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.

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.

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:

Right foot, inside shot:

Also see: My Year in Shoes 2016
Altra Instinct 4.0 review (2017)