adidas was kind enough to send me a pair of the adios Boost 3 for review purposes, and I’ve been running in them regularly for the past few months. Like its predecessors, v3 is 10mm drop (23mm heel, 13mm forefoot), and it weighs in right around 8oz in men’s size 9 (per Running Warehouse). Similarities with v2 don’t end there, however. Although adidas made some minor updates to the upper and sole in v3, the changes are very minor, and the shoe essentially feels exactly the same to me. As such, I’m going to keep this review relatively short.

The thing I love most about the adios Boost is the sole. The heel is softish and cushy, but as the Boost midsole thins out under the forefoot to only 13mm, the feel is distinctly firmer and more responsive. Longitudinal stiffness from the midfoot forward is increased by the plastic Torsion System, and this helps give the adios Boost a snappy ride at faster speeds.

Torsion system extends from the midfoot to a bit under the forefoot.

Much like the New Balance 1400 and Asics Hyperspeed, I could use the adios Boost for races spanning distances from 5k to the marathon. It’s a very versatile shoe, and that’s one of the reasons I would justify spending $140 on it (that and the fact that the Boost midsole and Continental rubber outsole are quite durable – I think I could get more miles out of the adios Boost than the NB 1400 or Hyperspeed).

The upper of v3, though different, is very similar to that of v2. It has a throwback look that I really like, with a classic mesh and suede overlays. Like v2, the interior of the upper is pretty scratchy and not one that I would risk using without socks – this is one thing I’d like to see changed in a future iteration (NB fixed a similar problem in v3 of the 1400). The fit is not wide, but not so narrow as to be uncomfortable – going up a half size makes for a bit more room (I recommend sizing up in v3 as I did in v2).

Perhaps the biggest change in v3 is the outsole, though from a function standpoint I can’t really feel any difference. The durable Continental rubber compound is still in use in v3, though adidas added a bit more rubber under the forefoot, and got rid of the two strips of rubber nubs that extended from the midfoot forward in previous versions (see comparison photos below).

Soles of the adios Boost 3 (top) and adios Boost 2 (bottom). Different structure, but functionally pretty similar.

Conclusion

If you’re a fan of the adios Boost and liked v2, then you’ll most certainly like v3. Changes are minimal – in my opinion this remains one of the best all-around shoes on the market.  If you haven’t tried the adios Boost and are in a mood to spend a bit of cash, it’s definitely worth a look, and the combo of versatility and durability justifies the price (though I’d still like to see it drop about $20-$30 before I can rec it over shoes like the NB 1400 or Asics Hyperspeed). Kudos to adidas for not messing too much with a great shoe!

The adidas Adios Boost 3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse. You can also customize a pair of adios Boost 3 at adidas.com (resisting the urge!!!).

In addition to the Lyteracer, Running Warehouse also sent me a pair of another Japanese racing flat: the Tartherzeal 3 (Disclosure: these were provided free of charge for review purposes). There are some similarities between the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal, but also some significant differences. I’ll dig into both in this review.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Asics Tartherzeal 3 weighs in at 6.0oz in men’s size 9, and stack heights are 22mm heel, 15mm forefoot (7mm drop). As with other Japanese flats brought over by Running Warehouse, sizing is a bit odd for the Tartherzeal. There was no 10.5 avaialble, and max size is 11.5. I’ve been running in a size 11 and have found the fit to be good, if a tad on the long side (my normal size is 10, but I typically go up to 10.5 in flats).

Upper

The upper is where the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal share the most similarities. Both have a retro-looking upper composed of a traditional mesh with suede-like overlays. Both have a firm heel counter, and both have exposed stitching internally which likely precludes sockless wear (at least for me). Fit for both shoes is surprisingly roomy for a flat, though that may in part be due to the fact that I am wearing a half size bigger than my usual. The laces on the Tartherzeal are a bit thinner and flimsier, but this did not cause me any problems. If you like a simple upper, both of these shoes should appeal to you.

Sole

The sole is where the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal diverge. The Lyteracer sole is well cushioned, particularly under the heel, and it has worked well for me on runs up to 10 miles. I’d probably have no issues running a marathon in them. The Tartherzeal 3, on the other hand, has a stiff, firm sole built for speed. I’d describe it as a short-distance speed shoe – best suited for 5Ks and speed workouts, at least for me. It’s a shoe that feels great when you pick up the pace, but it’s not a forgiving shoe for long, slow distance. I’d compare it in this regard to shoes like the Adidas Takumi Sen, Mizuno Ekiden, Pearl Izumi N0, Saucony A6, and the old Adidas Hagio.

Grippy, they are.

One of the most striking features of the Tartherzeal 3 is how grippy the outsole is. Unlike the almost full-coverage outsole under the forefoot of the Lyteracer, the Tartherzeal has little rubber nubs covering the forefoot. I’ve run in other shoes with this type of design, but none are quite as grippy as the Tartherzeal. You can feel how edgy the nubs are when you touch them, and they tend to catch on carpet if you walk around the house in the shoes. In his review of the shoe, Thomas Neuberger talks about how he walked over a yoga mat in the Tartherzeal and it ripped chunks out. I haven’t run on a rubberized track in these shoes, but I’d be interested to see how they feel on that surface – if you like a grippy racing shoe, this one is probably the grippiest out there.

Conclusion

The Asics Tartherzeal 3 isn’t the kind of shoe I’d use for all of my runs, but it’s a solid option for those days when you feel the need for speed. It has a firm, responsive sole, and a crazy grippy outsole that claws at the road. It’s also fairly roomy for a flat – fit is better on me than say the Saucony A6. I also like the retro-styling of the upper. The only real downside is the price – $125.95 is a bit on the high side for a flat.

The Asics Tartherzeal 3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

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.

Brooks

Brooks Nuero upper. Notice material that attaches to laces. It actually wraps all the way under the foot.

Brooks Nuero – weight: 9.4 oz (men); 7.9 oz (women), drop: 6mm, available 03/01/16, price: $130

The Brooks Nuero was one of the most innovative road shoes I saw at the show.  Without running in them I can’t say whether it will be a good innovation or not, but kudos to Brooks for trying.  While it is hard to say whether this will be a "racing" shoe or not, Brooks seems to think it will be a fast running shoe, so I decided to include it in my racing shoe writeup. The main unique feature is the decision to have the shoe uncouple in the midfoot at a diagonal angle that is supposed to allow the forefoot and heel to move more independently but yet be rigid enough on push off to be responsive. As such, this isn’t supposed to be just a flexible shoe, but to both be snappy and move naturally.  It will be interesting to see whether they can pull this off when it comes out in March.

Podded outsole with some pods filled in and others just encapsulated by EVA.

Showing how the sole uncouples at midfoot. Was very unique to see this in person.

Hoka One One

Hoka One One Carbon Rocket – weight 6.3 oz men, 5.4 oz women. Stack height: 20mm heel, 19mm forefoot, 4/1/2016 release date.

Hoka Carbon Rocket upper is a pretty stripped back traditional racing shoe style and should function well. Both the Tracer and Carbon Rocket appear to be on a more standard racing shoe-style last.

The Carbon Rocket was probably one of the most exciting road racing shoes I’ve seen in quite a while, and could either be super snappy and fast feeling or way too stiff.  I was really shocked with how stiff the shoe felt with its nearly full length carbon fiber plate that has 2 prongs near the front.  To better describe the shoe’s snappiness, it makes the adidas adios, a shoe that is one of the snappier shoes I’ve run in, seem extremely flexible :).  It has a fair bit of cushion to it though, and is super light so it really does have potential to be a great racing shoe that I could see using for a marathon.  Pete an I both will hopefully have a chance to run in these late this winter and let you all know all know how they feel!

Hoka Carbon Rocket – RMAT on the bottom with pretty sparse rubber coverage, EVA above that, and carbon plate above the EVA right below the foot.

Hoka One One Tracer – weights 7 oz men, 6.3 women. Stack height: 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, 4/1/16 release date

Hoka Tracer – Light and seamless upper.

The Hoka Tracer might be just as easily justified as a trainer with its stack height and extra rubber over the Carbon Rocket, but at 7 oz and on the same racing oriented last that the CR is on, I’m going to put it in with the other racers. Many runners might choose the Tracer over the Carbon Rocket as a 26.2 shoe, especially if the stiff plate is not your thing. The Carbon Rocket might be a little more unique, but the Tracer might be what more people enjoy since it still possesses a great blend of protection and propulsion with its dual density (soft in heel firm in forefoot) midsole design, yet is still really light!

Hoka Tracer – More rubber than the Carbon Rocket, but still not a "robust" outsole by any means and no RMAT either so it is yet to be seen which of the two will hold up better.

New Balance

New Balance 1400v4 – weight 7.2 oz men’s, 6.2 oz women’s, 10mm drop, 4/1/2016 Release Date, $99.95

New upper that stays seamless and should be just as light and comfy as v3.

The 1400v3 (here for Pete’s review) is a shoe that I really like for short and fast runs on trails, but it obviously works well on roads too.  While the v3 was just an upper change, the 1400v4 gets a complete overhaul without changing the overall geometry and fit from what we all love about the 1400.  Biggest change is in the outsole design, which offers just a bit more rubber coverage (a good thing all around IMO and better for trail too).

Outsole with more connected pieces of rubber in the forefoot.

New Balance 1500v2 – Weight 7.9 oz men’s, 6.7 oz women’s, 1/1/2016 Release Date, $109.95

New, refined upper with carryover midsole/outsole.

The 1500, which was New Balance’s first shoe based on the same last as the Zante and Vazee Pace, has a unique niche being that it is both light and still offers some medial support to those who want that feature.  I’ve run in v1, mostly on trail, and like the fit and feel overall.  The 1500v2 is an upper update only and focuses on lighter overlays, while also offering more security.

Salomon

S-Lab Sonic – 7.8 oz mens, Stack Height: 24mm heel, 16mm forefoot, $170

The Salomon S-Lab Sonic is a slightly updated S-Lab X-Series that, in a somewhat surprise move, has Salomon removing speed laces in favor of good old regular laces (I guess I’m not the only one who prefers these!). This upper is very light and airy in person.

I haven’t tried the current S-Lab X-Series, which the S-Lab Sonic updates/replaces, but with this update I’d like to. Salomon reduced the material in the upper slightly and removed the speed laces which they said their athletes requested for the shoe. I usually cut the speed laces off shoes, so this was a welcome change.  The price tag on this one, like the Hoka Carbon Rocket, is likely to be a deterrent, but there’s no doubt Salomon now makes a legit road shoe.

Carryover midsole and outsole as far as I could tell.

Saucony

Saucony Kinvara 7 – Weight 7.7 oz men’s, 6.6 oz women’s, Stack Height 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, 3/1/2016 Release, $110

The good ‘ole Kinvara in its 7th iteration. Now with a new tech called Everun in the heel.

The Kinvara gets its 7th version with the main story being a new Everun topsole (goes on top of the strobel, between the midsole and footbed) material that Saucony reports to last 3x longer than standard EVA and is dramatically more lively and responsive.  My only wish with the Kinvara is that they had put it full length as it is in the Triumph ISO2, Hurricane ISO2 and Guide 9.  Regardless, it looks like a good update that should please Kinvara fans and potentially attract new ones.

New outsole that doesn’t differ dramatically other than its move away from the more typical Kinvara triangle shapes, but offers similar coverage.

Skechers Performance

Skechers GOmeb Speed 3 2016 – Weight 7.2 oz for men, 18mm heel, 14 mm forefoot. January Release Date, $125.

Contrary to what you’d expect from just putting 2016 on the end of the name, the Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 2016 is actually a pretty large update overall with an all new, fantastic knit upper and new midsole material.

I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for the Skechers Speed series since I ran my second marathon in the Speed 2 and really love that shoe.  The Speed 3 was a little heavier and perhaps more protective than the Speed 2, but lost a little magic for me. The Speed 3 2016 is really quite an overhaul with a full knitted upper similar to the GOrun Ultra Road (which is fantastic), but specific to the needs of the Speed 3. The midsole material is also new (called 5Gen) and more responsive than the Resalyte used in previous versions (also at a softer durometer).  I’m very excited to get this one on my feet this winter! The knit upper is really nice, and something I hope could become a signature feature for Skechers Performance shoes, especially since they deliver a knit upper at a much lower price than Nike or adidas which are all $150 and up for their stretchier knit uppers. I like the more static nature of the knit upper on the GORun Ultra Road, which will be similar to the GOmeb Speed 3 2016, since it holds the foot much more securely.

That’s it for Road Racing shoes that I saw at Outdoor Retailer.  More posts coming for Road Training shoes, Trail, and Mountain shoes coming as well.  Let me know if you have any further questions and I can do my best to answer!

Several weeks ago Running Warehouse started stocking several Asics flats from Japan, and they sent me two pairs to try out for review (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free of charge by Running Warehouse for review purposes). The models I received were the Lyteracer RS 4 and the Tartherzeal 3 – I’ve run in the latter only once or twice so far (it’s more of a speed flat – think Saucony A6 – so will take a bit longer to get miles on), but have put quite a few miles on the Lyteracer. I have to say that I’d rank the Lyteracer right up there with the 3 shoes mentioned in the opening paragraph – it’s a fantastic distance racer and is one my favorite shoes that I have run in so far this year.

One of the things I love about distance racers is their stripped-back simplicity. No frills uppers, light weight, and simple soles with a platform that doesn’t extend much beyond the margins of the foot are what I look for in shoe like this. Add in a forgiving heel and a firm, responsive forefoot and you have the makings of a perfect shoe for me. The Lyteracer RS 4 ticks al of these boxes, and I’ve really enjoyed running in them so far.

Specs

Let’s start with some specs. According to Running Warehouse, the Lyteracers weigh in at 7.3 oz in men’s size 9, and they have stack heights of 25mm in the heel, and 16mm in the forefoot. As in shoes like the Adios Boost and NB 1400, the 9mm drop does not get in the way – no issues there for me.

Sizing

With the Lyteracer being an import shoe from Japan, there are some quirky issues related to sizing. For example, the largest size available is 11.5 (sorry to those with big feet!), and there is no size 10.5 (my preferred size for a flat). When my RW contact asked me for sizing info, he indicated that most of the staff at RW who have tried them have gone up a full size without issue. As such, they sent me an 11 (full size up for me from my training shoe size), and though just a tad on the long side, they have worked out just fine. I would compare the width to the NB 1400 or Adios Boost – snug but not tight in the forefoot, very comfortable overall.

Upper

The upper of the Lyteracer feels almost like a throwback – old-school mesh with faux-suede overlays. I actually really like it, and it seems like it will be more durable than some of the newer-style uppers on the market. The interior of the shoe has a lot of exposed stitching due to the sewn-on overlays, so I’d probably not risk going sockless in them. I haven’t had any issues while wearing socks.

The pair that I received have a neon yellow upper, and I love the look of this shoe. They’re definitely a head-turner due to the brilliant color, and I’ve received a lot of comments on them while wearing them about.

Sole

As you might surmise from the intro to this review, the sole of the Lyteracer is a perfect match for my stride. Much like the NB 1400, Asics Hyperspeed, and adidas Adios Boost, it has a softish heel and a firmish forefoot. Plenty of cushioning for long distance, but still feels quick enough to use for speedwork. This is a great, multipurpose sole that can handle almost anything I throw at it. I’d even go so far as to say it can handle light trail duty due to the fairly extensive outsole under the forefoot. I’ve run in them several times on the rail trail in Lebanon, NH and they handle crushed rock very well – don’t feel any pointy pebbles or larger rocks underfoot. I probably wouldn’t use them were traction is a priority, or on more rugged terrain, but like the 1400 they might be a decent option for fast running on smooth trails.

As mentioned, outsole coverage is extensive, and durability his been excellent so far. There is a also a soft plastic shank under the midfoot to add a bit of longitudinal stiffness, though it’s not as stiff as the plates found in some other racing flats.

Conclusion

When I was first thinking about what I was going to write in this review, my intention was to say that the Lyteracer is a great shoe, but that similar models could be purchased at a lower price. I hadn’t looked at the MSRP, and my suspicion was that they would be expensive since they are imports. Turns out that they are actually very reasonably priced at $89.95 at Running Warehouse, so much cheaper than the Adios Boost and on par with the NB 1400 (though bit more expensive than the Asics Hyperspeed).  Given this, I can highly recommend that you give the Lyteracers a try if you are a fan of distance racing flats. I’m not sure how long they will have these in stock, but I am pretty sure that this will be one of my top 5 shoes of the year. They’re that good, and they have me wanting to try some additional Japanese imports!

The Asics Lyteracer RS 4 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

For another take on the Lyteracers, check out Sam Winebaum’s review at Road Trail Run. For some thoughts on other Asics flats from Japan, see this post on Believe in the Run.

Version 2 of the 1400 was one of my all-time favorite shoes. It was lightweight, simple in construction, and had my desired ride combo of a soft heel and firm forefoot. In fact, I think my only complaint about the shoe was that the interior was a bit scratchy/abrasive, thus precluding sockless running. Other than that, it was pretty much perfection.

When updating a great shoe you always run the risk of destroying what made it so special. New Balance was wise in their approach to updating the 1400 by only changing the upper. The sole is identical to that of the v2, thus the phenomenal ride has not changed. The stack heights are 23mm under the heel, and 13mm under the forefoot, and it weighs in at 6.3 oz in men’s size 9. As such, there is plenty of fairly soft cushion under the heel, allowing for use on longer runs, but it’s snappy and thin enough under the forefoot that it can be used for picking up the pace. It’s a do-everything shoe, and quite honestly, if I had to reduce my shoe collection to a single shoe right now this would be it. It’s that good.

One aspect of the sole worth mentioning is that there appears to be some kind of plate embedded in it. This adds a bit of longitudinal stiffness, and also provides a bit of protection from rocks. I know quite a few people who use the 1400 for racing on trails, and I’ve noticed that it has protected me pretty well while running on crushed rock roads. Wonder if the plate might explain some of this?

Outsole coverage on the 1400 v3 is fairly extensive everywhere but the midfoot, and durability so far for me has been good. I’m not sure you’ll get 500 miles out of a shoe like this unless you are really easy on soles, but for the price it should do pretty well.

The new upper on the 1400 v3 is pretty simple – it’s composed of a breathable mesh with welded overlays for support. But the big change here from the previous version is that the interior is much softer and not as abrasive against bare skin. I’ve run up to five miles sockless in them without any issues other than development of a rank odor.

In terms of fit, the 1400 v3 is a near perfect match for my foot. It’s not a wide shoe, and I did go up a half size, but it’s also not constrictive in any way. It simply disappears on my feet, and that’s pretty much the best compliment I can give to any shoe.

If I haven’t made it clear enough yet, I absolutely love this shoe. For most shoes that I review, I aim to get about 30 miles on them before writing my thoughts up. In this case I’ve more than doubled that mileage simply because I’ve enjoyed running in them so much. It’s really been tough to want to run in anything else! The MSRP of $100 (it can usually be found for less) makes it all the more attractive in a world where shoe prices seem to be skyrocketing. If you haven’t yet tried the NB 1400, do yourself a favor and give it a go – I have no doubt that it will be among my top 3 shoes of the year!

The New Balance 1400 v3 can be purchased at Running Warehouse US and Wiggle UK.

Based on my experience with the Hyper Speed, I decided to pick up a pair of the Asics DS Racer 10  – they were a bargain at Running Warehouse as a new color was coming out. The DS Racers sat in the box un-worn for several months, and I finally took them out back in early June (wish I’d done so sooner!). I’ve run most of my road miles since then in the Racers, and to be honest, I’m having a hard time wanting to run in anything else. Like the Hyper Speed, they feel like a shoe that was designed specifically for me.

Specs

The DS Racer weighs in at 6.3 oz in men’s size 9, so it’s a very light shoe – less than an ounce heavier than the Hyper Speed. It has stack heights of 23mm in the heel, and 15 mm in the forefoot, but it feels less than an 8mm drop shoe to me.

Upper and Fit

The upper of the DS Racer is pretty simple – a nice, breathable mesh supported by welded overlays. The mesh feels a bit less stretchy than that of the Hyperspeed, and the fit may be just a tad snugger around the foot. However, for a racing flat I find the fit of the DS Racer to be fairly accommodating and have not felt the need for extra space up in the forefoot for my toes (I have an average width foot). Fit around the midfoot and heel is nice and snug for a good lock-down.

Internally, the Racer has a weird, white fabric lining the arch area that looks like it was perforated multiple times with a hole puncher. It feels a little scratchy, and this would be one of my few complaints about the shoe – probably not the best choice for sockless running.

The heel region of the DS Racer is supported by a plastic heel counter, and the ankle collar is sufficiently padded to ensure a comfortable fit. No abrasion or hot spots from either.

Sole

The DS Racer is billed as a light stability shoe, having both a medial post and a plastic midfoot shank, but I can’t say that the shoe feels particularly controlling in any way (similar to how I feel about the New Balance 1500 and Saucony Fastwitch). To be honest, it runs a lot like the neutral Hyper Speed.

The feel underfoot is soft in the heel, firm in the forefoot, which is the magical combo for me – I’ve absolutely loved running in this shoe. I’d compare the ride of the DS Racer to that of the Hyper Speed, adidas Adios Boost, Saucony Kinvara, and New Balance 1400. If you know anything about my shoe preferences, that’s pretty impressive company. The thing I like about this group of shoes is that they are all very versatile – enough cushion for long miles, but lightweight and responsive under the forefoot enough for running fast. If I had to narrow down my shoe collection to just one shoe, I’d probably choose from among these (with the Skechers GoRun 4 and New Balance Zante being other contenders).

The outsole of the DS Racer is made up of heel components and forefoot components. The heel outsole is AHAR+ high-abrasion rubber and has been holding up well – no excessive wear apparent. The forefoot is composed of a softer rubber, and there is pretty significant wear present on the central forefoot after about 40 miles of running. I don’t think this will negatively impact the function of the shoe, but it would be interesting to see what they look like after a few hundred miles (can anyone comment?).

One other minor complaint is that the drain holes in the sole tend to pick up road debris – I’ve had to pluck out a few rocks mid-run, and you can see one of them plugged up in the photo above. I know some people fill holes like this with shoe goo, so I suppose that would be a simple fix. I have not run in wet conditions in these so can’t comment on water drainage/entry via the holes.

Conclusion

The Asics DS Racer 10 is easily among the top shoes I have run in so far this year. It’s not a newly released shoe, but it’s one that I wish I had tried sooner. If you’re looking for a lightweight racer that can also handle longer runs, it’s definitely worth a look. Great shoe!

The benefit of the fact that the DS Racer has been out for awhile is that it can be found for sale at very reasonable prices, particularly when new colors are released (Running Warehouse US has a few colors priced under $70 right now). Outside of the US, they are also on sale at Running Warehouse EU, and are available at Running Warehouse Australia.

The 1500 is part of a quartet of New Balance racing shoes. The 1400, one of my favorite all-around shoes, is a bit more cushioned, particularly under the heel, and is suitable for longer miles (v3 of the 1400 is coming soon!). The 1600 is a bit less shoe, and the 5000 is an ultralight speed shoe. Among these, the 1500 is unique in that it has a medial post and thus is touted as being suitable for mild overpronators.  Let me address this right off the bat – the shoe does have a post, but it’s small and I can honestly say that I have never noticed it on the run. Don’t let this scare you from trying the shoe.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse the New Balance 1500 weighs in at 7.3 oz in men’s size 9, and has stack heights of 23mm heel, 16mm forefoot. As I typically do in racing shoes, I went up half a size from my normal and the fit is near perfect.

Upper Construction and Fit

For a racing shoe, the fit of the 1500 is fantastic. It hugs my foot without being overly tight anywhere, and the forefoot is decently roomy. The upper is fairly simple in construction – it’s composed mostly of a breathable mesh and welded overlays.There is only one set of seams from the back of the midfoot forward (located in the region of the arch), so this shoe might be a good candidate for those who like to run sockless. The ankle collar and tongue are lightly padded and lined by a nice, smooth fabric. There is a fairly prominent heel counter, but this has not caused me any problems.

I’m also impressed by how the 1500 looks – my pair in gray is fairly subdued, but in a good way. It’s a shoe that can be used casually without making it look like you’re about to run a 5k.

Sole

The sole of the 1500 is pretty firm, and not very resilient. I often find this to be the case with New Balance’s RevLite midsole foam (though not in the 1400 v2 for some reason). For longer, slower miles it feels kind of dead, but the ride improves when you pick up the pace (this is kind of how I felt about the NB 1600 and the Skechers GoMeb Speed 1 and 2). For that reason I would not personally consider this shoe for a marathon, but it would work well for a 5K or maybe even a half. It’s also a shoe that can handle speed work. The main issue though is that for the same purposes you can get a lighter, flashier shoe in the 1600. My guess is the 1500 was made for those who wouldn’t consider the 1400 or 1600 due to the lack of stability elements (mainly a marketing move if you ask me).

One of the things that I really like about the 1500 is the outsole. It’s full coverage, so durability should be good, and the forefoot is covered by rubber nubs that are very grippy. They almost could be called lugs, and for this reason the 1500 could even double as a light-duty trail shoe. It’s not going to handle mud, but the grip is good enough that I was able to run a few times over crusty ice in them without much problem this winter.

Conclusion

If you’re looking for a firm, lightweight racer and are hesitant to try any shoe that doesn’t have a post or other stability elements, the 1500 would be a solid choice. If you’re afraid of stability elements, don’t worry, they are really noticeable in this shoe. It doesn’t offer the most comfortable ride for long, slow distance, but it has a bit of snap when you pick up the pace. It’s also pretty generous in forefoot space for a flat, so not a bad choice if you like a bit of extra room up front.

The New Balance 1500 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon. Purchases from these retailers help to support this site – thanks!

I received my first wear-test pair of the Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 last February and I was impressed (Disclosure: I’ve been helping Skechers out with shoe development for several years). The prototype that I received felt markedly roomier with a stretchier upper mesh, felt considerably more flexible, and had a more resilient/bouncier feel underfoot. It felt like a very different shoe from the previous models (note: the name has been changed from GoRun Speed to GoMeb Speed).

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (top) and First Prototype (bottom)

As often happens in the development process, things change as shoes develop from one iteration to the next. Skechers receives input from a lot of wear testers, and this particular shoe is designed and named for 2014 Boston Marathon winner Meb Keflezighi. As a result, Meb has a lot of input into the design. Though I loved the first iteration I received, it felt a bit less like a race shoe and more like the GoRun to me, and that needed to be fixed. In particular, the sole had an incorrect plate (visible in midfoot region of photo below) so was not as stiff as intended, and the upper material was changed to one with less give for a more performance fit (that’s how I interpreted the changes).

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (top) and First Prototype (bottom) – note the different plates visible in the midfoot region

Fortunately, the next protoype ran just as well as the first one. The sole still felt a bit more resilient, and the shoe had a slightly stiffer, racier feel to it. Though the upper material had less give, it still felt a bit roomier than the GoRun Speed 2.

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom)

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom)

One of the things that puzzled me about the GoMeb 3 was why the sole felt more resilient. The midsole firmness didn’t really feel any different, and after inquiring I think we figured it out. One of the changes to the sole in v3 was that they opened up the concavity under the midfoot a bit and extended it backward under the heel. This allows for a bit more downward deflection of the heel under pressure (more open space under the foot), and gives the shoe a bit more bounce (not sure if that’s the right word to use, it’s hard to describe the difference in words). The photo below shows the difference in the size of the concavity well – it’s amazing how such a seemingly small change can alter the feel of a shoe so much:

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom) – note the larger concavity under the midfoot of v3; it also extends back under the heel

Other changes from v2 to v3 include a slightly more padded ankle collar, and a softer interior lining of the upper which makes for more comfortable sockless running. The GoMeb Speed 3 also gains a bit of weight over v2 – the size 10 production shoe that I have (NYC version) weighs in at 7.9 oz vs. 7.2 oz for my Speed 2 in the same size. I don’t really notice the difference on the run. I’m pretty sure the stack height has remained the same at 18mm heel, 14mm forefoot.

As sometimes happens in the shoe development process, features are added that generate some amount of passion and controversy. In my review of the Skechers GoRun 4 I discussed my feelings about the addition of a Quick Fit Portal to the tab behind the heel. The QFP is a hole that you can slip your finger through to help pull the shoe onto your foot. I received a prototype of the GoMeb 3 that had a QFP (see photo below) and didn’t think it was a good idea in a shoe with a stiffer heel counter than the GoRun. I could feel the margins of the portal against my skin and felt that the risk of abrasion outweighed any benefit. Fortunately it was decided that the QFP would be left off the GoMeb.

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (left) and Prototype With Quick Fit Portal (right)

Skechers GoMeb 3 Prototypes (top and bottom) and Final Version (middle)

In all, I went through four iterations of the GoMeb Speed 3 to arrive at the final version, pictured below. The end product is a really nice looking shoe that feels like a much better match for my stride. It’s still a firm shoe, but it has a bit more spring under the heel, and the fit up front is just a tad more forgiving.

I raced a 5K in the GoMeb 3 last Spring – wasn’t my best race but I don’t blame the shoe. It’s a bit more shoe than I Iike for a 5K (Skechers needs a sub 6 oz speed flat!), but should serve well as a 5K race shoe for many. More importantly, it’s now a shoe that I’d be willing to use for long miles and races up to the marathon.

Conclusion

I’m very impressed with what Skechers has done in this update to the GoMeb Speed. The changes aren’t huge, but are just enough that both the fit and ride are much more to my liking. It’s a great looking shoe, and it’s tough to argue about performance – it is Meb’s marathon shoe after all, and was on his feet when he won Boston last year. If you’re looking for a racing shoe that’s a bit more forgiving than the typical flat, the GoMeb Speed 3 would be a great choice.

For some additional thoughts on the GoMeb Speed 3, see this video review by Caleb Masland.

The Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 sells for MSRP $120 and can be purchased at Running Warehouse and Shoebuy.

By David Henry

Skechers got a big boost when Meb Keflezighi won the Boston marathon earlier this year. For a brand that has been historically known more for casual shoes and kids shoes, having an elite American marathoner win Boston in their footwear was evidence that the Skechers Performance Division is making legitimate running shoes. They’ve since signed Kara Goucher as well, and are making a push to further develop their performance line.

In this post I’ll be taking a look at the Skechers GoMeb Speed 2, which is the Skechers Performance Division’s racing flat. The shoe has been out for a while now (Meb wore a v3 protoype in Boston this year), but it’s a shoe I’ve really enjoyed running in, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

Shoe Specs

Price: $110 MSRP (they can be found many places for $60-80 currently though)

Colorways: 4 colors (3 standard colors and 1 NY marathon Limited Edition)

Weight:  6.8 oz/193 g in size 9 mens; 8.11 oz/230 g in my size 13 men’s; and 5.6 oz/158 g in size 8 for women (stats via Skechers.com)

Stack Height: 18 mm Heel; 14 mm Forefoot stack height for both men and women

Appearance & Design

The GoMeb Speed 2 is clean shoe with some flair – it looks the part of a racing shoe.  It’s not the best looking shoe out there, but I’m not turned off by it either.  The design of the shoe is simple and somewhat traditional for a racing flat. It has a single layer mesh upper with light overlays that are welded on for a seamless fit.  It does have a heel counter – I have not had any problems with it.

The midsole and outsole are one in the same except for some circular “Go Impulse Sensors” of rubber from the midfoot to forefoot.  It also has a plate in the midfoot to provide some structure and pop to the shoe.

To hear more about their design philosophy with the GoMeb 2, here is a video featuring Kurt Stockbridge from the Skechers Performance Division:

Materials & Construction

The upper is made of a monofilament mesh that is soft to the touch, but doesn’t stretch much (which I like in a racing shoe).

The midsole is Skechers’ proprietary Resalyte compound and it feels quite resilient (meaning it bounces back well; for example when you push your finger into the side of the midsole it will spring back quickly; some midsoles do not do this. New Balance’s RevLite comes to mind as a foam that is not very resilient). According to Skechers the midsole compound is a 57c firmness. I don’t have enough reference points to compare this to (other than the GoRun 3 is 50c, as are most other Skechers shoes, and the GoRun Ride 3 is 47c – lower numbers indicate softer shoes), but the shoe feels fairly dense and firm underfoot (although I don’t feel like it is a super firm when compared to many racing shoes; more on that below).

Fit

From some discussions on the internet with others who have tried the shoe on or run in it, the relatively narrow fit seems to be the biggest deal breaker. For me, the fit is fairly good for a racing shoe.  It fits snugly throughout and holds the foot well.  At speed, it is very comfortable and I would have no issues running a marathon (or further) in them.  Others have reported that the shoe was too narrow and tight.  I should say that I almost always run without socks and this can make a big difference (especially depending on the thickness of socks you choose) with fit for a shoe like this.

If I were to change anything about the fit, it would be to give it just a little more width in the forefoot. The shoe did fit about a 1/4 size long on me so I would shorten that up and make the shape a little less pointed. I’ve spoken with Kurt from Skechers a bit about the shoe and these two tweaks are something that the team there is strongly considering for future versions of the Speed (Editor’s note from Pete: I have run in prototypes of the GoMeb Speed 3 and the fit is much better on my foot – I was one who found the 2 to be a bit too narrow).

Skechers GoMeb Speed 2 Sole – 80 miles of wear

Ride

This is where the Speed 2 really shines.  While the shoe is firm enough to feel fast and racy, the team at Skechers Performance managed to make it very forgiving and somehow substantial enough to be a very practical marathon shoe (I really see this as a long run racing shoe because of the stack height, not a 5k/10k shoe, though it would be fine for those as well).  I just took them on another 8 mile run and even at an easy pace of 7:30-8:00/mi they feel as smooth as butter. This holds all the way to 5k race pace for me (have yet to take them on the track, but I have no reason to assume they would perform poorly there either). Many racing flats I’ve tried do not feel that great at 8:00 pace (many adidas adizero shoes for example feel fine at 6:30 and under, but somewhat stiff/harsh at slower paces).

I really appreciated the higher stack height (14mm forefoot/18mm heel) for a shoe of this weight. Plus, the foam is dense enough that it feels quite protective. The shoe feels rather level as you would infer from its 4mm offset, but still has a great dynamic feel and it transitions very smoothly and quickly from midfoot to forefoot.  I don’t heel strike much so can’t completely comment on how it would ride for those who do, but given the 18mm stack and density of the midsole, I would guess it would be more than capable of handling a more rear foot strike (Meb himself, after all, seems to land more rear foot from most pics I’ve seen).

Lastly, the addition of the Dupont Hytrel shank in the midfoot really helps this shoe feel more structured for the weight (you can see the shank in the central sole cutout in the photo above). I think without that, as the midsole broke down, the shoe would feel progressively more dead.  As it is, it rides a great line between flexible and substantial for a racing shoe.

Overall Impressions

I will be as bold to say that the Skechers GoMeb Speed 2 is quite possibly the best racing shoe I’ve run in. It is very versatile with its relatively higher stack and level of cushion. It can handle longer runs, but at 6.8 oz it is light enough to feel great (and downright comfy) even at 5k pace. This is not as true for me of other racing shoes I’ve run in like the Adidas Hagio, NB RC1600, and inov-8 Road-X Lite 155. They all are much thinner and very firm – they feel fast, but don’t offer nearly as comfortable a ride as the Speed 2 does.

If Skechers can continue to refine the GoMeb Speed, I see it slowly rising to the top of the pack for marathon racing options. Additionally, and very important to me, it is one of very few true marathon racing shoes I know of that comes in at a 4mm offset; the Adios 2/Boost, Nike Streak 5, New Balance 1400v2, etc. all seem to be solidified at a 10mm drop.  I’m very impressed with the Speed 2 and would wholeheartedly recommend it.  I’m also excited to give the Speed 3 (the shoe Meb wore to win Boston this year) a try to see what improvements have been implemented for that shoe.  I believe it is to launch in November 2014.

Purchasing Options

The Skechers GoMeb Speed 2 is available for purchase at 6PM.com for as low as $44.99 right now (6PM is the Zappos clearance site – the shoe has been out for awhile and is being updated in the Fall). It is also available at Shoebuy.com for both men and women (you can take 20% off with code 20July). Purchases from these sites help to support Runblogger and help us to publish detailed reviews like this one – your support is very much appreciated!

I have not run in very many Asics shoes in the past. I reviewed the Gel Lyte33v2 last year, and will have a review of the v3 up soon. But the one Asics shoe that I’ve long had my eye on is the Hyper Speed (Ryan Hall’s marathon racing shoe). I had thought that the Hyper Speed was going away after v5, but in talking with Asics found out that a v6 was indeed on the way. I bought a pair earlier this year (Disclosure: this was a personal purchase, not a media sample), and have now put about 50 miles on them. I’m rather impressed by the shoe, and would rank it right upper there with the NB 1400v2 and Adios Boost mentioned in the intro.

Readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of simple shoes. I like a basic, minimally structured upper with a bit of give/stretch, and a simple sole without a lot of tech built in. The Asics Hyper Speed 6 fits this bill perfectly. Let’s start with the specs.

Asics Hyper Speed 6 Specs

Weight: 5.6 oz in men’s size 9 (via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 21mm heel, 15mm forefoot

Upper Construction

The upper of the Hyper Speed 6 is a double-layed mesh with welded overlays. Very simple, not a lot of extraneous material. The internal lining is soft and seamless through the midfoot region. There is some stitching on either side of the forefoot that can be felt internally, but I have not had any abrasion issues (have not tried running sockless in them yet, but don’t think it would be a problem). The upper has almost a baggy feel to it in the forefoot, which makes for a very roomy fit for a racing shoe. This fit is kind of reminiscent of the Saucony Grid Type A5, which is a very good thing for me!

The HyperSpeed 6 does have a bit of arch support, mostly due to the midsole curling up a bit under the arch, and a hard heel counter (the area colored red behind the heel is hard plastic internally).

The photo below gives a nice view of the upper mesh:

Sole Construction

For a 5.6 oz shoe the Asics Hyper Speed 6 offers a surprising amount of cushion. The heel has a soft, springy feel to it (there is a Gel unit in the heel), very similar to the NB 1400v2 or the adidas Adios Boost. The forefoot is firm and responsive. This is my pretty much exactly what I want in a sole for my stride.

Unlike some racing flats, the Hyper Speed 6 is actually quite flexible, I don’t think there is a plate or shank of any type in the sole. This is one of the reasons why I’d not choose it as a 5K shoe – I like a shoe to be firmer and stiffer for running top speed in a short race. But for a half to full marathon it’s just about perfect. I’ve run up to 14 miles in them so far without any issue, though they do feel better at a slightly faster than easy pace.

One of the things that has puzzled me about the Hyper Speed so far is that I’m seeing almost no heel wear at all (see photo above). I typically wear soles a bit in front of the back corner of the heel, and I see almost nothing there in this shoe. I am seeing a bit of wear on the triangular black outsole pod behind the forefoot on the right shoe, but that’s about it:

This wear pattern is unusual for me and I’ve only recently seen something similar in the Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit. I’m wondering if the flexible sole in both of these shoes is shifting my contact point forward a bit? Kind of a mystery.

Conclusion

I’ve been really impressed by the Asics Hyper Speed 6 so far. It’s a sub 6oz shoe that retains ample cushion and does this in a flexible package with a roomy fit in the forefoot. Pretty much the exact combination of features I look for in a distance racer.

Here’s the best part – the Hyper Speed 6 is a bargain! It has an MSRP of $85, but can be purchased for less than that at various on-line outlets. You could likely buy two pairs of Hyper Speeds (and a couple pairs of socks) for the cost of one adidas Adios Boost. And given my observations on durability of the sole so far (50 miles on them) I’m not worried that they sacrificed quality at the lower cost.

I loved the adios Boost, but I’d find it very hard to recommend it at $140. Even the New Balance 1400v2 has an MSRP $15 higher than the Hyper Speed. If you liked either of those shoes, the Hyper Speed 6 is definitely worth a look. And if you’re looking for a first racing flat that won’t break the bank, this shoe is definitely one to consider.