Sunday, August 18, 2019

Hoka ONE ONE EVO Speedgoat Multi Tester Review: Light, Super Cushioned, Long Haul Comfort, Home Run Trail Race Machine

Article by Dom Layfield, Jeff Valliere, Jacob Brady, and Sam Winebaum

Hoka ONE ONE EVO Speedgoat ($160)
Jeff:  The Speedgoat 2 and 3, as well as the EVO Mafate 1 and 2 have been some of my favorite shoes and have consistently occupied a permanent spot on my top shelf of first pick shoes. I have used the Speedgoat 2 for racing mountain trail marathons and half marathons, but do admit that on longer distances, they can start to feel a bit snug as my feet swell, even on my somewhat slim foot.  The EVO Mafate and especially the revised EVO Mafate 2 have upped the game, with a very secure/durable, yet comfortable Matryx upper, with now a bit of give now due to the small stretch section just ahead of the lower lace eyelets (breathable vamp it is called).  
I have not raced in a bit, but if I were, the EVO Mafate 2 would be my pick over the aforementioned versions due to its much more responsive midsole.  The EVO Speedgoat retains the proven cushy midsole and outsole of the Speedgoat 2 and 3, yet completely re-tools the upper to the Matryx material in the EVO Mafate 2, a more pliable, thinner softer version of the fairly dense and scratchy Matryx material found in EVO Mafate 1 .  The kevlar fibers woven into Matryx upper makes them very light, breathable, non moisture absorbing and secure, without the need for postings and overlays. For some, depending on positioning, postings and overlays can cause discomfort, create a structural weakness, add weight and decrease flexibility with the Matryx upper is intended to remedy all of that.

Dom:  The elevator pitch for the EVO Speedgoat is this: the upper of the EVO Mafate 2 meets the sole of the Speedgoat 3.   If you’re familiar with both shoes that’s really all you need to know.  Otherwise, read on.
Dom:  The Speedgoat 2 was the shoe I chose to race at UTMB in both 2017 and 2018.  And I was fully expecting that the updated Speedgoat 3 would be my choice in 2019.  I have a complicated relationship with these shoes. For daily running, they are not to my liking: the sole stack is so thick and stiff that ground feel is all but non-existent; the upper feels like it clamps my foot to the sole.  However, for long races like UTMB, the fact that the Speedgoat is bulletproof, secure, and utterly dependable, all while clocking in at a competitive weight, trumps comfort and other considerations.

Dom:  Hoka’s original EVO Mafate had a similar stack height to the Speedgoat, but with a softer sole, having that signature Hoka ‘marshmallow’ cushion versus the firmer ride of the Speedgoat.  With the EVO Mafate 2, Hoka tweaked the upper, crucially adding a stretch panel across the forefoot that made the toebox more accommodating, and (for me) much more comfortable. I liked the EVO Mafate 2 enough to use it in the 5-day Dragon’s Back Race in the UK. I chose the EM2 because I thought the pillowy sole would be the most forgiving option available to run for ~9 hours/day.  I think this was largely true. But I also found that the traction from the partial-coverage outsole was disastrously unreliable. This, combined with instability from the tall, soft stack caused several hard falls, ripped hands, and broken poles. In retrospect, I have to conclude that the EM2 is a much better choice in gentler terrain. I had previously used this shoe to race at the Canyons 100k race in California, and experienced no problems at all.

Dom:  If you made it through the long-winded discussion above, you’ll understand why the prospect of a EVO Mafate 2 upper (comfortable, durable) connected to a Speedgoat 3 sole (grippy, stable, durable) is an enticing prospect, potentially leveraging the strengths of both shoes.  In my opinion, the EVO Speedgoat delivers on this promise. Not only does it find a happy synergy between the characters of its parents, but also it does so at a notably lighter weight than either: in my size (US M10), the Speedgoat 3 weighs 310 g per shoe; the EVO Mafate 3 is 305 g; the EVO Speedgoat is 285 g.

Jacob: The EVO Speedgoat is the next progression of the Speedgoat line, transforming a rough-terrain, descent-blasting, long-distance trucker—the Speedgoat 3—into a true race-class shoe. The EVO Speedgoat boasts a significant weight drop due to a very lightweight and breathable Matryx upper, alike to Hoka’s other max-cushion trail shoe, the EVO Mafate (1 and 2). The Speedgoat 3 (SG3) has been my primary trail shoe for the past few months and carried me through both my first ultra and mountain race. I choose the SG3 over the EVO Mafate as the foothold is top notch—unbeatable for the often unmaintained and very rooted trails of the northeast US. I love the SG3 though weight is its primary weakness, so the release of a significantly lighter version with the same out/midsole is exciting stuff! 
Sam: I was very intrigued to test the EVO Speedgoat. After much success by Hoka elites in the EVO Mafate in 2018, I was surprised to learn that Jim Walmsley set the Western States 100 record as well as 3d place at the very fast course Sierre Zinal 30K in this evolution of the Speedgoat.

I for sure couldn’t see that kind of speed attained in the regular Speedgoat. I never much cared for the Speedgoat 1 and 2, the two versions I have run. Stiff, squishy, quite snug especially upfront unless the terrain was super technical they felt more like hikers than trail runners. I really enjoyed the Torrent for some 25K trail races last year as it had just enough cushion and plenty of traction at a much lower weight. The EVO Mafate 1 was a rocket for me on smoother terrain and even some road but its upper was a bit scratchy and stiff up front. I also wished for more flexibility in both the Speedgoat and EVO Mafate. Along comes the approximately 1 ounce lighter EVO Speedgoat, pretty much matching the Torrent in weight. A more pliable comfortable upper than the others (I did not test EVO Mafate 2 with its similar Matryx material). Check! More flexibility. Check! Lots of softer cushion and a great stabilizing and grippy outsole. Check! Time to test.

Jeff/ Sam/Dom/Jacob:  
Light at 9.3 oz for all the cushion/protection, about an ounce lighter than Speedgoat 3 and EVO Mafate 2 with similar stack heights
Increased comfort and easier on the toes front fit compared to Speedgoat 3, 
Breathable, non moisture absorbing, rapid draining  
Responsive for a maximal soft cushioned shoe, 
Traction & Durability
Sam: a great blend of soft bouncy all day, any pace any terrain comfort, flexibility and decent response from the outsole.

JeffSome may find them to be a bit hard to handle in technical terrain
Sam: Toe box while incredibly comfortable lacks side of bumper overlays and the soft flexible midsole makes off angle front landings not as secure and stable for more technical terrain.
Jacob: Foothold on technical terrain is a step down from the Speedgoat 3

Friday, August 16, 2019

Skechers Performance GOrun Max Road 4 Hyper Multi Tester Review

Article by Jeff Beck, Derek Li, Peter Stuart, Hope Wilkes, and Sam Winebaum

Skechers Performance GOrun Max Road 4 Hyper ($125)

Sam: The Max Road 4 Hyper is Skechers most cushioned Hyper Burst foam equipped shoe to date. With a midsole outsole stack height of 28mm heel, 22 mm forefoot, 37/31 including board and sockliner and a 6mm drop it is clearly a maximal shoe yet with a weight of 8.4 oz it is remarkably light.  
The process for creating Hyper Burst foam also found in the GOrun 7, Speed Elite, and likely soon other Skechers is described by them as follows:

"HYPER BURST™ is a new midsole foam technology that is completely different than any foam Skechers Performance™ has ever created.  A “super critical™” foam, the new and innovative mechanical foaming process creates thousands of spherically-shaped cells in a very tight format. This closed-cell structure creates a midsole material that is the lightest and most resilient that Skechers Performance™ has ever made.

Hyper Burst™ is created by saturating a solid piece of EVA with CO2 that has been heated and pressurized into a super critical fluid state. After saturation, the CO2 returns to its normal gas state, creating thousands of bubble-like cell structures trapped within the midsole, making it lighter and more resilient than EVA manufactured using conventional chemical blowing agents."

Looking closely at the Max Road 4 midsole one can actually see the cells which have the appearance of a much finer more consistent than usual white foam packing block you might see protecting electronics or other fragile items, whereas with a conventional EVA molded midsole one sees a denser material and no apparent cells. And as for the smile factor Hyper Burst offers a ride which is consistent in feel, springy, and stable.

Finished with a stretch knit upper the Max Road 4 differs from the currently available Razor 3 Hyper in having a podular mid foot to toe off outsole with extensive heel rubber instead of a flatter “patch” oriented outsole, more stack height, and a compression knit upper instead of a non stretch monofilament type upper. The podular outsole, Hyper Burst midsole, and knit upper are shared as general concepts with the recently released Run 7 but make no mistake about it the compression knit upper in the Max Road 4 is far more supportive than the Run 7 as it is knit in a 3D fashion for support.
I was fortunate enough to participate in wear testing the Max Road 4 Hyper over the last year or so, testing over a dozen different versions.  Other than the shoes and the opportunity to contribute to the development, I was in no other way compensated by Skechers. As with almost all, if not all Skechers Performance shoes I have wear tested, my first pair’s midsole and outsole geometry and basic upper design and materials did not change during the process. The changes were to how the shoe fits, the knit design (density, fit, volume) , the internal overlays and padding as well as the outsole firmness.  

Hope: Sam delivered the goods on the technical specs of the Max Road 4! It certainly has some of the ingredients for greatness. The question is, does it work? 

Derek/Sam/Hope/Jeff: springy lively ride, good rockered transition
Peter/Sam/Hope/Jeff: comes alive when you speed up. 
Peter/Hope/Jeff: FUN!, great at all paces, 
Jeff: Upper fits well, and stretches in the right places

Derek/Hope: upper does not breathe well for me
Peter/Hope: Upper issues, ankle irritation, some slipping
Sam: Actually not as much fun or easy (awkward mid foot transition to run slow as faster. Not a great recovery shoe despite stack.
Hope: Hate to say it, but these are hideous; outsole durability is poor; midsole pods bottom out
Jeff: 200% failure rate (double blister on every single run) due to partial midsole collapse

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Mizuno Wave Sky Waveknit 3 Multi Tester Review: A Smooth, Springy & Soft New Wave

Article by Hope Wilkes, Jeff Beck, and Sam Winebaum
Editor's Note: Hope's initial review has been updated with Sam and Jeff's test results

Mizuno Sky WaveKnit 3 ($160)
Hope: I’ll confess that I haven’t paid much attention to Mizuno for the last several years. I’ve had a general awareness of whether the latest Wave Rider is out and keeping longtime fans happy, but that’s been it. Reliable combination of snappy foam and a Wave Plate, what else do I need to know? Enter the Sky WaveKnit 3. Something different from Mizuno: no plate!
Jeff: I’ve had a half-dozen Mizuno trainers over the last decade, and I keep convincing myself that they are going to make a change and get it together. I nearly pulled the trigger on the Wave Sky 2 last year, but the overwhelming number of shoes already in my stable kept me from it. Fast forward to the WSWK3, and we don’t have just a yearly update or mild evolution, this is the biggest step forward for Mizuno in years.

Sam: I ran briefly in a couple Wave Rider, liked the Wave Shadow 1 but the hard plastic Wave plates in all Mizuno were just not my jam. Unlike carbon plates in shoes such as Vaporfly and Carbon Rocket and Carbon X, or even mid foot plastics in adidas Boost shoes such as adios and Boston, they were focused towards the heel and combined with relatively firm dead joyless midsoles creating quite heavy, stiff riding, and firm shoes. And Mizuno stuck to this approach. Many have enjoyed them but not me.

I was intrigued when I heard the Sky Wave did away with Wave plastic and was super intrigued when Hope’s early review was so positive. A Wave geometry yes here by layers of midsole sounded promising as it appeared to flow and flex with the foot in motion and I was impressed Mizuno finally was up to something new and different.

Hope/Sam: smooth ride, comfort, serious pop for a plus trainer
Jeff/Sam: Bouncy/plush/responsive balance in a Mizuno or any shoe really is crazy and awesome, upper is super comfortable, outsole/midsole feel like they’ll go very high mileage, plastic plate is gone!
Hope: heel collar fit is a bit sloppy, upper is a bit *too* plush, price, weight
Jeff: Plastic Wave might be gone but still super heavy on the scale, $160 price point hurts
Sam: Weight and price are both up there but you get what you pay for here. Impeccable quality, durability, lively cushion, and a very nice ride for such a big shoe. 

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Hoka One One EVO Speedgoat Initial Video Review & Comparisons

Article by Sam Winebaum

Hoka One One EVO Speedgoat ($160)
Update: Read our full in depth multi tester review here

Watch our Initial Video Review & Comparisons to EVO Mafate and Speedgoat 3

The EVO Speedgoat starts with the super cushioned 32mm heel / 28 mm forefoot Speedgoat underfoot platform, makes it more flexible, and adds a soft and foot friendly, fast draining, very breathable kevlar like fiber Matryx upper similar to the EVO Mafate 2. The result is a drop in weight to about 9.3 oz / 264 g from about 10.2-10.3 oz for the Speedgoat 3, leading to a remarkable amount of cushion, protection, and comfort for the weight.

The EVO Speedgoat has been the race shoe of choice for many Hoka elites this year including Jim Walmsley who set a Western States 100 record in them as well as more recently grabbing a fine 3d place at the very competitive Sierre-Zinal 30K in Switzerland.

My test pair fits me true to size, no question, given the new soft Matryx front upper and Lycra stretch gusset. Our full multi tester review will publish soon.

Read reviewers' full run bios here
The product reviewed was provided at no cost. The opinions herein are the authors'.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

RoadTrailRun receives a commission on purchases at the stores below.
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun. Thanks!

USA  Men's & Women's HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

Join VIP Family and get Free Shipping and 15% in VIP Benefits on every order, details here

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun
Facebook:  Instagram: @roadtrailrun
Twitter: @RoadTrailRun You Tube: @RoadTrailRun

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Garmin Forerunner 45 GPS Watch Video Review: A Great Basic GPS Watch

Article by Sam Winebaum

Garmin Forerunner 45 ($200)
With a 13 hour training battery life, light 36 g weight, and just as accurate distance, track and wrist heart rate in my testing as Garmin's top of the line Forerunner 945 on my other wrist, the 45 also includes a full suite of sports smart watch features such as activity and sleep tracking, heart rate, stress, and summarizing Body Battery metrics to go with music control, notifications, weather widget and new Incident Detection and Assistance safety features when you have your phone along.
Read reviewers' full run bios here
The product reviewed was provided at no cost. The opinions herein are the authors'.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

RoadTrailRun receives a commission on purchases at the stores below.
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun. Thanks!

FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

Join VIP Family and get Free Shipping and 15% in VIP Benefits on every order, details here


Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun
Facebook:  Instagram: @roadtrailrun
Twitter: @RoadTrailRun You Tube: @RoadTrailRun

New Balance FuelCell 5280 Review: Exotic Road Mile Rocket Ship!

Article by Michael Ellenberger

New Balance FuelCell 5280 ($200)

We get a lot of shoes in for review at the "RTR Labs" - trainers built for long longs, racers crafted for speed, trail shoes for rocky terrain and even the occasional snow-focused footwear. But in for the first time is a shoe designed explicitly for the mile - so explicitly, it's named for the event (5280 feet for a mile; why NB didn't opt for metric is a bit of a mystery). The New Balance FuelCell 5280 is a next-generation racer, honing NB's FuelCell cushioning technology, a carbon fiber propulsive plate, and a spike-like outsole for a racing flat that can be used on the roads (and was, at the famous 5th Avenue Mile in New York City), but is just as competent on the track. Just don't go lacing these up for your next Boston Qualifier - New Balance has (admirably) pulled no punches here, and really designed a shoe that is extremely limited in purpose. If you're a fan of short road or track races - 5000m and down, with highly efficient   runners maybe sneaking in a 10K on the track - the FuelCell 5280 is a tremendous option. For the rest of us - it represents what running could be, if those paces weren't so darn fast...

Pros: Springy, spike-like (in the best way), comfortable, and damn fun.
Cons: How often do you really race the mile?

Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Salomon X Alpine Pro Initial Video Review with Shoe Details and Comparisons

Article by Sam Winebaum

Salomon XA Alpine Pro ($160)
Estimated Weight: 10.9 oz / 309 g (men's US 9)
Sample Weight: 10.6 oz /300 g (men's US 8.5)
Stack Height: 24mm heel / 18 mm forefoot, 6 mm drop
$160. Available now.

The XA Alpine Pro is designed for technical mountain running. It features: 

  • a Contragrip TA outsole with a front of outsole climbing zone under the first and second met heads along with a wide wrap up outsole rubber toe bumper.
  • a very secure upper with medial side reinforcements and a roomy (for Salomon) toe box. 
  • a firm but very well cushioned and extremely stable rear of shoe, Correction: Salomon catalog was incorrect there is no embedded Carbon Edging Chassi with an embedded rear Carbon Edging Chassis, and unusually for Salomon trail shoes, a more flexible front of shoe with no ProFeel film rock plate. 
Watch our video initial video review below with shoe details, comparisons to other Salomon models and results of a 13 mile hike almost 100% on rocks of all shapes and sizes in New Hampshire's White Mountains followed by a very satisfying and surprisingly fast trail run on more mellow single tracks with a road finish. 
XA Alpine Pro Initial Video Review (9:18)
Full written review to follow after more testing in New Hampshire and by Jeff Valliere on the steeps above Boulder. 

Read reviewers' full run bios here
The product reviewed was provided at no cost. The opinions herein are the authors'.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

RoadTrailRun receives a commission on purchases at the stores below.
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun. Thanks!

USA  Men's & Women's HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

Women's HERE (men's coming soon)

Women's HERE (men's coming soon)

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun
Facebook:  Instagram: @roadtrailrun
Twitter: @RoadTrailRun You Tube: @RoadTrailRun

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2 100-Mile Review: Channeling the Squish!

Article by Michael Ellenberger 

Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2 ($180)
Before you read this 100-mile update review, I want you to go onto Nike’s website (specifically, to this link, the product listing of the new Pegasus Turbo 2) and watch the little animation that loops when you’re browsing the show. Focus on the midsole of the shoe when the model-runner puts his weight into a footstrike. Look at the squish of the ZoomX foam as pressure is applied to it. This shoe is soft, and even when Sam and I say it’s firmer than the original (it is! I promise) - if you want a shoe that is firm by firm standards, not just by Pegasus Turbo standards, than this may not be for you. Keep that in mind as we consider the following…The 
The Nike Pegasus 35 Turbo was the first shoe I ever reviewed for Road Trail Run (and oddly, while last year’s Turbo bore the “35” numerals of its non-Turbo counterpart, this year has not included 36, but has gained the number “2”). My first run in them was a track workout, 4 x 1 mile. Emboldened by the fresh new kicks, I went to the track one dewey morning and had a great session - one of many on my way to a big half-marathon PR, and an overall successful 2018 of racing. “Maybe this shoe could do it all,” I wrote. 

Hard cut to 2019. The Pegasus 35 Turbo was one of the most divisive shoes of the year, with some loving the squish, and others despising the ways in which your energy was seemingly sucked into the midsole (and don’t get me started on that racing stripe). The original Turbo was, in the end, not the shoe that could do it all. It was relegated to being a recovery-day shoe for me, a milage hog for the days where my legs just needed a little marshmallow fluff underneath them. That 2018 track session had gone well… but it wasn’t really the shoes. The Turbo… 2

Enter the Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2. Gone is the racing stripe. Conserved is the generous layer of ZoomX midsole. Our shoe guru Sam has already detailed the revitalized Pegasus Turbo 2 in a complete written review, and an in-depth Youtube look, but after putting a shade over one hundred miles on the PT2s, I have some thoughts. 

This time, I’m not going to say the Turbo 2 can do it all. I’m not going to say this is the one perfect shoe. But in over 100 miles - and with paces between 4:30 and 9:30 minute miles onboard - I am confident in saying the Turbo 2 is a notably better shoe than its predecessor. It is a robust, more competent daily trainer, and well worth considering for your next go-to shoe. It’s not perfect, but darn if it isn’t great.

The ride here is considerably smoother than on the original Turbo - as I wrote in my introduction, yes - this is a very soft shoe. But it’s not extremely soft, and some tweaks to the midsole (whether it be the composition of the ZoomX itself, the React layer, the outsole or location of different structural elements or some combination, I don’t know) have really livened up the shoe. There’s actually some decent stiffness of the midsole at faster paces. Now, with all of this in mind, go back to that tab and those product shots of the Turbo 2 being compressed. Think about this “decent stiffness.” It’s all relative, runners. The Nike Pegasus 36, for example, is a considerably firmer ride underfoot. The Hoka One One Carbon X - oh, baby. You feel the carbon in that one. So the firmness of the Turbo 2 is not to be taken too literally… but it is there! And it is a substantial improvement over the original iteration, providing enough support and bounce-back that faster paces don’t feel muddled or lost in the cushion.

Sam, in his review pointed to a slight instability due to a narrower last. I didn’t have any issues in this regard, but the shoe is slightly narrower than the first generation. For me, the most significant step back from the Turbo to the Turbo 2 is the upper. The disappearance of the racing stripe is a positive change, it’s true, but the old upper had a much more comfortable fit around the ankle and laces, on my foot. Gone on the Turbo 2 are the padded tongue and heel collar, replaced with thinner, sharper, more racing-inspired elements. They didn’t present problems - I had no blisters or hot spots across all ranges of hot weather - but I just didn’t find the upper to be as comfortable, or as refined, as on the Turbo 1. In the upper change mix one also has to consider the likely drop in weight of approximately 0.25 oz / 7 g resulting in a very commendable 7.75 oz /220 g for a size 9.

Durability, fortunately, has been a highpoint - the outsole of mine (with somewhere north of 150 miles in total) shows no significant wear, and the pentagonal pattern is still providing sufficient traction. And good thing, too - because at $180 USD, the Pegasus Turbos are not cheap. It's hard to really say they're worth it (when there are many, many offerings coming in well below that price point that I love), but if running shoes are where you choose to spend your rainy day money - these should last you a long while.


So where does that leave us? The Turbo 2 is an excellent trainer. It's soft, it's responsive enough, and it's darn comfortable, despite the heel missing that extra-plush padding. ZoomX is still a bit of a mystery - aesthetically-questionable wrinkles included - and the one-year-only racing stripe is missed, if only hypothetically. It made the shoe stand out, at least. But really, the Turbo 2 is terrific, and these 100 miles have been my best of the summer - I've run workouts, long runs, and easy days without that "shoe insecurity" that can creep in when you think maybe you could have worn something better (okay, I wore the New Balance Fuelcell 5280 for a mile time-trial - more on those rocket ships to come). In 2018, I hoped the Pegasus Turbo was the one shoe to do it all. In 2018, I didn't ask the same of the Turbo 2 - but it came a lot closer. Can't wait to see what 2020 can bring.

Score (out of 10)

Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2: 9.6/10
-0.2 for a thin tongue that slides laterally
-0.2 for a sharper, less-comfortable heel collar compared to the OG.

Read Sam's full written review of the Pegasus Turbo 2 here


Nike Zoom Pegasus 36 (RTR Review)

This is the obvious comparison (though with the Turbo 2 dropping the "36" moniker, it is possible Nike is beginning to detach the two models). I came away largely impressed with the Pegasus 36 as a solid, everyday trainer - the same field occupied by the Turbo 2. But while the Pegasus 36 approaches this in a firm, almost-no frills way, the Turbo 2 is plush and soft. They could almost not be more different rides, and it's ultimately going to come down to the preference of the runner to see which of these works best.

Nike Zoom Fly Flyknit (RTR Review)

The Zoom Fly 3 is out now, but I haven't had an opportunity to test it. But the Fly FK remains on the market as a capable racer-trainer hybrid, and presents a third option in the Pegasus-Turbo-Fly spectrum. In a word - the Pegasus is firm, the Turbo is soft, the Fly is springy. It's a sensation I really enjoy, and the Fly FK was one of my absolute favorite trainers of 2018. The Turbo isn't quite as fun to run in, but should find a wider audience as an everyday trainer than the Fly. Plus, the upper of the Turbo should fit a lot more feet than the narrow mesh of the Flyknit.

Reebok Harmony Road 3 (RTR Review)

A more recent review from us here at RTR; the Turbo 2 is a more well-rounded choice than the Harmony Road 3, despite some definite quality in the HR3 midsole. Those who really crave the signature TPU bounce may give the Harmony a try, but I think the more tailored fit of the Turbo 2's upper will appeal to more runners (and the ZoomX midsole is no slouch).

New Balance FuelCell Propel (RTR Review)

New Balance has made a really, really terrific offering in the Propel, but I think the Nike is an overall better shoe. There are 2 runners who should give the Propel extra-serious consideration, though: those with wider feet (who may find better accommodations in the New Balance) and the price-conscious (at $70 less than the Nike, the NB looks like a downright bargain).

Enda Lapatet (RTR Review)

I've set it before, and will undoubtedly say it again - Enda is a brand that I hope finds more widespread success in the American market. The trainers are made in Kenya and the Lapatet is by far a superior shoe for most runners than the Iten (more of a racing flat/trainer hybrid) but is certainly a more firm sensation than on the Turbo. Once the Lapatets are more widely available, runners seeking a firmer sensation should take note (but as with the Peg 36, it will come down to what style fits your style).

Michael Ellenberger
Michael is a 2019 graduate of Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, with an interest in patent and intellectual property law. Prior to law school, he competed collegiately at Washington University in St. Louis (10,000m PR of 30:21). He recently finished 2nd at the Chicago Half-Marathon in a PR of 67:43, and was the top Illinois finisher in the 2017 Boston Marathon (2:33:03, 82nd overall). He recently secured a 2:31 marathon PR at the Austin Marathon. Michael is a gadget and running nerd, and has pipe dreams of running the Olympics Trials marathon standard. His pre-race breakfast is, and will always be, Pop-Tarts.
The product reviewed was purchased at retail. The opinions herein are the author's.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

RoadTrailRun receives a commission on purchases at the stores below.
Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun. Thanks!

USA  Men's & Women's HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns
Europe Men's & Women's HERE

Men's & Women's HERE

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun
Facebook:  Instagram: @roadtrailrun
Twitter: @RoadTrailRun You Tube: @RoadTrailRun