The Adidas Adizero Prime Parley is a great shoe, maybe one of my all-time favorites. It wasn’t sent to me by a brand or marketing agency – in fact the model I have is old and has been updated. I don’t have the update, but it looks to be pretty similar. I found this shoe totally by chance – it was on clearance for like $25 at a local Burlington Coat Factory (which along with Marshall’s and TJ Maxx has become a favorite store for footwear “treasure hunting” – this shoe had an MSRP of $200). I saw it on the rack and recognized the paired Boost midsole and Continental rubber outsole as being quite familiar – it’s basically that of the Adidas Adios, another of my favorite shoes, and the one my oldest son wore for most of his track season last year. But the sole was paired with a one-piece, knit upper – very intriguing given that Nike Free Flyknits are my preferred shoe to wear during the day at work. They were size 11, but I tried them on anyway and they fit well. For $25, why not give them a try?

I’ve run nearly all of my miles in these shoes this summer, and they have proven to be one of the best treasures I have found at a discount store. If you’ve run in the Adidas Adios you already know what they feel like underfoot – the Boost midsole is bouncy but seems to firm up at higher speeds, and I’ve used them on the track and the road. I also ran my first race in a long time in them earlier this month. The upper is ridiculously comfortable – I love a knit upper that I can slip on and off easily without ever needing to untie, and they hug the foot without any slop while running. I didn’t realize until recently that the upper of the Parley model I have is made from recycled ocean plastic – another plus in my book. Parley is an organization dedicated to ocean conservation, and they have collaborated with a number of companies to use recycled ocean plastic in products.

In an effort to keep things short and to the point, I’ll finish by commenting on sizing. The pair I have are size 11, which is atypical for me, but they fit well when I tried them on (and they didn’t have any other sizes on the rack at Burlington). I wear a 10.5 in most shoes, and just yesterday I was at Marshall’s and they had a bunch of the adizero Prime on display. I tried on the 10.5 and it felt tight around the forefoot – I would definitely recommend at least a half size up. I would have bought another pair at Marshall’s for myself if they’d had an 11, but alas no such luck (my son, who has the same shoe size as me, also wanted one – we share similar tastes in footwear, though he is more into soccer cleats).

So, if you happen to be at a discount store and see the Prime Parley, I’d highly recommend giving them a try (they seem to be making the rounds of these clearance stores right now). It’s a great shoe, and highly versatile. The newer model looks like it has the same sole with a different upper, and even these can be had on clearance right now at Running Warehouse. If you have tried the newer version, leave a comment about the upper – I’m curious if it’s mostly similar to the model I have. Finally, for another take check out the Prime Parley review on Believe in the Run.

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.

Saucony Freedom ISO Specs (per Running Warehouse): 9.1 oz (men’s 9), 23mm heel, 19mm forefoot.

I’d describe the Freedom ISO as a workhorse of a shoe. I probably have over 100 miles on them total, and they have shown relatively minimal wear. The crystal rubber on the sole seems to hold up very well, with only minor abrasion at the heel, and the full-length EVERUN midsole still has plenty of spring. EVERUN is Saucony’s answer to adidas’ BOOST material, and it seems to be a worthy competitor. The midsole, along with the EVERUN topsole, provides plenty of cushion, which is appreciated since I am about 20 pounds above my peak racing weight (though working on getting that back down this summer!).

Crystal rubber outsole looks cool, and seems quite durable

One of the things I like best about the Freedom ISO is the fit. It has a very roomy forefoot, and the upper is fantastic. It’s among those shoes that disappears on my feet – never any abrasion, hot spots, etc. No discomfort of any kind. I like that the shoe lacks a true heel counter – the heel is supported only by a plastic band that wraps around the back, and the ISOFIT upper wraps the foot nicely. They’re so comfortable that I seriously considered buying a pair in black that I could wear to work, but the $160 price tag held me back.

Note the wide forefoot

The ride provided by the Freedom ISO is one of comfort rather than speed. This is a shoe I’d use to eat up long runs at a slower pace, but not for fast-paced racing or speedwork. Although it specs out at 9.1 oz in men’s size 9, the weight seems disproportionately distributed in the sole, and this removes a sense of speed from the ride. My max distance run in the shoe was about 9 miles a few weeks ago, and they handled that well, but I would not choose the Freedom as a race shoe for most distances (maybe a marathon in my current condition, but if I was in better shape I’d prefer something a bit speedier).

EVERUN topsole under the insole

The question I struggle with for a shoe like the Freedom ISO is whether or not it is worth the $160 price tag. I still favor shoes at the lower end of the price spectrum (>$110 these days seems about right), but the Freedom does feel like a premium shoe with a very durable sole – it shows far less wear with more miles on it than other shoes I own. I’d be curious to hear experiences from others with regard to durability – is 500+ miles realistic on these? 

Saucony Freedom ISO – sole wear after 100+ miles is only on the lateral heel

At the end of the day, I’d recommend the Saucony Freedom ISO to runners looking for a comfortable shoe with a spacious forefoot that can be used to eat up long, slow miles. For speed I would recommend looking elsewhere (perhaps the shoe I’m running in right now…review hopefully coming).

The Saucony Freedom ISO is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Disclosure: these shoes were provided free of charge by Saucony for review purposes.

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!

The original Zante was one of my favorite shoes – soft sole, comfortable fit, and a smooth ride that offered plenty of cushion for longer runs. To be honest, not much has changed in v2 – the Zante remains a personal favorite, and it’s a shoe that I highly recommend. It retains a soft, 6mm drop sole (though lately as it has broken in I’m almost feeling it’s too soft), and the bump I felt under the midfoot of v1 seems toned down a bit in v2. New Balance did change the pattern on the sidewalls of the midsole, but I can detect no noticeable effect of this.

The upper of the Zante 2 is minimalistic – it’s composed of a stretchy, double-layered mesh with welded overlays, and the heel counter is very flexible. Fit is reasonably roomy on my foot (though not overly spacious – I did go up a half size). Put simply, it’s a no frills upper that just works.

The outsole of the Zante 2 is also relatively unchanged. It is a smoothish, full length outsole composed of flat rubber hexagons (see picture down below). Great for the road, but not great on trails, and very little traction (would not use it in winter!). Durability for me has been excellent.

To be honest, my only real complaint about the Zante 2 is the fact that it can at times feel overly soft. It almost feels like the sole may bottom out. I’ve only noticed this recently, so it could either be an effect of running on hot summer asphalt, or breakdown of the midsole cushion with use. In either case, I would not recommend the Zante 2 if you like a firmer shoe.

All in all, the New Balance Zante 2 is a great shoe for those who like a smooth, soft ride. It offers a lot of cushion in a lightweight package (8.7 oz in men’s size 9), and could easily serve as a marathon shoe for me. And an even bigger plus is the price – at $100 MSRP it’s quite affordable in the current market. I highly recommend giving the Zante 2 a try!

The New Balance Zante 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Amazon.com.

Read on below for my take on the effectiveness of the changes.

Specs

Price:$120 MSRP

Weight: 275 grams (9.8 oz) mens 9 and 235 grams (8.4 oz) womens 8

Stack Height:25mm (Heel), 21mm (Forefoot)

Specs via Running Warehouse

Ok overall fit, but toebox still a little pointy, and just not very comfy up front.

Upper and Fit

The fit of the Peregrines (and other Saucony shoes) has always been the limiting factor for me.  The Peregrine 5 was by far the best fitting Peregrine for me, and other than a overly stiff heel counter, I had no problems with that upper.  The Peregrine 6 doesn’t quite have as nice of a toebox feel to me (a little less compliant/soft feeling), and the heel counter is still too stiff/overkill for this type of shoe.  The biggest issue with the Peregrine 6 is the vertical stitching on the very narrow heel cup/collar – it hit my heel bone in such a way that it has caused blisters on every outing I’ve taken the shoe on (and I probably only get a handful of blisters all year).  Not good.  Other than that, the upper is pretty standard mesh with Saucony’s Flex Film overlays, and works decent enough in the midfoot and even in the forefoot, though there is still some room to improve the shape there, which is still too pointed.

Peregrine 5, Peregrine 6 and Skechers GOtrail Ultra 3 from left to right. P5 has no material change/stitching on heel and Ultra 3 has it wide enough to not be a problem. Peregrine 6 is too narrow and hits my heel bone.

Midsole and Ride

One of the big stories for Saucony (at least from a marketing perspective) is the recent use of Everun material, which like the Boost material that is used in adidas shoes, is a TPU based cushioning material that touts better responsiveness and durability.  The big difference with Saucony is that they only (so far) have implemented it in a “topsole” fashion, which means that there is a thin layer of Everun on top of the traditional EVA midsole.  In the Peregrine 6, this layer is only in the heel.  Personally, I could not tell much difference from its inclusion in version 6 to the ride in version 5.  The heel may be just a bit softer on downhills, but I’m not entirely convinced this isn’t just from the softer PWRTRAC outsole.  I’m a little confused, particularly since the Peregrine is a pretty light and low trail shoe that favors a midfoot/forefoot landing, as to why they didn’t put the Everun in the forefoot instead, where it would be more noticeable and help offset some of the firmness from the substantial rockplate (which I like).

Pretty basic midsole design with 4mm offset. Somewhat firm-ish, but outsole softens that up a bit.

One thing I thought on my last run in them was that the midfoot was much too flexible, and doesn’t tie the shoe together very well since it has a more substantial forefoot and heel structure.  The solution to this would be to put a small shank in the midfoot to help tie the front and back together.

No midfoot structure with a somewhat structured forefoot (rockplate) and heel (stiff heel counter). Just to be clear, the foot doesn’t bend this way, so the shoe doesn’t need to either ;).

Overall the ride is not bad, but its not memorable either.  It gets the job done, protects the foot well and feels moderately precise, but doesn’t grab me in any way and is the main area (other than removing heel collar stitching) to improve the shoe going forward.

Pretty good shape to heel midsole with little flare.

Outsole

The new PWRTRAC outsole is by far the most improved area of the shoe over version 5.  I’d go so far as to say, if Saucony would put the new PWRTRAC outsole on the Peregrine 5 midsole and upper they’d have a really nice shoe.  The rubber compound is nice and sticky while also contributing cushion and responsiveness to the ride.  I’d argue that the lug shapes are too pointed for the type of shoe it is, which will accelerate wear, but overall it is so much better than the old (but extremely durable) hard rubber that the previous Peregrines had that was super sketchy on anything but dry dirt (wet rock or bridges were dangerous in that shoe).

Great rubber compound and aggressive lugs. I’d probably prefer the edge lugs to be like the ones in the middle and have some surface area rather than being narrow ridges which would have them hold up better/longer.

Overall, my experience with the PWRTRAC rubber, which is also on the Fastwitch racing flat and Nomad TR has been very positive and is one of the best developments in Saucony’s trail shoes thus far.  The forthcoming Xodus ISO looks to use the PWRTRAC rubber as well.  Overall, the traction on the Peregrine 6 is vastly improved over all other versions.

Peregrine 5 profile is narrower than 6 (better I think) and has midfoot structure with TPU (green material) in midfoot…much better overall in my view. The rockplates are similar and both very robust for a light trail shoe.

Conclusion

Some good, some bad with the Peregrine 6.  The outsole is a great improvement, and the ride is maybe a bit softer and flexible as a result of the outsole as well.  However, the upper really detracts from the shoe and is a rare, deal-breaker upper for me. This is unfortunate as upper issues are less common these days – most shoe companies are producing much more comfortable uppers than even a short 3-4 years ago.  The stitching on the inside of the heel cup is a must fix for a Peregrine 7 in my mind (I’d love to see them fix it in the new Peregrine 6 colorways for Fall 16 if possible…it needs immediate attention).  If they fixed that and added a midfoot shank (both could be done without a new midsole mold) they could salvage an otherwise decent shoe.

The Saucony Peregrin 6 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

I tend to agree with Thomas here – though both the upper and sole have been changed in v7, the shoe retains the essence of what the Kinvara is. It’s still a lightweight (sub 8oz in size 9), affordable ($110 MSRP), 4mm drop shoe (22mm heel, 18mm forefoot) that is suitable for both speed and longer distances (specs via Running Warehouse). As someone who prefers less shoe underfoot, the Kinvara is more of a distance trainer and marathon racer for me, and v7 still fits that bill quite nicely.

Saucony Kinvara 7 (top) vs. Kinvara 6 (bottom)

Upper

The upper of the Kinvara 7 is really pretty similar to that of the previous version. The mesh has changed slightly, overlays have been moved around, and the Saucony logo has been shifted forward toward the forefoot (similar to what Brooks has done on some of their shoes). But in terms of fit, function, and comfort, there really isn’t much noticeable change. In most ways, it’s still a fairly simple, minimally structured upper (for example, the heel counter remains very soft and flexible). Saucony did opt to keep the Pro-Lock wrap around the midfoot – I honestly don’t have a preference one way or the other about it, but my general feeling is that it doesn’t do much (similar to the Brooks PureProject NavBand), and could therefore be eliminated to shave a bit of weight and simplify the shoe.

Saucony Kinvara 7 (top) vs. Kinvara 6 (bottom)

Fit

Perhaps the biggest difference I noticed in the Kinvara 7 is the fit (note: I always go 1/2 size up in the Kinvara). K6 fit me well, but the forefoot of K7 feels downright spacious to me. It may be the roomiest forefoot I have felt in any version of the Kinvara. Midfoot and heel lock down well, and this is one of the better-fitting shoes I have tried in awhile – would be a great option for swelling associated with longer distances for my feet (I’ve probably run over 70 miles in them, but long runs maxed out a 7-8 miles).

Saucony Kinvara 7 (top) vs. Kinvara 6 (bottom)

Midsole

The big thing that Saucony is touting about the Kinvara 7 is the addition of a wedge of Everun cushioning in the midsole under the heel. From what I gather, Everun is similar to the adidas Boost compound – Saucony claims increased energy return, and better resistance to breakdown over time. To be honest, I couldn’t feel the stuff at all. I tend toward a mild heel strike with most loading under the midfoot, so my stride isn’t always the best to assess heel cushion. If anything, and this may be my biggest complaint about the Kinvara 7, the sole felt a bit dead to me. The Kinvara 7 does not feel springy like the adidas Adios Boost, moreso like the RevLite material used in some New Balance shoes. And it doesn’t feel quite as soft as previous versions of the Kinvara – I’m liking the ride of the New Balance Zante 2 better right now for longer distances for this reason. I’d be curious to try a shoe with a sole made entirely of Everun – as it is now, you likely won’t notice much unless you really pound the heel.

Saucony Kinvara 7 (top) vs. Kinvara 6 (bottom)

Outsole

The outsole of the Kinvara 7 has changed from triangular patches under the forefoot, to a chevron-like pattern. Still no rubber along the outer margin of the forefoot, so durability might be an issue there for some, but mine look pretty solid still after 70+ miles. My guess is only extreme forefoot strikers will have major durability issues due to lack of outsole coverage.

Conclusion

I don’t feel like the Kinvara 7 has strayed far from previous versions. Weight, stack height, etc. all remain very similar. The Kinvara 7 stands out for me due to the spacious forefoot, and with regard to fit, it’s a shoe that disappears on my feet. I would not view the addition of Everun in the sole as a major selling point, and the sole actually felt a bit dead to me – Sacuony may want to extend the material further into the forefoot to see if that improves the ride. For me, the Kinvara 7 remains a solid option among lightweight distance shoes, but I’m finding that the New Balance Zante 2 may have surpassed it in terms of overall ride for my stride in this category.

The Saucony Kinvara 7 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

I was pretty skeptical that a shoe with a high stack height could retain these principles, and had not run in a highly cushioned shoe that I could tolerate for even an easy recovery run. Until the GOtrail Ultra 3 arrived,  that is. Actually, to be fair, the first shoe was likely the GOrun Ultra Road, which is a little lower in stack height but still within the maximal category. Both of these shoes offer a much more flexible ride than is typical in a max cushion shoe, and the fit is by far the best in the category.  I’ll get into more details below about how this works so well for the new GOtrail Ultra 3, and why you need this shoe on your feet.

Specs

Price: $120 MSRP

Weight: 309 grams (10.9 oz) in mens 9 and 257 grams (9.1 oz) womens 8 (weight via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 36mm heel, 32 mm forefoot, midsole height 30mm heel, 26mm forefoot (stack via Skechers Performance)

Notice the GOtrail signification. First time Skechers has started using that, and a sign of things to come :). Also the tongue is actually well padded, a nice feature for longer outings.

Upper and Fit

The uppers on the newer Skechers shoes have improved so much from their earlier shoes, that they really aren’t even comparable. If you haven’t tried Skechers in a while, you need to try one of their 2016 models to see what I’m talking about. They’ve gone from producing pretty average uppers with stitched overlays and lower-quality feeling materials (except for the Speed series), to producing uppers that are, in my view, equivalent to, if not the best uppers on the market. The last shape on the Ultra 3 is perfect for a long distance trail shoe, with ample room in the forefoot, but a secure midfoot and heel that allows the shoe to feel secure on steep descents without any constriction of the toes.

Great fit for all day comfort, but secure enough to perform at speed.

Welded internal support straps.

Additionally, the tongue is adequately padded, something sometimes oddly missing from trail shoes. A padded tongue is very welcome when you have the shoe on your foot for 5-30 hours in ultra marathon events (especially in shoes with a lot of cushion).  The shoe breathes well and drains extremely well, thanks to a mesh strobel, drainage holes in the foot bed, and holes in the side of the midsole (more on that later).  If you like Hokas, but have struggled with the narrow toeboxes and the funky midfoot fit, the Ultra 3 is really a dream come true in terms of fit for long races.

Great upper design and overall package is high quality.

Midsole and Ride

At first I wasn’t sure if the upper was what made the Ultra 3 stand apart, or the midsole.  I think, in great shoes, all the components work together in a way such that you can’t necessarily separate one component from the other, and the Ultra 3 is a great example of this.  However, in the max cushion realm, the midsole and ride of the Ultra 3, more so even than the upper, really sets this shoe apart.  As I’ve said before, Hokas fit super narrow and uncomfortable with, in my view, a pretty poor last shape for most feet.  Up until now, runners did have the option to turn to one of Altra’s max cushioned models with the Paradigm or Olympus.  I’ve run in both the Paradigm 1.5 and Olympus 2.0, and I can say the fit is more comfortable than Hokas by a long shot (although still not as good as the Ultra 3).  However, the midsoles of the Altras just don’t ride naturally at all with their drastic toe spring/rocker, stiff feel, and wide overall platform (Olympus 2.0 is better with regard to footprint width).

Tons of cushion. Notice drainage holes in the side.

The Ultra 3 has, hands down, the best ride of any max cushioned shoe on the market.  The geometry and footprint of the midsole is just right (not too wide a footprint, and lively feel from midfoot to toe off) to give it proper stability and a smooth, propulsive ride. The 5GEN compound is super soft, but also very resilient (meaning it bounces back and holds shape/resists compression).  This makes the shoe feel much lighter than it is, and also much more nimble.  Significant flex grooves in the midsole and outsole (interplay between components again) allow for unprecedented flex in a shoe of this stack height.  Additionally, the shape narrows in the arch, which decouples the forefoot and heel (natural principles again).  This is the opposite approach of Hoka and Altra, which rely on stiff midsoles that are thick/wide through the arch to allow for rockered geometries to get through the gait cycle.  In my experience, the rockered soles feel ok at low speeds but really feel unnatural at higher speeds, especially on steep downhills and on technical ground.

Not a very wide or flared heel, which is how I like it. Wide enough to be stable for the high stack, but doesn’t get in the way.

The Ultra 3 runs nearly the same as a normal shoe except for the noticeably enhanced cushioning.  Gait-wise, I didn’t have to change a thing.  This was a massive surprise on the first run in this shoe!  The shoe also features a very innovative and effective drainage system that really is a big deal in long races when there are multiple stream crossings and/or it is hot (requiring the runner to get wet constantly to stay cool). The only surface on which I felt the midsole was suboptimal was on super technical terrain when the shoe really flexes torsionally. I’m not sure yet if design could eliminate this issue (I have a few ideas), or if the stack height just won’t allow it.  Either way, I can confidently say it is the best maximal ride on the market.

Mesh strobel for quick drainage.

Nice footbed with heel drainage holes…this shoe will drain quickly.

Outsole

While not as immediately noticeable, the outsole might also be quite revolutionary as well, mainly in how it allows for significant coverage while staying light weight and allowing for a high level of flexibility.  At first look, I was convinced I’d be ripping off sections of the outsole quite quickly, and am usually a fan of full coverage outsoles for that reason, and for the consistency of ride that a full outsole provides.  The Ultra 3 outsole provides the consistency of ride since it is dispersed evenly due to the web/lattice design.  I’m also happy to say it has held up to significant abuse with no sign of de-lamination so far, and I’ve had it on some rough terrain.  In this case, I’d say the added flexibility and weight savings are worth the tradeoff since it seems to be holding up great.

Great overall and unique web/lattice design.

The traction is fantastic on anything but ice, snow and mud. This is an issue of softness and high stack since you can’t get the penetration into these surfaces since the ground force pressure is dispersed…one of the trade offs when you add cushion.  Overall the lug height is about right, and durability seems on track to last at least 300-400 miles, if not longer, depending on the terrain you run on.

Skechers recessed the outsole into the EVA midsole, which is brought up flush with the rubber to prevent delamination. It’s these little things that come together to really show the refined design of the Ultra 3.

Conclusion

If you’ve made it this far in the review, then you already know that I like this shoe.  A lot.  The GOtrail Ultra 3 and Ultra Road have opened my mind to the possibility of max cushion shoes providing a ride that still feels natural and is more of an enhancement, in the form of added cushioning, that still works with a runners natural stride.  This is a huge difference in feel, and the shoe is category-leading in my mind.  If you like Hokas or max cushioned Altras, go out there and try the Skechers GoTrail Ultra 3 (or Ultra Road if you don’t run trails).  The midsole material is substantially better, and the fit and ride is next-level for the category.  If you’ve shied away from max cushion up to this point, I’d also encourage you to give them a try, particularly if you run ultras or higher volume training. They are surprisingly natural feeling for the stack height, and as someone who believes the foot should control the shoe, not the other way around, these are the first maximal shoes that I feel achieve that.  Fantastic job from the Skechers Peformance Division!  I can’t wait till I start seeing the Ultra 3s more and more at trail ultras this year.  I know they’ll be on my feet a fair bit, particularly in my 100 milers later this summer.

The Skechers GoTrail Ultra 3 is available for purchase at Skechers.com (many colors), Amazon.com (some currently discounted), and Running Warehouse (single color).

Topo’s 2015 lineup started to change this a bit, particularly in the uppers, and is reflected in my review of the Runventure. Topo seems very keen on listening to feedback and quickly improving their shoes. I expected some incremental improvement with the MT-2 and Hydroventure, but what I found were some very large refinements across the board that elevate the Topo trail lineup from cool ideas from a new brand, to legitimate trail offerings. I’ve been a fan of Topo for a while, but just couldn’t honestly say the overall experience was one I could recommend.  That’s pretty much turned around with these two models, and I’ll explain why below.

Specs

Topo MT-2 –

Price: $100.00 MSRP

Weight: 241 g (8.5 oz) mens 9

Stack Height: 23mm Heel/20mm FF; 3mm drop

Topo Hydroventure –

Price: $130.00 MSRP

Weight: 275 g (9.7 oz) mens 9

Stack Height: 23mm Heel/20mm FF; 3mm drop

Specs from Topo Athletic

Great overlays and fit on both of them, with good toebox room and secure midfoot and heel.

Upper and Fit

As I stated above, Topo’s uppers really came a long way in 2015 with shoes like the Runventure, Magnifly and Tribute showing large improvements in the construction, materials, and overlays on the uppers. The MT-2 and Hydroventure continue this refinement in different ways.  The only downside to the Runventure upper was that it had a pretty thick, 3/4 length lining in the interior.  While this was nice from a comfort standpoint, in warmer weather the shoe ran a little hot.

The MT-2 completely alleviates this issue with nearly 70% of the upper unlined (all but the heel area), and a very thin and breathable mesh.  What I’m most surprised about is how they managed to get a good, secure fit with such a thin and light mesh.  My conclusion is that this is due to the fantastic overlays, which they combine to entirely rand the shoe, plus secure the midfoot to the lacing, all in what appears to be either one seamless overlay layer or a few very thin layers (continuous if that is the case since I can’t see transition areas).  The end result is the upper is extremely flexible and comfortable, while still being breathable and supportive.

Same mesh as far as I can tell, with Hyrdoventure (red, on right) having the DVdryLT eVent material laminated to the back.

The Hydroventure upper is an entirely different type of improvement.  It uses the same outer mesh and overlay approach as the MT-2, but adds an DVdryLT eVent, one piece upper. While not a waterproof outer shell as much as the Altra Lone Peak Neoshell, it is still a true one piece waterproof upper, unlike the bootie type designs of nearly any other waterproof shoe. The great part of this is that the upper is really not any thicker than a normal shoe, and can be constructed the same as a normal shoe. This makes the fit much nicer than nearly any other waterpoof shoe I’ve run in, even better than the Altra Neoshell simply because the Topo last is much more secure in the midfoot and heel than the Altra.

The only downside to the Hydroventure upper is linked to its upside.  It runs warm in any temps over 35-40 degrees, but as a waterproof shoe, this is almost unavoidable and also a benefit usually in the nasty weather where a waterproof shoe is more useful anyway. Additionally, this upper construction method lends itself to an extremely light overall shoe weight over GTX shoes. The Hydroventure is definitely the lightest waterproof shoe I have and, according to my own measurements, comparable to almost any other normal trail shoe in weight – for example, it is as light as something like the Nike Kiger 3.  Very impressive!

Hydroventure interior is simple, and just like regular shoe construction, despite being waterproof.

The fit overall is much improved on the MT-2/Hydroventure (same last on both). The midsole is slightly narrower at the arch, and this contributes to a better fit in the midfoot for me over the MT and Runventure. The footbed is also changed, and completely different from other Topo models. Instead of a thick/stiff two piece footbed that felt dead to me, Topo replaced it with a lighter, softer one piece foot bed that just feels much better. Additionally, I feel like the last overall is just a bit more refined in fit, and I get a better fit in the toebox and midfoot than other Topo models without the bunching and more baggy fit of the original MT. The MT-2 and Hydroventure are two of the best fitting shoes out there with a wide toebox and secure midfoot/heel.

New, simplified and lighter footbed.

Midsole and Ride

While the uppers are much improved in these shoes over previous Topo models, the midsoles improved even more. The Runventure and original MT both felt dead to me. While the midsole was there and protected your foot a little, it added no life or “feel” to the shoe.  I’m happy to report that the MT-2 and Hydroventure midsole (same mold/shape and I believe firmness) is not only a little more protective, but also much more responsive and lively.  I ran a few different runs in the MT-2 that included some tempo work, with even one interval on pavement, and the shoe really didn’t even feel like a Topo to me.  I would have been very uncomfortable running that same run in the Runventure, and yet the MT-2 was not only enjoyable, but worked as good as many road shoes would, and much better than tons of trail shoes.  They have a very versatile ride that handles smooth/hard terrain, but also is competent on more technical trail due to the lower stack height and trim cut to the midsole and outsole.

Great new midsole design that adds 3mm to forefoot stack height of original MT/Runventure design, and offers a slightly softer and more responsive feel. Additionally, midfoot is a bit narrower which leads to a better fit in the arch for me.

One key difference with the Hydroventure is that Topo put in the same rockplate as in the Runventure, which gives it a more protective, and slightly firmer ride. By contrast, the MT-2 has no rockplate, and is much more flexible in feel, but also a bit softer and less protective.  I’m kinda torn between the two rides since the Hydroventure ride would be much better for longer runs/races, but I like MT-2 upper, being light and breathable, so kind of wish the MT-2 had the Hydro rockplate, even though I still like the flexible nimble feel of the MT-2 without it for shorter runs; maybe Topo will offer both someday (fingers crossed :) )?

Outsole

The MT-2 and Hydroventure outsole are the same and, in fact, are also the same as the original MT and Runventure. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing since it is a very versatile outsole that handles a wide variety of terrain and surfaces very well.  Additionally, it is quite durable and light too. For the MT-2, I think the outsole is nearly perfect, however, for the Hydroventure it may be a little under-lugged, since that shoe, being waterproof, is normally going to be used in much nastier conditions like mud, snow and rougher mountain terrain. In this case, I think it could really benefit from a bit deeper lug, which would also help differentiate it a bit more from the MT-2 (and make room for an MT-2 with the Hydroventure rock plate :)). As it is, the current outsole is quite good, and thus the Hydroventure makes a good winter road-to-trail shoe, and also functions well on regular trail in cold conditions.

Same outsole. Notice rockplate exposed in both forefoot and heel (two piece TPU plate) of Hydroventure on the left.

Conclusion

All in all, I’m actually somewhat blown away by how much the new Topo models have improved. If these two shoes are any indication, there are some good things coming down the pipe from Topo.  The MT-2, particularly since it retails for $100, is probably one of the best values in the lightweight trail market, and is extremely versatile. The Hydroventure is one of the more reasonably priced waterproof models, while also the lightest and probably best fitting waterproof model out there due to the great DVdryLT eVent design. I’d wholeheartedly recommend the MT-2 for anyone that runs trails and likes a light and lively shoe, and I’d recommend the Hydroventure as a general waterproof shoe, particularly notable for its light weight and for those that like the MT-2 but want a bit more protection. Great stuff Topo!

The Topo MT-2 and Hydroventure are available for purchase at Topoathletic.com and Amazon.com. The MT-2, but not the Hydroventure, is available at Running Warehouse.

With my return to teaching, I’ve realized that time constraints necessitate making a change to how I write reviews (or they’ll never get done!). I’m going to try a more streamlined approach that I hope will allow me to churn through a backlog of reviews that have been accumulating since the beginning of the year. Here goes…

With their latest iteration of the PureProject, Brooks has trimmed down the collection by eliminating the PureConnect. The PureCadence (support), PureFlow (neutral), and PureGrit (trail) move on to v5. I’ve run in both the PureCadence 5 and PureFlow 5, and this review focuses on the former. I do feel obligated to once again point out that although the PureCadence is marketed as the support/stability shoe in the PureProject lineup, I think that this categorization is pretty artificial. Quite frankly, it feels pretty darned similar to the PureFlow, so don’t let it’s categorization scare you off if you’re interested in giving it a try.

Perhaps the most exciting change in v5 of the PureCadence is the fact that the silly NavBand has been eliminated, as has the non-functional split-toe sole. I’m a fan of eliminating marketing-driven nonsense, and I don’t feel that either of those PureProject “features” accomplished much of anything for the shoe. Thank you Brooks for letting go.

Here are my thoughts after probably 75 or so miles in the PureCadence 5:

1. Specs: 9.6 oz, 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot.

2. Sizing: I stayed true to size with a 10 – fit was good, no need to size up for me.

3. Ride: The PureCadence 5 feels very similar to previous iterations of the shoe – reasonably well cushioned, smooth transition, comfortable over longer distances. The shoe retains the undercut heel design, and as a midfoot to mild heel striker this makes me happy. Solid all around!

4. Fit: On the narrow side of middle-of-the-road. The toebox is not overly spacious, but not uncomfortably constricting. Midfoot and heel hold the foot well.

4. Upper: The mesh is not particularly stretchy, so not a lot of give. However, depth of the toebox is sufficient so there is room for the toes to move. Interior lining is plush and might be suitable for sockless wear (have not tried it yet myself).

5. Sole: I’m fond of the Brooks BioMoGo-DNA compound used in the midsole, and have been since the initial iterations of the PureProject shoes. It provides a fairly springy ride, and is a good match for my stride. Brooks touts that their Omega Flex Grooves optimize flexibility – I have no idea what an Omega Flex Groove is, but the sole is reasonably flexible, no complaints there. As mentioned, this doesn’t really feel like a stability shoe. In fact, I’ve gotten some abrasion on the side of the ball behind my big toe. This typically only happens in shoes with a soft medial forefoot, so I may be getting more late stage pronation than in most other shoes despite this being billed as a support model.

6. Durability: Outstanding so far. Plenty of rubber on the sole, with minimal wear visible. Upper has held up extremely well. No tearing, abrasion, etc.

Conclusion

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is a solid mid- to long distance trainer for those who like a lower-drop, sub-10oz shoe. It’s not for the wide-footed, but should work for narrow to moderate width feet, and durability seems to be excellent. The price point at $120 is a bit higher than I’d like to see ($100-$110 seems more appropriate), but if the durability continues to be as good as I’ve seen so far, then then the $/mile ratio may be fine. And as I said at the outset, I don’t find this Cadence to be particularly controlling or stable, so don’t let that scare you off if (like me) you think the “neutral” PureFlow 5 is pretty ugly.

If you have any specific questions, leave a comment below!

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Specs

Price: $130 MSRP

Weight: 272 grams (9.6 oz) men’s size 9

Stack Height: 25mm Heel, 17mm Forefoot

Specs via Running Warehouse

Upper and Fit

Fit is one area where I’ve always struggled with Brooks.  Their shoes are generally too tapered in the toe box, and yet the midfoot and heel are loose.  This is typically my least favorite combination in a last shape, and one I rarely have good luck with. The Neuro pretty much follows this mold, but it does fit a little lower volume in the midfoot than other Brooks (like the PureGrit).

Cool techie look, but function suffers. Also notice looking top down that the shape is pretty much equal width from heel to toe…not my favorite, and not how a foot is shaped.

I didn’t have significant problems with them on my runs, but I didn’t (and wouldn’t) take them out longer than a 1.5 hr run just from the forefoot being a little too tapered for long run comfort.  The upper is a pretty unique construction with  “hammock” mid-layer straps that actually run under the foot (see pic below).  Overall, this is a pretty cool idea, but I found the placement of the front straps to be much too far forward.  The one on the lateral side is actually in front of my pinky toe, which, as I’m sure you can guess, is not super comfortable.

I cut the outer shell of thinking I could increase breathability, and lighten the shoe up a fair bit. Well turns out the booty is only attached at the toe and heel due to the hammock straps needing to freely move in order to tighten, so that project didn’t turn out. Can’t win ’em all!

One other issue with the upper is that the outer cage is made of a pretty thick. heavy nylon-like material that is super hot…like GTX shoe hot.  I was roasting in them after 30 mins in 35 degrees with no socks, and this doesn’t bode well for anything much hotter or longer in them.

Notice how far forward that lateral strap is…actually in front of my pinky toe.

Outer shell weights nearly an ounce just by itself!

Midsole and Ride

This is really where the Neuro shines.  I applaud Brooks for stepping out and trying something pretty unique with a midsole (and outsole) that decouples completely in front of the heel.  While this is not entirely new, since most flexible, minimal shoes have done this for years, the new component is that the rest of the shoe still has some structure from the midfoot forward.  The net effect of this is that the shoe runs and transitions as naturally as a minimal shoe, but with some of the structure and propulsion of a semi-performance trainer. The execution here needs some fine tuning, but the concept is valid and it works.  Specifically, the Neuro needs to be lightened up, and the midsole shape could be much simpler and more clean cut than the high concept that they try to pull off (mainly for looks as far as I can tell).  The Brooks DNA midsole isn’t bad, but they just got a little carried away with the bubble shaped designs, and waste a lot of weight in the upper, midsole and outsole.

Way too much design freedom on the midsole…those bubble shapes do not help the ride and are simply aesthetic.

Unique flex point that works. Turns out the marketing hype was actually the best feature of the shoe, which is pretty rare.

Outsole

The outsole on the Neuro is adequate, and they do generally place rubber in the right locations.  However, like the midsole, too much of the design is given over to aesthetics at the cost of weight and function.  They could have gotten away with half of the rubber, and still functionally achieved what they were trying to do.  I don’t think the encapsulated EVA approach used on some of the pods adds much to the ride, and I also am not crazy about the amount of exposed strobel under the shoe.  If you step on anything sharp in the midfoot, it’s not going to be good.

Outsole is also a victim of the design. Way more rubber than necessary on certain spots, and why choose the shapes?

Outsole view of flex.

Conclusion

Overall, the Neuro is a really cool concept, and one that I hope Brooks tries to refine.  I think if they make a shoe with the gearing mechanism (decoupled midfoot) of the Neuro, but more of the design approach of the forthcoming Hyperion or Asteria to keep it more streamlined, they could deliver a really unique running experience where you get a very natural and minimal feel with decent protection and propulsion.  Their forthcoming Mazama trail shoe uses a similar gearing mechanism, but is much more streamlined (its lighter than the Neuro…and a trail shoe).  If Brooks can refine the concept (and find a more foot shaped last), I’d be very interested.

The Brooks Neuro is available for purchase from Running Warehouse.