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.

1. Montrail Fluidflex F.K.T – weight 274 grams (9.7 oz) mens 9, 22mm H/18mm FF, $110.00

The Montrail Fluidflex ST was a shoe that I saw some potential in last year and Montrail decided to fine tune the upper for 2016 with a new design that is a little lower volume, has a lower heel collar (relative to the last version not in general) and new seamless overlays.  The shoe really runs well and I’ve been particularly happy with it on workouts where I’m running for 2 hours on the trails with some work at tempo pace.  The shoe can handle the distance of a 12-15 mile run just fine, but feels snappy and sharp enough to feel at home at faster paces.  It’d be on my shortlist for a smoother surfaced trail 50k and I’ll likely keep it in my rotation going forward specifically for trail workout days.  The midsole and outsole are carried over from the ST with the Fluid Guide still present that stiffens the midfoot foam just a bit.  Good overall update.  I’m hoping they look at tweaking the midsole and outsole a bit next giving it just a bit sharper, narrower midsole profile and a little more rubber coverage wouldn’t hurt.

3. Scott Kinabalu RC – weight 255 grams (9.0 oz) mens 9, 19mm H/14mm FF, $130.00

Scott appears to have made some effort to keep their lineup relevant with some updates to their Kinabalu and off-shoots of the Kinabalu name in the Kinabalu Enduro and Kinabalu RC.  The RC, essentially takes the previously Trail Rocket 2.0 platform and adds a rockplate to it with a new upper.   I like what this has done to the ride, giving the shoe more snap and protection for its weight.  The upper is very low volume throughout…maybe a bit too low for the average foot, but with a heavily padded tongue you can really cinch the shoe down and it doesn’t feel too constricting, although the upper does run a bit hot.  Overall the ride reminds me of the Nike Kiger 2 without zoom units, which is a very good thing since the Kiger 2 is probably the best light trail shoe ever in my mind.  The Kinabalu RC has a fast, near road racing shoe-like ride but still protective enough for rocky terrain.  The only downsides, I feel are the shoe is a bit expensive for what it is (essentially a trail racing flat) and the slightly hot upper.  I do feel, however, that the Kinabalu RC is one of the best light trail shoes to come out this year and that SCOTT has done the best they can do with their carryover platform and to really continue progressing the line, they need a new midsole design and materials.  The good news is after seeing the 2017 lineup at Outdoor Retailer this year, the Kinabalu RC will get a new upper and new midsole material which should move it in the right direction!  Stay tuned for more!

3. Salomon Sense Pro 2 – weight 260 grams (9.2 oz) mens 9, 23mm H/17mm FF, $130.00

The Sense Pro hit a great sweet spot for many runners in that it gave the fit and feel of the S-Lab Sense with a little more protection, cushion and without the extra $50 price tag.  I essentially see the Sense Pro 2 and Sense 5 as very similar shoes with just slightly different leanings so many of my thoughts on the Sense 5 (see #4 below) apply here.  However, some things different and stand out in the process.  First, the 6mm offset, in the case of these two shoes is by far preferable since the shoe has a much better flow and transition from midfoot to toeoff.  The Sense 5 is really flat from the midfoot forward, which, while fine when going uphill, feels like it is fighting toe off just a bit on the flats and downhills.  I’ve seen in places where even Salomon team runners like Max King have mentioned this about the Sense 5.  Second, the Sense Pro 2 has a little more stack height and a slightly (relative to the Sense 5) softer midsole feel that gives the shoe a more forgiving ride.  Granted in the scope of all shoes on the market, the Sense Pro 2 is still quite firm.  Lastly, I feel the last on the Sense Pro 2 is just a bit more accommodating fit wise and is more comfortable overall.  All of this combined with the more normal price tag makes choosing between the two shoes an easy decision in favor of the Sense Pro 2.

4. Salomon S-Lab Sense 5 Ultra – weight 223 grams (7.9 oz) mens 9, 19mm H/15mm FF, $180.00

The S-Lab Sense is quite the iconic shoe.  Having been originally developed for Kilian Jornet’s winning run at the 2011 Western States 100, the shoe has seen quite a few iterations since then (5 in fact, go figure) with the shoe generally getting more substantial with each version.  The Sense 4 was nearly 8.5 oz and had a fairly well lugged outsole, but, and this is the kicker, on the same midsole mold as the original.  So essentially you have a midsole design meant for a 7.0 oz racing shoe that is still being used on 8+ ounce models.  Version 5 does head the other direction to bring the shoe back under 8 oz by removing some of the lug and using a very thin and open mesh on the upper.  Overall I think they’ve basically fine tuned this platform to the utmost in the Sense 5 and it is a nice light trail shoe, but I still honestly find the shoe lacking in some areas that I wish it was just better.  In a way, it would still be best suited as a 7.0 oz trail racing flat, but instead Salomon has firmed up the foam to try to make it more protective and durable..  Problem is, it still has all those midsole/outsole cutouts which reduce protection and durability.  This results in a semi-harsh ride without any durability or protection benefits because of all the cutouts and narrow racing design. The cutouts made sense on a shoe trying to shave every gram, but don’t on a shoe that is trying to be more well rounded.  The construction and quality is top notch but the design needs an overhaul and is basically 5 years old at this point.  It still is a fun, fast little shoe, but there are so many other shoes in the same weight class that I’d choose over the Sense at this point (Nike Kiger anyone?) that it is just not at the top of my list and that is not even getting into the, in-a-class-of-its-own, $180.00 price tag.  The high point to the end of my long standing frustration with some of the design choices with the S-Lab Sense over the years is that the Sense 6 coming in 2017 gets a full outsole and midsole refresh that should help with durability and hopefully ride (if the midsole material is better/less harsh).

 5. Brooks PureGrit 5 – weight 277 grams (9.8 oz) mens 9; 21mm H/17mm FF, $120

The Brooks PureGrit has always been a shoe that I’ve wanted to like and, nearly always not worked out for one reason or another.  In version 5 some of the issues I’ve had a addressed and some remain.  The main thing I like about the shoe is the low profile, yet protective all around ride.  It feels minimal and fun to run in, but substantial enough to run longer in.  The midsole material is firm but has some responsiveness to it and the rock plate is substantial enough to really add to the protection and responsiveness of the shoe.  The outsole also is well done and versatile in design.  All in all, the platform is really solid on the shoe.  For me, however, the fit is still a glaring issue on this shoe.  While better than previous versions for me in some areas, there are still some major shortcomings in the fit department.  First off the amount of eyelets are quite low and start much further up the foot than most trail shoes.  This leaves an open feeing over the ball of the foot and toes, which is fine walking around, but at speed on technical trail, my foot was moving a lot in this shoe.  Second there is near zero tongue padding/lace pressure dispersion, which all but eliminates abating the first problems since you can’t crank the laces down unless you don’t want to feel the top of your feet.  Maybe there is a “Brooks” type of foot out there that works for other runners, but for me, the Brooks lasts fit about as poor as any other brand out there which is a real shame.  I’m hoping the forthcoming Mazama, with its speedier focus, fits just a bit more secure.

With my return to teaching, I’ve realized that time constraints necessitate making a change to how I write reviews (or they’ll never get done!). I’m going to try a more streamlined approach that I hope will allow me to churn through a backlog of reviews that have been accumulating since the beginning of the year. Here goes…

With their latest iteration of the PureProject, Brooks has trimmed down the collection by eliminating the PureConnect. The PureCadence (support), PureFlow (neutral), and PureGrit (trail) move on to v5. I’ve run in both the PureCadence 5 and PureFlow 5, and this review focuses on the former. I do feel obligated to once again point out that although the PureCadence is marketed as the support/stability shoe in the PureProject lineup, I think that this categorization is pretty artificial. Quite frankly, it feels pretty darned similar to the PureFlow, so don’t let it’s categorization scare you off if you’re interested in giving it a try.

Perhaps the most exciting change in v5 of the PureCadence is the fact that the silly NavBand has been eliminated, as has the non-functional split-toe sole. I’m a fan of eliminating marketing-driven nonsense, and I don’t feel that either of those PureProject “features” accomplished much of anything for the shoe. Thank you Brooks for letting go.

Here are my thoughts after probably 75 or so miles in the PureCadence 5:

1. Specs: 9.6 oz, 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot.

2. Sizing: I stayed true to size with a 10 – fit was good, no need to size up for me.

3. Ride: The PureCadence 5 feels very similar to previous iterations of the shoe – reasonably well cushioned, smooth transition, comfortable over longer distances. The shoe retains the undercut heel design, and as a midfoot to mild heel striker this makes me happy. Solid all around!

4. Fit: On the narrow side of middle-of-the-road. The toebox is not overly spacious, but not uncomfortably constricting. Midfoot and heel hold the foot well.

4. Upper: The mesh is not particularly stretchy, so not a lot of give. However, depth of the toebox is sufficient so there is room for the toes to move. Interior lining is plush and might be suitable for sockless wear (have not tried it yet myself).

5. Sole: I’m fond of the Brooks BioMoGo-DNA compound used in the midsole, and have been since the initial iterations of the PureProject shoes. It provides a fairly springy ride, and is a good match for my stride. Brooks touts that their Omega Flex Grooves optimize flexibility – I have no idea what an Omega Flex Groove is, but the sole is reasonably flexible, no complaints there. As mentioned, this doesn’t really feel like a stability shoe. In fact, I’ve gotten some abrasion on the side of the ball behind my big toe. This typically only happens in shoes with a soft medial forefoot, so I may be getting more late stage pronation than in most other shoes despite this being billed as a support model.

6. Durability: Outstanding so far. Plenty of rubber on the sole, with minimal wear visible. Upper has held up extremely well. No tearing, abrasion, etc.

Conclusion

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is a solid mid- to long distance trainer for those who like a lower-drop, sub-10oz shoe. It’s not for the wide-footed, but should work for narrow to moderate width feet, and durability seems to be excellent. The price point at $120 is a bit higher than I’d like to see ($100-$110 seems more appropriate), but if the durability continues to be as good as I’ve seen so far, then then the $/mile ratio may be fine. And as I said at the outset, I don’t find this Cadence to be particularly controlling or stable, so don’t let that scare you off if (like me) you think the “neutral” PureFlow 5 is pretty ugly.

If you have any specific questions, leave a comment below!

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Specs

Price: $130 MSRP

Weight: 272 grams (9.6 oz) men’s size 9

Stack Height: 25mm Heel, 17mm Forefoot

Specs via Running Warehouse

Upper and Fit

Fit is one area where I’ve always struggled with Brooks.  Their shoes are generally too tapered in the toe box, and yet the midfoot and heel are loose.  This is typically my least favorite combination in a last shape, and one I rarely have good luck with. The Neuro pretty much follows this mold, but it does fit a little lower volume in the midfoot than other Brooks (like the PureGrit).

Cool techie look, but function suffers. Also notice looking top down that the shape is pretty much equal width from heel to toe…not my favorite, and not how a foot is shaped.

I didn’t have significant problems with them on my runs, but I didn’t (and wouldn’t) take them out longer than a 1.5 hr run just from the forefoot being a little too tapered for long run comfort.  The upper is a pretty unique construction with  “hammock” mid-layer straps that actually run under the foot (see pic below).  Overall, this is a pretty cool idea, but I found the placement of the front straps to be much too far forward.  The one on the lateral side is actually in front of my pinky toe, which, as I’m sure you can guess, is not super comfortable.

I cut the outer shell of thinking I could increase breathability, and lighten the shoe up a fair bit. Well turns out the booty is only attached at the toe and heel due to the hammock straps needing to freely move in order to tighten, so that project didn’t turn out. Can’t win ’em all!

One other issue with the upper is that the outer cage is made of a pretty thick. heavy nylon-like material that is super hot…like GTX shoe hot.  I was roasting in them after 30 mins in 35 degrees with no socks, and this doesn’t bode well for anything much hotter or longer in them.

Notice how far forward that lateral strap is…actually in front of my pinky toe.

Outer shell weights nearly an ounce just by itself!

Midsole and Ride

This is really where the Neuro shines.  I applaud Brooks for stepping out and trying something pretty unique with a midsole (and outsole) that decouples completely in front of the heel.  While this is not entirely new, since most flexible, minimal shoes have done this for years, the new component is that the rest of the shoe still has some structure from the midfoot forward.  The net effect of this is that the shoe runs and transitions as naturally as a minimal shoe, but with some of the structure and propulsion of a semi-performance trainer. The execution here needs some fine tuning, but the concept is valid and it works.  Specifically, the Neuro needs to be lightened up, and the midsole shape could be much simpler and more clean cut than the high concept that they try to pull off (mainly for looks as far as I can tell).  The Brooks DNA midsole isn’t bad, but they just got a little carried away with the bubble shaped designs, and waste a lot of weight in the upper, midsole and outsole.

Way too much design freedom on the midsole…those bubble shapes do not help the ride and are simply aesthetic.

Unique flex point that works. Turns out the marketing hype was actually the best feature of the shoe, which is pretty rare.

Outsole

The outsole on the Neuro is adequate, and they do generally place rubber in the right locations.  However, like the midsole, too much of the design is given over to aesthetics at the cost of weight and function.  They could have gotten away with half of the rubber, and still functionally achieved what they were trying to do.  I don’t think the encapsulated EVA approach used on some of the pods adds much to the ride, and I also am not crazy about the amount of exposed strobel under the shoe.  If you step on anything sharp in the midfoot, it’s not going to be good.

Outsole is also a victim of the design. Way more rubber than necessary on certain spots, and why choose the shapes?

Outsole view of flex.

Conclusion

Overall, the Neuro is a really cool concept, and one that I hope Brooks tries to refine.  I think if they make a shoe with the gearing mechanism (decoupled midfoot) of the Neuro, but more of the design approach of the forthcoming Hyperion or Asteria to keep it more streamlined, they could deliver a really unique running experience where you get a very natural and minimal feel with decent protection and propulsion.  Their forthcoming Mazama trail shoe uses a similar gearing mechanism, but is much more streamlined (its lighter than the Neuro…and a trail shoe).  If Brooks can refine the concept (and find a more foot shaped last), I’d be very interested.

The Brooks Neuro is available for purchase from Running Warehouse.

Up until last Summer and Fall, I hadn’t done much experimenting with different running shorts. Partly this was because I didn’t want to spend the money on something that I didn’t think could be improved upon that much, and partly because there just weren’t that many shorts that deviated from the basic short design with one zipper pocket and a basic material/liner. After meeting with some of the brands at Outdoor Retailer last year, they sent me a small selection of apparel to try out based on my preference for shorts with lots of storage and inner boxer liners. Below are the shorts I was able to try out. Disclaimer: All of the the apparel other than the inov-8 shorts were provided free of charge by the respective manufactures.

From Top Left to Bottom Right – inov-8 Race Elite 140 (my go to for last 2 years), Brooks Sherpa 2-in-1 7″, The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short, Dynafit Enduro Dry Short, Dynafit React Dry 3/4 Tight.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 (now called Race Elite 6″) – 6″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 1 gel pocket, 1 zipper pocket, elastic waistband. $65 available from Wiggle.com in UK.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 Shorts

I’ll start with the inov-8 since I’ve used it extensively over the last 2 years. It was the first short I’d tried with an inner boxer brief (as opposed to just a regular brief), and for long mountain outings that is super nice. The liner is very thin, not hot like you would think, and like many other heavier boxer liners are. I’ve done ultras in these with no need for Body Glide, and ran them at Western States where they were wet most of the race and had no issues. Also, the waistband is thick and elastic so I can get it tight to hold my Simple bottle, wind jacket, gloves and other things I want to stick in there without them falling down. The biggest downfall is the lack of pockets. Only one gel pocket on the back right side, and a small zipper pocket in the center. Still one of the best shorts out there, just hard to find in the US for some reason. (Running Warehouse Europe has the 2, 6 and 8″ shorts)

One small gel pocket on back right and zipper pocket center back.

Brooks Sherpa 7″ 2-in-1 Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium sized hip pockets, 1 back zipper pocket and 1 pocket on right thigh on liner, $64 and available at Running Warehouse

7 inches is about as long as I like for running.

I really enjoyed the Sherpa short. It has minimal, yet functional pockets, with plenty of storage for most runs, and the liner is very soft and comfortable without being too hot. It is also probably one of the better looking shorts out there that blend in a little more in the summer and don’t as loudly scream “Runner!” as some split road shorts do if you go get lunch after your run :). All in all, a great short for daily training and races, and probably the most versatile out of all the ones I tried as it works good on the road too.

Very comfortable inner brief liner and 1 gel pocket on right thigh.

The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium back hip pockets, 1 zipper pocket, 5 pockets on the outer thigh of liner (3 smaller on right, 2 larger on left), $65 and available at Running Warehouse.

Longest fitting short to me even though they are supposed to be 7″ like the Brooks. Very light outer material with a thicker liner.

The Long Haul Short gets the nod for the most storage of all the shorts I tried. The outer pockets are very similar to the Sherpa short by Brooks, but it adds quite a bit of storage for smaller food items on the outer thigh of each side of the liner. This concept was new to me before these two shorts, and my take away is that it works decent for small items like gels, but not so much for anything larger because then the shorts don’t move very well and look weird too. The Long Haul Short is better suited for colder Fall/Spring weather due to a hotter and longer boxer liner, and I don’t prefer how long the liner is (also 7″ so it comes right to the end of short – they do make these shorts and 5” and 3.5” versions as well). I prefer the liner to be a few inches shorter than the short so it doesn’t show when running, and also it holds less heat too. All in all a great short to carry quite a bit of stuff in cooler weather.

Left side has 2 larger pockets, right has 3 small gel specific pockets.

Dynafit Enduro Dry Short – 3.5″ inseam, 2 Large hip pockets and 1 zipper pocket on short. $65 for short on the Dynafit website and at Backcountry.com.

Shorter, near split short style with a great, light but tough fabric.

The Dynafit Enduro Dry Short is probably the best designed split, roadie style short that caters to the mountain/trail runner that I’ve come across. I used to run regular New Balance or Nike road shorts all the time and always had trouble putting gear in them because they usually have very little or no pockets, and are made of light and cheaper materials. The Enduro short has the best pocket setup of any short I’ve tried, with two super large back hip pockets, and one zipper pocket in the center. You can fit a lot of stuff into these pockets – they would fit windjackets, gloves, hats, burritos, etc. and not just gels. The biggest issue with all of this is that there is no drawstring on them!?!?! Thankfully, I’ve been told by Dynafit that it will have a draw string in the 2016 version, and I would highly recommend waiting till then to pick them up if you are interested…I sure will be getting myself a pair with the drawstring as they are definitely the best mountain short I’ve tried. They don’t have a boxer liner, but would probably need to be 5″ inseam or longer to realistically incorporate one. Regardless, such a great short for summer mountain outings in minimalistic style.

Huge hip pockets of stretchy material. Such a nice design.

Dynafit React 3/4 Tight -3/4 tight has 2 small hip pockets, 1 zipper and large right thigh pocket. $85 for the 3/4 tight again from Dynafit’s site.

Great fabric on them.

The Dynafit React 3/4 tight is equally nice in design as the Enduro short. The fabric is thin, stretchy and comfortable. It is also a 3/4 tight that that works in a range of temps from 35-55 degrees and will be awesome in the rain. My other 3/4 that I have I’d probably only wear up to 45 degrees as it gets too hot above that. The pocket design is great as well, with 2 smaller gel pockets on the back hip area and 1 zipper pocket in the middle. The most unique feature is a very large pocket on the right thigh. A thigh pocket on a tight is a fantastic idea, and doesn’t come with the problems of the the thigh pockets on liner shorts like the Sherpa or Long Haul Shorts above. Very cool tight, but again no drawstring to help utilize all the storage?!?! Unfortunately the 3/4 tight is not continuing in the line so there will be no updated version with a drawstring. I’m hoping to make one for them; they are that good.

Huge thigh pocket. Why don’t more tights have this type of design? Fantastic idea.

I’d love to hear what shorts work best for you when you have to carry a fair bit of items. Let me know in the comments below!

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!)

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!

Brooks

Brooks Nuero upper. Notice material that attaches to laces. It actually wraps all the way under the foot.

Brooks Nuero – weight: 9.4 oz (men); 7.9 oz (women), drop: 6mm, available 03/01/16, price: $130

The Brooks Nuero was one of the most innovative road shoes I saw at the show.  Without running in them I can’t say whether it will be a good innovation or not, but kudos to Brooks for trying.  While it is hard to say whether this will be a "racing" shoe or not, Brooks seems to think it will be a fast running shoe, so I decided to include it in my racing shoe writeup. The main unique feature is the decision to have the shoe uncouple in the midfoot at a diagonal angle that is supposed to allow the forefoot and heel to move more independently but yet be rigid enough on push off to be responsive. As such, this isn’t supposed to be just a flexible shoe, but to both be snappy and move naturally.  It will be interesting to see whether they can pull this off when it comes out in March.

Podded outsole with some pods filled in and others just encapsulated by EVA.

Showing how the sole uncouples at midfoot. Was very unique to see this in person.

Hoka One One

Hoka One One Carbon Rocket – weight 6.3 oz men, 5.4 oz women. Stack height: 20mm heel, 19mm forefoot, 4/1/2016 release date.

Hoka Carbon Rocket upper is a pretty stripped back traditional racing shoe style and should function well. Both the Tracer and Carbon Rocket appear to be on a more standard racing shoe-style last.

The Carbon Rocket was probably one of the most exciting road racing shoes I’ve seen in quite a while, and could either be super snappy and fast feeling or way too stiff.  I was really shocked with how stiff the shoe felt with its nearly full length carbon fiber plate that has 2 prongs near the front.  To better describe the shoe’s snappiness, it makes the adidas adios, a shoe that is one of the snappier shoes I’ve run in, seem extremely flexible :).  It has a fair bit of cushion to it though, and is super light so it really does have potential to be a great racing shoe that I could see using for a marathon.  Pete an I both will hopefully have a chance to run in these late this winter and let you all know all know how they feel!

Hoka Carbon Rocket – RMAT on the bottom with pretty sparse rubber coverage, EVA above that, and carbon plate above the EVA right below the foot.

Hoka One One Tracer – weights 7 oz men, 6.3 women. Stack height: 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, 4/1/16 release date

Hoka Tracer – Light and seamless upper.

The Hoka Tracer might be just as easily justified as a trainer with its stack height and extra rubber over the Carbon Rocket, but at 7 oz and on the same racing oriented last that the CR is on, I’m going to put it in with the other racers. Many runners might choose the Tracer over the Carbon Rocket as a 26.2 shoe, especially if the stiff plate is not your thing. The Carbon Rocket might be a little more unique, but the Tracer might be what more people enjoy since it still possesses a great blend of protection and propulsion with its dual density (soft in heel firm in forefoot) midsole design, yet is still really light!

Hoka Tracer – More rubber than the Carbon Rocket, but still not a "robust" outsole by any means and no RMAT either so it is yet to be seen which of the two will hold up better.

New Balance

New Balance 1400v4 – weight 7.2 oz men’s, 6.2 oz women’s, 10mm drop, 4/1/2016 Release Date, $99.95

New upper that stays seamless and should be just as light and comfy as v3.

The 1400v3 (here for Pete’s review) is a shoe that I really like for short and fast runs on trails, but it obviously works well on roads too.  While the v3 was just an upper change, the 1400v4 gets a complete overhaul without changing the overall geometry and fit from what we all love about the 1400.  Biggest change is in the outsole design, which offers just a bit more rubber coverage (a good thing all around IMO and better for trail too).

Outsole with more connected pieces of rubber in the forefoot.

New Balance 1500v2 – Weight 7.9 oz men’s, 6.7 oz women’s, 1/1/2016 Release Date, $109.95

New, refined upper with carryover midsole/outsole.

The 1500, which was New Balance’s first shoe based on the same last as the Zante and Vazee Pace, has a unique niche being that it is both light and still offers some medial support to those who want that feature.  I’ve run in v1, mostly on trail, and like the fit and feel overall.  The 1500v2 is an upper update only and focuses on lighter overlays, while also offering more security.

Salomon

S-Lab Sonic – 7.8 oz mens, Stack Height: 24mm heel, 16mm forefoot, $170

The Salomon S-Lab Sonic is a slightly updated S-Lab X-Series that, in a somewhat surprise move, has Salomon removing speed laces in favor of good old regular laces (I guess I’m not the only one who prefers these!). This upper is very light and airy in person.

I haven’t tried the current S-Lab X-Series, which the S-Lab Sonic updates/replaces, but with this update I’d like to. Salomon reduced the material in the upper slightly and removed the speed laces which they said their athletes requested for the shoe. I usually cut the speed laces off shoes, so this was a welcome change.  The price tag on this one, like the Hoka Carbon Rocket, is likely to be a deterrent, but there’s no doubt Salomon now makes a legit road shoe.

Carryover midsole and outsole as far as I could tell.

Saucony

Saucony Kinvara 7 – Weight 7.7 oz men’s, 6.6 oz women’s, Stack Height 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, 3/1/2016 Release, $110

The good ‘ole Kinvara in its 7th iteration. Now with a new tech called Everun in the heel.

The Kinvara gets its 7th version with the main story being a new Everun topsole (goes on top of the strobel, between the midsole and footbed) material that Saucony reports to last 3x longer than standard EVA and is dramatically more lively and responsive.  My only wish with the Kinvara is that they had put it full length as it is in the Triumph ISO2, Hurricane ISO2 and Guide 9.  Regardless, it looks like a good update that should please Kinvara fans and potentially attract new ones.

New outsole that doesn’t differ dramatically other than its move away from the more typical Kinvara triangle shapes, but offers similar coverage.

Skechers Performance

Skechers GOmeb Speed 3 2016 – Weight 7.2 oz for men, 18mm heel, 14 mm forefoot. January Release Date, $125.

Contrary to what you’d expect from just putting 2016 on the end of the name, the Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 2016 is actually a pretty large update overall with an all new, fantastic knit upper and new midsole material.

I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for the Skechers Speed series since I ran my second marathon in the Speed 2 and really love that shoe.  The Speed 3 was a little heavier and perhaps more protective than the Speed 2, but lost a little magic for me. The Speed 3 2016 is really quite an overhaul with a full knitted upper similar to the GOrun Ultra Road (which is fantastic), but specific to the needs of the Speed 3. The midsole material is also new (called 5Gen) and more responsive than the Resalyte used in previous versions (also at a softer durometer).  I’m very excited to get this one on my feet this winter! The knit upper is really nice, and something I hope could become a signature feature for Skechers Performance shoes, especially since they deliver a knit upper at a much lower price than Nike or adidas which are all $150 and up for their stretchier knit uppers. I like the more static nature of the knit upper on the GORun Ultra Road, which will be similar to the GOmeb Speed 3 2016, since it holds the foot much more securely.

That’s it for Road Racing shoes that I saw at Outdoor Retailer.  More posts coming for Road Training shoes, Trail, and Mountain shoes coming as well.  Let me know if you have any further questions and I can do my best to answer!

Given my negative experience with the PureFlow 3, I was hesitant to try version 4. I wasn’t planning to buy a pair (I buy more than half of the shoes I review these days), but Brooks offered to send a media sample and I agreed (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were provided free-of-charge by Brooks Running). I’m glad that I did as I’ve had a very positive experience with the latest iteration of the PureFlow.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Brooks PureFlow 4 weighs in at 8.9 oz in men’s size 9, and sole stack heights are 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot. I wear my normal size 10 in this shoe and length is good.

Upper and Fit

Though I still feel like the PureFlow last is a bit odd – kind of long and narrowish – the PF4 fits me far better than the PF3 did. I’ve run about 30-40 miles in them, with a long run of a bit over 9 miles, and comfort has been very good. This is not a wide shoe by any means, and the upper does not have a lot of give, but I have not experienced any squeezing, pain, etc. as I did in v3.

The upper of the PF4 looks great. I’m a big fan of the black/red color combo, and I like the positioning of the Brooks logo on the outer forefoot.

As mentioned, the mesh over the forefoot does not have much give, and this is an area that could be improved. I’d love to see Brooks use a stretchier mesh in this area. The heel region of the PF4 is rather stiff due to a substantial heel counter, but the inner lining of the ankle is incredibly smooth and comfy – love the material they used here. The tongue is well padded, and no complaints about the lacing.

One aspect of the upper that I have consistently disliked in the PureProject shoes is the Nav Band (see photo at left). I don’t feel like it accomplishes anything that the laces don’t already handle, and it complicates an otherwise excellent upper. Brooks could ditch a little weight and simplify this shoe by getting rid of it.

Sole

The sole is what really makes the PureFlow 4 shine for me (it appears that the sole is the same as that in v3). It provides the ride that I had hoped I’d get from the Brooks Launch 2 – soft and buttery smooth. The BioMogo-DNA blend midsole is a perfect match for my stride. It’s soft on impact, yet resilient enough to provide some spring-back. The closest shoes I can compare the ride to that I’ve run in over the past few months would be the Skechers GoRun 4 and the New Balance Zante (two of my current favorite shoes). I’ve run 9+ miles in the PF4 in a single run with no issues, and would have no hesitation in using this as a marathon shoe.

Another aspect of the sole that I like is the rounded-off heel. This both saves some weight, and also reduces the amount of sole that can get in the way of my stride. I wish more shoes would experiment with this type of sole design.

Regarding durability, there are rubber outsole pods covering the entire length of the shoe. I do see some wear in my usual high-wear areas, but it does not seem to be progressing as quickly as what I experienced with the Brooks Launch 2 or Ghost 7. I expect that the PF4 would hold up well for several hundred miles.

Conclusion

The Brooks PureFlow 4 is one of my top five shoes so far this year, and one that I would consistently grab for longer, slower miles on the road. It’s not a fast shoe, but it isn’t intended to be that. Rather, I’d call this a lightweight training shoe or a half/full marathon racer. I’d put it up there with the Skechers GoRun 4, Saucony Kinvara (just got v6 – stay tuned!), and New Balance Fresh Foam Zante in that category – not bad considering how awful my experience with the previous version was. If you’re looking for a softish lightweight trainer that can work for marathons, the Brooks PureFlow 4 is definitely worth a try.

The Brooks PureFlow 4 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Amazon.com, and Zappos. Purchases through these links help to support this site – thanks!

The Launch went over five years without an update, which is very unusual for a shoe in this age. It was built on a simple formula that worked for a lot of people, but I’m guessing it wasn’t broadly popular enough to justify updates (i.e., sales were not overwhelming). In fact, the Launch was almost discontinued in 2012, but a rally by diehard Launch fans saved it from that fate. And now, a few years later, the Launch has finally received an update. I’ve had the Launch 2 for a few months now (Disclosure: These shoes were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer), and have put almost 50 miles on them. Are they a worthy successor to the original? Read on to find out…

Specs

Let’s start with the specs. My size 10 Brooks Launch 2’s weigh in at 10.2 oz on my scale, which is 0.3 oz more than the original. Not a big difference. Stack height (via Running Warehouse) also remains the same at 27mm heel, 17mm forefoot, for a 10mm drop.

Brooks Launch 1 (top) and 2 (bottom).

Appearance

I’m going to comment briefly on appearance simply because the original Launch was one of the best looking shoes I’ve ever owned. The red/orange colorway was stunning. The Launch 2 comes in two color options for men right now: black/gray (boring) and blue/yellow. I opted for the blue/yellow version since I’m of Swedish descent and love the combo. They look great compared to most shoes in my current rotation, but I might still give the nod on aesthetics to the original. It’s tough to compete with a classic.

Upper Construction and Fit

In preparation for writing this review, I went up into my attic, dug out my original pair of Brooks Launch, and took them out for a run. I also tried them on side-by-side with v2. My sense is that length is pretty similar between the two versions. I wear a size 10 in both, and have about a thumb’s width between my big toe and the tip of the shoe in each.

The biggest difference I notice with regard to fit is up front – v2 offers a bit more volume for my toes. It could be the more elastic mesh over the forefoot, or maybe a slight change to the shape of the toebox. Whatever the explanation, I prefer the fit of v2 overall.

One of the big differences between the uppers of the two versions is the overlays. Launch 2 gets rid of the extensive stitched overlays of the original and replaces them with welded overlays. I like this change as you could feel the stitching internally in Launch 1 – the interior of Launch 2 is softer and smoother. I also prefer the aforementioned forefoot mesh in v2 – it has more give than the corresponding mesh on v1.

Finally, the heel collar and tongue differ a bit between the two shoes. The heel collar of v2 is lined by a softer material, and the tongue is a bit more padded. The top of the heel tab is also more rounded in v2. I can’t honestly say I have an opinion one way other other on these changes. Both versions also have a prominent plastic heel counter – did not cause any trouble for me in either shoe.

Overall, I’d probably say that I prefer the upper and fit of Launch v2. It offers just a tad more wiggle room up front, fewer stitches, and an overall softer feel.

Sole

Whereas I preferred the upper of Launch v2, I prefer the sole of v1. What I recollected most about the original Launch were the smooth ride and the soft, forgiving heel cushion. When I took them for a refresher run last week they still felt great (apparently sole cushion can hold up for 4-5 years in an attic!), and I was reminded of why I loved them so much.

The Launch 2 feels just a tad firmer to me under the heel – it just doesn’t have the same level of cush. I’m not sure if it’s the substitution of a DNA/BiMoGo blend for BiMoGo in the heel of v2 or some other aspect of the sole construction, but v2 ride was not as much to my liking.  I should point out that perception of cushioning can be highly variable, and Becki Pierotti over at The Middle Miles thinks Launch 2 feels softer than the original. Best to try it and come to a verdict for yourself I guess.

I’d describe the ride of the Launch 2 as semi-firm. It’s not as firm a ride as a shoe like the Saucony Breakthru, which is a close competitor in terms of price and position as a lightweight trainer/marathon racer. It’s still a pretty smooth riding shoe though, and I’ve enjoyed running in them. It’s just lost a little of the magic that made the original so special. 

Like the original Launch, v2 has a full coverage outsole. One area of concern that I have is that I’m seeing pretty rapid wear of the outer margin of the heel (see photo below). I tend to contact first on the heel and scuff a bit, and load under my midfoot to forefoot, and the abrasion on the outer heel has taken a toll after only 50 miles. If you tend to chew up the heels of your shoes you might not see a long life from these – I’d guess a max of 200-300 miles for me. That’s about what I got out of the original. Interestingly, I saw a similar rapid abrasion in the Brooks Ghost 7, and both exceed what I tend to see in other shoes. Could just be that both are more shoe than I usually tend to run in, or might be something about the rubber that Brooks uses in the outsole.

Conclusion

Updating a classic can be a challenge – in an effort to improve a shoe you always risk messing with something that people like. For me, the Brooks Launch 2 takes a step forward with the upper, and a step back with the midsole. Put the v2 upper on the v1 sole and you’d have one fine running shoe. But this is my personal preference coming through – I prefer shoes with a tad more cush under the heel.

As it stands, the Brooks Launch 2 should appeal to those looking for a no-frills, semi-firm trainer with enough cushion to handle long miles on the road. It would also be a worthy marathon shoe. It’s worth noting that the Launch 2 is quite reasonably priced at $100 MSRP – shoes in that price ballpark are getting harder and harder to come by.

The Brooks Launch 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Zappos. Purchases from these retailers help keep this site running – thanks for your support!

For other takes on the Brooks Launch 2, check out reviews by fellow shoe geeks Gordon Harvey and Becki Pierotti.

Given my positive experience with the Pegasus, I was interested in trying another traditional neutral shoe to see how it might compare. Brooks was kind enough the send a pair of the Brooks Ghost 7 (Disclosure: these were media samples provided free of charge by Brooks), and I’ve gotten enough miles on them now to share some thoughts.

Specs

Let’s start with the specs. The Ghost 7 weighs in at just over 10 ounces in men’s size 9, and stack heights are 28mm heel, 17mm forefoot (data via Running Warehouse). The latter are pretty much in line with the stacks reported above for the Nike Pegasus 31 and the Hoka Clifton. What’s interesting to me is that standing in the Ghost, it doesn’t feel like a 10+mm drop shoe. It may be that my heel sinks into the midsole a bit, or maybe my tolerance has just changed with time, but I don’t tend to be bothered by a higher drop shoe these days unless the heel is very firm.

Upper Construction and Fit

The Ghost has a fairly substantial mesh upper with extensive welded overlays. Breathability is adequate, and I have not encountered any hot spots or points of abrasion.

The heel counter is fairly rigid, but the interior of the heel counter is well padded and covered by a soft material the feels quite comfortable against the foot. There’s more structure in the heel region than I’m typically used to as a more minimal-leaning runner, but I haven’t had any problems with it.

The tongue of the Ghost 7 is well padded and I have not felt any pressure from the laces as a result. There’s also a cool little loop near the top of the tongue that the lace on one side slides through – seems to do a good job holding the tongue in place and preventing slippage (you can see this loop in the image below – it has the alternating white/black band down the middle).

The fit of the Ghost is near perfect on me in my usual size 10. I have a full thumb’s width between my big toe and the tip of the shoe, so if anything they run a bit on the larger side. The forefoot is fairly wide and provides plenty of room for my toes to move around. It feels distinctly wider than the forefoot of the Nike Pegasus 31 (see image below – Peg on the left, Ghost on the right), though the latter has a stretchier upper. Fit through the heel and midfoot are comfortably snug, and the laces provide a good lockdown.

Sole Construction

As with the Hoka Clifton and Nike Pegasus 31, the Brooks Ghost has more sole than I typically like in a running shoe (28mm heel, 17mm forefoot), but I don’t feel like it’s a mis-match for my stride like the Clifton was. I’ve actually enjoyed running in them, and I’d compare the Ghost quite closely to the ride of the Peg – the heel is fairly soft (though the heel of the Ghost feels springy compared to the slightly mushier heel of the Peg), and the forefoot is firm and responsive. I have not run in previous versions of the Ghost, but apparently one of the changes in v7 is removal of the Brooks DNA inserts – instead the sole is a springy feeling BioMoGo-DNA blend. Feels similar to some of the Brooks Pureproject shoes I’ve run in. I think the cutout area in the center of the heel also contributes to the springy feel, and perhaps to the sensation that the shoe is lower drop than 10mm – my suspicion is that this area compresses downward while you stand in the shoe. Flexibility is decent given the thickness of the sole, but this is no Nike Free.

I’ve run over a range of paces in the Ghost and though it doesn’t compare to a racing flat, it has a decent level of responsiveness for a traditional neutral training shoe. However, for most people the Ghost will be best suited as a daily trainer or marathon shoe. I haven’t run in many other shoes in this category so it’s hard for me to compare it to shoes like the Saucony Ride or Mizuno Wave Rider for example, but I’d not hesitate to recommend the Ghost if you’re looking for a traditional neutral shoe with plenty of cushioning.

One possible area of concern with the Ghost 7 is outsole durability. There’s quite a lot of rubber outsole on the bottom of this shoe, but the little square nubs along the outer margin seem to wear quickly if they experience a lot of abrasion. I recently met another runner who had sheared a bunch of them off under the outer forefoot without too many miles on the shoe, and I’m seeing some shearing on the nubs along the side of the heel. Anyone else have comments on outsole durability in the Ghost?

Conclusions

I’ve been enjoying experimenting with footwear a bit outside my normal range of preference as it allows me to get a sense of how shoes in various categories differ from one another. The Brooks Ghost 7 is a fairly typical neutral training shoe providing ample cushion, a roomy fit, and reasonable flex for a shoe with a fairly substantial sole. I like the springiness of the cushion under the heel, and the firmer, more responsive forefoot.

The closest comparison I can make among shoes I have tried recently is to the Nike Pegasus 31, with the Ghost providing a roomier fit up front and springier cushioning in the heel. The Hoka Clifton is similar in stack but lighter and lower drop, so not quite in the same category. It offers a much softer ride that doesn’t work as well with my stride. Though I personally prefer a bit less shoe, if you’re looking for a neutral shoe to eat up miles and possibly use for long races, the Brooks Ghost 7 is worth a look.

The Brooks Ghost 7 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com (or your local running specialty store). Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!