Saucony is a brand I keep coming back to but don't stay with for that long. Occasionally they have a winning shoe like the Mirage 3 and then end up modifying it or discontinuing it or both. Generally they get it just right, but not for consecutive models.
Perambulating mid-packer opining about running products and practices.
Showing posts with label Saucony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saucony. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Monday, December 26, 2016
My Year in Shoes 2016 - from Altra (Instinct 3.0) to Altra (Torin 2.5)
My Year in Shoes 2016
 |
| the uphill road to 1700+ miles and countless sneaker purchases |
January
I started the year ensconced in the Altra Instinct 3.0. They had been a great shoe for easy to run trail races like the Rosaryville 50K in November of 2015. And I was running 5Ks in them as well - starting the year with them on my feet at the Montgomery County Road Runners Club New Year's Day 5K. I upgraded to the Instinct 3.5, and was pretty dissatisfied with the update. The harder more structured upper was much less comfortable and even began to cause a bit of foot pain on the top of my foot. Plus, they were uglier than your average Altra, which is saying a lot.
I did some trail running in the Altra Lone Peak 2.5, a nice shoe but which I found a little too sloppy over rocks and roots. I now use them as a walking around shoe, and haven’t tried out the 3.0 yet.
 |
| Instinct 3.0 |
 |
| Instinct 3.5 fugly |
 |
| Challenger ATR 2 |
I ran some trial mileage in the Hoka Challenger ATR 2, wearing them for an uncomfortable soggy 24K at St. Mary’s Frozen Heart and for the relay at the Mid Maryland 50K. The ATR 2s were nearly perfect except for being a bit too tight in the toebox. I have read that the ATR 3s remedied this issue, but haven’t had the chance to try them on yet either.
 |
| Breakthru 2, Breakthru 1 |
As I didn’t have a good road shoe after tossing the Instinct 3.5 asides, I experimented with the Saucony Breakthru 1 and 2. Neither was wide enough for my foot, but I enjoyed running in both shoes on shorter and faster race courses. It is at the bottom of the line for Saucony, but they did well on that model.
I ran in the Breakthru 2s mostly during the March-April-May timeframe.
July
 |
| Clifton 3 |
By July, the tightness of the Breakthru’s were starting to wreak havoc on my feet, so I went back to Hoka to give the Clifton 3s a try. They seemed to get the shoe into a good place the third time around - a better tongue and upper material solved a bunch of problems from the first two models. I used the Clifton exclusively through July and most of August, squishing the Strava miles in them through the most unpleasantly hot and humid days of the summer when the material couldn't hold up to what I dished out.
August
At the expo for the Annapolis 10 miler race, I made an impulse buy of the Saucony Triumph ISO 2. It was a cushier and better fitting version of the Breakthru 2 for me, and I do love the ISO sockliner quite a bit. I ran with them for the A10, Larry Noel half, Parks Half, and the National Capital 20 miler. By the end of the run in them, I started to get some pretty severe heel pain which wasn’t going away from alternating some runs in the Clifton 3.
October
I went back to the Adidas Supernova Glide, 8th edition, in October. I put a couple of hundred enjoyable miles in them with no discomfort, successfully running the Howard County Metric Marathon and the NCR Marathon.
November
Once again, I was undone by an update, this time from the Supernova Glide 8 to the next version, simply called the Supernova. The update had a lot of great pluses - more TPU cush in the forefoot, better cushion around the ankle, a more padded tongue. But damn if the shoe wasn’t tighter in the forefoot than its predecessor. After 50 miles, it was clear it was causing pain in my right foot.
December
 |
| Altra Torin 2.5 penguin shoes |
What goes around comes around. I started the year happy and comfortable in the Altra Instinct 3.0. And so I decided to come home to Altra, relying on roadtrailrun.com ‘s review of the Torin 2.5. And I swallowed my pride, putting function above style.
25 miles in, and I’m pain free and putting in comfortable daily runs. I think if I know what’s good for me, I’ll stay put. As a sneaker geek, I always want to upgrade to the next model in the line, but as my experience with the Instinct 3.0-3.5, the Breakthru 1-2, and the Supernova Glide 8-Supernova shows, newer is not always better. In fact, it's usually a step down.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Saucony Ride 9 thoughts
I ordered a pair of the newest version of the Rides - the 9 - and returned the same day. Some quick thoughts:
- Definitely narrower in the toebox than I remember the Ride 7 being
- Footbed/arch has a feel similar to the Breakthru 2s, but a little more lift on the outer heel.
- The upper was a tighter material than I remember the Ride 7 being, and definitely stiffer than the Breakthru 2.
- I was surprised to find the midsole relatively firm, not super cushioned. If I give the Breakthru 2 a 4 of 10 - 10 being most cush, I'd give the ride a 5-5.5 of 10. Nowhere near the Triumph in terms of cushioning.
- The tread on the left shoe wasn't glued properly, so the rubber outer piece was coming off the shoe (out of the box). I don't know if this is an outlier or if there are more general quality issues on the first run of this shoe.
- Definitely narrower in the toebox than I remember the Ride 7 being
- Footbed/arch has a feel similar to the Breakthru 2s, but a little more lift on the outer heel.
- The upper was a tighter material than I remember the Ride 7 being, and definitely stiffer than the Breakthru 2.
- I was surprised to find the midsole relatively firm, not super cushioned. If I give the Breakthru 2 a 4 of 10 - 10 being most cush, I'd give the ride a 5-5.5 of 10. Nowhere near the Triumph in terms of cushioning.
- The tread on the left shoe wasn't glued properly, so the rubber outer piece was coming off the shoe (out of the box). I don't know if this is an outlier or if there are more general quality issues on the first run of this shoe.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Bless you, Saucony. Breakthru 2 review.
Nearly every update is a car crash. The manufacturer can take a perfectly great shoe and make it worse. Even when they improve something, often it will result in changes that make the shoe unusable for others who loved the original.
The Saucony Breakthru was a workmanlike neutral road trainer that could be used on race day. It was nothing fancy - it reminded me of a version of the Mirage from a few years back - a nice fit, firm outsole, pretty light - good for everyday use and good enough for race day up to a full marathon. The best part - it is extremely durable and $100 bucks - a veritable bargain in the shoe market these days. See my blog post on the Breakthru original.
It was boring, no flash, so I ended up drifting away from the shoe. But over the last month, I put it back in circulation and have enjoyed it anew.
It was with some trepidation I saw the Breakthru 2 was out. Surely, they'd screw up something. But from unboxing, it looks like very minor changes that address exactly the minor issues with the first edition.
- The outsole is exactly the same. Powergrid, IBR+, XT900 rubber. Same level of firmness, same tread.
- The midsole is a bit different. More foamy than superball. If the first version was a 3 out of 10 in terms of softness, this is closer to a 4 with 10 being the softest.
- The upper is more of a mesh than a tight weave nylon. This should help with breathability during warmer weather, and makes the upper fit more comfortably for me. On my first run, it was absolutely clear this is a looser and more comfortable fit. It is much less tight than the original because the fabric is completely different. On the Breakthru original, it was plasticy. This is pure fabric. I imagine it will be less durable as a result, but time will tell.
- The tongue is a padded material similar to the mesh upper. The old tongue was more spongy, sort of like the Brooks Launch. It was ok, but could bunch a bit. This seems like a minor improvement. The tongue stayed in place during the run - better than almost any shoe I've owned.
- Slightly more room in the toebox. But not a roomy shoe in either iteration.
- The heel looks the same.
- The weight is lower by .1 oz, which could easily be margin of error.
I'll put it directly into daily use, and update this post if necessary. Thanks for not mucking it up, Saucony!
Side by side uppers (Breakthru 2s on left):
Different overlays, breathable mesh on the upper (2s bottom).
You can see the different weave on the upper fabric and the different tongue (2s on right).
Post half-marathon update (3/13/16): I enjoyed running in these guys. My feet felt like they had plenty of room, yet they were a stable and supported enough ride for 13.1 miles. I'm really quite happy about these for road racing. Perhaps enough to coax me into doing a road marathon this year!
Second post half-marathon update (3/21/16): after running my third best HM time in these shoes on 3/12, I ran my second best HM time on 3/20. They are lighter and more comfortable than the originals, making for a great racing shoe for me. At mile 56, they have a core position in my shoe rotation along with the originals and my Hoka Challenger ATR 2s.
The Saucony Breakthru was a workmanlike neutral road trainer that could be used on race day. It was nothing fancy - it reminded me of a version of the Mirage from a few years back - a nice fit, firm outsole, pretty light - good for everyday use and good enough for race day up to a full marathon. The best part - it is extremely durable and $100 bucks - a veritable bargain in the shoe market these days. See my blog post on the Breakthru original.
It was boring, no flash, so I ended up drifting away from the shoe. But over the last month, I put it back in circulation and have enjoyed it anew.
It was with some trepidation I saw the Breakthru 2 was out. Surely, they'd screw up something. But from unboxing, it looks like very minor changes that address exactly the minor issues with the first edition.
- The outsole is exactly the same. Powergrid, IBR+, XT900 rubber. Same level of firmness, same tread.
- The midsole is a bit different. More foamy than superball. If the first version was a 3 out of 10 in terms of softness, this is closer to a 4 with 10 being the softest.
- The upper is more of a mesh than a tight weave nylon. This should help with breathability during warmer weather, and makes the upper fit more comfortably for me. On my first run, it was absolutely clear this is a looser and more comfortable fit. It is much less tight than the original because the fabric is completely different. On the Breakthru original, it was plasticy. This is pure fabric. I imagine it will be less durable as a result, but time will tell.
- The tongue is a padded material similar to the mesh upper. The old tongue was more spongy, sort of like the Brooks Launch. It was ok, but could bunch a bit. This seems like a minor improvement. The tongue stayed in place during the run - better than almost any shoe I've owned.
- Slightly more room in the toebox. But not a roomy shoe in either iteration.
- The heel looks the same.
- The weight is lower by .1 oz, which could easily be margin of error.
I'll put it directly into daily use, and update this post if necessary. Thanks for not mucking it up, Saucony!
Side by side uppers (Breakthru 2s on left):
No change to outsole whatsoever (2s on the bottom):
Different overlays, breathable mesh on the upper (2s bottom).
You can see the different weave on the upper fabric and the different tongue (2s on right).
Post half-marathon update (3/13/16): I enjoyed running in these guys. My feet felt like they had plenty of room, yet they were a stable and supported enough ride for 13.1 miles. I'm really quite happy about these for road racing. Perhaps enough to coax me into doing a road marathon this year!
Second post half-marathon update (3/21/16): after running my third best HM time in these shoes on 3/12, I ran my second best HM time on 3/20. They are lighter and more comfortable than the originals, making for a great racing shoe for me. At mile 56, they have a core position in my shoe rotation along with the originals and my Hoka Challenger ATR 2s.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Altra Instinct 3.5 Review (cover your eyes)
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:
Also see: My Year in Shoes 2016
Altra Instinct 4.0 review (2017)
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)
Monday, June 29, 2015
Saucony Nomad TR - return to sender
Oh well. It doesn't hurt in trying, especially when there's a liberal return policy involved.
There were a lot more cons here than pros:
Cons
- unbreathable - almost a plasticy upper - ugh
- too stiff - like a board
- pretty snug for the size - definitely not a lot of room for foot expansion
- tread - seemed a little pointless with little ability to grip
- style - fugly
- felt heavy and clunky
Pros
- 4mm drop
- Not a bad shape for my foot. Maybe if it ran a half size larger...
- Padded tongue - I do like 'em.
So back into the box they go. I couldn't imagine wearing these much more than I can imagine my old Xodus - just too stiff and heavy (not nearly as bad). Spoiled by the relative lightness and comfort of the Hoka One One Challenger ATRs as a trail shoe, and the Zealot for road/fire/gravel road/dry trails.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Saucony Zealot mini review (updated at 300 miles)
I ricochet between shoes and brands more than a superball bouncing down the street. One day, I'm in love, the next, we've broken up or at least I've started cheating on what was previously the best pair of footpods I claimed I ever slipped into.
The Zealots (designed to replace the Cortana in the Saucony lineup) are like a flame that you keep coming back to. Except it's better than real life -- when I rebound, they end up exceeding expectations.
Let's do a simple pro and con first...
Pros:
- crazy light
- "moccasin" or slipper feel
- ample forefoot room
- no midfoot constriction
- ample forefoot room
- no midfoot constriction
- breathable
- drain well
- dry quickly
- durable (160 miles and no sign of wear)
- 4mm low heel to toe drop
- versatile - roads, gravel, dirt trails all good
- ISOFIT upper/sockliner is comfortable and holds foot down nicely - no blistering or black toes
- laces stay tied - good grippy material
- made for sockless wearing
Cons:
- not the most attractive shoes
- laceing is off - not comfy pulling much lace tight, so there's not much lace for tying shoes
- could be a tad softer
- with ISOFIT, I need to wear thin Drymax socks or else its not comfortable
- grip has been a little iffy on slick damp pavement (but good on wet)
Other thoughts:
- a little more structured and wider than the Kinvara
- lighter and less built up than the Triumph ISOFIT
They seem like they fall between those more popular models in terms of acclaim/popularity. But then I always need to stake out a fringe position.
I just put in an order for a 2nd pair as the new color lines will be out at the end of July, according to Running Warehouse's Saucony page. I sure hope they don't mess with these too much in the next version.
Photos at 210+ miles. Look pretty good still, eh?
Edit (7/20/15): They still looked swell at 300 miles, but it seemed the cushioning was pretty shot by then. They probably had another 100+ miles of treadmill walking/elliptical usage in addition to the 300 miles of running, so seems to me I got my money's worth.
Replaced with a new pair that seems a little roomier, with longer laces. I don't know if some of that's because the old ones shrunk down after repeated sun drying after running or because of alterations in the later production runs.
They also seem a little cushier than the first pair was when I first got them. I wouldn't describe them as firm -- more like about a 7 in the softness scale (10 most - think Skechers Gorun Rides, 0 least - think a pair of Five Fingers) whereas the first pair was closer to a 5.5.
Either way, I like the new ones quite a bit.
Edit (7/20/15): They still looked swell at 300 miles, but it seemed the cushioning was pretty shot by then. They probably had another 100+ miles of treadmill walking/elliptical usage in addition to the 300 miles of running, so seems to me I got my money's worth.
Replaced with a new pair that seems a little roomier, with longer laces. I don't know if some of that's because the old ones shrunk down after repeated sun drying after running or because of alterations in the later production runs.
They also seem a little cushier than the first pair was when I first got them. I wouldn't describe them as firm -- more like about a 7 in the softness scale (10 most - think Skechers Gorun Rides, 0 least - think a pair of Five Fingers) whereas the first pair was closer to a 5.5.
Either way, I like the new ones quite a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)