Skechers GOTrail Ultra 4

The Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3 was my favorite max cushioned trail shoe last year and one of few max cushioned shoes I feel comfortable running in.  I’m happy to report that the Ultra 4 takes what worked so well for the Ultra 3 and just improves upon it.  The main differences are: a slightly firmer midsole which makes the shoe a bit more stable, while still being very plush and well cushioned; better, more secure upper with what feels like a noticeably wider forefoot despite it being on the same last (I think this is due to a new no-sew toebox on the upper); lastly a super nice and streamlined tongue on the shoe really finished it off well.  The Ultra 4 is still my go to shoe if I want a well cushioned ride without feeling like I’m changing my stride, something I still have problems with when using most max cushioned shoes.  Great work Skechers Performance!

Great upper with slightly tweaked, more stable ride. Still the best max cushioned out there in my view.

Hoka One One Challenger ATR 3

The Challenger ATR 3 is a great sign for Hoka One One.  In addition to the Speed Instinct released last year that made my Honorable Mentions list for 2016, the Challenger ATR 3 gives me hope that Hoka is slowly tweaking their shoes in the right direction.  The ATR 3 fits so much better than the ATR (never tried the ATR 2) and yet it doesn’t seem to be substantially different in design.  Reportedly on the Clifton 3 last, it makes a huge difference.  Better toebox width, more secure overlays and a perfect amount of tongue padding and it is probably the best fitting Hoka to date in my mind (I’ve got high hopes for the Speed Instinct 2 and Speedgoat in this regard too).  The ride also, while similar, seems slightly tweaked, but in a good way.  Foam is a bit more responsive and not just soft (dare I say energy sucking) and dampening like the original.  It runs fast and yet very forgiving and light all at the same time.  I’m still not in love with the oversized bucket seat heel and rocker (something the Speed Instinct goes with out more or less) but it works in this shoe and, while I can feel it, it is never distracting or problematic and actually kinda nice if I’m tired but don’t want a heavy shoe.  If you’ve avoided Hoka in the past for the reasons I have, it might be time to take a second look.

Upper is WAY better than previous Challengers and previous Hokas. More refined and comfortable across the board. Enjoying the shoe this spring.

Brooks Caldera

The Caldera kind of came out of nowhere for me.  While I’ve liked the idea of some of Brooks past trail models, they just never seemed to excel in terms of fit and ride for me.  The midsoles tended to be on a firmer/harsher side and the fit of many Brooks shoes just seemed to be super tapered in the toe box and using odd upper design choices (Pure Grit series comes to mind for me in this regard).  I’m super happy to say that the Caldera pretty much erases all of those problems for me and is the first Brooks trail shoe I can wholeheartedly endorse.  The upper is secure, but much more forgiving in fit, while still feeling similar to a Brooks fit (does that make sense?).  I love the straightforward lacing, lace garage (seriously, more lace garages!) and just-right amount of tongue and heel collar padding for a long run/well cushioned shoe like it is.  The midsole is lively and responsive while not seeming as big or as large on the run as the stack height and look would indicate.  It reminds me of the Pearl Izumi N2/N3s but with a much more responsive ride and more secure fit.  These are great things and I sure hope Brooks sells well in this model since I’d love to see some of their other models move in the direction of the Caldera design wise (this doesn’t mean they all need to be higher cushion, but the design approach/material usage could be translated to other types of models).  The outsole is also surprisingly adequate despite its sparse application.  No problems for me with durability yet and I’d expect it to last at least as long as something like the Challenger ATR 3 above.

Such a cool design on the Caldera (bonus points for that!). Great all around shoe and perfect Pearl Izumi replacement if you are looking for one with PI now out of the running business.

Topo Athletic Terraventure

Topo had a great year last year with the MT-2 and Hydroventure and has built upon that with a more heavily lugged and slightly higher cushioned Terraventure.  The upper is classic Topo with light material and seamless overlays throughout.  The last feels slightly roomier than past Topos and slightly longer than the Ultra Fly/Magnifly which is a good thing.  It is definitely a wider platform in the midsole and outsole than the MT-2 which might be one of the only things I’m not as crazy about, but I guess makes sense for a longer more comfort oriented shoe.  The only reason I say this is that I really like Topo, and grab them off the shelf, for that very secure and nimble/natural feel and the Terraventure does move away from this just a little.  I’d love to see them tweak the Terraventure just a bit and put a midfoot shank of some sort on top of the midsole between the strobel, in addition to securing the upper just a bit more.  With that added structure I think the shoe would feel just a bit more tied together and be a much more appealing and capable long run shoe.  As it is, it runs and feels more like an MT-2 PLUS where it is basically the same feel and fit of the MT-2 with little more shoe underfoot but it ends up losing the nimble and light MT-2 feel in the process.  That all said, it is still a great shoe and one I’d compare to the Altra Lone Peak, but much prefer over the Lone Peak for my preferences in fit and feel.

Classic Topo (which is a good thing) with super clean and simple design. More shoe here and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing although hoping for a few small tweaks in an update.

Altra Superior 3.0

The Superior 3.0, for me marks a new era for Altra trail shoes.  While it was quietly released (in my view) and only slightly tweaked in design and appearance, the changes (much like the ones for the Hoka Challenger ATR 3) are just the right things that needed to be done to make the shoe fit and feel like it had the potential to all along.  The biggest differences are the new last which is just a hair longer than the old PFS last and as a result fits much better for me because you get the extra length/room with the right level of volume (a problem with sizing up to get the extra length).  This culminates in effectively achieving what I hoped Altra could all along: a shoe with a wide toebox that you can actually enjoy because it holds the rest of your foot super well.  A wide toebox with a wide back half (unless your feet are high volume, which is just fine :) ), doesn’t work out too well for me and produces a sloppy fit which detracted too much from the advantage of a wide toebox.  The Superior 3.0 is the first Altra trail shoe to get this right in my mind.  In addition to the much improved fit, Altra added a more substantial rand to the shoes which helps in security in the front half and durablity as well.  The midsole and outsole are slightly tweaked and run a bit more responsive.  Additionally, it should be slightly more durable too.  They still utilize the cutouts in the outsole which is the only piece I’d recommend changing on the shoe.  Other than that, it is one of the best medium cushioned, natural trail shoes ever made in my view.  Hint for future posts: Altra is doing a lot of things right lately and I have some other posts coming that will highlight some of the great things going on in both the road and trail offerings new for this summer.

Best Altra to date for me. Great fit and feel and probably one of the best natural, medium cushioned trail shoes on the market period even if you aren’t specifically looking for a wide toe-box or zero drop.

End of the first day at the Fat Dog 120 mile. Enjoying a high alpine section on a perfect evening before what would be my biggest struggle of the year through the night resulting in my only DNF for the year.

Yes, unfortunately it is now February and a best of 2016 post is old news, but better late than never. While things were a little lighter on the blogging front for me, I still had a full year of running, racing, and got to try out tons of new shoes and gear in the process.  I ran the Carlsbad Road Marathon in January, Gorge Waterfalls 100k in April, Quad Rock 50 mile in May, Bighorn 100 mile in June, Fat Dog 120 (DNF at mile 80, 25 hrs in) in August, and the North Face 50 mile in San Francisco in December.  All in all, it was a good year of improvement and continuing to learn more about my self as a person and runner. Some big goals on tap for this year and hoping to start things off well at the LA Marathon in March (despite a recent injury setback last week, my first in 3 years).

I’ve done a “Best of the Year” post every year and thought I’d put together another one with the addition of some great gear that I’ve used a ton as well.  Hopefully this won’t be too long and some will find it useful!

Best Shoes of 2016

-Road Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Skechers GORun Forza, adidas adizero Boston 6, and Salming Miles.

1. Skechers GORun Forza – The Forza didn’t blow me away when I first tried it in February last year, but it has really hung on in my line-up and is on the short list of road shoes I turn to for most road runs other than really fast days.  The shoe holds up super well, fits and feels like a lighter shoe and offers great structure without ever getting in the way.  Such a great shoe from Skechers and foreshadowing of some big improvements that are just now coming with their 2017 lineup (See GORun 5, GOMeb Razor and GOMeb Speed 4 all of which are fantastic!).
2. adidas adizero Boston 6 – It took me a long time to get around to trying the Boston 6 despite my affinity for v5 on dry trails.  While the Boston 6 is still great on trails, adidas really improved it’s feel on the road with a softer feeling forefoot due to a new outsole which is softer and yet still very durable; great stuff from Continental.  The new seam-free toebox is a great change as well.  The Boston 6 is one of the best all around shoes out there that will literally almost do anything well.
3. Salming Miles – Salming was a big surprise for me last year and ended up with my road shoe of the year in the Distance 3.  They didn’t really revamp their mainline models much in 2016 other than some new midsole material on them, but did launch a new road shoe in the Miles.  All of my complaints about durability in the Distance and Speed have been completely abolished with the Miles.  It is probably one of the more durable shoes I’ve ever used and feels completely natural riding in Salming’s usual style and feel.  Great high mileage (likely a 750+ Mile shoe) trainer particularly if you don’t want a higher drop training shoe.

Honorable mentions: adidas adios 1 Haile (great re-issue of the adios 1 and super versatile shoe…can’t find it anymore so hopefully they re-issue the re-issue :) ), adidas adios 3 (incremental update, but still a great shoe) and Nike Pegasus 33 (light and versatile; great on trails),

-Trail Shoes

From Bottom to Top: My modified Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3, Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3, and New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi.

1. Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3 – Yes, I know this shoe was out in 2015 even (hard to believe) but I really didn’t begin to use it till this last year and actually ended up using it in most of my races this year at some point or another.  The biggest reason it took me so long was that it took modifying the midsole profile to narrow the shoe up, which transformed the shoe and quickly made it much more nimble and it made a world of difference in the overall feel.  The upper on the Wildhorse 3 is also second to none on the market it my view.  It is light, breathes well and dries out quickly while allowing me to run very long in them sock less with zero issues.  One of the best, well rounded trails shoes ever made.  Version 4 is on the way in April and very much looking forward to that update as well as the Kiger 4.  Take a look here from a preview pic of both of them from Kaci Lickteig’s twitter.
   

   Unmodified Wildhorse 3 on top, modified on bottom. Basically I’ve shaved the midsole down to a narrower more nimble profile and really like the results.

   

   Doesn’t affect the shoe in any negative way and really tightens up the ride while being an ounce lighter. Win, win.

2. Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3 – The Ultra 3 was a real surprise for me and after logging quite a few miles in it (in a couple different versions: standard, Climate All-Weather and a custom version with the GOTrail rock plate in it which is amazing).  It has become a very nice tool to reach for in my rotation and the just released GOTrail Ultra 4 is even better with an improved upper in nearly every aspect as well as a bit firmer midsole which is also nice.  If you haven’t tried the Ultra 3 or 4 grab a pair, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed and it offers a very unique ride that isn’t really similar to much else in the market.
3. New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi – I waited till November to try the Gobi and that was too bad.  After feeling that the Zante was loosing some of its initial luster for me due to some subpar (in my view) foam that breaks down way too early.  The Zante also had an upper that isn’t quite as supportive as I’d like to see.  Well the good news for me was the Gobi has a great upper with much more support in addition to the added lugs to the outsole which really improve the feel of the ride in my view.  The foam still breaks down too soon, but really at the price they go for (under $100) there isn’t much to fault in them.

Honorable Mentions: Hoka One One Speed Instinct (best Hoka to date for me; well cushioned yet still enough pop to run fast and the best fit by far in any Hoka for my foot…like a Nike Kiger with more plush feel), Topo MT-2/Hyrdroventure (great light minimal-esque shoes and fantastic update to original MT…there is a new version of the MT-2 with an updated upper material that just came out) , Skechers GOTrail (good new entry for Skechers that runs well in a variety of conditions with a faster/lighter feel than the Ultra 3, but similar fit and finish), Montrail Caldorado (solid all-around new shoe from Montrail…really looking forward to the Caldorado 2 upper update which could address biggest issues with first version), Montrail Trans Alps (super burly, durable and surprisingly runnable beast of a shoe; also looking forward to upper update)

-Mountain Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Scarp Atom, Scarpa Neutron, and Salming Elements.

1. Scarpa Atom – Scarpa really nailed their 2016 launches and overall came out with the best technical mountain footwear of the year in my view.  Other than some overly wide heel profiles which, while not a deal breaker, could be narrower in my view, the shoes are remarkably well made with sticky Vibram Megagrip, low drops and secure uppers.  The Atom, being the most minimal of the lineup fits snug but comfortable and creates a mountain slipper like feel in both the upper and ride.  Such a fun shoe to run technical terrain in.  I do think it could be improved with a forefoot rock plate to help with the occasional sharp rock and extend the length of outings it could handle, but even so it is still very good and one of my top 3 mountain shoes of all time….I rarely buy 2nd pairs of shoes these days and I’ll be buying another pair of Atoms.
2. Scarpa Neutron – The Neutron is a burlier and more luggy option from Scarpa and despite needing just a bit narrower midsole profile in the heel, it is a really sweet mountain option with tons of protection, a decent ride, secure upper and great traction.  Check Scarpa out if you frequent some technical or mountain terrain and keep a look out for the forthcoming Scarpa Spin that aims to strike a balance between the Atom and the Neutron and has tons of potential.
3. Salming Elements – Salming’s first entry into the mountain running scene and they got a lot of things right.  The upper needs just a bit of work in cleaning it up from stitchingand making it a touch more secure and the shoe could use a forefoot rockplate with its relatively low forefoot stack height, but the grip is quite nice in mud and loose terrain and it is one of the best non-UK designed (i.e. inov-8 or Walsh) fell running shoes I’ve come across.  Hopefully, Salming doesn’t give up on the shoe and makes a few tweaks in the direction they appear to be going with their forthcoming Trail 5 and Snowrace with improved uppers and Vibram outsoles.

Descending near of the top of Mt. Olympus outside of Salt Lake City in August.

Best Gear of 2016

-Hydration Gear

From Top to Bottom: Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo (Hi-Fi fronts on both), Salomon Sense Set and Sense Ultra Set and Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0.

1. Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo waistbelts – I would have never thought waist belts would make a post of any sorts let alone top my list of hydration products but UD blew me away and totally revived the waist belt as a useful running tool.  I used the Stereo which holds two 500 ml soft flasks (the Mono holds 1 500 ml flask) at the Bighorn 100 in the heat and it was incredible to have my torso clear to vent heat and yet still carry enough water comfortably.  The Mono is something I use multiple times a week in training and literally you can’t even feel it on. I can carry a phone and multiple gels (with Hi-Fi front pouch, which comes with Stereo…they are interchangeable) in the front and 500 ml of fluid in the back without even noticing (used this setup at the North Face 50 and it was flawless).
2. Salomon Sense Set and Ultra Set – What UD did for waist belts Salomon did for hydration vests…I’d almost not call these vests but hydration shirts or apparel they fit so close to the body.  Great versatility and can carry a fair bit without any encumbrance.  When I needed more gear than the UD belts could carry I used one of the Sense vests (i.e. nighttime at Bighorn or other races or training outings where jackets and lights were necessary).  Salomon is revamping the line this year with new bottles with wider caps/opening (yes!) that should go back into the vest easier and upping the capacity from 1 and 3 to 2 and 5 for these vests in addition to adding a new 8 L model (see new line here).
3. Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0 – The AK vest moved from the most minimal of UD’s vests to a more robust 10L capacity and includes extra pockets and features like ice axe loops for more ambitious outings.  I used the vest at the Fat Dog 120 mile in Canada which had a pretty large mandatory gear list and it was great for that heavier load which would have been too much for the Sense Ultra.  Great for adventures and more involved races and offers a nice blend of capacity and streamlined design.

-Other things I Liked this last Year

Altra Casual shoes, Buff and Dynafit running hats and GU Hydration and Nutrition products.

1. Altra Casual Shoes – Altra released the Tokala and Desert boot and they really hit a nice balance of lightweight design and comfort, while still looking like a normal shoe and feeling like a running shoe.  They’ve been great especially going to work after runs where they have plenty of room for feet to spread, relax and recover.
2. Light running caps from Buff and Dynafit – the Buff Cap Pro and Dynafit React Cap have been awesome this last year.  They are super light, very packable and both allow the bill to be flipped up when you are climbing steeper trails or otherwise want more visibility.  Great design, particularly in more mountain environments.
3. GU Energy  – I used to not be that picky about energy and hydration products in the past and felt that sugar was sugar, but after making some effort to dial in my nutrition for 100 milers (after some issues with hydration at Western States in 2015), I needed to deal with sodium levels better as well as have a wide variety of gels and chews to keep things interesting for calories.  The GU Hydration (formerly GU Brew) product had become a go to for electrolyte replacement for long outings and it also contains 70 cals per serving so there is some added sugar there too.  The big difference for me is that the GU Hydration doesn’t have a super sweet taste or aftertaste that many others do for me and this is huge when going through lots of volume of liquid.  GU Roctane drinks are also great for workouts in training where I want to simplify my calories and hydration into one drink.  GU gels, which are now offered in bulk with a GU designed soft flask (yes!) have a wide variety of flavors with many being very palatable for me (some favorited are Salted Chocolate Roctane, Cucumber Mint, Root Beer, Salted Watermelon and Salted Caramel but many other good flavors). I still will use Clif Shot Bloks, Clif gels and Honey Stinger Gels to mix up the type of sugars here and there, but I’ll use GU the most and their drink is by far the best in my view (Clif’s Hydration drink mix is also decent).

Another shot near the bottom of the Mt. Olympus trail.

Hope you all found something of interest with this post and hang in there with the site as we try to figure out how to balance everything out with our busy family lives and careers.  Doesn’t mean we aren’t getting out running and trying new things still!  I’d love to read any comments you may have on any of the shoes or gear I mentioned and always on the lookout for new things that work well for folks.  I like good design of all sorts and always curious for new innovations and ideas that work well.  Happy running in 2017!

Good luck in 2017 everyone! Pic of some of my recent single digit F marathon training conditions….not exactly ideal for a SoCal marathon, but that’s part of the challenge!

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

Specs

Price: $120 MSRP

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

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

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

Upper and Fit

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

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

Welded internal support straps.

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

Great upper design and overall package is high quality.

Midsole and Ride

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

Tons of cushion. Notice drainage holes in the side.

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

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

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

Mesh strobel for quick drainage.

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

Outsole

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

Great overall and unique web/lattice design.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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!

Brooks

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

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

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

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

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

Hoka One One

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

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

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

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

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

Hoka Tracer – Light and seamless upper.

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

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

New Balance

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

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

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

Outsole with more connected pieces of rubber in the forefoot.

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

New, refined upper with carryover midsole/outsole.

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

Salomon

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

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

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

Carryover midsole and outsole as far as I could tell.

Saucony

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

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

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

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

Skechers Performance

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

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

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

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

I’ll start by saying that I have mixed feelings about the Strada. I’ve come to really enjoy the ride, but it still feels like a bit more shoe than I need, particularly in the upper. This is in part due to the fact that it was designed as a training shoe for Meb Keflezighi and Kara Goucher, and both like a bit more structure in a training shoe used for long miles. But I think it’s also due to the fact that the shoe needs to be differentiated a bit from the GoRun Ride, which provides a somewhat similar ride. I’m also a bit disappointed in the pricing – $130 is a lot for a shoe with no rubber on the sole. I like what the absence of rubber does for the feel of the ride, but I have concerns about durability at that price point (more on this below).

Specs

The Strada weighs in at 10.5 oz in a men’s size 10, and stack heights are 25mm heel, 17mm forefoot.

Upper and Fit

Compared to other shoes from the Skechers Performance Division, the Strada has a fairly substantial upper. Structure in the midfoot is provided by stitched overlays, and the heel contains a semi-firm counter and is lined on the exterior by an almost rubber-like overlay. Internally there is quite a bit of padding lining the ankle collar, and the tongue is likewise well-padded. I was told by Skechers that Meb really likes an upper that securely locks down his foot, and that the upper of the Strada was designed to meet this need.

I find the fit of the Strada to be reasonably roomy up-front, and the shoe has great step-in comfort. No need to size up in this one.

I personally prefer a less structured upper like that on the GoRun or GoRun Ride, but I recognize that there are those, including Meb and Kara, who like a more substantial shoe. If that group includes you, this might be the top choice among current Skechers Performance offerings.

Sole

While the upper is not the best match for my personal taste, I really like the sole of the Strada. The feel is quite soft underfoot, particularly under the heel (this softness was even maintained in the cold temps of winter). I’d compare it to a shoe like the Nike Pegasus (more on this comparison below). I’ve done a lot of miles in these and they feel great out on the road. The Strada is not a speed shoe, but if you want a cushy ride to eat up long miles, this sole will do the job.

One of the things I like about the sole of the Strada is that it is made of two pieces of foam that differ in durometer (hardness). The white foam visible in the photos here is a bit softer, and the dark foam extending from the outer heel, through the midfoot, and up under the big toe is a bit firmer. I like having the slightly firmer foam under the medial forefoot and big toe as I tend to have a lot of late-stage pronation, and in some shoes I tend to cave this area in (e.g., in some versions of the Nike Pegasus). The Strada is not a stability shoe by any means though, think of it more as a soft neutral shoe that provides a bit of support for toe-off.

As mentioned above, the Strada does not have a rubber outsole. The darker portion of the midsole is a bit more abrasion resistant than the white foam, but you will see wear if you tend to scuff on the road (I see this with my stride). This is where I question the pricing of the shoe – $130 for a shoe intended for high-mileage on roads that has no rubber on the sole might be a problem, especially when a similarly positioned shoe like the Nike Pegasus 31 retails for $100 and has an extensive rubber outsole (shoes like the Saucony Ride, Brooks Ghost, Asics Cumulus, and Mizuno Rider are also a bit cheaper). In Skechers’ defense, I will say that I asked them if they had received any negative feedback about sole durability and they indicated that it hasn’t been a problem.

Skechers GoRun Ride 4

Skechers GoRun Strada vs. GoRun Ride

One common question I have seen is how the Strada differs from the GoRun Ride. You can basically think of the GoRun Ride as a cushier version of the standard GoRun that is still quite lightweight and has a minimally structured upper. The Strada is more of a performance neutral shoe with a more structured upper and a stiffer, more cushioned sole than the Ride.

Conclusion

If you like a soft riding shoe with a structured upper, the Skechers GoRun Strada might be a good option to try.  On the plus side, I have enjoyed the ride, and I like the dual-foam sole design on the Strada, particularly the use of a slightly firmer foam under the medial forefoot/big toe (rather than a traditional medial post under the heel and arch). I’d be interested to see this type of sole design applied to other shoes.

On the minus side, I prefer the more stripped down uppers of the GoRun and GoRun Ride lines, but it’s good to see Skechers diversifying their offerings to cater to a wider market of runners. My biggest negative for the Strada would be the $130 price tag – it’s a lot to pay when other shoes in the category can be had for less.

The Skechers GoRun Strada is available for purchase at Zappos, Amazon, and Shoebuy.

For additional takes on the Skechers Strada, see reviews by Thomas Neuberger and Tyler Mathews.

The GoMeb Strada is essentially a cushy, neutral shoe (think Nike Pegasus cush) with a rubberless sole. Instead of a traditional outsole, Skechers opted to make the sole from two types of foam – a softer foam for the majority of the midsole, and a slightly firmer, more abrasion resistant foam that extends from the outside of the heel, across the midfoot, and up under the big toe (black regions in the photo below). The bit under the big toe is an interesting approach since it provides a bit of stability during late stance phase – I tend to really squish this area in a shoe like the Pegasus, but the Strada worked very well with my stride.

In my full review I’ll provide more detail on specs, fit, ride, and run through some of the differences among the many iterations of the shoe I tried during the development process. The Strada will be released on February 1. For now, I’ll leave you with some photos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

My first run in the shoes convinced me that Skechers had produced something special in the GR4. It was one of those runs where everything just felt right, and I wound up running way faster than I intended to at the outset. I emailed my contacts at Skechers right after that run and told them the shoe was nearly perfect even though it was still an early prototype. They had nailed it. Over the Spring and Summer I ran in several subsequent iterations of the shoe. Changes were not substantial, though there were a few that spurred some debate among wear testers and the design team (more on this below). The finished product is set to be released on November 15, and I’m excited to see how it will be received.

Skechers has given me the go-ahead to post a full review, so here goes!

So what has changed in the GoRun 4? Well, pretty much everything. New upper, new sole – it’s a complete re-design. That being said, fans of previous versions should not be worried that their favorite shoe has been ruined. My take is that the ride retains some of the feel of previous versions, but in a more refined package. It’s a really nice shoe.

Specs

The GoRun 4 adds a bit of weight over previous versions, mainly due to a slightly thicker midsole – specs sent to me by Skechers indicate a weight of 7.8oz in men’s size 9. As such, it’s still a pretty lightweight shoe. Midsole thickness is 18mm heel, 14mm forefoot for 4mm drop. The included 3mm forefoot, 7mm heel sockliner adds 4mm to the drop (8mm total), but it is removable and there is a finished footbed underneath.

Upper

The upper of the GoRun 4 is composed of a outer layer of tightly woven mesh over an inner layer of more open mesh. It does a good job of keeping road debris out, but breathability is compromised a bit by the tight weave. The fabric is reasonably stretchy, but does a good job of holding the foot in place. The upper is minimally structured with welded overlays and a few stitched overlays providing most of the support. A thin, flexible heel counter was added after the initial prototype to help maintain structure in that area. I was initially opposed to this, but it’s so flexible that you barely know it’s there. Inside the heel the shoe is lined by a soft, padded mesh that feels good against a bare foot. The tongue is also nicely padded and I have not had any issues with it slipping.

One of the biggest points of debate about the GoRun 4 was the addition of a feature called the QuickFit Portal (see photo above). Basically, the QFP is a hole in the back of the shoe that is intended to be used as a finger-loop to help pull the shoe on quickly. I had major concerns about potential for abrasion against the skin from the margins of the portal, but after multiple sockless runs by myself and other wear testers it seemed to be benign. I still advocated leaving it out, but I didn’t win that battle.

In terms of fit, the GoRun 4 is similar to previous versions, maybe just a tad snugger up in the forefoot. It’s by no means a tight-fitting shoe – fits my average-width foot just about right. The insole is removable, and the footbed underneath is finished, so if you need a roomier fit removing the insole should do the trick.

Sole

As mentioned under the “Specs” section, the GoRun 4 gains a bit of thickness in the midsole (3mm more than the GR3 in both the heel and forefoot), and as such the shoe provides a bit more cushioning than previous versions. The Resalyte midsole retains the softish feel of previous versions, and also remains quite flexible. The sole feel is somewhat reminiscent of the Saucony Kinvara 5, which is probably a reasonable shoe to put in the same category with the GR4.

It’s worth noting that I did not get a strong sense of a midfoot “bump” in the GR4 as I have in previous versions. The bump seems to have become be less pronounced in each subsequent iteration.

As is typical of most Skechers shoes, there is very little outsole coverage on the GoRun 4; just a few rubber pods around the margins of the shoe. If you tend to grind up the heels of your shoes on asphalt, that will be a potential durability issue with these.

I’ve found the sole of the GR4 to be a great fit for my stride. It is on the soft side as far as shoes go, so those who like firm shoes may want to look elsewhere. However, if you like a bit of cush, the GR4 will be too your liking, and it has enough sole to handle running long distances.

Conclusion

I don’t often get wowed by a shoe after a first run, but that was my reaction to running in the Skechers GoRun 4. It ticks nearly all of my boxes: moderate drop, softish sole, near-perfect fit (on me), decent flexibility, etc. This is easily my favorite version of the GoRun so far, and I suspect it will be a hit when released in mid-November.

What do you think? Excited about or skeptical of the overhaul of this shoe?

Purchasing Options

The Skechers GoRun 4 is now available at Running Warehouse and Shoebuy.com.

Update: A few people asked about other colorways of this shoe. Below is a photo of some of the different versions I have, not sure which colors will be among those in final production models.

I’m going to break this up into two posts, each featuring new shoes from several brands. I’m going to keep my commentary brief because I have not seen many of these shoes in person (though I have been hearing hushed whispers about many of them), and I’ll refer you to Sam’s blog for more detail where appropriate.

Brooks Launch 2

First up, Brooks will be releasing the much anticipated Brooks Launch 2 early next year. I reviewed the original Launch way back in 2009, and it has remained unchanged (aside from color updates) since then. The Launch was a personal favorite at the time I reviewed it, and it’s a simple, affordable shoe that just works well. Sam reports that the Launch will feature a new BioMogo DNA midsole, will weigh in at just under 10oz, and MSRP will be $100 (love the colorway in the photo below!).

Brooks Launch 2 – Photo via Sam Winebaum

Saucony Zealot

I’ve heard that the Saucony Cortana will be discontinued (the Virrata as well I think), and it will be replaced by a new shoe called the Zealot. The Cortana may have been a victim of being overpriced for the type of shoe it was considered to be (a well-cushioned “natural running” shoe). The Zealot fills a similar niche – it’s 8.3oz and 4mm drop (25mm heel, 21mm forefoot) with a bit more cushion than the Kinvara. The Zealot also features a new upper design called Isofit (which will also be featured on the new Triumph and Hurricane) – for more details on this check out Sam’s post or this post on the Running Warehouse blog.

Saucony Zealot – Photo via Sam Winebaum

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3

The Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 is a shoe that I have a fair amount of experience with as a wear tester (it’s the shoe Meb wore when he won Boston this year). The GoMeb Speed 1 and 2 were not a great match for me – I found the soles to be a bit too firm for the amount of stack they had (18mm heel, 14mm forefoot), and the forefoot was a tad narrow for me. I’ve run a fair bit in version 3 and have loved them –  a bit more roomy up front and slightly more give to the sole. Skechers has some great stuff coming, and you can expect a full review once I’m given the go ahead to share more detail – for now, check out what Sam has to say about the shoe.

Here’s a photo of the GoMeb Speed 3 via Sam Windebaum featuring the hands of shoe geek Seth Hasty (yes, that is a Brannock device tattoo!):

That’s it for this post, tomorrow I’ll share some new offerings from New Balance, Altra, and Salomon.

By David Henry

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

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

Shoe Specs

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

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

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

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

Appearance & Design

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

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

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

Materials & Construction

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

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

Fit

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

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

Skechers GoMeb Speed 2 Sole – 80 miles of wear

Ride

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

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

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

Overall Impressions

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

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

Purchasing Options

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