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.

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

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

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

Best Shoes of 2016

-Road Shoes

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

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

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

-Trail Shoes

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

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

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

   

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

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

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

-Mountain Shoes

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

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

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

Best Gear of 2016

-Hydration Gear

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

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

-Other things I Liked this last Year

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

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

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

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

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

(Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge by Hoka for review purposes.)

After our first snowfall back at the beginning of winter (snow has been minimal this year up in NH), I decided to take a shot at running in them – it was the only trail shoe I had that I hadn’t already reviewed (David Henry handles most trail shoes for me these days), and I suppose every shoe deserves at least one run (I once ran in the Springblade!).

My first run was four miles on a rail trail, and though they were tight across the toes and forefoot, the run went pretty well, and the tightness didn’t bother me as much as I had anticipated. They handled well in the thin layer of snow, and the ride was somewhat reminiscent of the Hoka Huaka, a shoe that I liked quite a bit. They are a tad softer than the Huaka, have a slightly higher drop (Speedgoats are 35 mm heel – 30 mm forefoot per Running Warehouse), and the lugs are a bit deeper, but the two shoes compare favorably to one another.

Yes, indeed – pointy and narrow up front!

Despite my problems with the fit, for some reason I kept coming back to the Speedgoats. I used them frequently in the snow this winter, and they were the shoes on my feet when I was bit by a German Shepherd while running on the trails behind my house on Christmas Day (an incident that sidelined me for two weeks). I’ve probably put close to 50 miles on them at this point, which is a bit of a surprise given my initial reaction to the narrowness of the toebox. That being said, my longest run in them was 7 miles, and I was feeling some discomfort up front by the end of that run. I would not run much longer than 5 miles in these given the fit issues – I would not recommend them to ultrarunners for this reason.

The red midsole does a good job of camouflaging blood…

The upper of the Speedgoat is a breathable, fairly open mesh with welded overlays and a rand along the region of junction between the upper and midsole. I have no major complaints about the upper, though the mesh does seem like it might let trail grit in given the more open weave. I have not run through water in these, so can’t comment on whether the rand creates issues with drainage. I’m not particularly crazy about the way the tongue extends down and forward to make up the central portion of the upper of the forefoot, but this has not caused any real issues. Mostly just an aesthetic complaint I guess.

The sole of the Speedgoat is springy, and not as mushy as a shoe like the Hoka Clifton. I’d say it’s somewhere in between the Clifton and the Huaka from a responsiveness standpoint. I really like the feel, and that’s one of the reasons why I keep coming back to them. They feel great underfoot on both road and trail. Durability has so far been good – I’ve done a fair amount of running on asphalt in these shoes, and the Vibram rubber is holding up very well so far.

The outsole of the Speedgoat is a bit more aggressive than that of the Huaka, and traction has been solid on light snow. I haven’t put them to the test in wet or muddy conditions, but they are adequate for the type of trail running I do (mostly non-technical).

Conclusion

So the Speedgoat is a mix of good and bad. I really like the ride, and have enjoyed running in them from that standpoint, but the narrow fit is a real limitation for all but the most narrow-footed. If you can comfortably run in cross-country spikes, these are probably going to be fine for you (though I would recommend going up a half size if you buy them). If not, they may not be a great choice.

I like them for shorter runs on trails, but a shoe with a 30mm+ stack height isn’t really what I typically need for shorter, quicker runs. And I definitely would not pay $140 for a shoe with such a limited a range of uses. Hopefully Hoka will retool the fit if they come out with a v2 – the shoe has a lot of potential, but is really hobbled by the fit.

The Hoka Speedgoat is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of rubber and flex grooves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

I’ll detail what changed and what stayed the same in the Clifton 2 in the review below. (Disclosure: The shoes reviewed here were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer)

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Clifton 2 weighs in at 8.7 oz in men’s size 9, and has stack heights of 29 mm heel and 24 mm forefoot. For comparative purposes, Running Warehouse weighs the original Clifton at 7.8 oz, so it has gained about an ounce in v2. Stack heights are the same.

Review

To be honest, the Clifton 2 is a pretty minor update from v1. It has a new upper, but the structure of the upper is pretty similar to the original – a breathable mesh with welded overlays for support.

The sole is exactly the same as that of the original – same stack height, same outsole, etc. I’ve seen some people comment that the sole feels a bit firmer than the original, others have said the opposite. After my first run I thought they might be a tad more responsive, but after subsequent runs in them I’d say the sole feels identical to the original. If you enjoyed the soft, squishy ride of the Clifton v1, you won’t be disappointed by v2, and that is a good thing for fans of the shoe. Hoka didn’t tinker with the cushy ride that so many people loved.

So what has changed? Well, the biggest complaints I saw about the original Clifton were related to a somewhat sloppy fit, the thin tongue, and a flimsy insole that tended to slide around in the shoe (mine were glued down, so I did not experience this). Hoka responded to all of these complaints in the Clifton 2.

First, the tongue in v2 is padded and as a result is much thicker than that of the original. This provides a bit more protection from the laces, allowing you to cinch them down a bit more.

Hoka Clifton 1 (left) and 2 (right). Note the padded tongue in v2.

Second, Hoka added an additional lace hole back toward the ankle. I’d heard of people punching their own holes in the original Clifton so that they could better lock down the heel, so this is a positive addition as well.

Hoka Clifton 2 (top) and 1 (bottom). Note the extra lace hole (unused in my case) in v2.

Finally, Hoka added an Ortholite insole – though still thin, it adds a bit more cushion and I have not experienced any sliding or bunching of the insole in v2. All of these changes help provide for a more secure fit, and take care of all of the major complaints about the original.

A few comments on fit – the Clifton 2 is an average width shoe in the forefoot. It’s not constricting, but neither is it particularly roomy. I actually think this is ideal for a Hoka since a roomy forefoot with a soft Hoka sole would tend to encourage a lot of sliding around inside the shoe (as I experienced with the Skechers GoRun Ultra). In this shoe I feel very secure, and they even responded well on a few miles of very uneven trail yesterday. As for length, I went a half size up in the Clifton 2, same as I did in the original. I think this was the right choice.

Hoka Clifton 2 (left) and 1 (right).

Conclusion

I’ve run about 25 miles in the Clifton 2 and have actually enjoyed them more than I enjoyed running in v1. As I mentioned, the shoe is a bit on the soft side for my taste, but the cushy sole has been working for me this time around for some reason (maybe because I gained a few pounds over the winter?). I still wouldn’t choose the Clifton as an everyday trainer, but for easy runs and recovery days they feel pretty good.

Hoka was wise in keeping the ride the same, and changing only those things that needed a fix. If you loved the original, and a lot of people did, I think you’ll be very pleased with the update.

The Hoka Clifton 2 is available for purchase in the US from Running Warehouse and Hoka.com. It is not yet available at Running Warehouse EU.

My friend Sam Winebaum recently wrote a comparison review of the Clifton vs. the Hoka Huaka in which he indicated that the Huaka felt like a faster, more dynamic shoe. He had suggested to me that it might be a better match for my personal preferences. After putting some miles on the Huaka, I have to agree – it’s a much better match for my stride, and I’ve actually quite enjoyed running in them. (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were media samples provided free of charge by Hoka).

Specs

It’s hard to review the Huaka without comparing it to the Clifton because the two shoes share a lot of similarities, but also some notable differences. Both weigh in under 10oz in men’s size 9 (9.2oz for the Huaka, 7.8oz for the Clifton). However, I’d be hard pressed to notice the difference in weight holding them in my hands or with them on my feet. According to Hoka, both shoes are also relatively low-drop. They report sole stack heights as 27mm heel, 25mm forefoot for the Huaka (2mm drop), whereas the Clifton measures in as 29mm heel, 24mm forefoot (5mm drop; Note: Running Warehouse reports slightly different stack numbers with the Huaka being 4mm drop and the Clifton 6mm drop). As with the weight, the drop does not feel noticeably different to me.

Upper and Fit

Like the Clifton, the Huakas fit my feet quite well. The Huakas feel ever-so-slightly snugger to me, perhaps more of a performance fit. My pair of Huakas came with two separate insoles to allow customization of fit (my Cliftons came with only one). Both are very thin (about 2mm thickness) – one is a softer Ortholite material whereas the other is a more standard EVA insole. The EVA insole has a more pronounced “cupping” around the heel whereas the Ortholite insole is pretty much flat. I’ve run with the EVA insole only, and with them both in at the same time which creates a snugger fit.

The upper mesh on the Huaka is breathable with welded overlays (it also lets sand in as I found while standing in them on a beach along the Merrimack River) – it almost looks like the same mesh used on the upper of the Clifton. There is slightly less external structure around the heel of the Huaka, but the innner lining of the heel is almost identical in terms of material and cushion in both shoes. Aesthetically I like the look of both shoes, but the Huakas have a bit more flash – really like the green/blue colorway.

A big difference between the Huaka and Clifton has to do with the lacing system. The Huaka comes with speed laces installed and has 7 eyelets on each side. The Clifton has standard laces and only 5 eyelets on each side. On the Huaka, the speed laces do not go through the uppermost eyelet which could be a problem if you have trouble with heel lockdown. They do include a pair of standard laces in the box in case you need to cut the speed laces off. Personally, I have a fairly high-volume foot and the speed laces worked OK for me – no heel slippage noticeable. There are two little stretch bands that you can tuck the speed-lace slack into that work pretty well. The tongue on both shoes is very thin and both are made of a similar mesh to that which composes the upper.

Hoka Clifton (top) and Huaka (bottom)

Sole

The sole is where the differences between the Huaka and Clifton really stand out. The Clifton has a midsole made of CMEVA (compression molded EVA) whereas the Huaka sole is composed of a material called RMAT, which is a blend of rubber and EVA. I personally found that the Clifton midsole felt too soft, almost mushy underfoot (though I know lots of people who love the feel). The Huaka midsole feels firmer and more responsive, and I don’t feel like I’m battling the sole like I did with the Clifton. I’ve been doing a lot of Fartlek-type runs lately and have pushed the Huaka down to 5K pace without issue. It’s not a shoe I’d choose to race a 5K, but I’m more comfortable running fast in them as compared to the Cliftons.

Hoka Clifton (left) and Huaka (right). Note the more curved heel of the Clifton.

Another noticeable difference between the soles of the Huaka and Clifton is that the Clifton seems to have a more pronounced rocker, with the heel in particular curving upward more dramatically in the Clifton (see photo above). In my review of the Clifton I indicated that the rocker made me feel like I was landing more toward the midfoot in that shoe. In contrast, the heel of the Huaka does not have the same kind of curvature, and I feel like I’m landing with my more typical mild heel strike (and wear patterns seem to support this).

The Huaka has rubber outsole coverage at the heel, a small patch on the outer forefoot, and underneath the big toe and inner forefoot. The outsole in the Huaka has small chevron-shaped lugs since it is intended as a road/trail hybrid built for speed. Don’t expect spectacular grip from the Huaka – I don’t run a lot of technical trails, but have done about a third of my miles in the shoe on river trails with lots of sand and some mud. I haven’t slipped, but I nearly took a dive after stepping on a wet log crossing a trail. The midsole is thick enough that I have not had any issues running over rocks, roots, etc.

The Huaka performs very well on asphalt and concrete – the lugs are low enough that they don’t get in the way, and I have run from easy pace down to 5K pace on the road with no issues. I have found that the front two lugs on the outer heel have worn down a bit with the road miles (my typical wear area, though in the Clifton it was a bit further forward).

Conclusions

For a more minimal leaning runner like me, the decision to try a Hoka shoe will most likely start with consideration of the Clifton vs. the Huaka. For me, the choice would be the Huaka, for others it will be the Clifton.

Though the Huaka is a tad heavier, lower drop, and has small outsole lugs, I would not use these as the deciding factor between the two shoes. The difference really comes down to what you want in terms of ride, which is mainly influenced in these shoes by differences in sole feel and rocker. If you want a softer shoe with a more pronounced rocker, go with the Clifton. If you want a firmer, more responsive sole with a less pronounced rocker, go with the Huaka. My guess is that everyone will be slightly different in terms of preference here so trying both on is probably the safest bet.

The Hoka Clifton is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and at the Hoka website (or at your local run specialty store). In Europe they can be purchased from www.hokaoneone.eu. Purchases made via these links provide a small comission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

As a more minimally oriented runner, I’ve held off for a long time on trying out a Hoka running shoe. However, I feel it is important to keep an open mind, and I have readers who span the spectrum of footwear preferences. As such, when offered the chance to try out the Hoka Clifton, I decided to give them a go (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were media samples provided free of charge by Hoka). The experience of running in them has actually been quite interesting, and has caused me to do a lot of thinking.

Last week I wrote a post sharing 5 observations about running in the Cliftons that spurred quite a bit of discussion in the comments. The experience among commenters seemed to be quite mixed. Many love the shoes, others seemed to feel that they had to work harder when running in them. I want to emphasize this because although I fall into the latter group, there’s a lot to like about this shoe, and if you prefer a soft, cushy ride, they would be a great option to try. It’s important to remember that my reviews only reflect my personal experience with a shoe, and not how they might work for you. I’ll do my best to describe the shoes so that you can make a decision for yourself.

Specs

The Hoka Clifton is currently the lightest shoe in the Hoka lineup at 7.8oz in men’s size 9 (per Running Warehouse). It has a stack height of 29mm heel, 23mm forefoot, and the CMEVA midsole is quite soft, particularly under the midfoot and heel. Along with the Skechers GoRun Ultra, the Clifton is probably one of the softest shoes I have run in.

Sole and Ride

I’m going to start by talking about the ride, since this is where most of my personal problems with the Clifton arose. My first run in the Clifton was a seven miler, and my immediate reaction was that I felt I was working much harder than I should have been. Over the next several runs this feeling persisted, particularly when running on a uniform surface (road/sidewalk). For some reason they actually felt better to me on trails, not sure why, maybe the greater variability of the surface underfoot. But on almost every run on the road I finished feeling like I was expending more energy than necessary. I’m puzzled by this as I don’t think the total stack height is my issue – I enjoyed running in the Nike Pegasus 31 which has a fairly similar stack (29mm heel, 19mm forefoot), and last night I went for a first run in the Brooks Ghost 7 (28mm heel, 17mm forefoot) and they felt really good. My suspicion is that the softness of the Clifton sole combined with the stack height is my issue. The combo doesn’t seem to be a good match for my stride, and I’d bet that this has to do with concepts like muscle tuning and leg stiffness adaptations (this probably goes beyond the scope of this review, but if interested you can read more about muscle tuning and leg stiffness here).

I want to again emphasize that this is my experience, and that I know a lot of other people who love running in this shoe and don’t feel the same way. It really seems to be a highly individual response as might be expected for any shoe given to a range of people who vary in anatomy, running form, physiology, etc. So don’t let this turn you off from trying the Clifton if you are intrigued by it – it might just be a great ride on your feet.

One of the interesting things about the Clifton ride is that because of the rockered sole, I felt like it encouraged me to get more up on my midfoot than other shoes do. In fact, if you look at the wear pattern  (see photo below) you will see almost no abrasion on the heel, and quite a bit on the exposed EVA near the midfoot. And when I pick up the pace this effect seems even more pronounced – the ride felt more responsive as I pushed faster than my easy pace.

In terms of outsole coverage, there is rubber under the high-wear areas of the heel and forefoot, but none under the midfoot. As mentioned above, I’m seeing most of my wear on the exposed EVA midsole foam along the outer margin of the sole near the midfoot.

Fit

I’ve tried on a number of Hoka shoes in the past, and the fit for most never felt quite right on me. The Clifton, on the other hand, fits my foot almost perfectly. I did go a half size up, but this may not have been necessary as I have just a bit more than a thumb’s width between the tip of my big toe and the front of the shoe. I find the forefoot to be spacious enough to allow my toes freedom of movement (up and down and side to side), and the midfoot fits snugly.

I have heard some complaints about the heel lock-down in the Clifton, but this has not been an issue for me. I have a fairly high-volume foot so that may have something to do with it, and snugging the laces up top seems to keep my heel locked just fine. The insole is quite thin, and I’m wondering if those with heel lock issues might benefit from swapping in a thicker insole. Overall, I’ve found the Clifton to be a very comfortable shoe, nothing negative to say in this area.

Upper Construction

The Clifton has a minimally constructed upper composed of a breathable mesh with welded overlays from midfoot forward. The area around the heel is padded and more structured. The tongue is extremely thin, and on some occasions it tends to fold under while sliding the shoe on, requiring me to use my finger to flatten it back out. Not a big deal though.

One concern I have about the upper is that some of the welded overlays on the inner side of the forefoot seem to be separating from the underlying mesh slightly. Anyone else noticed this? Probably won’t effect function much, I suspect it’s mostly a cosmetic defect.

Conclusions

Despite my comments about the Cliftons making me feel like I have to work harder, I’ve actually enjoyed running in the shoes. I enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out why a shoe is not a good match for me, particularly when so many others have had a positive experience with it. The Clifton fits me great, is very comfortable, and is super light for a shoe with this much cushion. But for my stride it’s just a bit too soft (as a side note, I have gotten in one run in the Hoka Huaka and the RMAT midsole is more responsive and I think they’ll be a better match). That being said, if you are interested in trying a Hoka shoe, I’d encourage you to give the Clifton a shot. It’s on the lower end of the Hoka price range ($130 MSRP), and it has the Hoka cush that a lot of people love in an extremely lightweight package. I’m glad I gave them a try!

The Hoka Clifton is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and at the Hoka website. In Europe they can be purchased from www.hokaoneone.eu. Purchases made via these links provide a small comissions to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

1. They don’t seem to alter my form much. My cadence seems to have stayed right around it’s typical range. If anything, I actually feel like I may be a bit more up on my forefoot when running in the Cliftons, and this is supported by the fact that most of my sole wear so far extends from the midfoot forward. Not sure if this is because of the rockered sole (the sole is slightly curved so that the forefoot and heel angle up a bit from the midfoot – you can see this in the image above), or that the heel feels so soft that my body wants to avoid landing directly on it. The Clifton is a bit lower profile than some of the other Hoka models (stack height is 29mm heel, 23mm forefoot), but I recall feeling similarly about my one run in an old pair of Mafates (a big, cushy Hoka). My money is on the sole rocker being the major factor here. Anyone else feel this way about Hokas with regard to foot strike?

2. I like them better on trails than on roads. This is counterintuitive to me as I would expect a soft shoe to feel better on a harder surface, but I’ve generally enjoyed running on a trail surface in them more than running on asphalt or concrete

3. Stability has been fine except when I step on an edge. Again, the Cliftons don’t have as much sole thickness as some other Hokas, but they don’t feel like an unstable shoe to me. That being said, there have been a few times when I’ve stepped on the edge of a sidewalk and rolled my ankle a bit – the wide sole base and resulting long lever arm relative to the ankle probably plays a role here. On a trail they pretty much seem to conform to irregular ground debris by squishing over whatever I step on. You don’t feel much underfoot due to the soft, deformable sole.

4. The ankle collar feels a bit high. I’ve heard others say this about some Hoka models, and I think what my be happening is as the foot sinks into the soft midsole it causes a sensation of the ankle collar being higher than in other shoes.

5. Here’s my biggest observation – when I run roads in the Cliftons I feel like I’m working a lot harder than I should be at my easy pace. I think this is where the fact that I tend to be adapted to more minimal footwear comes into play, as I felt the same way about running in the Skechers GoRun Ultra (probably the most comparable shoe to the Clifton that I have used for more than a few runs). The Cliftons feel really soft in the midfoot and heel, and this seems to take some of the pop out of my stride. Conversely, on one run when I picked up the pace a bit they felt better, perhaps because I was more up on the front of the shoe. I’m wondering if this would change if I gave them more time, but my body seems to like firmer, more responsive footwear. The question for me is whether that’s because those are the shoes I’m used to, or if there is something inherent to my stride that makes me prefer a lower profile shoe. I’d love to see a study look at oxygen consumption in runners with various footwear backgrounds in their typical shoes versus in a super soft shoe like the Clifton.

How about you? Would love to hear about your experience running in Hokas – leave a comment!

Lately I’ve been getting some great feedback when I post on shoes that I have not typically covered in the past (e.g., a traditional neutral shoe like the Nike Pegasus 31). It’s made me realize that part of my audience is not being attended to when I focus only on the minimal end of the spectrum. As a result, I’ve diversified my mix of review shoes, and have started running in things that are considerably more cushioned than I might choose if I weren’t a shoe reviewer (though you won’t likely see me in a Brooks Beast anytime soon!). 

Despite the increasing diversity of shoes in my queue, I have only run once in a HOKA running shoe. HOKAs are the archetypal “maximal” running shoe brand, and they have grown considerably in popularity both in the running community and on the feet of my spouse. My one run was in a pair of the original Mafate (I think) and though I did not dislike them, they were way more shoe than I need or prefer. I’ve tried on a few other pairs and never found the fit to be quite right.

Last week I received a pair of the HOKA Clifton, and though I haven’t run in them yet, I’m impressed by the fit and the incredibly light weight (under 8oz) for a shoe with as much cushion as the Clifton stuffs into its sole (stack: 29mm heel, 24mm forefoot). They’re basically like a Kinvara with just a bit of extra cushion (and they are similar in weight). I’m looking forward to putting some miles on them in the coming weeks – stay tuned! (a giveaway for a pair of Cliftons is coming as well)

Hoka Clifton

HOKA has been releasing a bunch of new models lately, and the trend has been toward lighter, lower profile models that still retain a lot of cushion (like the aforementioned Clifton and the Huaka). Yesterday I received a press release from my PR contact at HOKA, and thought I’d share the info provided on five new models set to be released for Spring 2015 – the trend toward lighter shoes seems to be continuing. The only details I have are what was provided in the press release, so not much info on drop, stack heights, etc. yet).

HOKA Challenger ATR

Description via HOKA: “…HOKA’s new trail shoe, the Challenger ATR, features the lightweight, smooth-riding characteristics of the award-winning Clifton shoe and supplements them with increased support in the upper and a more aggressive outsole. Independent rubber pods with 4mm lugs provide for adaptive, all-terrain traction on a variety of surfaces. This versatile, all-terrain shoe weighs in at 8.6 ounces (men’s 9) and will be available for a suggested retail price of $130.”

HOKA Constant

Description via HOKA: “The new Constant road shoe offers the most stable ride and generous fit in the HOKA lineup. The combination of cushioning EVA and RMAT® high-rebound material delivers guided stability and increased durability, while an over-sized active foot frame provides support. A mono-wrap tongue coupled with asymmetrical lacing supports the foot through the arch while reducing pressure across the top of the foot. The Constant will be available at specialty running stores for a suggested retail price of $160.”

HOKA Odyssey

Description via HOKA: “The Odyssey, MSRP $130, is a lightweight, smooth-riding road shoe.”

HOKA Valor

Description via HOKA: “The Valor, MSRP $150, features an ultra-sized, over 30mm, midsole to deliver a highly cushioned, smooth ride.”

HOKA Vanquish

Description via HOKA: “The Vanquish, MSRP $170, is a responsive performance road running shoe.”

Some Thoughts

There’s no doubt that HOKA is a hot brand right now, and when a brand gets hot the tendency is to flood the market with new models (we saw this with Vibram a few years ago). One of my worries after seeing these new HOKA models is that they are pumping out a lot of shoes without much differentiation between them. I’m not clear how they differentiate these new shoes from existing models like the Bondi, Conquest, Rapa Nui, Kailua, Clifton, and Huaka. With the Challenger ATR I can see it as being basically a Clifton Trail, which makes sense. The Constant touts stability and a “generous fit.” Narrowish, odd fit has been my issue with most HOKAs that I have tried on so far, so that makes sense as well. But where do the Odyssey, Valor, and Vanquish fit in? They need to produce a detailed comparison chart for the models in their lineup.

The other big issue I have with HOKA is price. HOKAs are expensive, and they lack options at the lower end of the shoe pricing spectrum. I’d love to see a model around $100 for example. I’m a little wary when it comes to pricing since my wife tore through the forefoot upper of two pairs of Bondi 2’s in less than 50 miles each (I have heard this was a very common problem with the Bondi 2) which is unacceptable for a shoe that costs well over $100. I also worry that the more cushioning you add, the more prone a shoe may be to uneven breakdown as the miles add up. Has anyone experienced this?

Anyway, I’m sure there will be some excitement about these shoes as there typically is with any new release announcement. The Vanquish is most enticing to me given it’s description as a “performance running shoe,” but $170 is tough to justify. It’s also the least visually appealing of the bunch to my eye. The Odyssey would be of interest as well, and at $130 it is on the low end of the HOKA pricing spectrum, but I’m not clear on how it differs from the Clifton.

Hopefully as info gets leaked from the Outdoor Retailer Show going on in Utah right now we’ll get a clearer picture of where these shoes slot in. My friend Sam Winebaum is there, and I’ll be sure to post a link if he shares any further info on these shoes.

This is Part 4 of a 4-part series – you can also view previews of Altra, Newton, and New Balance summer 2014 releases. Since these shoes have yet to be released, I have not run in any of them. If you have, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

I’ve only run in Hokas once. I have a pair of the original Mafate, and they are huge and cumbersome. I didn’t dislike running in them, but they are simply too much shoe for me.

I’ve been wanting to try one of the lighter Hoka models for awhile. I tried the Bondi 3 and Conquest on at my local running store a few weeks ago with the intent of buying one to review, but neither fit quite right. Hoka has a several new models coming out in the next month or so, and I’m hoping one of the new lower-profile models will be a good match (Huaka or Clifton – see below).

Hoka Huaka

The Hoka Huaka might be the Hoka that I finally put some miles on. It’s a 2mm drop road/trail hybrid shoe that weighs in at only 8.9oz (quite low for a Hoka shoe!). Word from a member of the Shoe Geeks group on Facebook (thanks Eric!) is that the Huaka stack is 27mm heel, 25mm forefoot. Eric owns The Balance Athlete in Renton, WA and they have the Huaka (and Clifton – see below) in stock now – pretty sure they will ship orders if you call them and are anxious to try the shoe. Running Warehouse now has the Huakain-stock for MSRP $150, and they are also now available on the Hoka website.

Hoka Clifton

In addition to the Huaka, Hoka is also adding the even lighter Hoka Clifton to their lineup. The Clifton is a 7.9oz road shoe, with a stack of 29mm heel, 25mm forefoot. The Hoka Clifton is now available at Running Warehouse and on the Hoka website.

Hoka Stinson ATR

The Stinson ATR is the update to the Stinson Trail. It’s is a 6mm drop shoe with stacks of 30mm heel and 24mm forefoot (2mm less than the Stinson Trail in both regions), and It weighs in at 11.7 oz. Hoka continues to improve the aesthetic on their shoes – I recommend them to clinic clients from time to time and the pair of Mafates I have in my office is typically a big turn-off. “It looks like a Frankenstein boot!” is a typical response when I pull them out. The Stinson ATR is actually a pretty nice looking shoe (though the giant sole will still be a turn-off to some).

MSRP is $160 and they are now in-stock at Running Warehouse.

Hoka Stinson Lite

The Hoka Stinson Lite is the update to the Stinson Tarmac. Specs are the same: 6mm drop, 32mm heel/26mm forefoot stack, and weight is 11oz (just a bit lighter than the ATR, probably due to less outsole material). Interesting to see the word Lite associated with a shoe that weighs 11oz!

MSRP is $160 and they are now in-stock at Running Warehouse.

This was the final post in my 2014 summer shoe preview series. If you arrived here directly, you can also check out the Altra, Newton, and New Balance preview posts.

Here’s an excerpt from Nate’s combo review:

“I don’t know if I’ve ever anticipated getting a shoe longer than the Hoka Rapa Nui. I first saw them on Karl Meltzer’s feet, then saw a post about them on Ian Corless’ blog in August of 2012. I was extremely intrigued. I have had every single model that Hoka makes, eventually deciding that my favorite was the Bondi Speed. I have run thousands of miles in Hokas, even naming the Bondi Speed my top trail shoe of 2012. It was like a late Christmas present when I finally received a pair three weeks ago.”

To see Nate’s verdict on the Rapa Nuis, head on over to bikernate.com!