Fellow NH runner Sam Winebaum read my recent Top 3 running shoe post and decided to write his own list. Sam’s list is a bit different than mine, because he was a serious competitive runner when I was still in diapers – he ran through the running boom of the 1970s and happened to live in the town where Nike set up their early R&D lab (Exeter, NH). As such, he has some great perspective on shoes from the ‘70s.
Sam makes the interesting observation that the “Golden Age” of running in the ‘70s was followed by several decades of darkness on the running shoe front (of course, though my wife might disagree, the ‘80s were dark for a lot more reasons than running shoes – fashion, music to name a few). He feels that only within the past 5-10 years have things started to turn back around (he plans a follow up list of more recent shoes).
Fellow NH runner Sam Winebaum read my recent Top 3 running shoe post and decided to write his own list. Sam’s list is a bit different than mine, because he was a serious competitive runner when I was still in diapers – he ran through the running boom of the 1970s and happened to live in the town where Nike set up their early R&D lab (Exeter, NH). As such, he has some great perspective on shoes from the ‘70s.
Sam makes the interesting observation that the “Golden Age” of running in the ‘70s was followed by several decades of darkness on the running shoe front (of course, though my wife might disagree, the ‘80s were dark for a lot more reasons than running shoes – fashion, music to name a few). He feels that only within the past 5-10 years have things started to turn back around (he plans a follow up list of more recent shoes).
My buddy Thomas at Believe in the Run posted a Tweet yesterday that linked to a post on Sneakerreport.com. The article provides their list of the 100 Best Running Sneakers of all time, and it’s one of those lists that is sure to stir up some strong feelings and fond memories. Though I can’t say I agree with the number of current year models included in the top ten, and I might debate their choice at position #1 (has to be an Onitsuka or early 1970’s NIke!), it was fun to scan through the images of shoes from the past 40-50 years. I give them credit for finding all of the photos that they included!
This list go me to thinking about my own running shoe history. Other than my bright orange Andre Agassi tennis shoes from high school (awesomeness!), I can’t honestly say that I remember any particular shoe prior to when I started running seriously in 2007. My brother sent me a picture of myself from 1980-81 (see left) wearing what looks like a Nike Cortez (and some sweet tube socks!), but my memorable shoes are all very recent.
In the spirit of the list, I thought I’d provide my personal top three shoes among those that I have worn over the past 5+ years. This isn’t so much a “best” shoe list as it is a list of those shoes that have been most meaningful to my development as a runner. They either set me off on a new path in my running, or carried me along as I accomplished some running goal. They all have their flaws with respect to my current preferences (the Saucony A5 is as near perfection as any to me now), but at the time that I wore them, they were perfection.
Here they are in no particular order:
1. Nike Free 3.0 v1
The original incarnation of the Nike Free 3.0 was a masterpiece. It was the shoe that led me away from heavy stability trainers and into the world of lightweight flexibility (you can read my dusty old review from May 2009 here). It wasn’t wide by any means, but to this day I’d say it has one of the best uppers I’ve ever worn, and the silence of the sole against the ground was magnificent. Unfortunately, the Free line is trending more and more towards fashion over function these days, and I put the 4th incarnation of the Free 3.0 up on Ebay after only one run. This is one shoe that will remain in my closet forever.
2. Brooks Launch
Ahh, the Launch. This was easily the best of the more traditionally styled shoes that I’ve owned (my review from November 2009 here). The Launch was a no frills shoe built for hard training that could step in for speedwork as well. The sole was on the soft side, and the heel-toe transition was fantastic (yes, I wore this long before I’d ever thought too much about my own running form). Given the higher offset, my days in the Launch have passed, but for a period it was the best shoe in my stable, and carried me to an unexpected PR at the Disney (Ice) Marathon. I was sad to hear not to long ago that the Launch was to be discontinued (and the fact that there never was a Launch 2 supports this), but there have been recent rumblings that it may have been spared – I hope so, as it’s a great shoe for its niche.
3. Saucony Kinvara
Anyone who has read Runblogger for any length of time knew that the Kinvara would be on my list (my Kinvara review here, which may be the longest review I have ever written). Though some might quibble that the Kinvara 3 was placed at #2 on Sneakerreport’s all-time list, when the dust has settled a few decades from now I’d say that there’s a fair chance that the Kinvara is among the top ten most memorable shoes. Saucony took a risk with the Kinvara by putting a lower offset shoe out there before most of the other big shoe companies, and it paid off big for them. The Kinvara is now in its third iteration and is among their best-selling shoes, and it has helped to push the lightweight trend that is now permeating the running shoe market. Personally, the original Kinvara is a shoe that disappears on my feet. Lightweight and low offset, it gives me almost everything that I need in a running shoe. What’s more, it carried me through my Boston-qualifying marathon, as well as through the Boston Marathon itself. You never forget a shoe that allows you those experiences, and the Kinvaras have earned their place in my running shoe Hall-of-Fame!
How about you, what are your personal top three shoes of all time?
My buddy Thomas at Believe in the Run posted a Tweet yesterday that linked to a post on Sneakerreport.com. The article provides their list of the 100 Best Running Sneakers of all time, and it’s one of those lists that is sure to stir up some strong feelings and fond memories. Though I can’t say I agree with the number of current year models included in the top ten, and I might debate their choice at position #1 (has to be an Onitsuka or early 1970’s NIke!), it was fun to scan through the images of shoes from the past 40-50 years. I give them credit for finding all of the photos that they included!
This list go me to thinking about my own running shoe history. Other than my bright orange Andre Agassi tennis shoes from high school (awesomeness!), I can’t honestly say that I remember any particular shoe prior to when I started running seriously in 2007. My brother sent me a picture of myself from 1980-81 (see left) wearing what looks like a Nike Cortez (and some sweet tube socks!), but my memorable shoes are all very recent.
In the spirit of the list, I thought I’d provide my personal top three shoes among those that I have worn over the past 5+ years. This isn’t so much a “best” shoe list as it is a list of those shoes that have been most meaningful to my development as a runner. They either set me off on a new path in my running, or carried me along as I accomplished some running goal. They all have their flaws with respect to my current preferences (the Saucony A5 is as near perfection as any to me now), but at the time that I wore them, they were perfection.
Here they are in no particular order:
1. Nike Free 3.0 v1
The original incarnation of the Nike Free 3.0 was a masterpiece. It was the shoe that led me away from heavy stability trainers and into the world of lightweight flexibility (you can read my dusty old review from May 2009 here). It wasn’t wide by any means, but to this day I’d say it has one of the best uppers I’ve ever worn, and the silence of the sole against the ground was magnificent. Unfortunately, the Free line is trending more and more towards fashion over function these days, and I put the 4th incarnation of the Free 3.0 up on Ebay after only one run. This is one shoe that will remain in my closet forever.
2. Brooks Launch
Ahh, the Launch. This was easily the best of the more traditionally styled shoes that I’ve owned (my review from November 2009 here). The Launch was a no frills shoe built for hard training that could step in for speedwork as well. The sole was on the soft side, and the heel-toe transition was fantastic (yes, I wore this long before I’d ever thought too much about my own running form). Given the higher offset, my days in the Launch have passed, but for a period it was the best shoe in my stable, and carried me to an unexpected PR at the Disney (Ice) Marathon. I was sad to hear not to long ago that the Launch was to be discontinued (and the fact that there never was a Launch 2 supports this), but there have been recent rumblings that it may have been spared – I hope so, as it’s a great shoe for its niche.
3. Saucony Kinvara
Anyone who has read Runblogger for any length of time knew that the Kinvara would be on my list (my Kinvara review here, which may be the longest review I have ever written). Though some might quibble that the Kinvara 3 was placed at #2 on Sneakerreport’s all-time list, when the dust has settled a few decades from now I’d say that there’s a fair chance that the Kinvara is among the top ten most memorable shoes. Saucony took a risk with the Kinvara by putting a lower offset shoe out there before most of the other big shoe companies, and it paid off big for them. The Kinvara is now in its third iteration and is among their best-selling shoes, and it has helped to push the lightweight trend that is now permeating the running shoe market. Personally, the original Kinvara is a shoe that disappears on my feet. Lightweight and low offset, it gives me almost everything that I need in a running shoe. What’s more, it carried me through my Boston-qualifying marathon, as well as through the Boston Marathon itself. You never forget a shoe that allows you those experiences, and the Kinvaras have earned their place in my running shoe Hall-of-Fame!
How about you, what are your personal top three shoes of all time?
I’m somewhat loathe to admit the amount of time I’ve spent over the past week scouring the web in search of good deals on running shoes and related gear (and even more importantly, Christmas presents for the kids!). So far I’ve only made one purchase (the new GPS watch that my saintly wife will be giving me for Christmas – finally upgrading from the Garmin 205 to the recently price-dropped Forerunner 610), but for shoe junkies there are plenty of good deals out there.
Below are some of the best among the running-specific sales that I’ve come across (update 11/27/2012 – I’ve removed all expired Cyber Monday only sales, remaining sales are still active - I will continue to update Holiday sales here as needed).
I’ll disclose that all links below are affiliate links, so any purchases you make through them help to support me and Runblogger.com – you save some money from the sales, and I get a small percentage of any purchase made. The content on this blog will always be freely accessible, and I purchase about half of the shoes that I review myself, so advertising and affiliate relationships support the work that I do and help to justify the time that I put in (which can be considerable!).
I greatly appreciate your continued support, and thanks for reading!
-6PM (Zappos owned discount/clearance site) has a bunch of minimal shoes and racing flats available at clearance/sale prices. Merrell Barefoot (Sonic, True, and Embark Gloves, Bare Access), Inov-8 (F-Lite 195), Mizuno (e.g., Universe), and New Balance shoes (MRC1600, MRC5000) are included.
-Leftlane Sports has a bunch of Inov-8 shoes on sale.Includes the Bare-X 180, Bare-X 150, Road-X 155, and F-lite 195 (among others).
I’m somewhat loathe to admit the amount of time I’ve spent over the past week scouring the web in search of good deals on running shoes and related gear (and even more importantly, Christmas presents for the kids!). So far I’ve only made one purchase (the new GPS watch that my saintly wife will be giving me for Christmas – finally upgrading from the Garmin 205 to the recently price-dropped Forerunner 610), but for shoe junkies there are plenty of good deals out there.
Below are some of the best among the running-specific sales that I’ve come across (update 11/27/2012 – I’ve removed all expired Cyber Monday only sales, remaining sales are still active - I will continue to update Holiday sales here as needed).
I’ll disclose that all links below are affiliate links, so any purchases you make through them help to support me and Runblogger.com – you save some money from the sales, and I get a small percentage of any purchase made. The content on this blog will always be freely accessible, and I purchase about half of the shoes that I review myself, so advertising and affiliate relationships support the work that I do and help to justify the time that I put in (which can be considerable!).
I greatly appreciate your continued support, and thanks for reading!
-6PM (Zappos owned discount/clearance site) has a bunch of minimal shoes and racing flats available at clearance/sale prices. Merrell Barefoot (Sonic, True, and Embark Gloves, Bare Access), Inov-8 (F-Lite 195), Mizuno (e.g., Universe), and New Balance shoes (MRC1600, MRC5000) are included.
-Leftlane Sports has a bunch of Inov-8 shoes on sale.Includes the Bare-X 180, Bare-X 150, Road-X 155, and F-lite 195 (among others).
A few weeks ago I got a cryptic email from Brooks asking for my shoe size and mailing address. It’s been awhile since I’ve had contact with Brooks, but was hoping that maybe I’d be the recipient of a pre-release sample of the new Pure Drift zero drop shoe. I recently saw that Scott Jurek had a pair delivered to him in a giant chocolate egg, but alas I’m not Scott Jurek, and there was no chocolate egg or Pure Drift for me :). Rather, I received a package just prior to Thanksgiving that contained a pair of the forthcoming Brooks PureCadence 2 disclosure: these shoes were a media sample provided free of charge by Brooks).
I have to hand it to Brooks – if there is one thing they’re good at it’s marketing. The shoes arrived in one of the fanciest shoeboxes I’ve ever seen:
The shoes themselves were equally eye-catching – the Pure Cadence is a darned good looking shoe:
Whereas I have reviewed the original iterations of the Brooks Pure Flow and Brooks Pure Slip Grit (both of which I liked), I never did buy a pair of the original Cadence. Thus, I checked the Running Warehouse blog for info on the update. RW reports that “the PureCadence 2 carries over the midsole and outsole of the original PureCadence, with a new upper featuring a redesigned Nav Band for better fit through the midfoot.” Thus, it seems that the major update is to the upper, which in this iteration includes a burrito style tongue (similar to the Green Silence).
Here’s a video from RW and Brooks detailing the updates:
So what are my first impressions of the PureCadence?
This is one of those shoes that feels very different on the run as compared to walking or standing still. When I first put them on my reaction was that they felt really soft and unstable, which is strange considering that the Cadence 2 is the “stability” offering in the Pure Project lineup. I did my usual single leg balance test and felt like the shoe tended to cave a bit toward the medial side of the forefoot - again, not what you’d want in a stability shoe. It is a comfortable shoe for walking if you like soft cushioning, but I was a bit worried about how they’d feel on the run.
With regard to fit, my initial impression was that they were a pretty snug shoe – not a lot of room up front, and not much vertical volume to the upper from top to bottom. I definitely felt a bit of a squeeze. However, much like I found with the Pure Grit, the manufacturer provided insole in the Cadence 2 was both thick and quite soft (5.5mm forefoot and heel). Swapping it out for a 1.7mm Skechers GoBionic insole increased volume by almost 4mm, which proved to be enough to make the shoe go from snug to plenty roomy (Skechers really needs to sell those things independently of the shoes for a few bucks!). The PureCadence 2 still does not have a wide forefoot by any means, but it’s sufficiently spacious for my medium width feet.
The upper of the Pure Cadence 2 is pretty highly structured – there is a prominent, hard heel counter, numerous overlays, and the fabric upper feels thick and plenty durable. The ankle collar is plush and cushioned, and interior fit and finish is great. As mentioned above, the included sockliner is thick and cushy, and it has a prominent arch support (this is reduced significantly by swapping out the insole.
Since the sole is unchanged from the original PureCadence, the dimensions should be the same at 22mm heel, 17mm forefoot. My size 10’s weigh in at about 9.5oz on my scale, so comparable to something like the Brooks Launch. The outsole is extensive (see photo below), and I expect that durability will be good.
I took the shoe out today for an easy 10K on the roads around my house – this was my first run in the shoes, so keep in mind that this is merely my first reaction (though as I have said before my first impression typically holds on future runs now that I’ve run in so many shoes).
Whereas the shoe felt really soft for standing and walking, it felt considerably firmer on the run – this might simply be because I tend to be a midfoot striker and the heel feels softer than the rest of the sole to me. It could also be that it was pretty cold out today, and soles tend to feel firmer in cold temperatures. I didn’t feel as noticeable a springiness in the sole as compared to the Brooks PureFlow, but again that could be due to the temp. The midsole of the PureCadence is composed of a mixture of BioMogo foam and Brooks DNA compound – the latter is supposed to adapt to the amount of force applied, and that may explain why the shoe felt firmer while running than in lower impact activities.
“Technology”
Let’s address a few of the “technologies” present in the PureCadence 2. I like to be honest in my reviews and not pull any punches, so here goes. One of my issues with Brooks, as well as with several other shoe companies, is that they tend to overhype technology. The PureProject is Brooks’ “feel-more-with-less” line of running shoes, but they seem to have a need to market the heck out of the so-called technology in the PureProject shoes.
“When it was announced that the Launch was to be discontinued, well, I don’t want to call it chaos, but s*** was ****ed up. Women in the streets rending their Lululemon. I know! Seriously! Mass jaywalking…Texas became the first state to make veganism the official religion. Like I just said, s*** was ****ed up! The design of the Launch reminds us of days before people missed workouts because their Garmin wasn’t charged; before people took gels on a 5 mile run; before people gave a s*** about over-pronation. At the same time, the Launch are what most minimalist… err biomechanically appropriate… shoes should be, albeit maybe with a higher offset. But you know what we’re talking about. They’re foam, with complete ground contact. Brooks, the number one brand at running specialty now, are dropping the Launch from their lineup, because Brooks believe that you can’t make a good running shoe without actually ****ing it up first, er, I mean adding a bunch of technology to it.”
The Brooks Launch was a great shoe because it was simple. The Brooks Flow, Grit, and Cadence are great shoes that I suspect are selling like crazy, and it’s not because of the “Nav Band” or the split toe. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced that either of these “technologies” do anything. The split toe doesn’t extend far enough back to be functional – if you follow the thumb-width in front of your longest toe method of fitting shoes (which I do), then very little of the big toe actually extends beyond the beginning of the split (see photo at left). What’s more, the split isn’t all that flexible to begin with (check out Eric Orton’s B2R shoes for a better implementation of a Tabi-style shoe design).
As for the Nav Band (the orange and black band over the midfoot seen in the photos), it’s a prominent “feature” of the Pureproject shoes, but it seems pretty redundant since the shoes have another (fairly effective) foot holding technology known as “laces.” I have yet to feel like the Nav Band on any of the PureProject shoes accomplishes much of anything, though I suppose if my laces came undone and fell off the shoes mid-run, the Nav Band might come in handy.
The one technology on the PureProject shoes that I do like a lot is the Ideal Heel, which Brooks refers to as an inverted heel, and others sometimes refer to as an undercut heel (see photo at right). The Ideal Heel removes the posterior flare found on the back of the sole of so many shoes, and moves the back edge of the heel to a level in front of the heel counter. I do feel like this will help shift the foot strike forward a bit for heel strikers, and it will reduce the lever arm that powers the foot-slap in a heel-striking runner (might help those prone to anterior shin splints). The inverted heel gives the shoes an almost Skechers GoRun like feel while standing – you tend to tip a bit backward if you shift weight posteriorly while standing in the shoes.
Conclusion
Despite my above complaints about the overhyped technology in these shoes, I finished my run today with a very positive opinion of the PureCadence 2. Because it’s heavily cushioned, it’s not a shoe for those wanting a barefoot-style feel. But, for those happy in the transitional zone, or looking to move down to less shoe from a traditional stability trainer, this would be a pretty mild step that accomplishes a lower drop and a nicely designed heel geometry. One note on the stability aspect of this shoe – I can’t honestly say that it feels any more stable than the Pure Flow, so I wouldn’t necessarily let that be a deciding factor in choosing between those two shoes.
I’m quite sure that the Pure Cadence 2 will sell very well for Brooks. It’s a great looking shoe, and has great step-in comfort for those wanting an ultra-cush feel underfoot. A further plus is that it actually sheds that somewhat excessive cushiness a bit on the run and provides a reasonably firm base of support. It’s a shoe that will work for any distance, and could easily handle a marathon if that’s your goal. It’s also a shoe that offers a fairly mild entry into the minimalist end of the running shoe spectrum – this is one you can move into without having to worry about shedding your cushioning too quickly. However, with the cushioning comes a lack of ground feel, so it’s far from a barefoot-style shoe.
In my opinion, shoes like the PureCadence 2 and Saucony Mirage are likely the future “center” of the running shoe spectrum. Lightweight, moderate drop, and plenty of cushion. It’s a pretty safe place for a beginner to start, and then add or subtract shoe as needed or desired. It’s a shoe that I will recommend when appropriate, though I’m still waiting to try the Brooks Drift…
A few weeks ago I got a cryptic email from Brooks asking for my shoe size and mailing address. It’s been awhile since I’ve had contact with Brooks, but was hoping that maybe I’d be the recipient of a pre-release sample of the new Pure Drift zero drop shoe. I recently saw that Scott Jurek had a pair delivered to him in a giant chocolate egg, but alas I’m not Scott Jurek, and there was no chocolate egg or Pure Drift for me :). Rather, I received a package just prior to Thanksgiving that contained a pair of the forthcoming Brooks PureCadence 2 disclosure: these shoes were a media sample provided free of charge by Brooks).
I have to hand it to Brooks – if there is one thing they’re good at it’s marketing. The shoes arrived in one of the fanciest shoeboxes I’ve ever seen:
The shoes themselves were equally eye-catching – the Pure Cadence is a darned good looking shoe:
Whereas I have reviewed the original iterations of the Brooks Pure Flow and Brooks Pure Slip Grit (both of which I liked), I never did buy a pair of the original Cadence. Thus, I checked the Running Warehouse blog for info on the update. RW reports that “the PureCadence 2 carries over the midsole and outsole of the original PureCadence, with a new upper featuring a redesigned Nav Band for better fit through the midfoot.” Thus, it seems that the major update is to the upper, which in this iteration includes a burrito style tongue (similar to the Green Silence).
Here’s a video from RW and Brooks detailing the updates:
So what are my first impressions of the PureCadence?
This is one of those shoes that feels very different on the run as compared to walking or standing still. When I first put them on my reaction was that they felt really soft and unstable, which is strange considering that the Cadence 2 is the “stability” offering in the Pure Project lineup. I did my usual single leg balance test and felt like the shoe tended to cave a bit toward the medial side of the forefoot - again, not what you’d want in a stability shoe. It is a comfortable shoe for walking if you like soft cushioning, but I was a bit worried about how they’d feel on the run.
With regard to fit, my initial impression was that they were a pretty snug shoe – not a lot of room up front, and not much vertical volume to the upper from top to bottom. I definitely felt a bit of a squeeze. However, much like I found with the Pure Grit, the manufacturer provided insole in the Cadence 2 was both thick and quite soft (5.5mm forefoot and heel). Swapping it out for a 1.7mm Skechers GoBionic insole increased volume by almost 4mm, which proved to be enough to make the shoe go from snug to plenty roomy (Skechers really needs to sell those things independently of the shoes for a few bucks!). The PureCadence 2 still does not have a wide forefoot by any means, but it’s sufficiently spacious for my medium width feet.
The upper of the Pure Cadence 2 is pretty highly structured – there is a prominent, hard heel counter, numerous overlays, and the fabric upper feels thick and plenty durable. The ankle collar is plush and cushioned, and interior fit and finish is great. As mentioned above, the included sockliner is thick and cushy, and it has a prominent arch support (this is reduced significantly by swapping out the insole.
Since the sole is unchanged from the original PureCadence, the dimensions should be the same at 22mm heel, 17mm forefoot. My size 10’s weigh in at about 9.5oz on my scale, so comparable to something like the Brooks Launch. The outsole is extensive (see photo below), and I expect that durability will be good.
I took the shoe out today for an easy 10K on the roads around my house – this was my first run in the shoes, so keep in mind that this is merely my first reaction (though as I have said before my first impression typically holds on future runs now that I’ve run in so many shoes).
Whereas the shoe felt really soft for standing and walking, it felt considerably firmer on the run – this might simply be because I tend to be a midfoot striker and the heel feels softer than the rest of the sole to me. It could also be that it was pretty cold out today, and soles tend to feel firmer in cold temperatures. I didn’t feel as noticeable a springiness in the sole as compared to the Brooks PureFlow, but again that could be due to the temp. The midsole of the PureCadence is composed of a mixture of BioMogo foam and Brooks DNA compound – the latter is supposed to adapt to the amount of force applied, and that may explain why the shoe felt firmer while running than in lower impact activities.
“Technology”
Let’s address a few of the “technologies” present in the PureCadence 2. I like to be honest in my reviews and not pull any punches, so here goes. One of my issues with Brooks, as well as with several other shoe companies, is that they tend to overhype technology. The PureProject is Brooks’ “feel-more-with-less” line of running shoes, but they seem to have a need to market the heck out of the so-called technology in the PureProject shoes.
“When it was announced that the Launch was to be discontinued, well, I don’t want to call it chaos, but s*** was ****ed up. Women in the streets rending their Lululemon. I know! Seriously! Mass jaywalking…Texas became the first state to make veganism the official religion. Like I just said, s*** was ****ed up! The design of the Launch reminds us of days before people missed workouts because their Garmin wasn’t charged; before people took gels on a 5 mile run; before people gave a s*** about over-pronation. At the same time, the Launch are what most minimalist… err biomechanically appropriate… shoes should be, albeit maybe with a higher offset. But you know what we’re talking about. They’re foam, with complete ground contact. Brooks, the number one brand at running specialty now, are dropping the Launch from their lineup, because Brooks believe that you can’t make a good running shoe without actually ****ing it up first, er, I mean adding a bunch of technology to it.”
The Brooks Launch was a great shoe because it was simple. The Brooks Flow, Grit, and Cadence are great shoes that I suspect are selling like crazy, and it’s not because of the “Nav Band” or the split toe. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced that either of these “technologies” do anything. The split toe doesn’t extend far enough back to be functional – if you follow the thumb-width in front of your longest toe method of fitting shoes (which I do), then very little of the big toe actually extends beyond the beginning of the split (see photo at left). What’s more, the split isn’t all that flexible to begin with (check out Eric Orton’s B2R shoes for a better implementation of a Tabi-style shoe design).
As for the Nav Band (the orange and black band over the midfoot seen in the photos), it’s a prominent “feature” of the Pureproject shoes, but it seems pretty redundant since the shoes have another (fairly effective) foot holding technology known as “laces.” I have yet to feel like the Nav Band on any of the PureProject shoes accomplishes much of anything, though I suppose if my laces came undone and fell off the shoes mid-run, the Nav Band might come in handy.
The one technology on the PureProject shoes that I do like a lot is the Ideal Heel, which Brooks refers to as an inverted heel, and others sometimes refer to as an undercut heel (see photo at right). The Ideal Heel removes the posterior flare found on the back of the sole of so many shoes, and moves the back edge of the heel to a level in front of the heel counter. I do feel like this will help shift the foot strike forward a bit for heel strikers, and it will reduce the lever arm that powers the foot-slap in a heel-striking runner (might help those prone to anterior shin splints). The inverted heel gives the shoes an almost Skechers GoRun like feel while standing – you tend to tip a bit backward if you shift weight posteriorly while standing in the shoes.
Conclusion
Despite my above complaints about the overhyped technology in these shoes, I finished my run today with a very positive opinion of the PureCadence 2. Because it’s heavily cushioned, it’s not a shoe for those wanting a barefoot-style feel. But, for those happy in the transitional zone, or looking to move down to less shoe from a traditional stability trainer, this would be a pretty mild step that accomplishes a lower drop and a nicely designed heel geometry. One note on the stability aspect of this shoe – I can’t honestly say that it feels any more stable than the Pure Flow, so I wouldn’t necessarily let that be a deciding factor in choosing between those two shoes.
I’m quite sure that the Pure Cadence 2 will sell very well for Brooks. It’s a great looking shoe, and has great step-in comfort for those wanting an ultra-cush feel underfoot. A further plus is that it actually sheds that somewhat excessive cushiness a bit on the run and provides a reasonably firm base of support. It’s a shoe that will work for any distance, and could easily handle a marathon if that’s your goal. It’s also a shoe that offers a fairly mild entry into the minimalist end of the running shoe spectrum – this is one you can move into without having to worry about shedding your cushioning too quickly. However, with the cushioning comes a lack of ground feel, so it’s far from a barefoot-style shoe.
In my opinion, shoes like the PureCadence 2 and Saucony Mirage are likely the future “center” of the running shoe spectrum. Lightweight, moderate drop, and plenty of cushion. It’s a pretty safe place for a beginner to start, and then add or subtract shoe as needed or desired. It’s a shoe that I will recommend when appropriate, though I’m still waiting to try the Brooks Drift…
I’ve been the lucky recipient of a crazy number of pre-release shoe samples over the past week or so, here’s a flavor of what’s to come – just the incentive I needed to get my mileage back in gear!
I’ve been the lucky recipient of a crazy number of pre-release shoe samples over the past week or so, here’s a flavor of what’s to come – just the incentive I needed to get my mileage back in gear!
A bit over a year ago I wrote a post on the somewhat complex relationship between running shoe midsoles, ground surface properties, muscle tuning, and limb stiffness (read the muscle tuning-limb stiffness post here). As a result of my experience with shoes, the research I did while writing my book, and conversations with gait experts, I’ve come to believe that if we had a simple way of matching shoes to runners in order to optimize muscle tuning and limb stiffness for an individual on the surface they plan to run on, we’d be close to the holy grail of shoe fitting protocols.
So what does this have to do with a shoe review? Well, the New Balance MR1600 racing flat is a shoe that scores points for me in nearly every category, but it lacks that certain something that would make it rise above the rest in a niche filled with some pretty amazing footwear.
A few months ago I reviewed the New Balance RC5000, which is NB’s ultralight racing flat. It’s a solid shoe, but I was a bit concerned about the narrow fit through the midfoot and the tendency for my ankles to tilt inward when standing in the shoe as a result. Durability was also a concern.
Weighing in at under 5.9oz in size 10.5, the RC1600 is like a beefier brother to the RC5000 (which weighs 3.5oz), and improves on it in a number of ways. Though the fit is similar in the two shoes, the thicker sole stack height of the RC1600 (21mm heel: 14mm forefoot) makes it feel a bit more stable under the midfoot – the sense of rolling in is not as pronounced. Along with the thicker stack comes a higher drop – 6mm with the insole out, and 8mm with the included insole. As I typically do, I swapped out the insole for one of my Skechers masterpieces - a barely there, 2mm thick insole of uniform width in both the heel and forefoot. The 6mm drop may be too much for some, but it feels fine to me.
The midsole of the RC1600 is fairly stiff, maybe just slightly less so than the RC5000, and this is a good thing in a shoe built for speed. When running fast I find that a stiffer shoe gives a little more pop, and this is the reason why the adidas Hagio remains my favorite flat for speed work and 5K racing (just got a pair of the adidas Takumi Sen, which may turn out to be even better in this regard).
The outsole on the RC1600 is a big plus. Unlike some other racing flats which opt for little rubber nubs glued to the sole, the RC1600 has full rubber pods covering prime wear areas on the lateral heel and midfoot, and across the entire width of the forefoot. Nubs are present, but only on the tip of the forefoot and the front of the arch. I’ve personally not had issues with rubber nubs falling off, but have heard from people who have experienced this in other shoes - I may simply not get enough miles on a pair of flats to experience the issue. Given the outsole configuration, I expect the sole durability of the RC1600 should be very good relative to other racing flats.
The upper of the RC1600 is really, really nice. It’s a great looking shoe, and extremely comfortable, even on a sockless foot. The ankle collar is soft and does not dig in, and the fabric mesh that the upper is composed of is soft as well – no hot spots for me in this shoe. The upper seems very well constructed, and I expect it will be much more durable than that of the RC5000.
As is typical of racing flats, the RC1600 is not a wide shoe. However, I ordered a half size up (these were a personal purchase) and do not feel squeezed at all. I’d say the fit is just a tad narrower than the Saucony Grid Type A5, and identical to the RC5000. For those of you with wide feet in need of a road flat, the Mizuno Universe is probably your best bet.
So what’s not to like about this shoe? Really, I like the shoe a lot, and highly recommend it as a racing flat. My only real complaint about the design is the the sides of the tongue tend to fold under when putting the shoe on, but that’s just a small annoyance and easily fixed in an update.
My real issue with the shoe, and the one that brings us back to the muscle tuning discussion in the first paragraph, is that the sole just does not feel like a good match for me. I typically like shoe soles to either disappear on my feet (Saucony A5) or provide some amount of stiffness and pop (adidas Hagio) to make me want to go fast (see my 5 rules for determining if a running shoe is right for you). The sole of the NB RC1600 just feels kind of dead or flat to me. I can tell it’s there, and it seems to rob me of the kind of pop I expect from a shoe like this. My guess is that this is entirely and individual thing, and the shoe is just not the right match for my body, so I’d live to hear your experience if you’ve run in this shoe.
Conclusion
The New Balance RC1600 is a solid offering among racing flats. Fit is adequately wide on my medium width feet (after going a half size up), durability should be good (30 miles on mine with no real significant wear), and they are lightweight and good looking. This is definitely one to consider if you’re in the market for a flat!
Fellow NH runner Sam Winebaum read my recent Top 3 running shoe post and decided to write his own list. Sam’s list is a bit different than mine, because he was a serious competitive runner when I was still in diapers – he ran through the running boom of the 1970s and happened to live in the town where Nike set up their early R&D lab (Exeter, NH). As such, he has some great perspective on shoes from the ‘70s.
:.