Torin 4.0 Review

The Torin is one of those models that seem to change substantially with each iteration yet managing to remain true to the concept of the shoe. The Torin is about plush and cushion for training and even possibly longer races (perhaps the  marathon/ultra distance at less speedy paces).

I've run in a bunch - 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 Mesh and Knit. My favorite of them was the 3.5 Knit, so it seemed like Altra was making good progress in their iteration of the line over the last few years. I've been running in the 4.0 (regular?) version for the last 60 miles and really like the shoe.

New and improved features of note:

- A well fitting upper that is an improvement over the 3.5 Knit, which was a little baggy around the tongue and laces. This shoe fits a lot more like the Kayenta - more form fitting without being too tight or creating hotspots.

- A better midsole material made of Quantic - closer to the feel of the Ego midsole of the Escalante line than the A-Bound of previous Torins. It has a bit of a bounce to it and doesn't feel like it has flattened out at all in the first 50 miles.

- Support straps at the midfoot. They aren't that noticeable like the ill-fated version Saucony implemented on the previous Kinvara models. They may incrementally help with lock-down. But they aren't anything to be that concerned with, one way or the other.

- A decoupled heel on the outer side of the shoe. This presumably creates a little more flex on heel landing on the outside of the shoe. Not sure I notice it at all, but the general feel on landing is comfortable cush but not squish.

- Nice laces - thin and stay tied. The 3.5 laces were not long enough, the laces of the Paradigm 4.5s are ridiculously long and still untie with a double-knot.

- Seemingly more durable rubber pods on the outsole. On previous versions, the pods seemed like they were made of midsole material or really soft rubber. The pods on the 4.0s seem like they are made of honest-to-goodness rubber that might hold up for a couple of hundred miles before they scrape right off. I am getting some wear on them at the heel (none elsewhere) but it seems more normal than premature.

- Light on my feet. While they are listed at 9.1 ounces vs. the 8.4 of the 3.5 Knit, the latest version feels like it weighs less. I would not hesitate to wear the 4.0s from a 5K up to a marathon - they are a joy to run in and never feel plodding like the 3.5 Knit/Mesh could at times.

- Look. Altra has kicked up the styling a bit to the point where the first thing that comes to mind isn't "clown shoes". These don't scream Altra - they look more normal which is a good thing in my book.  

I'm looking forward to trying the 4.0 Plush version -- a 28 mm height vs the 26 mm of the regular version reviewed here. The regular retails for $120 while the Plush requires a plusher wallet at $140.

But all things considered, this is an excellent upgrade that address some of my main complaints around past Torins outlined above.

A good looking Torin from above and below

You can see the midfoot straps and the highly functional laces. 

A nice mesh upper that fits snugly yet provides plenty of toe splay and aeration

The heel is segmented on the outer side of each foot

A good shot of the rubber on the heel before I start to wear it away!

The rubber is wearing a bit but not too badly

Another view of the wear and tear around the outer heel.

Torin 3.5 Mesh review

I was so wrapped up in loving the Escalante that I missed out on the Torin 3.5 Mesh. I've been a fan of the mainstay of Altra's line, and they seem to be making continued progress on making small improvements without trashing the basics  - a supportive zero drop shoe that is a great everyday trainer. 

The 3.0s were a major improvement over the 2.5s; this upgrade is a minor improvement but has significant changes. 

The 3.5 Mesh differs from the 3.0 in the following ways (see my 3.0 review here):

- There is an improved mesh upper in this version. It is more comfortable to me, especially over the big toe, than the 3.0. This version is soft and has the kind of give in the material that I like in an upper - no hot spots after 90 miles. When I first tried on the shoe it fit a little tight, but loosened up very quickly.

- There is a lot more support around the heel collar. Some dislike it and the fact it goes "up" the back of the Achilles heel; I find it super comfy and have no issues here.

- They have a bit of an inner stretch booty going on (you can see it under/left of tongue) which works well to improve hold.

- The midsole feels a bit more firm to me - not as firm as the 2.5, but a bit firmer than the 3.0. I love the feel of this shoe - and it doesn't feel like it is getting "flat" yet unlike past Torins which start to lose resiliency around the 100 mile mark. It is a bit softer than the 3.5 Knit, a point made by Road Trail Run's review.

I've had some foot pain from running in the very flexible Escalantes so have been wearing the Torins for all my runs over the past couple of weeks. Out of necessity I'm running a couple of races (10M and 10K) in them, and find them totally acceptable to wear - not too heavy nor too warm. The Torin 3.5 Knit, in comparison, feel way too bulky and hot to race in in warmer weather. The Knit has a better feeling upper in terms of grip and fit, but the tightness of the weave broils my feet in anything other than sub freezing temps.

I'm looking forward to the soon to arrive Torin 4.0s. From Road Trail Run's photos they look similar to the 3.5s re the upper and have improved outsoles with more rubber coverage (hopefully they exhibit better road wear for me then past Torins -- they scuff/wear quite a bit especially when I run downhills!).

Altra Escalante 1.5 and Escalante Racer review

I was almost a believer in the first edition of the Escalante. Altra's EGO midsole foam blew me away - it was light and bouncy and had terrific durability - what you hoped their A-Bound compound (Torin and Lone Peak) should be. A-Bound loses bounce very quickly and becomes dead foam in 100 miles or so in my experience over several generations of Torins and LPs.

Unfortunately, the Escalante 1.0 had an upper that didn't provide any support on any kind of corner. I have a memory of running in them on a wet track where my foot was sliding off the footbed a half an inch on turns - it just didn't have any kind of lockdown. And they stretched out as well - so they became a little baggy after purchase.

The Escalante 1.5 remedied the weaknesses of the first version. The shoe has improved the mesh by creating more reinforcement on the inside and outside of the shoe with a thicker weave - it didn't resort to uncomfortable straps or wires for a better lock down. Now, it provides enough support to me so that I didn't experience the sliding from 1.0.

The weave under the logo is thicker and has less "give"

Altra firmed up the midsole material just a tiny bit - its not quite as marshmallow-y as the first version, but keeps it pretty close to what made the ride for the Escalante 1.0 so special. It prevents the foam between the bottom of the rubber outsole from bottoming out (the spot between the rubber pods with "Innerflex" bulged out and wore on the ground in 1.0 - now it doesn't).

The rubber outsole is super durable - unlike the pods on every model of Torin it doesn't wear down to the foam. I've had three pairs - the lifespan of the 1.5s is well north of 300 miles - I do feel the EGO foam losing some resiliency around that point but they continue to be wearable and show no loss of integrity in the upper.

The Racer series has a completely different upper than the 1.5. It isn't a stretchy mesh - it is a harder less flexible weave that provides even more support on a track. It is more aerated with bigger holes to aid in ventilation. And the midsole compound is even firmer than the 1.5. I'd rate the three shoes like this, with a 10 being the bounciest:

Escalante 1.0: 9

Escalante 1.5: 8.25

Racer: 7.5

Despite the changes in the upper and midsole, I have found the Racer to be very comfortable on both the road and track, and wouldn't hesitate to wear it in distances including a half-marathon. For a full 26.2, I like the extra cushion of the 1.5 version.

I haven't put many miles on the Racer, as I generally prefer the 1.5 for training and save the Racer for, well, racing.  

The Escalante 2 will provide more support in the upper and slightly more rubber on the outsole , according to roadtrailrun.com - but in my view, this isn't necessary. Altra has a super good thing going with this model, and here's to hoping they don't destroy what is my favorite shoe of theirs to this point. 

Altra Paradigm 4.0 review - good first try but not there yet

This is a highly awaited and positively touted update of the Paradigm series. I did not run previously in the Paradigm, but the early praise of the 4.0 by Sam Winebaum on Road Trail Run got me interested.

Altra Torin 3.5 Knit review - best Torin yet

This is the third generation of Torins I've worn, and the first where Altra knocked it out of the park by creating an extremely comfortable daily trainer.

Hoka OneOne Clifton 4 Review: 4th time a charm?

The Clifton line from Hoka has always been one step away from a great shoe for me. 

The first iteration was a revolutionary shoe, combining heavy cushion with lightness. Unfortunately, the thin tongue killed it as a wearable shoe although most other reviewers loved that feature and the model overall.

The second version mucked up nearly everything good in an attempt to remedy the tongue issue. Unfortunately, the changes to the rest of the upper and the midsole were counterproductive in my experience; I found it to be a hot and overly firm ride.  

The third version got the closest in my book to a big winner, but the upper really couldn't stand up to the beating I delivered during DC summers. http://www.midpackgear.com/2016/08/170-mile-revisit-of-clifton-3-not-so_18.html

So is the fourth time a charm? Through the first 40+ miles, I'd say yes.

Altra Torin 3.0 review

Upgrades to good shoes get me nervous. The Torin 2.5 is a great all-around trainer. However, nothing's perfect - it has a few drawbacks spelled out in my earlier review.  

Torin 2.5

• The midsole is very "foamy" - meaning it is soft and cushioned but doesn't have much responsiveness. It feels pretty dead when I am out on a run - like there is a lot of energy lost on impact with no bounce.
• The wear pattern on the rubber pods on the outsole is uneven and early. I was seeing too much wear even with +/- 50 miles on the shoe for a $120+ purchase.
• Others have complained about the plastic-y upper material that isn't very breathable. I didn't think it was that bad - it has mesh areas on right/left of your big toe that allowed breatheability - but it was certainly not the most airy upper I've worn.

Altra's Torin 3.0 seems to have successfully addressed each of these issues. 

The midsole has a little bit of bounceback sorely missing from the last version. According to the Altra website, they haven't made a change in the midsole material - still "Midsole Eva With A-Bound Top Layer & InnerFlex™." I don't believe it. While it's nowhere as bouncy as Ego, it has something else in there that is an improvement. A Torin with Ego is something to dream about...

The wear is improved for me. I'm around 46 miles and the rear outer pod on the heel is not worn down to the foam. Hopefully it can hold out for a good while longer.

Torin 3.0

Not so good on the Torin 2.5

Altra has also shaved off .7 oz - always good to see when a manufacturer can go lighter in an upgrade without destroying the shoe's good qualities. They possibly shaved some weight off the upper or even out of the midsole.

The shoe's upper is definitely much more breatheable compared to its predecessor. I have run under blazing hot summer conditions in DC and on a 4 hour trail race and my shoe hasn't turned into a sweatlodge. It's obvious how much breatheability is built into the upper - just hold it up to a light to see how much light gets through.

I referred to this shoe earlier as a Clifton that fit me right. I think that anyone looking for a cushioned zero drop shoe who has liked the Clifton but found one aspect or another of that shoe lacking (the Clifton 3.0 upper wore badly and stretched out, the 2.0 midsole was too hard, the 1.0 tongue didn't work for me) should check out the Torin 3.0.

Edit 10/10/17: The upper and the midsole of the shoe is holding up nicely through 150 miles. No wear or tear is visible on the mesh; the midsole has a lot of cushioning remaining by feel. The rubber pads on the outer heel are starting to wear away as with the 2.5. I'm still very positive on this update despite this issue which needs to get addressed by Altra on the next version of this shoe.

Edit 7/25/18: Altra Torin 3.5 knit review here.

Altra Lone Peak 3.0 review

I could've sworn I wrote a review of the Altra Lone Peak before, but a review of my posts showed none and confirmed my fading power of memory.

I owned the Lone Peak 2.5s. I enjoyed the cushioning and roominess of Altra's moderately cushioned trail shoe (falling between the less cushioned Superior and the maximally cushioned Olympus). But there was too much of a good thing in the Lone Peak 2.5 version -- the upper was a little too loose and roomy, causing a lot of foot sliding on rocks and downhills resulting in black nails and blisters.

The Lone Peak 3.0 is a massive improvement in my view. It is a much more form fitting upper, providing plenty of foot splay and comfort at the same time. I found that my foot didn't move around much and the tension of the laces were just about perfect.  The laces are a bit too short, but they stay tied.

The one drawback to the shoes is the insole definitely slid around when I ran through water on a hot and sweaty day. The water drained super well, but once there is a layer of moisture, the insole doesn't want to stay in place. Dominick Layfield on Road Trail Run had the same issue with his 3.0s, but addressed it by crazy gluing the insole down. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to do so the next time I expect to be running in wet shoes.

Otherwise, I find them a great all around trail shoe in the 3.0 version. Great rubber grip, cushioned enough while still preserving enough ground feel, not too heavy (but certainly not light), pretty good at draining out after a dunk, mildly breathable so my feet don't get super hot. The durability seems pretty good for me on the trails in the DC area -- no abnormal wear is visible at 60 miles.

As Dominick writes, the newest 3.5 version is about to get released with what sounds like minor changes. Given that my first pair of 3.0s has another 250+ miles left on them hopefully and I have a back up pair that I currently use in the gym, I'm not even sure I'll have a need for another pair before they release the 4.0 version! But the 3.5 release will certainly mean a lot of good discounts on the 3.0 -- I just snagged a pair of Torin 2.5s for $68 for a model which doesn't seem to have changed much in the 3.0 version. 

Hoka One One Clayton 2 review

Last you may have heard, I was in love with my Altra Instinct 4.0s. Unfortunately, I developed some heel pain, symptomatic of insertional achilles tendonitis, self-diagnosed with my degree in Internet medicine. I decided to experiment with non-zero drop shoes to see if there was any improvement in the pain I felt, mostly in the am and at night (not while running).

I decided to try the new Hoka One One Clayton 2s. I have tried on the original Claytons and didn't love the feel in the store. But the reviews of the update have been largely positive - an improved upper as well as a fix for a blistering problem many folks had with the original made it seem like an appealing choice.

I have joked it would be great if Hokas and Altras had a baby - meaning, a shoe with a comfortable (wide) toebox and the cushioning and drop of the Hoka. Cliftons have been almost great, but not wide enough. Challengers more so. And the lack of any heel to to drop was irritating my heel.

The Clayton 2 is very much in this vein. A super roomy toebox and comfortable upper, Altra style. And a 4 mm drop. Plus, a lot of Hoka style foam and cushion. They definitely did the trick for my heel - I experienced almost immediate relief and the pain completely went away in a week of running in the slight drop shoes.

These shoes were super comfy and light -- only 7.2 oz in a men's 9. I ran several races - including a 15 mi trail race through roots, water and mud, a 5K XC type race, and a fairly hilly half marathon without race-specific training with good results. The laces are rubberized and gave a really nice tie - cinching down the upper and preventing foot sliding. A super good fit. Except... a blister did develop on the inside of the ball of my right foot from the edge of the insole where the arch meets the upper material.

I thought it might have been a fluke - got my feet wet on the half marathon and thought that could have caused an unusual blister (I had already run 35 miles with no problems before it sprung up). But unfortunately, it happened again a few days later in the same spot on a 6 mile run.

I think the problem is with the insole - it should not have a rough ridge where it meets the upper material - it should be tapered and maybe even glued in place to avoid this irritating rough spot. I don't like cutting things up, but that might be my next step (or find a pair of replacement insoles).

Also, I experienced some pretty aggressive wear on the outside heel of my left foot - not completely surprising since its all RMAT foam and no rubber on the outsole (keeping the shoe so light), but its still not a good sign since it is almost all worn down in one spot after only 100 miles in. Another 50-75 miles and I'd be wearing into the white foam at this rate.

Hoka is so close with this shoe to something great for a light trainer/racer. But my experience through 100 miles is that they haven't solved the blister problem that has plagued this model. And Hoka still is not a long lasting workhorse for such an premium priced shoe - I had early breakdown with the Clifton 3s midsole material last summer.

I'm going in another direction - that combines the bigger toebox of the Altra and has some cushioning and a bit of heel/toe drop a la Hoka -- but that is pretty durable (some rubber on the heel) and better fitting: the Topo Ultrafly. I'll do a review on them once I hit 100 miles for a better idea of how they perform in the medium-term. 

Altra Instinct 4.0 review

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.

Altra Torin 2.5 review

I've procrastinated writing a review of one of the most comfortable pair of trainers I've ever owned, and the best pair of Altra's I have run in: the Torin 2.5. It's good I'm getting around to writing this review now, since the 3.0 is expected to be released in the next couple of months - long enough to get a lifecycle out of a pair purchased today.

The Torin 2.5 is a good daily trainer kind of shoe. It's relatively light and relatively cushioned - for my taste, just about right. I would be happy to wear them for a trail ultra if grip wasn't too big an issue, and would definitely wear them for a marathon or half. I have worn them for shorter distances - 10Ks and 5Ks -- but they have drawbacks at those races. The foam is not very springy - it's relatively dead - so you really don't get the kind of energy return bounce you are looking for in those quicker races. The ultimate upgrade for the Torin would be to use the EGO foam in the new Escalantes - it would allow this shoe to excel at the quicker stufff.

The shoe is pretty ugly looking. Altra is doing better in making the foot shaped shoe look less like a clown shoe and more like a regular running shoe. They've done a great job with their latest versions of shoes like the Instinct, Lone Peak and Escalante on the design front. Hopefully the Torin 3.0 looks a little more socially acceptable! (The black/red version is the better looking colorway, better than the blue/yellow, below)

Now, picking it apart in detail...

The upper: I love the construction on this shoe. Most of it is some sort of nylon material with varying degrees over plastic overlays. Some think it is too tight and not breathable enough, but it is great for me. I get enough support that my feet aren't sliding around, but I don't find it overly hot (and I do get pretty warm in the feet during my runs). There's a little bit of mesh on the upper that perhaps provides some ventilation. Maybe I'll be singing a different tune during the summer, but I haven't had a problem. More support than the Instinct 4.0 here, which feels too loose to me. The shoe laces up very well - not hot spots or puckering like I saw on the Instincts current and past.

The midsole: Absolute comfort. I don't find it too mushy or too hard - it is just right. My foot, which on the right has suffered from vague and annoying pain due to either too much or too little cush over the last couple of years - is happy and pain free. My feet don't feel "tired" at all - they've nailed it here. For comparison, it is significantly firmer the Escalante, slightly firmer than the Lone Peak 3.0, softer than the Instinct. 

The outsole: The weakest part of the shoe. I suffered excessive wear on the outside heels of both shoes. Yes, I tend to do my share of heel striking but land midfoot most of the time. I had to retire my shoes at around 150 miles because the black rubber was totally gone. Hopefully this was unusual wear, based on running on some rougher surface. But still, it doesn't look like this is a shoe that will have much life after 200 miles. Altra has consistently had quality issues like this, but is making progress. Hopefully the Torin 3.0 addresses this problem

Because I'm a little OCD: Altra Torin 2.5 reviews

The Altra Torin 2.5 is looking like the most suitable shoe of 2016 for me. I like a Goldilocks kind of shoe - neutral, some upper support but not too much, some cushioning but not too much. The only feature I like too much of is a roomy toebox. The 2.5 fits my needs very well. Edit: here's my belated review.

According to Sam at Roadtrailrun.com, we are going to see the release of the Instinct 3.5 as well as the Escalante soon in 2017, two shoes which will occupy similar space to the Torin 2.5, but likely with a bit less cush and more road feel. 

Until then, here are some of the most helpful reviews of the Altra Torin 2.5 I've seen.

Road Trail Run (convinced me to buy a pair)

Running Shoes Guru

Trail and Ultra Running

Gear Institute

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

February

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.

Hoka Challenger ATR 2 review

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.