Thursday, November 02, 2017

Five Tester 2018 Hoka One One Cavu Performance Trainer Review

Article by Shannon Payne, Sam Winebaum, Peter Stuart, Derek Li and Dave Ames


Editor's Note: We are thrilled to welcome Shanon Payne to the RTR review team in this her first review. Colorado based Shannon is a 2 time winner of the infamous Mt Washington Road Race including 2017, a past member of the US Mountain Running Team placing 3d in the 2014 World Mountain Running Championships long course ascent of Pike's Peak, and was a 7 time All-American in track and cross country at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.

Stats
The all new Cavu ($110), 8.2 oz/221 g men's size 9, 6.6 oz/188g women’s size 8 has a 24mm heel/20mm forefoot stack, 4 mm drop. Available February 2018
Introduction
Cavu is intended to be a light weight performance trainer. It is called out by Hoka as being "a little lighter and a little lower than its category mates." which we assume to mean the new Mach (RTR initial impressions and comparisons to Cavu here, full review soon). Mach Update: Read our full review of the 2018 Mach here is a direct successor to the Clayton 2 which weighs a tiny fraction of an ounce more and has 1 mm less forefoot stack height. Another Hoka to compare the Cavu to is the Hupana (RTR review) with its near identical 25/20 stack and slighter heavier weight at 8.2 oz.

The Cavu features Hoka’s new dual density ProFly midsole, softer in the heel firmer in the forefoot for protection and propulsion.  ProFly is an evolution of the similar Pro2Lite midsole makeup found in the Clayton 1 and 2 (RTR review), Tracer (RTR review), and Speed Instinct 2 (RTR review) but with a new foam. This new midsole material is designed to be more resilient and energetic/energy efficient and attenuate shock better.

Where the rubber hits the road Cavu features Hoka’s soft, durable, and bouncy RMAT, a material sometimes used in Hoka midsoles such as in the Hupana, also a light weight performance trainer (RTR review) where both midsole and outsole are a single slab of RMAT but here now only used as an outsole.

The upper is a new relatively unstructured engineered mesh and unlike many Hoka such as the Clayton or Mach there is a less pronounced “bucket seat’ for the heel and a real heel counter so this is a more conventional design.


Sam: Wait didn’t they say lower? Well maybe this is subjective on Hoka’s part as in fact these 3 (Clayton/Mach, Hupana, and Cavu) almost identical shoes by spec run very differently with the Cavu  lower and lighter feeling and firmer but at the same time somewhat less supportive steady and directed than Clayton is for me. It is also less bouncy energetic than Hupana.

Peter: Man, Hoka’s lineup gets more and more confusing all the time. Thank goodness you can break down most of it for us Sam. That said, I’ve never found a Hoka that put all the pieces together right for my taste. Clifton was too soft, Clayton gave me blisters…

Shannon: So far I've loved 90% of the shoes in Hoka’s lineup. The only models that have historically taken some miles to grow on me have been the lower-profile, more performance-based models (Clayton and Tracer) that are built slightly more like a traditional shoe. Guess I just get a little too attached to that soft and fluffy Hoka goodness. Regardless, I'm amped to try this new addition and to find out how it stacks up.

Derek: I've generally liked Hoka’s maximalist offerings like the Cliftons and Vanquishes more than their race models. The Tracer felt good underfoot, but the upper volume was a little on the low side, and the Clayton had a somewhat “block-y” transition for me, notwithstanding the issues with the upper and arch blisters. The Huaka works well and remains the only zero-drop shoe I continue to use, but it is not sold in the US market.


First Impressions and Sizing

Sam: With its sleek clean upper, uncluttered with wild colors and overlays and lower appearing overall profile the Cavu has a modern stylish look that may have runners wondering if it is really a “clown shoe” Hoka of old. I tested a pair a half size up from my usual true size 8.5 and could very safely go true to size due to the unstructured upper and lack of any overlays.

Peter: True to size for sure. This is the best fitting Hoka yet for me. I also like that they look like “normal” running shoes. Color is a little plain, but nice enough.

Shannon: In terms of the fit, I am generally a consistent women's 8 in Hoka, but could have swung a 7.5 quite comfortably in the Cavu. Kicking around in the shoe out of the box before its initial miles, I was anticipating a smooth ride, and the midsole felt like just the right amount of firm and responsive as I pranced around the living room, and I was excited. Finally, Hoka has come a long way in the aesthetics department since its inception, and this is a great looking shoe.





Dave: Not gonna lie, Hoka has never worked well for me.  I just can’t wrap my head around them…..but….wait for it…..they felt pretty damn good sliding them on!  I run in 99% of running shoes in a size 9 and these fit perfect.  It wrapped my arch nicely and I was locked and loaded.  I do have an extremely narrow foot and higher arch, so I did need to tug and tighten the laces a bit (see pic)  But it left no major issues or rubbing in the arch area like previous Hoka’s of the past.












Derek: I like the clean design understated colour, and I agree this may be the best Hoka upper yet. It fits true to size for me, with a much more generous and relaxed fit than the Clayton or Hupana.


Upper
The Cavu upper is a single piece of light, very soft, fully lined engineered mesh with ventilation holes in all the right places. This is a shoe which should be breathable in warm climates. There is no difference between the upper pattern on the medial or lateral sides and no overlays or internal straps at midfoot for support of any kind. There is no toe bumper or any stiffening of the denser mesh at the toe. So we have a very slipper like fit.
Sam: The tongue is very lightly padded and I had no pressure from the thin narrow laces even in my somewhat more tightly laced than usual half size up. I was skeptical such an unstructured upper was adequate for faster paces but it was just fine. Unlike the new Mach or its direct predecessor the Clayton with their bucket seat midsoles and no real heel counter, the Cavu has a firm heel counter This is by no means a snug highly supportive shoe as its denser mesh cousin Mach is and as such I would be hesitant to take it on moderate trails as I would the Mach.

Peter: The upper is a no-brainer for me. I just put them on, laced them up and went running. No slipping, no chafing, no problems.

Shannon: Great feeling upper. No seams, no overlays, nothing unnecessary, and definitely allows the foot to move around freely with no constriction anywhere.

Dave: Since the beginning of Hoka’s existence I could not understand for the amount of money Deckers Corp. has, why they just had crappy uppers.  I mean, really?  The Cavu is like sliding on a Nike or a Skechers Performance (The 2 companies who do uppers the best in the game right now IMHO)

Derek: I've been dealing with some unusually hot and humid weather lately, even by Singapore standards, and the Cavu upper has performed admirably in terms of ventilation. I experienced no hot spots up to 90 minutes of running. The upper feels very comfortable and wraps the foot well once laced up. I did experience some heel slippage for the first run, and I attributed it to the combination of soft upper, semi-elastic laces, and stiff midsole. As my toes flexed through toe-off, I would stretch the upper upwards while the forefoot midsole would not budge, resulting in heel slippage. After using heel-lock lacing, and letting the midsole break in a little, the problem seems to have disappeared, but this is one shoe I think would have done better with inelastic laces.


Midsole
Peter: As Sam noted above, the midsole is  Hoka’s new dual-density PROFLY™. The heel is softer and the forefoot is firmer. This is where the Cavu starts to run into trouble for me. The forefoot is firm. There are pros and minuses to the firmness, which I’ll get into during the ride section of the review, but if you’re expecting a pillowy soft shoe, this isn’t it.

Shannon: The midsole on the Cavu was much very stiff and firm-feeling, more so than either the Clayton or Tracer, which was more or less what I was expecting given the more performance-based purpose for which it was intended. In terms of stability, it felt rock solid. In regards to the firm feel of the shoe however, firmness generally tends to equate with responsiveness, and responsiveness wasn't a characteristic I found to be present in this shoe the more I ran. But more on that in a sec when we get to talking about the ride.

Dave:  The midsole worked well for me.  I was very hesitant via my first cruise in them, but I have always liked a firmer shoe and the first few runs went well.  To Shannon’s point as well, the lateral stability was great.  Something I have struggled with in high stack shoes in the past.

Derek: I actually felt the Cavu rode softer than the Clayton, out of the box, and got a little softer still after 20+ miles. It still does not compress as much as say a Hupana, but I would consider this a viable alternative for people who found the Clayton a little too jarring.

Sam: I found the midsole quite firm but not harsh. In comparison to the Clayton or new Mach the heel is not quite as stable and responsive in its cushion as Clayton's with its bucket seat midsole is while the forefoot felt similar to me and a bit firmer than I like. I wonder if a single density midsole at the density of the heel might not be a good idea.

Outsole
Peter: The outsole is a combination of RMAT® and exposed sections. The RMAT is literally, where the rubber meets the road and is a firm and durable compound. The exposed sections are in areas less likely to wear and help to save weight.

Shannon: We got RMAT all up in here, and RMAT is tough stuff, and it looks like it's in all the higher wear areas of the outsole. So in spite of its feathery light weight, I anticipate a pretty durable outsole.

Dave:  Solid outsole with the RMAT and looks like I can actually pound some miles out of these babies.  I’m about 50 miles in with no signs of wear and tear.  One thing I would say however, is that the Cavu is not the best on cinder or packed dirt.  I ran and summitted Griffith Park a few times in LA for some hill strength (Peter knows the trail...it’s not a trail shoe needed area) I also found it a tad slippery on the strand in Manhattan Beach, CA on more humid mornings (Note: that surface is known to do that, but I haven’t slipped around in other running shoes)

Derek: I got a bit of a shock after my first run as I saw more RMAT wear in the lateral heel after 6 miles than I did in my Zoom Fly after 100 miles, but thankfully after another 45 miles, it would appear that the wear has stagnated a little after that initial run. 



RMAT has never been very durable for my running style, as my Huaka went bald on the outsole in quite a few spots after just 150 miles, and I foresee that the Cavu may well be a low-medium mileage shoe for me as well. RMAT continues to impress me with its road grip though, and the tacky feel on the roads continues with the Cavu. Note that I run almost exclusively on tarmac and concrete.

Sam: Cavu transitions off the heel smoothly but maybe with a touch less stability and firm pop than the Clayton, or the new Mach, due I think to its decoupled heel and interrupted outsole coverage at mid foot. 
I have seen minor scuffing at 30 miles in with the patterning in the outsole still visible everywhere except at the very front of the shoe and barely so. 
Left: Hoka One One Mach Right: Hoka One One Cavu
I wonder if deeper flex grooves in the outsole and midsole and all the way to the edges would reduce the scuffing and also reduce the stiffness as we have in the Mach (full review soon but comparison introduction article here). Mach has a deeper cored out mid foot cavity and deeper forefoot flex grooves leading to a longer flexing shoe with a smoother less stiff toe off for me than Cavu.


Ride
Peter: I have mixed feelings about the ride of the CAVU. It feels clunky to me at slower speeds. The forefoot is firm and the shoe is super stiff, which lead to the shoe feeling like it clunks on the ground a bit before toe off. It just doesn’t feel like it fits my stride at a slower tempo. When I speed up to a quick tempo, they feel terrific. They actually remind me a lot of the Nike Zoom Fly in that respect. The CAVU really likes to go fast and feels like it helps propel me through the stride and toe off when I’m running fast. On the downside (and again, like the Zoom Fly for me) the firm forefoot winds up leaving my feet feel pretty beat up at the end of 10-12 miles.

Sam: The Cavu feels better run faster than slower for me. At speed the heel area decoupled midsole/outsole really starts to work for me. They are nicely responsive with the hard edge and shock of the firm midsole ratcheted down just a touch by the RMAT outsole. I wish they were not as stiff as while I come off the heel just fine when I start to transition the upfront part of the ride gets more labored.  

Shannon: Upon getting the Cavu out for some actual miles at various speeds on the subsequent days in the hopes of getting a feel for how it would perform at various paces, things went a little south for me. Let's just say it played out a bit like a bad date: upon meeting, he seemed like Mr. Perfect on the outside, but then I got to know him and come to find out, he didn't have it nearly as together as I thought. I'll let you take what you want from that. Bad analogies aside, this is not your traditional soft, plush, Hoka ride, as said before. Then again, it's not supposed to be. It was much more stiff and firm, which was more or less what I was expecting given the more performance-based purpose for which it was intended. Going back to my feeling of the shoe’s lack of responsiveness, fast running or slow, it seemed a bit, well, "slappy" for lack of a better word. It was not the quick and nimble ride I was hoping for. It had a stiff, unenergetic feel to it no matter what I was doing in it. Granted, this very well could be foot-strike dependent. For a runner tending to land more toward the mid-to-forefoot, I think this shoe will likely feel terrific since the Cavu utilizes Hoka's clever ProFly technology (EVA that is softer in the heel then transitions to being more firm/responsive in the forefoot). For a runner such as myself, who strikes a bit further back regardless of pace, the ride would likely feel entirely different, and they may not quite get the full benefit of ProFly. But that's why the shoe world is many and varied...different strokes for different folks.

Dave:  It’s a love/hate relationship.  I guess we all have them with certain shoes.  First few runs were literally trying to figure a Hoka out again (These were just general aerobic endurance days)  To everyone’s point, when I cranked them up in a tempo last week (2 miles up, 4 @ T, 2 down) and a Fartlek sesh this week (9 miles with 15 x 1 min hard/easy) they began to shine a bit more.  I found my stride much more smooth with a nice level landing, much similar to the Zoom Fly.  Peter hit the nail on the head here….the Cavu feels like the ZF (with less pronounced toe off, obviously).  Recovery days just don’t work with the Cavu.  I just can’t figure the shoe out.  As with all Hoka, I feel way more beat up post workout in these as well, which in turn, when trying to run a recovery day in them, my form was sloppy and the soft cush went straight to my knees.  They are not meant at least for me, for slow mileage.  The transition rate from heel strike to toe off was also out of wack at higher speeds.  I just feel like I can’t crank hard without getting completely out of control as I also felt this in the Zoom Fly.  Where does this shoe fit in?  Half Marathon to Marathon pace work shoe.

Derek: The midsole stiffness is something I think Hoka needs to continue to work on; a stiff midsole with a good rocker may have worked for their softer maximalist models (e.g. Stinson, Bondi), but when you lower the stack, and particularly in low drop shoes, I think more forefoot flexibility is needed to smooth out the transition. After breaking-in, the Cavu certainly transitions better than the Clayton for me, and the flex grooves seem to be doing a good job, but I would like the forefoot to flex just a tad more easily. Think Skechers Razor for example. So far, I've done a few easy runs, a slightly uptempo 12 miler, and a Fartlek in the Cavu. I've come to the conclusion that this shoe really doesn't do slow. It takes me sub 7:20/mi pace to really get the transitioning to shine, anything slower than the transition sort of feels a little awkward. It worked very well at a controlled uptempo pace for me on the roads. However, when I tried to pick it up a little more to 5/10k pace, I felt like I was fighting the shoe a little more, perhaps also because the upper is not the most secure and structured. I agree with Dave that it's more of a marathon pace uptempo trainer for me. For longer runs, I think swapping the insole out for a thicker one may help take the edge off a little better, as I started to feel a little sore after the first 9-10 miles in this shoe.


Conclusions and Recommendations
Peter: The CAVU is close, but not quite there for me. It’s gets close enough to being a great all around shoe to keep my interest, but has a couple of qualities that take it out of greatness. I’d like to see the forefoot a little less firm and the shoe a tad less stiff overall. I’m not sure if that combination is better dialed in with some of the other Hokas. For me, this shoe is a better pick for tempo days than for long runs. I wouldn’t hesitate to do Fartleks in it, but there are other shoes that work better for me as a swiss army knife than the CAVU.

Sam: The Cavu is a good value, has a sensational upper and is commendably light weight. It has a firm ride with a stiff short front flex. It is certainly not a traditional Hoka as even the bouncy softer Hupana is. Cavu can be said to be at the fringes of Hoka-ness. I don't mind the firm ride in a tempo type shoe, and my longer slower runs have been fine as well but in the end it is held back from being a great shoe by its stiffness and to a lesser extent firmness. The good work at the rear with the de coupled heel isn't followed through to the front of the shoe. They are a bit to firm and stiff upfront for me as a day in day out trainer but for those who like a firmer ride and one shoe quiver they could be an excellent choice.

Shannon: I wanted to love the Cavu, I really did, and I tried really hard, but I just couldn't quite get myself there. Forgive me Hoka. But let's start with positives: it looks great, the upper is awesome, the lower price will likely be very attractive to those customers wanting to venture into Hoka territory, and lastly, I've always been a fan of the inherently stable platform that Hokas provide with their straighter last designs, which the Cavu certainly has. Not-so-positives: This shoe is close...a few more tweaks and it will be there, but when it comes to running it missed the mark in my experience. Get the midsole to be a little more flexible and maybe trim down just a little bit of the its bulk (namely in the heel), and the Cavu will make for an outstanding addition to Hoka's line, not to mention at a fantastic price point.

Dave:  For the “Hoka Heads” out there, this is probably another one to your already massive Hoka rotation.  For me, great fit, great upper, decent at higher speeds, but I question how beat up my legs would be on long runs or MRP work.  I’ve never been a fan of maximalism (I know the Cavu is trying for the lower stack appeal)  It feels like i’m paying way too much attention to my feet on general easy day runs.  I don’t like that in a shoe.  There’s far more to running than worrying about your feet, like enjoying your run!  I was constantly trying to figure this shoe out.  
Derek: As an evolution from the Clayton/Tracer heritage, this is a big step forward. The upper is the right blend of comfort, looks and ventilation, but I've come to the conclusion that an unstructured upper must be inelastic if it is to be used in an uptempo-oriented shoe. The Skechers Razor and Nike Vaporfly are great examples of this. The combination of slightly elastic upper and semi-elastic laces in the Cavu made for a bit too much overall elasticity in the fit for me. Definitely try the shoe with conventional laces and you will experience a much more secure fit. Ride-wise, it’s nearly there, just need to tweak the forefoot flexibility a bit more, maybe soften the midsole just a smidge, and you will have a really outstanding uptempo/daily trainer.


Scores

Peter: 8.5  Not my favorite shoe of the year, but lots of good things about it. I’d like to see a softer forefoot and a little less stiffness overall.


Shannon: I'd give this guy a 7. Again, it's close and it certainly has its upsides, but a few tweaks to the midsole’s lack of flexibility would certainly bolster it.

Sam: 8. The positives of the upper, price, and light weight are strong but get outweighed by the front of the shoe ride and stiffness issues and firmness overall. 


Dave:  8.5  Honestly, it’s not bad at all.  But for me, it needs some tweaking in the overall ride.  I feel like you need to like Hoka to like this shoe.  Keep the upper the same.  A huge step in the right direction in an area they previously struggled.  


Derek: 8. The shoe stiffness takes away from the ride a little, and it's still too firm to be a truly versatile trainer, but my main concern is the durability of the RMAT. It's still a big improvement on the Clayton though.


Comparisons
Find reviews of all the comparisons below at our index page here
Peter:
Hoka Cavu vs. Nike Zoom Fly
These two are eerily similar for me. They both feel a little too stiff and clunky at slower speeds and both feel pretty great when you step on the gas. Both also tend to fatigue my forefoot more than some other shoes do. The CAVU is considerably less expensive.


Hoka CAVU vs. Hoka Clifton 4
No comparison. The Clifton 4 felt mushy and clunky and heavy to me (for what it is and where it came from in earlier iterations). The Cavu is sprightlier and more fun. Again, not my main choice for a long, easy day, but fun at speed.


Hoka Cavu vs. New Balance 1500V5
For me the NB is everything the HOKA should be. The forefoot is firm with a bit of give, the shoe is flexible and it feels good at any speed. The Hoka is built up higher and might serve heavier runners better if the NB is not enough shoe for you.


Hoka Cavu vs. Skechers GoRun 5
I wish the Cavu had some of the softness and flexibility of the GoRun 5. There is a middle ground between these two shoes that would be terrific. As it is now, the Skechers is more fun for me to run in.
Dave:  Go Run 5 is built for speed.  Uppers are both ideal and on point!  I’ll take the GR5 anyday over the Cavu if I had to reach into the shoe closet.


Hoka Cavu vs. Skechers Razor
The Razor and Cavu are more similar (than the cavu and the gorun). The Razor is just a touch softer, springier and more flexible.
Dave:  Razor is just plain outstanding.  For me, Razor would be for the speed and longer races, and I’d save the Cavu for tempo.  If it was a track day, Razor all day.  Cavu too sloppy.


Hoka Cavu vs. Altra Escalante
The Cavu is a stiff board with little flex and forefoot fatigues easily. The Escalante is like a slipper that magically protects your foot from fatigue, flexes, snaps and rolls down the road. They are nearly opposites. Point goes to Escalante!

Sam:
Hoka Cavu vs Hoka Clayton and Mach
It's a tough call and depends on use. For faster runs I give a slight nod to the Cavu. For everyday use and for longer racing I give the nod to Clayton.

Hoka Cavu vs Hoka Hupana

I prefer the bouncier, more flexible and consistent ride of the Hupana overall. The Cavu's upper is less constricting and better fitting but in the end the all RMAT midsole and outsole of the Hupana wins out for me.

Hoka Cavu vs Asics RoadHawk FF
Both are firm, stiff shoes with RoadHawk stiffer yet with a longer flex than Cavu and a far back flex point. Weighing about the same, Cavu has the advantage of a clearly more comfortable upper. As for outsole durability the RoadHawk has plenty, to much and especially to firm, durable rubber. The RoadHawk is firmer yet than Cavu but has a superior midsole for me. It seems to give back more zing in a controlled fashion than Cavu's at the heel. I think in part this is due to excellent Flyte Foam and to its greater drop of 8mm. Upfront is where the RoadHawk lags as it is firmer and stiffer yet than Cavu with shallow flex grooves. Despite the forefoot stiffness issues in both these shoes, Cavu's upper comfort and snappier forefoot flex gives it a slight advantage in versatility for me.

Hoka Cavu vs.Nike Zoom Elite 9
Both shoes have fantastic uppers with the Cavu's more relaxed. I love the forefoot feel of the Elite but find its heel quite soft and even mushy energy sapping at speed in contrast to the Cavu's with Elite more comfortable to run moderate tempos in. The Cavu is firmer overall and transmits more shock, especially in the forefoot, but is more balanced front and back in its ride feel. I give a slight nod to the Elite.

Hoka Cavu vs Salming Speed 6
A very similar ride here for me, probably the closest of the comparisons in terms of firmness with the Speed slightly firmer. The Speed has a well thought out flex and toe off approach up front while the Cavu's needs work, Both uppers are fantastic but the Cavu's with less complexity and less structure gets the job done better than Speed for me while the Speed outsole is likely to be more durable. The Cavu despite weighing more, while transitioning more awkwardly runs and feels lighter and gets a slight nod.


Shannon:
Cavu vs. Clayton: 
These two shoes seem intended to be cousins. But if you're looking for a fast-feeling Hoka, with just the right amount of cushion and flexibility, the Clayton tops the Cavu, which feels far more stiff and clunky, with a less smooth ride, by comparison.


Cavu vs. Salomon S-Lab Sonic: 
Both are performance shoes for quicker runs, but the Sonic has a faster, more flexible, and closer-to-the-ground type feel that makes me feel like it outstrips the Cavu in the Fast Department.


Cavu vs. Hoka Vanquish 3: 
I know these two shoes aren't even necessarily in the same category as far as their intended purpose goes. But even though the Cavu is intended to be a faster-day shoe, the Vanquish 3, despite its additional weight and bulk when compared to the Cavu, feels like a much faster, more lively, and responsive shoe to me. If the Cavu and Vanquish got together and made a lovechild however, that shoe would be money.


Hoka Cavu vs. Nike Zoom Fly:  
Very very similar, with the Cavu being less powerful.  Much less toe off and power to my overall gait.  


Dave:
Hoka Cavu vs. Skechers Performance Ultra Road 2:  
Definitely lower stacks with the Cavu, but they have a similar ride. The Cavu is much lighter than the Ultra Road 2 in road feel.  Both promote more of a stiff toe off, yet lack a quick enough heel to toe transition for me.  


Derek:
Hoka Cavu vs. Zoom Fly
Both shoes have similar ground feel in the heel but the Zoom Fly is significantly softer in the forefoot. While both are stiff shoes, the Fly’s high stack and solid forefoot rocker make the transition much better than the Cavu. Fit-wise, I think the Cavu is roomier and would work better for low arches. The Cavu also has the better upper in terms of comfort; the heel counter certainly won't cause Achilles rub for people who had that issue with the Zoom Fly.


Hoka Cavu vs. Clayton v1
I found the Cavu to be a bit more flexible and have a less jarring ride than the Clayton, although both are still very firm shoes. The Cavu has by far the more comfortable and higher volume upper, and seems to be a bit wider at the midfoot as well. Consider the Cavu if you have arch blistering issues in the Clayton, and if you found the Clayton fit volume to be too low.

Find reviews of all the comparisons below at our index page here

Cavu ($110), 8.2 oz/221 g men's size 9, 6.6 oz/188g women’s size 8 has a 24mm heel/20mm forefoot stack, 4 mm drop. Available February 2018.


For bio see our Reviewers Bio Page here

The Cavu was provided at no cost.The opinions herein are entirely the authors'.

Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Visit our Index Page here for over 70 in depth 2017 shoe and gear reviews
Visit our 2018 Previews Page here for 2018 run shoe, apparel, and gear previews 

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

Road Trail Run receives a commission for purchases through our affilates below. Your purchases help support our site's work. Thanks!

SHOP RUNNING WAREHOUSE FOR HOKA ONE ONE
MEN'S HERE
WOMEN'S HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

2 comments:

Ben Reeves said...

Great review all! Looking forward to more of Shannon's input in the future.

Anonymous said...

HI, SERIOUSLY DETAILED REVIEW, SHOWS HOW VARIED RUNNERS LIKES AND DISLIKES CAN BE, GREAT WORK.

HOW DO THESE COMPARE TO THE TRACER?

CURRENTLY REALLY ENJOYING USING THE TRACER AS A DAILY TRAINER AND WORKOUT SHOE.

IS THE TRACER STICKING AROUND OR IS THE CAVU ITS REPLACEMENT?