Saturday, January 20, 2018

OOFOS OOCloog Sport Clogs: Recover Anywhere, Any Time, And In Style!

The OOFOS OOCloog Sport ($70) is an incredibly comfortable "recovery" clog (also available in slide, mule and thong styles) whose patented OOfoam absorbs 37% more shock than the foam in running shoes.  The video below explains the technology.
Very light, with a patented arch supporting footbed the closed cell form does not absorb moisture or tend to absorb odors. They are machine washable and are surprisingly long lasting. My pair received in early December is showing almost no wear at all of the outsole. The comfort and durability is truly outstanding.

It's not that OOFOS is new to RoadTrailRun. We have followed and used various styles of their footwear almost from the day the company first started selling them. But there was a problem...

The original OOFOS were in matte colors of black, brown, or baby blue.  Fine just after a race but quite frankly too loud and crude, at least for us, as day in day out, pretty much any occasion footwear, which we wished we could use them for, as they are so comfortable. And runners' legs are sore after workouts and in need of some relief, pretty much around the clock.
At The Running Event OOFOS gave us a pair of the new OOCloog Sport.  We literally have worn them around the clock: around the house, driving, around town, in the evening to go out, and even for work occasions.
What did OOFOS do? Simple really.  The men's clog is now a shoe like glossy brown fading to black from the lower upper to the midsole/upper. Voila!  It looks like a regular leather dress clog or boot, or certainly close enough. And the women's models also get the style "upgrade'.

Women aren't left out that's for sure with a Geo and Luxe collection of new colors and always that supreme comfort.

The Satin Latte color was particularly striking, subtle and classy. As OO has styled up the platform has stayed true to the comfort. There are also slides and thongs and new OOmg high and low shoe styles available.
Got tired feet? Need some recovery but don't want to look like you live on a pool deck. 
Check out OOFOS! We are huge fans and now we get to "Feel the OO" anywhere, any time, and in style.

Comments Questions Welcome Below!

Visit our 2018 Previews Page here for 2018 run shoe, apparel, and gear previews. 
Watch our YouTube Channel  here for 2018 Run Previews and Wearable Tech Reviews 
Visit our Index Page here for over 80 in depth 2017 & 2018 shoe and gear reviews

Like & Follow Road Trail Run  Twitter: @roadtrailrun 
Instagram:roadtrailrun   RTR YouTube: RoadTrailRun

RoadTrailRun receives a commission for purchases through the stores below. 
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun's work. Thanks!

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Comparative Review- Garmin Fenix 5x with Topo 24k Map Bundle vs. Suunto Spartan Sport Wrist HR Baro

Article by Jeff Valliere

Suunto Spartan Sport Wrist HR Baro - $549 ($599 with HR Smartsensor)
Garmin Fenix 5x - $649.99

After recently reviewing the Suunto Spartan Sport Wrist HR Baro (review here), I was intrigued to test it side by side with the flagship Garmin Fenix 5x to compare GPS accuracy, wrist HR accuracy, navigation capabilities and overall usability and customization options.  Sam has already published an in depth and detailed review of the 5x (review here), so this is a supplemental comparison review. Here I plan to add some additional perspectives from use in mountainous terrain and also review Garmin’s 24k Southwest map bundle that they graciously provided to us.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Salomon Running Avenue Sonic RA and Sonic RA Max Reviews: Masterpieces of Functional Run Shoe Design. Light, Stable, Supportive and Fast

Article by Dave Ames, Shannon Payne, Peter Stuart, Tiffany Teaford and Sam Winebaum

February 1st Salomon introduces all new road shoes with its Running Avenue line. Solidly designed and built, and scientifically grounded, this new line provides light, fast supportive models ranging from a performance trainer the Sonic RA Pro, to a light daily trainer Sonic RA, to a more supportive trainer the Sonic RA Max. We put two models, the Sonic RA and Sonic RA Max to the test. We will also soon test the Sonic RA Pro.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Brooks Running Ravenna 9 Review: Neutral Runner Wowed by its Light Stability

Article by Dave Ames

Brooks Ravenna 9

Known for many years as a “hybrid” in the Brooks Running line, the Ravenna 9  can be ever so slightly categorized as a stability or guidance shoe.  Using a diagonal rollbar, the Ravenna 9 provides just the smallest amount of additional support to keep a smooth heel to toe transition going.  The Ravenna 9 sheds 0.7 oz of weight always welcome, making the Ravenna a very light shoe in the light guidance class. It boasts the BioMoGo DNA cushioning system to give an ever so responsive, yet fast ride for an everyday trainer.  The new engineered mesh upper is a pleasant change from Brooks previously, in my opinion,“stale” uppers. It fits like a glove.  I have had very pleasant running experiences in the Ravenna 9. 

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Topo Athletic Magnifly 2 Review: Impressive zero drop balance of attractiveness, comfort, and function

Article by Larisa Dannis

Editor's Introduction
The Topo Athletic Magnifly 2 updates the original Magnifly (RTR review) with a change in geometry from a 25mm heel/20mm forefoot, 5mm drop to a 25 mm heel and forefoot zero drop geometry. The midsole is now dual density with softer foam underfoot for cushion and firmer foam below for response. It gains 0.6 oz in weight over the Magnifly 1 which very likely is due to the added 5mm foam in the forefoot. Magnifly features a new and more streamlined seamless upper. It retains Topo’s signature anatomical toe box.

Weight Women’s US8 8.6 oz/166 g,  Men’s US9 9.4 oz/226 g
Stack Height: 25mm/25mm, 0 drop
$110. Available now from Running Warehouse here

Altra Superior 3.5 Review: Refined, Stellar, Potentially Polarizing

Article by Dominick Layfield with Dave Ames

Official Stats:
  • Stack height 21 mm
  • Weight 10.3 oz / 292 g  (usually referenced against US M10)
  • $110 MSRP
  • Available now (Dec 2017 release)
  • Men’s size 10 US weighed 654 g (pair) or 11.5 oz / 327 g  per shoe INCLUDING “stone guard” rock plate.

  • With “stone guard” removed, same shoes weighed 584 g per pair or 10.3 oz / 292 g per shoe.

  • Stone guard weighed 70 g (2.5 oz) per pair


Altra’s trail shoe line-up used to be simple:  Superior, Lone Peak, Timp,  in order of increasing cushioning.  With the addition of the King MT with 19 mm nominal stack height, the Superior (21 mm) now comes fills the number two slot in the sequence.  Lone Peak stack is 25 mm, and Timp is 29 mm.

As ever, things are not quite as simple as that progression seems.  Altra’s various trail offerings have different tread patterns.  The King MT has an aggressive outsole with dense 6mm lugs.  The Superior tread pattern is sparser, with less prominent lugs (I couldn’t find official numbers, but I measured the lugs at ~4 mm).   The Lone Peak tread pattern, with large squarish lugs, works better on a range of surfaces, including pavement.   The Timp tread is similar to the Superior.   Can you discern the pattern?   If so, then you’re a better man than me!

  • Superior and Timp PFS2-M
  • Lone Peak SD6-M
  • King MT RFS-M
First Impressions and Fit

If you’re a fan of the previous iteration of the Superior (3.0), you’ll find that not much has changed.  This is a relatively minor update, with some tweaks to the upper to improve durability, and a modified heel sling to accommodate Altra’s new four-point gaiter, that has hooks on either side of the foot in addition to the previous front hook and rear velcro attachment point.

I’d not previously run in the 3.0, and was expecting that the Superior would have a similar fit to the Lone Peak 3.0 and 3.5 since I understood this shoe to be targeted at runners wanting to go faster over shorter distances and wanting a shoe that was closer to the ground.  Consequently, I was surprised to find a much roomier forefoot, more reminiscent of the Lone Peak 2.5.

My initial runs were on relatively smooth, soft trails, and I was struck that the shoe felt curiously removed from the trail, with good rock protection but little sensitivity.   It felt disconnected, and -- despite the comparatively low stack -- somewhat ponderous.

BUT... the Superior has a removable rock plate under the footbed, which Altra brands the “Stone Guard”.  With this removed, I found the character of the shoe much different and (to my taste at least) much improved.  The shoe not only felt lighter, but more sensitive and more nimble.   The downside was that the removal of the stone guard made an already roomy shoe feel oversized.  I compensated for the extra space by inserting a slim footbed from an old pair of sneakers (Nike TK3) and was very pleased with the feel of the resulting ensemble.

Dave:  I previously did not have much trail or road time in an Altra.  Over the past few years I’ve been going more away from the lower drop/zero drop footwear as I have been feeling much more beat up after marathon training blocks in these types of shoes.  However, initial fit and step in on the Superior 3.5 was very, very nice!  I have a narrow foot, but loved the wider toe box and snug midfoot grab on this shoe.  Loved the red colorway on the pair that I received.  


The upper fabric is a lightweight, dense mesh with welded overlays for reinforcement.  It feels light and durable.  Generally, I felt the choice was excellent.  On dry, dusty Los Angeles trails, the weave was dense enough that dust ingress was limited.  On muddy, wet English trails, the upper shed mud nicely, and -- while nowhere near water-resistant -- the bulk of light splashes ran off quickly with minimal absorption.  Breathability seemed good, too.  

Overall, I felt that the upper was excellent.  The only downside that I could think of was that there’s very little elasticity to it.

With the exception of the Altra logo itself, all the overlays seemed functional, rather than decorative.  (And no silly mountain graphics like on the Altra Lone Peak!)

The gaiter attachment points sewn into the heel sling is also a useful addition.  I didn’t have a pair of the new “Four-point” gaiters from Altra to test with, but I did try some Inov-8 gaiters with similar side hooks (but lacking rear velcro attachment point) and found they worked well.

The tongue is conventionally gusseted.  

Dave:  I’ll second Dom here on a light and durable upper.  For the type of trail running I do, which is a mix of Upstate NY single track and Southern California cruisers, the shoe needs to withstand multiple weather conditions, yet not be overly aggressive.  I had a great run in Upstate NY on the trails in snow, ice and sleet, as well as snowpack.  My feet were warm and relatively dry.  While I may not be running the most rugged trails compared to the awesomeness of Colorado or Utah, this shoe and upper will do just fine for what I need.  I think that’s a perfect category to put this shoe in.  “Get’s the job done.”


Not too much to say here.  I’m a fan of Altra’s A-Bound version of EVA foam.  It gives a very pleasing “creamy” ground feel that absorbs a lot of harshness.  I didn’t test the Superior on pavement, and certainly not in a side-by-side test, so can’t comment much on rebound and energy return, which is typically a much bigger factor on road than trail.

In the past, I’ve found that A-Bound has excellent durability.  I’ve had Altra shoes fail from upper wear, but have not observed any midsole compression or loss of resilience after many hundred miles of use.  In the Superior, the midsole is exposed through several cut-outs in the outsole, and appears to be holding up well.

Dave:  I had the opportunity to run on the road vs. the trail in the Superior 3.5, just to get an initial idea of how the A-Bound midsole reacted under my foot before I took it to the trail.  There is no question that this shoe is made for the trails, but the A-Bound works quite well in transitioning the runner smoothly and efficiently and I felt that on the roads as well.  Taking this baby to the trails, it’s so so smooth.  My stride felt amazing on the limited trail time I got in this thing (SoCal fires put a big damper on the amount of time I got in)  You find the sweet spot ever so nicely in the Superior 3.5 and add the trail feel to that and they have built a winner here.  Nice snappiness and your legs feel ever so fresh on the trails shaping mile after mile of happiness.


I liked the outsole material, thickness, and tread pattern in all the conditions I tested (dry, dusty dirt through wet mud).  The lugs are fairly small and widely spaced, which meant that mud is shed relatively quickly.  Traction was good in all conditions.  The only caveat might be that grip on wet rock didn’t feel particularly reassuring.

I’m not convinced by the strange flap of outsole that cantilevers out, extending past the back of the heel, which felt superfluous.  Maybe someone who loves this feature (shared by the Altra Timp, but not Lone Peak or King MT) can explain to me what it achieves.  In testing, I had to restrain myself from trimming it off completely.
Dave:  As stated earlier, I do not run overly aggressive trails, so the Superior 3.5 for me, honestly, has more or about the same outsole as I am used to (Skechers GoTrail etc) - - The tread pattern as Dom states, never collected too much mud, snow or rocks by any means.  My runs were in the winter in Upstate NY and SoCal, so I did not get to test the Superior 3.5 on any slippery rock or algae/moss that can build up and be treacherous to a trail runner (mostly East Coast unless in the PNW)


As mentioned above in the “First Impressions” section, I found that the Superior was more to my liking with the “stone guard” insert removed.  This thin piece of plastic makes a surprisingly large difference to both the feel and the weight of the shoe.  With the Stone Guard in place, I thought the shoe was lacking in ground feel.  With the Stone Guard removed, the shoe felt much improved: more nimble, and with better underfoot sensitivity.

Of course, the “right” amount of cushioning and the optimal trade-off between rock protection vs ground feel are a matter not just of personal taste, but also depend on terrain and duration of activity.

When I’m reviewing shoes, I try to review them “as supplied”, but outside of that domain, I like to play with various different insoles to tweak the feel and fit of the shoe for different conditions, sock thicknesses etc.  As such, I was expecting to really like the customizability provided by the removable rock plate.   In reality, I was a little disappointed.  While I love the idea, I found the shoe imbalanced with the “stone guard” in place.  Moreover, the insert added a surprising amount of weight (70g, 2.5 oz per pair), and was thick enough (~1.8 mm, 0.07 inch) that the shoe felt noticeably roomier with the plate removed.

Dave:  Just an extremely pleasant ride for me in the Superior 3.5.  Fast, snappy and smooth, allowing nice level landing and quick heel to toe transition.  I felt confident and connected to the trails in this shoe and would recommend it to anyone.  Run after run (as stated earlier...not as much trail time as I would have liked) it got better and better.  I plan on using this shoe for its entire life cycle and have become a huge Altra trail fan because of it.  For Zero drop, which has been a while since I’ve been back running in, I noticed no issues at all in getting back used to this platform.  I felt fresh and ready to attack the trails the next day.  My runs ranged from 60 mins of rollers to 2.5 hours of singletrack.  Nothing crazy, but enough to test out at various paces and aggressive hill climbs.


The fit of the Superior 3.5 is classic Altra.  It has a wide toebox that provides a roomy fit.  Personally, I like this type of fit more for training than for racing.

If you have an unusually wide foot, this may be a “hallelujah” shoe (particularly with the “stone guard” insert removed).  If you have narrow feet and/or like a snug fit, the Superior 3.5 is unlikely to work for you.

Otherwise, the midfoot retention is excellent, and I experienced no other fit issues.

Dave:  I am a classic size 9 in most trainers across the board and had no issues with length or width. Perfect fit for me.

Conclusions and Recommendations

I think the Superior will be a polarizing shoe, in that some people will love it, and others hate it.  It has a wide toe box in the classic Altra tradition.  The fit reminded my of the Lone Peak 2.5.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but based on my experience with recent Altra shoes (Lone Peak 3.0 & 3.5 and Torin 2.5 & 3.0),  my impression was that Altra have been moving away from this to a more mainstream fit.
I preferred the feel of the shoe with the “Stone Guard” insert removed.  However, this made an already roomy shoe noticeably roomier.  I added an extra insole to replace the missing thickness.   If I were buying the shoe, I might be tempted to drop a ½ size down.   However, the smaller size might then be a little short.

In most other respects, I found the Superior 3.5 to be a stellar trail shoe.  Material choice was excellent.  Running dynamics were excellent.  Grip was good.  You can tell that this is a shoe that has been refined over several iterations.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment is weight.  Although not exactly heavy, the Superior 3.5 are way off the cutting edge.   With the rockplate installed, my pair of size US M10 weighed 654 g (22.9 oz).  I keep a spreadsheet with the weights of every pair of shoes I’ve owned or tested.  Of the 25 shoes I’ve measured, the Superior 3.5 (including stone guard) is the 2nd heaviest.  The only shoe that was heavier was the Altra Lone Peak 3.0 Neoshell (waterproof version), at 656 g -- and I made a note that I weighed these dirty (i.e. covered in mud).

With the Stone Guard removed, the 580 g weight puts the Superior 3.5 right in the same ballpark as the Nike Terra Kiger, Hoka Speed Instinct, and Brooks Mazama.  (See comparisons below)

Dave:  Overall a solid shoe with all I am really looking for in a trail shoe.  Again, I just don’t have the time with a full time coaching business and marathon training to get out to the trails consistently, so the Superior 3.5 fits the bill just fine for me.  It’s aggressive enough for some nasty conditions on the East Coast and can cruise on the dry dirt here in SoCal (Santa Monica Mountains, LA Crest etc) - - If you are looking for a legit trail shoe, reasonably priced, good fit and boasting a snappy midsole, Superior 3.5 is for you.  If you plan on getting a little more gnarly, check out the more aggressive models in Altra’s lineup.


Dom's Score:  9/10

  • -0.5 for a toebox that seems excessively wide, particularly with rockplate removed
    • However, for some runners this will be a +0.5!
  • -0.5 for rockplate weight and thickness
I really like the Superior 3.5.  I prefered the dynamics of the shoe with the Stone Guard removed, but felt this made the shoe excessively roomy.  The shoe could be more competitive weight-wise, particularly with the Stone Guard in place.

Dave Score:  10/10
I honestly had not a single issue with this shoe!  Great work by Golden and his team!


Altra Superior 3.5 vs. Skechers Performance Go Trail 2
Dave:  While on 2 different platforms (4mm vs. Zero) these are now my go to trail shoes for someone who would love to get more trail time in, but just can’t.  The Go Trail 2 is much more underfoot, which I think I used to like, but after running in the Superior 3.5, I think I have found a new winner.  I feel much more connected to the trail in the Superior.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs. Newton Boco Sol (yes, I just went there with the old school Newton)
Dave:  It’s funny, I’d have to say the Superior feels somewhat similar to the old Boco Sol by Newton.  I found the sweet spot upon footfall well in both of these.  The Superior wins out however, as I just feel far more connected and confident on the zero drop platform, compared to 3mm in the Newton.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs. Brooks Caldera/Cascadia (RTR review under Brooks here)
Dave:  Just too much shoe with the Caldera or Cascadia.  I enjoy feeling connected to the trail….feeling each and rock and root (in a good way) and I just don’t get that in the Brooks.  Both are just too much shoe for me for the trails.

Dom: I haven’t tried recent iterations of the Cascadia, but I have a pair of the Caldera 2 (24, 28 mm stack).  I was impressed with the overall feel of the Caldera.   I did feel that the sole of the Caldera is a little stiff: I had the sensation of tipping off rocks in the Caldera, instead of the sole conforming around the protuberance.   At 600 g for M10, the Caldera 2 is still 50 g lighter per pair than the Superior 3.5.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs. Skechers Performance Go Trail Ultra 4
Dave:  I used to like the maximal capabilities of the Skechers Go Trail Ultra 4.  And while an absolutely outstanding shoe, I use it now more for road miles on snowy slushy roads.  On the trail, the Trail Ultra 4 gets very sloppy for me laterally and I roll my ankles.  I do not feel confident as I do in the Superior 3.5.  Altra for the win here...but I still keep the Skechers for the roads.  Zero drop vs. Maximal.  Too different categories anyways.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs Topo MT-2 
Dom: The MT-2 (RTR review) feels very similar to the Superior.  Both shoes are low to the ground.  MT-2 stack height (20, 23 mm) is almost identical to Superior (21 mm).  The MT-2 has a small (3 mm) drop and slightly narrower forefoot, but very similar character.  There is, however, a dramatic difference in weight.  MT-2 weighs 522 g (18.4 oz) per pair US M10, as compared to 650 g (22.9 oz) for Superior 3.5 including Stone Guard.  That may be a little unfair, as the Superior offers slightly more rock protection with the Stone Guard.  Even with the Stone Guard removed (580 g), the weight difference is still significant.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs Nike Terra Kiger 4
Dom: Another trail shoe in the same ballpark for trail feel, stack height (20, 24 mm) as Altra Superior.  The Terra Kiger 4 (RTR review)’s weight is similar to the Superior without Stone Guard, but rock protection is better in TK4 (than Superior sans Stone Guard, comparable to Superior with Stone Guard).   For my feet, at least, the Nike Terra Kiger series is the benchmark for fit, conforming (after initial break-in) like a glove, and striking the Goldilocks balance between stack height, trail feel and protection.

Altra Superior 3.5 vs Hoka Speed Instinct 2
Dom: Out of the Hoka lineup, I think the Speed Instinct 2 (RTR review) is closest in character to the Superior 3.5.  Weight for the SI2 is about the same as Superior without Stone Guard.  The SI2 sits a little higher off the ground (22, 25 mm stack) and provides more cushioning without a rock plate.  Fit is very different: the Hoka forefoot is much narrower, but with stretchy upper fabric that enables it to accommodate moderately wide feet.  

Altra Superior 3.5 vs Brooks Mazama 2
Dom: These shoes should both be in the “fast and light” end of trail shoes, although Mazama 2( (RTR review) is a very different beast and feels a lot more like a race shoe than the Superior.  Mazama 2 (15, 21 mm stack) is lower to the ground up front.  The Mazama is substantially narrower in the forefoot, with a stiffer, thinner sole.  Mazama 2 weighed 585 g in US M10, so pretty much identical to Superior with Stone Guard removed.

Dom Layfield is an accomplished trail runner with a background and PhD in bio mechanical engineering from MIT.  His 2017 achievements include first place in the dead of winter 2017 108-mile Spine Challenger race in the UK, breaking the course record by an hour, first place in the Quicksilver 100K in California, and 14th at the Western States Endurance Run. 

Dave Ames is the Founder and Head Coach of Ame For It Run Coaching, a nationwide run coaching business, training athletes of all ability levels from 5K to Marathon. A former competitive college athlete he keeps sub 3 hour marathon fit. 

For Dom and Dave's full run bios see our Reviewers Bio Page here.
The Superior was provided at no cost.The opinions herein are entirely the authors'.

Comments Questions Welcome Below!
Visit our 2018 Previews Page HERE for 2018 run shoe, apparel, and gear previews. 
Watch our YouTube Channel  here for 2018 Run Previews and Wearable Tech Reviews 
Visit our Index Page here for over 80 in depth 2017 & 2018 shoe and gear reviews

Like & Follow Road Trail Run  Twitter: @roadtrailrun 
Instagram:roadtrailrun   RTR YouTube: RoadTrailRun

RoadTrailRun receives a commission for purchases through the stores below. 
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun's work. Thanks!
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

Monday, January 08, 2018

Garmin Announces Forerunner 645M: M is for Music On Board a Stylish, Super Serious, Smaller Run Training Watch. Hands on Pictures from CES.

January 8th Garmin announced its next generation of runner focused Forerunner watches, the Forerunner 645M ($450) and Forerunner 645 ($400).

RoadTrailRun went hands go hands on with the 645 at the CES Show. The watch is noticeably light, small and comfortable on the wrist.  We expect to have a sample for testing soon.

Sunday, January 07, 2018

Reebok Floatride Run ULTK Review and First Runs Review Floatride Run Fast: A Huge Hit and a Close Miss

Article by Peter Stuart, Dave Ames and Sam Winebaum

Reebok is back running! 
At TRE-The Running Event last month in Austin, Reebok made it clear that they are making a commitment to running shoes again after seeming to abandon the endeavor altogether for a while. 
Owned by adidas for a number of years, Reebok has more recently focused on fitness, CrossFit, etc...yet the brand's heritage goes back over 100 years in running. As recently as the 1980's Reeboks were worn by Steve Jones to the world record in the marathon. Steve was at TRE and showed us his world record Reeboks, now under glass!
Reebok showed off three shoes at TRE (see our preview article):  
Floatride Run ULTK is a $150 neutral daily trainer It weighs in at 8.8 oz/250 g for a men's size 8.5 in our sample, purchased from Reebok so about 9.1 oz in a US Men's 9. It has a 27mm heel/17mm forefoot, 10mm drop. 

Floatride Run Fast is $140, has an 8mm drop is "ultra responsive and light weight" at 6.05 oz/ 172 g with a 25.5mm heel/17.5 mm forefoot, 8mm drop. It is meant for uptempo runs, racing and long runs alike.

Floatride Run Fast Pro weighs an amazing 3 oz/99 g, has Float Foam, a 4mm drop (16.5 mm heel, 12.5 mm forefoot). This is a race shoe for sure.

All three feature Pebax midsoles. Pebax is the compound found in the Nike Vapor Fly 4%. It is a high energy return, silky feeling midsole with an unusual combination of superior cushion and response at incredibly light weight,
Floatride Run ULTK Review
The FloatRide Run is the only shoe of the three that’s currently on the market but we also have a pair of the Fast and give our early impressions of it here, full review to come. This is Reebok coming in hot with a brand new midsole compound and a real effort to make a splash in the running world. So how is the FloatRide Run? Well, we’ll tell you what we think.