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.

Scarpa Atom S

Undoubtably the best winter specific shoe design I’ve seen. Scarpa is on a roll in the technical mountain space.

When it comes to a pure mountain winter running shoe, this is it folks!  Scarpa pulled out all the stops on the Atom S and came away with the most comfortable and functional shoe of its kind.  The upper is lined with Outdry all the way up to the top of the gaiter, thus making the shoe waterproof all the way to the top.  The gaiter seals up on the calf with no zippers and disappears after a few minutes.  The midsole is stiffened up a bit from the Atom with what I believe is slightly firmer foam and a harder strobel material.  The outsole is Vibram Icetrek and works great on everything I’ve taken it on.  While the Atom S is currently only available in Europe, I believe there will be an Atom S Evo that is coming this next winter that carries over a very similar upper while putting the new Spin midsole and outsole on it.  Should be even better!

The North Face Ultra MT Winter

A really comfortable winter shoe and probably the most well rounded of the bunch. Enough lugs for the snow and ice and yet still runs decent on regular trail.

I really hope the Ultra MT Winter is not a one off shoe (which is what I expect).  They pretty quietly put out this shoe this winter and it is fantastic.  The Ultra MT Winter has a super comfortable upper on a winter shoe and in a bit lighter, less mountain specific application (non-waterproof back half and gaiter which helps with breathability).  Vibram IceTrek outsole as well on this shoe and I’ve got nothing but good things to say about the compound.  It is the MegaGrip equivalent for winter.  The Ultra MT Winter also has the distinction of being the only shoe with speedlaces that I’ve not yet felt the need to cut off.  The ample tongue padding and thicker/softer lace cord (hint hint Salomon and others) really take care of the major issues of speedlaces and haven’t been a problem for me.  Well done The North Face and I sincerely hope this isn’t the last winter shoe they produce.  Yes, these types of shoes probably don’t sell in big numbers but for a company focused on producing mountain specific product, they give credibility to that aim.  They are on sale now and I’d highly recommend grabbing a pair for the mountains this spring or even for saving for next winter.

Nicely padded tongue and speed laces that actually work well with the top of my foot…note the thicker cord diameter.

Altra Lone Peak 3 Neoshell Mid

The best version of the Lone Peak 3 in my opinion. A stiffer midsole and harder rubber compound with a more supportive upper really dial it in.

I’m a big fan of Altra’s application of Polartec Neoshell on their Lone Peak series.  I enjoyed the original Neoshells last year and was very excited to hear of a boot version coming down the pipe for this year.  I’m happy to say that I was not disappointed.  The Neoshell Mid is THE shoe I would use for long winter slogs and currently would be the option I would go with for a winter 100 miler if I was to tackle one (Susitna 100, White Mountains 100, Arrowhead 135 for ex).  Since knowing about the Iditarod Trail Invitational and running a 45 mile winter race in Alaska in 2014, I’ve always been evaluating winter shoes for their potential utility in these long and insane winter races and the Neoshell Mid tops the list for me so far.  The wide Altra toebox, stiffer midsole and harder outsole compound relative to the regular LP 3.0 is welcome and actually makes it run better than the LP 3 in my view.  The upper is super comfortable and warm and does not pick up any water weight…huge bonuses if you have to be out all day in the cold and or wet.

Salomon S-Lab XA Alpine

The most specific and technical shoe of the bunch. Salomon’s clean design aesthetic on full display.

The XA Alpine is no doubt the most niche of all the shoes I tried this winter and I love that about it.  It is at the same time a nimble trail running shoe, with gaiter, great wet-grip contragrip outsole and designed to use flexible crampons (Kahtoola KTS for example).  The fit is one of the best of any Salomons I’ve tried and the midsole, while stiff is adequately protective and runnable.  The shoe just has great design style and construction as well (a continual strong suit of Salomon).  I wouldn’t recommend them for the average runner just looking to keep snow out or stay dry on trails in the winter, but as a tool for mountain travel in the winter or even spring/summer in the high mountains it is very specifically designed and nothing else comparable exists on the market (…yet,  Scarpa has the Atom Tech releasing next winter which should be comparable). The XA Alpine adds to Salomon’s technical credibility and I respect Salomon for pushing a shoe like this out there to the general public since they could easily just make these for their high caliber athletes only.

Basically a Sense upper underneath the gaiter.

Saucony Razor ICE+

A nice and light gaitered shoe. Outsole is most unique factor and most limited as well.

I was pretty excited to see Saucony get back into the winter running shoe market with Razor ICE+.  They were one of the first to do such a shoe with the original ProGrid Razor and the ICE+ has a nice clean and light design aesthetic.  Of all the shoes in this round-up, it most reminds me of the old New Balance Winter MT110 which was and still is the lightest winter specific shoe out there.  The 110 Winter’s big drawback was the lack of winter traction and adequate cushion for frozen ground.  The Razor thankfully rectifies some of this but still comes up a bit short in the traction department.  The Razor ICE+ has decent cushion for a lightweight shoe and I’ve had no problems in this regard for runs up to 2 hrs (haven’t taken it out longer than that).  The traction scenario is a bit perplexing.  While, on one hand, the shoe delivers some superb grip on wet and smooth ice due to the implementation of Vibram Arctic Grip (something only available to Wolverine Worldwide companies currently; think Saucony and Merrell in the running space), the tread design is very light and shallow for a shoe that you will spend most of your time in mud, snow and generally nasty conditions.  It’s grip on anything but hard pack dirt and ice is subpar.  I’d recommend the shoe if you are looking for something to perform on ice without having to use metal spikes, even road runs, but if you are looking for an all around winter trail shoe, there are better options listed above in this post.  The good news is the overall design and implementation of the shoe is good and so there is some potential to be tapped into.  If Saucony can redesign with a full Everun midsole and deeper lugs and either more smartly implement Arctic Grip or ditch it all together in favor of Ice Trek or Mega Grip, they’d have a pretty slick winter trail shoe.

Pretty simple and light upper. Most reminiscent of the New Balance MT110 Winter out of the bunch. I removed the speed laces and replaced with regular laces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Below is a selection of mostly neutral, training/performance road shoes that I feel didn’t fall into my previously published road racing shoe preview.  I have one more forthcoming shoe preview from this years’ Outdoor Retail that will cover new mountain running shoes I saw.  Enjoy and feel free to ask questions below!

Altra IQ – weight 8.6 oz men, 7.1 oz women, drop: 0mm, available Spring 2016, price: $199.99

Very smooth and “hi-tech” looking upper with a view of the sensor embedded in the midsole.

Altra is really pushing hard recently with new models, recent sponsoring of big races in the trail world (Hardrock 100 and Western States 100), and signing more and more athletes each year.  The IQ looks to be an industry leader in the “smart shoe” category which will provide feedback to the runner via smart phone or iFit watch.  For more info on the IQ check out Sam’s great write-up here and a video of Altra Founder, Golden Harper explaining more about the shoe courtesy of Competitor here.  Other than that, it looks very similar to the current Altra Impulse.

Brooks Launch 3 – weight 9.8 oz men, 7.9 oz women, drop: 10mm, available 1/1/16, price: $100

New 3D Fit Print upper on the Launch 2 platform.

I’ve never run in the Launch, but given its popularity it might be worth a look.  The Launch hits right in the middle of the road for weight, protection, and cushion, and should work for a wide variety of runners.  The Launch 3 gets a new 3D printed upper on the Launch 2 platform.  See Pete’s review of the Launch 2 here.

Brooks PureFlow 5 – weight 9.2 oz men, 7.8 oz women, drop: 4mm, available 1/1/16, price: $110

Very nice upper design with more structure in heel and more open forefoot.

I’ve not run extensively in the Pure line mainly as I can’t quite seem to get along with their last shape.  The PureFlow 5 has a great looking upper and a new, very flexible looking midsole and outsole while not giving up the cushion it has been known for.

A little podular for my tastes, but decent coverage and should be flexible.

Brooks Transcend 3 – weight 10.9 oz men, 9.5 oz women, drop: 8mm, available 1/1/16, price: $170

Not sure I’m digging the upper on these, but the extra structure might be necessary for a shoe with its stack height.

I don’t have any experience in the Transcend, and as far as I can tell they ride the line between maximalist and premium cushion.  They are labeled as mild support shoes without using traditional posting.  Not a shoe I’d likely run in, but there are lots of runners out there that might.  Price seems a bit high, but in line with other max cushion models from Hoka, etc.

Lots of rubber and flex grooves.

Hoka One One Clayton – weight 7.3 oz men, 6.3 oz women, Stack Height:24mm H/20mm FF, available Spring 2016, price: $150

Nice looking upper and midsole follows suit with the Tracer with firmer foam in the forefoot and softer in the heel. Supposedly a wider forefoot in these too.

I’ve not yet found a Hoka shoe that I’ve enjoyed running in.  The Clifton came the closest for me, but the super soft ride combined with the rocker sole made it feel like it robbed a bit of energy from my stride. However, I could start to see why some folks enjoy them, and the Clifton got the weight much lower than the more traditional Hokas.  The Clayton is over an ounce lighter, and at 7.3 oz is quite light compared to most shoes on the market.  When you consider that it delivers trainer level cushion (20mm FF/24mm Heel) at this weight, it is even more impressive.  The biggest issue remaining with Hoka for me is the fit, which I’ve never found great.  If they can improve that with the Clayton and Tracer, they could be nice options.  Hoka was definitely one of the brands at OR most willing to try some new things, and while I haven’t loved their shoes, I can commend them for being willing to go outside the box to try to arrive at unique products.

RMat serves as outsole. Midfoot looks more typical of Hoka, which I’m not as excited about.

New Balance Fresh Foam Zante v2 – weight 8.6 oz men, 7.2 oz women, drop: 6mm, available April 2016, price: $99.95

Great new upper design that gets rid of the overlay in the middle of the lateral side that put too much pressure there for me (and others according to NB). NB’s uppers are some of the best on the market IMO and the Zante has the best NB ride as well.

The Fresh Foam Zante was a big hit for New Balance this year and I was among the many who enjoyed its cushioned yet speedy ride on a mid level drop. I also liked the fit with a wide forefoot, but snugger midfoot and heel.  The v2 fixes the main issue I had with the original in removing the midfoot overlay that gave me a sense of restriction around my 5th metatarsal. Zante 2 also looks to improve the fit of the shoe overall as well, while not messing with what was already a good ride.  The Zante v2 is definitely one of the road shoes I’m most looking looking forward to running in next year.

Redesigned outsole based on runner feedback. Mainly they elongated the shapes over the forefoot, but added topo-like grooves to make it more flexible .

Salomon Sonic Pro – weight 8.5 oz men, stack height: 24mm H/16mm FF, available Spring 2016, price: $140.00

Probably a closer replacement to the X-Series than the S-Lab Sonic is. Filling in the Pro spot in the Sonic lineup.

The Salomon S-Lab X-Series is a shoe I’ve wanted to try, but never got around to this season.  The S-Lab model will now be call the S-Lab Sonic (see racing shoe preview).  The Sonic Pro gives a similar treatment to the S-Lab Sonic as the Sense Pro does to the S-Lab Sense.  It provides a similar high quality product at a slightly lower price point. It also has a little less pure performance focus, instead adding slightly more comfort and durability.  Out of the two, I think I’d be most interested in the S-Lab version, but at $30 less the Pro version might appeal to more runners.

Very similar outsole to S-Lab Sonic with the black rubber adding just a bit more durability.

Saucony Breakthru 2 – weight 8.5 oz men, 7.4 oz women, stack height: 23mm H/15mm FF, available 1/1/2016, price: $100.00

New upper on the same platform. Very nice looking and they said they opened up the toebox on it compared to v1.

The Breakthru 2 is one of the road shoes I’m most excited about this year.  I haven’t run in the Breakthru, but it looks like a great all-around platform with very good outsole coverage, and v2 puts a new more streamlined upper on it that I was told would have a roomier forefoot.  It will still be a a performance oriented trainer, and one with a lot of versatility and plenty of trail worthiness as well (something I’m always looking for in road shoes :) ).

Skechers GOrun 4 2016 – weight 7.8 oz men, 6.0 oz women, midsole height: 18mm H/14mm FF, available January 2016, price: $105.00

Circular knit upper that has a little stretch (where as the Speed 3 2016 and Ultra Road are much more static).

The GOrun 4 2016 gets a knit upper that has a bit more stretch than the Speed 3 2016, and also gets the upgrade to the new 5-Gen midsole material.  I’ve since run in a sample pair of these and the 5-Gen is much more of an upgrade than one would think.  The shoe runs more responsively, while retaining the cushioning and flexibility of the GOrun 4.  The upper is super soft and comfortable, and the shoe could easily serve as a long run shoe for many.  Also of note, the toebox has more volume and the shoe fits more true to the rest of the Skechers lineup, where as the original GOrun 4 seemed to run short due to a shallow toebox.

Skechers GOrun Ride 5 – weight 8.4 oz men, 6.7 oz women, midsole height: 20mm H/16mm FF, available January 2016, price: $100.00

Very smooth and comfortable, seamless upper and slightly thicker midsole than previous version.

The GOrun Ride 5 gets a full update with a new thinner, seamless upper along with 2mm more stack height than its predecessor.  I’ve also run in a sample pair of these, and they definitely offer more support than the GOrun 4 2016 and Speed 3 2016. They also still have some responsiveness with the 5-Gen midsole that doesn’t completely relegate them to easy, slow miles.  A great update, and a great overall value as well.  Skechers is really moving their product forward quickly, and with the new 5-Gen midsole material and fantastic new uppers, I think they are going to be making some waves with these new Spring 2016 offerings.  A company to keep an eye on for sure!

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

adidas

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

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

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

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

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

Altra

The Olympus is every bit as substantial as any Hoka.

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

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

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

Altra Superior 2.0

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

Slightly new upper and sizing issue corrected.

Brooks

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

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

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

Dynafit

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

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

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

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

Hoka One One

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

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

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

La Sportiva

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

New upper that might modernize the fit a little.

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

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

AT rubber throughout (blue FriXion “x”)

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

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

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

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

Montrail

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

Great new upper with refined overlays and seamless design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The North Face

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

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

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

Great looking Vibram Megagrip outsole with a forefoot rock plate.

Saucony

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

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

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

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

Salomon

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

Slightly lighter overlays and more open mesh design.

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

You can see tissue paper through mesh…thin!

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

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

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

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

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

Scarpa

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

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

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

Great lug design and placement.

Skechers

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

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

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

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

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

Specs

Price: $110 MSRP

Stack Height:  24mm heel, 20 mm forefoot

Weight: 10.4 oz (294 g), men’s size 9 and 8.7 oz (246 g) women’s size 8

Stats via Running Warehouse

Insole shows the wide, oblique-shaped last on the shoe – it is by far the roomiest Saucony I’ve tried.

Upper and Fit

The fit of the Nomad TR is the big story for me, especially given Saucony’s generally more pointed last shape.  The Nomad departs from this shape dramatically with what they refer to as an oblique, toe-shaped last.  I found the fit to be wide in the toebox; maybe not quite Altra width, but very close.  The biggest difference for me from an Altra is the Nomad’s slightly closer fitting midfoot and much more secure heel.  I still wanted the midfoot volume of the upper to be lower in the Nomad, and the width of the outsole at the midfoot is a little wide I think, but overall the fit is relaxed without being overly sloppy.

Internal Pro-Lock support piece that ties into a lace eyelet. Works as advertised, though I found it to slightly irritate my naked foot on longer, hotter outings. Probably not an issue with socks.

The upper has a simple, one-piece design with no significant overlays to speak of other than an internal underlay that ties into a lace eyelet that Saucony calls Pro-Lock. The upper material is a a closed mesh that is very durable, but, like most closed mesh uppers, not that breathable. Other than a few exceptions, I find there is always this tradeoff with upper choices on trail shoes.  A closed mesh keeps out dirt, water, mud, snow, etc. and holds up better, but an open mesh is much more breathable and drains better at a cost to debris management and durability.  Given that I tested the Nomad mostly in 80+ F weather, I tended to notice how hot it felt. However, one upside was that on the very dry and dusty trails it really did keep out the fine dust which was great.  My guess is that the shoe will perform better overall in the cooler temps we are now heading into.

Powergrid in the heel and a moderately responsive midsole that is forgiving; outsole likely contributes just as much to responsiveness.

Ride

I find the Nomad TR to perform on a nice balance between cushioned and responsive, especially given its more relaxed upper fit.  It runs firm enough so as not to feel unstable on semi-technical terrain, but also runs forgivingly on flatter, smooth terrain.  With a somewhat relaxed, road shoe-like ride, I think it generally works pretty well for drier and smoother trails and would be a great road-trail option too. Unfortunately, for me the shoe just rides a little heavy overall without really possessing the more protective elements that I would expect in a shoe of its weight.  Shoes like the Pearl Izumi Trail N2v2 and Nike Wildhorse, which are in a similar class and weight as the Nomad, both have rock plates and more traction with a similar ride.

Unique outsole design with thick PWRTRAC blown rubber that works well in many different conditions. Thickness helps with cushion, but contributes to heaviness.

Outsole

I initially thought the outsole on the Nomad was a bad design, mainly because it has a lot of rubber while really not providing much aggressive traction.  After more time in the shoe, however, the outsole may be the biggest reason why the ride is more responsive than it otherwise might be.  It uses Saucony’s PWRTRAC compound that (I believe) is a springy blown rubber that contributes to the cushioning of the shoe. Blown rubber is usually not that durable, which is its downside, but the Nomad outsole is holding up really well for me so far. I attribute this to the coffin-like lug shape which they created with few sharp edges and to the thickness of the lugs at the base as well; this outsole should last a long time.  The shoe has great traction on rock, yet also runs smoothly on hardpack trail without the breaking effect of some other trail shoes with too much lug.  The outsole also makes the shoe much more usable on the roads as well.

Overall Thoughts

I’m excited to see Saucony step out and try something new with the Nomad, and I think they generally succeeded in creating a unique fitting and capable trail shoe that will fit a variety of different runner’s needs.

The highlights of the shoe for me are the wide, comfortable fit, well cushioned and smooth ride, and a multi-purpose and durable outsole design. There is plenty of room for improvement, however.  Mainly, I think the shoe is too heavy for what it is/does. Like I mentioned above, shoes like the PI N2v2 and Nike Wildhorse 3 offer a similar ride with a more refined fit and more robust protection at the same weight. If Saucony could lighten the shoe up with a more stripped-back, open mesh upper, and snug up the fit a bit in the midfoot, along with potentially decreasing the lug thickness on the outsole, I think the shoe would feel much more nimble and still offer the nice comfortable ride/fit that the Nomad has at a lighter weight. This would give the Nomad TR the most potential to shine where its high points already lie: in its smooth, comfortable and multi-surface ride capabilities.

If you like the wide toebox of Altra or Topo shoes, the Nomad is worth a look as it is probably one of the few similarly wide trail shoes on the market (and the only one I can think of from a company with more significant road history).

Disclaimer: These shoes were provided free of charge for review from the manufacturer.  All opinions are of the author’s.

The Saucony Nomad is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Wiggle UK, and Running Warehouse Australia.

I purchased a pair of the Kinvara 6 just after they were released, but after a few times wearing them I noticed that I was getting some pressure over the base of my little toe on each side, in the region near the front of the Saucony logo on the outer side of the shoe. It was uncomfortable enough that I shelved the shoes for a few months and moved on to some other models that I was excited to try (namely the New Balance 1400 v3 and the Asics DS Racer 10).

A few weeks ago I decided to give the K6 another try, but the discomfort was still there. In a last ditch effort to make them work, I swapped out the insole for a thinner one from the Nike Free 4.0, and that seemed to do the trick. The thinner insole created just enough room to relieve the pressure, and I’ve now been running in the Kinvara 6 for several weeks.

There’s really not a whole lot to say here that was not already said in my review of the Kinvara 5. The sole remains unchanged, and the ride is the same that you expect from the Kinvara. It’s a lightweight shoe (7.8 oz in men’s size 9) with a semi-soft sole that can handle both speed and long distance. The heel isn’t quite as soft in the newer versions as I recall in the early Kinvaras (or compared to, say, the NB 1400), but it still works well for me now that I’ve dealt with the fit issue.

The Kinvara is still a 4mm drop shoe with stack heights of 22 mm heel and 18 mm forefoot. Outsole coverage is adequate for my wear pattern, though still no rubber on the outer forefoot so forefoot strikers may have durability issues with this shoe.

The major change in the Kinvara 6 is the upper. Gone is the somewhat baggy, thinner upper of the Kinvara 5, and in its place we have a sturdier mesh upper. Both versions rely primarily on welded overlays for support, and the K6 upper feels just a tad snugger to me (perhaps why I had trouble with pressure in the outer forefoot). The K6 retains the Pro-Lock system that wraps the midfoot, so those who did not like that addition to K5 should keep that in mind. I have no had issues with this feature in either shoe, but know that some have complained about it. I will say that I think the K6 is a better looking shoe than the K5, and it may be my favorite Kinvara based solely on appearance – credit to the design team on a job well done!

Conclusion

Overall, the Kinvara 6 is pretty much the same shoe as Kinvara 5, hence the abbreviated review. It fits snugger, and if you have a high volume foot like me you may to create a bit more space with an insole swap, and the upper seems a bit more durable. As mentioned, the sole is the same, so ride should not differ at all. At an MSRP of $100 (though it can typically be found for less) the Kinvara remains one of my top recommendations for an all-around shoe at a reasonable price.

The Saucony Kinvara 6 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Running Warehouse EU, and Running Warehouse Australia.

For another take on the Kinvara 6, check out this review over at Believe in the Run.

Specs

My pair of the Zealot in size 10 weighs in at just over 9 oz per shoe, and stack heights reported by Running Warehouse are 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot (in a blog preview RW reports stack as 28mm heel, 24mm forefoot – I suspect that the 4mm thick insole explains the difference). With my calipers I measure stack at around 29mm, 25mm with the insole included, though it was a bit of a challenge to get a good forefoot measurement with the upper constructed the way it is.

Appearance

I have to start this review off by saying that the Zealot is a fantastic looking shoe, and the Viziglo orange colorway that Saucony sent me is bright. Very bright! I wore the Zealots to the hardware store a few weeks ago and the woman at the register commented that she liked my shoes. She said that bright shoes make her happy. I feel much the same way. Big thumbs up for the Zealot in the aesthetics category!

Upper Construction

The Zealot is one of three Saucony shoes featuring a new upper construction called ISOFIT (along with the Triumph and Hurricane). I’d heard a lot of positive things about the ISOFIT upper on the Saucony Triumph (released last year), and was excited to check it out. ISOFIT is basically a bootie-type upper that wraps the foot from midfoot forward. It’s kind of like a sock, and the laces do not attach to the bootie. Instead, finger-like projections extend upward on either side of the bootie to form the lace rows (see photos below). It’s a unique approach, and though I can’t say it feels much different from a more traditional lacing system, it seems to work well and does not cause any problems for me.

The tongue of the Zealot is integrated with the ISOFIT bootie via stitching on either side – it has enough padding to prevent pressure from the laces above.

The upper over the forefoot of the Zealot is a soft mesh that has a bit of give – it does not feel like a material that would be prone to tearing at the forefoot flex regions. The ankle collar is well-padded and lined by a soft fabric, and the heel is stiffened by a heel counter that Saucony calls the “Support Frame.” Overall, the upper feels very high quality.

Fit

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, other reviewers have reported that the Zealot has a fairly wide toebox. This was one of the first things I noticed upon trying the shoe on – the fit was incredible on my foot. I have a medium width foot, but fairly high volume from top to bottom, and the Zealot is pretty much perfect for me. Nice lockdown in the heel and midfoot, and a wide, open toebox. It’s not quite Altra-wide, but compared to other Saucony shoes it feels very roomy (maybe just a tad roomier than the Kinvara 5). People with narrow feet need to be careful however as my friends Thomas and Harold have both had issues with the upper bunching up at the bottom of the lace row when attempting to cinch the upper down on their narrowish feet.

What really struck me about the fit of the Zealot was how different it was from the Saucony Breakthru, which I reviewed a few weeks ago. That shoe was pretty snug up front, so those with narrower feet might want to give the Breakthru a try if the new Saucony releases intrigue you.

Sole

So far the Zealot is scoring big points with me – looks great, fit is perfect, upper is nicely done. The sole is where things slip a bit.

One of the things I’ve heard frequently from others who have tried the Zealot is that though it has plenty of cushion, it’s on the firmer side. For me, it’s just a tad too firm. I’d compare the ride to the Saucony Mirage, perhaps just a bit softer, but definitely firmer than the Kinvara. In fairness to Saucony, most of my outdoor miles have been in sub-freezing temperatures, and this can cause EVA foam to firm up. However, I’ve also run several times on the treadmill in them and they are a firmer than average shoe. The combo of firm sole plus treadmill cushion has worked well so I prefer them for that purpose rather than running outside in the cold.

The plus side of a firm sole is that it tends to feel better when picking up the pace, and this is the case with the Zealot for me. My buddy Sam made the same observation – the Zealot is a bit on the harsh side for slow miles on the road, but feels better as you speed up. However, if you like a firm shoe like the Saucony Mirage, the Zealot would be a good one to try. (As an aside, I ran for the first time in the Skechers GoRun Ride 4 yesterday – the fit is remarkably similar to the Zealot, but the ride was a lot softer and a better match for me for easy miles).

In terms of the outsole, there is plenty of rubber on the Zealot and I expect durability should be quite good. I view this as a necessity for a shoe at the $130 price point (something Skechers may run into trouble with for the GoMeb Strada). The X-T900 rubber on the heel is a bit firmer and should be more abrasion resistant than the iBR+ blown rubber that extends from the midfoot forward.

Conclusions

The Saucony Zealot is a great looking shoe that pairs a firm ride with a generous fit in the forefoot. The ISOFIT upper is really nice, and works well on my medium-width foot – those with narrow feet should look elsewhere. At $130 MSRP the shoe is pricy, but I expect durability should be good given the ample amount of outsole rubber present. If your budget allows, you have a medium-to-wide foot, and you like a firmish ride, the Zealot is worth a try.

The Saucony ISOFIT Zealot is available now at Running Warehouse .

For other takes on the Saucony Zealot, see reviews by Harold Shaw, Sam Winebaum, Thomas Neuberger/Meaghan Murray, and Brandon Wood.

My first thought when I put the Breakthru on was that they felt a bit tight up front. Not terribly constrictive, but they squeezed my toes together a bit and the upper material over the forefoot has no give. The fit is reminiscent of the Saucony Kinvara 4, or a racing flat like the A6. Not a roomy shoe, and I think that is intentional as it seems like the intent is for the Breakthru to be a performance-oriented alternative that slides somewhere in between the Kinvara and the Ride.

Specs from Running Warehouse indicate that the Breakthru is only 0.7 oz lighter than the Ride 7 (9.3 oz for the Ride vs. 8.7 oz for the Breakthru in men’s size 9), so the weight benefit is not huge. Stack height is 24mm heel, 16mm forefoot – thus, drop is the same as the Ride, but the stack height is 4mm less in both the heel and forefoot (Ride is 28mm/20mm). Unfortunately, I have not run in the Ride 7 so I can’t compare the feel, but in a blog preview Running Warehouse suggests that the Breakthu is firmer and more responsive. “Firm and responsive” is exactly how I would describe the Breakthru – it’s kind of like an 8mm drop, higher stack version of the Saucony Fastwitch with a narrower fit.

If all of the above sounds a bit confusing, it is. My worry for the Breakthru is that it’s trying to do too many things at once, and there may be better options in the Saucony lineup for each. You want a cushioned trainer, get the Ride. You want a firm performance shoe with a roomy toebox? Get the Fastwitch. You want a 5K racer? Get the A6. You want a lightweight, cushioned shoe for longer distances? Get the Kinvara or Mirage (or the soon-to-be-released Zealot). The question for Saucony will be whether the Breakthru can find it’s own niche – firm ride, performance fit, moderately lightweight, 8mm drop. The closest comparisons I can think of from other brands would be shoes like the Mizuno Sayonara or maybe the New Balance 890 (though the 890 is not as firm if I remember correctly – been awhile since I’ve run in them). I might even dare to throw out the Brooks Launch as a competitor – it fills the same niche, but the Launch is a softer shoe.

My experience with the Breakthru has been mixed. I initially thought they were going to be too constrictive up front, but they have been OK on the run so far. I have a size 10 in the Breakthru, which is a half size smaller than I wear in the Kinvara, but length seems to be perfect. I think a simple change like a slightly stretchier forefoot mesh would make for a comfier fit. Aside from the forefoot mesh issue, the rest of the upper is nicely constructed and looks great. I particularly like the padding and material lining the tongue and ankle collar – very comfy.

The sole of the Breakthru is going to be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of thing for runners. There is plenty of rubber on the outsole, so I expect durability will be good. The midsole is firm and responsive, so if you like cush you should look elsewhere. Personally I found the ride to be better when picking up the pace, but I prefer a lower stack option like the Fastwitch or A6 for speed and a softer option like the Kinvara for longer miles. And therein lies the problem, at least for me – I’m not sure what I would use this shoe for.

Conclusion

The Saucony Breakthru is an affordable ($100 MSRP), firm shoe with a performance fit and plenty of sole underfoot. My guess is that those who like the feel of the Saucony Mirage (or Mizuno Sayonara) will like the Breakthru as a more cushioned (though narrower) option, and those who train in the Ride and want a firmer, slightly lighter option for racing will like it as well. It’ll be interesting to see if the Breakthru finds a market – how about you, can you see yourself adding the Breakthru to your arsenal?

The Saucony Breakthru is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Zappos.

For another take on the Breakthru, read this review by Steve Speirs at Run Bulldog Run.

One of the first reviews that I wrote here on Runblogger was for the Saucony Ride 6. I liked that shoe because it gave me a tool to use in training that I didn’t have to think much about. It was basic in almost every way – basic cushion, basic ride, basic fit. This good experience led me to take a special interest in the newer Saucony Ride 7 model, and I was excited when Runningshoes.com sent me a review sample to try out.

(Disclosure: the shoe reviewed here was provided free-of-charge for review purposes).

Specs

We’ll start with the specs (via Saucony):
Weight: 9.4oz (Based on men’s size 9)
Stack heights: 26mm (heel); 18mm (toe)
Heel-to-toe drop: 8mm

Appearance

My first impression of the Ride 7 was that it was a great looking shoe. Some traditional trainers are so plain-jane that they’re just boring. Shoes don’t have to look fancy – I barely look at my feet when running – but there’s something special about slipping on an attractive shoe and lacing them up before heading out the door. The Ride 6 model in the blue colorway looked good, but these Ride 7s in a deep orange are awesome!

Fit

Upon first slip on of the Ride 7, I thought that they ran a little small. I’m typically a 10.5 in nearly all shoes that I wear (minus things like the Adidas Energy Boost), including the Ride 6, so I was surprised that my toes couldn’t wiggle much in the Ride 7s of the same size. I wasn’t terribly concerned with this matter, as I had a similar experience with the Virrata 2, and the stretchy inner “bootie” seemed to break in with more wear. To support this notion, the Ride 7 did seem to break in a little bit as I put more miles on, but I still found that there wasn’t a lot of room for my toes to move up and down, though they did tend to splay just fine. However, each time I put on the Ride 7, my feet felt cramped and somewhat claustrophobic, hurting my overall experience going into each run. Going up a half size in the Ride 7 might be warranted.

Cushioning and Durability

The cushioning was something that did not disappoint me in these shoes. Like the Ride 6, they were well-cushioned without being squishy. Durability also appears to be excellent. The outsole on the shoe has been changed up to incorporate more rubber (much like the Saucony Type A series), yet the weight has not increased from version 6 to version 7. I wore these shoes on several longer (read: 18+ miles) runs and my feet felt great. Furthermore, they showed almost no wear and tear on the outside. Some people are looking for shoes that can really handle the test of time and mileage, and it seems that these are really appropriate for lots of miles, both for the body and the shoe.

Sockliner Issue

One of my major complaints about this shoe (and I almost never judge a shoe by this) was the insole (or sockliner). I found myself heading into a hot, humid 20 miler with the stock insole and having some terrible foot cramps halfway into it. I understand that my feet probably sweat more than most people and I did them no favors by running in Texas weather, but the insole completely slipped around inside the shoe and even folded on itself. This left my feet in pain for a couple days after the run and I had to pull the insoles out of the Ride 5 for all future runs because the original was completely shot. See the attached photo for evidence.

Conclusion

Overall, the Ride 7 is a great traditional, neutral trainer that seems to be well built. It did a nice job of keeping my foot locked down while giving lots of cushion and holding up well to lots of miles. Unfortunately, I did not like the way that the shoe fit in the toes (likely solved by sizing up) and didn’t appreciate the way the sockliner was completely shot after one humid run. I’m pretty disappointed in the shoe since I liked the Ride 6 so much, but I will definitely find myself spending some easy miles in them going forward since this is certainly their forte.

The Saucony Ride 7 is available for purchase from Runningshoes.com.