Other than running in the Mizuno Wave Universe 3 a couple years ago, I have not run in any other Mizuno shoe.  When Pete asked if I’d be interested in reviewing the Hayate, I was excited to try out, what was for me, an untested brand and one that was making an effort to release some revamped trail shoes in the form of the Wave Hayate and Wave Kazan.

I had heard that Mike Aish, a Mizuno-sponsored trail ultrarunner and former Olympic track athlete, was involved in helping Mizuno develop the Kazan (video from Mizuno on his involvement here; can’t help but notice Mikes great form and smooth forefoot/midfoot landing even in a 12mm drop shoe :) ).  I have not seen any info regarding if he was involved in the Hayate, but given the similarity in design, I’m assuming the Hayate was influenced by the Kazan and was just stripped down somewhat to offer a lighter shoe. This approach might have been the Hayate’s undoing and I’d be curious, in this case, if the Kazan is not the better of the two shoes, despite my aversion to the higher (12mm) heel to toe differential.  I’ll explain more below.

Shoe Specs

Price: $110 MSRP

Colorways: 1 color

Weight:  8.9 oz/252 g in size 9 mens; 11.1 oz/315 g in my size 13 men’s; and 7.4 oz/209 g in size 8 for women (stats via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 21 mm Heel; 15 mm Forefoot; Mizuno claims the midsole has a 9mm heel to toe differential, whereas the stack heights show only a 6mm differential – this is easily explained when looking at the shoe as the outsole forefoot lugs are easily 3mm higher than the heel lugs. In actual ride, the shoe feels closer to 8-9 mm drop to me.

Appearance & Design

This is one area where Mizuno shines.  Their shoes continually look very unique, bold, and, in my opinion, are some of the best looking shoes out there.  The Hayate is a very eye-catching trail shoe, and does so while maintaining a clean and simple design as well.

Something I do question from a design standpoint with a shoe like this for trails is the inclusion of Mizuno’s pervasive “wave” technology in the heel with nothing in the forefoot.  I’m not entirely sure how the Wave plate works on road and less sure on trails. It doesn’t seem to move into the midfoot (like the shanks found in many racing shoes) at all either, which I think would help at least add some structure underfoot.  As it is, I would not have known it was there if I didn’t see it plainly exposed on the side of the midsole.  Can anyone out there share their experience with the wave technology?  Have you experienced any benefit?  Otherwise, the design seems to be a hybrid of a simply constructed trail shoe with a somewhat traditional marathon racing shoe in terms of geometry and stack height.

Materials & Construction

The Hayate seems to be constructed with quality materials throughout.  The mesh upper is simple and durable (still looks brand new), the shoe is comfortable sock-less, and the outsole appears to be holding up very well after 50+ miles of use.  I always wish that companies would not skimp on forefoot rubber and Mizuno does a decent job here. However, it is the thinnest of all the areas on the shoe (excluding the lugs) and they even have a few cutouts right in the forefoot (I presume for added flexibility) that make it feel even thinner in those spots.

I’m unfamiliar with Mizuno’s different types of midsole materials, but they use an eva compound called U4ic that is supposed to be 30% lighter than their more standard AP+ compound.  This sounds very similar to New Balance’s ubiquitous RevLite midsole, and honestly, seems somewhat similar.  Light and flexible, but not very dense and packs out somewhat quicker than traditional EVA.

Fit

The fit of the Hayate is fairly average in nearly every way.  I find it average width, volume and security.  It doesn’t stand out in any one way fit-wise, negative or positive.  I’d like it to be more secure in the midfoot and heel, but it’s still just secure enough to be sufficient.  The heel counter is one that I do notice on steep uphills (over 25% grade).  I would guess part of that is the wider heel fit and part the height and stiffness of the counter.  Overall the fit is not problematic, but could be improved with more security and a better heel fit.

Ride

Outsole.  Good overall tread pattern and it is holding up well (again, black rubber is good!)

The Hayate rides quite nice…on smooth, hardpack trails, or even on pavement (but to a lesser degree).  It runs actually quite similar to the North Face Ultra Trail that I reviewed back in May: nice on smooth trail and somewhat responsive for a trail shoe on roads.  The Hayate does better than the Ultra Trail on more technical and windy single track, but still, like the NFUT, lacks the forefoot protection that I would expect from a shoe in the 9 oz range.  If I am going to put up with the 9mm drop and heavier weight, I expect more rock protection than that of a 7 oz racing flat.  I really don’t understand this trend. It seems like many manufactures are making these 9 oz shoes as their racing models and, therefore, they expect the consumer is not looking for protection, but rather a shoe that, while still having a somewhat traditional geometry, feels lower, lighter and more responsive. For me, coming at it from a minimalist perspective, the Hayate is heavy enough to be a long run shoe, but doesn’t offer the forefoot protection for rocky trails.  This is somewhat frustrating as it is otherwise a good shoe. The lack of adequate rock protection probably prevents many from trying the shoe who otherwise might.

Overall Impressions

My quandary about the lack of forefoot protection leads back to the explanation of my title: A Decent, But Mis-matched Trail Shoe. The shoe seems to be mismatched from the forefoot to the heel.  The forefoot feels low and responsive like a racing flat, but the heel feels like a pretty substantial, nearly traditional shoe (especially with the inclusion of the wave plate).  Mizuno did well in not flaring the heel much, which helps the stability on more technical trail, but it still does not match the light and flexible forefoot. Either this shoe needs more forefoot protection to be able to be a responsive all-around trail shoe or needs to be lightened up a bit (i.e. drop heel stack and ditch the wave plate) to run more like a racing shoe.  As it is, it just sits in a weird spot for me and doesn’t deliver what I’m looking for in a 9 oz trail shoe.

For many who are used to running in traditional shoes (with 12mm drop, like the Kazan for ex.) then the Hayate will likely fit the role as a more speedy option for short runs while not having to go too minimal with the heel to toe drop.  For those used to a lower drop trail shoe (such as Nike Kiger/Wildhorse, Brooks PureGrit, or inov-8 Trailrocs for example) you’ll be scratching you head because all of those shoes offer more protection (and cushion in many cases) than the Hayate, and are typically as light or lighter.

Like I hinted at in the opening of the review, I think the Mizuno Wave Kazan might be the better of the two trail shoes from Mizuno. Even though the 12mm drop is less appealing to me, it’s likely a more complete shoe and would work better as a long run trail shoe than the Hayate. Unfortunately the Hayate straddles the fence too much between long run shoe and speedier racing shoe and doesn’t end up doing either well enough in today’s market to stand out.

Purchasing Options

The Mizuno Hayate is available for purchase at Running Warehouse,  Zappos and Amazon. Outside the US it can be purchased from Wiggle. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

My experience with the Sayonara scared me off of wanting to try the Mizuno Hitogami. However, I received enough feedback from fellow shoe geeks that the Hitogami was quite a bit different that I decided to accept a review pair when my buddy Seth over at Mizuno offered one up (disclosure: these shoes were provided free of charge by Mizuno).

Like the Sayonara, the Hitogami is probably best classified as a lightweight trainer/distance racer. Interestingly, in every way that the Sayonara failed for me, the Hitogami succeeds. And just about everything I liked about the Sayonara is present in the Hitogami. It’s like someone stripped all the bad from the Sayonara and made me a shoe much more suited to my stride.

Appearance

First things first, the Mizuno Hitogami is a cool looking shoe. The pattern on the upper is designed such that when the two shoes are placed next to one another they take on the appearance of a Kabuki mask. Pretty sweet!

Now you most likely won’t see this when the shoes are on your feet (I might have them oriented wrong in the picture above, I don’t know…), but I like unique little details like this. On the negative side, the white upper looks great when new, but mud season here in NH has turned that white to a drab gray – at least it shows that the shoes have been put to good use!

Upper Construction and Fit

The upper of the Hitogami is nice and simple, just what I like in a shoe. It’s a basic mesh design with welded overlays, nothing too fancy. Simple and functional really. I have not run sockless in them yet due to the cold weather up here, but I don’t feel any obvious sources of abrasion when putting them on a bare foot. I have had zero abrasion/chafing/blistering issues in these so far. There is a flexible heel counter (not obtrusive) and minimal arch support.

Like the Sayonara, the Hitogami has a reasonably roomy toebox. I’ve found the shoe to be very comfortable, no toe squeezing, and the upper is not restrictive of toe movement. Fit through the heel and midfoot is snug, providing a good lockdown. In terms of sizing I went with a US 10 and I have a full thumb’s width of space between my big toe and the tip of the shoe. I would not recommend sizing up in these.

Sole Construction and Ride

The sole is where the Hitogami really separates itself from the Sayonara. Whereas the Sayonara felt stiff, firm, and rigid, the Hitogami feels softish and much more flexible. Whereas the Sayonara felt clunky and uncomfortable on the road, every run so far in the Hitogami has been smooth as silk (I’ve put 30 miles on them in the past few weeks, long run of 7+). It’s amazing to me how different my reaction to the two shoes has been – the Hitogami disappears on my feet.

In terms of specs, the Hitogami weighs in at 8oz in men’s size 9, which is almost identical to the Sayonara. Sole stack height is also very similar at 23mm heel, 14mm forefoot. I have not found the 9mm drop to be a problem in the Hitogami, whereas in the Sayonara I think it contributed to my negative reaction. I think this is a perfect case where you need to consider drop in terms of more than just the numbers – I can handle a higher drop shoe if it has a softish heel, and the Hitogami meets this requirement (as do shoes like the adidas Adios Boost and New Balance 1400v2). The Sayonara does not.

Like almost all Mizuno shoes, the Hitogami has a plastic “wave plate” built into the sole. It does not bother me in the Hitogami as it seems to be pretty flexible. There is ample outsole coverage on the bottom, and the rubber should make for good sole durability.

Conclusion

My experience with the Mizuno Hitogami so far has been very positive. I view this as a lightweight training shoe/distance racing shoe. It’s cushioned enough to handle a half-marathon to marathon, but for a 5K I’d want something stiffer and closer to the ground. As such, I’d rank it in the same category as the Saucony Kinvara, adidas Adios Boost, New Balance 1400v2, Brooks PureConnect 3, and maybe the Asics Gel Lyte33 (should have a v3 review in a few weeks). Among these a selling point is that it may have the widest toebox (except maybe compared to the Asics).

The Hitogami is reasonably priced at $100 MSRP (anything $100 or less is on the low end of the cost scale for shoes these days – I’m working on a comprehensive list). All in all, I highly recommended this shoe!

The Mizuno Hitogami is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Amazon.com, and Zappos. Outside of the US the Hitogami can be purchased at Sportsshoes.com. Purchases made via these links help keep reviews like this flowing – your support is very much appreciated!

For other takes on the Hitogami, view reviews by John Schrup and Believe in the Run.

I have had a pair of the Wave Rider 16s for a while, but only logged a handful of miles in them as I was spending more time in other shoes that I found more interesting. The 16s seemed heavy and underwhelming, so I was only slightly excited about trying these new 17s. What I did not realize was how dramatic of a change Mizuno had made in this update. Let’s compare the two models on a few key metrics:

Wave Rider 16 
Weight – 10 oz
Stack Height – 28mm heel, 16mm forefoot
Heel-to-toe drop – 12 mm

Wave Rider 17
Weight – 8.6 oz
Stack Height – 31mm heel, 18mm forefoot
Heel-to-toe drop – 13 mm

You’re reading that correctly, Mizuno dropped the weight considerably in the Rider 17. Out of the box, I immediately noticed the 1.4 ounces of weight that Mizuno managed to shave off of these shoes. This was apparently made possible by Mizuno’s new U4ic midsole material (something they are incorporating in several of their new models), which Mizuno claims is lighter and just as cushioned as their previous midsole compounds.

Based on the specs, the new midsole does add a very slightly steeper offset, and makes for a somewhat taller shoe all around, so don’t expect to feel more ground contact. Although the heel-to-toe drop is one of the largest of all my shoes, I did not feel that it caused me to break form throughout my easy runs. More than likely (I have not had my stride analyzed), I have a slight heel strike when I’m running slow and easy, so it’s useful to have a heavier duty rubber outsole on the heel. Like most traditional trainers, these shoes do not have much torsional flexibility in the midfoot (I cannot twist them by hand).

One concern I had with this shoe was how stiff the forefoot felt with its rubber outsole. This left the balls of my feet feeling beat up after the first couple of runs. Thankfully, I stuck it out and found that the more I wore the shoes, the more flexible the forefoot became. I asked a Mizuno rep about this, and they agreed that there seems to be a “sweet spot” of about 50 miles when the shoes break-in.  The Wave Rider 17s now give my toes the ability to bend backwards as they like. I’m happy to report that I have had no pain in my feet in over a week while running in these shoes almost exclusively.

Model comparison – Wave Rider 17 on left (blue), Wave Rider 16 on right (yellow)

The upper of the Wave Rider 17 is a soft mesh construction that is very breathable and very comfortable. I felt that there was plenty of room in the forefoot for my toes to move freely.

Pros:

Much lighter than most traditional trainers

Very soft, breathable mesh upper

Shoe becomes increasingly flexible with continued wear

Cons:

Large heel-to-toe offset could cause issues for those sensitive to a high-drop shoe

More shoe than some runners prefer

Long break-in period to achieve desired flexibility (took ~70 miles until they started becoming comfortable for me)

Conclusion:

Overall, I’m very happy with the Wave Rider 17. I believe that Mizuno has done a great job in maintaining the aspects that people have come to love about this classic shoe (cushioning, solid construction, comfortable fit), while making a tremendous update with the new midsole. Many shoe enthusiasts describe the perfect running shoe as one that disappears on your foot while running. While the Wave Rider 17 is still a traditional, cushioned trainer, it is a certainly a good step toward this. These are now on my short list for favorite traditional trainers.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 17 is available for purchase at Runningshoes.com.

I seem to be in the minority among those I know who have run in the Sayonara since the shoe seems to be very popular. I even posted a very positive guest review from my friend Brad Patterson. However, after having run in the Sayonara several times I’ve concluded that it’s just not a shoe for me.

When a shoe doesn’t work out for me I spend a lot of time mulling over possible reasons why. With the Sayonara my initial thought was that it was the relatively high 10mm heel-forefoot drop. I rarely ever run in shoes with greater than 8mm drop – 8mm is the upper end of my preferred range, and most of the time I run in shoes that are 0-4mm drop. It seemed like a logical conclusion that the high drop is what did in the Sayonara.

Then I met the New Balance MR 1400v 2.

The NB 1400v2 is also a shoe with a higher drop than I typically run in (9mm), and stack heights for the two shoes are almost identical – 24mm heel, 14mm forefoot for the Sayonara, 24mm heel, 15mm forefoot for the NB 1400v2. However, after putting 30-40 miles on the 1400v2’s I’ve determined that they are one of my favorite shoes of the year so far. Simply fantastic. I wrote up my review of the New Balance 1400 earlier this week, but couldn’t stop thinking about why they worked so well but the Sayonaras did not.

Yesterday I pulled out the Sayonaras for a bit and things started to crystallize. I’ve been wearing the 1400v2s a bunch casually in addition to running in them, and have never had an issue with comfort. Putting on the Sayonaras they immediately felt stiff and mildly slappy to me even while walking. I started playing around with the two shoes and here is my hypothesis about why two shoes with such similar sole dimensions yielded such different responses on my feet:

The Mizuno Sayonara is killed for me by “technology.”

When you compare the back half of the Sayonara to the back half of the NB 1400v2 (see photos below), two big differences jump out. First, the Sayonaras have a massive plastic heel counter, whereas the 1400’s have no heel counter. Second, the Sayonara has a hard plastic “wave plate” that extends from the back of the heel to the midfoot, the 1400’s have only a plastic shank that begins at the front of the heel and ends at the back of the forefoot. The 1400 shank is also narrow, and it does not extend to the inner and outer margins of the sole – the purpose is presumably to add a bit of longitudinal stiffness since the shoe is built for racing and speed. I’m not sure what the intended purpose of the wave plate in the Sayonara is.

The wave plate in the Sayonara makes the back half of the shoe very rigid, with very little flexibility in any plane, but in particular it lacks torsional (twisting) and mediolateral flexibility. The heel counter really locks the back half of the foot in place. Why is this a problem for me? Here’s what I think.

I’m usually a midfoot to mild heel striker in cushioned shoes, so I tend to land with either most of the outer edge of the shoe contacting, or at a point somewhere between the posterolateral corner of the heel and the midpoint of the arch. The problem with this is that I am contacting along the outer edge with essentially very little cushion between my foot and a big sheet of hard plastic, and this creates a fairly rigid lever that forces my foot to torque very rapidly at contact. You can see how close the plastic wave plate comes to the base of the midsole under the midfoot in the photo below – pretty darn close to where my center of pressure at contact is located (I had this measured earlier this year on a force treadmill).

Mizuno Sayonara – note the grey plastic “wave plate” above the yellow cushion in the heel, also note how the wave plate approaches the bottom of the sole near the midfoot

My hypothesis is supported by what I feel running in the shoes – they feel jerky and slappy, not smooth. It’s kind of like what I’d image running in a dress shoe with a hard rubber heel would feel like. I can adapt my stride to make them more comfortable, but not sure I want to do that (more on this below).

In contrast to the Sayonara, the NB 1400v2 is torsionally more flexible, and the sole is much softer under my contact zone. As such, when I contact the midsole compresses, there is a bit of flex, and the transition into pronation is much smoother and not as rapid. I feel none of the Sayonara induced jerkiness in the 1400, even though the sole dimensions are so similar.

New Balance 1400 v2 – no plastic plate in the sole

As a way to compare the slappiness between the two shoes, I shot this quick video – listen to the difference in sound the two shoes make as a invert and evert my foot:

So how is it that the Sayonara can work so well for some people and not so well for me? As I stated at the outset, running strides vary highly from person to person, and I think this is a case where a shoe is just not a good match for my own stride. In fact, most Mizuno shoes with a wave plate that I have tried feel clunky when I run in them. In contrast, Mizuno shoes like the Universe and those in the Evo collection (Cursoris, Ferus) have worked great for me since they lack a thick plastic waveplate like the one in the Sayonara. Sadly I’ve heard the Evo collection is going away, so the Universe, Ekiden, and Hitogami (depends on how rigid the Hitogami wave plate is, the Musha and Ronin were iffy for me) may be my only workable Mizuno shoes going forward.

What’s interesting about all of this is that I don’t think my issue would be as noticeable for a forefoot striker or a more pronounced heel striker. A true forefoot striker avoids the wave plate completely so it’s not much of an issue (my friend Thomas is a good example, I’ve seen him run and can confirm he is a true forefoot striker – see his Sayonara review). A more pronounced heel striker may not create as big a lever at the lateral margin of the shoe and would tend to roll forward through the wave plate rather than medially across it like me (the wave plate also appears to have flex grooves in the back of the heel which may help – see photo to right). I think the reason I can make the Sayonara feel better while running is that I can go to one of these different foot strikes and make it work, but that’s also probably why it doesn’t feel smooth to me, it’s making me adapt in a way my body is not used to (and I’m content with how my foot lands).

I’ll end with a brief commentary on shoe “technology.” One of the things I’ve observed is that shoe companies too often feel tied to a signature technology and in my opinion it can stifle creativity. Newton has their forefoot lugs for example, and Mizuno seems tied to having a plastic wave plate in its shoes. Even when they make shoes that don’t really have a wave plate, they feel compelled to color the sole to make it look like it has one.

For most of the six years I have been running seriously the Mizuno Universe was the only non-Evo Mizuno shoe I really had a great experience with. The Ronin 2 was decent, but even there if I could have ripped the wave plate out I would have (I did remove most of the heel cushion under the wave plate on one of my Roning 2s, but never finished the job on the other side so didn’t get to run in them). I would love to try a version of the Sayonara with the heel counter and wave plate removed. Better yet, give me a 4-6mm drop Ronin 2 with no wave plate and I’d be dancing in the streets. Unfortunately for me, the reality is that in this case “technology” kills the shoe.

I started running in more minimally constructed shoes back in 2009. Back then, “minimalist” footwear as a category didn’t really exist. The Vibram Fivefingers were available, Vivobarefoot had a few minimal running shoes, and Nike had the Free which claimed to simulate running barefoot on grass. At the time, one of the most popular running shoes among minimalists was the Mizuno Wave Universe 3. It was a great shoe – ultra light, minimal sole, and a roomy toebox. It did look a bit pinkish in color when wet, but people were running in water shoes, so you took what you could get.

Fast forward 4 years and the minimal shoe craze has blown by. In its wake it left a new niche category of footwear, many of which are basically similar to racing flats built with a wider toebox, flatter sole, and heftier price tag. The venerable Mizuno Universe still remains, now in version 5. Over the past few weeks I’ve been running in the shoe (Disclosure: it was provided free of charge by Mizuno for review purposes), and I have to say that it trumps many of the minimalist shoes that have come out in the past few years when it comes to minimalism. In fact, although it’s categorized as a racing flat, it’s probably one of the best ultraminimal shoes I’ve run in.

First things first, the Mizuno Universe 5 is incredibly lightweight. Running Warehouse lists it at 2.8oz in men’s size 9. My pair in size 10 come in at 3.1oz. The only shoes I have that are in its league in terms of weight are the Asics Blazing Fast and the New Balance RC5000. You put it on and it feels like nothing – you can barely tell that there are shoes on your feet.

Upper Construction

Given that it weighs so little, everything about the shoe’s construction is minimal. The upper is nothing more than a thin, well ventilated mesh. There’s really no structure at all to the upper except for a small flexible tab at the back of the heel (presumably to keep it from slipping down) – it feels very much like a sock with a sole attached.

A big improvement over previous versions of the Universe is that Mizuno ditched the vinyl-like material that used to line the inside of the ankle collar. That stuff would chew up the skin over my Achilles if I went sockless. The collar of the Universe 5 is a soft, lightly padded fabric – it’s a welcome change and it does not bother my skin (just ran 6 miles sockless immediately before writing this and no trouble except for a bit of abrasion from a seam by the arch that appeared at about mile 5).

In terms of fit, the Mizuno Universe has been popular with minimalists in large part because it offers a much roomier fit than other racing flats, which typically fit narrow up front. My sense is that the U5 is roomier than previous iterations of the model. The forefoot is downright spacious, and should accommodate all but the most paddle-footed.

Here’s a picture comparing the MWU4 (I’ve kept a new pair in reserve, it’s a classic!) and MWU5 – the 5 may appear a bit wider in part because there is so little structure to the baggy upper, but it does feel considerably wider in the forefoot to me:

I did a set of fast 200m intervals on the track in the U5 and the baggy fit was a bit of a problem on the turns – my forefoot slipped around a bit. Cinching the laces a bit tighter probably would have helped, but I didn’t want to stop the momentum of the workout. I have not had any slippage issues on the road in them.

As with previous versions, the insole of the U5 is non-removable, and arch support is minimal to non-existent.

Sole Construction

The sole of the U5 is also quite a bit slimmer than that of its predecessor:

Running Warehouse lists stack height of the U4 as 18mm heel, 14mm forefoot, whereas the U5 is 13mm heel, 11mm forefoot. The difference should be immediately noticeable to anyone with experience running in previous iterations of the shoe. The U4 felt like an ultralight racing flat to me, the U5 feels almost more like a barefoot-style shoe than a flat. There is very little sole underfoot, and it’s a fairly firm ride. It almost fits and feels like the Merrell Vapor Glove with a thin slab of foam added to the sole.

After my first few runs in the U5 I was surprised to notice that my calves were tight and sore. I’ve been running a in zero drop shoes a lot lately, so this surprised me a bit. I attribute the soreness to the combo of the firm, minimal sole and the fact that they made me want to push the pace. Mizuno uses it’s new U4ic midsole compound in the U5, and they claim it provides equal cushioning in a thinner package. The shoe feels more minimally cushioned to me.

The outsole of the U5 carries over the nubby design from previous versions of the shoe, though in a slightly different pattern. I have about 20-25 miles on the pair in the photo above, plus I’ve been wearing them to work, and wear seem to be most noticeable on the exposed EVA in the midfoot and forefoot. I have not experienced any major durability issues, but as always my ability to comment on durability is limited by the number of miles I am able to get on shoes before writing reviews (it’s difficult to review lots of shoes and get a lot of miles on each).

Gone are the drain holes under the midfoot that were found in previous versions– this should make some people happy as I’ve heard complaints that they let water in when running through puddles (that’s my general experience with drain holes – they’re more of a risk for letting water into a shoe on wet day than really helping get it out). One other change is that the concavity under the heel is larger in the U5 – this isn’t an issue while running, but while walking on hardwood floors or tile it acts like a suction cup.

Performance

The Mizuno Universe 5 is a bit hard to peg. It’s designed to be a racing flat, and given its weight, you can’t help but want to run fast in the shoes. I’ve done a track workout, a few tempo runs, and a few easy runs in the shoes and they perform well. However, since sole is so thin, it’s very flexible and lacks the longitudinal stiffness of other racing flats. As such, it lacks the pop found in a shoe with a stiffer sole like the adidas Hagio. I guess it comes down to preference – a stiffer flat may provide more pop, but stiffness typically means a bit more sole material and thus greater weight.

Comparing the U5 to it’s closest competitors, the Asics Blazing Fast and New Balance RC5000, the U5 feels more flexible and has a much roomier fit (note – I have the Blazing Fast, but have not run in them yet). It’s also more flexible than the Universe 4. My feeling is that the Universe 5 runs a lot like some of the minimalist shoes that are out on the market. Shoes like the adidas Gazelle and New Balance MR00 come to mind.

Appearance

I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on the appearance of this shoe. Mizuno has a history of making the Universe a flashy shoe – the original U4 was bright orange and had flames on the upper. When I first saw a photo of the U5 I was appalled. I thought they looked hideous. I have to say, the shoes have really grown on me. The design is certainly unique, and I’ve taken to wearing them out and about simply because they look unlike any shoe I have ever owned. You will get comments if you wear these!

Conclusion

The Mizuno Universe 5 is a shoe that will appeal to two niches in the running world. First, those who like to run fast and want as light a shoe as possible to allow them to do that. Second, those who just want a very minimal shoe with a roomy, comfortable fit. I kind of straddle those two groups, and thus this shoe is a fantastic match for me. If you like the gaudy appearance and can handle the somewhat hefty price tag, the Mizuno Universe is a lot of fun!

The Mizuno Wave Universe 5 is available for purchase in the US at Running Warehouse. Outside of the US, it can be purchase at Sportsshoes.com and Wiggle.

I received a review pair of the Mizuno Ferus from Runningshoes.com about a month ago (Disclosure: these were provided free of charge for review purposes). Given that I had previously worn a size 10 in the Mizuno Cursoris, I asked Runningshoes.com to send me the same size. I figured that the same size should work for another shoe in the Mizuno Evo collection. I was wrong. The first pair of Ferus that I received fit huge! There was no way I was going to attempt running in them. So, they were sent back in exchange for a 9.5. I can’t remember ever having dropped down to a 9.5 in any shoe (I more often size up to 10.5), but the new pair fit great and off I went.

For my first run in the Ferus I decided to head out on a hilly route to my daughter’s school. I was wary of the memory foam sockliner, but the route was all on asphalt road so I though a bit of softness might be warranted – I opted to leave them in. It was also an unseasonably hot day, and since the shoes felt good walking around sockless, I decided to run the 5.5 miles sans socks. Big mistake. There was blood, much blood:

On the plus side, the shoes performed great. My initial concern over the sockliner was unwarranted – it turns out that a thin memory foam sockliner paired with a thin, firm, zero drop sole (14mm heel, 14mm forefoot) makes for a great ride on the road. Just enough softness to take the edge off. And, if you want a firmer ride with good ground feel you can just take the insole out or swap it with something thinner and firmer.

Now, I should point out the obvious – the Mizuno Ferus is a trail shoe. However, though it has a luggy sole, the lugs are low and flat and this shoe works perfectly well on asphalt and cement surfaces. In fact, most of the 30 or so miles I have put on them so far were on roads, with only 2-3 miles total running on trail and crushed rock. I did also hike up and down Mt. Pisgah in VT in them, and so far traction and rock protection has been fine.

Since I’m mostly a road runner with the occasional mile stretch of trail included on some of my frequent routes, I value a shoe that can handle multiple surfaces well. The Mizuno Ferus fits that bill perfectly. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I think this shoe might be a better choice than the Mizuno Cursoris for road running given durability concerns about the sole of the latter. The Ferus sole is more amply covered by rubber, and wear on my pair is minimal so far despite the road miles.

The upper of the Ferus is a soft, breathable mesh – very comfortable against the foot. The mesh has a bit of stretchiness to it, though not as much as the forefoot mesh of the Cursoris, and extensive welded overlays on the Ferus hold the foot well. I also like that there is a welded overlay along the margin between the sole and the upper given how prone this area is to blowing out in trail shoes. The uppers on my pair are holding up well so far.

I’ve enjoyed the Ferus so much that I’ve actually been wearing it regularly as a casual shoe. It has a very roomy, paddle-shaped toebox and this combined with the low-profile sole make it super comfortable for all day wear.

If I had to compare the Mizuno Ferus to another shoe on the market, the closest competitors would probably be the Merrell Ascend Glove and the Inov-8 Trailroc 235. All three are lightweight (Ferus is 7.9oz in men’s size 9), zero drop, have roomy toexboxes, provide decent protection despite relatively thin soles, and all are fun to run in. I have some concerns about upper durability of the Trailroc 235, so I’d probably rank that one 3rd among the three shoes. Comparing the Ascend Glove and the Ferus, I’d say that the Ferus offers a slightly cushier ride (thanks largely to the insole) and is more comfortable on the road. The Ascend Glove forefoot has a less paddle-like appearance. Both are great shoes.

All in all I have to say that the Mizuno Ferus has been quite a pleasant surprise. If you’re in the market for a low-profile, zero drop road-to-trail shoe it’s definitely worth a look!

Oh, and about the blood – socks solved that problem on subsequent runs :)

Big thanks to Runningshoes.com for providing the sample reviewed here – you can purchase the Mizuno Ferus over at their website.

This is a guest review by Brad Patterson. Brad is an electrical engineer by trade, and lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. – Pete, Runblogger.com

Unlike a lot of other Wave Sayonara reviewers that I have come across on the internet so far, I am not a mega huge Mizuno fanboy and only recently started using their shoes (after the now-known-to-be-false announcement of the impending doom of the Brooks Launch).

My first Mizuno shoe was the Wave Precision 13, and while I like to use it for long runs and recovery runs, I sometimes find it to be “too much” shoe to be used as my everyday workhorse.  So, when I first heard about the upcoming Sayonara, read the specs, and saw all of the promos about it, this sounded like a shoe that would fit right in my wheelhouse – medium level heel-toe drop at 10mm, fairly light at 7.9 ounces, and supposedly this would be a “fast” shoe. (Disclosure: These shoes were sent to me free of charge as a media sample courtesy of Mizuno).

It was with much excitement that I was able to get my pair of Sayonaras sent to me before the official release. I need to send out a huge thanks to Seth over at Mizuno for the hookup (through Pete, of course). I got the box, and pulled them out for my initial inspection of the shoe design and a quick photo shoot. [Note: Since the Wave Sayonara is slotted as the replacement for the Wave Precision 13, I will be referencing the Precision a lot in this review and comparing the two shoes repeatedly.]

Initial thoughts from box opening

• Feels very lightweight

• Really like the colors and the design

• The upper mesh seems more fine than the Precision and makes me wonder if it won’t let as much air through as the Precision does

• Midsole is clearly labeled as “U4ic”, pronounced “euphoric”, and feels quite cushy. This is supposed to be a new technology from Mizuno that offers just as much cushioning as the AP+ midsole of the Precision, but is a lot lighter in weight 

• Feels to me that the sole is very rigid with the waveplate, at least from midfoot back to the heel

• Forefoot is reasonably flexible, but still feels fairly rigid out of the box

• The design of the upper is fantastic, with all kinds of intricate stitching that looks great.

• I really like the “wave sayonara” detailing on the back of the heel. It’s almost as if the shoe is saying “wave goodbye” to other runners as you pass them, since sayonara is Japanese for goodbye. *dsc3726*

• The upper material has a lot of welded overlays

• There is a clear film across the front of the toe that wraps around the sides, possibly offering some lateral support – again gives me a little bit of worry over lack of ventilation

• The heel counter is quite rigid – similar to the Precision and wraps about the same amount forward on the sides of the heel as the Precision

• There is a lot of stitching on the inside, which looks like it wouldn’t be great for liner-less sock-free running; but might be ok if you left the sock liner in.

• The outsole has very good ground contact all the way from the forefoot to the heel on the medial side, the whole arch area is filled in with yellow (U4ic) midsole foam.

• The forefoot outsole has funky little round “nubbies” which look aesthetically awesome, and they might even offer decent grip on rough terrain; but I wonder how quickly they will wear out. [As a side note, the material is listed as “G3” on Running Warehouse, although it looks to me that it might be same material as the X10 which is used on the heel. From my experience with the outsole of the Precision 13, the X10 rubber is very good and lasts a long time with minimal appearance of wear.]

• The waveplate is very evident from visual inspection, my guess is that this will offer a very responsive feel/ride

• The outsole heel is undercut just a bit

• The laces have some sort of “bumpy” texture all along their length, most likely to help hold your knots tight. I ALWAYS double knot my laces anyway, so this doesn’t really affect me. But for those of you that aren’t double knotters, this might be beneficial.

After a bunch of photo shooting and my initial visual inspection, I had to slip these babies on to see what they felt like on my feet. Here are my first initial impressions:

• I definitely could feel that the Sayonara sits lower to the ground than the Precision. I’ll hit the specs on the exact stack height in the comparison below.

• The fit seems similar to the Precision, except that the toebox is less pointy and more squared off than the Precision. To me this roomy toebox feels great, as it seems to allow a bit more room for the toes to spread out

• Once I had the shoe on my foot, it felt quite flexible in the forefoot

Shoe details & specs

For the sake of keeping this review a little more to the point and readable than my last Runblogger review (which was for the Karhu Flow 3 Trainer), I’ll only list a few more details and shoe specs that I didn’t list above and try to keep it to the main specs that most runners are interested in when reading about a new shoe. If you REALLY want to know what sort of space age materials Mizuno employs in the Sayonara, Running Warehouse does a great job covering the shoe specs on their Wave Sayonara page.

• cushioning – RW lists the stack heights as 14mm (forefoot) and 24mm (forefoot)

• heel toe drop – 10mm

• weight – specified at 7.9 ounces for a men’s size 9, I measured 9.3 ounces for men’s size 10-½ (as a reference, the Precision is spec’d at 9.5 ounces for a size 9, so the Sayonara is quite a bit lighter than its predecessor) 

• sizing accuracy – I found the sizing to be accurate, as my normal size 10-½ fit perfectly

• color availability – there are 2 color versions, a blue model and a white model. Mizuno refers to them as “Dude blue/anthracite/bolt” and “White/anthracite/lime punch” colors.

Run results and conclusions

As of this writing, I have 135 miles on my Wave Sayonaras, with most of those miles being on the road. I did run one trail half marathon race in them, so I think I have a good feel for how they perform off road too, which I will detail in a separate section below. I have not done any treadmill miles on them this summer, as I prefer to run outside even if it’s smoking hot. I have run a good variety of paved routes though, with some being relatively flat and others being pretty hilly (for West Michigan where I live, that is). I have not had the opportunity to try them in wet conditions yet, as it has been a pretty dry summer where I live.

One of the first things I noticed when I ran in the Sayonaras was how PLUSH they feel. It seemed very strange to me because they don’t have a ton of cushion in the forefoot (with a 14mm stack height), but they were really comfortable and my feet felt great out on the first run.  Ironically, I had purchased a few new pairs of running socks that I have grown to dislike for a variety of reasons, but the Sayonara even made those “not so great” socks feel good out on the run.

Second to the plushness of the cushioning and the ride, I noticed how smoothly they ran. It might have been just me and that they fit the way I run well, but I felt that the turnover and the ride of these shoes is fantastic. One of my previous benchmark shoes for a smooth ride was the Brooks Launch, and all I could think after coming back from my first run in these shoes was “Wow, these things are smoooooth, in a very Launch-like way.”

Another thing that I immediately noticed was the roomy forefoot. If you look at the shoe from the top, you can see that it has a bit more of a squared off shape than the typical pointy toed front that most running shoes have. It is definitely noticeable out on the run.  I REALLY like this extra room for my toes to splay and wiggle around and I think it helps a lot especially in the warm summer months when it is so easy to get hot spots and annoying blisters on the toes due to rubbing from too tight shoes as well as mega sweaty summer feet.  And even though they have plenty of room in the forefoot, the shoe grips very well around the heel and midfoot and did not feel sloppy at all to me. 

When I am first running in a new shoe, I like to pay very close attention to various irregularities in the terrain and see how much I can feel as part of my “ground feel” test. I run down the road, looking for gravel, cracks in the pavement, manhole covers, and anything else I can try. Sometimes, I even run over sections like this with my eyes closed to see how well I can feel the terrain. I know, not the safest idea in the world, but these are the crazy lengths I go to in order to bring you an in-depth review!! Don’t worry, I only close my eyes for 5-10 seconds at a time… I was able to feel the loose gravel and definitely the manhole cover, but the crack in the road that I can very easily detect with a more firm “racing flat” type of shoe wasn’t quite as noticeable in the Sayonaras. I personally think this is ok, as I like a little cushion to my ride for an everyday workhorse of a shoe.

Stability in the shoe was very good, I have run a few faster paced runs and even tried making some tight u-turns on my route and always felt stable and in good solid contact with the road. In contrast to my initial “out of the box” impression of the Sayonara feeling fairly rigid, it actually ends up being quite flexible out on the run and I think this improved as I put more miles on the shoe.

In addition to the trail half marathon race, I also did 2 longer training runs in these shoes (a 15 miler and a 17 miler), along with plenty of medium length 10-13 mile runs. My legs did not feel beat up or hammered at the end of these runs. It’s very interesting that this shoe works well for fast pace, moderate pace, easy pace, and even long distance runs. As a successor to the Precision, this shoe definitely has less cushion and protection, so some people might prefer to keep a shoe like the Precision for the long runs and even recovery runs, and then use the Sayonara for everything else.  I personally feel that you can do very well in this shoe even for long runs, and it could be a great option as a race shoe for a full marathon.

One interesting contrast that I find with the Sayonara as opposed to the Precision is that this shoe just plain feels fast, and almost “makes you” run fast.  I thought it was just my imagination, but I made a quick spreadsheet chart comparing my run paces (& avg heart rate) for the runs I have done in my Sayonaras to my runs in the Precision. The resulting data was pretty shocking – the Sayonara runs were on average 15-30 seconds per mile faster at a similar effort level and similar running conditions when compared to runs that I did in my Precisions. I’m sure part of this has to do with the lighter weight of the Sayonara, but perhaps it also has to do with the “smoothness” of the ride and how it affects me when I’m out on a run.

As for responsiveness, I have done a handful of tempo runs in the Sayonara and I find it pretty middle of the road. It is reasonably responsive, but I think that due to its softer ride, it is not quite as “snappy” as some of my firmer fast run shoes. Again, I don’t think this is a horrible thing, but if you REALLY want to push hard and fast, for example on a 5K race; perhaps the Sayonara might not be your shoe of choice.

A few other random observations:

• I really like the lace length on these shoes. They seem just about right, even when I double knot them and I don’t have a ton of extra lace flopping around. It seems like most of my shoes end up with waaaaaaayy too much extra lace flopping around, which almost forces you to double knot.

• The final lace hole has 3 different positions available, which I think is a nice feature depending on how you prefer to wear the shoe from a tightness standpoint; and if you ever have problems with heel slip. 

• Compared to the Precision, I think these shoes are quieter out on a run. It seems like the Precisions sometimes have a “tap tap tap” sound to them when you are cruising along. The slight difference in outsole material sounds quieter to me on the Sayonara vs. the Precision.

• The toe box is relatively shallow, but this did not cause me any problems or irritations.

• The upper material is some sort of non-stretchy synthetic versus the Precision which has some sort of “natural fiber” mesh which is very stretchy in the toebox area.  Interestingly, both shoes are specified to be using “airmesh” and “dynamotion fit,” which are supposedly very stretchy and airy mesh materials, but I found the Sayonara upper material to not stretch at all. I’m assuming that the reason for this non-stretching is the amount of welded overlays that the Sayonara uses. All that being said, I don’t think this is a problem for the Sayonara from a fit standpoint due to the very roomy toebox. It may, however, cause your foot to heat up more in the summer months as mine did on a few hot weather runs.

Trail performance from the 2013 North Country Run

Back in late August, I ran the North Country Run trail half marathon in Wellston, Michigan. I ran this race last year in a pair of Brooks Cascadia 6 trail shoes, and I was hemming and hawing about what shoe to wear this year. Knowing that the trail is mainly dirt singletrack, with a bit of sand, but not any mud or water crossings, it seemed like the Sayonara might work for the race. The trail has quite a bit of roots, and some rock sections, but not any really long sections with crazy amounts of boulders or smaller rocks that would give me a concern over the lack of a rock plate. So after reading a few other Sayonara reviews online in regards to trail performance and bouncing the idea off a few other people, I opted to run the race in the Sayonara. I thought that since I had not done any real off road testing with the shoe yet this would be the perfect opportunity.

One thing I had not mentioned about the course is that it is quite hilly. My GPS race data showed about 1600 feet of elevation gain through the duration of the 13.1 mile half marathon. Some of the hills were long and winding, but quite a few of them were very steep too; especially on the downhill segments.

I had run another trail half marathon earlier in the summer in my Cascadias, so that gave me a bit of reference data to compare to; even though the June race had less elevation gain and was an easier course than the North Country Run.  In that previous race, I had gotten some BAD hot spots on both feet (in the Cascadias), but I was very happy to find that I had zero hot spots, blisters, or any other sort of foot discomfort during this race in the Sayonaras. I think the roomier forefoot in the Sayonara is helpful for avoiding those issues.

The amount of cushioning in the Sayonara was good for this trail, and I think would be good for most trails. Possibly if you were running a really difficult trail with lots of sharp pointy rocks, you might have some issue, but I didn’t have any problems at all with the lack of rock plate. The outsole grip on the trails was quite good, and perhaps the little “nubby” things on the forefoot are beneficial for dirt.  There were a number of downhills that I got going real fast on, and I didn’t lose my footing once.

From a race/run feel standpoint, I like the fact that this shoe put my foot closer to the ground than my Cascadias. I feel more stable and also a little faster as opposed to the occasional “clunky” feel I get in the Cascadias. When taking the shoes off post race, I found that they did let a little bit of dirt in; but there wasn’t very much.  This trail had quite a bit of loose dirt and some sand, so I was impressed to not find a pile of debris in the shoe since these are not really intended to be a trail shoe.

The clear film that wraps over the toe seems to work reasonably well as a protector against rocks or roots. I didn’t hammer any rocks or roots really hard, but from pressing on it with your finger, it appears that it would offer good protection against most toe smashes except for perhaps the more extreme ones.

My opinion for the Sayonara as a trail shoe is that it works VERY well for mild trails without a lot of mud, water, & rocky terrain. So if you are a road runner who likes to frequent the trails; this could be a great “do it all” shoe for you.

Final thoughts

My final conclusion and recommendation is that this is a great shoe, that really works nicely as both a daily trainer and a “go fast” shoe; with the added bonus of working pretty dang good on all but the roughest trails.  As compared to the Precision 13 that it is replacing in Mizuno’s product line, the Sayonara has less cushion. Some people might find this less appealing as a long run shoe due to the lesser amount of cushion.  Personally, I have worn it on a lot of longer runs, and think it works great as a long run shoe; but again this may come down to how much cush you like when you are out putting in serious miles and serious time pounding the pavement.

It is possible that this shoe could be used as a bit of a “transitional” shoe to fit between more traditional trainers like the Wave Rider and the more minimal offerings from Mizuno like the Wave Universe or the new line of “Wave Evo” zero drop shoes.

For me personally, I find the Mizuno Wave Sayonara to be the swiss army knife of running shoes. It works great for short, medium, and long distance and also works well for slow, moderate, and fast paced runs. Throw in the fact that it does well on trails and I think it is very feasible to say that this shoe could replace almost every running shoe in your closet.

The Mizuno Sayonara is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com.

What I like about the shoe is the fact that if you put your feet side by side they take on the appearance of a Kabuki mask. Cool little design feature!

For more info, head over to the Running Warehouse blog.

For some additional photos and thoughts from someone who has run in the shoe, check out this post on the Too Many Running Shoes blog.

Earlier this year Mizuno released two zero-drop running shoes, the Cursoris and the Levitas. I published a guest review of the two shoes by my friend Frederic, and based on his comments I was really intrigued by the Cursoris and had to try it for myself. I’m glad that I did as I would rank it among the best shoes I have run in this year! (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by a Mizuno rep with a lot of tattoos)

Basic Specs

The Mizuno Cursoris weighs in at just over 7oz in my size 10. It’s a zero drop shoe with a stack height of 18mm heel, 18mm forefoot. Though I have gone up to a 10.5 in many shoes, the Cursoris is roomy in even a size 10 on my feet, so they may even run a bit big.

Upper Construction and Fit

Simply stated, the fit of the Mizuno Cursoris is near perfect on my average width foot. It’s snug through the heel and midfoot (there is mild arch support), and opens up into an ample toebox. I’d go so far as to say that this is one of the best fitting shoes that I own – supremely comfortable. The toebox in particular really shines – the upper in the region of the forefoot is composed of a stretchy, open mesh that breathes incredibly well. It’s so open that debris can get in the shoe if you go off-road, but I’ll take that trade-off for a cool ride in the summer. I wish more shoes would take this approach with breathability – the closest comparison I can think of is the old Newton Distance.

The rest of the upper is very simple – no heel counter, smooth interior finish suitable for sockless running, and a removable insole (unfinished below). The upper hugs the foot well without being overly structured or obtrusive. I really can’t say enough positive things about it – I’d rank it up there alongside the Nike Free 3.0 v5 in terms of upper design.

Sole

When it comes to shoe soles, I like different feels for different purposes. For form work I like minimal cushion. For speed I like a firm, responsive sole. For casual and long running I prefer a softer sole. The Cursoris definitely fits in the latter category. I’ve seen the sole feel of the Mizuno Cursoris described as like running on a padded gym floor. This is a pretty accurate description – it feels soft yet the stack height is such that it’s not pillowy. For me it’s a near perfect shoe for long, easy runs or recovery runs. It’s also incredibly comfortable for just wearing out and about. This is a bit of a departure from other zero drop shoes which tend to be fairly firm (e.g., the Merrell Bare Access, Altra Instinct, New Balance MR00, etc.). If you want a zero drop shoe with a soft sole, the Cursoris should be among the top shoes on your list to try (along with the Saucony Virrata and Altra Torin).

Given that the sole is soft, I would not classify the Cursoris as being a responsive shoe. It’s not a shoe I would reach for to race a 5K on the road.

On concern I’ve heard about the Cursoris has to do with sole durability. the sole has rubber in all of the right spots – heel (the orange heel patch is rubber, not EVA), across the forefoot, and up through the big toe. However, some have had issues with the exposed areas of EVA breaking down quickly. I have noticed that abrasion of the EVA in the forefoot area tends to form little “tabs” in the forefoot that you can pick off. However, with 50 miles on my pair the wear is nothing I’m overly concerned about (see photo below). If you tend to chew up the forefoot on your shoes you may want to consider this before purchasing this shoe.

Conclusions

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Mizuno Cursoris and have put in several double-digit mileage runs. I have had nothing but positive experiences with this shoe, and among zero drop cushioned shoes it’s one of my top picks. In fact, if I had to keep only two shoes in this category it would probably be the Cursoris and the Saucony Virrata. I think that highly of it!

The Mizuno Cursoris can be purchased at Running Warehouse (some colors currently on clearance at a great price) and Zappos (some on clearance here as well). Outside the US they can be purchased at Sportsshoes.com.

The first thing anyone will notice about the Wave Ekiden is the light weight.  They are under 5 ounces (for a men’s size 9, the published weight is 4.7 oz; my size 9.5 test pair weighed just under 5 oz on my scale).  The lack of weight means less total cushioning, which in turn leads to a firmer ride.  In my opinion, this is a good thing in a racing flat intended for shorter distance road races.

The overall feel of the shoe is characterized by flexibility in the forefoot and firmness in the heel.  The heel cup feels very solid to the touch, and underneath the heel and midfoot, Mizuno added a lightweight Wave plate.  From the midfoot forward, the shoe is made of very flexible materials; the upper is entirely mesh (except for one spot above the toe box, which I’ll get into in a bit), and the outsole is a combination of flexible AP material (like EVA) and rubber arranged in a dot pattern.  This design approach leads to a shoe that doesn’t feel overly soft at impact, and feels very responsive with a quick transition to toe-off.  In my opinion, Mizuno hit the nail on the head for a road flat in terms of ground feel and responsiveness.

The Wave Ekiden has a 6mm heel-toe offset (20mm heel stack height, 14mm toe stack height).  Although this is a slightly larger offset than some other flats in the marketplace today, I didn’t feel as though the shoe was encouraging a more-pronounced heel strike than normal, and I find no wear on the heel after 100 miles logged in the shoes.  They feel like a road racing flat should feel, and when running they aren’t noticeable in any particular way.  A good flat should mainly disappear from your mind when you’re running, and these shoes do that.

There are a couple of design elements in the Ekiden that I don’t love.  Neither of them impact the performance of the shoe; I would call them both minor annoyances:

1. Mizuno put a crinkly-sounding material in the toe box underneath the mesh (i.e. directly above your toes).  In my opinion, this material provides no real benefit.  What is does provide is that crinkly sound.  I just took all of the laces out of the shoes and cut the material out of my pair once I had access to the toe box.

2. Mizuno also likes to leave empty space in the heel so that you can see the Wave plate.  This also helps keep the weight lower.  However, this also becomes a convenient place for rocks to get lodged.  This shouldn’t be a problem during a road race that is all paved, but it could be a liability during a race that has sections of gravel.

I tried running both easy and fast over a variety of surfaces with the Wave Ekiden on my feet, and they had the same level of responsiveness and good traction over road, grass, trail, and even mud.  The dot patterned rubber outsole is able to grip pretty much anything, so I was confident pushing the pace on all surfaces.

I am generally willing to push the limits of recommended distances for flats, having run marathons in the 4.3 oz Asics Piranha SP4, and the slightly heavier Nike Zoom Streak 3.  However, I am going to stick with the other recommendations that I am seeing for the Wave Ekiden, and suggest keeping it to the half marathon distance or less.  Mizuno has done a good job creating a firm and responsive ride, which is ideal for shorter racing, but could become a fatigue risk in a longer race.

Final Word:  The Mizuno Wave Ekiden is a well-designed and reliable flat for workouts and races up to the half marathon.  It’s best suited for runners who like a firm ride and a snappy transition from landing to toe-off.  While it’s likely not enough shoe for most marathoners, it is a durable option to have in the rotation for short and fast road racing.

The Mizuno Wave Ekiden is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Caleb Masland is the founder and head coach of Team Wicked Bonkproof, where he works with runners of all abilities and distance specialties. Caleb has PRs of 15:45 (5k), 1:10 (half marathon), and 2:34 (marathon), and has won races ranging in distance from 5k to 50k. You can follow Caleb on Twitter, dailymile, and Google+. You can also find out more at coachcaleb.com.

It’s nice to see Mizuno diversifying its lower drop offerings, and these look like a promising addition to the collection of cushioned, zero drop trail shoes now on the market.

Here are some photos from the Running Warehouse:

Guest review by Fred Brossard:

The French representatives for both Mizuno and Brooks Running recently gave me the chance to be the first in France to review their latest minimalist running shoes, the two Mizuno Wave Evo (Levitas and Cursoris) and the Brooks Pure Drift.

The new Pure Drift is the most minimal shoe in the Brooks PureProject line – it represents sort of a natural evolution towards less structure and less drop. It’s a step down toward barefoot running from the Pure Connect, attempting to keep the best of the Connect and correcting the worst. The Pure Drift is an adjustable-drop shoe – it can be configured to a 4 mm or a 0 mm drop, with the help of a removable insole (Runblogger note – I measure the insole as 5mm heel/2.5mm forefoot with my C-calipers, so don’t think the shoe is 4mm drop with it inserted as Brooks reports). Its weight (size 11.5) is 166 g without the insole / 185 g with the insole (6.1 oz in US size 9).

Brooks PureDrift

Mizuno Evo Cursoris (top) and Mizuno Evo Levitas (bottom)

Both of the Mizuno Wave Evo shoes are brand new models, the first zero drop shoes from the Japanese brand. They have been designed entirely from scratch without any ties to other models, not even the lightweight Wave Universe. Both EVO are zero-drop shoes which differ, among other aspects, in the thickness of their sole: 8 mm for the Levitas and 12 mm for the Cursoris. Weight (size 11.5) is 190 g for the Levitas (6.1 oz in US size 9), 215 g for the Cursoris (6.8 oz in US size 9).

Mizuno’s designers have obviously read and studied the “What should a real minimalist shoe feature?” theories that flourish on the web. In their first minimalist offerings, they very seriously tried to respect 5 key principles of minimalist shoe design: zero-drop, wide toebox, minimal structure, light cushioning, and flexibility under the metatarsals which leads to two quite different shoes: the Levitas is a real racer, and the Cursoris is great for smooth, easy runs.

Mizuno Evo Cursoris (top) and Mizuno Evo Levitas (bottom)

Neither Mizuno shoe is as anatomically shaped as the Pure Drift. In fact, it’s like they have no particular shape at all – their light and porous mesh (beware of rain …) just surround the feet and leave them enough space to move naturally. However, this creates a real issue with the lacing system: either it’s too loose and your foot can move out of the shoe or too tight and it crushes your feet. Both shoes are tremendously comfortable (the Cursoris may even be more comfortable than your favourite slippers). There’s no toe spring nor arch support, which is a good point. In fact, the Cursoris has no support at all whereas the Levitas has a supportive cup surrounding the heel, which keeps your foot aligned at high speed. The rear part of the outsole is totally flat without any grip, while the front part has 4 flexibility grooves and separated impact pods (some of which are reinforced with rubber outsole, some of which are not).

Brooks PureDrift

On the contrary, the Pure Drift is a near-perfect model in terms of anatomical design. The curved front part of the shoe fits my foot perfectly and comfortably and allows natural movement. No issue here with the lacing system, and the shoe also includes the Navband seen on other PureProject shoes that is supposed to help the shoes to “fit every feet.” No real arch support in the Drift either, but there is some sort of a firm point under the arch that is far less annoying than the arch contour found in the Pure Connect. The heel cup is curved and reinforced but doesn’t provide as much support as the heel cup of the Levitas. When standing still or walking, comfort and fit stays the same with or without the insole. As perfect as all this may appear, there’s however a possible issue with a big toe spring which, at first, I found an oddity for a minimalist, zero-drop shoe.

On the road

In my opinion, all three of these shoes are tailored for road running only or possibly for very dry and flat trails. And I emphasize “dry.” Rain is THE enemy of these three shoes because of their open mesh uppers – your feet will get wet. A wet road is enough to transform the Pure Drift into a swimming pool for your feet.

Brooks PureDrift

Frankly speaking, the Pure Drift isn’t a good zero-drop shoe whereas it’s quite an interesting 4 mm drop shoe. It’s not a matter of support or comfort, which to me feel the same with or without the insole. It’s not due either to the strange noises (plastic cracks) that could be heard when running without the insole. Rather, it’s due to the fact that contact with the ground is very hard under the midfoot without the insole whereas it’s far smoother with the insole. When there’s little feedback from the ground due to the thickness and firmness of the sole, I consider that the shoe should at least provide a little bit of cushioning, which isn’t the case for the Pure Drift. Zero-drop speed work training (400/800 meters) was an excruciating experience.

With the 4 mm insole, the Pure Drift is a better shoe, tailored for long and easy runs. I wasn’t annoyed that much by the toe spring and felt comfortable even after more than 25 km. I’ve heard that some reviewers didn’t like the dual toe flex – I did appreciate it, it gives more stability during the propulsion phase. I must confess that I really didn’t like the Pure Connect, which I found too narrow, too stiff, and which I felt had too much arch support. The “4 mm” Pure Drift corrects all of these defects and is a nice cool minimalist shoe, but not the best choice for performance (i.e., speedwork, racing). I’m still wondering why the shoe feels so bad when removing the insole to run it zero-drop. The forefoot cushioning perhaps needs to be a bit softer.

Mizuno Evo Cursoris

Mizuno Evo Levitas

In contrast to the Drift, both Mizuno Evo shoes are tremendous zero-drop shoes (except with regard to the lacing issues). The forefoot cushioning of both shoes is soft and flexible enough to allow a nice and smooth contact with the ground, which makes them very comfortable to use even during long runs. Those accustomed to the Wave cushioning technology won’t be disappointed, both shoes share a small Wave plate under the forefoot which filters a bit of the impact forces and gives back energy during the propulsion phase. That’s all for the shared features because these shoes are just so different from each other!

Heel support in the Evo Levitas (left) and Evo Cursoris (right)

The Levitas is a real racer, clearly tailored for speed, with far less cushioning than the Cursoris. As mentioned earlier, it also has the external heel support which adds some stability. It’s not a shoe for inexperienced minimalist runners. The CURSORIS is very, very, very soft and can be used by anybody. As I wrote before, the CURSORIS is as comfortable and smooth as your favourite slippers. Running with it is like running on cotton wool, seems like you could run 100 km in a row before discovering that they’re zero-drop shoes. Their lack of structure and their overall width induce your foot into moving as it wants in all directions which means that they’re not designed for speed work (they are less stable).

And the winner is …

Being a somewhat competitive runner who does speed and endurance speed work twice a week, I find the Mizuno Levitas to be the best minimalist road running racer I’ve ever reviewed. It has all that I’m looking for in a zero-drop shoe: the perfect mix of comfort and efficiency. I also like the Cursoris, which I use for my two weekly easy recovery runs and which can be used by anybody willing to discover the joys of zero-drop running without any risks. It’s not that I don’t like the Pure Drift, but I just can’t figure out the real usefulness of the dual drop since there’s so much difference between the good 4 mm shoe and the bad 0 mm one.

Update 2/18/2012: Also read Pete’s review of the Brooks Pure Drift

The Brooks Drift is now available at Running Warehouse, and the Mizuno Evo Levitas and Mizuno Evo Cursoris will be available later this month at Running Warehouse.