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.

I ran in the original Trail N1 a few years ago, doing a 50k in them, and even used them during my first 100 miler at Bighorn in 2014. While I appreciated some aspects of the shoe, they didn’t capture me like they did many other trail runners. I found the midsole a bit unresponsive, and didn’t love the rocker and midfoot thickness, especially on more technical trail. I’ve since received and run in both the N2v2 (I never ran in the N2v1) and N1v2, and have come away with some new thoughts. Disclosure: Both shoes were provided free of charge by Pearl Izumi for review.

Specs

Price – MSRP is $115 for the N1v2 and $120 for the N2v2.

Weight –

Trail N1v2: 290 grams (10.2 oz) size 9 mens; 218 grams (7.7 oz) size 8 womens

Trail N2v2: 297 grams (10.5 oz) size 9 mens; 260 grams (9.2 oz) size 8 womens

Stack Height –

Trail N1v2: 22mm (Heel), 17mm (Forefoot)

Trail N2v2: 27mm (Heel), 19mm (Forefoot)

Specs via Running Warehouse for N1v2 and N2v2.

Upper and Fit

Arguably the biggest asset of the Pearl Izumi trail line are their fantastic, seamless uppers. They are super comfortable, hold the foot well, and breathe/drain well too. Pearl Izumi made some improvements in the overlay placement by including an overlay that runs along the entire length of the shoe where the upper meets the midsole, acting as a mini-rand that helps prevent it from blowing out. The N2v2 has more significant and wider overlays, which I like, and I feel it holds the foot better than the N1v2. It also fits just a bit wider due to the wider midsole design, even though they are both on the same last. Additionally of note is that the N1v2 has a significantly softer heel counter than the relatively firm one in the first version, a change I like. Not much else to say on the uppers; they’re fantastic. I’m pretty fond of them, and the N2v2 especially holds the foot well with tons of comfort for long miles.

I like the N2v2 upper better. It has thicker, more durable mesh; thicker and wider overlays that hold the foot better and a slightly wider forefoot. Very comfortable uppers on both of them.

Midsole and Ride

Here is where I might get into some hot water with PI fans out there, but I’m not enamored by the ride of the shoes, particularly the N1. I can see more appeal, and actually enjoyed the N2v2 much more than the N1v2 despite expecting the opposite given my usual preference for lighter, faster shoes. Part of the reason for this is that, while the N1 is a little lower to the ground, it’s not that much lower than the N2 and feels very similar in the forefoot, yet weight is very close to the same.

The soles of both shoes are similarly rockered in the midfoot, and given the N1’s lower heel height I actually feel that it’s a bit harder to roll through the rocker than the N2, which has 3mm more heel height (note: I choose to use Running Warehouse’s specs because I feel they are more accurate to how the shoes feel than the Dynamic Offset figures Pearl Izumi claims).

The N2 also has a wider outsole and midsole, which contribute to a bit softer ride and a little less stiffness compared to the N1. For me this really makes the N1 redundant, since it isn’t flexible or light enough to be a nimble racing shoe. Instead, the N1 comes across as riding a bit more firm, but with the same stiff rocker and less roll because of the lower heel height. They both have rock plates and nearly equivalent forefoot protection.

Very similar midsole heights, the very same foam, just a little more heel cushion in N2v2 which I feel provides a smoother ride with the rockered design.

I hands down prefer the ride of the N2v2, and can actually see using them late in long races when I want the rocker because my feet are tired and my stride is really shortened. On normal training runs though, I feel the shoes don’t really grab me in any area in the ride department. They aren’t horrible, but don’t stand out either.

N1v2 midsole cuts straight down, which I like better, especially for technical terrain. Problem is the rest of the shoe, with the thick midfoot and rockered design doesn’t work as well on technical trail.

N2v2 midsole flairs out. This creates a slightly wider fit in the upper and a softer feel on the ride.

Comparison of platform widths.

Outsole

Both the N2v2 and N1v2 share the same outsole as their respective first versions, with the exception of a rubber compound change that is supposed to offer more grip. I never really tested the N1v1 in very technical terrain, so I can’t recall the grip on it, but the N2v2 and N1v2 both seem to hit right in the middle of the road for grip for me, which is just fine considering where I’d use them (i.e. non-technical drier trail). I like the outsole design overall, and again prefer the N2v2 over the N1v2 mainly because it has a full coverage design that not only will hold up a bit better, but I think also helps the roll with the rockered midsole geometry. The N1 has some cutouts in the midfoot that, especially after some miles are put on, results in some loss of structure there. I don’t think this is a good thing for the N1 since the sole still has the rockered design and it compromises the function of the rocker. Overall, nice, middle of the road design with lugs that add traction but aren’t too deep to take away from the ride on smooth terrain.

Having not run in the N2v1, I always thought they had the same outsole. Not so! The N2v2 is wider and has an extra lined lug design on the medial forefoot and also doesn’t have the cutouts or as much exposed foam in the midfoot. The lug depth is the same.

Conclusion

I think the N2v2 is nearly spot on for what they are trying to achieve with lightweight but full-featured protection and a smoothed out, rockered ride. If they could just use a more responsive midsole material than their 1:1 Energy Foam on the same shoe, it’d be hard to beat for smoother, long races. I, surprisingly, prefer the N2 over the N1 and feel that it provides a much better representation of what Pearl Izumi is trying to achieve with the E:motion line. The uppers are some of the best on the market, and the overall package of the N2v2 is hard to argue against. It is probably the one of the best overall packages in a 10 oz shoe out there. That being said, I happen to like a few 11 oz shoes better for the same purpose, namely the adidas Response Trail Boost and adidas Raven 3, which are more responsive and better on technical terrain while still running very well on smooth trail as well.
the N2v2 compares most closely with the Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3 (nearly same weight, stack and drop) and, although I like the upper and last a bit better on the Wildhorse 3, I think the ride and overall package of the N2v2 is hands down better than the WH3.

The N1v2, however, I think needs to be differentiated more from the N2v2 to avoid being redundant in the PI trail lineup. It just weighs and feels too close to the N2 without really bringing something different to the table, and I would recommend the N2v2 over the N1v2 unless the 3mm difference in drop was a massive issue to someone; the ride is just much better on the N2.

The N1 needs to ditch the rocker design, or at the very least, narrow the midfoot up a ton so that there is more independent movement of the forefoot and heel, which helps stability and precision on more uneven terrain (but reduces rocker integrity, which is why I think the rocker needs to go). Second, I’d make a much lower profile outsole to lighten the shoe up a bit – get it lower to the ground and give it a racier feel. Lastly, I’d figure out how to get the weight down under 9 oz. Without those three items being addressed, it is simply too much of a duplicate of the N2v2 (similar forefoot stack/protection, same lug depth, nearly same upper), but less effective at what the E:motion concept is trying to achieve.

I’ve heard of an update to the PI trail lineup for July 2016 that includes new outsole designs, but don’t know much else at this point. I’m hoping they can differentiate the two shoes a bit more, and with a forthcoming Trail N3 (which I’m hoping to review) in March, they don’t need to beef the shoes up. Rather, they need a lighter option than the N2v2 that offers a more precise and nimble ride.

The Pearl Izumi N1 v2 and Pearl Izumi N2 v2 are available for sale at Running Warehouse.

Let me say that again.

I love the Pearl Izumi EM Road N0.

Not since the Saucony Grid Type A5 have I had such a positive experience with a running shoe. The reason? Because this shoe replicates the fit and ride of the A5 better than any shoe I have run in since the A5 came out (including the recently released A6). It’s simply outstanding.

My biggest fear with the Pearl Izumi N0 is that using the number 0 in the name will scare some people off. This is not a zero drop shoe. I also think Pearl Izumi made a mistake in using their “dynamic offset” (whatever that means) terminology in describing the construction of this shoe. No need to complicate a shoe that is beautifully simple and purely functional.

(Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by Runningshoes.com).

Sole Construction

Let’s start by describing what the Pearl Izumi N0 is. It’s a racing flat. It’s a simple shoe built for running fast. PI claims that it has a drop of 1mm at initial contact, and 4.5mm at mid-stance. I don’t find that information all that helpful. Unlike the Pearl Izumi Road N1 which has some unusual geometry built into the insole, the N0 is pretty much a straight-up 6mm drop shoe. I measure stack at about 22mm in the heel, 16mm in the forefoot. It weighs only 6.0oz in men’s size 9.

The sole of the PI N0 is firm yet flexible, very similar to the Saucony A5. It does not have the stiffness of some other racing flats – I don’t think there are any plates in the sole to stiffen it up for example. And that makes it a bit more versatile than your average racing flat. I could easily see racing up to the half-marathon in these.

The sole provides full ground contact – no cutouts. There’s a bit of rubber under the heel, a bit more under the medial forefoot, but the rest is pretty much exposed midsole. Forefoot strikers might rip it up a bit, my pair looks pretty good still after 30 miles.

Upper Construction

Like the sole, the upper of the PI N0 is wonderfully simple. A double-layer mesh makes up most of the upper, and there are a few welded overlays for added support. There is a flexible heel counter, and internally the lining feels soft (have not attempted a sockless run yet). The insole is thin and seems to be of uniform width.

What really makes this shoe for me is the fit. Almost perfect on my foot, maybe only the slightest tad snugger than the A5 was, but the fit is far better on me than the A6. It feels as if the shoe was designed specifically for my foot shape.

Performance

I’ve put about 30 miles on the N0’s so far, and have pretty much reserved them for workouts where I intend to include a bit of speed. I also used them in a 5K last weekend, my first road 5K in well over a year. They have performed brilliantly on all occasions, and they felt great in the race. The sole is responsive without being overly stiff.  I managed a sub-20 5K in them, which was my goal heading into the race, and they are probably going to be my 5K racer for the foreseeable future (unless the A6 upper breaks in a bit). I can’t say I’d want much more from a racing flat.

Conclusion

If you’re in the market for a racing flat suited to distances from the 5K to the half-marathon, the Pearl Izumi EM Road N0 might be my top rec as of writing this post. It has been a fantastic shoe for me so far.

The Pearl Izumi EM Road N0 is available for purchase in the red colorway shown above and the black colorway below at Runningshoes.com. MSRP is $100.

“The purist’s dream shoe, the Project E:Motion Trail N1 is built to deliver the ultimate smooth flowing responsive ride. The glove-like fit coupled with the E:Motion midsole deliver a light and smooth experience. The Trail N1 offers great trail feel and traction with enough protection and cushioning for bombing descents over technical terrain.”

For once, a company has got the marketing 100% correct. I couldn’t describe the shoe better if I tried. It fits like a glove over the midfoot/forefoot, has a nice ample toe box, comfortable heel and delivers a very smooth ride.

This is the trail shoe that Goldilocks would rock. Everything is “just right.” It runs exactly true to size. The ride is not too firm, and not too soft. The weight is not too light, and not too heavy (my size 10.5 weighs in at 10.6 oz). The grip is not slippy, but not overly aggressive. The heel counter is not too stiff, but not too soft. The drainage is not bad, but not great. The rock protection is not to thick, but still works well to protect your feet.  The sole is not too stiff, and not excessively flexible. You get the point.

But the net result of avoiding any characteristic that is not too radical is a great trail shoe that I seem to pick time and time again when I want a shoe that is just right for about every condition out there.

That’s not to say that it doesn’t have any great features, it does. Take the design of the tongue for example. PI did something incredibly smart. They incorporated a normal lace holder in the middle of it, but also added two other lace holders near the top that secure it in place incredibly well.  Although it’s not gusseted, it doesn’t have to be because it just doesn’t move out of place.  Super smart.

I supposed that a proper review of this shoe should talk about PI’s “E:Motion” design.  For me, it is a great idea that ends up confusing a lot of people as far as the heel/toe drop. They list it as having a 1mm “offset” on the website.  Running Warehouse, who measure the shoes themselves, list it as having a 16mm forefoot and a 23mm heel (7mm). The video below explains what PI is calling “Dynamic Offset” vs. our traditional thought of what offset is.

I would imagine that every shoe could have a “dynamic offset” measurement based on how they explain it in the video.  But the real question is, does it achieve the desired result?  I can tell you that it absolutely does.  The shoe feels comfy and smooth throughout the entire foot stroke.  Looking at a picture of the shoe, it looks like it has a rocker type sole, but it doesn’t feel like that when you run in them.  There is no pronounced bump under the arch and it feels like it sits flat when standing still.  There is also very little arch support, which I like.

There is a common saying in the business world, “don’t try to be all things to all people.”  The “one size fits all” approach rarely works for most products.  But in the case of the N1, it does.  This is a shoe that will fit a broad range of runners.  From occasional trail runners to somebody looking for a 100 mile race shoe.  Timothy Olson has won the Western States 100 twice in this shoe.  Now you have no more excuses….

The Pearl Izumi EM Trail N1 is available for sale at Running Warehouse and in a wider range of colors (some on sale) at Zappos.

Today, Runningshoes.com posted a video preview of a new addition to the Pearl Izumi E-Motion line, the EM Road N0 (see below). The N0 is a zero drop shoe, and looks very much like a racing flat – my kind of shoe!

For more 2014 shoe previews, visit the Runningshoes.com YouTube channel.

A few months ago a rep from Pearl Izumi contacted me to see if I’d like to try out one of the shoes in their new E-Motion line. They wound up sending two pairs – the EM Road N1 for me, and the EM Trail N1 for Nate. We’ve now had time to get some miles on the shoes and are ready to render our verdicts (Nate’s review should come along soon).

Sole Construction

The sole is really the story for the Pearl Izumi EM Road N1. All of the shoes in the Pearl Izumi E-Motion line feature something they are referring to as dynamic offset. As described in the video below, PI talks about how offset changes as the foot rolls through during the running stride (they use a heel striking gait as the default):

Looking at the stack height numbers for the EM Road N1 this concept as shown in the video initially didn’t make much sense to me. Running Warehouse reports stack heights of 22mm in the heel, 15mm in the forefoot. Measuring with my calipers I get about the same when the insole is removed. Pearl Izumi lists the EM Road N1 as only 1mm offset – my guess is that they are including the insole, and also taking into account dynamic offset during the stride. I wish I had measured the insole before putting miles on the shoe since insoles tend to compress quickly in certain areas, but I found that the insole thickness changes along it’s length:

I’m wondering if the insole design is partly the reason that this doesn’t feel like a 7mm drop shoe? The thicker part of the insole under the midfoot doesn’t so much feel like arch support as it does just a thickening in that region. The sensation is somewhat like the Skechers GoRun 2, which also has a smooth ride (but is a much softer shoe).

In the video Pearl Izumi talks about how they moved the beginning of the toe spring angle back by about 20mm, and this seems to create a slight rocker like feel to the sole of the shoe (probably assisted by the thickening of the insole under the midfoot). If you land on your heel (I’m a very mild heel striker to midfoot striker in most cushioned shoes), you also compress the heel a bit and then roll forward, so static drop measurements may not reveal what actually happens if the heel is more loaded than the forefoot. The net effect of all of this is that the shoe delivers on Pearl Izumi’s promise of an incredibly smooth ride, though it took me a few runs to really feel it. To me it runs a lot like a 4mm drop or lower shoe.

The first time I ran in the EM Road N1 my sense was that I wasn’t going to like it. It felt really firm, almost harsh underfoot. But with each subsequent run the shoe started to grow on me. It’s gotten to the point where I really want to pull this shoe out for each run that I go on. I’ve put about 50 miles on them so far, and it’s definitely one of those shoes that would have gotten a very different review had I not given it more than just a few runs. I don’t know if the shoe has broken in a bit (perhaps the insole has?), or if I’ve just adjusted my stride to running in it, but smooth is really the word that best describes the ride. I’m very impressed.

As always, I’m limited in my ability to comment on durability given that I typically review shoes after 30-50 miles (it’s tradeoff to reviewing a lot of shoes myself – can’t get a ton of miles on each). You can see abrasion from the lateral heel to the midfoot on my pair (I probably land variably along this region), and under the center of the forefoot. There is a lot of exposed midsole on this shoe so if you tend to wear down exposed EVA quickly that might be a concern. Comments on durability are welcome from those with more miles on these shoes!

Upper Construction and Fit

The upper of the EM Road N1 is fantastic. The forefoot is composed of a woven mesh that has some give to it – I can stretch it when I push my big toe up or out, which is something I always like in a shoe. Internally there is a liner that is super soft against the skin – very comfortable! The ankle cuff is well-padded and is lined by a smooth, soft material. The seam between the ankle cuff and forefoot is taped to reduce friction, though it seems to be peeling up a bit on the forefoot side. I like the concept, but a better adhesive mechanism is needed. Don’t think I’ve run in them sockless, but see no reason why I couldn’t.

The upper has minimal structural components – stability is provided solely by thin welded overlays, and the heel counter is much reduced compared to more traditional shoes – it extends maybe only an inch or so above the sole.

The fit is perfect on my average width foot. It hugs well through the heel and midfoot, and the forefoot, though not super wide, is plenty accommodating for my foot. The stretchy upper material in the forefoot definitely helps. I find these to be incredibly comfortable shoes.

Conclusions

As I’ve mentioned a few times, this Pearl Izumi EM Road N1 is an incredibly smooth ride, but it may take a bit of breaking in to get a feel for it. I’m not sure how long my longest run has been in them, but I’d not hesitate to consider them for distances as long as a marathon. I’ve used them for a variety of workouts (easy runs to hill repeats) and on both asphalt and dirt roads (no trails). Performance has been good in all situations. They are a reasonably firm shoe, so responsiveness is also good enough for racing. If’ you’re in the market for a shoe that feels just a bit different than your typical trainer and offers an incredibly smooth, comfortable ride, the Pearl Izumi EM Road N1 is definitely worth a look.

The Pearl Izumi EM Road N1 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and at Zappos.