one hand, the shoe delivers some superb grip on wet and smooth ice due to the implementation of Vibram Arctic Grip (something only available to Wolverine Worldwide companies currently; think Saucony and Merrell in the running space), the tread design is very light and shallow for a shoe that you will spend most of your time in mud, snow and generally nasty conditions.  It’s grip on anything but hard pack dirt and ice is subpar.  I’d recommend the shoe if you are looking for something to perform on ice without having to use metal spikes, even road runs, but if you are looking for an all around winter trail shoe, there are better options listed above in this post.  The good news is the overall design and implementation of the shoe is good and so there is some potential to be tapped into.  If Saucony can redesign with a full Everun midsole and deeper lugs and either more smartly implement Arctic Grip or ditch it all together in favor of Ice Trek or Mega Grip, they’d have a pretty slick winter trail shoe.

Pretty simple and light upper. Most reminiscent of the New Balance MT110 Winter out of the bunch. I removed the speed laces and replaced with regular laces.

1. Montrail Trans Alps – 365 g (13.0 oz) mens 9, 29mm H, 21mm FF, $130.00

Montrail has successfully, in my view, rebooted and reinvigorated their trail line-up in 2016.  Despite some restructuring as a company, and further re-branding coming in 2017 where they will be called Columbia Montrail, they still managed to put together some good product (see previously the reviewed Caldorado) .  I almost wrote off the Trans Alps when I first saw it.  Fortunately, Montrail sent me a pair anyway and I was more than surprised at how well the shoe ran.  What looks like a lead filled hiking shoe with tank-like construction runs really smoothly and is the most protective shoe I’ve probably ever run in while still be enjoyable to run in.  The outsole is aggressive, yet not overly so and it has a supportive and yet still comfortable upper.

The midsole geometry and design is what really saves this shoe.  It features Montrail’s Fluid Guide construction which has a graduated, seamless density of foam that is softer in the heel and gradually firmer through the midfoot and then softer in the forefoot.  The result is a very stable shoe that transitions really well for how stiff and protective it is.  The shoe has a rock plate and external midfoot shank too which further adds to its ridiculous levels of protection and support.  I, for one, am glad Montrail is willing to produce a shoe like this, which is nice to have in the tool bag for long and rough ultramarathon events and mountain adventures.  I equally enjoy their F.K.T. treatment to the Trans Alps that came out this fall where they simplify the upper and remove the Fluid Guide to lighten of up the shoe and allow for a more nimble option on the same platform.  Very good shoe from Montrail, one of my favorite new shoes this year, and one of the best values on the market since the shoe is easily a 1000 mile shoe I would guess based on the near zero wear I’ve had over a hand full of rough mountain style outings in it already.

2. La Sportiva Akasha –  285 g (10.1 oz) mens 9, 31mm H, 25mm FF, $140.00

La Sportiva doesn’t come out with as many new models as other brands, but when they do, I usually pay attention since they build shoes with a very purpose-built mountain design aesthetic.  The Akasha is their most highly cushioned shoe to date and the focus of design was on building an all-around trail and mountain shoe that could handle a variety of terrain and distances.  I think they’ve generally met that goal and the Akasha is one of the better all around, protective models I’ve tried this year with good precision for the level of protection and a comfortable yet secure upper.  One of La Sportiva’s strengths has always been its fantastic rubber compounds for their outsoles and the Akasha is another representation of this.  It uses a combination of the sticky XF rubber in addition to small amounts of the more durable AT compound (red rubber) at the heel and big toe.  The rubber wears really well and performs even better with great traction on most every surface.  The lug shape (one aspect of design I have keen interest in) is good too with lugs going in the direction of travel when they should an providing breaking traction in appropriate areas.

Great tongue padding that distributes lace pressure. Overall a pretty good upper on the Akasha.

The midsole is a decent (though not outstanding) injection molded EVA that offers enough life and cushion, yet is still firm enough to not be too squishy or unstable on more technical terrain.  I did modify the heel after a few runs to narrow up what, in my view, was too chunky of a design that was the only glaring flaw in the ride.  After doing so, the shoe performs very predictable on downhills and uneven terrain and in accordance with its protection and stack height.  For runners that are looking for one shoe to cover a wide variety of applications, the Akasha would be near the top of the list as a fantastic all-arounder.

Narrowed the somewhat fat heel down a bit and it made a ton of difference on technical descents…much better heel compliance and stability, plus it saves nearly half an ounce (15 grams).

3. Saucony Xodus ISO – 297 g (10.5 oz) mens 9, 29mm H, 25mm FF, $130.00

I haven’t had great luck with Saucony’s trail line in the past.  The Peregrine 5 is probably the best of the bunch and I did like some things about the Nomad TR.  I’ve not tried previous versions of the Xodus, mainly because they looked overbuilt, heavy and too tapered in the toebox.  Saucony made a significant overhaul to the Xodus with the new Xodus ISO.  The fit in the heel and midfoot is very good, particularly for a Saucony.  It is secure, but the ISO overlays don’t cut into the foot at all.  The only glaring issue with the fit for me is the still, very noticeable tapered toebox.  I’d recommend sizing up a 1/2 size in them to alleviate this issue.  As is, with my size being 13, I can’t size up a 1/2 size to remedy this so the shoe ends up feeling a bit short at the big toe due to the taper.  The midsole and ride of the shoe are above average.  The geometry is good and they keep the profile narrow enough to not feel bulky.  The Everun topsole does help give a little life to the otherwise somewhat dead and firm-ish compressed eva.  The shining component is no doubt the PWRTRAC outsole.  It is making its way onto most all of Saucony’s trail shoes at this point and is a great soft, but durable compound and in a good tri-flex patter on the Xodos ISO.  I really like this outsole and if it was on something closer to the Nomad TR last, it would be a big win for long mountain races/runs.

4. Altra Lone Peak 3.0 – 277 g (9.8 oz) mens 9, $120.00, available July 2016

I tend to think of Altra’s Lone Peak as their most recognizable model and it has surely seen great success in the last few years and they are solid fixture at every trail race I go to.  The 3rd full version sees the most substantial update of all versions before it with entirely new outsole, midsole and upper.  I had some issues, particularly with the upper not being secure enough on the Lone Peak 2.5, but really liked the Neoshell version in which the neoshell upper is more secure by not stretching during the run.  The Lone Peak 3.0 attempts to address some of the issues I had with the 2.5.  First, the midsole is a little softer and gives a slightly more responsive ride to it which makes it run better on hardpack/smoother trail; more responsive and lively which I like.  That said it feels like there is a little more stack height and a slightly softer foam so it comes across as an almost quasi-maximalist experience in feel to me and drifts just bit away from the core Lone Peak position as Altra’s all around trail option.  I tested this out on two different Lone Peak 3.0s (pre-production model and production pair) and it still feels softer and more flexible than the 2.5. This basically creates a bigger gap between the Superior and Lone Peak experience.  Oddly enough, with the added stack, there actually seems to be less structure to the midsole due to the midsole compound being slightly softer and softer outsole rubber as well compared to the 2.5. This results in a more flexible ride overall and bit more bouncy feel (good on hardpack, but worse on uneven/tech ground for my tastes) and it leaves me feeling that the shoe just doesn’t quite commit to either being a more protective, bomber long run option (which is what I always have wanted it to be) or more minimal/lighter option since it has elements of both.  Since I’d prefer the more protective approach (lighter option is already the Superior) I think they could thicken the Stoneguard rock plate (which feels pretty light) to add some structure to the soft and flexible ride which would also give the shoe just a bit more spine and protection for the long outings is it best suited for.

Too much volume in the midfoot on the Lone Peak 3.0 last. Shown in comparison is the Topo Athletic Ultrafly which has a very similar toebox but much more secure midfoot…you don’t have to have a loose midfoot to have a wide toebox.

The upper is much improved with solid overlays and a much better heel fit than almost any other Altra I’ve tried.  Good progress in the upper.  However, the last is still too voluminous in the midfoot for my tastes and I have trouble getting the shoe tight enough on technical descents, however, it is a lot better than the 2.5.  I just ran in the new Altra Torin 2.5 for the first time and the performance last on it is great; super wide in the forefoot yet still secure in the midfoot and heel.  I’d love to see the Lone Peak on this performance last, but I’m just not sure if much of Altra’s runner base prefers extra volume in the midfoot/instep and I’m in the minority or if there are more runners out there that would prefer a more secure fit.    I still think the shoe is an improvement over the 2.5, but it still being held back from being great in the small ways I’ve mentioned.  I’ve always imagined the Lone Peak to have the potential to be the perfect long distance trail shoe, but it still falls just a bit short for me.  All in all a good shoe and I’m really looking forward to the mid-height winter version coming in a few months.  It think it has tons of potential for being a great winter running shoe as well as a light hiking shoe for backpackers/through hikers.

5. Pearl Izumi Trail N3 – 300 g (10.7 oz) mens 9, 29mm H, 21mm FF, $135.00

Pearl Izumi and their E:Motion line has been a staple in the trail and ultra running scene for the last 3-4 years.  Their comfortable uppers and well rounded models have been well received and the shoes generally work as intended.  They offer good middle of the road cushion, protection and traction with soft and comfortable seamless uppers.  All of these good qualities make them great options particularly for the runner who wants one shoe to do everything.  However, as I’ve discussed in my previous review of the Trail N2v2 and N1v2 the lines get blurred a bit between the models where the N1 and N2 aren’t that differentiated featuring similar protection and cushion at similar weights.  Unfortunately the Trail N3 continues this trend with it coming in at nearly the same weight as the N2v2 (and N2v3) and while softer with more cushion, the protection feels somewhat similar as well.  The good news is that all the features that you’ve come to expect from PI are there with a soft and comfortable upper, smooth-ish rockered ride, rock plate and good protection to weight ratio.  That said, being that it still comes in as a very similar middle of the road option with just slightly more cushion than the N2, I’m just not sure where they differentiate the line that much and it will lend to runners buying just one of the models rather than considering two or all three as different tools for different uses.  As it is, I see them as very similar tools with just slightly different leanings.  The N3 runs pretty decent, fits well and works as advertised but doesn’t bring anything new to the table, nor blow me away on any level.  In the end, I think I still probably would go with the N2 to split the difference between the N1 and N3 and have it give me the best of both models.  Since reviewing these, Pearl Izumi announced they are shutting down their run division.  Definitely an interesting move by PI and in many ways sad to see them go.

6. The North Face Ultra Endurance – 323 g (11.4 oz) mens 9, 26mm H/18mm FF, $125.00

I was pleasantly surprised by the North Face Ultra MT last year which had a great mountain design and was the first shoe I ran in with the, then new, Vibram Megagrip rubber compound, which is fantastic.  Seeing that the Ultra Endurance was going to feature a more shallow lugged outsole with Megagrip on a more well-rounded platform, I was pretty excited to test out the results.  It was supposed to have injected EVA, rock plate (North Face calls it a Snake Plate) and middle of the road 8mm drop.  Turns out, they couldn’t have gone with the injected EVA (that or it is really poor foam) and it instead features just a generic low grade EVA material that substantially detracts from the shoe.  This shoe runs very dead to me and it is such a shame!  In this day and age, you just can’t get away with that low of quality of foam and hope runners don’t notice. Secondly, the rock plate literally feels like they forgot it.  The shoe feels thinner and less protective than many other shoes I’ve tried this year but at an 11.4 ounce weight this just makes no sense.  They need to beef the rock plate up quite a bit to give the shoe some structure and protection.  The upper is actually somewhat decent fitting, although, arguably lower volume for most folks for the type of end use it is marketed for (long trail runs).  The outsole is the one shining point with a great design and of course great rubber compound.  The shoe need not be just discarded and is completely salvageable in a version 2 if they can upgrade the foam and beef up the rock plate…maybe lighten the upper up a bit here and there and have a little taller toebox height it really could be a sweet little shoe.  As is, I can’t really recommend it other than for casual hiking or something.

Montrail Fluid Flex ST – weight 9.4 oz (266g) mens, stack height: 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, price: $95.00 MSRP

Great midsole and ride on these – vastly improved over the Fluid Flex II. Upper is a solid design, but high volume.

The Fluid Flex ST was a big surprise for me and has one of the best dry trail rides of all the shoes I tried last year. It was a surprise because I really wasn’t fond of the original Fluid Flex, which was too soft and unstable on technical terrain. With the Fluid Flex ST, Montrail added their Fluid Guide feature to the midsole where they put denser foam in the midfoot in a graduated way so it blends more than a traditional post. Additionally, the fluid guide is on both sides of the midfoot, and even extends to parts of the heel and forefoot so it is not like a medial post but more for overall stability and structure.

Montrail also added a very minimal rock plate to the forefoot and simplified the upper. The result is a shoe that runs very precise for how forgiving it is, and feels a lot lighter than its weight would suggest. The only issue I have with this shoe is that the upper has way too much volume in the midfoot, and the heel collar was too high for my foot, so it feels a little too loose overall. I’ll probably do a little modifying to the lacing to try to snug it up a bit, but mostly I’m hoping the recently-released Fluid Flex FKT, which has the same midsole/outsole setup, will address the issues I had with the upper. All in all, the Fluid Flex ST is a fantastic trail shoe and one at a fairly rare $95 price tag.

Scarpa TRU– weight 8.5 oz (241g) mens, drop:6mm, price: $109.00 MSRP; specs via Scarpa

Very minimalist design overall, and great last shape.

The Scarpa TRU is my first experience with Scarpa trail shoes other than trying on the Spark a while back. The TRU has a great minimalist design, and the fit is very nice with a medium/wide forefoot and snug midfoot/heel. The outsole is also designed well with low profile lugs, and reminds me a lot of the New Balance MT101. It has a nylon fabric rock plate in the forefoot and a very firm midsole so that it comes across as fairly protective from rocks, but also not very cushioned. If you liked the ride of the MT101 or MT110v1 this is right in the same vein and quite minimalist feeling, but with a better fit than either of those. The outsole is also a very hard rubber compound which should hold up very well over time, although it also contributes to the super firm ride. The TRU mostly has me really excited about the potential of the forthcoming Scarpa Atom and Neutron which have Vibram rubber and are 4mm and 6mm drop.

Altra Superior 2.0 – weight 8.7 oz (246g) mens, stack height: 19mm heel, 19mm forefoot, price: $110.00 MSRP

Altra’s most nimble trail model. Best Altra ride to date for me, and interesting mix of design.

The Altra Superior 2.0 is by far my favorite Altra that I’ve tried. It has a nice, responsive ride with what feels like a blown rubber outsole that adds to the springiness. The upper fabric is more effective at holding the foot than most other Altras since it has very little stretch to it (unlike the Lone Peak 2.5). This is a good thing since it seems that Altra avoids putting overlays on their trail shoes (the Lone Peak 3.0, thankfully, appears to change that trend). The fit is also much lower volume than most other Altras, and fits my foot much better volume-wise. This let me really appreciate the wide toebox rather than feeling like it comes at the cost of midfoot security like some other Altras. The shoe even runs well on the road, and I’ve really enjoyed it overall. I prefer it over the Lone Peak, and oddly enough I actually feel they offer similar protection levels (not as odd when mine weight only 15 g or .5 oz different).

All that said, there are still some things I hope they change in the future that could improve upon what is a decent shoe. First, I don’t like the outsole cutouts at all. It exposes too much midsole to rocks, which puts the foot at more risk and damages the foam prematurely. The added flexibility (what little it adds) is not worth the trade off in my opinion. Second, I also don’t care for the removable-rock-plate-under-the-footbed concept. It adds a lot of weight, messes with the volume of the fit if you want to take it out, and would be more effective between the outsole and midsole rather than under the footbed. I know Altra likes to sandwich the rock plate up higher in the shoe like in the Lone Peak so it deflects the rock into the midsole before it hits the plate, but I don’t think the design makes sense. I don’t find my foot pivoting in shoes with regular rock plate placement like they claim (especially on lower stack shoes), and you lose a lot of precision in the ride and the protection the rock plate gives to the foam so it doesn’t get beat up as quickly. Lastly, the heel collar is too wide and padded for what is necessary for this type of shoe. This is typical of most Altras at this point so not specific to the Superior, but I just don’t think the shoe needs it and could be lighter and snugger fitting with a slimmer heel collar.

Also of note with the Superior 2.0 is that I had to go with a size 14, which is probably 0.5 size too big for me in the end because of a sizing issue with the first round of the 2.0. The new colors launching this spring will have the sizing issue fixed, which should result in a lighter shoe that fits the same (since I could run a 13 instead of 14). Overall, I really like the feel of the shoe and hope to see an update soon since there is much potential already there. I like the wide toebox concept, and I appreciate how Altra listens to feedback and improves their shoes like they seem to be doing season after season.

The Altra Superior 2.0 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

The North Face Ultra MT – weight 9.8 oz (277g) mens, stack height: 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot, price: $130.00 MSRP

Fantastic Vibram Megagrip outsole on the MT, and rock plate in the forefoot are highlights.

The North Face hasn’t been in the shoe game for that long, but are starting to build some momentum with recent and forthcoming offerings. The Ultra MT is by far their best to date (among those that I’ve tried), and has a unique mix of quality materials and design that set it apart in the current market.

First, you’ve probably heard of Vibram’s new Megagrip rubber, which is very sticky, but also durable at the same time. So far, I have no reason to doubt those claims and the rubber has been fantastic on this shoe (so far it is the only shoe with Megagrip that I’ve run in). The last is decent on the MT – fairly roomy in the forefoot, while providing a nice lockdown in the midfoot. The heel is probably overly padded, but I didn’t feel it ruined the shoe. The midsole is firm but offers a nice pop. It runs smooth on hardpack trail, while the outsole and rockplate offer great coverage on technical terrain. The ride is precise and close to the ground, but still quite protective (rock plates win again!).

Overall, a great design, and there will be a forthcoming winter version (see pic 8 in Brian’s great preview post) next summer that adds an integrated gaiter much like the discontinued New Balance MT110 winter, but with the much better suited MT platform has me pretty excited to use them next winter (yes over a year away :)). Overall, no major issues with the shoe other than a minor gripe with the tongue being a tad short for some reason. It will be a shoe I have in my rotation for the foreseeable future.

The North Face Ultra MT is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Brooks Cascadia 10 – weight 11.6 oz (328g) mens, stack height: 27mm heel, 17mm forefoot, price: $120.00 MSRP

The classic Cascadia in its 10th version; my first time trying it.

Although I’ve seen many trail runners using the Brooks Cascadia over the last 5 years, I’ve never had the chance to try one, and never looked into them personally because of their heavier weight and higher drop. Brooks offered to send them, and I thought it was a shoe I should at least run in for reference because of how popular they seem to be.

The Cascadia 10 receives a more seamless upper design, and slightly different outsole lug pattern, but is on the same midsole as previous versions. Overall, my impression of the shoe was that it will be super durable, never let you feel under protected, less tank-like than I expected, but, in the end, still a pretty heavy feeling shoe. The ride is fairly firm, but with gobs of protection and some forgiveness. I can see the appeal it has for many for longer races, or if you only want to buy one shoe. The fit is better for me than the Pure Grit (which has too much midfoot volume), but still a little tapered at the big toe (like most Brooks seem to be). Overall, it is definitely a work horse trail shoe that would take a ton of abuse, handle most trail conditions, and it even ran fine on some short road sections for me.

Because we are spoiled these days with tons of options and I have shoes that are designed specifically for certain tasks, the all around nature of the Cascadia doesn’t grab me in any way. However, if you could only have one trail shoe (heaven forbid!), the Cascadia 10 would fill a lot of roles and provide a great value.

The Brooks Cascadia is available for purchase at Running Warehouse. The Cascadia 11 is now available as well at the previous link (Pete apologizes for the delay in getting this review published!)

Altra Lone Peak Neoshell on left and Altra Lone Peak 2.5 on right

Altra is unarguably one of the brands on a very quick rise in the running world these days, especially in the trail and ultra market. I’ve had a long history with the Lone Peak, picking up a pair of the original Lone Peaks pretty much right at release. I ran a couple of ultras in them, but ultimately I ended up drifting away from them, only just recently coming back to trying the Lone Peak 2.5 and Neoshell (Disclosure: Altra was kind enough to send both shoes free of charge for review purposes).

Traditionally, the problem I’ve had with Altra is that while I love the wide toebox, the midfoot and heel are just far too roomy to hold my foot adequately. The Superior 2.0 is the first of their shoes where I don’t have this problem (although the heel is still wider and more padded than necessary). The Lone Peak 2.5 and Neoshell are the best fitting Lone Peaks yet, and show some solid improvement. Below I detail some of those improvements, as well as areas where the shoes can continue to get better.

Specs

Lone Peak 2.5 – weight: 10.1 oz (286 g) mens 9; 9.1 oz (257 g) womens 8, stack height: 20mm forefoot and heel, price: $120

Lone Peak Neoshell – weight: 11.4 oz (323 g) mens 9; 9.6 oz (272 g) womens 8, stack height: 20mm forefoot and heel, price: $150

Specs via Running Warehouse.

Upper and Fit

While fit is one of the bigger problems I’ve had with Altra shoes in the past, the good news is that the Lone Peak 2.5 and Neoshell are both better than past Lone Peaks in providing a more secured fit. I initially thought that the 2.5 was near perfect fit-wise, but unfortunately after taking them out for a couple runs the upper material stretched to the point where I couldn’t tighten them anymore (I think this is due to the fact that there are no overlays to speak of on the shoe, thus no structural support for the upper). This was especially noticeable on a trip down Grandeur Peak in Salt Lake City while I was attending Outdoor Retailer this past summer. The Neoshell doesn’t have this problem – even though it also has no overlays, the Neoshell material itself does not stretch and acts as one large overlay. So, despite having the Lone Peak 2.0 fit (which has more volume than the 2.5), the Neoshell actually held my foot better and is by far my favorite Lone Peak to date.

Difference in fit. 2.5 upper is soft and comfortable, but it stretches even more when running due to no overlays, and as you can see I don’t have much cinching left that I can do.

The great news is that Altra is completely revamping the entire Lone Peak line, and added overlays on the uppers and a new outsole for summer 2016 with a Lone Peak 3.0 and Neoshell 3.0, along with a mid cut Lone Peak Neoshell which looks awesome for long winter outings. Sam Winebaum has a great writeup from The Running Event that details the new Lone Peak lineup.

In the end, the Neoshell 2.0 has a comfortable fit that, especially due to the wide forefoot, is very warm in winter. I think that the Neoshell material, which is put on the outside of the shoe rather than in an inner waterproof bootie, is going to set a new industry standard. I’ve hardly ever liked shoes with GTX because of the bootie seams, particularly in the heel, and they almost always have the same upper as the regular version just with the added bootie. This allows that outer upper material to get wet and heavy, yet it doesn’t really serve a ton of purpose. The Neoshell material and design simplifies the upper, doesn’t absorb water and the interior of the upper has no added seams. It’s one of those, “duh, why haven’t companies done this sooner”, type of design shifts.

The Polartech Neoshell material is fantastic and really makes the shoe. Notice I did punch holes in the the Lone Peak tab to be able to cinch the shoe a little better in the midfoot. I’ll probably cut the loops off too.

Midsole and Ride

The Lone Peak is in an interesting spot for me ride-wise. The protection that they give is fairly moderate, they’re not super heavy, and they have quite a bit of cushion. On paper and on initial runs they felt like a great all-around package, but after a few more runs I started to notice a very apparent lack of sharpness on most uneven terrain, and while cushioned, they just aren’t at all responsive. I think this is partly due to the midsole material being fairly average in terms of rebound (the softer midsole on the Neoshell actually feels better in this regard), but also because of the geometry of the midsole and some constraints brought on by Altra’s zero drop design philosophy. While not as bad as the Olympus, the one problem zero drop creates on shoes with more stack height (which BTW, even though zero drop is natural, high stack height is not) is that you can’t have a gradual toe spring/taper because of the need for the shoe to be absolutely zero drop through the ball of the foot. When you have to go from 20mm of stack or higher to some sort of taper to the end of the shoe all from the ball forward, it creates a delayed toe off that, while not a big deal at slower speeds, is really noticeable to me below 8 min/mile pace or faster, which makes the shoe feel like it won’t turn over very quickly and just lands flat.

Same midsole design on both. Neoshell has a little softer midsole like the 2.0 did, which surprisingly felt better to me than the 2.5.

Additionally, while some of Altra’s design philosophy is industry leading and a huge asset (like the wide toebox and Neoshell construction), their rock plate design is not my favorite. They sandwich the rock plate between the midsole and strobel to, as they say, add some ability for the midsole to deflect the rock before it hits the rock plate instead of hitting a rock and causing the shoe to pivot as they claim a traditional rock plate construction that puts the plate between outsole and midsole does. In reality, I’ve found the opposite to be true. The only time the Lone Peak (or Superior) rock plate design works as advertised is for very small gravel, which the shoe absorbs and it thus doesn’t tip or pivot much.

However, when you get on technical terrain with anything larger than a marble sized rock, I find the Altra rock plate design actually makes the shoe more unstable and less protective. You can’t feel the rock on initial contact, but as the midsole compresses, it hits the rock plate and then pivots in a more delayed nature which is way worse to me than just feeling the rock on initial contact and relying on your proprioception of the ground and foot/ankle strength to stay balanced. Additionally, the Lone Peak rock plate design doesn’t protect the midsole from the abuse of rocks like a traditional design does, and therefore th midsole deteriorates quicker than it would with a traditional rock plate. I’m contemplating a future post on rock plates to highlight some of the designs that work best in my experience, but this is one area where I hope Altra reconsiders their alternative approach, and it is even more relevant with the Superior which has exposed midsole on the bottom of the shoe.

Outsole

The Lone Peak 2.5 and Neoshell have the same exact outsole design. While in general the outsole works well as an all purpose outsole, and isn’t too luggy for dry terrain, nor lacking grip in looser terrain, I also found a few things that could use some tweaking. First, I think, like the Nike Kiger 3 the lugs are too deep for the stack height of the shoe, which only adds weight and decreases the responsiveness of the ride. The shoe isn’t light or precise enough to really take advantage of the lugs, and especially with the Lone Peak 2.5 upper, doesn’t hold the foot securely enough on technical terrain either. For the Neoshell, I actually think the lug design is just fine since I end up using that shoe mostly on snow and mud anyway, and not on dry trail that often.

Lots of rubber on this outsole, and I think probably too much and too deep for how the shoe handles technical terrain. The lugs on both edges from the midfoot back are oriented far too much for breaking and would be better being directional till the last couple lugs.

The other issue with the design is that the lugs on the lateral midfoot are oriented to break and I don’t find this to be very enjoyable on drier trail, especially on downhills. A little bit of float is really helpful on downhills, and I don’t think there need to be any lugs oriented for breaking traction until the heel, and even then the center and medial heel is enough (more like the Salming T1). If we are talking about an all out mountain/off trail shoe, then I think lug design is a different story, but for any trail shoe that is designed more as an all around, varied terrain shoe, then the lugs need to be shallower and oriented so they don’t break too much on hardpack. The new Lone Peak 3.0 outsole looks to address a few of these issues with multidirectional lugs in the middle of the outsole (a great change) and less aggressive lugs on the midfoot, although they are still oriented horizontally (would be better flipped on their side in the direction of the travel of the foot; which would also decrease the shearing effect on the lugs).

Conclusion

Overall, I am a big fan of what Altra is trying to do, and that is why I even went to the effort to detail the issues with certain design elements, and the reason for the longer review. I think there is a lot to like in their shoes, and I want to see them continue to improve. The Lone Peak has such potential to be the perfect ultramarthon/long run shoe with their wide toebox, medium stack, and versatile outsole, but it needs some tweaking for me to start a race with them on my feet. The Neoshell is by far my favorite out of any Lone Peak I’ve tried, and is a very nice addition to my winter shoe quiver with the wide fit and fantastic Neoshell upper design. Unfortunately, for any temps hotter than 30 deg F, I can’t see using them just because of how warm they run (which is a major asset in winter). I’ve been dreaming of doing the Iditarod Trail Invitational (350 winter race in Alaska) someday, and am always evaluating a winter shoe with that in mind; the forthcoming Lone Peak 3.0 Neoshell Mid looks really good for a race like that or long winter outings in general.

In the end, I can definitely recommend the Lone Peak Neoshell 2.0 as a winter shoe. The design that puts the waterproof material on the outside is nothing short of revolutionary for waterproof shoe construction, and the shoe just runs and feels better for me. The Lone Peak 2.5, on the other hand, just doesn’t come together in a well enough executed package for what I feel the intended use of the shoe (all around trail) is meant to be. For flatter terrain, it’s fine and the fit will be nice and comfortable, but, for me, the lack of upper security, unstable midsole/rockplate design, and outsole design issues take too much away from the experience. I feel there are better shoes in the same weight/protection category like the adidas Response TR Boost, Nike Wildhorse 3 and Pearl Izumi N2v2 that run better, are more secure and are more stable. Needless to say, I’m still super excited to see where Altra continues to go with their shoes, and also eager to see how the Lone Peak 3.0 lineup can improve the Lone Peak experience.

The Altra Lone Peak 2.5 and Neoshell are available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Below is a selection of mostly neutral, training/performance road shoes that I feel didn’t fall into my previously published road racing shoe preview.  I have one more forthcoming shoe preview from this years’ Outdoor Retail that will cover new mountain running shoes I saw.  Enjoy and feel free to ask questions below!

Altra IQ – weight 8.6 oz men, 7.1 oz women, drop: 0mm, available Spring 2016, price: $199.99

Very smooth and “hi-tech” looking upper with a view of the sensor embedded in the midsole.

Altra is really pushing hard recently with new models, recent sponsoring of big races in the trail world (Hardrock 100 and Western States 100), and signing more and more athletes each year.  The IQ looks to be an industry leader in the “smart shoe” category which will provide feedback to the runner via smart phone or iFit watch.  For more info on the IQ check out Sam’s great write-up here and a video of Altra Founder, Golden Harper explaining more about the shoe courtesy of Competitor here.  Other than that, it looks very similar to the current Altra Impulse.

Brooks Launch 3 – weight 9.8 oz men, 7.9 oz women, drop: 10mm, available 1/1/16, price: $100

New 3D Fit Print upper on the Launch 2 platform.

I’ve never run in the Launch, but given its popularity it might be worth a look.  The Launch hits right in the middle of the road for weight, protection, and cushion, and should work for a wide variety of runners.  The Launch 3 gets a new 3D printed upper on the Launch 2 platform.  See Pete’s review of the Launch 2 here.

Brooks PureFlow 5 – weight 9.2 oz men, 7.8 oz women, drop: 4mm, available 1/1/16, price: $110

Very nice upper design with more structure in heel and more open forefoot.

I’ve not run extensively in the Pure line mainly as I can’t quite seem to get along with their last shape.  The PureFlow 5 has a great looking upper and a new, very flexible looking midsole and outsole while not giving up the cushion it has been known for.

A little podular for my tastes, but decent coverage and should be flexible.

Brooks Transcend 3 – weight 10.9 oz men, 9.5 oz women, drop: 8mm, available 1/1/16, price: $170

Not sure I’m digging the upper on these, but the extra structure might be necessary for a shoe with its stack height.

I don’t have any experience in the Transcend, and as far as I can tell they ride the line between maximalist and premium cushion.  They are labeled as mild support shoes without using traditional posting.  Not a shoe I’d likely run in, but there are lots of runners out there that might.  Price seems a bit high, but in line with other max cushion models from Hoka, etc.

Lots of rubber and flex grooves.

Hoka One One Clayton – weight 7.3 oz men, 6.3 oz women, Stack Height:24mm H/20mm FF, available Spring 2016, price: $150

Nice looking upper and midsole follows suit with the Tracer with firmer foam in the forefoot and softer in the heel. Supposedly a wider forefoot in these too.

I’ve not yet found a Hoka shoe that I’ve enjoyed running in.  The Clifton came the closest for me, but the super soft ride combined with the rocker sole made it feel like it robbed a bit of energy from my stride. However, I could start to see why some folks enjoy them, and the Clifton got the weight much lower than the more traditional Hokas.  The Clayton is over an ounce lighter, and at 7.3 oz is quite light compared to most shoes on the market.  When you consider that it delivers trainer level cushion (20mm FF/24mm Heel) at this weight, it is even more impressive.  The biggest issue remaining with Hoka for me is the fit, which I’ve never found great.  If they can improve that with the Clayton and Tracer, they could be nice options.  Hoka was definitely one of the brands at OR most willing to try some new things, and while I haven’t loved their shoes, I can commend them for being willing to go outside the box to try to arrive at unique products.

RMat serves as outsole. Midfoot looks more typical of Hoka, which I’m not as excited about.

New Balance Fresh Foam Zante v2 – weight 8.6 oz men, 7.2 oz women, drop: 6mm, available April 2016, price: $99.95

Great new upper design that gets rid of the overlay in the middle of the lateral side that put too much pressure there for me (and others according to NB). NB’s uppers are some of the best on the market IMO and the Zante has the best NB ride as well.

The Fresh Foam Zante was a big hit for New Balance this year and I was among the many who enjoyed its cushioned yet speedy ride on a mid level drop. I also liked the fit with a wide forefoot, but snugger midfoot and heel.  The v2 fixes the main issue I had with the original in removing the midfoot overlay that gave me a sense of restriction around my 5th metatarsal. Zante 2 also looks to improve the fit of the shoe overall as well, while not messing with what was already a good ride.  The Zante v2 is definitely one of the road shoes I’m most looking looking forward to running in next year.

Redesigned outsole based on runner feedback. Mainly they elongated the shapes over the forefoot, but added topo-like grooves to make it more flexible .

Salomon Sonic Pro – weight 8.5 oz men, stack height: 24mm H/16mm FF, available Spring 2016, price: $140.00

Probably a closer replacement to the X-Series than the S-Lab Sonic is. Filling in the Pro spot in the Sonic lineup.

The Salomon S-Lab X-Series is a shoe I’ve wanted to try, but never got around to this season.  The S-Lab model will now be call the S-Lab Sonic (see racing shoe preview).  The Sonic Pro gives a similar treatment to the S-Lab Sonic as the Sense Pro does to the S-Lab Sense.  It provides a similar high quality product at a slightly lower price point. It also has a little less pure performance focus, instead adding slightly more comfort and durability.  Out of the two, I think I’d be most interested in the S-Lab version, but at $30 less the Pro version might appeal to more runners.

Very similar outsole to S-Lab Sonic with the black rubber adding just a bit more durability.

Saucony Breakthru 2 – weight 8.5 oz men, 7.4 oz women, stack height: 23mm H/15mm FF, available 1/1/2016, price: $100.00

New upper on the same platform. Very nice looking and they said they opened up the toebox on it compared to v1.

The Breakthru 2 is one of the road shoes I’m most excited about this year.  I haven’t run in the Breakthru, but it looks like a great all-around platform with very good outsole coverage, and v2 puts a new more streamlined upper on it that I was told would have a roomier forefoot.  It will still be a a performance oriented trainer, and one with a lot of versatility and plenty of trail worthiness as well (something I’m always looking for in road shoes :) ).

Skechers GOrun 4 2016 – weight 7.8 oz men, 6.0 oz women, midsole height: 18mm H/14mm FF, available January 2016, price: $105.00

Circular knit upper that has a little stretch (where as the Speed 3 2016 and Ultra Road are much more static).

The GOrun 4 2016 gets a knit upper that has a bit more stretch than the Speed 3 2016, and also gets the upgrade to the new 5-Gen midsole material.  I’ve since run in a sample pair of these and the 5-Gen is much more of an upgrade than one would think.  The shoe runs more responsively, while retaining the cushioning and flexibility of the GOrun 4.  The upper is super soft and comfortable, and the shoe could easily serve as a long run shoe for many.  Also of note, the toebox has more volume and the shoe fits more true to the rest of the Skechers lineup, where as the original GOrun 4 seemed to run short due to a shallow toebox.

Skechers GOrun Ride 5 – weight 8.4 oz men, 6.7 oz women, midsole height: 20mm H/16mm FF, available January 2016, price: $100.00

Very smooth and comfortable, seamless upper and slightly thicker midsole than previous version.

The GOrun Ride 5 gets a full update with a new thinner, seamless upper along with 2mm more stack height than its predecessor.  I’ve also run in a sample pair of these, and they definitely offer more support than the GOrun 4 2016 and Speed 3 2016. They also still have some responsiveness with the 5-Gen midsole that doesn’t completely relegate them to easy, slow miles.  A great update, and a great overall value as well.  Skechers is really moving their product forward quickly, and with the new 5-Gen midsole material and fantastic new uppers, I think they are going to be making some waves with these new Spring 2016 offerings.  A company to keep an eye on for sure!

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!

The Halo has a sensor built into the sole that apparently can detect cadence, foot strike location, and ground impact force and send that info to a synced iFit watch or a smartphone. Devices that measure cadence have been around for awhile, but a shoe that can show foot contact location and impact force could be interesting.

A big question will be pricing – will runners be willing to shell out $180 for this technology? There’s also the question of what to do with the info that the shoe provides – there’s no conclusive data showing that one type of foot strike is best under all conditions, and there is considerable debate about whether impact force is related to injury risk. I’m also not sure which exact aspect of force they are measuring – max impact force, max ground reaction force, loading rate, all of the above? We’d also need some kind of norms for force data to make them useful.

Lots of questions, but it’s cool to see a shoe company pursuing technology like this. I expect we’ll be seeing more from other companies in the not too distant future.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay and Zante

New Balance is apparently ditching their numbering scheme for naming shoe models (hooray!!!), and the Fresh Foam 980 Road will be updated in the form of the New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay. Sam reports that the Boracay will weigh in at just under 10oz, and will retain it’s 4mm drop platform. I enjoyed running in the Fresh Foam 980 Road except for the fact that it had a pointy toebox – Sam indicates that the midsole is a wider platform in the Boracay so hopefully this will improve fit.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay – photo via Sam Winebaum

One of the new shoes I’m most excited about is the New Balance Fresh Foam Zante. My understanding is that the Zante is kind of a racier, lower profile Fresh Foam shoe. Sam reports that the Zante will weigh in under 8oz, have a 6mm heel-forefoot drop, and will retail for $100. Looks like my kind of shoe!

New Balance Fresh Foam Zante – photo via Sam Winebaum

Altra Superior 2.0 and Instinct 3.0

Altra introduced several new updates at OR. Sam provides details on all of them, and here I’ll feature the Superior 2.0 and Instinct 3.0.

I loved the original Altra Superior – is was roomy, low profile, and flexible. However, durability was a bit of an issue (for example, the sole on my pair is separating from the upper) and traction was not great. The Superior 1.5 was an upper update, but with version 2.0 the shoe gets a complete overhaul. Sam reports that the 2.0 adds a more aggressive outsole with 2mm more cushion yet drops 2.5 oz from v1.5.

Altra Superior 2.0 – photos via Sam Winebaum

I had lunch with Altra co-founder Golden Harper a few weeks ago and got a sneak peak at the Instinct 3.0. Rather than their typical practice of doing an upper update to the 2.0 and releasing a 2.5, Altra decided to put the shoe through a complete overhaul and jump right to version 3.0. This may be due in part to frequent reports that the 2.0 is too soft compared to previous versions. Sam reports that version 3.0 will have a slightly thinner, firmer midsole compared to v2.

Altra Instinct 3.0 – photo via Sam Winebaum

In addition to the Superior and Instinct, Altra is also updating the Provision and Olympus. For more details on those head over to Sam’s Altra preview post.

Salomon Sense X-Series

Two of my favorite shoes so far this year have been the Salomon Sense Pro and Salomon Sense 3 Ultra. I ran over 50 miles on dirt roads and trails in the Ultras the when I was up in Vermont for the second half of July and loved them – should have a review up soon. I was excited to see Sam post about a new Salomon shoe called the S-Lab X-Series. Looks like this is kind of a road-trail version of the Sense with a bit softer heel cushion and a more road-worthy outsole.

Salomon S-Lab X-Series – photo via Sam Winebaum

Sam also provides some photos of the Sense 4 Ultra and Sense 4 Soft-Ground.

That’s it for now, if I find any more info on new shoes introduced at OR I’ll be sure to share!

In my most recent perusal, I came across a few models that might be of interest to Runblogger readers. I’ve broken this post up into 4 parts by brand. In this post I cover Altra previews, and in parts 3-4 I cover Newton, New Balance, and Hoka.

Altra Lone Peak 2.0

I still have not run in the Altra Lone Peak, but that may change with the forthcoming release of the Lone Peak 2.0. The Lone Peak 1.5 took top honors in my reader survey of favorite trail shoes last year, and the 2.0 is a great looking shoe (I’m partial to yellow shoes…).

RW hasn’t posted any specs on this shoe yet, but Ben Luedke over at Running the Cascades describes them: “…they are a significant step forward from the first two versions.  Gone is the protruding mud flap, and the cavernous toe box. These have a more form fitting, yet generously sized toe box, and more cushion. They aren’t as firm in the midsole as the previous versions, but nowhere near as cushy as a Hoka or the Altra Olympus.” Check out Ben’s post for more info.

MSRP for the Altra Lone Peak  is $120, and release date is July 2014.

Altra 3-Sum

When Altra decided to overhaul the One, which was essentially the Altra equivalent to a racing flat, and turn it into a much more cushioned lightweight trainer (The One²) I was a bit surprised. It seemed they were getting rid of all of their lower stack-height shoes.

My understanding is that Altra felt that the One and the 3-Sum were kind of redundant, and that the 3-Sum would be updated to take the place formerly occupied by both of those shoes. In the Altra 3-Sum 1.5 we do in fact see the 3-Sum moving a bit away from the Tri-style upper (e.g., the 1.5 has a more traditional ankle collar without the high pull-tab behind the Achilles), but it retains features like the speed-lace system and what appears to be a bootie-style design with an integrated tongue. No specs on RW for this one either, but an image capture from an Altra catalogue shared on Slowtwitch indicates 18mm stack height and weight of 8.3oz. Since the original 3-Sum is listed as having a 13mm stack, I assume the catalogue number includes the 5mm insole, but I could be wrong. Interestingly, the women’s 3-Sum 1.5 is listed as having a stack of 24mm, so a bit more cushion in the women’s shoes.

As far as I can tell the sole looks to be the same, so this should work well for fans of the original One as well as the original 3-Sum. Not sure I’m crazy about the aesthetic on the 3-Sum 1.5 though. I have not yet come across any reviews of the 3-Sum 1.5.

MSRP for the Altra 3-Sum 1.5 is $130, and release date is July 2014.

Next Post: Part 2 – Newton Summer 2014 Running Shoes (or jump directly to the New Balance or Hoka previews)

My problem with Altra in the past is that most of the shoes I’ve tried were too firm and too stiff. The original Instinct and it’s sequel (Instinct 1.5) were good examples – I enjoyed both shoes for casual wear, but the full coverage rubber outsole, firm midsole, and lack of flex grooves made the sole feel like a slab under my foot. I felt similarly about the Torin even though it was softer, and never ran much in it. Of all of the Altra shoes I’ve tried, I got along best with the Superior, mainly because it flexed better than most of the others.

Altra has stirred up a bit of controversy in recent months with a move toward more cushioning in their footwear. They beefed up and softened the Instinct in version 2.0 (have not run in them, but saw a pair last week and they are very soft), they introduced the maximally cushioned Altra Olympus trail shoe, and are soon to release the maximal Altra Paradigm road shoe. Shoes like the ultraminimal Samson and Adam are no longer in production. In perhaps the biggest change, the Altra The One has been totally redesigned from a low-profile, racing flat-style shoe to a Saucony Virrata/Kinvara-style lightweight trainer.

I’ve seen a lot of commentary from Altra fans complaining about the move to greater cushioning. I’ve seen others excited about the change. Personally, I’d like to see both ends of the spectrum stay in play, but I also understand that the economics of the footwear business mean that tough decisions have to be made. Shoes that aren’t selling either need to be dropped or redesigned, and this is particularly true for a small company like Altra. The founders of Altra believe in minimal footwear (though they are quick to say they are not a minimal company, and I agree), and if a market exists for such shoes they will be players (I’ve even heard they may have a new minimal shoe in the works). Altra’s philosophy is that if people want cushioned shoes, let’s at least give them the option of zero drop and a wide toebox – these are the features that Altra has stayed true to from the very beginning.

I purchased a pair of the original Altra The One a few months ago (they were on sale at Amazon), but never wound up running in them. The fit was a bit off, and I’d heard reports about them turning people’s socks and feet green. I wound up selling them on Ebay since I’d heard rumors they were going to be replaced and putting time into a review thus made little sense.

The original Altra The One

Two weeks ago I got an email from Golden Harper, one of the founders of Altra, asking if I had any interest in trying out a near-production sample of the Altra The One² (the shoe comes out in May). I’d seen images of the shoe, and it was clear that it was going to be very different from the original. I agreed, and he sent me a pair – they arrived at my doorstep last week. My understanding is that the pair I have is not a production pair – some modifications will be made to the upper, which I’ll try to explain below.

My first impression of the shoe upon taking them out of the box was very positive. Altra has come a long way in terms of aesthetics, though based on photos I’ve posted on Instagram and Facebook the response to the One² seems to be either A) beautiful! or B) they look like bowling shoes. I fall on the side of thinking that they look great.

As mentioned, the pair sent to me is slightly different than the production pair. Running Warehouse recently published a blog post about the One², and in it they have photos of what I assume will be the shoe with the production upper:

The main differences from my pair seem to be the smaller Altra logo, and the addition of an overlay around the back of the heel. The sole appears to be identical to the shoe I have, so the difference is apparently mostly cosmetic.

I’ve now run in the One² three times for a total of 21 miles – a 5 miler, a 6 miler and a 10 miler, all on asphalt. The 10 mile run was my longest since last summer, so a good test for me. Based on these runs, I’d say this is probably the first Altra shoe I’ve worn that I’d be comfortable wearing for a marathon. Very impressed.

Let’s dig into the details.

Upper

I’m going to assume based on what Golden told me that the upper will be structurally similar in the production model (seems to be the case based on the above images). It’s a minimal upper, very few overlays, and relatively thin in construction. The material is very soft and pliable, not that plasticy material that a lot of brands are using these days (and that seems to often tear at flex points near the forefoot).

The One² has a very thin heel counter – it’s not hard plastic, but there’s just enough there to give the back of the shoe some structure. This is definitely one that I’ll be adding to my list of shoes to recommend to people with pump-bumps (Haglund’s deformity).

The internal lining of the upper is very soft, almost sock-like. There is a thin insole with just the slightest hint of arch support. The upper overall is extremely comfortable.

Sole

First the specs – my pair weighed in at 7.5 oz (size 10.5), and I measured a stack height of 23mm (18mm sole thickness, 5mm insole thickness). This is a zero drop shoe.

When I first put the One²’s on my feet my reaction was “Wow, this is an Altra???” They felt downright cushy compared to other Altras I’ve tried, and for me this is a good thing. The feel underfoot is very comparable to the Saucony Virrata, maybe even the original Saucony Kinvara. And the reason why this is good for me is because those two shoes have been on my feet in my last three marathons (not at the same time!). The One² is like a Virrata with a super wide toebox and a less structured upper, and less of a lug-like feeling under the forefoot.

I was a bit worried at first that the One² would feel mushy on the run. They don’t, they actually feel pleasantly springy, but not in a racing-flat kind of way. More like adidas Boost, Skechers Resalyte (midsole material for the GoRun), or maybe a Brooks DNA-BioMogo blend midsole. They feel softer when walking than when running. The midsole is composed of a blend of EVA and Altra A-Bound (latter is the stuff from the sole of the Altra Instinct), and I’m wondering if this combo is what gives the shoe it’s cushy yet somewhat springy feel.

The deep flex grooves in the sole of the One² make for an enjoyable ride for me. The shoe is both longitudinally and torsionally flexible, and gone is the slab-like feel of many of the other Altra shoes I have tried. One drawback of the flex grooves is that they will trap rocks – I’ve pulled several out of my pair, but do not notice them while running.

With the change in sole comes a change in purpose for this shoe. The original Altra The One was more a firm racing flat, whereas the One² is more of a lightweight trainer/distance racer. This isn’t a shoe I’d choose for my next 5K, but it’s a shoe I’d definitely consider for a marathon. I did do a few sprints in them at the end of one of my runs, and they were fine, but top speed is not what this shoe is built for.

One attribute of the outsole that might concern some is the lack of rubber under the lateral forefoot. There are patches at the back of the heel and under the big toe, but forefoot strikers may wind up eating the exposed EVA up along the lateral forefoot. There’s a balance between feel and durability though, and I tend to really like running in shoes with lots of exposed midsole(e.g., Skechers). That might be why the sole of the original Kinvara was one of my all-time favorites, and Saucony told me that they were hesitant to add rubber to that area for fear of altering the ride. I’m a mild heel striker most of the time, so I can’t comment on forefoot durability, though I’m sure Thomas over at Believe in The Run will touch on this if/when he reviews this shoe (he destroyed the original Kinvara in this area).

One point of concern about the sole – I noticed this morning that the white paint along the upper portion of the sole was flaking off. Purely cosmetic, and hopefully Altra can get this under control in production:

Conclusion

Some are going to hate what Altra has done to The One, but I for one really like the One². It’s the first Altra shoe that I’d truly consider for a marathon distance race, and it combines softness and flexibility in a way that I have yet to see in any other Altra (I haven’t yet tried the Instinct 2.0).

I personally think Altra would have been wiser to release this shoe as a new model and retain The One as a speed shoe/racing flat – I’m not sure of the reason behind their thinking with going the update route instead (Update: just got an email from Golden Harper about this, I think the idea is that the 3-Sum will continue to be the racing flat and will become less a Tri-specific shoe; it is on the same sole as the original The One). It’s surely a shoe that will appeal to a broader audience than the original The One, and I think the hope is that if it and the other new shoes/updates in the Altra lineup sell well, they can start adding back in more niche shoes at the more minimal end.

I’d recommend the One² to anyone looking for a zero drop, cushy shoe for long miles. And if you tried the Saucony Virrata and found it too narrow, the One² with its Altra foot-shaped last might be worth a shot.

The Altra The One² will be available in May at an MSRP of $94.99.

Side note – if you’re a huge fan of the older Altra shoes, lots of them are available on clearance for $50-$60 at The Clymb.

I’m curious – are you excited or upset by the direction Altra is taking with this shoe (or with the direction the brand has gone as a whole)?

As a recent convert to Vibram Five Fingers and numerous racing flats (it’s been two years since I ditched my traditional stability shoes), I had been longing for just “a little more shoe” between me and the road. It has been ridiculously wet all summer in the Carolinas and so I have had to shift many runs back to the pavement owing to the trail conditions – hence, I wanted to treat myself to a bit more cushioning in a zero-drop shoe.

I chose the Altra “The One,” a newly released neutral performance trainer by the strong new contender to “The Big Seven” shoe companies.

Altra markets this shoe as being able to “handle any run on any occasion,” from track repeats to the marathon to a leisurely recovery run.

Sizing and first impressions

I had some initial issues with sizing – most of my running shoes are 12.5 US, yet this one felt a bit short on the 3 little toes in this size and overly roomy in a size 13 US. I recommend you research the fit for yourself in Shoefitr if you mail order this shoe, it can fit slightly tricky. Also, it tends to fit somewhat smaller than the “Instinct”. I settled for the 12.5 as the toe box was roomy enough for me and I felt more comfortable being “in touch” with the shoe. Altra customer service was courteous and quick in handling the exchange and did not charge for shipping. (Editor’s note from Pete: I just purchased The One myself and opted to go a half size up from what I wear in the Instinct 1.5)

The first no-sock run in the Altra in the rain confirmed what we already knew from Kermit The Frog: “It’s not easy being green”- I emerged from the shoes with bright green feet- the color washed off easily enough and did not irritate my skin, so this was really more of an amusement. Indeed, the shoes broke in very easily, I ended up running a 10K race in “The One” after an easy initial 3 mile recovery session. I appreciated the extra cushioning on the hilly road course (running downhill was pain-free when compared to my Vibrams), but was less impressed by how heavily soaked the shoes got in the pouring rain. The quick dry mesh on the upper and drainage holes in the soles were heavily challenged by these conditions.

Construction

I am very impressed by how Altra manages to give the runner a roomy feel in the forefoot without compromising control and while allowing anchoring of the big toe. I attribute this both to the comparatively low toebox and the “contour footbed” insole that molds to your toes and provides good grounding.

The heel fit is medium wide and the upper is not too bulky – the asymmetrical lacing gives you plenty of options for a more personal fit. The laces themselves are freakishly long, so I just cut and burnished the ends to prevent the threads from coming apart.

The mesh upper breathes well and feels durable. After 2 months and 150 miles in the shoes, there is no sign of tearing or excessive stretching of the material. Running without socks has given me no blisters or hot spots.

Similarly, while the blown rubber sole is starting to show a wear pattern (see below), I am confident that I will get at least 500 miles out of this pair. The sole provides decent traction even on wet roads and handles gravel and non-technical trails very well. Overall, I am very impressed with the build quality of this shoe – great workmanship and all materials used seem to be of a superior grade with an organic feel to them.

The shoes weigh in at around 8.5 ounces for my size and the stack height of 18mm provides a sound compromise in terms of ground feel, flexibility and cushioning.

Conclusion

I am very happy that I’ve been able to add a new shoe to my rotation for long runs and easy recovery runs. While it is not “The One” for me as I will continue to race in the likes of the New Balance Minimus Zeros (MR00) and do all my track work in Vibrams, this green performance shoe has filled an important void as a comfortable and reliable road trainer and I give kudos to Altra for real innovation and added value in today’s running shoe market.

The Altra The One is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com (20% off right now at Amazon with code NEWFALL2). Altra can also be shipped to locations outside the US if purchased from Optimal Run or Take it On the Run.