Upper and Fit

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

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

Midsole and Ride

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

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

Outsole

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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!

(Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge by Hoka for review purposes.)

After our first snowfall back at the beginning of winter (snow has been minimal this year up in NH), I decided to take a shot at running in them – it was the only trail shoe I had that I hadn’t already reviewed (David Henry handles most trail shoes for me these days), and I suppose every shoe deserves at least one run (I once ran in the Springblade!).

My first run was four miles on a rail trail, and though they were tight across the toes and forefoot, the run went pretty well, and the tightness didn’t bother me as much as I had anticipated. They handled well in the thin layer of snow, and the ride was somewhat reminiscent of the Hoka Huaka, a shoe that I liked quite a bit. They are a tad softer than the Huaka, have a slightly higher drop (Speedgoats are 35 mm heel – 30 mm forefoot per Running Warehouse), and the lugs are a bit deeper, but the two shoes compare favorably to one another.

Yes, indeed – pointy and narrow up front!

Despite my problems with the fit, for some reason I kept coming back to the Speedgoats. I used them frequently in the snow this winter, and they were the shoes on my feet when I was bit by a German Shepherd while running on the trails behind my house on Christmas Day (an incident that sidelined me for two weeks). I’ve probably put close to 50 miles on them at this point, which is a bit of a surprise given my initial reaction to the narrowness of the toebox. That being said, my longest run in them was 7 miles, and I was feeling some discomfort up front by the end of that run. I would not run much longer than 5 miles in these given the fit issues – I would not recommend them to ultrarunners for this reason.

The red midsole does a good job of camouflaging blood…

The upper of the Speedgoat is a breathable, fairly open mesh with welded overlays and a rand along the region of junction between the upper and midsole. I have no major complaints about the upper, though the mesh does seem like it might let trail grit in given the more open weave. I have not run through water in these, so can’t comment on whether the rand creates issues with drainage. I’m not particularly crazy about the way the tongue extends down and forward to make up the central portion of the upper of the forefoot, but this has not caused any real issues. Mostly just an aesthetic complaint I guess.

The sole of the Speedgoat is springy, and not as mushy as a shoe like the Hoka Clifton. I’d say it’s somewhere in between the Clifton and the Huaka from a responsiveness standpoint. I really like the feel, and that’s one of the reasons why I keep coming back to them. They feel great underfoot on both road and trail. Durability has so far been good – I’ve done a fair amount of running on asphalt in these shoes, and the Vibram rubber is holding up very well so far.

The outsole of the Speedgoat is a bit more aggressive than that of the Huaka, and traction has been solid on light snow. I haven’t put them to the test in wet or muddy conditions, but they are adequate for the type of trail running I do (mostly non-technical).

Conclusion

So the Speedgoat is a mix of good and bad. I really like the ride, and have enjoyed running in them from that standpoint, but the narrow fit is a real limitation for all but the most narrow-footed. If you can comfortably run in cross-country spikes, these are probably going to be fine for you (though I would recommend going up a half size if you buy them). If not, they may not be a great choice.

I like them for shorter runs on trails, but a shoe with a 30mm+ stack height isn’t really what I typically need for shorter, quicker runs. And I definitely would not pay $140 for a shoe with such a limited a range of uses. Hopefully Hoka will retool the fit if they come out with a v2 – the shoe has a lot of potential, but is really hobbled by the fit.

The Hoka Speedgoat is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Pickled Feet 6 hr. Photo Tempus Photo Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road

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

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

Trail

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

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

Mountain

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

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

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

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

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 manufacturers) deem as the mountain offerings I saw at this years Outdoor Retailer, and is the last in my series of preview posts.  You can see my other posts here for: road racing, road training, and trail shoes.

adidas

adidas terrex Agravic – weight 11 oz men (311 g), 9.4 women, drop: 6mm, available: February 2016, Price $135.

 Such a big improvement in the upper from the Terrex Boost. No speedlaces, seamless, simple.

The terrex Agravic is probably the shoe I’m most excited to try for Spring 2016.  It’s built on a similar platform to the terrex Boost that is currently out, but with a thinner rock plate/shank, seamless and stripped back upper, along with an aggressive Continental rubber outsole. The terrex Boost surprised me with how precise and nimble it was for such a protective platform.  Other than the fact that it was just a tad heavy, and the upper a little stiff, it is one of the best riding mountain shoes I’ve ever tried.  If the Agravic runs similar, but with the lower weight and more comfortable upper, it is going to be nothing short of amazing for long, technical outings in the mountains.

Fantastic outsole that is pretty aggressive, but should run ok on the occasional harder trail.

adidas terrex X-King – weight 10.5 oz (305 g) men, drop: 6mm, available: Spring 2016, Price $150.

Such a slick shoe all the way around, and kudos for adidas (again) putting out some unique designs. Between this, the XT Boost, and Riot Boost, they have some of the more interesting new designs out there.

The terrex X-King is another unique design from adidas.  The upper is entirely vulcanized to the outsole (no glue or stitching), and the midsole is added through a footbed. adidas is only offering the one footbed for now, but is considering multiple options in the future if the X-King design proves successful.  I was too busy geeking over the shoe that I forgot to take pictures of it, but it is super flexible and has a fantastic Continental outsole on it.  It is by far the most aggressive of adidas’ offerings and looks to be a fell running type option similar to an inov-8 Mudclaw or X-Talon.  I am expecting a pair to test out fairly soon and will get a review posted sometime late winter.

terrex Skychaser – Slight update to terrex Boost with only a name change and minor change to the overlay in the toebox  Everything else is the same as the current terrex Boost.

The terrex Boost gets a name change to the terrex Skychaser and a slight upper modification to make the toebox a bit more comfortable.

Dynafit

Dynafit Feline Vertical and Vertical Pro – weight 8.8 oz (250 g) men, 7.4 oz women, drop: 4mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $129.95 for Vertical, $149.95 for Vertical Pro

Great looking upper and design all around. Minimalist at its core, but enough shoe to consider for full on racing and training. Feline Vertical in pic.

The Dynafit Feline Vertical and Vertical Pro are a pair of shoes that are right up there for ones that I’m most excited about.  The only reason they don’t top the Agravic for me is that the midsole material is an unknown in the Dynafit, whereas I know I like the Boost and design of the Agravic.  Regardless, Dynafit’s last is spot on, with a meduim width forefoot, and snug low volume fit elsewhere. The shoe also has a Vibram Megagrip outsole and rock plate on a 4m drop platform.  Check, check and check.  It has all of the things I ask for in a technical/mountain shoe, and all that is left is to run in them and see how it all turns out.

The Vertical Pro will come only in this colorway with one shoe pink and the other green. It offers a carbon fiber rockplate where as the regular Vertical is TPU.

Fantasic Vibram Megagrip outsole that should be pretty versatile and sticky.

New Balance

New Balance Vazee Summit – weight 9.3 oz (263 g) men, 7.5 women, drop: 10mm, available: April 2016, Price $99.95.

The Vazee Summit. Pretty nice looking shoe all the way around, and great upper.

The Vazee Summit is a successor of sorts to the MT110v2, but also blends that shoe with the RC1400 with a racing flat geometry and last (NBJ).  The result is a stripped back mountain shoe that should run well on trails with its marathon shoe geometry, but also handle rockier terrain with its fairly deep lugs and rock plate.  It has an Acteva midsole (think MT110v1/101) that offers a little more durability and protection than REVlite, a welcome change to me (not big on REVlite).  While I have some concerns that the shoe is trying to blend too many categories (marathon shoe with mountain shoe outsole setup), having seen the shoe in person it is quite nice with a fantastic upper that should hold the foot super well (if you’ve run in the 1400v3 you know what to expect).  I’d love to see a version of this shoe with everything the same except a lower profile lug design, but also looking forward to testing this one out soon.  Also of note is the $99.95 price tag which is pretty rare in a full featured shoe these days.

Nice overall outsole design for rough terrain; maybe a tad much for the type of platform it is on though.

Salewa

Salewa Lite Train – weight 8.6 oz (245 g) men, 6.5 oz women, drop: 6mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $129.00.

Salewa Lite Train. A fantastic looking light and fast shoe with minimalistic design features.

Up to now, Salewa has focused more on alpine hiking and approach shoes, but they are branching out into what they are calling a Mountain Training category with the Lite Train and Ultra Train (see below).  The results are some very technically focused mountain running shoes with great design features.  The Lite train is the more minimal of the two with a 6mm drop and very stripped back, seamless upper.  Both are on great lasts similar to Dynafit, and both have rock plates and sticky rubber from Michelin (which I have yet to try on any shoe).  Pretty excited to try these out.

Nice outsole design that might be a tad busy visually, but should perform well on a variety of surfaces.

Salewa Ultra Train – weight 10.2 oz (290 g) men, 8.11 women, drop: 8mm, available: Early Spring 2016, Price $139.00.

A more robust upper that looks like it would take some abuse, but wasn’t stiff or uncomfortable feeling in hand.

The Ultra Train is a companion shoe the Lite Train and offers a little more cushioning and durability in all aspects of the shoe with still featuring a similar straightforward design focus.  The shoe felt more flexible and nimble than the specs would suggest and I think will run very nicely, especially, as its name would suggest, for longer technical ultra races.  Salewa definitely wins the prize for best debut trail offering at Outdoor Retailer.  Great overall shoes from a new player in the trail/mountain shoe scene.

Again, nice looking outsole that has more rubber and probably more versatility than the Lite Train, but still slim in shape.

Scarpa

Scarpa Atom – weight 8.8 oz (249 g) men, 7.5 oz women, drop: 4mm, available: Late Winter 2016

Very nice upper design and I know the last is good based on running in the Scarpa TRU recently (a short review for that one coming soon).

The Scarpa Atom is another exciting shoe from yet another smaller, mountain focused company.  This was the story of OR for me with the smaller mountain companies really nailing the technical trail shoes much better as a whole than the bigger running brands.  I like nearly everything about this shoe, though I’ll admit to being a little leery of the compressed EVA in the midsole.  Given that it is a pretty low stack height and meant for steeper terrain, this will be less of an issue, but I still would prefer injected EVA.  Regardless, fantastic design all the way around and Vibram outsole to round out the package.  Exciting line refresh from Scarpa.

Racy and minimal lug design that will grip well, but feel fast.

Scarpa Neutron – weight 9.7 oz (275 g) men, 8.2 oz women, drop: 6mm, available: Late Winter 2016

Great looking upper – a touch more durability than the Atom, while still being super comfortable looking.

The Neutron could be a really nice long run shoe that runs more like a racing shoe.  It has a full feature set with rock plate, all around mountain outsole, and medium 6mm drop on a more durable upper design.  Again, a little concerned about the compressed EVA making the ride harsh, but the Vibram outsole may smooth that out a bit.  Like the Atom, the Neutron has a fantastic overall design, and is another shoe I’m anxious to try this Spring.

A little more meat to the lug while not being overkill. Still streamlines though with a narrow midfoot and heel just like it should be.

Well, that’s it for now. Lot’s of exciting shoes on the way, would love to hear of any that might have caught your eye that aren’t mentioned here!

Specs

Price: $110

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

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

Stats via Topo Athletic

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

Upper and Fit

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

Great mesh and overlays.

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

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

Midsole and Ride

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

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

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

Outsole

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

Overall Impressions

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

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

Specs

Price: $125.00

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

Stack Height: 24mm heel, 20mm forefoot

Specs from Running Warehouse

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

Upper and Fit

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

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

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

Midsole and Ride

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

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

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

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

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

Outsole

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

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

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

Overall Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Specs

Price: $150

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

Stack Height: 29mm heel, 19mm forefoot

Specs from Running Warehouse

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

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

Upper and Fit

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

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

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

Midsole and Ride

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

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

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

Outsole

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

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

Overall Thoughts

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

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

Specs

MSRP, $149.95.  360 g (12.69 oz) in my size 13, 290 g (10.22 oz) in mens 9 and 250g (8.8 oz) in womens size 9.  8mm offset.

Upper w/speedlaces still attached.

With regular laces. Much better :).

Upper and Fit

When trying a completely new (to me) brand, I’m always leery when it comes to fit since you just don’t know what you are going to get.  I’m happy to say that, for my tastes, Dynafit really has a great last for the shoe and it fits my foot very well.  Medium to low volume overall with a snug heel/midfoot and medium forefoot width.  It also has a nice shape overall to the toebox that is not super squared off, yet not pointy.  inov-8 used to be the standard when it came to fit for mountain running footwear for me, but Dynafit might have just stolen the spot as best overall last for a mountain shoe.  That doesn’t mean that the upper is perfect, however.

While the shape is great, the material choice and usage is interesting to me.  The Feline SL just has too much going on in the upper in my opinion.  It looks cool, but in the end I think the shoe could have fit better, with less seams, and at a lighter weight by simplifying the overall upper design.  That said, the upper is still comfortable overall, and has so far been quite durable too.  I just think the shoe would be improved with an upper with less material overall.

One change I did make to the upper is I cut the speed laces off and replaced them with regular laces.  At first I thought the Feline SL was going to be one of the only shoes I could tolerate the speed laces on, but after a few runs with slight discomfort on downhills, I swapped them out and it made a world of difference.  To me, with regular laces, you can tighten the shoe down much better with less discomfort and you can also tighten it in specific places better too.  This is unlike speed lacing which tends to equalize the tension and also almost always uses thin, static cords that dig into my foot much more than a regular lace that disperses pressure and stretches just a bit.  A personal preference for sure, as I know others who don’t mind speed laces at all.  I’ve included pics of the shoe with the speed laces as well as with the regular laces I put on so you can see it both ways.

Busy upper, but functions fine. Forefoot overwrap on the side of the midsole is a nice touch that improves precision there. Pretty simple midsole setup with decent but standard EVA.

Midsole and Ride

The Feline SL has a great overall ride in a mountain shoe.  I’d say its closest comparison is a cross between the inov-8 x-talon 212 and Mudclaw 300 (new red/blue version), but probably slightly more cushioned than either and more versatile since it runs better on dry trails due to a less pyramid-like lug design.  The shoe rides pretty firm with a touch of forgiveness.  This is about the sweet spot though for a mountain running shoe for me, since precision on technical terrain and off-trail is much more paramount than all-out cushion. The only addition I would make to the midsole is a rock plate in the forefoot.  I’m a big fan of rock plates on lower stack height shoes.  Recent shoes such as the adidas Terrex Boost and Montrail Fluid Flex ST (both reviews forthcoming) with rock plates done well have re-convinced me of their importance.  It adds such a huge amount of comfort and protection for a small weight cost and I would argue the slight reduction of forefoot flexibility is not even noticed, but actually appreciated, especially on technical descents.  I should note that there is a plastic insert in the midfoot that adds a nice touch of protection for the arch, but it doesn’t extend beyond that area (I wish it did!).

Nice overall outsole that is holding up well and is quite versatile. Noticed exposed forefoot groves, but no rock plate. Still adequate protection but would be a great addition.

Outsole

A great overall Vibram outsole on the Feline SL that uses Vibram’s mapping compound, which I’ve never heard of or seen before.  The performance, however, is what you’ve come to expect from Vibram’s reputation.  While not as sticky as Vibram’s new MegaGrip compound, it provides plenty of traction for rocks, loose terrain, and even rides fairly well on hard packed trails which is less common for a shoe with as much lug depth.  From a purely shoe geek standpoint, I question some of the lug orientation on the lateral midfoot which are oriented in a breaking direction when I think they should be flipped around to allow more float on descents and would also reduce lug wear in that area.  It is not noticeably bothersome on the run, but would be a small improvement in what is otherwise a great design.

Parting Thoughts

Dynafit put themselves on my radar with this shoe.  As a long time inov-8 fan, I hadn’t come across any other shoes that competed in the mountain running category with the x-talon 212 and Mudclaw 265 and 300.  With the Feline SL, I can’t say that anymore.  The shoe performs just as good or better than those inov-8s with more versatility.  The upper on the Feline SL is not on par with that of the Mudclaw 300 which is probably the best out there for a mountain shoe, but the ride and grip are great.  The price may be one other drawback.  At $149.95 MSRP I think it is probably $20 more than it should be (although they can be found as low as $80 for last seasons colors online), however, even at that higher MSRP, if you are looking for a unique mountain shoe that can hold its own in tough conditions there aren’t a ton of equivalent options out there, especially with such a great last shape.  Dynafit shows a lot of potential with this shoe and especially with the forthcoming Feline Vertical this next spring (preview post coming soon), I think mountain runners will start to take serious notice of Dynafit as a player in the quickly growing mountain running category.

The Dynafit Feline SL is available at Amazon.com.

Specs

Price: $110 MSRP

Stack Height:  24mm heel, 20 mm forefoot

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

Stats via Running Warehouse

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

Upper and Fit

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

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

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

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

Ride

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

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

Outsole

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

Overall Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:  The adidas Response Trail Boost was provided free of charge for review purposes by the manufacture.  All opinions about the shoe are my own.

Specs

$110 MSRP; 415 g (14.6 oz) in my size 13; 326 g (11.5 oz) in size 9 and 10mm drop according to adidas.

Very soft split-bootie design and low heel collar. Comfortable and unique.

Good fit for me overall with a medium-roomy fit throughout. Could be a little lower volume in the midfoot and lighter, more functional overlays, but still works pretty well.

Upper and Fit

The upper on the Response Boost is an interesting one.  It definitely is an eye catcher and after first seeing the pictures of it I jokingly referred to it as using a mix of waterski boot design and seatbelt technology.  I’m happy to report it functions and looks much better in person!  It uses a soft padded material in heel and tongue and then employs a much more breathable mesh in the midfoot and toebox.  The upper is entirely randed (overlay material where the upper meets the midsole) which adds security and durability.  Additionally, the heel counter is very low as is the heel collar which, while still secure enough is very comfortable.  I used the shoe sock less (like I do for nearly all my runs) on a 4+ hr mountain outing summiting Chief Joseph mountain in the Wallowa mountains of eastern Oregon which featured 5,500 ft gain in 4 miles (translation=steep).  In addition this the Chief Joseph outing I also ran a 5 hr, 27 mile run the next week on flatter terrain and the Response Boost was equally comfortable on the relatively flatter, yet rocky, terrain.  While the fit is not quite as precise as I’d ideally like, it is one of the more comfortable shoes I’ve run in and does not feel sloppy.  It is noticeably wider than most other adidas shoes used and fits on the wider end of the medium fit spectrum of all shoes in the market.  I think the biggest improvement I could recommend for the upper is in the overlays.  While they provide a unique look, I think they are just plain overbuilt and the middle overlay that connects the other two, pretty much is useless in my opinion.  In addition, I think the lace eyelets need to be attached differently/more securely.  That said, it is still a really comfortable upper that doesn’t detract much from the rest of the shoe.

This frayed overlay was the only casualty on the upper, which could have been mostly the fault of my rugged route choice, but I feel also a result of the overlay design.

Ride

When I first received the shoes, I was worried that the ride would not be that great.  Instead of using Boost full length like most of adidas’ road models, the Response Trail only has it in the heel and in a rectangular patch at the ball of the foot.  In addition, the relatively higher weight heavily lugged led me to think the shoe would likely run heavy and unresponsive.  I’m happy to report that it possesses neither of those two qualities and instead is forgiving generally, yet still responsive at higher speeds (especially nice on downhills) and as not tippy nor  as clunky on more technical trail as it looks like it would be.  I was quite surprised that the patches of Boost actually work better than the full length boost found in the Raven Boost.  I think this confirms what many others have noted and I’ve found out myself:  Boost is a fantastic material, but without thoughtful and supportive design elements it doesn’t create magic just by itself.  For me the Ultra Boost road shoe and to a lesser extent the Raven Boost show that using more Boost is not necessarily better.

Boost in the heel which you can see. Boost in the forefoot that you can’t other than cutouts on outsole and if you lift the footbed up.

Outsole

The outsole on the Response Trail Boost is one of the best all purpose, yet heavily lugged outsoles I’ve used.  I provides great traction on loose and rocky terrain, but still manages to run smoothly with plenty of float on dry and hard downhills.  I didn’t expect this on a shoe with this much lug and trying to figure out how they pulled it off (my guess has to do with the lugs on the perimeter being rotated lengthwise rather than sideways like the middle lugs). It has nearly every characteristic I look for in an outsole: evenly spaced repeating lug pattern, full-length coverage, and quality black rubber.  If there is any gripe, and this is minor, is the compound may be a tad soft for the type of shoe the Response is (heavier/training oriented).  That said, the softness contributes to better grip on rocks and additionally, the wear I’ve seen may be more an indication of the terrain I covered, which was very rough/technical, than the outsole itself. I’ve literally ripped lugs completely off of other shoes in similar terrain.  In short another hit from adidas on the outsole and this is true nearly across the board on the new Boost trail models.

Great overall design. You can see Boost location at the cutouts in the outsole.

 Conclusion

The adidas Response Trail Boost really surprised me.  It’s a shoe that gets the job done and has a unique look to go with it.  I think there needs to be some refinement in the upper overlays while trying to retain the comfortable qualities of the upper, but the ride and outsole are really quite good and don’t need any tweaking for what this shoe is designed for.  I thought that the Response might be the “budget” Boost trail model, but it turns out the lower price tag is no reason to not consider the Response Trail Boost and in the end is a big plus.  I highly recommend the shoe for its versatility on the trails and comfortable fit.  It is by far one of my favorites of the many shoes I’ve tried this summer.

Be sure to keep tuned to the blog for the reviews of the rest of the Boost Trail lineup (adizero XT Boost and Raven Boost) which should be up soon!

Any questions or comment about adidas trail models or the response in particular?  Let me know below!