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

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)