Wednesday, July 08, 2020

Brooks Catamount Multi Tester Review: Run Happy For Sure!

Article by Jeff Valliere, Jeff Beck, John Tribbia and Sam Winebaum


Brooks Catamount ($160)

Stats

Estimated weight (samples): men's 9.55 oz / 271g (US9)  ::  women's 8.5 oz / 241g (US8)

Official: 9.6 oz men’s, 8.8 oz women’s.   

Samples: men’s US 8.5: 9.28 oz 263g (259g right, 266g left) women’s US 8: 8.5 oz / 241 g (232 g left, 250 g right) US Men’s Size 10:  9.75 oz/277g US Men’s size 10.5: 10.4 ounces/294g

Stack Height: 

Midsole + Outsole only: 20mm Forefoot - 26mm Heel.

Total (Midsole + Outsole + Strobel + sockliner): 25mm Forefoot - 31mm Heel.

Total Road Hyperion Tempo is 22mm forefoot - 30mm heel

6mm drop

Available August.   $160


Introduction

The Catamount features a nitrogen infused DNA Flash midsole as found in the Hyperion Tempo and upcoming Hyperion Elite 2 road shoes with 3mm more forefoot stack than the Tempo at 31mm/25mm (6mm drop) , a hardened EVA ESS rock plate and TrailTack outsole with 3.5mm lugs.

The upper is a light mesh with translucent, until trail dusty,  overlays at the toe and around the sides. Weight is 9.6 oz /272g in men's US9 with the women's US8 weighing 8.5 oz /241 g. The men's and women's launch colors are identical. The Catamount releases August 2020 at $160. 

Pros:

John/Sam/Jeff B: lightning fast and springy, nimble, comfortable upper, ride

Jeff V:  Fast, light and responsive, comfort, airy/breathable upper, cushion, ride, traction

Sam/Jeff B: Highly breathable, light upper that balances security and comfort very well

Sam: Stable, springy relatively firm midsole that doesn’t punish

Sam/Jeff B: Outstanding forefoot cushion, stability, and protection

Jeff B: Surprisingly roomy toe box


Cons:

John: lackluster in technical and steep, sloppy forefoot hold

Jeff V/Jeff B: foothold on steep/tech terrain, no non white color option

Sam: None whatsoever but for highly technical terrain upper security


Tester Profiles

Jeff V. runs mostly on very steep technical terrain above Boulder often challenging well known local FKT's. 


John Tribbia (5' 6", 130lbs) is a former sponsored mountain/trail runner who has run with La Sportiva, Brooks/Fleet Feet, Pearl Izumi, and Salomon. Even though he competes less frequently these days, you can still find John enjoying the daily grind of running on any surface, though his favorite terrain is 30-40% grade climbs. He has won races such as America's Uphill, Imogene Pass Run, and the US Skyrunner Vertical Kilometer Series; and he's held several FKTs on several iconic mountains in Boulder, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah. If you follow him on Strava, you'll notice he runs at varying paces between 5 minutes/mile to 12 minutes/mile before the break of dawn almost everyday.


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 63 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:

Jeff V:  My first impressions were “Wow, these are white!”, followed by “Wow, these are going to get really dirty!”  I’ll admit that these shoes caught me by surprise and just the look of them with the white upper, baby blue midsole and retro, hiking boot gum rubber looking outsole had me skeptical.  Boy was I wrong!  The Catamount is light in the hand and lighter on the foot, with a very airy, yet secure feeling upper, with a somewhat minimal feel, though clearly with ample cushion.  Without even leaving the kitchen, I can tell that the Catamount is going to be a very fast and fun shoe.  And despite my initial reservations on the look of the shoe, they quickly grew on me, especially as I proceeded to get them dirty and muddy.

Fit is true to size, very secure in the heel and midfoot and the minimal nature of the upper with light materials is very comfortable and accommodating, though I question how secure they will be on technical terrain.  The lacing is superb, with a gentle squeeze of the foot without having to wrestle, manipulate or re-tie the laces.


Sam: The white struck me too but I guess the idea is to paint it with your trail! 

Light, highly breathable, soft and with a thin tongue and dainty laces all seemingly unsuitable for a trail shoe upper yet on close inspection we see a dense but pliable mesh similar to the Salomon Sense Pro/4, a bootie tongue, many thin translucent overlays around the rand and toe, and a stout heel counter. Buried under the 3.5mm lug outsole is a hardened EVA rock plate. Stealth and more ghostly than the Brooks Ghost road shoe!


The fit is a perfect true to size for me with plenty of toe box room for a moderate trails distance shoe and is soft and pliable should accommodate a range of foot widths. The shoe and its rock plate in the mix was very stiff out of the box but not to worry after one run it developed a nice forward flex point, for snappy climbing but with rigidity behind for stability.

The tongue and side of heel counter features some playful text including lines to sharpie in your race “My Crew” 

Not to worry the 100 mile reference is to 100 mile races not to the longevity of the midsole or rest of the shoe for most. Brooks assures us the Catamount should last 300-500 miles for most.

John: Okay, since we’re all covering the colorway, I love the white. Like Sam, I appreciate it as a blank canvas to prove you have been going off the beaten path in these. Other than aesthetics, the Catamount is a speed oriented trail shoe that feels light on the foot and springy in the forefoot. It fits true to size lengthwise, securely holds the heel and midfoot, but my slightly narrow foot has a little side-to-side play in the forefoot even when the lacing is tight. 


Jeff B: Maybe it’s a bit hypocritical (since it irks me how dirty my pair of Infinity Reacts are) but I appreciate a dirty trail shoe, white or otherwise. The white/baby blue/gum rubber outsole all look great together, but at the end of the day this is a trail shoe - not something to be hung on the wall and admired. Right away it was clear that this shoe was made for fast runs, and while the midsole material shares a lot in common with Skecher’s Performance Hyperburst, it has a very different feel. Fit is spot on true-to-size, and as likely this site’s biggest toebox snob, rest easy slightly wide footed runners: this toebox has plenty of room. 


Upper: 


Jeff V:  The open mesh upper is light, soft and airy, with a well protected TPU toe bumper and integrated rand, complete with drainage ports/flex grooves.  Fit is excellent and very comfortable, with the upper being substantial, yet not over built, striking a great balance of weight, performance, comfort, flexibility and breathability.


The booty style tongue is thin, but appropriately so given how soft the laces and materials are, I never feel any bit of discomfort.  The laces snug tightly, yet never too tight or constricting, just a secure one and done squeeze.


The heel collar is moderately padded and the counter is substantially structured, yet semi flexible and not overly built.


While I find the upper to be nice and secure overall, particularly in the heel and midfoot, I find that it struggles a bit running corners/switchbacks at high speeds, fast and steep downhills, sidehilling and technical rock hopping.  On one run, dropping over 3,100 vertical feet in just a few miles at a Colorado ski area, I was hurrying to get back to camp for dinner and while I was able to move pretty fast in the Catamount overall, running at high speed down 25 degree slopes was a bit awkward, as my feet were sliding forward and jammed at the front of the shoe.  While awkward, I still felt as though I was mostly in control and due to the soft materials, I was not particularly sore.  


John T: The soft and comfortable upper envelopes the foot, it almost feels like you are wearing a sock. I actually took a neighborhood spin in these without socks and noticed no problems. The Catamount is very breathable and airy, as Jeff says. The lacing is efficient and easy to adjust. I really like the soft and lightweight laces.

I noticed something similar to Jeff with the upper fit, especially in the forefoot. I have a slightly narrow foot and found the fit to be sloppy going down steep and technical terrain, or anything with a sharp turn. I didn’t get any blisters, but felt less secure in my ability to push the envelope speedwise as a result. 


Jeff B: Jeff broke down the upper construction very well, so I won’t reiterate anything there. I didn’t have the same issue as John, but I do have a slightly wider foot - and that said, the upper isn’t the best for technical running. Part of what I enjoy about the upper is its soft and pliable nature, and for a bigger guy like me that means when the trail gets gnarly I don’t have the same level of confidence. Perhaps more overlays, or more built up overlays would suffice, but I really don’t have a problem with it as is - I just find they work best on more buffed out trails. But that’s something of a given for me, since those are the trails I run fast. Or, what I consider fast.


Sam: The upper here is a delight in its airy light construction and is perfect in its hold for more buffed out trails and dirt roads.  As the guys said this is not a fit for the most technical of trails and that is not the intended purpose of the shoe, I found plenty of support and a great fit. 

While not that apparent when new, the translucent overlays almost completely surround and protect the rand and toe box while having slots for drainage and ventilation. 

There is velcro gaiter trap at the rear.

I do wish the tongue gusset was a bit stouter to provide more mid foot support.


Midsole

  • DNA Flash foam which is a material infused with nitrogen during processing
  • Same midsole material as the Hyperion Tempo and upcoming Hyperion Elite 2
  • Hardened EVA ESS  Ballistic Rock Shield


Jeff V:  The nitrogen infused DNA Flash midsole compound is light feeling, responsive and provides a very smooth and compliant ride.  I find the midsole to be very well cushioned and adequate for mid to longer distance runs on just about any surface, though I am not sure I would choose it for 100 miles as advertised on the tongue of the shoe.  I would describe the cushioning here as soft and forgiving enough for excellent comfort upon foot strike, yet firm enough to feel controlled, predictable and less likely to contribute to fatigue.  Response is excellent and I find the midsole, perhaps also because of the Ballistic Rock Shield, to be very lively and inspires me to run fast on uphills, flat and descents.  Protection underfoot is very good, while simultaneously giving adequate trail feedback.


Sam: Jeff says it well, a “light feeling” and running midsole foam here. Not bouncy as say Saucony PWRUN+ is but liviler than PWRUN and with a moderate spring back. The material is dense but well cushioned making the midsole plenty stable, protective and cushioned. It is less of a dull feeling and dense than Salomon’s Optvibe. I found the same midsole foam in the road Hyperion Tempo to be more masked in its lively feel by that shoe’s firm and not particularly welll segmented outsole


The shoe came out of the box very stiff due to the hardened EVA ESS Ballistic Rock Shield but within a few miles developed a nice front flex similar to La Sportiva, a great recipe for fast climbing which the shoe does admirably while behind the flex point things were stable.


John: Springy is the best word that comes to mind when I think of the midsole. Like Jeff, I think it would do well for longer runs but I don’t know if I could handle the stiffness for a 100 mile long haul as advertised. I’ve never run 100 miles, so don’t mark my words. And, while I appreciated the cushion, spring, and stiffness on rolling terrain - both offroad and on - I was underwhelmed with the midsole performance on steep uphill and downhill. In contrast to Sam, I didn’t experience a break-in threshold so the forefoot has always felt stiff to me. On the uphill, I felt like the stiffness was too exaggerated and my foot was losing connection to the shoe on push off. Similarly, steeper technical downhills presented another problem in that the rock shield protected too much. Unlike the Hoka Torrent 2 or the Salomon Sense Pro 4, I didn’t feel a connection to the ground or the subtleties of terrain in the Catamount. Because of this, I didn’t have the best control over my center of gravity and rolled my ankles several times while descending. 


Jeff B: I was incredulous at the 100 mile boast on the tongue, and it sounds like it isn’t just me. And while I will agree with the other guys, the Catamount has really solid cushioning, I’m not sure it’s enough for me for any ultra length. Two of my test runs were over 10 miles, and I found myself hobbling a bit after each one. I wasn’t injured, but I did have tender heels after the fact. In time the stiffness got better, and I’m in the “springy” camp as well.

 

Outsole

  • TrailTack sticky rubber as in other Brooks trail shoes with a Ballistic Rock Shield of hardened ESS EVA and 3.5mm lug pattern.

Jeff V:  The TrailTack outsole is impressively grippy on a wide variety of surfaces and terrain, especially given the relatively low profile lugs.  The sticky rubber compound adheres impressively well to rocks and slab, both dry and wet and grips better than I expected on steeper trails and semi loose conditions.  However, when running on really steep terrain combined with loose footing, then I long for deeper, sharper more pronounced lugs, not to mention on this type of terrain, you will be somewhat limited by the upper anyways.  Versatility however with this outsole is outstanding, making it a great door to trail shoe.  The outsole also integrates very well with the midsole, adding to the smooth ride and fast easy transition.


Durability thus far seems to be average, with only some slight lug wear where I toe off (I am almost always running on rocky terrain).

John: Like the other Brooks shoes, the Catamount has sticky TrailTack rubber for the outsole. The shoe has wide, clover shaped, and shallow lugs that are really good for road, smooth trail, and semi-technical trail running. I ran in grass, gravel, dry smooth trail, and dry rocky technical trail. The outsole felt secure on all terrain types, with very little slipping on the rocky sections. Like Jeff mentions, this is a perfect door to trail set-up. 

Jeff B: I didn’t see any official verbiage from Brooks, but between the upper and how toned down the outsole is, I was certain this was a road/trail hybrid. So much so, one of my runs was six miles all on road - and they were great. I still think they excel best in buffed out trails where the traction is more than enough. I’m with Jeff, the toned down lugs mixed with the upper makes for a spectacular non-technical trail shoe. But wear-wise, I’m finding them very durable, so if you stick with roads and tame trails, they should last you.


Sam: The TrailTack outsole with 3.5mm gets the job done for all terrain even road but for soft ground and loose and that is fine by me for the intended uses.


Ride

John: If you are a forefoot striker, this shoe is especially designed for you. A forefoot runner will find the Catamount to be very responsive and springy; it does not lose much energy on the return. I specifically found this to be the perfect shoe for rolling terrain with less technical conditions where you exploit the firmer ride and energy return on flat and slightly up or downhill. Differently put, the Catamount is a hot knife for buttery singletrack. 

Jeff B: John is absolutely correct. It’s a fun uptempo shoe that is anything but dull. The midsole has zero mushiness, and it wouldn’t shock me if the rock plate aided the fast toe off. Speaking of the rock plate, it gives the shoe pretty good, but not incredible protection. But this is a nimble trail shoe, not a lumbering crusher, so I can’t fault Brooks for not making it bulletproof.

Sam: This is an outstanding and fast ride for me balancing all the key attributes of cushion, spring, response, stability, and most terrain traction and protection. Just plain fast fun for moderate terrain at speed and for distance.

 

When the more than adequate full coverage outsole is added into the mix with the great midsole there is plenty of protection and especially confidence inspiring underfoot feel and agility (for timid old downhill running me) that I easily shattered my Strava segment PR (by almost 2 minutes and went to 9th overall on my 30 minute test loop in Park City with almost all the gain on a smoother yet occasionally rocky downhill.

Jeff V:  Agreed with John, Jeff and Sam that this is a fast and speedy shoe with a responsive ride that instigates pushing hard even if your mind and legs are not in full agreement. It can help propel you to speeds that belie your will, or, if you are racing or chasing a PR and having that perfect “on” day, then is the perfect tool to get the most out of yourself on smoother trails, moderate terrain and even limited doses of technical terrain. 



Conclusions and Recommendations

Jeff V:  I am really enjoying the Catamount and it has for sure earned a spot at the top of my favorite shoes list.  It is light, fast, responsive, well cushioned, comfortable, forgiving, protective under foot, has good traction, is versatile and is also very cool/airy, which is important to me in the summer.  I see this as a frontrunner in the uptempo trail trainer/racer category and also a very good multi purpose door to trail shoe that works very well on roads.  The only caveat however would be to keep in mind that this shoe is not ideal for steep and technical terrain (for all mountain use, I prefer a shoe with a bit more secure upper and deeper lugs), but it can handle small doses of rough terrain reasonably well enough if you are skilled and adept on that terrain.

Jeff V’s Score:  9.3/10

Ride: 9.7

Fit: 9.5 - would love to see a bit better security without compromising comfort or weight

Value: 8.5 - $160 is getting up in the high end.

Style: 8.5 - Interesting style, it grew on me over time, but not for everyone

Traction:  9 - very good considering the somewhat shallow lugs, rubber compound is very sticky

Rock Protection: 9


John: Brooks adds a high performing, fast shoe into its trail lineup. It complements the Cascadia and Caldera nicely by offering a shoe ready to devour Strava segments and FKTs on smooth, buffed out trails. For me, the stiffness and lack of foot security was the most limiting factor in liking this shoe more. With greater security, I think this shoe would be well worth the $160 and be top of the list of shoes that can do most everything from big mountain to cruisy singletrack.

John’s Score:  8.8/10

Ride: 9.5 (great shoe for fast paces on the groomers)

Fit: 8  (a little sloppy for a slightly narrow foot)

Value: 8 

Style: 10 (I love bringing white to the trail scene. It reminds me of seeing Matt Carpenter wearing Nike road shoes at races, and yes he was fast!)

Traction:  9 (didn’t have a chance to try on wet, mud, snow, or ice, but it performed well otherwise)

Rock Protection: 9 (stiff rock plate and toe bumper are solid features)


Jeff B: This is one of the more fun trail shoes I’ve ever run in. The upper, midsole, and outsole all work very well together to create a finely tuned trail assault shoe. Being a heavier runner, it won’t be on the short list for shoes that I can take for 20+ miles, but clearly faster/lighter runners should be eyeing them for exactly that. As a road/trail hybrid it is asking to be run hard in, and when you do, it pays off. The toebox is exemplary, but the $160 is….a lot.

Jeff’s Score 9.4 out of 10

Ride: 10 (50%) Fit: 9 (30%) Value: 8 (15%) Style: 9 (5%)


Sam: The most fun and fastest trail shoe of 2020 so far for me. It really speaks well to Brooks motto “Run Happy”! Understanding its potential limitations to somewhat smoother terrain (due to the upper which on the flip side will keep you cool and is oh so comfortable) It is an outstanding daily trainer and racer with a pleasant well protected and fast ride I would not hesitate to take to marathon distances on smoother Western single tracks and faster ultra runners on similar terrain might up to 100 miles. DNA Flash is an outstanding trail midsole foam with just the right balance of cushion, response, and stable spring, At $160 value suffers a bit due to versatility for more technical terrain and despite the state of the art materials and construction but that’s it.

Sam’s Score: 9.5 / 10

Ride: 9.8 (30%) Fit:9.2 (30%) Value: 8.5 (10%) Style:10 (5%) Traction:9.5 (15%) Rock Protect: 10( 10%)


WATCH SAM'S INITIAL VIDEO REVIEW

Comparisons

Index to all RTR reviews: HERE


Brooks Caldera 4 (RTR Review)

Sam: The Caldera 4 is the perfect easier days compliment to the Cat with is roomier yet well held toe box, stable broad platform, and more than adequate cushion. Not quite as lively or fast, it is my other 2020 Brooks favorite and so far my top easier days trail shoe and it is a great value as well,


Salomon Sense Pro 4 (RTR Review)

Jeff V:  The SP4 is lighter, equally responsive and has a more secure, almost custom like fit for me, which equates to superior control and confidence at speed on trails and particularly steep and technical trails.  The Catamount however has a higher stack/more cushion and would be a better choice on longer, less technical runs and especially mixed running where any extended sections of pavement might be involved.


John: The Catamount has a softer and more comfortable feeling upper and outperforms the SP4 on a rolling smooth trail. By contrast, the SP4 climbs and descends steep technical terrain better, has a more secure fit, and has a more nimble ride in the technical stuff. Both shoes are well protected in the forefoot and feel extremely light on the foot.


Sam: I generally agree with the guys but find the Catamount ascends moderate terrain better. The Catamount ride is more forgiving particularly in the forefoot and better protected there as well with more cushion overall, the Sense Pro/4 ride being rougher and firmer if still well cushioned in comparison. Unless bigger traction that the more than adequate for most moderate terrain Cat has is needed, or the terrain more technical, I would reach for the Catamount every time over Pro/4 and for any distance especially longer.


Hoka One One Torrent 2 (RTR Review)

Jeff V:  The Torrent 2, while not an upper equal to the Sense Pro 4, is still more secure and appropriate for faster speeds on steeper, rougher terrain and the T2 is just a little lighter.  While the Catamount has more stack height, the Torrent 2 feels equally cushioned, though lacking a rock plate, the Catamount has better protection underfoot and is more firm, so I think my feet would be less fatigued on longer runs.  T2 with larger, more aggressive lugs gives a distinct advantage on loose surfaces.


John: Jeff captures the differences between the Catamount and the Torrent 2 well. I would only add that despite the rock plate, I found the Torrent 2 to be better for loose rocky terrain because the forefoot has some malleability and connection to the ground. The rockplate in the Catamount feel stiff and unforgiving.


Salomon Sense Ride 3 (RTR Review)

Jeff B: I only have one run in the Sense Ride 3, but thus far I think they’re very similar shoes. The Brooks toe box is a little bit bigger, while the Salomon has a little more protection and traction. I’d favor the Catamount for faster or tamer stuff, with the Salomon being more up to the task of technical trails.


Sam: The Sense Ride 3 has a more secure upper and equivalent front protection and cushion but has a duller, more muted, and heavier feeling and weighing ride. I agree with Jeff that for more technical terrain and softer ground the Sense Ride 3 is a better choice but for all other situations the Catamount at a full ounce and a bit less weight is my pick.


Saucony Mad River TR 2 (RTR Initial Review)

John: The Mad River TR2 and Catamount are shoes with two different purposes. The Catamount is stiffer, springier, more breathable, lighter, and downright faster. It feels like and runs like a race shoe. By contrast, the Mad River has a cushioned and neutral ride for those low key cruisy days on the trail.


Sam: I agree with John. The Mad River is for my preferences overly roomy and high in the toe box, torsionally less rigid and not as exciting or as fast in cushion feel and propulsion effect. It has no rock plate but has decent front protection. Both share a lower profile outsole lug design. The Mad River is a more solid value for sure at a massive $50 less.


Hoka EVO Speedgoat (RTR Review)

Sam: At the same price and at  comparable weights with the EVO actually weighing a few tenths of an ounce less these two provide distinct choices for faster moving over trails. The EVO Speedgoat would be my choice for more technical terrain for its superior traction, broader platform, and more secure upper all at very light weight. The Catamount would clearly be my choice for more moderate terrain taken fast. Its midsole foam plus outsole rock plate package is far more dynamic.


Nike Terra Kiger 6 (RTR Review)

Jeff V:   The Kiger 6 is a bit heavier and fit is comparable.  Both shoes perform similarly, though I would give the edge to the Catamount in terms of response, cushioning and underfoot protection.  Kiger 6 has better dry and loose traction, however Catamount has better wet and rock/slab traction.  Upper security/foothold is better with Kiger 6.


Jeff B: I have the very similar Kiger 5, and Jeff sums that up very well. I would add the Catamount toebox is comparable in width, but has a massive vertical advantage over the Kiger and its reinforced toe bumpers. With A/B testing with one on each foot, the Kiger feels like a midfoot vice in comparison.


Brooks Cascadia 15 (RTR Review)

Jeff V:  Though not a direct comparison, perhaps helpful for those contemplating the Brooks line.  The Cascadia 15 is heavier, but is more protected all around with a more substantial upper with better security and foothold, a more aggressive tread and a go anywhere and do anything functionality, where the Catamount is lighter, faster, more responsive, better for racing and uptempo assuming less technical terrain and a great door to trail versatile shoe.


John: These are two very different, yet complementary shoes in the Brooks lineup. The Cascadia is well suited for all mountain, technical pursuits like running/fast-hiking a Colorado 14er, while the Catamount suits fast and less technical excursions where you are likely running the entire time.


Nike Pegasus Trail 2 (RTR Review)

Jeff B: Another recently released road-to-trail shoe, the PTr2 went with a little higher stack height and no rockplate. The Nike has a softer and plush ride, but still feels good when you turn up the speed. Surprisingly, both toeboxes are really good, but I think the Nike upper holds the foot much better. Both excel at faster runs on buffed out trails, and I’d lean just slightly more toward the Nike for the better underfoot protection and foot hold.


Sam: The heavier Trail 2 plays in the same easier trails category with some roads as the Cat but is not nearly as stable or the upper as well held for me on uneven terrain especially downhills as the Cat but I have a narrower foot than Jeff.  I agree with Jeff that the ride is softer and plusher  but I prefer the spring of DNA Flash and also its superior speed, front protection and traction. 

Read reviewers' full run bios here
The product reviewed was a provided at no charge. 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!

RUNNING WAREHOUSE

USA  Men's & Women's SHOP HERE Available Now!
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

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

HOLABIRD SPORTS
Available Now!
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

REI Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

AMAZON  
Available Now!
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

WATCH OUR YOUTUBE REVIEWS ON THE ROADTRAILRUN CHANNEL



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

8 comments:

Jeff said...

Following

John Tribbia said...

Following

Dan said...

I got a little excited over this shoe but once again, hearing about a sloppy fitting upper is disappointing. I've grown accustomed to the secure fit of Salomon which is so important on trails. Might still try one on since it does look pretty comparable to my 100mi companion, the Speedgoat.

Sam Winebaum said...

It is not sloppy but yes a lighter fitting upper and depends on trail type. The Cat is far lighter 1oz less than a regular Speedgoat or Sense Ride 3

Jeff Valliere said...

I would not discount the shoe because of upper security, I think much of it has to do with the width/volume of your foot, the terrain and speed. Overall I find it to be very good, but just had to note that when running fast on steep downhills (like 15% grade and sometimes even 30% grade), moving fast and sidehilling in tough terrain, my slim foot is sliding around some and forward on the straight steep downhills and if consistently targeting that sort of steeper mountain terrain, would select a shoe with better security and more ample lugs. That said, the Catamount for me was good enough on the rough and steep that it is fine for small doses, then it just rips everywhere else. A great addition to the quiver!

Unknown said...

Great review guys. Looking forward to getting my hands on these, they look like a lot of fun!

Unknown said...

How does the show compare to the Saucony Switchback 2 in terms of responsiveness?

Sam Winebaum said...

Hi Unknown,
I find the Catamount more responsive overall as its plate and outsole are more substantial in effect and its midsole more springy than bouncy (Switchback 2)
Sam, Editor