The shoe I have used for most of my running this summer has been the Nike Zoom Elite 9, and I have to say that I’ve fallen in love with this one. Now that I’m not routinely getting boxes of review sample shoes anymore, I’ve had to be a bit more judicious about my shoe purchases. My primary criteria in picking a shoe when I made the purchase were: comfortable, light, softish sole, and price <$100. The Nike Zoom Elite 9 meets all of those criteria except for the last one (MSRP is $120). However, Running Warehouse was clearing out some older colorways, so I was able to get a pair for just under $95. (I also bought a pair of the Nike Flyknit Streak on sale, but they went back. One of the worst fitting shoes I have tried – my heel kept sliding off the inside of the sole.)

Let’s start with the specs per Running Warehouse:

Weight: 8.2 oz (men’s size 9)
Heel Stack: 25 mm
Forefoot Stack: 17 mm

What I love most about the Zoom Elite 9 is that it’s a shoe that can handle just about anything you throw at it. I’ve done up to 9 miles on the road (and would not hesitate to use them for longer), and intervals on the track in these shoes. For where my running is right now, they are just about perfect as an all-purpose shoe.

Upper and Fit

The Zoom Elite 9 is an extremely comfortable shoe. The upper is breathable and simple, and the internal lining is incredibly soft. There are no overlays on the outside, and the foot is locked-down by Flywire strands that loop around laces. There is a small heel counter, and the relatively thin tongue is padded in just the right spots.

This is by no means a wide-fitting shoe, but it suits my average width foot just fine with no constriction or discomfort with prolonged wear. I did not have to size up.

Sole

The sole is what makes this shoe work so well for me. Though I’m not in the shape I was a few years ago, my preferences for shoes have not changed much. I like a shoe with a softish heel and a responsive forefoot, and the Zoom Elite 9 fits that description perfectly. The heel feels downright cushy for a performance shoe (similar to the NB 1400, Asics Hyperspeed, etc. – in fact, if you like those, you will like the Zoom Elite), but the forefoot is responsive enough to handle faster paces.

The outsole on the Zoom Elite 9 has a waffle-like pattern of little pentagonal nubs. These offer good grip on the road, but I have noticed relatively rapid wear on the outer portion of the heel. I’m not sure of my total mileage in them, but it’s less than 100 and the nubs in that area are basically gone at this point. I don’t expect that will compromise the performance of the shoe, but clearly the rubber here is not as durable as the crystal rubber on the Saucony Freedom ISO (my previous shoe review).

Conclusion

If you are looking for a versatile, do-it-all shoe that can be had for under $100, the Nike Zoom Elite 9 would be an excellent option. It can handle both distance and speed, and it offers a surprisingly cushy ride in a fairly lightweight package. As mentioned above, if you favor shoes like the NB 1400 or the Asics Hyperspeed, the Zoom Elite would be an excellent addition to your stable.

The Nike Zoom Elite 9 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse for $120, with some colorways on clearance for under $100.

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!

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Nike Lunartempo weigh in at 6.8 oz, and stack heights are 26 mm heel, 18mm forefoot (8 mm drop). MSRP is $110. The fit runs a bit small – I went up a half size in my pair, and would recommend doing so if you plan to try them out.

Upper And Fit

The upper of the Lunartempo is really, really nice. There’s really not that much to say about it – it’s minimally structured – no overlays, no real support elements beyond Flywire strings that attach from the sole to the lace eyelets. I don’t even think there is a heel counter – if present, it’s extremely flexible so as to barely be noticeable. The only area that seems to be reinforced is the front portion of the forefoot over the toes. The upper itself is a breathable, double-layered mesh, and it is largely seamless. I have not run sockless in them, but suspect they would be fine for that purpose. If you like a structured upper, look elsewhere, but for me the upper of the Lunartempo is near perfect.

As mentioned above, the Lunartempo does seem to run about a half-size small. The fit is otherwise nearly perfect on me – the forefoot is average width, and the heel and midfoot are comfortably snug. Though the upper does have a knit-like appearance, it does not have a lot of give to it, and the forefoot is fairly shallow. Not a lot of wiggle space for the toes if you don’t size up.

Sole

My previous experience with Nike Lunar shoes is limited to the Lunar Racer. Like that shoe, the Lunarlon midsole of the Lunartempo is fairly soft, particularly under the heel. If you like a soft ride (like Saucony Kinvara soft, not Hoka Clifton soft), these are definitely worth a look. At first I felt like the ride was kind of dead, but with each subsequent run they kind of grew on me. There’s actually a bit of snappiness in the Lunartempo despite the softish sole, and at around 7 oz I could see using these for races from the half to full marathon (not a lot of shoes in that weight-class that I’d use for double-digit racing). If you’re looking for a racing shoe that retains quite a bit of cushion, these should be near the top of your list.

The outsole of the Lunartempo consists of rubber pods under the forefoot and heel (blue in the photo above). The midfoot is exposed EVA foam. I’m not sure exactly how many miles I’ve put on the shoes (haven’t been using my GPS lately), but it’s a fair amount and the outsole is holding up well. There is a bit of wear under the outer heel of my left shoe, but that is a typical wear pattern for my stride. The Lunartempo is probably not a shoe that will last much beyond 200-300 miles unless you have a low-abrasion stride, but I’m pretty happy with how they have held up so far.

Conclusion

The Nike Lunartempo should appeal to runners who like lightweight shoes with minimally structured uppers. It could be an all-purpose shoe for those in that category. It is also worth a look for those who like more structure, but want a lighter shoe for speed workouts or race day. They retain a surprising amount of cushion for a sub-7 oz shoe, and would be suitable for long runs and longer races. They’re also a reasonably affordable shoe in a market where shoe prices seem to be skyrocketing more and more every year ($110 MSRP, thought they can be found online for under $75).

The Nike Lunartempo can be purchased at Running Warehouse.

Specs

Price: $125.00

Weight: 320 g (11.2 oz) in my size 13, 255 g (9.0 oz) in men’s 9 and 204 g (7.2 oz) in women’s 8

Stack Height: 24mm heel, 20mm forefoot

Specs from Running Warehouse

A little wider and more open mesh in forefoot. Less structure around eyelets with the removal of the regrind rubber and more structure in the heel.

Upper and Fit

The Kiger 2 had one of the best uppers I’ve ever experienced on a shoe.  It was light and minimal, but  just supportive enough that was super comfortable and still handled a lot of abuse.  There was feedback from some folks that they thought the toebox was a little shallow.  I personally didn’t feel that to be the case, and never had any issues.  The Kiger 3 uses a very similar material with engineered mesh openings in various parts of the upper.  Bigger holes in the forefoot for better ventilation aren’t hurting anything and the design looks nice.  After that though, there are a few changes I don’t like.  First, it is just not as snug or precise of a fit as the Kiger 2.  It is definitely wider in the forefoot and a taller toebox than v2.  Additionally, the heel collar is much more built up than v2, with more padding and a thin counter that creates more structure. It just doesn’t fit as close and comfortable as the heel on the Kiger 2.

One last minor thing (but the little things do make a difference), the re-grind rubber they used on Kiger 2 to line the eyelets and parts of the tongue help blunt some of the pressure from the laces and allow for a snugger fit with less discomfort.  I think I miss the Kiger 2 heel collar the most, and the snugger more secure fit next.  The regrind was just a nice touch that helped overall.

Stack height is 3mm higher at 24H/20FF compared to 21H/17FF of the Kiger 2. Dampens the effect of the Zoom units for me.

Midsole and Ride

The upper on the Kiger 3 is more of a minor deviation from v2, but the midsole and ride have changed a little more substantially.  It wouldn’t seem like much;  3 extra mm of stack height, and possibly a little softer durometer of Phylon.  It looks deceptively similar to the Kiger 2, but the ride is quite different.  It feels more substantial, stiffer and not as sharp or racy as the Kiger 2.  It is much more protective and more supportive for long runs, but what I really enjoyed in the Kiger 2 was its mix of cushion and racing shoe feel. That combo is now nearly non-existent.

The extra stack height and outsole also dampen the effect of the Zoom Air units for me, and that was one of the highlights of the Kiger 2.  Those light and protective pockets of air really allowed for a nice ride on such a light shoe.

The last gripe for me with the midsole is that the whole platform is 3-4mm wider at the forefoot (the heel is nearly the same).  This creates a more substantial feeling shoe all around, and one that is less nimble on technical trail, especially when side-hilling.  All that said, if not comparing the Kiger 3 to its predecessor, the ride falls in a sort of middle ground of responsive, protective and cushioned.  It is not really one or the other, but a pretty even mix of all three, somewhat similar to a shoe like the Pearl Izumi Trail N1 or Brooks Pure Grit. It’s not a bad shoe, and it’s still versatile as a trail shoe.  It just doesn’t feel like a Kiger anymore.

Wider forefoot overall on the Kiger 3 and those Kiger 2s have more miles on them so are relatively mashed out and wider than a new pair would be.

Not a huge change in outsole design other than the fact that the piece under the big toe is now fully connected to the edge. Lug design is the biggest change and contributes to the more substantial feel.

Outsole

The outsole on the Kiger 3 makes an attempt to address some of the shortcomings of the v1 and v2 outsole.  First, it closes the “outsole ring” at the big toe.  I wish they’d have just closed it all the way around, but what they did do creates a little more control at toe off and edging on that medial side.  Second, the lugs are deeper, there are more of them, and the heel actually has lugs that provide some traction, albeit with a rounded design that still adds too much weight with little benefit.

I initially thought I would like the extra lug, but it turns out that it contributed to ruining the ride for me.  The shoe now has very little float (some small sliding on foot strike) on downhills, and instead just sticks on landing and robs responsiveness from the midsole.  This goes back to reaffirming my view that shoes with deeper or more lug need less stack height and narrower profiles.  The Kiger 3 increases the stack height and widens the profile.  The result to me is a shoe tha doesn’t run that light and nimble anymore, but straddles the lightweight and neutral trail categories, with a quasi all-mountain style of outsole which doesn’t mesh very well with the midsole setup for me.

Those black lugs are a very hard, high abrasion compound and those on the lateral midfoot decrease the float substantially. Also too much of the outsole is high up on the rounded heel…those lugs will hardly ever touch the ground but add weight; not a design I’m fond of.

Overall Thoughts

Well shoot!  The Kiger 3 really doesn’t turn out to be the update I was hoping for.  That said, it doesn’t mean it is a bad shoe. It still has a lot to offer, especially to the runner who wanted more shoe than the Kiger 2. As with most of Nike’s current offerings, the materials and construction are top notch. It just didn’t match up in the ride department to what I had grown used to with the Kiger 2.

My thoughts on my final run in them before this review was that the shoe is really a much better successor to the Wildhorse 2 than the Kiger 2.  It retains the same 4mm drop as the Wildhorse 2, the deeper lugs, and a slightly more protective, yet less focused, ride.  If you liked the Wildhorse 2, I think the Kiger 3 is really a nice update that offers a lot of what that shoe offered with a better upper, outsole and Zoom Air in the forefoot, with probably more protection overall.  The new Wildhorse 3 is really is in its own category, and a pretty different shoe from the Wildhorse 2; much softer, more drop, wider, and more substantial all the way around.  To me, this leaves a gaping hole to fill in the Nike lineup for a true followup to the Kiger 2; something that stays in the 7-8 oz range, features full coverage outsole with shallower lugs and a narrower/sharper platform.  I’d really like to see a shoe that blends the Kiger 2 with a shoe like the forthcoming Zoom Streak LT 3 – now that the Kiger 3 and Wildhorse 3 have been beefed up, the doors are wide open for that shoe to have its place.

The Nike Terra Kiger 3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Running Warehouse EU, and Nike.com.

I’m going to keep this short since the shoe will be replaced soon. In a nutshell, the Zoom Streak LT2 is an ultralight (5.5 oz), 4mm drop (22mm heel, 18mm forefoot) facing flat. It’s stands out to me for several reasons:

1. It’s a Nike flat that actually fits me. Historically I’ve had very little luck with Nike flats since most fit very narrow. The Streak LT2 is by no means a wide shoe, but it’s wide enough, with a stretchy enough upper over the forefoot, to fit comfortably. If you’ve had similar issues with fit in Nike shoes, this is one to try.

2. For a flat, it has a very forgiving midsole. Many flats have extremely firm midsoles to give them that snappy feel needed for speed. The Cushlon midsole of the LT2 actually feels quite soft under the heel, which makes it suitable for longer runs for me. It has a smooth, fluid ride, similar to shoes like the Asics Hyperspeed or New Balance 1400.

3. It has a grippy outsole. The outsole under the forefoot is nubby, and provides great grip on the road.

4. Great midfoot lockdown. There is a second layer of material inside the upper that integrates with the laces to create a great lockdown in the region of the midfoot (it’s hard to describe this feature in words). The rest of the upper is very simple in construction, which is exactly what I like in a shoe.

5. It’s cheap! MSRP is $75, but it can be found for under $60 on Running Warehouse right now with the new update coming. If you want an ultralight racer with plenty of cushion, now might be the perfect time to give the LT2 a try.

The Free 5.0 has the highest heel-forefoot drop and a more traditional, though still fairly minimal, upper. The Free 4.0 has a Flyknit upper with a tongue and it occupies the middle ground with regard to amount of cushion and structure. The Free 3.0 is the most minimal  (lower number = more minimal) of the three shoes with the thinnest sole and a Flyknit upper with no tongue. It’s basically a sock with a sole attached.

I’ve long been a fan of the Free 3.0 line. The original 3.0 remains one of my all-time favorite shoes, and I’ve run in several of the subsequent iterations. However, I passed on the 2014 version of the Free 3.0, which was the first version to incorporate the Flyknit upper. I’d heard that the upper was pretty tight (it needs to be somewhat tight since it is what secures the foot to the sole – the laces do very little), and the $140 price tag was a bit much to swallow. However, it’s one of those shoes that readers have asked about a lot, and several have suggested that I try it.

I was recently contacted by Nike about the new Free line, and they sent along a pairs of the 2015 Free 3.0 and 4.0 for me to test out. I’ve now been running in the 3.0 for several weeks, and it’s time for a review. (Disclosure: The shoes reviewed here are media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer.)

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Free 3.0 Flyknit weighs in at 7.1 oz in men’s size 9. Sole stack heights are 21 mm heel, 17 mm forefoot for a drop of 4mm.

Upper and Fit

The upper of the Free 3.0 is about as minimal as you can get. It’s a single piece, knit upper with Flywire extending from the sole to the lace attachments. There are only three lace loops on each side, and the laces are very thin. That’s about it!

In terms of function and fit, I’ve come to love the upper on this shoe. It isn’t nearly as tight-fitting as I anticipated, and it does a great job of securing my foot against the sole. My guess is that fit and security will be highly dependent on foot shape – if you have a particularly wide foot it may feel a bit restricting, if you have a narrow foot you may have some lack of security, though in the latter case the laces may help a bit. Personally, I haven’t cinched the laces at all and tension in the upper weave is pretty much solely responsible for keeping the shoe on my foot.

Given that it is essentially a sock with a sole, sockless wear is a perfectly viable option with this shoe (though removal of the tag from the insole might help avoid some friction).

My favorite thing about the upper of this shoe is the fact that it is super easy to slip on without messing with the laces. In fact, I haven’t touched the laces since the first time I put the shoes on my feet. You can simply grab the upper behind the heel, stretch it back, then slide your foot in. Love this, and makes it a super easy shoe to get on and off for casual wear.

One final comment on fit – you will probably notice from the images of this shoe that it appears to have a pretty substantial amount of toe spring. The reason for this is the tension in the knit upper combined with the flexiblity of the sole. It flattens out once your foot is in the shoe  – the foot stretches the upper and weight pushes the sole flat. I have not had any issues with this aspect of the shoe.

Sole

The first thing I noticed about the sole of this shoe was that the forefoot felt surprisingly cushy. Despite having the thinnest sole of the three running shoes in the Free line, I feel like the 3.0 has the best forefoot cushioning of the group, and it remains noticeable when running in the shoes. In contrast, the heel has a firmer feel, and this makes for a unique ride – it’s more common for the reverse to be the case. Combined with the extreme flexibility of the siped sole, the unique feel of the cushioning has made for enjoyable ride  runs up to 9 miles so far. I actually think I prefer the 3.0 for longer runs over it’s more structured sibling the 5.0 – the 3.0 is one of those shoes that just disappears on my feet.

One concern present with every Free shoe is that the grooves in the sole tend to pick up rocks and other small road debris. I’ve certainly picked up my share of pebbles in the 3.0, but no huge rocks that have forced me to stop for a clean-up during a run. That being said, I wouldn’t recommend taking these off-road if you are worried about picking up debris.

Nike Free 3.0 (left) and 5.0 (right). Note the more rounded heel of the 3.0.

As for durability, there is not a lot of rubber on the sole of this shoe – just a few small patches around the heel and under the big toe. Wear after about 30 miles of running and considerable casual use has been minimal so far. Interestingly, I saw a fair amount of wear on the heel rubber of the 5.0 after similar mileage. This has not happened in the 3.0, and I think it may be due to the more rounded sole in the heel region of this shoe (see photo above) – it doesn’t catch the ground as easily as that of the 5.0 (I tend to scuff a bit on the outer heel).

Conclusion

If you want a minimally structured shoe that feels like an extension of your foot but retains solid cushioning, the Free 3.0 would be one of my top recommendations. If you are new to this type of shoe, I would recommend a slow transition due to the extreme flexibility and minimal structure of the upper.

The 3.0 is also a great choice as part of a shoe rotation if you want something to force you foot to do a bit more work on occasional workouts. My only real concern with this shoe is the price tag – $140 is pretty steep, and the slightly cheaper 4.0 offers a similar ride and a more traditional Flyknit upper. If you can afford it though, the Free 3.0 Flyknit is worth a try!

The Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Nike.com, and Wiggle (UK).

Where you are less likely to see the Free 5.0 is at a running race. The reason is that the immense popularity of the shoe is tied more to it’s use for casual wear rather than for running. In terms of typical usage, it’s more of a fashion shoe than a running shoe.

I’ve been running in various versions of the Nike Free since 2009, and they have consistently been among my favorites. With their moderately thin, super-flexible soles, and minimally structured uppers, the Frees are intended to provide a more minimal, barefoot-inspired ride. Nike described them as a training tool to be used on occasion to strengthen the feet and legs. I tend to use them more as a lightweight trainer for shorter to moderate distance runs. And for that purpose they have served me very well.

The 5.0 is the most amply cushioned member of the Free collection. I’ve run in a few previous versions (it used to be called the Free Run+), but the 2014 model was a no-go for me due to a constricting band at the base of the lace rows. It dug into my foot and caused pain, an experience others with high-volume feet have reported as well. When I first saw the pictures of the 2015 version of the Free 5.0 it appeared that this band was gone, so I ordered a pair to give them a try. I’m glad I did as the problem has been fixed, and I’ve really enjoyed running in the shoes over the past several weeks.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Nike Free 5.0 2015 weighs in at 7.6 oz in men’s size 9. Stack heights are 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot.

Upper and Fit

I’ll start by saying that the Free 5.0 is a ridiculously comfortable shoe, and I think this is part of what drives its popularity. Yes, they consistently look great. Yes, they come in a rainbow of colors. Yes, they have a swoosh on the side. But add in the fact that they feel like slippers on your feet and you have the makings of a bestselling shoe for the masses.

The 5.0 has a generous fit in the forefoot which is a major plus for the comfort factor. I think most people are used to wearing shoes that are a bit narrower – put on a shoe like the Free and you can feel the difference when your toes have a bit of room to move around. I almost always go up a half size in Nikes, and I did so in this shoe as well – the bit of extra space up front makes for an even roomier experience.

One of the things I’ve always loved about the Free shoes is that they lack a heel counter. In case you’re not familiar with the terminology, a heel counter is a firm, plastic insert located in the back of many shoes to give the heel region structure. In the Free 5.0 there is no counter at all, and this adds to the slipper-like experience. The lack of a heel counter is also one of the reasons why I often recommend the Free to people with insertional Achilles tendon issues that may be aggravated by a plastic counter in the heel.

The remainder of the upper is soft and flexible, and the interior is super comfortable and suitable for sockless wear. The laces are slightly offset to the side, and loop through flywire bands that help to lock the middle of the foot down. The mesh over the forefoot has a bit of give/stretch – very nice.

Overall, I’d go so far as to say that the Free 5.0 is the most comfortable shoe I have worn this year. I’m having a hard time keeping them off my feet!

Sole

The sole of the 5.0 has the characteristic siping grooves that are featured on all Nike Free shoes. The sipes make for an extremely flexible sole that bends and rolls with ease. Your foot will basically do what it wants in this shoe, which could be either a good thing or a bad thing. I love a minimally controlling shoe so they work very well for me, but they can also exaggerate foot movement in some cases. For example, I filmed my wife running in an older version of the Frees and the sole flexibility tended to exaggerate her pronation on one side (she has a bunion on one side and tends to cave some shoes during late-stage pronation).

Scientific studies have actually found that people transitioning to Frees can experience higher impact loading due to the reduced amount of cushion, and another study found that runners transitioning into Frees had higher injury rates than those transitioning into either the Nike Pegasus or Vibram Fivefingers. This points to the potential risk of a moderately cushioned shoe like the Free 5.0. There is enough cushion that it probably won’t stimulate a major change in your stride, but there is probably less cushion than you are used to having to deal with the impacts of running. As such, it is suggested that you use some caution when beginning to run in a shoe like the Free 5.0.

In terms of the ride, I find the Free 5.0 to be semi-firm with not a lot of rebound. It’s a smooth shoe due to the extreme flexibility of the sole, but it is not the most responsive shoe on the market. It’s not a shoe you would choose for your next 5K, and probably not the best choice for a marathon unless you have done extensive training in them. I prefer them for runs from about 3-10 miles. My max in the 5.0 2015 is a bit over eight miles in one run, and short of a few hot spots on the inside of my heels (not sure what caused this) they worked just fine.

A quick comment on durability. After about 30 miles of running and extensive casual wear the soles of the Free 5.0 look pretty good. The only exception is that one of the black outsole patches near the heel has worn down on one side to reveal a different colored rubber below (I’m a bit of a scuffer). I don’t expect this will be a problem from a functional standpoint, but you may not get hundreds of miles out of a shoe like this that has such a small amount of rubber on the sole.

Conclusion

The Nike Free 5.0 2015 is lightweight, flexible, and incredibly comfortable. If your sole reason for wanting them is for casual use, go out and get a pair right now, they are that good. For running, they aren’t fast and they aren’t super cushioned so not the best choice for an all-around trainer. But for short to moderate length runs where you want a very flexible, minimally controlling ride with some cushion they are a solid option. And if, like me, you couldn’t wear the 2014 version due to that tight band over the forefoot, rest assured that the problem has now been fixed.

The Nike Free 5.0 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Running Warehouse EU, and Zappos. You can also customize a pair in whichever color combo you could imagine via Nike ID. Sales made through these links help to support this site – thanks!

In contrast to the 4.0, the 5.0 was a total bust for me. A band of material at the base of the lace row was too tight and dug into my foot. Sizing up did not help, and I was forced to return the pair that I purchased.

Today Nike releases the 2015 editions of the Free running shoes, with new versions of the 5.0, 4.0, and 3.0 hitting the market (they are now in-stock at the Nike.com store). All three look to be upper updates that retain the sole of previous versions – this is encouraging as the issues I had with the 4.0 and 5.0 had to do with the uppers.

Nike Free 5.0 2015

The new Free 5.0 has a completely redesigned upper, and the band that dug into my foot in the 2014 version looks to be gone. Given my affinity for the Free shoes and the lower price tag on this one, this is likely to be the model that I’ll pick up among the three released today. MSRP for the new Free 5.0 is $100. Update 5/18/2015: View my review of the 2015 Nike Free 5.0 here.

Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit 2015

The new 4.0 appears pretty similar overall to the previous version – looks like a slightly different lacing system and a different mesh over the midfoot region. Not sure if the differences to the upper are enough to make me splurge on a pair. MSRP for the new Free Flyknit 4.0 is $120.

Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit 2015

I never ran in the 2014 3.0 Flyknit, though I heard good things about it from a lot of runners.  Like it’s predecessor, the new 3.0 is constructed like a sock attached to a sole, with slight tweaks to the upper design. Looks like a slight change in construction of the ankle collar, and a different mesh under the laces and over the forefoot. I remain intrigued by this shoe, but the $140 price tag is just a bit too high for my taste.

All of the above shoes are now available for purchase at Nike.com.

I’ve now run well over 75 miles in the Zoom Elite 7, about 50% on road and 50% on mostly hardpack, non-technical trail.  Below are my thoughts at this point.

Specs

Price: $110 MSRP (the color I bought is now on sale at Running Warehouse here)

Colorways: 6 colors that I’ve seen (5 on Nike’s site here and the initial launch color that I purchased that is now on sale )

Weight:  9.0 oz/255 in size 9 mens; 11.11 oz/315 g in my size 13 men’s; and 7.9 oz/223 g in size 8 for women (stats via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 25 mm Heel; 18 mm Forefoot stack height for both men and women

Upper & Fit

Nice materials, completely seamless, flywire.  Notice fairly thin tongue; not problematic for me, but noteworthy.

This is one area where I really think Nike did well with this shoe.  Before getting to the good stuff, I should mention that I had to cut the arch area away on the sockliner/footbed because it seemed to cause blisters on my arch at times. I did this on the Kiger and Kiger 2 as well – since the interiors of all three of the Nike shoes are completely seamless it appears to be a footbed-specific issue.  Not a problem overall because it is fixed very easily with some scissors. It’s just somewhat annoying to have to do this to every new Nike shoe that I buy.

The Elite 7 has a very nice internal liner and I’ve had no problem running sockless in them.  The overlays hold the foot well, and the material seems very durable.  It has a similar construction to the Kiger where it has an outer mesh (in the Elite 7’s case with some thin welded overlays instead of the engineered mesh), an internal liner, and flywire sandwiched in between.  The fit is probably medium width in the toebox, with the shoe running just a bit long to me (1/4 size maybe).  The lacing is slightly asymmetrical, which didn’t cause any problems, but I usually don’t prefer it.  The only slight issue I had with the fit is that I felt that the heel collar, while well padded, extended up a bit too high.  This only caused a small hot spot one time (on a 2.5 hr run), but it is definitely a design flaw in my mind…probably irrelevant if you wear socks.  Overall, another example of Nike’s use of quality materials and construction methods at a decent price.

Midsole & Ride

Lots of similarity to the Pegasus 31 in design and appearance of midsole.  Firmer and notice somewhat rockered geometry that creates the “roll” in the ride.

While the Elite 7 is designed as an uptempo running shoe, its stack height is somewhat substantial.  Additionally, while the midsole material is firmer than, say the Pegasus 31, it is not as firm as most racing shoes.  The shoe is fairly stiff longitudinally though, and that, combined with the “crash rails” on the lateral side of the shoe, give the ride a rolling feel (akin to, but not as pronounced as, a Pearl Izumi N1/N2).  While this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your preference, the end result is that the shoe is not that flexible, but still runs fairly nimbly despite the lack of flexibility.  It has a zoom air unit in the forefoot, along with a solid patch of rubber outsole on the forefoot, which provides great protection across the metatarsals.  That protection is no doubt the best feature of the ride for me; lots of help for tired feet without the weight of a full blown trainer.

There are some problems with the ride for me, however.  Mainly it has to do with the outsole design in which there are pretty stiff crash rails on the lateral side with no rubber under the medial heel. This leads to feeling your heel dump medially on initial contact.  It stabilizes for me pretty quickly once I’m on my forefoot, but I find that I’m compensating for it, and after awhile I get fatigued at trying to weight my forefoot earlier than normal.  This could have been easily fixed if Nike had just extended the medial heel rubber over another two inches.  I’m fine with not having rubber on the arch area on a road shoe, but I think the heel needs it on the medial side (unless the entire outsole is EVA and not rubber, like the inov-8 Road-X Lite 155).

Outsole

Nice outsole other than glaring omission of medial heel rubber.

Other than the lack of medial heel rubber, the outsole design is pretty good for a road shoe.  I like the lateral midfoot coverage, something many shoes don’t have, which, if you land midfoot, tends to eat up the exposed midsole.  I like the solid rubber forefoot that gives great protection over the metatarsals, and the rubber seems to be holding up very well even though I’ve run at least 35-40 miles on trails.

Overall Impressions

The Nike Zoom Elite 7 is a really nice shoe overall with one issue that may or may not be a major one depending on your gait: the lack of rubber under the inner heel.  For me it has really detracted from what otherwise is a great all-around shoe that even handles trails quite well.  All in all, I would recommend the shoes with the caveat that for some (maybe most) you will notice some lateral buildup relative to the medial side.  If Nike fixed this one issue, I would call them one of the best versatile trainers out there that could go long or fast and not feel bad at either.

The Nike Zoom Elite 7 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Amazon.com, and Nike.com. Outside of the US they can be purchased at Wiggle. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

Only a short while after my review I started to see rumors that a version 2 of the Kiger was already on its way. Although I’m sure nobody from Nike read my review, it seemed they had read my mind based on what I was hearing regarding updates in version 2. Firmer midsole, more secure upper, better heel stability. Given that these were all things I had pointed out as needing improvement in the first version, I was eager to give the v2 a spin.

Specs

Price: $125 MSRP (one color is on sale on Running Warehouse here)

Colorways: 5 colors that I’ve seen (Nike’s site with all colors here)

Weight:  8.5 oz/240g in size 9 mens; 9.87 oz/280 g in my size 13 men’s; and 7.2 oz/204 g in size 8 for women (stats via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 21 mm Heel; 16 mm Forefoot stack height for both men and women

Upper & Fit

The Kiger 2 upper and fit is at the top of its class – in my opinion, it’s one of the best uppers on the market today. It provides one of the best, most secure, yet not confining fits that I’ve tried.  They are just super comfortable and yet very secure at the same time.  I wish they would put the engineered mesh style upper on more of their shoes.  It is extremely durable and yet very light and simple.  On the Kiger 2 there are fewer gaps in the the mesh which makes it more durable, and there is less give in the upper than the Kiger 1.

The tongue is slightly less padded than that of the Kiger 1, but actually feels better. The heel collar is also less padded and yet feels just as comfortable.

Nike used their regrind material as overlays mainly in the heel area to increase structure. It works well.  The Kiger 2 feels much more secure laterally in the upper, and many of the problems I had with the heel being unstable in the Kiger 1 are remedied because of this (and changes to the midsole which I will get to below).

Bottom line, the Kiger 2 represents some of the best upper design I’ve seen yet in a shoe, and I’ve tried a lot of shoes. The Kiger 2 is at the top of my list.

Midsole & Ride

The midsole on the original Kiger was nice, but overall felt just a little too soft. In particular, the heel of the original Kiger was much too soft (it had a dual density foam with a softer compound in the heel), which I think created most of the instability problems that I experienced on technical terrain with that shoe.  The Kiger 2 was updated with a single density midsole throughout, and feels firmer overall.  The result, while not changing the DNA of the shoe, was a huge improvement for me.  It made a shoe that was iffy at best on technical terrain to one that could cover the gamut of almost any trail conditions.  As such, I ended up using the Kiger 2 for half of the Rut 50k and it performed very well on terrain that it is not ideally designed for…after that race I was convinced that they had fixed the stability issues on more technical terrain.  There are not many races in the US that cover more technical terrain than the Rut 50k.

Though the ride is incrementally sharper and firmer, don’t be turned off by that if you prefer softer shoes.  It’s not even close to the firmest shoe I’ve run in, and still feels softer than most inov-8’s, Merrells, or a shoe like the New Balance 110v1. The added firmness gives it more stability, precision, protection from rocks, and support for longer runs.  The midsole update is what really makes the shoe.  The upper is an added bonus, but the upper change alone would not have fixed the majority of the problems I had with Kiger 1. The new midsole does.

Outsole

Nike Terra Kiger 2 Outsole. Soft rubber in the middle, regrind (which is much harder) on the outside. Still not crazy about outsole design, but the harder rubber on the outside does hold up better.

Here lies the last issue I had with the Kiger 1, and it remains largely unchanged on the Kiger 2.  The outsole design is the same; not the greatest IMO and still sporting the ridiculous heel design, although I didn’t cut it off this time. This seems to confirm that the outsole design was not the main culprit in the instability of the heel I felt in the Kiger 1 (the soft midsole seems to have been the problem).  The only thing changed on the Kiger 2 outsole is the use of a regrind rubber on the outside rubber piece where the Kiger 1 had the softer sticky rubber across the entire outsole.  The benefit of this is that the regrind rubber is more durable (much harder rubber) and contributes to a little more precise edging.

The heel lug pattern is still as bothersome to me as it was before.  It just adds weight while giving nearly no usable traction benefit.  If they can dial in the outsole without messing up the rest of the shoe for version 3, it really would be the best all around lightweight trail shoe on the market.

Overall Impressions

The Nike Terra Kiger 2 is a fantastic shoe overall. Even with the bunk outsole design, it still might be the best lightweight trail shoe on the market.

If you run mostly in minimal shoes, try the Kiger 2.  You will enjoy the extra cushion and responsiveness of the midsole while still feeling right at home with the fit and flat feeling of the sole.  If you run in more substantial footwear, I’d also recommend the Kiger 2 as it will feel light and nimble yet not leave you hanging in any area.  There is enough stack height and protection that it feels substantial, yet still fast.  A very impressive achievement for a shoe a shoe in the low 8 oz range.  Highly recommended!

The Nike Terra Kiger 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Nike.com. Outside of the US they can be purchased at Wiggle. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

My first experience with the Nike Pegasus came when I bought a pair of the Peg 29 for a consulting project I was working on. I tried them on at a Nike outlet and was surprised by how comfortable they were (I often have trouble with Nike’s being too narrow). They had a very soft feel underfoot, and I couldn’t help but take them for a run. On the run they felt great, but I started to experience some abrasion along the ball behind my right big toe. This is very common for me in shoes that have a soft forefoot – I tend to pronate more on my right side and have a tendency to cave in the inner border of shoes with soft forefoot midsoles. You can see this phenomenon in action in the video below:

When Nike released the Peg 31 I had heard from fellow shoe geeks that they made the shoe a bit firmer, particularly under the forefoot. Given my experience with the Peg 29, I couldn’t resist giving them a try – a similar ride with a more stable forefoot might just do the trick. A few weeks ago I headed over to my local running store to try a pair on. They fit well and felt good underfoot, so I brought them home with me (Disclosure: these shoes were a personal purchase).

Specs

I’ve now run almost 50 miles in the Nike Pegasus 31, and overall I have to say I’m incredibly impressed. By specs, the Peg 31 is very much a conventionally structured running shoe with a lot of cushion. My size 10 pair weighs in at just over 10.5 oz, and Running Warehouse lists the stack at 31mm heel, 18mm forefoot (the 4-5 mm thick insole adds a bit more to that) Note that Nike claims 10mm drop for the Peg – I had a hard time measuring due to the integrated upper liner so could not confirm, but I think it’s higher than 10mm. In any case, the Peg 31 is probably the highest drop shoe that I’ve put this many miles on since 2009-2010.

Ride

What’s surprised me the most about the Pegasus is that the shoe doesn’t feel like a 12mm+ drop shoe. I can go put on an old pair of Asics Kayanos (probably from 2008) and feel the high drop, but not so much in the Peg. It think the difference is in the softness – my old Kayano feels hard and stiff, more like I’m standing on a wooden ramp. My heel sinks into the sole of the Peg and gives it a cushy, lower drop feel. Similar experiences with shoes like the adidas Adios Boost and New Balance 1400v2 have really changed how I use drop data to choose shoes to try and review. I’ve come to think of static drop as a number that describes unloaded sole dimensions, and it’s thus not always a good descriptor of how a shoe feels on the run.

On the run, the Peg 31 feels cushy under the heel (there is a zoom air unit under the heel), and the forefoot stability is much improved over the Peg 29’s in the video above. I haven’t taken any video of myself in the 31’s, but I haven’t had any issues with ball of foot abrasion which suggests that the problem has been fixed. They also just feel firmer and more responsive under the forefoot.

I’ve done two runs of over 10 miles in the Peg 31’s, and they worked very well for the long stuff if you like a cushy ride. It’s still a bit more shoe than I’d choose to race a marathon in, but for easy runs they feel great. The closest comparison I can come up with is the New Balance Fresh Foam 980 (review coming soon!). And between those two I’d take the Peg 31 due to a better fit up front (the Fresh Foam has a very pointy toebox).

Fit and Upper

Regarding fit, the Peg 31 fits my average width feet snugly but not uncomfortably in my usual size 10. I typically go up a half size in Nikes (e.g., all Nike Frees), but that was not necessary in these. I did find the forefoot a bit constricting in terms of volume while sitting, but once you stand up you compress the sole a bit and it opens things up. I also swapped out the included insole for a thinner one for my first few runs to break the shoe in a bit, then put the original insole back in. This is a practice I often adopt in shoes with a slightly tight fit.

One of the things I like most about the Peg 31 is the upper. It’s a thing of beauty – Nike knows how to make a great-looking shoe, and this one is no exception. Might be one of the best looking shoes I have in my collection right now.

The forefoot is composed of engineered mesh that allows some stretch (see photo at left), which helps to improve the fit. Internally, the upper is lined by a bootie-like layer that is truly seamless from the midfoot forward. It’s incredibly comfortable, and feels great without socks. The only problem I have had is some abrasion at the base of my big toenails on both sides – I think this comes from some reinforcement of the upper over the big toe (I can’t see it internally, but the material is slightly thicker in this area). Interestingly, I have only had this issue with the included insoles – swapping them out for something thinner must create just enough space to reduce any rubbing that is occurring.

Outsole

I’ve already covered sole feel pretty well, but a few comments are warranted about the outsole. There is a lot of rubber under this shoe, and as a result I expect durability shoe be quite good. I’d guess you will see the softish midsole start to break down before you eat through the rubber outsole. One thing I like about the outsole design is that there is a horizontal break that creates a flex groove between the midfoot and forefoot (between the yellow and black areas in the photo below), and another about midway forward on the forefoot. This gives the Peg fairly decent flexibility.

Conclusion

The Nike Pegasus really surprised me – it’s been a long time since I’ve run a decent number of miles in a more traditionally structured running shoe, and the Peg 31 has been working really well. It’s a great looking shoe that offers a cushy heel and responsive forefoot, and that’s a good combo for me. It’s more shoe than I’d use in a race, but for eating up easy miles it’s a fine choice.

Purchasing Options

The Nike Pegasus 31 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Nike.com (or your local running specialty store). Outside of the US they are available at Wiggle (UK).

For a brand without a strong history in the trail market, Nike has created quite the buzz with their latest offerings: the Nike Zoom Terra Kiger and Nike Zoom Wildhorse. Both shoes have a lot of features that will appeal to a wide range of runners, and Nike has even gone so far as to create a brand new Trail Running Team (good info on the team here) that snatched up a lot of young, speedy trail runners to sport the new shoes in races all over the world.

Wildhorse vs. Terra Kiger

Before getting into a review of the Kiger, I wanted to point out some of the few minor differences between the Wildhorse and Kiger, since they are quite similar overall (same platform essentially).

The main differences as I see it from trying both on (I have not run in the Wildhorse) are in the design of the upper. The upper on the Wildhorse has a little more volume, doesn’t use the burrito wrap design, doesn’t have Flywire, and uses a different, more supportive mesh. The only change to the midsole from the Wildhorse is that the Kiger has a zoom unit (a piece of Nike technology that is inserted that uses air to cushion rather than EVA foam) in the forefoot and heel where as the Wildhorse only has one in the heel. Lastly, while sharing essentially the same outsole and midsole shape, the tread is slightly different on the two shoes. Normally I wouldn’t bring up so many features of a shoe I wasn’t actually reviewing, but in this case they are similar enough that I thought it was worth mentioning.

Now on to the Terra Kiger review…

Stats

Price: $125 MSRP

Colorways: I’ve seen 4 different colorways that are currently available: Blue/Citron, Grey/Volt, Blue/Volt, Green/Purple; the colorway of the pair shown that I’m reviewing is discontinued.

Weight:  8.3 oz/235 g in size 9 mens; 10.1 oz/285 g in my size 13 men’s; and 7.1 oz/200 g in size 8 for women (stats via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 23 mm Heel; 19 mm Forefoot stack height for both men and women (midsole heights of 10-14 mm are actually etched on the side of the shoe)

Appearance & Design

The Kiger is a very nice looking shoe, and looks fast while remaining fairly simple in design. Overall the design should appeal to a wide range of runners. It’s relatively light, well cushioned, and at 4mm drop still meets much of the market for this type of shoe. The design of the upper is great and definitely a highlight for me. It’s the first shoe where I felt the burrito wrap design actually worked.

My biggest issue with the Kiger is in the sole design, particularly in the heel. The midsole shape in the heel is very fat for a racier shoe, and because the outsole curves up the side and back of the heel and doesn’t actually make contact with the ground, this adds instability and unnecessary weight to the shoe. As far as I can tell this design serves no purpose. The tread on the heel is also terrible with a shallow pyramid design that neither gives traction, nor stability of any kind.

After two runs in the the shoe (and a few near ankle sprains), I took out the razor blade and grinding wheel and got to work (see comparison pictures below).  After shaving all the excess outsole and thinning the width of the midsole, I can happily say the shoe runs much better. I put about 20 miles on the stock version and 30+ on the modified version and it almost feels like a different shoe on single track trail or uneven ground. Oh, and it dropped nearly 15 grams (0.5 oz) off the shoe which is not insignificant for a shoe in the 8 oz range.

Materials & Construction

This is where Nike really shines in my opinion. Likely because of their size and the breadth of products that they design and offer, Nike has a ton of fabulous materials to deploy on their shoes. They really show this off in the Kiger upper.

The upper material has a Flyknit-like pattern to it (to be clear it is not a Flyknit upper) that they call engineered mesh where the mesh has different weave densities in different locations. This material is awesome as it is super light and simple and, so far, has been very durable. I’ve taken them off-trail, through brush and other abrasive objects, and there is not a sign of wear on it. The interior of the upper is equally impressive with a full liner next to the foot and a super soft heel that does not have a heel counter. It is one of the softest uppers I’ve run in. I’ve run sock-less in this shoe for every mile even in 85+ deg F heat and no issues at all.

I’ll comment more on the midsole in the ride section, but the foam is high quality (I’ve seen conflicting pieces of info that it is full length Phylon and other places report that it is a dual density Cushlon ST in forefoot and Cushlon LT in heel…I have not been able to confirm one way or the other prior to review).

The outsole material is fine overall, if not a little too soft of a compound (the lugs are wearing pretty quick). The tread pattern, especially in the heel, is silly in my mind as it adds a lot of weight with no tangible benefit. I also don’t understand why they didn’t just have a complete full outsole without the line of exposed EVA separating the edges from the middle of the outsole. This creates a much softer edge for the shoe which decreases its precision and edging in more technical terrain. Complaints aside, the traction is adequate on dry surfaces. I have not run them in mud, but would expect them to be lacking due to the relatively shallow lug depth.

Fit

The fit is fantastic in comfort and average in security. It is a pretty low volume fit with a low toebox height and a more sock-like cut to the entire upper.

I’m mixed about the use of Flywire in the upper. While I haven’t had any major problems, the midfoot lockdown and lateral stability on the platform is not as good as what I’m used to with inov-8 or Merrell shoes. I’ve come to terms with this though and just don’t use the shoe on more technical terrain which requires a more secure fit (and a sharper midsole; more on that below). If the upper wasn’t as comfortable as it is, I’d be unhappy with the security of it; as it is, the fit is still very nice and comfortable for even long outings.

Ride

I found the Kiger hard to place regarding the ride. On one hand it does feel somewhat responsive and quick and on the other I felt it was somewhat soft compared to what I’m used to. Shaving the heel off did help the stability of the ride in the heel on uneven ground. I’d also say the softness is less noticeable on very hard pack trails, and is almost welcome on pavement. I guess this reaction is probably due to my experience with and bias towards firm and responsive shoes.

In its favor, the Kiger is the first shoe of any appreciable cushion and softness that I’ve actually grown to like for hardpack trails. It seems like every time I run in it I like it more than the run before, so part of it may be just needing to get used to the softer shoe.

Overall Impressions

Nike is off to a great start in the trail running market with the Zoom Terra Kiger. There is room for improvement with the heel shape/fatness, midfoot fit, outsole compound, and tread pattern (including upgrading to a full outsole). However, when taken as a whole the Kiger still gets more right than it gets wrong and I really can’t think of another trail shoe out there that offers the same fit and feel.

Regardless of your preference regarding cushion, I think there is something to be found here for everyone and that may be the Kiger’s biggest selling point. If you prefer more cushion, the Kiger will offer enough to feel comfortable and will likely feel fast and light for you. If you come from a minimalist/natural running perspective the Kiger still is a fairly light, low drop, and flexible shoe that will offer just a little more cushion than you might be used too (but, like me, you might grow to like it). As far as Nike trail running shoes go, this is as good as it gets. For any Nike Free fans looking for a trail option this would be the first shoe I would start with. I’m even considering given the Wildhorse a try to see how it compares on the run.

I’m going to give the Nike Terra Kiger a positive recommendation and look forward to future improvements.

Purchasing Options

The Nike Terra Kiger is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Amazon.com, and outside the US it can be purchased at Wiggle or direct from Nike.com. Purchases made from these retailers help support this site – thanks!