I still love my Torin 2.5s, but my Torins don't love me back as much. At least the heel doesn't.
As you can see, the rubber outsole on the heel smears off like cream cheese on a bagel after about 100 miles. The top photo is after 108 miles, the bottom photo is a previous pair after 158 miles. Clearly I scuff a little on the outside of the heel, but this never has ripped off a rubberized area like this.
Altras didn't have a terrific reputation for build quality - I read a lot of complaints out there about wearing through uppers, especially on trail shoes. Personally, I haven't had that issue on my Lone Peak 2.5s or 3.0s, and I didn't have wear issues on my Instinct 3.0s.
So, given that I want a little extra heel protection beyond what the Torin 2.5s provide, and I don't want to give up the Altra Foot Shape toebox, I tried the Instinct 4.0s (for men; for women, it's the Intuition 4.0) out once again. I had already bought and returned a pair of this latest model; the right shoe didn't feel the same as the left shoe (I notice the first run of shoes when they are first released, no matter who the manufacturer is, often have minor defects like this. I've had issues like this with Hoka when I get them right off the bat; I assume it takes a couple of manufacturing runs to hammer out the problems.) But given that I loved the 3.0s so much (see my review of the Instinct 3.0 here... The 3.5s left a lot to be desired, so I moved on), I decided to give them another chance given the great reviews they've been getting, and the fact I loved their grandfather the 3.0s.
I went for the grey/yellow pair after striking out with the black ones. I think I got a winning pair.
First of all, the Instincts have a lot more rubber on the bottom. There's a yellow layer - and a graphite layer of rubber around/underneath that in spots. Then there's the grey foam.
Here's a closer look:
And again with more of a side view:
It looks like its going to take a lot of scuffing to go through the yellow and graphite layers of rubber. And even if I do, the light grey foam underneath seems firmer and more durable than the light foam on the Torin. It costs an ounce or so in weight, but given that the Torins aren't exactly racing flats at 9.1 ounces, an extra .9 ounces is not really noticeable.
The Instinct 4.0s are 3mm lower than the Torin 2.5s, which I prefer - it gives you a better ground feel.
A couple of noticeable differences...
The upper: The Instinct 4.0 is a little less form fitting than the Torin 2.5, yet, I'd say it is a tighter lacing grip. Sounds contradictory, but the Torin holds by being more molded to the foot while the Instinct relies more on the lacing.
I'd also say the Instinct 4.0 upper will be more comfy on hotter days with a more breathable mesh. But the Torin 2.5 upper didn't bother me on warmer spring days, and I have hot feet.
The midsole: The Instinct 4.0 is a firmer shoe with better road feel. The Torin 2.5 is more cushiony and pillowy.
The outsole: The Instinct 4.0 looks to be a lot more durable. It definitely has a better grip given the additional rubber making contact with the ground. The Torin 2.5 relied on foam in a few spots which really has little gripping power. I ran a fairly tame trail 50K in the Instinct 3.0 and I see no reason why I couldn't do the same with these. Same goes for road marathons - I did with the Instinct 3.0 and these should be similar. Not sure they'd be great for faster stuff like a 5K where I found the Torin 2.5 to be pretty competent if not ultra speedy.
Looks: Altra continues to improve in the design department. See the improvement from the Instinct 3.5 to the Instinct 4.0 -- looking more presentable in public, the little kids don't point at your feet and yell "freak".
Retail: $110. Hopefully I can get a full 250+ miles out of these. I'll be back and let you know how it goes.
I fall in love with shoe brands often to the exclusion of others. What happens is: I'll wear the hell out of a shoe I like, go through a second pair. Then an update, which is never as good as the previous version. Then a search for something else.
I've been an Altra groupie since I discovered the Instinct 3.0s - and wore the hell out of several pairs. I bought a pair of Lone Peak 2.5s - like them quite a bit, despite the fact they feel a little unwieldy on more rooty and rocky trail and aren't fit for much road running (a little slow feeling).
Altra just came out with the Instinct/Intuition 3.5s. Of course, they made aesthetic and structural changes that aren't a step forward, and arguably are a half a step back.
So as I am mildly dissatisfied with my 3.5 Instincts, and not 100% into the Lone Peaks on all trails, I am vulnerable to any attractive footwear on the market for some transaction.
I walked into REI and saw a pair of the new Hoka Challenger ATR 2s...
I loved the ground feel and cushioning of the originals - and the uppers were nice and light, and breathable. It was a good shoe in the first version, but still had some major flaws.
The originals were too loose for me - I wear a 13, they felt like a 13.5. I didn't feel well locked down in them, and they weren't stable on more challenging trails. Plus, the inserts on the originals didn't stay in place because of the loose fit - comically looking similar to this after one hot and sweaty run.
I put a pair of the CATR 2s on, and walked around in the store. Sweet. They felt like they fixed the sloppy fit of the original CATRs - these were snug enough, not too snug. The toe box was ok - definitely not Altra sized, but still comfortable. This gearinstitute.com review (loubrenner.06) reassured me that they'd loosen up in the toebox after a few runs. The outsole seemed similar to the originals, same tread, possibly a little firmer but not by much.
I figured I'd take them - since I would wear them around, and could return them next week when I had to make a shipping pickup at the store if they weren't right.
A day around the house and on the treadmill felt great. No slippage, no tightness or hotspots, no foot discomfort. Today, I took them for a 10 miler on trails, and they were terrific. Just like the gearinstitute.com first review - very snug and comfortable. No irritation or rubbing. I felt confident on downhills - the stack height didn't come at the expense of groundfeel. They did nice on multiple surfaces -- ice, mud, rocks, roots and road. And the outsole is very close the original - firmer in a good way, but still pretty cushioned (I'd say a 5.5-6.0 in the 2s, a 6.0-6.5 in the originals, with a 10 being the softest). I'll check back here in 50-75 miles after they are nice and broken in, but so far so good.
Edit: Ginger Runner does a great review - points out the big change that I missed - tongue! He nails the ortholite insert change. His view on the volume change is different than mine - but relevant to those who were happy with v1.
Like for many, the road to finding the perfect shoe is long and endless for me as well.
I have big clown feet - size 13. Many manufacturers stop making half sizes after 12, so it ends up being hit or miss just in terms of length - usually 13s are too short, 14s too long, in any given model. I also have large toes - particularly the Captain, and most toe boxes are either too narrow or not high enough.
As a result, I've developed sporadic foot pain that comes from wearing shoes that are too tight. I've had shoes where I've really loved the ride - a number of Adidas models come to mind -- but they weren't good for me.
The first model of shoe I felt comfortable in was the Sketcher GoRun Ride 3. A major issue: too much room, so much that during a 50K, my foot slid around so much that I got major blistering issue. But no pain otherwise. So I accelerated the search, knowing that I needed less structure (not too much less), more room, and some upper support to keep my foot in place.
Discovering Hokas was a revelation. Shoes like the Clifton and Challenger were massive improvements in comfort and nice upper lock down, but the cushioning just didn't feel right to me.
Altras seem like they are the best out there for my needs. My first shoe was the Instinct 3.0. The Instinct is the men's - the Intuition is the women's. A cute and stereotypical naming scheme, which as a man with a strong sense of intuition I object to. Be that as it may -- I continue to run in 3s as the 3.5 comes into general release. The Instinct 3.0 toe box is great - never come close to blistering or feeling them rub at a hotspot. Not too much structure but enough to keep my foot in place. The right amount of midsole cushioning. No foot pain or discomfort. And at least for me, durability through the 300 mile mark.
(I also have the Lone Peak 2.5 which I like - more cushioned than the Instinct 3.0, but close to the general feel. I tried the Torin 2.0s, but thought there was too much cush and it hurt my foot. I'd definitely like to try The One 2.5 on of these days.)
Complaints? A few. The lacing of the 3.0 wasn't great. Sometimes you get puckering around the eyes, and once in a while it's not laced perfectly and you can get a little discomfort on a spot on the top of your foot. I also thought the upper could be beefed up - its a little too light. I would have liked a little more tread as well - although they aren't slippy in wet weather, they could use some more grip for turning corners with more comfort. But despite those minor drawbacks, I did run well in everything from a road 5K to a road marathon to a 50K on trails in those shoes with happy results.
I bought a pair of 3.5s, with some trepidation. I worried that Altra, like most shoe companies, would end up messing up a good thing with the upgrade. And the photos I saw of the shoe made it more hideous than the 3.0s. To be fair, the 3.0 was most hideous in its orange or red version, but the blacks were acceptable.
I think Altra, for the most part, did a great job on the 3.5s. The uppers are slightly beefed up, mostly I think by adding a leather strip that starts behind the heel, winds over the outside eyelets, and crosses over to the inside toe. A pretty ingenious way of doing so without decreasing the breathability or flexibility of the upper. They also use two different materials for the inside and outside of the upper - I think the inside might be a little thicker. This also ads a little more feeling of support to the upper.
The lacing is improved - narrower towards both the toe and the ankle, wider in the middle.
And the midsole is slightly firmer in a way I like - if the 3.0 was a 5 in terms of softness, this is somewhere in the 4-4.5 range. The flex seems close to the 3.0 as well.
What could be better? The looks. See for yourself, but they look like what would happen if clown shoes had sex with bowling shoes, the bowling shoes got pregnant and took acid during the gestation. I got the reds - they may actually be a bit less heinous in yellow or black, but blue is out of the question. You almost think Altra is looking for an excuse to lower sales of the shoe by making them weird looking - just doing the same shoe in solid colors would have been a massive improvement. The women's Intuition is much the same with some obligatory purple and pinks.
Also - it would have been nice to have had more grip on the outsoles - they seem identical to the 3.0s.
I would highly recommend the shoe for the fashion or vision impaired runner who is in search of pain-free, blister-free feet.
Update (58 miles): Unfortunately, I like these shoes less than after the first run.
- The outsole is just too firm. I said it was a 4 or 4.5 out of 10 - with 10 the softest, with the 3.0s at a 5. I would say these are closer to a 3 or 3.5 - significantly firmer, and on longer runs, too firm for comfort.
- The upper is a little too structured compared to the 3.0s. It is on the verge of a support shoe whereas the 3.0 was completely neutral.
I still have a pair of 3.0s that I wear, and I think I prefer them for the above reasons. Your mileage and preferences may vary.
PS: This post would suck without photos.
From the top:
Left foot, outside shot:
Right foot, inside shot:
Also see: My Year in Shoes 2016
Altra Instinct 4.0 review (2017)
