Upper and Fit

In regards to the upper, the SR and 2.0 are nearly identical.  The upper is secure while still being fairly sock-like and generally suits the type of ride and application La Sportiva is going for with the shoe.  The most notable differences are that the 2.0 has no heel counter (something that works really well with this shoe) and the 2.0 has speedlaces (which I removed…the SR’s regular laces work much better and my distaste for speedlaces is well known for regular Runblogger readers).  Overall, the uppers are pretty good.  La Sportiva tends to overcomplicate uppers unnecessarily with many different materials and overlays and these are no exception, but they aren’t distracting in any way.

Fit is very similar, particularly after I removed the speedlaces from the 2.0.

Midsole and Ride

The midsole component is literally unchanged from the original Helios and is the element most holding the shoe back in my view.  The “Morpho Dynamic” wave-like design doesn’t hold up in practice in my view for a general use, light-weight trail shoe, although, if you follow Anton Krupicka, he seems to feel they work great scrambling on rock.  The shoe is super flexible and the troughs of the wave shapes create really thin areas that, inexplicably, also have no outsole material?!?  The SR is supposed to have a rockplate on top of the midsole, but I had a real struggle feeling like it added much protection to the shoe.

No heel counter on the 2.0 (on right) is the biggest upper differentiation.

Outsole

Like most La Sportiva shoes the outsole compound and stickiness is fantastic while still being durable.  Unlike most La Sportiva shoes, which usually feature full outsole coverage, the wave design, including gratuitous cutouts, are not a great choice for what amounts to a technical mountain racing shoe.  Not only does it not protect the foot super well, the midsole and rubber is prone to getting destroyed by rocks and sharp objects.  This design needs to go in my view.  Not that it can’t work ever, it is just that the shoe would be so much more versatile if it had more rubber coverage and a more standard, non-wave oriented design.  In fact it would be a really fun mountain racing shoe if that was the case!

Helios SR on left, 2.0 on right. Of note, SR has durable rubber on heel and sticky on forefoot where 2.0 has durable all over. Also, take a look at that puncture hole from a piece of gravel in the midsole on the 2.0…one of many reasons that I don’t prefer large cutouts.

Conclusion

There are a lot of things I really appreciate about La Sportiva’s design approach and how they go about making mountain specific product.  They typically take their time creating shoes that are purpose built for certain applications and then after they are released, they rarely get updated and if so, it typically takes a few years at least, which is something I actually like in the now common, 6-12 months and it’s gone product cycle.  La Sportiva makes a quality product and keeps it around for a while; I’m not sure why this concept isn’t followed more in the market since I think it says something about your product (that it is inferior, or wasn’t good enough) if you are already replacing it in a year or less.

La Sportiva’s approach is great when a product really hits the mark in its category.  The Mutant in particular is a example of this.  It’s a unique and quality shoe that performs well and as intended. There is no major reason to update a shoe like this unless you have new and significantly better materials or design ideas.  For the Helios, on the other hand, it’s time has come.  While it does have some good things going for it, the Morpho Dynamic outsole design with way too much exposed midsole needs to go and has passed it’s useful lifespan as a technology.  I’d suggest La Sportiva revive the Skylite (iRunfar review of the Skylite from 2009; oh the days when 12.1 oz was “fairly lightweight”) and use a similar midsole height as the Helios but with the Skylite’s full rubber outsole or something similar with lower lug height designed for drier trails and racing but with La Sportiva’s mountain running design ethos.  As it is, the Helios SR and 2.0 are fun quasi-minimalist shoes with sticky rubber that work great on smoother trails and short little scrambles, other than that, for me they’ve sat on the shelf.

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.

Pickled Feet 6 hr. Photo Tempus Photo Design

Although I had some bumps along the way in my running in 2015, I consider it a good year, and one in which I learned a lot and grew as a runner and person even though my race results don’t show too much.

I started the year off with a 50k in January at the Wilson Creek 50k. I ran a good race, then transitioned to marathon training for the remainder of January and February in prep for the Richland Runfest in Richland, WA. I ended up with a 3:03:17, which was a 12 min PR for me (previous PR was from the Spokane Marathon just 4 months earlier; my only other marathon was a 3:38 in 2010 at the Portland marathon, which was 3 weeks after my first 50k and I ran it in Vibram FiveFinger KSOs :)).

I then ran 30 miles in 4:12 at the Pickled feet 6 hr in my first timed (rather than distance based) event (I ran it as a training run and stopped at 30 miles). Two weeks after that I ran the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 miler in 5:36.  I was happy overall with that race as I had not tapered much for it, and felt pretty decent most of the way.  I chose the flatter terrain of these races to build up to what I though was a flatter and more runnable 100 miler at Western States.

If you’ve followed the blog, then you know that Western States didn’t turn out exactly as planned, and I had a DNF at mile 78 mostly because I was mentally unprepared to walk it in if need be (I indeed would have had to walk it in).  Needless to say that was a great learning experience, and I feel like I’m in a good place for tackling a few more 100s this year.  Because of some life circumstances and job changes I didn’t race again the rest of the year, and have had to find a new groove and routine.

The good news is that I think I’ve got my mojo back, and should be close to an 80 mile week this week, which will be a first since my peak week for Western States in June.  So far for 2016, I’ve signed up for the Carlsbad Marathon on January 17th, the Richland Runfest Marathon again on February 27th (hoping to get a sub 3hr run at Richland since my 3:03:17 wasn’t good enough to get me into Boston this year; they cut it at 3:02:32 this year), then the Gorge Waterfalls 100k on April 2nd, and I’m going back to the Bighorn 100 on June 17th.  I’m undecided after that, but eyeing the Fat Dog 120 mile or Cascade Crest 100, both in August. I’d also love to put together a decent training block and run the North Face 50 mile in San Francisco in December, but I have typically struggled to be super fit come that time of year.  I’ll probably throw in a few training races both on road and trail but also hope to do some bigger mountain adventures close to home as I train for the 100s.

Early on in the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 Mile. Photo Paul Nelson.

2015 was also a great year for me in the shoe department, and as I look back to the variety and breadth of shoes that I had a chance to try, I feel very fortunate, and also have more shoes I enjoy running in than ever before. The big story for me this year was breaking out of the low drop arena to discover that I could tolerate shoes of a larger drop if other features like fit, flexibility, and stack height were still good.  This lead me to adidas early on in the year and Montrail later in the year, both brands that typically offer most of their shoes in 10mm drop, and that I’d avoided solely for that that reason.

A few shoes at my disposal.  Still a little more room on the shelf :).

Below are the top 3 Road, Trail, and Mountain running shoes that I tried in 2015:

Road

1. Salming Distance – A surprise and last minute addition to the road shoe category since I bought them in the middle of December. The main reason they are on the top is the sheer versatility of the shoe.  It weighs in the mid 8 oz range, has enough protection and cushion to run long in, yet is poppy and fast enough to run workouts in, and I’ll probably run it at the Carlsbad Marathon which is about 10 days away as I write this. The ride is very smooth and natural feeling, yet it’s fast like a racing shoe.  Great shoe from a brand that I’m beginning to pay more attention to.
2. adidas Takumi Ren 3 – While this shoe didn’t release in the US, that didn’t stop me from importing it from the UK :).  I initially wasn’t super keen on it (I had run in both the Takumi Sen 2 and 3 and Ren 2 before), but after a few great workouts, and even a long run in them, I ended up super impressed at the amount of shoe adidas was able to offer in a scant 6.5 oz .  If they could only flesh out the Takumi range a bit with a few models that have some actual rubber on them for more durability, and bring the price down just a hair, I think they’d be nearly impossible to compete with in the pure racing/performance scene.  As it is, the Takumi offers nearly all the protection and structure of the adios in a 6.5 oz shoe (granted not the softer ride of the full boost outsole in the adios, but its nearly 2 oz lighter!)
3. Skechers GOrun Ride 5 – Technically this shoe didn’t release till 1/1/16, but I’ve had a pair since November, and it is a really nice shoe that also is capable of a wide range of roles.  The upper is super comfortable and fits just right for an all around road shoe, and the midsole is cushioned yet responsive thanks to Skechers’ new 5-Gen resalyte material that really shines in their whole 2016 lineup.

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: adidas Takumi Sen 3 (super light and snappy), New Balance Zante (smooth, fast, widish toebox, trail worthy), adidas Supernova Glide 7 
(not flashy, but does everything from road to trail and super durable), Skechers GOrun Ultra Road (great cushion yet still responsive with a fantastic knit upper), and Salming Race 
(smooth and efficient Salming ride on a light platform and roomy/comfy upper for a racing shoe).

Trail

1. adidas adizero XT Boost (review) – You can read my review for more detail, but in the end the XT Boost comes away as my top trail shoe from 2015.  It offered a road shoe like ride (similar to the Takumi Ren) in a full featured trail package with a unique upper and fantastic outsole.  Not perfect, but very close to everything I’m looking for in a trail shoe.
2. adidas Response Trail Boost (review) – The Response Trail Boost was by far the biggest surprise for me in the sense that before I ran in them I thought they’d be horrible, and after I ran in them, they were easily one of the best shoes I’ve ever run in.  They looked like everything I don’t usually go for in that they were relatively heavy (11 oz), had deep lugs on a cushioned platform (usually not a good combo), and a funky upper.  In the end they end up running super smooth, feel well cushioned yet nimble and stable, handle a wide variety of terrain, and have a very comfortable fit for long runs.  After running in some other shoes (Montrails with Fluid Guide, adidas Terrex Boost) that similarly offer a stiffer, structured midfoot with softer heel and flexible forefoot, I’m convinced this is a helpful design feature to give a more stable and precise ride for shoes with higher protection or stack height.
3. Salming T1 (review) – Salming was surely the best new brand for me this year.  They really understand how to produce a natural feeling midsole that runs very smooth yet fast like your favorite road racing shoe.  This translates really well to a trail shoe that handles literally everything from pavement to off-trail.  If I was going into a trail race with no idea of the course, this would probably be the shoe on my feet since it runs super-well on almost any surface.  The shoe has even grown on me more since my review, and especially since running in the Distance which runs very similar in a lighter, road specific package.

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: Montrail Fluid Flex ST (so much better than Fluid Flex with great ride, and the upcoming Fluid Flex FKT could perfect it with a better looking upper on the same platform) and Altra Superior 2.0 (first Altra shoe I’ve enjoyed the ride on and fit wasn’t too wide in midfoot/heel).

Mountain

1. inov-8 Mudclaw 300  – The best all-around mountain shoe to date, and I’ve nearly tried them all.  The upper is near mountain shoe perfection, and the outsole is sticky, aggressive, yet still runs ok on harder terrain (and much better than inov-8’s x-talon and Terraclaw outsoles). The Mudclaw will have some stiff competition next year, but as it stands it is the most precise running, and best fitting, mountain shoe out there.
2. Dynafit Feline SL (review) – Dynafit was the best newcomer for me in the mountain shoe category, and their forthcoming Feline Vertical has loads of potential.  The Feline SL has a great fit, better midsole than most mountain shoes, and a more versatile outsole than most as well.  It feels light, precise, and has just enough protection for most mountain outings.  Only improvements I’d add are a rockplate and a better, seamless upper.  The upcoming Feline Vertical appears to address both of these and add Vibram Megagrip rubber, so you can understand my excitement!
3. The North Face Ultra MT – I wasn’t originally as taken with these shoes on the first run, but after a few good mountain outings in them, I really started to dig the mix of cushion, protection, precision and grip that they offered.  The ride is firm and precise, but has just enough give to handle fast downhills on hard terrain.  The rockplate is much welcomed (something not as common in mountain shoes as in trail shoes), and the Vibram Megagrip rubber is outstanding (the MT is still the only shoe I’ve used with Megagrip, but many new models coming in 2016 with it).

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: adidas Terrex Boost (absolutely awesome midsole/outsole platform, just the upper is not very forgiving; upcoming Agravic could put it all together) and La Sportiva Mutant (great, unique upper and fantastic outsole, but lack of rock plate is noticeable on rocky terrain, and general ride not very inspired).

All in all 2015 was a great year for running shoes, with increasingly better upper materials and construction, better midsole materials (the year of Boost where it was in most adidas models including the first time in their trail shoes), and better outsole materials (Continental trail outsoles and Vibram Megagrip in particular).  2016 looks to continue all of these trends and I see them starting to converge more in single shoes, where in the past great features tended to exist more in isolation with certain parts of the shoe having sometimes glaring issues in tandem with innovative new features.  Take a look at the 2016 preview posts up on the blog (road racing, road, trail and mountain) and be sure to stay tuned for future reviews of those shoes and others!

Late race at Peterson Ridge. Hope to keep on running strong in 2016! Photo David Mitchell.

Specs

Price: $110

Weight: 8.9 oz men’s 9, 7.4 oz women’s size 7

Stack Height: 19mm Heel/17mm Forefoot; 2mm drop

Stats via Topo Athletic

Topo’s snugger heel and midfoot with a medium/wide toebox is a nice combo. Also notice eyelet cord loops which are a great change from the MT.

Upper and Fit

The upper feel was nice on the MT with Topo’s medium to wide-ish toebox, but the fit was not that secure, and there was way too much volume for my feet.  Additionally, the upper just seemed too thin to really hold the foot well for anything but mellow trail.  The Runventure pretty much rectifies any issue I had with the MT upper.  It feels lower volume in the midfoot and heel, and they swapped out the long fabric ghille loops for small cord loops that the laces run through.  The result is that I can snug down the shoe really well, and there are no pressure points due to proper placement of the cord loops and tongue padding.

Great mesh and overlays.

The rest of the upper is very well executed, with a durable mesh and strong overlays that serve to secure the midfoot and also rand the entire shoe (big kudos for that).  The interior is also lined 3/4 of the way, which creates a very nice sock-free environment.  The arch area on Topos is still a little off to me for some reason.  I can alleviate it a bit by removing the arch area out of the footbed, but I also feel that it is somewhat due the shape of the midsole, which is pretty straight from heel to toe, and I think the arch area is a little too wide for my foot so it sits on the midfoot area of the midsole a little.  That said, it doesn’t cause major problems, and otherwise the Runventure upper is one of the best on the market, which is amazing since this shoe comes so shortly after the MT; Topo knows how to listen and improve their product quickly.

Great upper design with overlays in the right spots and a wonderful, lightweight rand. Midsole is there, but doesn’t really add much. Also of note is that the black section of the midsole is actually up on the side of the foot creating a bathtub effect in the forefoot, something I don’t care for.

Midsole and Ride

Hmmm, well without being too harsh, the ride on the Runventure is pretty mediocre.  My feeling is that this is mostly due to the use of compressed EVA which, while protective, just doesn’t offer any liveliness to the ride or fluidity to the running experience.  If the shoe is minimal enough, this matters less (and the Topo Tribute shows this in some ways), but for a 9 oz shoe, I think the midsole is a pretty important component.  I’ve been stumped by the use of compressed EVA in trail shoes (less common in road shoes) for quite some time, and aside from a few exceptions that are also minimal (Merrel Ascend Glove for one), compressed eva has detracted from some shoes that I’d otherwise have enjoyed quite a bit more (e.g., the inov-8 Race Ultra 270 and the Salomon Sense series).  Great design on those shoes, but pretty sub-par midsole material and ride.  The biggest thing I’d change on the Runventure is to have a responsive, injected EVA for the midsole. I think it would transform the shoe, which is otherwise very well done.

One big addition to the Runventure midsole from the MT is a full length TPU rock plate.  This helps quite a bit in protection and providing some additional precision to the ride, and was a good move.  Overall, the ride of the Runventure is pretty minimal and firm, like a slightly more protective Merrell Ascend Glove or Bare Access.  If you like a minimalistic feel and ride, you won’t be disappointed, but I think this alienates a good share of the market who are looking for a light and fast feel with a little forgiveness and response to the midsole (recently, adidas XT Boost is a great example at a very similar weight to Runventure; midsole material is a big deal).

Pretty no nonsense outsole that serves its purpose. Carbon fiber looking slits (actually TPU) are the rock plate showing through.

Outsole

The outsole is a carryover from the MT and also is the same as the recently released MT-2.  I actually like the outsole quite a bit.  It is a general purpose trail outsole composed of a fairly durable compound that is still decent enough on rock, but has a nice low profile lug design that doesn’t get in the way on dry trails.  It’s not going to be fantastic in mud or very loose terrain, but with a low to the ground midsole and secure fit, I didn’t find it prohibitive off trail and on technical sections.  Many trail shoes could benefit from reducing lug depths (like the Nike Kiger 3), unless they are really aiming at a mountain or fell running type of shoe.  Smart design, that, until Topo wants some more differentiation in their trail line, will serve the majority of trail runners well.

Overall Impressions

In the end, I like the Topo Runventure, especially as a more minimalistic option to take on shorter runs where I want more ground feel.  The shoe is a representation of Topo’s ability to significantly improve their shoes in just one development cycle, which is exciting to see.  If they can do the same for a followup to the Runventure by evolving the midsole material and ride just a bit, they would have one of the best overall lightweight trail shoes out there.  As it is, the upper is fantastic (a real highlight of the shoe) and the outsole is well done.  The result is a shoe that provides a fairly precise, albeit firm and minimalistic ride, on a low drop platform with one of the better fits out there.

The Topo Runventure is available for purchase at Amazon.com and Topoathletic.com.

Specs

Price: $140

Weight: 260 g (9.2 oz) size 9 men, 230 g (8.1 oz) size 8 women

Stack Height: 29mm Heel/18.5mm Forefoot; 10.5 mm drop

Specs from adidas

Fit is pretty typical of adizero lineup and just how I like it. Snug heel and midfoot with a medium toebox.

Gaiter is neither too tight nor loose, and is effective at keeping stuff out.

Upper and Fit

The XT Boost sports one of the most unique uppers on the market today.  When I first saw the shoe, I was a little leery of the upper and figured it would either work really well, or completely ruin the shoe.  After putting some miles on them I can say that I really appreciate the upper, and feel it is a real asset for the shoe. For example, sometimes I’ve reached for the XT Boost when heading out on a run simply for the extra coverage the built-in scree gaiter provides.  It keeps all debris out in the mountains in the summer and fall, and even did a pretty good job with a recent run in 3 inches of fresh snow (although the rest of the shoe is not intended for winter and is pretty breathable).

Aside from the gaiter, which is great, the rest of the upper checks most of the boxes for me and fits like most adidas in the adizero line (i.e. pretty close to the adios in fit – same last I believe).  The shoe is randed from the forefoot through the midfoot, holds the foot pretty well, and is sufficiently breathable.  It is not as seam-free as I’d like, but I still haven’t had any issues running in them up to 2.5 hrs without socks.

As an aside, adidas was planning on releasing a Primeknit version of the XT Boost with a full knitted upper – I was drooling over it, but unfortunately it was canceled before release.  Such a shame and I sure hope they reconsider releasing that shoe at some point!  Overall though, the upper on the XT Boost is a great example of a company trying something new, in a thoughtful way, and I think it pays off with a very unique and effective end result.

Great midsole with adios style geometry, Boost in forefoot and a unique randed, yet simple upper.

Midsole and Ride

adidas usually excels in this area for me, and the XT Boost is no exception.  The XT Boost keeps a more marathon shoe midsole geometry like the XT 5, with a 10.5 mm drop (really 6mm would be ideal, but not a huge problem) and a pretty low forefoot stack height (similar to the adios).  The ride is quite different from the XT 5 though, and even from the adios Boost for that matter.  While still racy and fairly precise, the XT Boost is softer, less structured and more flexible than either of those shoes. It’s still protective enough for 50k, and maybe even up to 50 miles if one is used to lighter footwear.

With Boost just in the forefoot, it creates a more specific feel to the shoe with a firmer rear half and a responsive but more forgiving forefoot.  I usually like the opposite (firmer forefoot/softer heel), but I think in this case it works pretty well since Boost is still responsive, but gives the forefoot a good deal of flexibility which helps when climbing and on technical terrain.  The heel shape is probably the only area I’d tweak on the midsole.  I simply think it is too wide and bulging.  They could keep a narrower heel design and not lose any stability or ride quality. Other than that, even though I never had protection issues, I’d like to see a thin rock plate/torsion shank (like in the Terrex Boost, but quite a bit thinner) in the XT Boost. I think the extra protection and structure provided by a rock plate for long runs is worth the weight tradeoff.  If the shoe was sub 8 oz., I might reconsider (although I like rock plates a lot :)).

You can see the bulge of the heel design. One of the few things I don’t like about the shoe as I think it should cut pretty straight down following the line of the heel counter rather than flare out, especially in a shoe this light and nimble; it only gets in the way when side-hilling and on the downhill. Doesn’t ruin the ride, but could improve it if altered.

Outsole

adidas’ partnership with Continental has been around for awhile, but I feel the new round of trail offerings for both 2015 and the forthcoming 2016 lineup are the best yet.  They are simple in design, full coverage, black rubber, with repeating lug patterns that run well while providing market leading grip.  The XT’s outsole is the most low profile of all the adidas trail offerings, yet is still pretty aggressive overall, and I would consider it to be an all-mountain type outsole.  It has the ability to run well on both trail and in the mountains/off trail while not firmly in the Trail or Mountain category.  These types of outsole setups are particularly great for routes that have you starting low on smoother trails and finishing on a peak or with off trail sections up high.  This outsole would be perfect for a race like the Rut 50k that I did last year where there is an equal mix of smooth single track and rugged off trail since it would not be unpleasant on either.  If you are looking for outsoles that provide great traction on a variety of surfaces, but don’t get in the way on smooth trail, the XT Boost, Terrex Boost and Response Boost have some of the best out there.

Great outsole design as with the rest of the recent adidas trail lineup. Don’t think they need to expose the Boost in the forefoot, but doesn’t hurt it a ton. Lug depth might be a tad much for this shoe, but adds to the versatility, especially with the gaiter on the upper.

Conclusion

Not much else to say.  I really like the shoe and it ranks as one of the best I’ve tried all year.  I’ve been wanting trail shoes with marathon shoe geometries for quite some time and the XT Boost is one of the few shoes that provide that in the current market.  The fact that they do it in a shoe with such a unique and effective upper even further sets it apart.  It rides like a mix of the adios Boost and to some degree the Takumi Ren 3 (which also only has boost in the forefoot), and has great traction for a wide range of conditions. It also runs decently even on the few road sections I’ve been on with it.  If you’re looking at a trail shoe on the lighter/faster end of the spectrum, this is the first shoe I’d recommend.

The adidas adizero XT Boost is available for purchase at Zappos in the US and Wiggle in the UK.

Specs

Price: $125.00

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

Stack Height: 24mm heel, 20mm forefoot

Specs from Running Warehouse

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

Upper and Fit

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

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

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

Midsole and Ride

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

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

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

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

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

Outsole

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

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

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

Overall Thoughts

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

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

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

I was a little leery giving the Speedcross Pros a review (disclosure: the shoes were provided free of charge from Salomon) since I really don’t like the Speedcross 3, which is most likely their best selling model of all time.  It has been around unchanged for quite some time and, while I can understand its initial popularity years ago, I can’t seem to grasp why it is still as popular given all the great options these days that are just as grippy, yet much more nimble and comfortable.  The good news is, even if you don’t like the Speedcross 3, the Speedcross Pro modernizes the Speedcross line, while still retaining most of what folks probably like about the Speedcross 3 (for good or bad).

Specs

Price: $150

Weight: 400 g (14.1 oz) in my size 13, 323 g (11.4 oz) in men’s 9 and 283 g (10 oz) in women’s 8

Stack Height: 29mm heel, 19mm forefoot

Specs from Running Warehouse

Medium width throughout, which I found not too wide, but not super precise either. Right in the middle of comfort and performance in fit.

With speedlaces and plastic eyelet liners removed. Much improved and the fit was able to be more fine tuned, but still not the most secure upper and pretty stiff heel counter.

Upper and Fit

The upper on the Speedcross Pro is likely the best and most significant upgrade from the Speedcross 3.  It is completely stitch free and features the Endofit sleeve that connects with the tongue (pioneered by the Sense series).  I’m still pretty indifferent on how much this improves the fit of Salomon shoes, and in many models I only feel that it adds unnecessaryweight and thickness to the upper.  That said, I didn’t have any problems with it on the Speedcross Pro, and since the upper is a pretty closed cell material it is going to run hot anyway.  Overall, I think the upper quality is right up there with their S-Lab products, and probably a little more room in the fit compared to the Fellcross 3 and Sense 3.  The upper should hold up well under rough conditions, and will be comfortable in the colder/wetter type of use it is designed for.

As usual, I did cut the speed laces off and replaced them with regular laces which helped with getting a little better lock down, and relieved pressure on the top of the foot.  This is one area that Salomon really needs to improve on though; they always run speed laces and usually, especially in their S-Lab product,  have a very thin neoprene-like tongue material that just doesn’t distribute any pressure from the static speed laces.  A little thicker/stiffer tongue material like the Dynafit Feline SL helps a lot to relieve speed lace pressure and would help improve the comfort in Salomon shoes especially on steep downhills.

Pretty nice profile and clean Salomon lines and construction. The overlasted forefoot is a nice touch too. Chunky heel really detracts though.

Midsole and Ride

While the Speedcross Pro is an improvement in the ride department compared to the Speedcross 3, this is the main area where I feel the shoe doesn’t meet my expectations in a mountain shoe.  The Speedcross 3 has a very odd mix of a soft, flexible, low forefoot and a stiff and chunky heel.  The combo makes sense only if you are trying to retain high levels of heel cushion, and yet still have enough proprioception in the forefoot to handle technical terrain.  While hard heel strikers may appreciate this, I think most runners who run in technical terrain frequently adopt a much more nimble stride and when you do, the heel on the Speedcross 3 is just in the way and actually downright unstable.

The good news is that in the Speedcross Pro this midsole characteristic is subdued a little compared to the Speedcross 3.  The bad news is that it is still there in a pretty noticeable way.  The Speedcross 3 was pretty much not runnable on technical terrain for me whereas the Speedcross Pro is usable, but definitely not the type of ride that inspires confidence running sub 6 pace on steep and loose terrain.  The heel is still too chunky and wide and the forefoot still a little soft.  The ride is more forgiving than many other mountain/off trail shoes out there, but the problem is that it comes at the expense of its stability on uneven terrain. With a shoe with as much lug as the Speecross series has, this is a tradeoff not worth making, in my opinion.  Either reduce the lug and make it more of an all around shoe, or sharpen up the ride for steep terrain.

Shot of the fairly thick, wide and chunky heel. Just not a good match for the end use of the shoe.

Outsole

The outsole is slightly different from the Speedcross 3 and more akin to the Fellcross 3 in design (with shallower lugs).  I found the outsole adequate for a varied set of conditions and the traction is good all around.  The biggest fault is really on the midsole not being stable enough to use all of the grip.  Other than that, the outsole is simple and solid in design and, while the Contragrip rubber is not the best on the market, it is still a fairly high quality rubber.  I’m also not sure I’m entirely sold on the Chevron lug shape for some situations (side-hilling in particular), but it isn’t a huge problem and generally functions well.

Overall a nice outsole with a cleaner design than the Speedcross 3 and it has held up well so far.

Overall Thoughts

The Speedcross Pro is a great improvement to, in my view, the outdated Speedcross 3 and is much more closer to the S-Lab models in build and function (a good thing!).  Regardless, some of the negative aspects (unless you love the Speedcross 3 that is) is a very beefy, heavy and unstable feel and ride for the end use it is designed for.  Unless, for some reason, you like having lugs on more mellow terrain, the shoe is overkill for the type of terrain it performs best on.  On moderate trail, it really does ride smooth and comfortable, something shoes with this much lug rarely do well.  However, as soon as it gets genuinely steep, loose or uneven, I felt that the lack of control and stability really holds the shoe back.  The $150 price tag is something that also holds it back, as there are better shoes from Dynafit and inov-8 out there for less money.  That said, if you like the Speedcross 3 a lot, I think the Speedcross Pro is a very refined iteration of that shoe, which, for some, may make it a fantastic option.

The Salomon Speedcross Pro is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US and Running Warehouse EU.

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

Wildhorse vs. Terra Kiger

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

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

Now on to the Terra Kiger review…

Stats

Price: $125 MSRP

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

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

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

Appearance & Design

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

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

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

Materials & Construction

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

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

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

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

Fit

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

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

Ride

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

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

Overall Impressions

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

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

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

Purchasing Options

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

My first pair of Skechers Performance running shoes was the GoRun 2. I loved those shoes. They gave me a breath of fresh air from the stuffy, typical norms that I found in most running footwear, so I was very excited when the opportunity arose to do some reviews for Skechers. I received the GoRun Ride 3 shoes as review samples from Skechers, free-of-charge. (Full disclosure: since receiving these shoes I’ve accepted a Brand Ambassador position with Skechers Performance Division)

I’ve never owned any of the Ride series of the Skechers GoRun shoes, so I came into this review with no real expectations. As it’s sometimes hard for those new to Skechers running shoes to keep track of all the different names and versions, I’ll place them on a general spectrum – starting at most “minimal” to most “maximal” shoe in the line:

GoBionic > GoMeb Speed > GoRun > GoRun Ride > GoRun Ultra

Skechers have really stepped up their game when it comes to aesthetics. Previous iterations have come in neon greens, pinks, and various other cartoonish colorways which seem to have passed out of favor a bit lately. It was cute for a little while, but we’re back to business now with more conservative colorways.

Slipping into these shoes for the first time was a real delight, and reminded me of why I became a fan of Skechers in the first place. These shoes, although considered a more cushioned and supportive shoe, are very light and very soft. The upper has a sock-like fit with no heel counter (the rigid backing that goes behind your heel in many traditional running shoes), so it really is like putting on a pair of slippers. Skechers provides the option of running with or without the insoles, allowing a runner to choose their own adventure. I chose to run with the inserts in (perhaps a residual effect to being prescribed orthotics by a doctor years ago), but found them to still be very comfortable without them. The toe box has tons of room with absolutely no toe crowding, but I believe this would prove to feel a bit sloppy if you were trying to do some uptempo running. For easy running, this is a non-issue.

Another non-traditional aspect of these shoes is the outsole. It is primarily a foam construction with what Skechers calls “GOimpulse sensors and pillars”, which I believe to be the rubber lugs that are dotted around the outsole. This allows the shoe to be extremely flexible and allows you to have full range of motion to bend and flex your toes naturally. Initially, I assumed that the durability would suffer due the materials used, but they still look to be in great shape after about 100 miles.

Outsole of the GRR3 after 100 miles

I will say that the GoRun Ride 3 seems to be the most “traditional” shoe within the line, while being anything but traditional. They are comfortable and cushioned, while still allowing the foot to function naturally without forcing them to sit put like many shoes in the same class. The low heel-to-toe offset was also nice, as I typically feel most natural between 0-4mm. Compared to the other trainers I’ve worn recently, this was very refreshing. I enjoyed using these shoes for long and easy runs that didn’t require a lot of responsiveness or ground feel. They seem to hold up surprisingly well, making them a great value shoe at $80.

Conclusion: The Skechers GoRun Ride 3 is a comfortable, well-cushioned, affordable shoe perfect for long, easy miles.

Skechers GoRun Ride 3 Specs:

Weight: 8.4 oz;

Heel-to-toe drop: 4mm w/o insoles, 8mm with insoles

Stack Heights: 13.5mm Forefoot, 20mm Midfoot, 17.5mm Heel

Purchasing Info

The Skechers GoRun Ride 3 is available for purchase at Skechers.com, Amazon.com, and at Shoebuy.com (get 20% off with code 20MARCH through 4/1/2014).

The Women’s GoRun Ride 3 can be purchased at 6pm.com for under $60.

Update 3/14/2014: Nike has just announced the release of the Nike Free 3.0 v6. For details, visit this post.

After a phenomenal debut, the Nike Free 3.0 line entered a steady downward spiral, culminating in one of the worst shoes I have worn since I started reviewing running shoes back in 2009. The Free 3.0 v4 had a nice, updated sole, but the NanoPly upper felt like it had been made from remnants of a ziploc freezer bag. It didn’t have any give, leading to a very tight fit, and it didn’t breathe. At all. It was a shoe built for fashion, not function.

I’m happy to announce that Nike has redeemed themselves with the Free 3.0 v5. It’s a shoe worthy of the lineage to which it belongs, and is probably the best Nike Free of any flavor that I’ve worn since the original Free 3.0 (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by Running Warehouse).

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Upper

The big change from Free 3.0 v4 to v5 is the upper. Nike wisely ditched the NanoPly disaster and replaced it with a stretchy mesh. The result is an upper that has a ton of give and one that allows what is otherwise still a fairly narrow shoe to accommodate my average width feet quite comfortably. No longer do my feet feel like frozen steaks in shrink wrap!

The mesh is stretchy enough that I can wiggle and spread out my toes easily, which makes for a much more enjoyable experience when wearing them for a long period of time (e.g., all day at work). I took the photo below while attempting to spread my toes as widely as possible, you can see them pushing the mesh out easily on both sides:

Forefoot Mesh is Very Stretchy!

In the photo below of my well-worn pair, it almost looks as if the upper has molded to my foot shape a bit:

The upper mesh consists of two layers, the outer layer is very open and stretchy, and the inner layer is a closed mesh that effectively keeps debris out of the shoe (a potential problem with a shoe that has very open mesh). Given the form-fitting yet stretchy nature of the upper, the inner closed mesh does make the shoe run a bit warm on a hot day, but breathability is massively improved from v4.

Comfort is excellent both with and without socks, though I do get a bit of abrasion near the base of the outer lace row. It has not resulted in a blister, and only occurs when I don’t have socks on. I’m ambivalent about the bootie design of the shoe – generally I prefer a more traditional tongue since it allows for better adjustment of fit and lacing, but the bootie in the v5 has not caused me any trouble. There is minimal structure to the upper – no heel counter, no hard overlays, etc. Internally, arch support is present, but is mostly due to the sockliner angling up under the arch.

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole

The sole of the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is unchanged from v4. It has the typical grooves/siping found in all Nike Free shoes, which allow for excellent flexibility. Rubber outsole pods are only placed under the lateral heel and the big toe, though wear of the exposed midsole does not appear excessive – I have about 45 miles of running on mine, and wear them casually frequently (often all day). The soles are a bit discolored, but are holding up well so far:

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole After 45+ Miles of Running and Extensive Casual Wear

The lack of extensive outsole makes for a lightweight shoe, and my size 10’s come in right around 8oz. Sole dimensions reported by Running Warehouse are 21mm heel, 17mm forefoot, making it a 4mm drop shoe.

The Free 3.0 v5 is a pretty soft shoe. One of my favorite things about the original Free 3.0 was that it made me feel like a ninja – the soft sole and lack of rubber silenced my footfalls. This shoe has this same property – if I’m coming up behind someone walking their dog on the sidewalk I often have to make some noise to let them know I’m about to pass. I’ve startled enough people in my time to realize that most don’t like to have someone running fast overtake them without some warning that they’re there (it’s a challenge when they’re wearing headphones and I can’t jump into the road due to traffic…).

I’ve enjoyed running in the Free 3.0 v5 so much that I briefly considered wearing them for my Spring marathon (coming up this weekend – still undecided on shoes…). I wore them for a 16.5 mile long run over hills as a test, and wound up developing a knot in my soleus about 9 miles into the run. Not sure if the shoes were the culprit, but it scared me off of trying to use them in a long race. I can typically handle zero drop shoes just fine for longer than 10 miles, so I’m wondering if the low drop combined with an extremely flexible, soft sole might be the problem. Don’t know. May have to give them another try on a moderate-length long run and see if it was just a fluke.

Conclusion

For me, the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is a fantastic shoe for easy runs and distances up to about 10 miles. They’re also great as a casual, low-drop shoe (which is what the vast majority of people buying them will be using them for). In my opinion, they’re too soft and lack responsiveness for speed work. Be aware that despite the stretchy upper, it is a fairly narrow shoe (I went up a half size), so those with wide feet should look elsewhere.

All in all, I’m quite impressed with the Free 3.0 v5. It’s one of the best shoes I’ve worn so far this year, and a pleasant surprise given my experience with the previous iteration. Big thumbs up!

The Nike Free 3.0 v5 is available for purchase in a variety of men’s and women’s colors at Running Warehouse. Outside of the US, the Nike Free 3.0 can be purchased at Wiggle.com and Sportsshoes.com.

Update 3/14/2014: Nike has just announced the release of the Nike Free 3.0 v6. For details, visit this post.