Scarpa Atom S

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

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

The North Face Ultra MT Winter

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

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

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

Altra Lone Peak 3 Neoshell Mid

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

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

Salomon S-Lab XA Alpine

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

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

Basically a Sense upper underneath the gaiter.

Saucony Razor ICE+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up until last Summer and Fall, I hadn’t done much experimenting with different running shorts. Partly this was because I didn’t want to spend the money on something that I didn’t think could be improved upon that much, and partly because there just weren’t that many shorts that deviated from the basic short design with one zipper pocket and a basic material/liner. After meeting with some of the brands at Outdoor Retailer last year, they sent me a small selection of apparel to try out based on my preference for shorts with lots of storage and inner boxer liners. Below are the shorts I was able to try out. Disclaimer: All of the the apparel other than the inov-8 shorts were provided free of charge by the respective manufactures.

From Top Left to Bottom Right – inov-8 Race Elite 140 (my go to for last 2 years), Brooks Sherpa 2-in-1 7″, The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short, Dynafit Enduro Dry Short, Dynafit React Dry 3/4 Tight.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 (now called Race Elite 6″) – 6″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 1 gel pocket, 1 zipper pocket, elastic waistband. $65 available from Wiggle.com in UK.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 Shorts

I’ll start with the inov-8 since I’ve used it extensively over the last 2 years. It was the first short I’d tried with an inner boxer brief (as opposed to just a regular brief), and for long mountain outings that is super nice. The liner is very thin, not hot like you would think, and like many other heavier boxer liners are. I’ve done ultras in these with no need for Body Glide, and ran them at Western States where they were wet most of the race and had no issues. Also, the waistband is thick and elastic so I can get it tight to hold my Simple bottle, wind jacket, gloves and other things I want to stick in there without them falling down. The biggest downfall is the lack of pockets. Only one gel pocket on the back right side, and a small zipper pocket in the center. Still one of the best shorts out there, just hard to find in the US for some reason. (Running Warehouse Europe has the 2, 6 and 8″ shorts)

One small gel pocket on back right and zipper pocket center back.

Brooks Sherpa 7″ 2-in-1 Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium sized hip pockets, 1 back zipper pocket and 1 pocket on right thigh on liner, $64 and available at Running Warehouse

7 inches is about as long as I like for running.

I really enjoyed the Sherpa short. It has minimal, yet functional pockets, with plenty of storage for most runs, and the liner is very soft and comfortable without being too hot. It is also probably one of the better looking shorts out there that blend in a little more in the summer and don’t as loudly scream “Runner!” as some split road shorts do if you go get lunch after your run :). All in all, a great short for daily training and races, and probably the most versatile out of all the ones I tried as it works good on the road too.

Very comfortable inner brief liner and 1 gel pocket on right thigh.

The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium back hip pockets, 1 zipper pocket, 5 pockets on the outer thigh of liner (3 smaller on right, 2 larger on left), $65 and available at Running Warehouse.

Longest fitting short to me even though they are supposed to be 7″ like the Brooks. Very light outer material with a thicker liner.

The Long Haul Short gets the nod for the most storage of all the shorts I tried. The outer pockets are very similar to the Sherpa short by Brooks, but it adds quite a bit of storage for smaller food items on the outer thigh of each side of the liner. This concept was new to me before these two shorts, and my take away is that it works decent for small items like gels, but not so much for anything larger because then the shorts don’t move very well and look weird too. The Long Haul Short is better suited for colder Fall/Spring weather due to a hotter and longer boxer liner, and I don’t prefer how long the liner is (also 7″ so it comes right to the end of short – they do make these shorts and 5” and 3.5” versions as well). I prefer the liner to be a few inches shorter than the short so it doesn’t show when running, and also it holds less heat too. All in all a great short to carry quite a bit of stuff in cooler weather.

Left side has 2 larger pockets, right has 3 small gel specific pockets.

Dynafit Enduro Dry Short – 3.5″ inseam, 2 Large hip pockets and 1 zipper pocket on short. $65 for short on the Dynafit website and at Backcountry.com.

Shorter, near split short style with a great, light but tough fabric.

The Dynafit Enduro Dry Short is probably the best designed split, roadie style short that caters to the mountain/trail runner that I’ve come across. I used to run regular New Balance or Nike road shorts all the time and always had trouble putting gear in them because they usually have very little or no pockets, and are made of light and cheaper materials. The Enduro short has the best pocket setup of any short I’ve tried, with two super large back hip pockets, and one zipper pocket in the center. You can fit a lot of stuff into these pockets – they would fit windjackets, gloves, hats, burritos, etc. and not just gels. The biggest issue with all of this is that there is no drawstring on them!?!?! Thankfully, I’ve been told by Dynafit that it will have a draw string in the 2016 version, and I would highly recommend waiting till then to pick them up if you are interested…I sure will be getting myself a pair with the drawstring as they are definitely the best mountain short I’ve tried. They don’t have a boxer liner, but would probably need to be 5″ inseam or longer to realistically incorporate one. Regardless, such a great short for summer mountain outings in minimalistic style.

Huge hip pockets of stretchy material. Such a nice design.

Dynafit React 3/4 Tight -3/4 tight has 2 small hip pockets, 1 zipper and large right thigh pocket. $85 for the 3/4 tight again from Dynafit’s site.

Great fabric on them.

The Dynafit React 3/4 tight is equally nice in design as the Enduro short. The fabric is thin, stretchy and comfortable. It is also a 3/4 tight that that works in a range of temps from 35-55 degrees and will be awesome in the rain. My other 3/4 that I have I’d probably only wear up to 45 degrees as it gets too hot above that. The pocket design is great as well, with 2 smaller gel pockets on the back hip area and 1 zipper pocket in the middle. The most unique feature is a very large pocket on the right thigh. A thigh pocket on a tight is a fantastic idea, and doesn’t come with the problems of the the thigh pockets on liner shorts like the Sherpa or Long Haul Shorts above. Very cool tight, but again no drawstring to help utilize all the storage?!?! Unfortunately the 3/4 tight is not continuing in the line so there will be no updated version with a drawstring. I’m hoping to make one for them; they are that good.

Huge thigh pocket. Why don’t more tights have this type of design? Fantastic idea.

I’d love to hear what shorts work best for you when you have to carry a fair bit of items. Let me know in the comments below!

Montrail Fluid Flex ST – weight 9.4 oz (266g) mens, stack height: 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot, price: $95.00 MSRP

Great midsole and ride on these – vastly improved over the Fluid Flex II. Upper is a solid design, but high volume.

The Fluid Flex ST was a big surprise for me and has one of the best dry trail rides of all the shoes I tried last year. It was a surprise because I really wasn’t fond of the original Fluid Flex, which was too soft and unstable on technical terrain. With the Fluid Flex ST, Montrail added their Fluid Guide feature to the midsole where they put denser foam in the midfoot in a graduated way so it blends more than a traditional post. Additionally, the fluid guide is on both sides of the midfoot, and even extends to parts of the heel and forefoot so it is not like a medial post but more for overall stability and structure.

Montrail also added a very minimal rock plate to the forefoot and simplified the upper. The result is a shoe that runs very precise for how forgiving it is, and feels a lot lighter than its weight would suggest. The only issue I have with this shoe is that the upper has way too much volume in the midfoot, and the heel collar was too high for my foot, so it feels a little too loose overall. I’ll probably do a little modifying to the lacing to try to snug it up a bit, but mostly I’m hoping the recently-released Fluid Flex FKT, which has the same midsole/outsole setup, will address the issues I had with the upper. All in all, the Fluid Flex ST is a fantastic trail shoe and one at a fairly rare $95 price tag.

Scarpa TRU– weight 8.5 oz (241g) mens, drop:6mm, price: $109.00 MSRP; specs via Scarpa

Very minimalist design overall, and great last shape.

The Scarpa TRU is my first experience with Scarpa trail shoes other than trying on the Spark a while back. The TRU has a great minimalist design, and the fit is very nice with a medium/wide forefoot and snug midfoot/heel. The outsole is also designed well with low profile lugs, and reminds me a lot of the New Balance MT101. It has a nylon fabric rock plate in the forefoot and a very firm midsole so that it comes across as fairly protective from rocks, but also not very cushioned. If you liked the ride of the MT101 or MT110v1 this is right in the same vein and quite minimalist feeling, but with a better fit than either of those. The outsole is also a very hard rubber compound which should hold up very well over time, although it also contributes to the super firm ride. The TRU mostly has me really excited about the potential of the forthcoming Scarpa Atom and Neutron which have Vibram rubber and are 4mm and 6mm drop.

Altra Superior 2.0 – weight 8.7 oz (246g) mens, stack height: 19mm heel, 19mm forefoot, price: $110.00 MSRP

Altra’s most nimble trail model. Best Altra ride to date for me, and interesting mix of design.

The Altra Superior 2.0 is by far my favorite Altra that I’ve tried. It has a nice, responsive ride with what feels like a blown rubber outsole that adds to the springiness. The upper fabric is more effective at holding the foot than most other Altras since it has very little stretch to it (unlike the Lone Peak 2.5). This is a good thing since it seems that Altra avoids putting overlays on their trail shoes (the Lone Peak 3.0, thankfully, appears to change that trend). The fit is also much lower volume than most other Altras, and fits my foot much better volume-wise. This let me really appreciate the wide toebox rather than feeling like it comes at the cost of midfoot security like some other Altras. The shoe even runs well on the road, and I’ve really enjoyed it overall. I prefer it over the Lone Peak, and oddly enough I actually feel they offer similar protection levels (not as odd when mine weight only 15 g or .5 oz different).

All that said, there are still some things I hope they change in the future that could improve upon what is a decent shoe. First, I don’t like the outsole cutouts at all. It exposes too much midsole to rocks, which puts the foot at more risk and damages the foam prematurely. The added flexibility (what little it adds) is not worth the trade off in my opinion. Second, I also don’t care for the removable-rock-plate-under-the-footbed concept. It adds a lot of weight, messes with the volume of the fit if you want to take it out, and would be more effective between the outsole and midsole rather than under the footbed. I know Altra likes to sandwich the rock plate up higher in the shoe like in the Lone Peak so it deflects the rock into the midsole before it hits the plate, but I don’t think the design makes sense. I don’t find my foot pivoting in shoes with regular rock plate placement like they claim (especially on lower stack shoes), and you lose a lot of precision in the ride and the protection the rock plate gives to the foam so it doesn’t get beat up as quickly. Lastly, the heel collar is too wide and padded for what is necessary for this type of shoe. This is typical of most Altras at this point so not specific to the Superior, but I just don’t think the shoe needs it and could be lighter and snugger fitting with a slimmer heel collar.

Also of note with the Superior 2.0 is that I had to go with a size 14, which is probably 0.5 size too big for me in the end because of a sizing issue with the first round of the 2.0. The new colors launching this spring will have the sizing issue fixed, which should result in a lighter shoe that fits the same (since I could run a 13 instead of 14). Overall, I really like the feel of the shoe and hope to see an update soon since there is much potential already there. I like the wide toebox concept, and I appreciate how Altra listens to feedback and improves their shoes like they seem to be doing season after season.

The Altra Superior 2.0 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

The North Face Ultra MT – weight 9.8 oz (277g) mens, stack height: 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot, price: $130.00 MSRP

Fantastic Vibram Megagrip outsole on the MT, and rock plate in the forefoot are highlights.

The North Face hasn’t been in the shoe game for that long, but are starting to build some momentum with recent and forthcoming offerings. The Ultra MT is by far their best to date (among those that I’ve tried), and has a unique mix of quality materials and design that set it apart in the current market.

First, you’ve probably heard of Vibram’s new Megagrip rubber, which is very sticky, but also durable at the same time. So far, I have no reason to doubt those claims and the rubber has been fantastic on this shoe (so far it is the only shoe with Megagrip that I’ve run in). The last is decent on the MT – fairly roomy in the forefoot, while providing a nice lockdown in the midfoot. The heel is probably overly padded, but I didn’t feel it ruined the shoe. The midsole is firm but offers a nice pop. It runs smooth on hardpack trail, while the outsole and rockplate offer great coverage on technical terrain. The ride is precise and close to the ground, but still quite protective (rock plates win again!).

Overall, a great design, and there will be a forthcoming winter version (see pic 8 in Brian’s great preview post) next summer that adds an integrated gaiter much like the discontinued New Balance MT110 winter, but with the much better suited MT platform has me pretty excited to use them next winter (yes over a year away :)). Overall, no major issues with the shoe other than a minor gripe with the tongue being a tad short for some reason. It will be a shoe I have in my rotation for the foreseeable future.

The North Face Ultra MT is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Brooks Cascadia 10 – weight 11.6 oz (328g) mens, stack height: 27mm heel, 17mm forefoot, price: $120.00 MSRP

The classic Cascadia in its 10th version; my first time trying it.

Although I’ve seen many trail runners using the Brooks Cascadia over the last 5 years, I’ve never had the chance to try one, and never looked into them personally because of their heavier weight and higher drop. Brooks offered to send them, and I thought it was a shoe I should at least run in for reference because of how popular they seem to be.

The Cascadia 10 receives a more seamless upper design, and slightly different outsole lug pattern, but is on the same midsole as previous versions. Overall, my impression of the shoe was that it will be super durable, never let you feel under protected, less tank-like than I expected, but, in the end, still a pretty heavy feeling shoe. The ride is fairly firm, but with gobs of protection and some forgiveness. I can see the appeal it has for many for longer races, or if you only want to buy one shoe. The fit is better for me than the Pure Grit (which has too much midfoot volume), but still a little tapered at the big toe (like most Brooks seem to be). Overall, it is definitely a work horse trail shoe that would take a ton of abuse, handle most trail conditions, and it even ran fine on some short road sections for me.

Because we are spoiled these days with tons of options and I have shoes that are designed specifically for certain tasks, the all around nature of the Cascadia doesn’t grab me in any way. However, if you could only have one trail shoe (heaven forbid!), the Cascadia 10 would fill a lot of roles and provide a great value.

The Brooks Cascadia is available for purchase at Running Warehouse. The Cascadia 11 is now available as well at the previous link (Pete apologizes for the delay in getting this review published!)

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!

This is a guest review by David Henry. David is a 29 year old husband and father of 3 young children. He has completed over 20 ultra marathon events as well as many other shorter races. Some of the notable races he has completed include The Pike’s Peak Marathon, the White River 50 mile, and the Speedgoat 50k. He has raced in diverse environments ranging from Alaska in winter to the Arizona desert. David appreciates well-crafted running shoes, mountain trails, and prefers a minimal and simple approach to his running.

I’ve long been searching for the running shoe that works in all situations: trail/road, training/racing, long runs/fast runs. This may be too much to ask from any one shoe and I do feel that, like good tools, shoes are designed and developed for a purpose and most often it’s a good idea to use them as such. However, “The Shoe” still exists in my head and I have not been able to shake off the impulse to pursue it in my short but full-on dive into the world of running these last four years.  As someone who trains and races on a variety of surfaces (many times in the same race), “The Shoe” is like the Holy Grail of running tools and so my search continues. The latest candidate is The North Face Ultra Trail.

Shoe Stats (via Running Warehouse):

Price: $110
Colorways: Grey/Red and Blue/Green
Weight: 8.9 oz/252 g in size 9 men’s; 10.9 oz/310 g in my size 13 men’s and 7.5 oz/210 g in size 8 for women
Stack Height: 21mm Heel; 14mm Forefoot

I used to be a gram counter and wouldn’t buy any shoes that weighed over 8 oz. However, I’ve come to realize that if I’m to be realistic, any trail shoe with all of the necessary features is more likely to be in the 8-9 oz range than sub 8 oz, so the Ultra Trail just sneaks into my current wearable zone at 8.9 oz.

Since I couldn’t get a response from The North Face on their design philosophy for the shoe and intended market (something I like to know as it helps understand the reason for some of the implemented features), I pulled this from the North Face website:

“Tackle long runs across rugged, uneven terrain with the protection of a durable, yet lightweight running shoe that’s finished with trail-specific Vibram® soles.  The Ultra Protection Series is designed to provide critical impact and element protection while eliminating excess weight for unrivaled performance on any terrain. FlashDry™ fibers in the lining and breathable Ultra Airmesh construction manage moisture to reduce chafing and hot spots. Pebax® CRADLE™ technology in the midsole offers exceptional energy return for a springy feel and impact protection for enhanced stability.”

Let’s see how it stacks up.

Appearance & Design

While the TNF Ultra Trail is not flashy, it is a clean shoe with track shoe styling in the upper. One thing I appreciate that seems to be somewhat uncommon in the marketplace today is the all black rubber on the outsole.  While this may not be as attractive to some who prefer as much color as possible, I have found that for some reason colored rubber doesn’t seem to perform or hold up as well as classic black. I’m sure someone in the rubber industry or a chemist could explain why (my guess is that colored rubber requires additives while black is more pure rubber), but this has been my experience.

With regard to design a few things stand out. Chief among these is the use of a full coverage outsole (a must in my book!). The Vibram rubber does not have any cutouts, pods, or crazy lug designs (raise your hand if you’ve ever tore off an outsole pod on a rocky trail!). The coffin shaped lugs are just about right as far as shape and depth go, and the rubber gives good traction on both loose and hard surfaces. I do, however, question the need to make them larger/smaller and more or less dense in different areas. TNF claims that they have done this to reflect the higher wear zones, but I generally feel that a more evenly spaced and uniform sized lug design works best for the most people possible.

One other unique design feature that deserves mention here is the Pebax plate that runs the full length of the shoe. The idea is that this plate should add some longitudinal stiffness and responsiveness to the shoe – a similar design element is found in many road racing flats (i.e. Adidas torsion system). While I didn’t have any specific problems with it, I didn’t feel that the shoe was particularly responsive either so this is a feature that I’m somewhat indifferent about (it either needs to be stiffer/snappier or they should take it out and save weight).

Materials & Construction

The mesh material in the upper is light, breathable, and soft on the foot. The lining of the heel collar is made from The North Face’s Flash Dry material (from the apparel side of their company) and is quite soft and feels nice. The overlays are all welded on and there is very little stitching on the shoe (the only stitching I noticed is located near the midfoot on the inside of the shoe).

The tongue is somewhat thin for a shoe of this bulk and could benefit from a touch more padding. It’s very much a racing flat type tongue, with maybe just a touch more padding than a typical flat. The midsole is traditional EVA and again the outsole is fantastic with full coverage Vibram rubber. I did notice two small holes, one on each shoe, in the mesh upper material (you can see one circled in red in the image above). This is after only 40 miles or so on what I would consider moderately technical trail for some portions. This may be cause for concern for long-term upper durability if you tend to include non-groomed trails or any off-trail running as part of your training.

Fit

The Ultra Trail fits quite well. Despite appearing to be narrow, it was surprisingly accommodating in the forefoot. The midfoot fits snug; medium to low volume, very much like a racing shoe, which I liked. The heel was pretty standard and it has a traditional heel counter. The shoe might run a bit long (maybe ¼ size), but given the lower volume fit, I felt it was just right. Not a lot of comfort features in the fit.

Ride

I tend to like a pretty firm ride for most shoes, not harsh but responsive. My general philosophy is that the more technical the trail, the lower and firmer the shoe should be (e.g., for steep up and down hills, side-hilling and for control and stability on rocks/roots/uneven ground). The Ultra Trail runs right in the middle of the road with regard to firmness or softness. It’s not as firm as most inov-8s or the New Balance MT101 or 110, but not as soft as most Altras or many more recent higher cushioned options.  I would say it runs most similar to the Pearl Izumi Trail N1 in terms of softness.

I generally liked the ride for use as a training shoe on all smoother surfaces, road or trail. The shoe has enough cushion for running very comfortably on pavement, but not too much to feel clunky. I didn’t notice the heel too much when on smooth surfaces (I usually prefer 0-6 mm drop and this comes in at 7-8 mm). The ride really starts to fall short for me when the trail steepens (particularly downhill) or especially when it gets rocky or uneven. That’s when the heft and chunk of the heel becomes particularly noticeable and the shoe started to push me around a bit more than I’d like. Additionally, the forefoot is too thin (14 mm) and too soft, and it does not provide sufficient protection from rocks on technical trail.

Overall Impression

The Ultra Trail is by far the best North Face shoe to hit the market. It has a lot going for it with a fantastic Vibram outsole, nice and secure upper with good room in the toe box for my medium/average width foot, and it provides a decent ride on smoother terrain.

Left to Right: PEarl Izumi EM Trail N1, TNF Ultra Trail, and New Balance MT101 – note the difference in sole midfoot width in the three shoes

The height and chunkiness of the heel, along with the lack of rock protection are what hold this shoe back for me on technical trails. It reminded me of a blend between the Pearl Izumi Trail N1 and the New Balance MT101, but with less rock protection than either. The PI is better cushioned and more protective, but not as nimble feeling. The NB MT101 is more nimble, but lacks the nice ride that the Ultra Trail has on smoother terrain. Unfortunately, it seems there must always be compromises, and the TNF Ultra Trail falls short of being the ideal do-everything, all-around shoe that I hoped it would be. But for pavement and smoother trails it is a solid choice.

The North Face Ultra Trail is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, REI, and Amazon.