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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specs

MSRP: $120
Weight: 309 grams (10.9 oz) mens 9 and 277 grams (9.8 oz) womens 8. 380 grams in my size 13.
Stack Height: 26mm heel; 18mm forefoot.
Specs via Running Warehouse

Good shape to the shoe with a wider forefoot than appears in the pictures. Medium volume throughout and should fit many different feet well.

Upper and Fit

The Caldorado is built on a brand new last, and the fit is one of the best of all the Montrails I’ve tried. I think they really got the shape and volume right as the fit is secure overall, but still has a little more width in the toebox than say the Rogue Racer or Bajada. The upper is a pretty tough mesh and features fairly robust overlays throughout the midfoot, without being overbuilt. The result is that the upper holds my foot really well, and I don’t find myself having to tighten the laces much due to upper stretch throughout the run. Other than one minor issue, which I resolved, the upper is pretty much what I’d like to see in an all-around trail shoe like this.

The issue I had was that the material they used to back the eyelets and connect to the tongue gusset was super stiff and extended too far down to the toes. This resulted in removing a fair bit of skin on my first run in them. After looking the shoe over and determining that it wouldn’t harm the shoe at all and actually would save some weight in addition to making it more breathable, I cut the gusset and removed the backing material.

Fluidflex upper showing the same material that I cut off the Caldorado.

Notice the material removed including the gusset and stiff eyelet backing.

The offensive material. That white colored material is super stiff and hard which doesn’t flex well and goes way too far down past the tongue attachment.

The difference on the next run was substantial in the comfort department, and I’ve since done a 20 mile trail run sock-less with zero problems. Not sure why they opted with this design on the Caldorado and Fluidflex FKT (I did the same procedure on the latter) since the Trans Alps has a much cleaner design in this department. The good news for me is that it was an easy fix, and the shoe is actually better for it. One other thing I should mention is that Montrail’s new footbed is fairly problematic as well. They construct the last half of it out of EVA, and this is not good if you run sock less (irritation on arch since EVA causes friction when wet). Furthermore, the footbeds are fairly heavy. I just swapped them out for a more standard footbed.

Midsole and Ride

The Caldorado is very much a generalist in terms of its midsole design and ride (and outsole for that matter). In this particular shoe, and how Montrail pulled it off, this is a really good thing. The shoe basically rides like a road trainer, and is at once both forgiving and still responsive. I wouldn’t classify it as a racing shoe or particularly speedy, but it definitely isn’t aiming for max cushion or plushness either. The Fluid Guide that Montrail uses on all of the new 2016 models is really one of its best features. What they do is blend the foam densities from soft in the heel to firm in midfoot and then softer again in the forefoot.

Clean, simple and functional all the way around…and bright!

The result is a much more stable and supportive midsole for long runs and on more technical terrain. One thing I thought was going to be an issue for me with the Caldorado is that the heel flairs out quite a bit, something I usually don’t prefer. However, after running the shoe on smoother trail, and even some road, I found that the midsole really provides a lot of support and stability for longer outings in a more compact package, and I think the heel does contribute, in this case, to that stability (not always the case with every shoe). If they had aimed the shoe for more technical or mountain terrain (i.e. more lug), it would be more of an issue. Overall, the ride is a really nice, middle of the road package, that I could see running up to 100 mile races in, but it doesn’t feel overly built for shorter runs either. Montrail’s Fluid Foam is one of the better injected EVAs on the market, and the shoe just works as intended and advertised.

Outsole

The outsole on the Caldorado is a great design as well, with lower profile lugs than the Trans Alps, and similar to the Bajada, but a little more hard terrain specific, which was the intent of the shoe (and thus the odd name of Caldorado, a combination of California and Colorado, the type of terrain it was designed for). I really like what they did with the perimeter lugs, which are tilted in the direction of travel, but they left the lugs on the interior of the outsole more multi-directional. They aren’t super deep lugs, but aren’t non-existent either at a 5mm lug depth. On the 20 miler I used them for, I encountered a wide range of conditions from road to smooth trail, to rocky trail, and really slick mud, and the shoe did well in everything but the mud. To be fair, most shoes, other than fell running type shoes, would have done just as poorly in mud. Better yet, the outsole compound they use is both adequately sticky on rock, but very durable, and shows hardly any wear at this point.

The one other notable feature about the outsole of the Caldorado are the significant flex grooves in the forefoot. I wasn’t too keen on these initially, but again with the end design intent of smoother, dry trail usage, they really make the shoe feel much lighter and more nimble than its 11 oz weight would imply. The flexibility is great, and with the co-molded rock plate, I haven’t noticed any protection issues either. Again, if it was intended for technical trail, I think the flex grooves are a bad idea, but as an all-arounder, it works well and makes the shoe less clunky which is nice.

Fantastic outsole design with almost all the elements I look for in an outsole.

Conclusion

If you’ve read this far, then you can probably already guess that I really like the shoe. I think Montrail has made a fantastic all-around trail shoe that will handle long miles and yet still be enjoyable on shorter outings. The materials are quality and durable, and the design is smart and functional. If you have dry, hardpacked trails that you run on, I really can’t think of too many shoes out there that perform as well as the Caldorado. The Pearl Izumi N2 is probably the closest competitor, but a much different approach with the PI shoes using a rocker and wide midfoot, whereas the Caldorado has a narrower midfoot midsole design and gains stability with the higher density foam (Fluid Guide) in the midfoot. I also think Montrail’s Fluid Foam is superior to PI’s (one of the biggest drawbacks of the PI’s in my opinion).

All in all, the Caldorado is highly recommended and will certainly be on my feet a lot this summer as the trails dry out. Montrail has done a fantastic job nearly re-imagining the brand, and has come out with some of their best models yet. More reviews to come of the Trans Alps and Fluidflex FKT.

The Montrail Caldorado is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Wiggle.

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

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

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

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

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

Very minimalist design overall, and great last shape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adidas

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

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

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

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

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

Altra

The Olympus is every bit as substantial as any Hoka.

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

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

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

Altra Superior 2.0

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

Slightly new upper and sizing issue corrected.

Brooks

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

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

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

Dynafit

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

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

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

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

Hoka One One

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

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

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

La Sportiva

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

New upper that might modernize the fit a little.

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

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

AT rubber throughout (blue FriXion “x”)

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

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

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

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

Montrail

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

Great new upper with refined overlays and seamless design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The North Face

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

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

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

Great looking Vibram Megagrip outsole with a forefoot rock plate.

Saucony

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

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

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

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

Salomon

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

Slightly lighter overlays and more open mesh design.

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

You can see tissue paper through mesh…thin!

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

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

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

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

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

Scarpa

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

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

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

Great lug design and placement.

Skechers

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

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

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

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

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

by Carsten Hoever

As a European running shoe geek you sometimes have to gamble. Some shoes only make it to Europe months after their release in the US, and some shoes never officially make it over the big pond. While it is usually not difficult to find a retailer willing to ship the shoe of desire over to Europe, it is costly (think international shipping charges, taxes, and customs) and there is no safety line: if you don’t like the shoe, or if it simply doesn’t fit, you’re screwed. Yet, sometimes there is a shoe for which you are willing to take the risk. For me, the Montrail Fluidflex II was my most recent shoe gamble.

If you don’t like to read lengthy reviews, you can stop here: I won the lottery, maybe not first prize, but maybe second or third, with this gamble. With a stack height of 15m/11mm (according to Montrail; Running Warehouse reports 22mm heel, 17mm forefoot) and a weight of just 8.3oz (238g), and, according to Montrail, “a close-to-ground feel that both flexes with the natural movement of your foot, and protects it at the same time” I envisioned the Fluidflex II to be a good replacement for my Nike Terra Kigers which were nearing the end of their life. After having run close to 90km on varying surfaces and all different types of conditions I have to say that this assumption was true: the Fluidflex II shares many of the ingredients which made the Kigers (and the Wildhorse) such a fan favorite. Let’s dig into the details, from top to bottom.

Upper Construction

The Fluidlfex II upper can be described as a simple, no frills upper which is more about functionality than appearance. That does not mean that the upper is ugly; the plain black/gray design is simply a (welcome?) contrast to the nearly psychedelic colorways of many other shoes these days. The upper consists of what seems to be two different types of mesh: a more open one over the front third and lateral side of the shoe, and a denser mesh for the the rest. Relatively little material is added to provide structure; there are some seamless overlays on the medial side and around the lower heel. There is also a small toe bumper to provide some protection for the front of the foot. The heel collar is relatively soft, and there are two small “pillows” inside the shoe on each side of the heel to prevent heel slippage. For me this feature worked very well, but I could imagine that this might not be the case for everyone. The upper breathes quite well and, accordingly, also dries relatively quickly after water crossings.

In contrast, the Fluidflex II upper lacks some useful features for tougher trail conditions, such as a randing or a gusseted tongue. I have not run enough miles in the shoe to comment on upper durability, but I would assume it to be similar to other shoes of its class. The fit is ok but not as dialed in as I would have liked it, i.e. for me not as precise as the fit of the Kigers. The upper volume is about average (or slightly above) and the toebox is of medium width, which for me was acceptable as it does not taper very aggressively and there is some stretch to the upper. I should add that I got the shoe in a US10 – if I had been able to buy it locally I certainly would have tried a 9.5 as well, so take my comments on fit with a grain of salt.

Midsole

This is sweet, oh so sweet. The Fluidflex II has a simple, full length EVA midsole (called Fluidfloam by Montrail) without any gimmicks. The closest comparison I can come up with for describing the midsole material is Adidas’s Boost material. The Fluidfloam is maybe less technologically advanced, but the basic ingredients of the ride feel quite similar: It is a slightly softer cushioning but there is plenty of responsiveness if needed. It is one of the few shoes which really work well for me at different speeds, and also surfaces.

The Fluidflex II works well on the trails, but I also wouldn’t hesitate a second to run long stretches of road in it. Compared to the Kigers the ride is slightly softer, with an equal level of ground feel but more flexibility, thanks to the pronounced flex grooves in the mid-/outsole. Obviously, the flexibility is also in part due to the lack of a rock plate. This again hints at the fact that this shoe is probably not designed for the most technical of all trails. Similar to Nike’s latest trail offerings the rear part of the heel is also slightly “lifted” or “rounded”, i.e. not in contact with the ground when standing in the shoes.

Outsole

The front third of the sole, the lateral part of the heel and small bit of the medial part of the heel are covered by Montrail’s Gryptonite flavor of sticky carbon rubber with relatively shallow cube-shaped micro-lugs. The middle third of the sole consists of exposed midsole foam with some grooves and hexagon-shaped voids.

At a first glimpse it is easy to underestimate this simple outsole design. Obviously it is not made for running on deep and soft surfaces (such as mud and snow). On most other surfaces, however, the Fluidflex II provides excellent traction (better than the Kiger or Wildhorse). Especially for wet rocks (and, to a lesser degree wet roots) the traction is among the best I have seen. I attribute this to three different aspects of the shoe design: the relatively small lugs are narrowly spaced, meaning there are many of them, which increases the contact area between shoe and the ground. The flexibility of the shoe, and the softness of the midsole material, also increase the contact area because the shoe can more easily adjust to the surface contours. Finally, in my experience exposed midsole material simply provides more grip on wet surfaces than most rubber compounds.

On the downside, the Fluidflex II shed mud slightly less well than shoes with wider spaced lugs. Wear might also be an issue – after roughly 90km I am seeing clear signs of wear under the big toe area. However, this is a typical high wear area for me and the Fluidflex have seen quite some road mileage as well, so I am not really concerned. I expect the outsole lifetime to be similar to the Kigers.

2015 colorway of the Montrail FluidFlex II

Conclusion

The Montrail Fluidflex II are rather simple shoes but in a good, “let’s just get the job done”, way. They are definitely one of the better trail shoes I have run in over the past year, so my gamble was well worth it. While they are not made for super-technical off-trail runs in the high-mountains, they are very well suited for fast or slow, short or long outings on groomed trails, runnable single-track or hybrid road/trail use.

The only real critique I have of this shoe is the fit of the upper which is slightly too sloppy for my feet. However, it is difficult to say if this is a general problem or if I simply should have gotten them half a size smaller. As a final point I would like to add that while the Fluidflex closely resembles the Nike Terra Kiger in the types of runs they are well suited for, there is actually another shoe which the Fluidflex constantly reminds me of: the Skechers GoRun 2/3, albeit without the midfoot bump and a trail outsole design. Both shoes have simple uppers, are very flexible, and have midsoles of comparable thickness, softness and responsiveness. In that sense the Fluidflex II could be a solid option for fans of Skechers road shoes.

The Montrail Fluidflex II can be purchased at Running Warehouse for the bargain price of $54.88 (on clearance since a new colorway is coming – see photo above). Use code RUNBLOG10 for an additional 10% off. They can also be purchased at Amazon.com for under $50.

If you’ve read any of my past reviews you know that I have a certain ideal shoe that I’m searching for.  My perfect trail shoe would be one with a minimal upper that fits like a glove over the forefoot, a wide toe box, excellent drainage, great grip, soft ride, 0-4mm heel/forefoot differential, and enough cushioning to run 100 miles.

One such company is Montrail, and the introduction of the new Fluid Flex seems to meet every single one of my desires (well, in a shoe at least). I’ve been super excited to try it ever since I first caught wind of it.

There are a few things that make me hesitant to wear the Montrail FluidFlex for a 100 mile race, although I haven’t ruled it out yet.  First, the minimal upper doesn’t wrap my foot tight enough. The asymmetrical lacing system is very comfortable, but I just can’t get it tight enough to prevent my toes from hitting against the front of the shoe on long descents. I do have a low volume forefoot and have had this problem in many shoes. I don’t think this will be an issue for most people. 

The other issue, which is very easily fixed, is the laces. They are terrible. They’re way too long and do not stay tied. At all. Especially when wet. I have reverted to tucking them into the front and then tying them again to keep them from coming undone.  No biggie. Just replace them. 

Conclusion

So, did Montrail come up with my dream trail shoe?  Close, damn close!  If I could just get a tad wider toebox (or maybe just a slightly different shape, more like the Altras) and get the upper to fit tighter around my forefoot it would be perfect. They feel like running on a cloud. Those of you looking for a more minimal Hoka with a much better upper will be very excited – they have that same running on a cloud feeling without all the bulk and excess squish.

The Montrail Fluid Flex is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com.

Nate Sanel is an ultrarunner and author of the Dirty Runner column on Runblogger. You can find more of Nate’s writing on his personal blog, Biker Nate, or follow him on Twitter.