Wie immer freue ich mich besonders, wenn ein Laufschuh von ASICS zum Testen bei mir landet. Dieses Mal darf ich einen Klassiker unter den Stabilitätsschuhen testen, den neusten GEL-KAYANO™ 29. Die wohl größte Neuerung des Modells besteht darin, dass in der Zwischensohle des Schuhs die FF BLAST™ PLUS-Dämpfung zum Einsatz kommt, die mit dem NIMBUS 24 eingeführt wurde. Diese Technologie verspricht eine weichere Landung und ein energiegeladenes Laufen. Zudem ist der Schuh im Vergleich zu seinem Vorgängermodell um 5 Gramm leichter. Ich bin also gespannt, wie der Schuh performt. In diesem Sinne: Let’s go for a run!
This year's Gel-Kayano 29, a stability classic, receives significant changes and updates over the previous version.
Most noticeably, Asics opted for the softer and lighter FF Blast+ Foam in the midsole. Asics claims it is ~22% softer than conventional EVA and ~19% lighter than the regular FF Blast.
The Kayano was also overhauled in the stability department. It now features the new LiteTruss system, which replaces Duo Max sidewalls and now uses LiteTruss while also doing away with the plastic Tursstic stability element. I
instead, it achieves medial support only with the midsole foam and geometry, and you can feel that. The medial midsole part of the heel and arch feels a bit firmer and denser than the rest of the FF Blast+ midsole. I could also feel that after the first step in.
Officially, it loses a bit of weight as well 299g vs 310g in the US M 9. Oddly enough, my size US 10,5 weighs in at 324g compared to 321g for last year's Kayano 28. You won’t notice 4g, but I would not call this weight reduction.
Pros and Cons
Pros:
Great stability without being restrictive
Nicely cushioned ride and comfort for long runs
Flexible knit upper accommodates a wide variety of foot shapes
Easy to lock in pace
Nice and welcome design update over last versions
Excellent outsole durability (AHAR+ outsole)
Cons:
Lacks bounce and a bit of responsiveness which would make it a better all round shoe
Breathability could be better in the current hot weather 90° F / 32 C plus.
Stats
Official Weight: men's 10.5 oz / 299g (US9) / women's 9.5 oz / 270g (US8)
Samples: men’s 11.4 oz / 324 g (US 10.5)
Midsole Stack Height: men’s 25 mm heel / 15 mm forefoot
Heute haben wir einen absoluten Klassiker auf dem Seziertisch: Den Altra Escalante! Was die Bezeichnung der Version angeht, sollte man sich von der „3“, die hier auf dem Papier steht, nicht verwirren lassen. Es handelt sich dabei bereits um die fünfte Version des Modells, dass sich seit seiner Einführung 2017 in die Herzen vieler Läufer*innen gestohlen hat.
Mit dem Escalante wurde auch das Mittelsohlenmaterial EGOTM auf den Markt gebracht, das sich durch ein Plus an Energierückgabe und Widerstandsfähigkeit auszeichnete. Schon von Beginn an – und mit fast jeder neuen Version – wurde dieser Schuh kontrovers diskutiert. Wahrscheinlich kommt das daher, dass er über die Jahre immer wieder umfangreichen Änderungen unterzogen wurde.
Ich selbst hatte seit dem Escalante 1 keine Berührungspunkte mehr mit dem Modell, da der Schuh damals nicht meinen Bedürfnissen entsprach, was Stabilität angeht. Seitdem hat sich in dieser Beziehung jedoch einiges getan. Ein neues Obermaterial, sowie die Geometrie der Mittel- und Außensohle der diesjährigen Version versprach ein stabileres Laufverhalten und machte mich direkt neugierig. Da musste ich natürlich zugreifen und testen!
Today, we have an absolute classic on tap for review: The Altra Escalante! As for the designation, you shouldn’t be confused by the "3". This is already the fifth version of the model that has stolen its way into the hearts of many runners since its introduction in 2017.
The introduction of the Escalante was also the launch of the EGOTM midsole material, which boasted extra energy return and durability. Right from the start – and with almost every new release – this shoe has been the subject of much controversy. This probably stems from the fact that it has undergone extensive changes over the years.
I myself have not had any points of contact with the model since the Escalante 1, as the shoe did not meet my stability needs at the time. Since then, however, a lot has happened in this regard. A new upper material, as well as the geometry of the midsole and outsole of this year's version promised a more stable ride and made me curious. So of course I had to grab myself a pair and put it through its paces!
Pros:
EGOTM is as lively and resilient as ever
More stable running performance due to new midsole and outsole design
All-around comfortable feel
Cons:
The Escalante gains 20 grams in weight compared to the last version
Knit uppers aren’t the best for running in summer heat
Data
Weight:
Official:Men’s 9.3 oz / 263 g (US 9) / Women’s 7.7 oz / 219 g (US 8)
Samples:Men’s 10.2 oz / 290 g (US 11) Stack Height: 24 mm heel / 24 mm forefoot (0 mm drop)
Available now at our partner:
Running Warehouse US HERE, EU HERE (140€,on sale for 135.99€), Australia HERE
Jeff: The Bondi has been Hoka’s biggest cushioned road shoe for effectively a decade - and the Bondi 8 is the biggest of its namesake. Measuring just a hair under 40mm in the heel, this Bondi is as big vertically as it has been, but it’s also grown laterally as well. But for a shoe that historically has been limited to the easiest runs, has going even bigger helped it make the leap to an incredibly well-cushioned daily trainer? Spoiler alert: Shockingly, yes. Maybe not for all runners, but exponentially more than any previous version of the Bondi.
The 160X 3.0 is positioned by Xtep as a marathon racer for runners with times between 2:30 and 4:00. Their PRO model will be positioned for those faster than the 3.0. The 160X 3.0 features a supercritical process expanded pellet midsole with a uniquely shaped carbon plate. Weighing within a very few grams of shoes such the ASICS Metaspeed Edge and Nike Vaporfly Next % at 7.4 oz / 210g US9 with a very near the World Athletics max standard for stack height, on paper it has the goods to contend with better known brands. The 160X 3.0 joins a family of racing shoes from the brand including the PRO we will be testing soon.
So who is Xtep? A Chinese brand started in 2007, they are now one of China’s leading sports and running brands. In 2021, they sold more than 16 million pairs of running shoes including more than 180,000 pairs of 16X series shoes. They sponsor over 30 marathons in China and have over 6000 exclusive shops. The earlier 160X 2.0 was worn by Nazret Weldu’s of Eritrea to her 4th place at the 2022 World Championships Marathon. 7 of the top 10 marathoners in China preferred the 160 in 2021. They have a state of the art Sports Science laboratory and even a Nobel Prize winner in Physics assisting in the scientific R&D of the foams and shoe structures with an emphasis on vibration.
Here at RoadTrailRun, we have occasionally tested Xtep with promising results including the 160X 1.0 (RTR Review). The 160X 3.0 on the surface goes well beyond the earlier shoes and Jeremy and I were eager to put them through their paces on the roads of New Hampshire (USA) and in France.
Pros:
Friendly, non prescriptive, not overly rigid or aggressive geometry, foam, plate and ride Sam/Jeremy
Highly competitive weightfor a 39mm heel racerat 7.4 oz / 210g US9: Sam
X-Dynamic Foam foam in concert with plate is energetic, forgiving but also neither mushy nor overly firm. Only ZoomX may be better and only maybe : Sam/Jeremy
Toray carbon plate with rear wings and loop shaped front delivers rear stability, no midfoot hold up at slower paces and a smooth, flexible, easy to find, long rolling toe off with a final spring way up front : Sam/Jeremy
A sophisticated, polished fast any distance racer: Sam
Priced very fairly at $194 delivered US from China : Sam
Secure grip even on wet pavement, and the outsole looks durable: no wear after 65kms including on some abrasive ground: Jeremy
Stretchy laces offer nice hold with a welcome foot accomodation in an otherwise snug but not constrictive upper: Jeremy
Cons:
Tongue wants to fold, care when lacing required. : Sam/Jeremy
Snug race fit front to back, too snug for a hot marathon? I was sized a half size up from my normal and would stay there with anything other than very thin socks.: Sam
Stats
Weight: men's 7.4 oz / 210g US9 / women's oz / g (US8)
Samples: men’s 7.4 oz / 210g US9 8.3 oz / 237g (10.5US)
Stack Height: men’s 39mm heel (estimated) / mm 30 forefoot (estimated). No official stats provided.
Available now Xtep Global Store HERE $193.68 (delivered US)
Article by Renee Krusemark, Jeff Valliere, and Sam Winebaum
Nike React Pegasus Trail 4 ($140)
Introduction
Sam: The Pegasus Trail 4, the door to trail shoe in the Nike line u, p sees significant changes in this version. Most notably it loses a full ounce or 28g from version 3 to come in at 9.75 oz /276g in large part it appears from reducing its heel stack height from 35- 36mm to 31-32mm (as measured by RTR as Nike does not provide stack measurements). Its drop remains close to the same in the men’s at 9.5mm with the women’s 8.5mm (provided by Nike).
It has a soft React midsole, a retooled, sharper lugged, more minimal coverage outsole, and paralleling the changes in the Pegasus 39, we see the return of Flywire in place of last year’s webbing straps to secure the mid foot to the platform.
So right away I think we are looking at a potentially more nimble trail shoe and a more capable road shoe. I did not run the Peg Trail 3 but have the Peg 39 road (RTR Review) which also can go door to trail due to its substantial outsole and stability and which includes firmer React foam and front and back air units which the Trail does not have I always look for a versatile trail and road ride as many of my runs in New Hampshire include both road (paved/dirt) and trails so I was eager to take the Peg Trail 4 out and about. Read on to see what Renee (Nebraska), Jeff (Colorado and Northern California) and I found in test.
Pros:
Stable heel, smooth transitions, flexible forefoot, plus soft cushion equals door to trail versatility: Sam/Renee/Jeff
Well held rear and midfoot, excellent implementation of Flywire and foam sidewalls: Sam/Renee/Jeff
Nike most versatile all round middle of the road (and trail) trainer: Sam/Jeff
Agile, quick ground conforming front feel. Deep cushioned (despite lowish stack) rebounding heel: Sam/Jeff
Firm, highly angular pattern outsole provides great grip, stability to the soft foam and smooth any surface riding: Sam/Jeff
Roomy, unstructured comfortable toe box, also a con Sam/Jeff
Forget the regular Pegasus 39 for roads.. Peg Trail 4 is more forgiving, softer, less harsh and more energetic.Sam
Soft(est) most energetic React foam and set up, in any Nike that I have tested trail or roadSam
Cons:
Toe box lacks adequate toe bumper structure for more technical trails as the shoe is quite flexible. Less about toe protection and more about hold on uneven terrain as there is a stout broad front outsole wrap to protect toes: Sam/Jeff
Low forefoot stack/high drop not suitable for long runs on certain terrain: Renee
High heel/firm heel cup affects nimbleness on uneven terrain: Renee
Nike has been teasing the Zegama for some time on social media, and now the shoe finally shows up officially in Europe, US soon.
Going a step further in cushioning than the Wildhorse, the Zegama is a 4mm drop, high stack (37mm heel) with a full ZoomX midsole and a rock protection plate at the front similar to the Terra Kiger 8's.
After a first run with all kinds of paces in it, ups and downs in moderately technical terrain, and some flats, I’ve been able to develop some first impressions on this first ZoomX trail running shoe.
Steve: Love at first flight? I was excited to get my hands on the Hoka Mach 5 after logging a ton of miles in the Mach 4 which was one of my favorite trainers of last year. It’s like the new trendy IPA, bright, bold, and has you coming back for more!
Right away you notice the lighter and more breathable upper, thinner tongue and a fantastic new colorway. I was really interested to see how this new Profly+ foam compared to the regular Profly midsole on the Mach 4. This shoe is touted to be a lightweight daily trainer that can also handle tempo work.
Peter: New versions of favorite shoes make me very nervous. I, too, put tons of miles in the Mach 4 and really liked it a lot. The Mach 4 and the NB Rebel V2 were both shoes that I bought multiple pairs of last year running tons of miles in each of them.
As many of us have experienced, sometimes a nearly perfect shoe gets iterated into being terrible. I mean the Adidas Boston 7 was sublime and, for me, it has gotten worse and worse every version.
Anyway, I was nervously excited for the Mach 5, and even though I didn’t get a no cost review pair, I started to hear some rumblings from friends that they might be a really great daily trainer. I heard that they were a little softer than the Mach 4 and one dear friend even said they remind him of the amazing and long gone Adidas Boston 7. Okay, fine, I’ll buy a pair. How are they? Read on, reader, read on.
On August 9th Garmin announced the Enduro 2, a large screen ultra long battery life multisport watch focused on ultra big and long adventures of all sorts.
The Enduro 1 (RTR Review) had a large highly legible screen, long battery life, and a big $900 price tag but sort of inexplicably left out topo and road mapping relying on classic breadcrumb navigation.
The Enduro 2 seeks to rectify those shortcomings with full multi continent topo and road maps on board including a new NextFork trail turn and name indicators and then goes further yet adding yet more battery life, a touch screen to go with classic Garmin buttons, and new long adventure and long run focused software features.
Its key physical specs are below with our initial analysis.
Lancé dans une refonte totale des emblématiques modèles Adizero (Boston 10, Takumi 8, Adios), Adidas sortait l’an dernier l’Adios 6, qui marquait une franche rupture avec ses prédécesseurs. A grands coups de mousse Lightstrike Pro, parfois combinée avec la Lightstrike, Adidas faisait table rase du passé et proposait alors une gamme plus épaisse, plus amortie, plus dynamique, et avec un fit un peu plus relax.
Ces changements ont clairement modernisé la gamme, et l’ont rendue moins agressive (pour les Adios et Takumi principalement), plus versatile, bien qu’ayant un peu perdu de gniaque dans l’opération.
L’Adios 6 a été un vrai coup de coeur pour moi l’an dernier. Excellent compromis entre le dynamisme et le confort, les deux mousses d’Adidas travaillaient bien de concert pour offrir une chaussure vivante, énergique, mais aussi fluide, flexible, et qui s’adapte très bien aux différentes foulées - plutôt orientées médio-pied. Bref un excellent modèle pour les entraînements “tempo”. Le prix contenu et la durabilité de la chaussure venant terminer un tableau très positif.
Sur cette version 7, Adidas s’est concentré sur l’empeigne en conservant identique tout le reste - pourquoi changer ce qui fonctionne si bien?
On retrouve donc une tige qui ressemble pas mal à celle présente sur les modèles les plus haut de gamme, en Celermesh, mais qui n'est pas présentée comme telle. Quoi qu’il en soit, le modèle perd 20g dans l’opération, tout en étant plus respirant.
Voyons dans le test si ce changement n’apporte que des points positifs.
Pour:
20g de moins par chaussure!
Très stable
Dynamique, mais souple et transitions très fluides
La polyvalence: en dehors des extrêmes, elle couvre très bien toutes les allures
Mousse LSPro avec beaucoup de rebond, mais la foulée reste “sous contrôle”
Nouvelle tige très respirante, fine et assurant une bonne tenue
La semelle Continental, une valeur sûre.
Passe très bien sur les chemins grâce à sa stabilité et à la semelle
Contres:
Les inserts au dessus des orteils sont trop rigides et viennent appuyer contre ceux-ci, créant de gros frottements et arrachages de peau
Géométrie très classique à l’heure des plaques et semelles incurvées: vos chevilles et mollets vont devoir bosser! (pas forcément une mauvaise chose!)
Moins protectrice que les chaussures modernes sur les sorties longues.
Peuvent sembler un peu fermes sur les 40-50 premiers kms.
We are big fans of Polar at RTR. Polar is the original cardiac fitness monitoring company going back 40 years. Over the years, starting with chest monitors then watches they have built a complete ecosystem: on watch, in app, and on the web for monitoring and tracking training, cardiac trends and recovery most often comparing current (be it overnight recovery or 7 day progress) to a 28 day moving average.
With the Pacer Pro we see the vast majority of the features of their flagship Vantage V2 with only slightly less battery life in a lighter, thinner watch with a new, faster processor and 1.2” 240 x 240 display 3mm closer to the Gorilla Glass 3 lens and this for $200 less.
Polar is now squarely in competition at $300 with the Garmin Forerunner 255 ($350, not tested yet) if not higher end models from each of those brands as well as the Suunto 5 Peak ($300). Polar’s nearly identical (weight, battery, features) Pacer but with no route guidance, power on the wrist, or elevation profiles and Hill Splitter is $200 and while we have not yet tested a real bargain going up against the Coros Pace 2. For detailed descriptions of the Pacer Pro’s features please refer to our Vantage V2 (RTR Review) as they are almost all identical with the exception of the Leg Recovery Test which is not included in Pacer Pro.
Pros:
Comfortable and accurate: thinnest (11.5mm) and nearly lightest (40g), full featured (silicone band) GPS training watch.
Consistently solid wrist HR: 10 LED’s, the light weight, and a solid wrap of my thin wrist
New processor delivers rapid interface response.
Most complete and extensive multisport, cross training and run training, testing, and recovery tracking and analysis ecosystem.
Nightly Recharge stats, entirely on the watch, are both the easiest to evaluate at a glance and the deepest of any with not only sleep quality and quantity but ANS stats (HRV, resting HR, beat to beat interval, and breathing rate) as shown below.
Very small, easy to attach new magnetic charger.
Barometric altimeter, compass, turn by turn route guidance, route elevation profiles, and Hill Splitter, and detailed weather forecasts (from phone) make it a great trail run and hike option. Includes the excellent Komoot base map routing.
Power on the wrist.
Zone training by power or heart rate.
Guided Running Performance Test for determining max aerobic speed, max aerobic power and VO2 max
On watch guided mobility, core, and circuit workouts
Music control
Stylish and a solid value.
Cons
Consistently slightly optimistic as to GPS distances than competitors.
Auto pause in default 0 mph mode is overly sensitive to arm motion (1mph solves the issues)
Bright light legibility (when the transflective display is not fully reflecting) is not optimal due to font sizes and shapes and remains sub par (to Garmin’s fat 3 field digits) despite the display now being 3mm higher in the watch. Needs black digits on white background option
Right: Pacer Pro 2 Left: Garmin Fenix 6S Pro
Battery Test results
24-26 hours GPS battery life in best mode (similar to Garmin 255 spec. not tested yet)
15 days everyday mode battery life with backlight and continuous HR off, night Recharge HR on. Light phone notifications.
7.7 day battery test: 6.5 hours of GPS tracked running in the period. 26% battery remained at conclusion.
Conclusions
My wife and I are huge Polar fans in large part due to the utility and practicality of the Nightly Recharge features. I can tell you for sure that an extra IPA will send my recharge into Compromised or Poor territory as will any sugary desserts before dinner! Having all the top level score data on the watch, no app required to review, with all the detail right below is unique as when you roll out of bed you know where things stand for the day.
The wrist heart rate monitoring on this now very light and thin watch has been excellent, not only the 10 LED’s and their magic but the thinner and lighter a watch is the more accurate it will be as it will confuse cadence with heart rate far less than heavier thicker watches do on thin wrists especially in cold low circulation weather . And light and thin means this is the most comfortable full featured GPS watch I have ever worn.
I wish for better on the run legibility through smarter font sizing/weighting and a black digit on white background option which as of yet I have never been able to find on a Polar.
GPS accuracy has been excellent if a bit optimistic, a few meters early per mile.
Battery life is such that I just do not worry about charging that often, my clear barometer so to speak and dramatically improved in recent weeks to the listed specs, likely due to an update as this is a new platform.
With its altimeter, Komoot route planning with trail and road turn by turn directions, and Hill Splitter screen which tells you how much uphill or downhill you have covered and with the more than adequate battery life the Pacer Pro can take to the trails as well.
Used for decades by many world class athletes, Polar’s platform (on the watch, in the app which is so so, and especially on the web view) is as top level clear and easy to understand as you wish yet you can go deep, real real deep into your long term trends be they recovery, cardiac, or race (running index) predictions.
Scared to move over from an older, battery impaired training watch from “another” brand. Don’t be! The Polar Pacer Pro will be a most useful and wrist friendly companion.
At $500, the older Vantage V2 is hard to justify compared to Pacer Pro 2. It includes a touch screen which the Pace Pro does not have. In our testing its GPS best battery life extended 10 more hours to 35 hours while its everyday long term battery life test with an hour of running per day was about the same as the Pacer Pro in our tests. The Vantage V2 does include the chest strap based Recovery Pro test as well as Leg Recovery Test and has a 100M water resistance rating vs. 50M for the Pacer Pro. It weighs 10g more than the Pacer Pro at 52g.
Polar Pacer ($200)
The Pacer (not tested yet) has the same spec. battery life as the Pacer Pro and weighs about the same. It leaves out power on the wrist, turn by turn Komoot route guidance, and the Hill Splitter features. It is direct competition to the $200 Coros Pace 2 which is at the same price and which at 36g is 4g lighter with somewhat longer battery life (30 hours Best GPS, 20 days everyday). Given a choice I would pick the superior (while Coros is improving) Polar ecosystem and fit and finish of the watch itself.
Samples were provided at no charge for review purposes. RoadTrail Run has affiliate partnerships and may earn commission on products purchased through affiliate links in this article. These partnerships do not influence our editorial content. The opinions herein are entirely the authors'
Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferredshoes
RoadTrailRun receives a commission on purchases at the stores below.
