Saturday, January 04, 2020

ASICS GEL-Nimbus Lite Multi Tester Review: An Entirely Different Animal. A Faster, Lighter, Greener, Softer, Bouncier Nimbus

Article by Sally Reiley, Sam Winebaum, and Jeff Beck


ASICS GEL-Nimbus Lite ($150)
Introduction
Sam: The Nimbus Lite is the 2nd shoe, after the superb 2019 Glideride,  to take ASICS in completely new directions.. And we mean directions, plural, as while the Glideride is a heavily rockered, directed , and near maximally cushioned, lower drop (5mm) trainer, the Nimbus Lite is a soft, flexible and bouncy more traditional geometry shoe with a 10mm drop. 


Both are completely unlike previous ASICS on number of different levels from upper, to cushioning feel, to ride characteristics. I think the new direction can be summed up as follows: far more exciting to run and modern, with none of the stiff, rigid somewhat overly supportive and grimly serious rides of recent ASICS  trainers. 


And Nimbus Lite also makes a strong sustainability statement with extensive use of recycled in the upper and biomass materials derived from sugarcane in the midsole 
Nearly as plush as the regular Nimbus but not as stiff or firm and way more fun to run the Nimbus Lite comes in nearly 1.5 oz lighter at 9.7 oz / 275 g in a US M9 (confirmed). We might question the naming as a Nimbus as it is such a different riding shoe but as a shorter faster days lighter companion shoe for fans of the Nimbus the naming makes some sense.


Pros
Sam: Bouncy, soft, flexible and energetic ride. Secure heel hold, easy fitting forefoot. Beautiful aesthetics.
Sally: FUN ride! Soft, bouncy, flexible, springy toe-off. 
          Classic good looks, easy comfortable fit, awesome colorways
        LOVE the sustainability component - will appeal to the younger (millennial) runner 
Jeff: Breathable and soft upper, midsole is comfortable, ride isn’t clunky, good bounce, and light in weight considering how much shoe is there.


Cons
Sam: Forefoot a bit soft, overly flexible, a bit to easy going in fit upfront for longer runs, some foot fatigue noted,
Sally: Soft forefoot definitely contributes to foot fatigue on longer runs; toe box is very roomy for a narrow foot such as mine; breathable upper requires a warm sock for new england winter running (my feet were cold in my first run with these)
Jeff: Pays for the sins of its predecessors (many runners won’t give them a shot), forefoot may be a little too soft



Stats
Weight:: men's 9.7 oz / 275 g (US9)   women's 8.6 oz / 244g (US8)
Samples: Sally W8: 8.6 oz., Sam’s M8.5: 9.42 oz  / 267g, Jeff’s 9.98 oz / 283g 
Stack Height: 
men's (mm): 15-25, 10mm drop,  women's (mm): 14-27, 13mm drop 
Available Feb 2020. $150. Will not be available in wide sizing.


Tester Profiles
Sally is a mother of five who ran her first marathon at age 54, and has now run the past six Boston Marathons and one Chicago, with a 2017 Boston PR of 3:29, good for 8th in her age group. Along the way she has raised over $200,000 for Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital running with Team Eye and Ear. A relative newbie to road racing, she has achieved All-American status in the 10K (44:04) and 5K. To commemorate her 60th birthday she ran the NYC Marathon in November finishing 2nd in her age group with a PR time of 3:28:39.  Sally is a compact (petite) runner at 5’2’’ and 105 pounds.


Jeff is the token slow runner of the RTR lineup as such his viewpoints on shoe and gear can differ from those who routinely finish marathons in three hours or less. Jeff runs 40 miles per week, both roads and desert trails in Phoenix, Arizona. He has a PR's of 4:07 marathon and 5K at 23:39. In December he raced his first 50 mile trail ultra. 


Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is 62 with a 2018 3:40 Boston qualifier. Sam has been running for over 45 years and has a 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range training 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah. He is 5'10" tall and weighs about 165 lbs.


First Impressions and Fit
Sam:  A beautiful looking shoe with a quiet yet striking aesthetic from upper to outsole. It all  flows together elegantly in terms of visual design. . 
The upper is a very soft, pliable, highly breathable engineered mesh. The fit is true to size for me. The toe box is not wide by last but the very pliable soft toe box should accommodate average to slightly above average width feet. In fact slightly wider feet may find the fit and hold up front more secure than narrower ones. I could use a bit more structure in the toe box especially given how easily the shoe flexes and is soft upfront. The heel is super well held with an ASICS clutch from a very solid and substantial heel counter that isn’t overwhelming as ASICS more traditional shoes can be with the midfoot well held in the pliable upper by fairly substantial Tiger logo overlays.


Sally: Be forewarned, I have not been an ASICS fan the past few years. Testing the GlideRide opened my eyes to the possibilities and reminded me to always be open-minded. The recent Gel-Nimbus 22 was meh.. stiff, heavy, not much fun for me. But the Gel-Nimbus Lite is an entirely different animal! 
Loved the classic looks of it as I opened the box, great colors (I have the blue/mint green womens, but love the green/gray men’s as well). Fits comfortably true to size.
Plenty of wiggle room for your toes and forefoot - perhaps too much for a narrow foot, as I had to tighten up the laces to hold the forefoot from slipping. The classic ASICS clutch at the heel holds securely and comfortably. The shoe simply felt softer than any ASICS I had ever worn. I wish they had come up with a unique model name for this shoe, as opposed to the “Gel-Nimbus Lite.” DIstant cousin as opposed to sibling, No comparison!


Jeff: I could echo almost everything Sally said. It has been a long time since I was excited about an ASICS shoe, and last year’s Nimbus 21 solidified that. Then the Glideride made me think just maybe ASICS had turned a corner - and the Nimbus Lite showed up and continued ASICS comeback story. I would disagree with Sam, the toebox is effectively wide with the stretch the upper allows, and it is breathable. Fit was perfect at a true-to-size 10.5, and step in comfort is as good as anything ASICS has made.


Upper
Sally: The upper is soft and forgiving, and very light and breathable. This breathability is  awesome and provides great ventilation in warm climates, but was almost a drawback for running here in cold New England winter conditions. After my first run with chilly feet, I learned to wear thick wool socks (easily possible because of the high volume toe box). I was pleased not to experience any hot spots anywhere. 
The tongue is decently padded but not overly so, and the ankle collar wraps the back of the foot securely and comfortably. 
For once, the laces are just the right length and actually stay tied, a rarity these days (what is so difficult about making a decent shoe lace these days?!)


I am really big on the sustainability component in this shoe with the use of recycled and bio mass derived materials. Younger consumers are really swayed by these features, and have been shown to support companies who make environmentally conscious products and policies (think Patagonia). ASICS is definitely going in the right direction here! 
Sam: This is a wonderfully comfortable fitting engineered upper combining ASICS strong rear “clutch” with a soft and mostly supportive fit. To follow on Sally’s comments about the sustainability elements in the upper ASICS provided the following breakdown:
Tongue mesh - 100% recycled
Shoe lace - 100% recycled
Back counter mesh - 86% recycled
Vamp mesh - 40% recycled
Tongue, collar and ankle mesh lining - 31% recycled
Sock lining top mesh - dope dyed yarn
I am not sure how much in total the above adds up to in terms of the entire upper but it seems to be substantial. I would like to know the carbon footprint required to get the recycled materials and the recyclability of the worn out shoe but it is for sure a great start . ASICS is to be commended for detailing this and in the future will surely go yet further when suppliers of materials are pushed or find market motivation. 


The upper itself is essentially a very open “fish net” with tufted denser appearing support knit in, the gray linear forms. 
Below the outer mesh and in a stand-off  visible 3D when looked at closely) is an inner white layer with many holes. 
As Sally noted this is one incredibly breathable upper. The upper is extremely pliable and soft and by and large works brilliantly 
There is a but that both of us noted. The forefoot hold could be better. I think the toe bumper, minimal in any additional structure beyond the rest of the upper could be beefed up to better hold the front of the foot to the soft and flexible underfoot platform. The toe bumper is only ever so slightly more dense in knit and feel than the rest of the upper,
No issues with hold or comfort at the rear of the shoe. The heel counter is characteristically ASICS stout and “clutch” with the quite thick but pliable Tiger logo overlays providing great midfoot support. And in a lesson to be learned by other brands the overlay at lace up running to the rear then down diagonally is effective in really locking down the foot in concert with the heel counter.


Jeff: Sally and Sam covered the construction of the shoe very well, so I don’t need to reiterate that. As a warm weather runner (though I did bust these out the other day in the upper 30s, so it’s not all heatwave in the desert) I love how airy and breathable the upper is. The toebox is ample in width, and extraordinary in vertical room making it accommodating for even the Hobbit footed runners out there. Sally is spot on in complementing the laces. So many brands use way too long, way too stretchy, or way too soft laces; these laces just work. They never came undone, they weren’t finicky at all, and a year or two ago that wasn’t noteworthy - but over the last six months it seems like a trend in bad, or at least, less-than-ideal laces. I didn’t experience any heel slip, and frankly, if given the opportunity to make a change to the upper, I wouldn’t touch it.


Midsole 
Sam: ASICS has done a brilliant job with the midsole, creating it out of new FlyteFoam made from biomass derived from sugarcane. It is of a single density with embedded (and not visible) forefoot and heel GEL units.


The midsole is named “FlyteFoam” but it distinctly softer and bouncier than any other FlyteFoam be it FlyteFoam Propel, FlyteFoam, or FlyteFoam Lite. I wish ASICS would rename the foam here.
The foam has cellulose nano fibers derived from sugarcane biomass in the mix. Our understanding of their function is that they reinforce the foam bubbles. And this appears to be the case, as while this midsole is very soft and bouncy it is not “sloppy” in compression and rebound, is torsionally suitably stiff while flexible at the toes,  and it requires no additional plastic or conventional EVA pieces to stabilize as say Boost has. Of course the side wall geometry likely also plays a big role, And in a welcome change, there is no ASICS Trusstic plastic pieces here either. I do think the forefoot ends up overly soft in combination with the soft outsole. 
GEL is still in the mix as inserts at the heel and forefoot but in a change from the usual it is embedded and not visible from the exterior. 


Jeff: If you blindfolded me, tied these on my feet, and set me out to run (sans blindfold) I don’t think I’d guess ASICS in the first ten-to-fifteen guesses. This midsole is so completely not ASICS, and that’s a very good thing. The lack of plastic Trusstic insert is such a welcome change - but that’s really only part of it. This midsole material is different, in the way that Skechers Performance Hyperburst is different. And the result is a shoe that’s very fun to run in, if only for an hour or so. Because it is very soft, and very close to being too soft. But I believe I’ve only called one trainer “too soft” (the Topo Phantom), and while this shoe gets close, it ends up being pleasantly soft for me.


Outsole
Sam: The outsole has plenty of durable rubber in two firmnesses.
The rear of the heel is firm rubber as are the first two pods on the medial (lower) side in the picture above and the first pod up from the heel on the lateral side. 
All the rest of the outsole, including the surface with the ASICS logo above, is what I find to be a quite soft blown rubber which given the deep grooves into the midsole between lugs makes the overall platform so exceptionally soft and bouncy. There is no Trusttic plastic at all here as one traditionally found in ASICS shoes. When pressed on the lateral side at the edges of the forefoot, the entire platform compresses very far down with the medial side less so I think due to the wider outsole pods there. To far. I think the forefoot could benefit from either slightly firmer rubber or shallower flex grooves to increase stability and reduce the foot fatigue we all felt on longer runs.


Jeff: Sam is correct, you can even feel the difference in rubber with your thumbnail. The pods at the rear are very firm, and the midsection to the front is super soft. The five deep channels up front allow for tons of flex, and perhaps it is too much. Early on in testing I thought this shoe could be a great, plush ride for all distances, but I’m definitely in the camp that wouldn’t recommend them for long runs. Perhaps if they used the firmer rubber throughout the added stiffness in the forefoot would help (which is really odd to say about any shoe, especially an ASICS), but it is what it is. And that’s not to say it’s bad, just unexpected. Meanwhile, that soft rubber definitely shows wear early on. By 20 miles I had already started wearing down the surface - but there’s enough rubber there, I don’t think there will be premature issues. I did get to wear them in just after a rainstorm, and the rubber stuck to the pavement with no problems. Not a big surprise with rubber that soft.
.

Ride, Conclusions, and Recommendations


Sally: The Gel-Nimbus Lite is the first ASICS of 2020 that I have tested, and it leaves me excited to see the rest of the line. After a bit of a lull, this could be the year for MAGA : Make ASICS Great Again! (No other political comments implied or allowed.) This shoe is downright fun to run in. It is bouncy, soft, flexible, and light feeling, with a springy toe off and secure foot hold. I found the toe box a bit wide and sloppy for my narrow foot, but otherwise true to size and uber comfortable. The softness of the midsole did lead to foot fatigue after 6-8 miles, possibly exacerbated by a tentative ball-of-foot injury I am rehabbing. ASICS is also making a wonderful sustainability statement with this shoe, which should enhance its appeal to the younger runners and more environmentally conscious consumers. 
Sally’s Score: 9.2/10
Ride: 9.5 (50%)  Fit 8.8 (30%) Value 8.5 (15%)  Style 10 (5%)


Sam: I concur 100% with Sally above although the toe box for my wider foot was fine but could use a bit more toe bumper structure. Otherwise the upper is fantastic in its soft, pliable hold and breathability  One heck of a ride here,so unlike any other ASICS in its softness, flexibility and bounciness. tons of fun. In fact the ride is quite unlike any recall shoe I can recall as it blends plenty of rear stable and very soft cushion and hold with a lively, flexible, easy toe off.  I do wish for more forefoot stability/firmness maybe through firmer outsole rubber up front or shallower flex grooves so as to extend its utility to longer runs and improve its value to an all around daily trainer. ASICS, yet again after the success of the Glideride, delivers a distinctive new run experience that is anything but ordinary in the Nimbus Lite.
Sam’s Score: 9.1 /10
Ride: 9.3 (50%) Fit: 9 (30%) Value: 8.5 (15%) Style: 10 (5%)


Jeff: A truly fantastic shoe that’s such a surprise. It is one of the smoother riding shoes I’ve run in, and compared to the Nimbus 21 (RTR Review) I reviewed almost exactly a year ago it is a world apart. The soft forefoot makes it almost exclusively a recovery or easy day shoe, but I didn’t find the performance suffered from it, and each run in the Nimbus Lite was a little faster than I’d intended. I was surprised when it just barely broke 10 ounces on the scale, on foot it felt more like an 8 ounce shoe. Ultimately, this is a shoe that should bring quite a few runners back to ASICS, or at least consider the long suffering brand. 
Jeff’s Score: 9.3/10
Ride: 9 (50%) Fit: 10 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 8 (5%)


Watch Sam's Initial Run Impressions Video Review


Comparisons  Index to all RTR reviews: HERE

Watch Our Best Early 2020 Trainer Comparison Video Includes Nimbus Lite

ASICS GEL-Nimbus 22 
Sally: The Gel-Nimbus Lite is much softer, lighter, and springier, all in all making for a more enjoyable run. I will pick FUN any day and hands down will choose the G-N Lite over the G-N 22 (W8)

ASICS GEL-Nimbus 21 (RTR Review
Sam: Complex in underfoot feel with many layers and pieces, heavier, more stable overall the Nimbus 21 is a plodder in comparison. If you like the Nimbus and are an ASICS fan seeking something lighter, bouncier, and livelier, run relatively short (4-8 miles) daily for sure consider the Lite as a compliment or replacement.


ASICS Glideride (RTR Review)
Sally: Similar springy FlyteFoam midsoles, but very different feels  The rocker of the GlideRide propels you forward in its unique way. Unfortunately for me, the GlideRide (W8) runs short and my toes were too close to the front for comfort on long runs, but I love the perceived speed. G-N Lite, being much softer, is more of the cushy speedcar, Glide Ride the muscle car. I would have trouble deciding, but GlideRide for long run marathon training (in half size up). 

Sam: Clearly more stable and cushioned up front, as well as more responsive and directed, the GlideRide (my daily trainer of the year)  contrasts with the Nimbus Lite’s, flexible bouncier and somewhat softer higher drop ride with its pronounced easy to find rocker on a stiff platform and even a front EVA propulsion plate. I get more utility out of the GlideRide as it can handle all paces and distances while the Nimbus Lite focuses more on shorter runs due to its forefoot softness and flexibility, Both true to size but agree with Sally that length of GlideRide is a bit short but I personally wouldn’t size up.

Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. Both are great shoes, but so incredibly different. The Glideride is much more cushioned with one of the most pronounced rocker geometries I’ve ever run in, while the Nimbus Lite uses a lighter and softer midsole. Glideride can go much longer, while the Lite wouldn’t be a shoe I’d consider for a 15-20 mile run at any pace. As much as I enjoy running in the Nimbus Lite, I have to give the nod just slightly to the Glideride because it works for far more runs than its sibling shoe.


New Balance 1080v10 (RTR Review)
Sam: A touch lighter, the 1080 and Nimbus Lite are a study in contrasts. The 1080 is a near performance shoe type fit while the Nimbus upper is..light and easier going. Underfoot the 1080 is a more responsive and more densely cushioned shoe while the Nimbus Lite is softer and clearly bouncier. Much as with the GlideRide, more versatility with the 1080 but not as exciting and fun a ride, Both true to size but just for 1080 due to low over the toes stretch knit.

Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5, while the Nimbus Lite’s toebox is ever so slightly better. Both are a joy to run in, the 1080’s upper has more variety (some parts are super stretchy, while others only have a little give, while the Nimbus is very airy throughout), and much more stable up front. While I like the Nimbus Lite a whole lot, the 1080 was a Saucony Triumph 17 away from being my shoe of the year, so I still favor the New Balance.


Brooks Launch 6 (RTR Review, Launch 7 review coming soon initial impressions here)
Sam: Here we go again. The Launch 6 has denser firmer and not nearly as exciting ride as Nimbus Lite. It has a relatively crude upper and lots of durable rubber at a slightly lower weight. Not a daily trainer for me but closer than Lite and old school in ride. Nod to Nimbus Lite but you will pay $50 more for a far more fun and exciting ride, something for sure to consider.. Launch 7 improves in upper and is slightly softer. Both true to size.


Brooks Revel 3 (RTR Review)
Sam: the closest comparison for me. Lighter all around at $50 and more than an ounce less in weight, both have a similar softer bouncier and flexible ride. The Nimbus Lite has more and slightly softer cushion and a superior more breathable upper. Both true to size.


Skechers GO Run Ride 8 (RTR Review)
The Ride 8 has a springy ride vs. the Nimbus Lite’s bouncier ride. It is 0.4 oz lighter, has a higher overall stack height and especially more forefoot cushioning and front stability and is stiffer and not as lively there as Nimbus Lite. It has a very decent more secure upfront but not as fine, light and smooth fitting upper. Ride 8 is clearly more daily training and even recovery run oriented while Nimbus Lite is more suitable for fun shorter runs. Overall the Ride 8 is a better value but not quite as big a smiles shoe for me. Both true to size with a roomier toe box fit in the Nimbus. 


Jeff: Both shoes fit true-to-size 10.5. Only when I put both on at the same time did the upper of the Nimbus Lite feel insignificant. The GRR8 upper holds the foot so much better, while underneath you’ve got two great midsoles. Yes, the Nimbus Lite toebox is demonstrably better, but the GRR8 isn’t bad in that department. Sam is right the Nimbus Lite is more fun to run, but the GRR8 is probably the better running shoe, and the better value. Tip of the hat to the GRR8.


Skechers GO Run Max Road 4 (RTR Review)
A full ounce lighter with yet more cushion than the Ride 8, the Max Road 4 was my big smiles shoe of 2019 as when you pick up the pace the Hyper Burst midsole and front pillars are incredibly dynamic in their spring off the road. It shares a very soft flexible forefoot with the Nimbus Lite, so much so that several of our testers, but not me, had front of foot issues. It’s stretch knit upper is a miss for some given the stack and flexibility up front. In the end it is yet more fun than the Nimbus Lite but more limited. Both true to size.


Jeff: Sam nailed it. The Max Road 4 is an absolute joy to run in, unfortunately it came with TONS of extra baggage for me. Literally every single run in that shoe resulted in a matching pair of pinch blisters by mile three (and not from a bad toebox, from the hyper dynamic forefoot pods that made the shoe so fun to run in), and I still kept coming back to it, knowing what was going to happen. One shoe I can only run two miles in without problem, the other more like six miles, so for that, I’ll give the nod to the Nimbus Lite.


Hoka Clifton 6 (RTR Review)
Sam: The bounce of the Nimbus Lite somehow reminds me of the Clifton 1. All subsequent Cliftons got less interesting but more stable. If you seek the excitement of the original Clifton in a durable higher drop, somewhat less cushioned upfront but more flexible, non rockered shoe the Nimbus Lite is a worthy comparison to the original Clifton. Both Clifton 6 and Nimbus Lite true to size for me but might size up in Clifton but not in Nimbus,


Salomon Sonic 3 Balance (RTR Review)
Sam: Quite a match up and study in contrasts here. The upcoming Sonic 3 has an olefin midsole which is not as bouncy but has a clear measured and more stable rebound. While the Nimbus has GEL the Salomon has a dense viscous memory foam heel insert to reduce vibrations. Not quite as flexible but more stable up front, the Sonic relies on a very well implemented decoupling to move it along. Its simple engineered mesh has a more effective toe box hold with lots of overhead volume but is not as softly elegant fit or breathable as the Lite's overall. It is clearly a more “serious” less bouncy riding shoe and a better choice as a daily trainer for me, although one with slightly fewer smiles. Both true to size,


Nike Epic React (RTR Review)
Sally: I was and still am a big fan of the Epic React (W8.5), perhaps because I have a narrow foot that the Epic React fits well. This is a close call - both are bouncy and flexible. I find the Gel-Nimbus Lite a bit softer underfoot, and thus not as well suited for longer runs, but just as much enjoyable for runs up to 6-8 miles. Can we call it a tie?


Jeff: Epic React is a half-size up 11, standard for me in Nike. These two feel very similar, with the Nimbus taking the cake on upper fit for me. It’s a close call, but I prefer the little bit softer midsole and much better fitting platform of the Nimbus Lite.

Sam: Not a fan of the lighter Epic React. It's Flyknit is rough over the toes and snug but improved in Epic React 2. It has a flat dull mid foot feel and just not as much fun to run as the Lite,


Adidas Boston  (RTR Review)
Sally: The Adidas Boston 6 (W8) was my go-to marathon shoe for several years, but all good shoes get changed in newer models. The Boston 8 is a firmer, less cushioned shoe than the Gel-nimbus Lite. Different uses: Boston 8 for the longer solid paced training runs, G-N Lite for the shorter peppy run. 


Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5, but the Nimbus Lite toebox is exponentially bigger than the Boston 8. 100% agree with Sally, stats make these shoes similar, but purpose-built for very different ones. I like the Nimbus Lite much more.
GEL-Nimbus Lite releases Feb. 2020

ROAD TRAIL RUN'S TEAM: BEST OF 2019 ARTICLES HERE
2020 Run Introductions YouTube playlist HERE 
Shoe Reviews YouTube playlist HERE

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!
SHOP FOR ASICS NIMBUS LITE

RUNNING WAREHOUSE
USA  Men's & Women's HERE (Pre Order Now!)
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns
EUROPE Men's & Women's HERE
AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's HERE

ROADRUNNER SPORTS
Men's & Women's HERE (Pre Order Now!)
Join VIP Family, Get Free Shipping and 15% in VIP Benefits on every order, Details here

REI 
Men's & Women's  HERE

AMAZON 
Men's & Women's HERE

RTR YouTube 2020 Run Introductions Playlist



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


8 comments:

Brandon said...

Is it as soft and bouncy as the New Balance Propel?

Anonymous said...

I am wondering to how it compares with the New balance Propel, similar ride, do you have a preference between the two. Is the Propel as fun to run in. Thanks

Sam Winebaum said...

Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for asking about Propel. Yes similar bouncy fun rides. I do not have my pair with me now and it was several months ago but I do feel the Nimbus Lite upper is more polished and secure while the Propel's forefoot is not quite as soft, or as tiring as Nimbus Lite's can be over longer runs. I think due to its fuller less segmented rubber coverage and additional forefoot stack. At the heel I would say the Nimbus is somewhat more cushioned and softer in feel and more stable with its 10mm drop appreciated by this heel striker vs the lower drop Propel.
Sam, Editor

Anonymous said...

Thanks for another great review, Sam and Team!

QQ, how would you compare to the Peg Turbos (ideally the originals, since i haven't tried v2)? I ask because "too soft" was mentioned a couple times and that was my thoughts on the Turbos. really wanted to like them, but anything >45 min just didn't work for me.

Sam Winebaum said...

Thanks Anonymous,
Been a while since I ran original Peg Turbo but yes indeed they had a soft forefoot. Here also soft but my sense more cushioned. The heel of the Lite is soft but broader and more stable. No comparisons as far as uppers. Lite far more comfortable especially toe box

Anonymous said...

Finally had a chance to try them on today, together with the EvoRide.
I wore a pair of Pegs 36 to get a comparison on the treadmill in the Asics store.
The EvoRide's ride is nearly undistinguishable from the Pegs 36. Same level of firmness, and they fit is identical. Hard pressed, I'd say the Pegs are juuust a tad softer in the front but the EvoRides rocker makes transition a tad easier.
The Nimbus Lite otoh are a completely different shoe and unfortunately at least here in Europe they are the same as the regular Nimbus, i.e. €180,-, which puts them into Turbo 2 territory. For daily/easy/recovery I have the OG Turbo, Turbo 2, Propel, Beacon 2, and Glycerine 16, all of which I'd put in the same category as the Lites, thus I cannot see a place for the Nimbus Lite at that price.
It's a shame really. Finally, Asics has three "modern" shoes (Glide, Evo, Lite) but they don't bring anything new to a runner's rotation. On the contrary, they compete with rotational spots taken by other brands models, that are just as good, and that were quicker to "evolve" over the past few years. So, unless you're in the market for a new pair of kicks, it's hard to justify getting one of those new Asics.

Sam Winebaum said...

Hi Anonymous,
I would agree with you the EvoRide is about as firm as the Pegasus but the Peg lacks any rocker at all which Evo has. Nimbus Lite doesn't seem to fit in with the kinds of shoes you run I guess potentially approaching Glycerin but with more flexibility and probably not the versatility. I will disagree with you on the GlideRide. At least for me it absolutely brings something new to the table. A max cushioned shoe with a truly effective rocker that can handle most paces including slow without exaggerated knee lift in the process. It is a ground breaking shoe and a new offer not really found before.
Sam, Editor

Anonymous said...

Hi RTR team--thank you for the excellent review! I've consistently run in Glycerins as my high-cushion trainer. Would you put this shoe in the same category? How does it seem to compare to the Glycerin 18?

Thanks again!