Article by Derek Li, Ryan Eiler, and Sam Winebaum
ASICS Noosa Tri 13 ($130)
Introduction
Derek: The 2017 Noosa FF was my favourite all-round trainer of that year. (I did a detailed review on my blog once upon a time here)
It sported a firm but stable heel coupled with a moderately bouncy forefoot and exhibited superb vibration dampening qualities that made it a very good daily trainer and uptempo shoe.
Noosa FF2 had a more comfortable but slightly less breathable upper tagged to the same platform. After that, the Noosa line was left somewhat in limbo, as the successor came in the form of the Roadhawk FF2, an excellent shoe in its own right, but seemed to be a step back in terms of the bells and whistles.
Fast forward to 2021, and I am so happy that ASICS has decided to release a new Noosa Tri model, the Noosa Tri 13. The Noosa Tri 13 is very different from the Noosa FF, not least because it went from a 10mm drop straight down to a 5mm drop. I believe this is the first 5mm drop Noosa ever. Does it work as well as the old Noosa FF? Time to find out.
The Noosa Tri 13 seems to have been designed on the same principle framework as the new EvoRide 2 (RTR Review), so you can see that by and large the silhouette is nearly identical. There are some differences though, and we will go more into that in the review.
Sam: I have never run a Noosa or run a tri but have run the Evoride 1 and more importantly the Evoride 2 which shares the same Flytefoam and Guide Sole underfoot platform of 25mm heel, 20 mm forefoot with the Noosa Tri 13 but has a different upper. The Noosa Tri ends up lighter than the EvoRide2 by 13g / 0.46 oz to come in at 7.9 oz / 224g in a US9.
Designed for uptempo running and racing, both compliment the Glideride the training sibling with all having ASICS Guide Sole tech. Guide Sole shoes have a rigid rocker based geometry with the focus to keep the ankle from flexing up and the toes from flexing down. This approach is designed to improve efficiency and leads to a clearly felt directed consistent forward motion in the direction of travel to a rockered toe off.
On the run, and I have done two A/B tests Evoride on one foot Noosa on the other, how are they different top to bottom? Is one “better” than the other and for what type of runner? Where does the Noosa fit into a runner’s rotation? Read on to find out!
Women’s Noosa Tri 13
Pros:
Derek/Sam/Ryan: Comfortable seamless upper
DerekSam: Smooth rockered ride, moderately bouncy forefoot
Sam: Well cushioned, responsive and dynamic geometry at faster paces (8:15 mile and under)
Ryan: Highly responsive, snappy, low-inertia feel
Cons:
Derek/Ryan: Outsole grip is decent but not excellent
Derek: Would have liked a higher heel-toe drop for a triathlon shoe
Ryan/Sam: Not a very versatile shoe
Sam: Firm, awkward and unwieldy at slower paces (9:25 mile pace or slower).
Ryan: Heel lockdown could be improved
Stats
Weight: men's 7.9 oz / (US9) / women's 6.5 oz / (US8)
Samples: M8.5 219g / 7.72 oz, M9.5 235g / 8.29oz
Stack Height: 5mm drop
Available March 2021. ($130)
Tester Profiles
Derek is in his 30’s and trains 70-80 miles per week at 7 to 8 minute pace in mostly tropical conditions in Singapore. He has a 2:41 marathon PR.
A hopeless soccer career led Ryan to take up running, and after taking a decade-long break from competing, he is back racking up mileage whenever he can. He calls the 2018 Boston Marathon the hardest race of his life, where he finished in 2:40, barely remembering his name at the finish line. More recently he has solo time trialed the 2020 super shoes, often sub 15 minutes for 5K.
Ryan decided to forego his Wall Street job to be a gear junkie, and is currently the fledgling entrepreneur behind his company, Bridger Helmets. Most days, you'll find him loping along the Charles River in Boston. Of all the places he's run, Central Park NYC and the New Hampshire coast top his list.
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 5’9” tall and weighs about 164 lbs.
First Impressions and Fit
Derek: I’m no stranger to the wild designs of previous versions of the Noosa Tri, and it’s nice to see that v13 has gone back to its roots after 2 relatively tame designs in the Noosa FF1 and Noosa FF2. I like the upper; it looks more snazzy than trashy. Not sure how the general public will take to it, but it works for me.
Step in feel is incredibly good. You can tell they really focused on comfort and going as seamless as possible with this upper. Fit is true to size with socks for me, but if you are planning to go sockless in a triathlon in these, I think you may want to try going a half size down. Walking around, the shoe definitely has a softer feeling than the Noosa FF, with a little bit of give to the foam, and some subtle bounce to it. There is a forefoot rocker there, but it’s not very stiff so transition still seems fairly natural at slow jogging paces. Heel volume seems a little on the high side. Going to have to pay attention to that.
Sam: Not a tri guy so not familiar with the wild designs of prior versions but this is one crazy wild fun design. Way over the top and I like!
The fit is true to size with a consistent, light, soft fit and plenty of security and hold. The upper’s engineered mesh reminds of shoes such as Endoprhin Pro, upcoming Topo Cyclone, and Reebok Fast so a thin, pliable quite dense and well ventilated mesh.
Noosa Tri 13 compared to EvoRide 2 on right foot.
There is quite a contrast in looks and fit with the Evoride 2. Evoride has a denser stiffer upper, a more padded tongue, but one with no gusset , and a much stiffer more substantial heel counter than the Noosa’s. Yes there is a $10 difference in price for the “fancier” Noosa upper but in my A/B tests the Noosa’s was more secure, more comfortable with less tongue slip and less lace bite
Ryan: At first sight, I thought ASICS decided to do a collaboration with Funfetti. Even if you hate the color scheme, you have to give kudos for such an upbeat and unconventional aesthetic. It’s not like triathlon gear is inconspicuous anyway, so in a transition zone these might actually fit right in.
They’re surprisingly light in hand and on foot, hinting at the snappy feel they aim to deliver. The upper mesh feels strong and ready to work, without any complex overlays or accoutrements. Upon stepping into the Noosa, the accentuated Guide Sole rocker shape is very noticeable. The drop, while only 5mm, is complemented by a steep dropoff as soon as you roll your foot forward. I’d say it feels the way it looks -- sassy and eager to find a finish line.
Upper
Derek: The upper uses a stretchy engineered mesh. The overall thickness and degree of ventilation is comparable to Noosa FF2, but less breezy than Noosa FF1. Like the Noosa FF2, there is a semi-rigid internal toe bumper up front to maintain toebox height.
The upper now has more overlays along the midfoot and this gives the upper a little bit more midfoot structure and support. (FF1 had some midfoot laminate overlays while FF2 did away with that.) In the overall scheme of things, I think it doesn’t particularly matter here because the platform is fairly stable with some raised midsole sidewalls in the current version. The sockliner is a conventional EVA sockliner.
The tongue is interesting. It uses a gusseted design on both sides to keep it centered but in addition, there are some tiny rubber nubs on the surface of the tongue pull tab. Variations of this were found on the old Noosa FF models as well; where non-slip laminates were placed on the tongue surface. These serve 1) to make it easier for wet hands to yank on as you squeeze your foot into the shoe (often with laces already dead-knotted in a race situation) and 2) to create friction against the laces so the tongue itself does not move about.
A big difference in the Noosa Tri 13 is the removal of the rigid heel counter that was very noticeable in FF1 and FF2. I actually liked the rigid heel counter a lot in those models because it held your heel really well and allowed you to get away with relatively loose lace tension, without getting heel slippage. Noosa Tri 13 does away with that and they have opted to go for a softer, counter. I think this, coupled with a less aggressive inward curve of the counter and less padding around the collar, creates the impression of a relatively high heel volume. This was particularly noticeable for me, because I tested several new ASICS models concurrently including the recently launched Nimbus Lite 2. The end result for me, is that there is more opportunity for heel slippage if you don’t lace the shoes up snug enough.
Finally, I note that the heel tab has returned in the Noosa Tri 13. They used a different pull tab design in Noosa FF1, and did away with it completely in Noosa FF2, I’m happy to see that they’ve re-included this feature. From a triathlon standpoint, putting on your shoes quickly, often without undoing the laces, is paramount, and having a pull tab does wonders when you are trying to jam your shoes on and your heart rate is through the roof after just coming off the bike. The ASICS logo and wording are of a very grippy material, again to help make it easier to grab on to.
Overall, I think the upper breathes well enough, doesn’t seem to trap a whole lot of water when drenched (always a good thing for a triathlon shoe where athletes are prone to dumping water on their heads during the run), and fits fairly comfortably. I think some people may have issues with heel slippage, especially if they go sockless, but this is a minor issue.
Sam: The Noosa Tri upper is a soft pliable engineered mesh similar those on the Endorphin Pro, upcoming Topo Cyclone and original Reebok Fast. It is more pliable and a more relaxed than the ASICS Metaracer’s upper and less dense and thick than the Evoride 2’s.
The heel counter is somewhat pliable on the sides and rigid at the rear and less massive and easier on the foot than the Evoride’s.
The 3D grid tongue which wrap far down the foot and gusset assure a superb mid foot hold and no tongue slip. Overall I would call this a “comfort” performance upper from its smooth consistent but not overwhelming security to its breathability.
Ryan: I’m in agreement with Sam here -- the Noosa strikes a balance between comfort and lockdown when it comes to its upper. The mesh is fairly friendly for a racing shoe, yet I don’t see anyone complaining about a lack of lockdown here. As Derek mentioned, the heel counter is on the petite side, and didn’t leave me feeling quite as secure in the heel as I’d prefer. However, that was the only potential spot of weakness I could find.
The extra bit of sidewall bolstering they’ve added from the midfoot up into the forefoot is a nice touch. If I were racing in these, I’d definitely opt for the elastic laces they include, because there’s no way I’d be willing to spend time making sure all six eyelets were properly tensioned with the standard, slippery laces.
Midsole
Derek: The midsole, as stated above, follows essentially the same geometry as the new EvoRide 2. It sports a low-ish 5mm drop, 30mm heel /25mm forefoot with a forefoot rocker profile. The foam used is a single density layer of FlyteFoam that seems softer than many of the other recent ASICS Flytefoam models, except the GlideRide and Nimbus Lite. Softness-wise, it sits squarely between EvoRide 1 and Nimbus Lite 2 for me, which isn’t a bad place to be for a presumed racing/uptempo shoe. There is decent vibration dampening from the foam itself. The foam is fairly stable, with a decently wide platform, and some raised side walls around the heel and midfoot. I found that the feel of the foam is firmer in the heel than the forefoot despite it being a single density foam. The geometry seems to work best for midfoot strikers, and I will cover that a bit more in the ride section.
Sam: The Flytefoam midsole and its geometry favor faster paces over slower. I think the sweet spot that really activates the platform for me is 8:15-8:20 per mile or faster. The heel at slower paces and especially above 9:20 per mile feels firm, low and awkward.
The ASICS Guide Sole tech is built into the geometry without a plate as in the Metaracer (carbon) or the more daily training focused Glideride (hardened EVA). Guide Sole is designed to keep the ankle from flexing up and the toes from flexing down to increase efficiency. To do so, and provide propulsion, the Noosa (and Evoride) have rigid rocker profiles.
The Flytefoam is as Derek describes sitting in softness and feel somewhere between the very firm Evoride 1 and the bouncier Nimbus Lite 2. It is clearly less bouncy and more responsive than the Flytefoam Blast in the Novablast. I would also describe it as similar to PWRUN from Saucony, an EVA/TPU blend with a slightly less dense feel and a touch less bounce. I do wish the foam itself had a touch more softness and bounce,
The combination of Guide Sole and its geometry and the Flytefoam deliver a midsole which leans towards tempo paces for me rather than daily training but those who prefer a lower drop, somewhat lower stack and responsive feel and who train at faster paces could certainly daily train in them.
In my A/B test with the Evoride 2 I could clearly feel that Noosa had a slightly softer bouncier underfoot feel, particularly at the forefoot. After discussion with ASICS we learned that the only difference between the two shoes is the sockliner (and the upper). The Noosa Tri has an thinner EVA sockliner designed for the wet of tri use whereas the Evoride 2 has a denser (to my sense) Ortholite insole. The more pliable more foot conforming Noosa upper may also contribute to a better interface between my foot and the platform. Amazing how these small details in an otherwise identical rest of the shoe deliver a noticed difference!
Ryan: There’s beauty to be found in the simplicity of the midsole’s geometry here. There aren’t any clever cavities, channels, seams, or flourishes in the FlyteFoam. The result is a confidence inspiring amount of clarity underfoot. The FlyteFoam compound deadens vibration quite well, and like the upper, it walks the fine line between being overly harsh or too unstable. With a relatively low drop, there feels to be a relatively large amount of cushioning in the forefoot. This of course changes quickly once the rocker shape kicks in and your toes are nearly kissing the asphalt. I wouldn’t use these for distance running on a regular basis, but there’s a touch of softness here which prevents these from feeling like racing-only shoe.
Outsole
Derek: The outsole is slightly different from the EvoRide 2, but in all honesty I think it is more cosmetic to differentiate it from the EvoRide. The rubber is quite thin, and this serves to let the feel of the foam shine through. I won’t comment much on durability here but wet grip was average for me, especially compared to Noosa FF 1 and 2.
We have to bear in mind here that in triathlons, a small section of the runs (within the bicycle transition area) are often on carpeted pavement (the sort you get with red carpet events) and it often gets wet, as one would expect with hundreds of athletes charging out of the water in dripping wetsuits barefoot to their bikes. As such, outsole grip can be incredibly important on wet carpets. I’ve seen dozens of people wipe out while running on these carpets. So with that in mind, you really don’t want to stinge on grip. The outsole grips wet tarmac fine in the Noosa Tri 13, but I’m not very convinced that it will be particularly confidence inspiring on the wet carpet.
In the original Noosa FF, I noted that ASICS cleverly used stiff rubber to line the periphery of the shoe, creating good cornering stability but also concurrently giving the shoe added snappiness through the toebox. They seem to have done away with that idea in the Noosa Tri 13, opting instead for slightly softer more flexible rubber and relying on the inherent stiffness of the foam to create snap. Noosa Tri has decent stiffness to preserve the forefoot rocker, so it’s mostly a non-issue.
Sam: ASICS rubber is known for its durability. The heel rubber is decently thick and is firm ( likely also contributing to the firm back on the heels slower pace feel), the forefoot rubber appears to be of the same firmness but is thinner. This is neither a high profile nor an outsole designed to provide the shoe flexibility as we have a rocker profile. While thin there is rubber everywhere it needs to be with an almost full length strip on the medial side to provide a touch of stability.
It is identical to the Evoride 2 outsole
Ryan: While the thinness and hardness of the rubber make you feel intimately connected to the road, I heartily echo Derek’s concerns that their performance in wet conditions is highly questionable. Its coverage area underfoot is nice, but I think there was an obvious tradeoff made on grip for weight here. If you’re on dry asphalt though, this design works very well in conjunction with such a dynamic ride from the Guidesole shape.
Ride
Derek: The overall ride of the shoe is smooth if you engage it correctly. It is a typical rockered shoe, where you do need to learn a little bit how to land and roll through the shoe to best take advantage of its geometry. The cushioning and softness work well for runs up to 13 miles, but on some of the longer training runs, I did notice some forefoot fatigue as I got tired and my form faltered.
In terms of technique, I think it works best if you land midfoot and roll through the shoe. If you are a heavy heel striker, the shoe may feel harsh, and may not roll through very smoothly as it feels quite flat between heel and midfoot. If you land very far in front, then you benefit from the bounce of the forefoot foam, but you won’t feel any of the rocker.
Again, there is a small window of opportunity for you to land to best engage the geometry of the shoe, and therein lies the biggest weakness of the shoe for me. I don’t foresee that it will work well for a wide variety of strike patterns. Engage it right and it will transition very smoothly for you, but if you get tired and don’t land and roll through just so, then the shoe starts to feel a little awkward. This is probably true of many rockered shoes, but the firmer ones (Nike Zoom Fly 1, ASICS EvoRide etc) tend to be particularly sensitive to suboptimal landing and transition. The Noosa Tri 13 is already on the softer end of the spectrum, maybe closest to a Zoom Fly Flyknit, but unlike the 10mm drop ZF Fk, the Noosa Tri 13 at 5mm drop seems particularly unforgiving of a non-midfoot strike pattern.
All this aside, the shoe works well as an uptempo shoe and mid-long distance racer. In fact, I think it is probably the most versatile racer in the ASICS lineup at the moment, with the MetaRacer being a little too aggressive and responsive for most people for long races. I do think the Noosa will feel somewhat awkward and out of its element for easy runs, so it isn’t quite so good as a daily trainer compared to the old Noosa FF range.
Sam: Derek has it right. You need to engage the shoe, and for me as an at slow paces heel striker, that means tempo paces or faster (around 8:20 per mile and for sure faster). Once forward onto the rocker, faster and flowing with the Guide Sole the ride comes alive with a quite easy to find groove from the rocker, a sensation of more rebound and cushion at the forefoot, and a high level of consistency and stability stride after stride in the path or travel. Run slower than for me around 9:20 per mile, more back on the heels not as much fun with the heel notably firmer and harsher and the ride more awkward. At my tempo paces, or faster, things completely change making the Noosa ride at a very decent 7.9 oz / 224g for sure race worthy for a 10K to half so 7:30 mile paces and below. At 8.5 oz / 241g the Evoride 2 with its somewhat firmer less friendly ride and denser heavier and for me less secure upper is less of a race option.
Ryan: The FlyteFoam compound is firm and highly responsive, and with such a flat profile from the heel up to the midfoot, stability at the moment of footstrike is exceptional.
Rolling forward, the Guidesole pivot forward is assertive, and drops you several millimeters closer to the road in an instant. The ride is a process that you need to embrace, not a one-fits-all formula for going fast. Derek says it well when he mentions that you need to ‘engage’ the shoe. If you don’t obey the rules of its geometry and transition through your stride properly, make sure you tell your orthopedic doctor that you were wearing Noosas when your leg pain started to crop up.
What Derek and Sam have noted about its preference for speed is certainly true. Don’t bother using the Noosa for a recovery run unless you have no other shoes to wear. Their rockered shape and firm midsole are purpose-built for testing out your threshold, not for a mellow jaunt around the neighborhood.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sam: The Noosa Tri 13 is a light, well cushioned up tempo and faster paces trainer racer that is clearly focused on faster paced running or for runners whose daily training paces are around 8:30 per mile or those who truly mid to forefoot strike. The rocker profile and Guide Sole, 5mm drop and relatively low stack height pretty much demand faster paced running. Slower paces with heel striking are not ideal uses for this shoe. Wind them up and they deliver a move along ride with a notably stable and directed path of travel rocker to toe off-stride after stride. Stay in their groove and they deliver.
At $130 they are a decent value for a light, state of the art performance up tempo trainer that can certainly race but value suffers a bit due to their limited utilityon the slower side of things, even compared to others in their price and weight range.
Sam’s Score: 9.3 /10
Ride: 9.3 (50%) Fit: 9.5 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 9 (5%)
Derek: I am somewhat conflicted in scoring this shoe. When it works, it really rolls. And it rolls great, until it doesn’t. I haven’t been consistently enjoying my runs in this shoe and it just lacks versatility of pace vs the older Noosa FF range for me, which is a shame. I would like to see how the shoe feels with a 8-10mm drop, as the current 5mm drop makes me more prone to develop forefoot fatigue in the shoe, even though the overall stack is clearly higher than in the Noosa FF. Putting the spotlight on triathlon-specific needs, there are many little things that help, from the grippy tongue to the seamless upper, to the heel tab, and I think it would be a fine shoe for up to olympic distance and maybe even half-marathon, but I honestly doubt the vast majority of age-groupers can manage to hold the form needed to make this shoe shine for a full marathon, let alone coming off 180km of cycling.
Derek’s Score 8.785 / 10
Ride 8.9 (50%) Fit 8.8 (30%) Value 8.3 (15%) Looks 9 (5%)
Ryan: The Noosa is a specific type of shoe that works best for a specific range of footstrikes. A slightly less aggressive rocker would have broadened its range quite a lot. Its intentions are right out front and in the clear and for what it aims to do, it does it well. Both its upper and its midsole strike an impressive balance between comfort and performance. Use it for short-medium tempo runs, use it for a tri leg, run its rocker shape the right way, and it’s a great shoe. Just don’t go “out for a jog” in it.
Ryan’s Score 8.6 / 10
Detractions for its narrow use-case, unforgiving geometry, outsole grip, and heel security.
Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
ASICS Evoride 2 (RTR Review)
Sam: Sharing identical midsole and outsole platforms, the Evoride 2 differs in having a denser thicker upper with no gusset at the tongue and a firmer stiffer heel counter. Not as obvious is the difference in sock liner with Noosa an EVA and Evoride 2 an Ortholite. The differences add up to the Evoride 2 weighing 0.46 oz / 13 g more. I prefer the slightly softer ride of the Noosa and its more secure, softer, and lighter upper.
The Evoride 2 at $120 is a good option for high school and college runners or those whose pace approaches 8 min miles on every run as a durable somewhat more structured single shoe in the quiver. The Noosa can be the same for some and for others whose daily pace is slower an uptempo trainer racer. Between the two the Noosa is clearly my choice: more comfortable and lighter.
ASICS Noosa FF 1 (RTR Review, Derek’s Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. FF1 was my overall trainer of the year for 2017, combining stable responsive cushioning with an easy predictable fit and geometry, and joint best breathing upper of all time, tied with the Altra Duo v1. I kid you not, my toes felt the breeze as my foot swung into raised knee position mid-stride. In Singapore. Amazing. Noosa Tri 13, is better, and worse. Better because its upper is so much more comfortable, and it is softer underfoot. Worse because heel hold is weaker, and the lower drop of the shoe makes it less versatile for me. Both shoes have similar bouncy forefoot feels (though in Noosa FF you do need 100 miles to break it in). It’s a tough choice, but I think Noosa Tri 13 wins out because at uptempo pace where it matters, the N13 is a smoother faster operator.
ASICS Evoride v1 (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. No question the Noosa Tri 13 is a better shoe for me. While the rocker is not as aggressive as the EvoRide, it is more forgiving underfoot with a more comfortable upper. It is also lighter which is always a plus when looking for an uptempo trainer/racer. The downside is the N13 has much less outsole rubber than EvoRide so don’t expect it to have the durability that the EvoRide 1 has. Both shoes have similar limitations in that they really need you to land in the sweet spot to engage the rocker.
Sam: Concur with Derek here. The EV1 was very firm and very limited in utility
ASICS MetaRacer (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The MetaRacer has a more locked down fit and feel to it, and also has the more aggressive rocker and underfoot feel. The MetaRacer is the better short distance racer and speed trainer for me, while the Noosa Tri 13 would be a better moderate/uptempo pace trainer and maybe racer for longer distances.
Sam: I concur with Derek. The bottom loaded carbon plate of the Metaracer produces a more aggressive rocker and firmer forefoot. Interestingly the softer bouncier Flytefoam of the Metaracer delivers more bounce at the heel if not quite the stability and with slightly less cushion feel. If you are looking for a rocker based light racer trainer with more versatility, the Noosa is a better choice. Pure short racer Metaracer.
Saucony Endorphin Speed (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Noosa Tri 13 has the softer upper and the more generous fit volume. It also has better outsole grip especially on wet surfaces. Endo Speed has a more structured upper especially at the heel, but the PWRRUN PB foam is also livelier than the FlyteFoam in the N13. Endo Speed is more versatile for me, and is an overall smoother and faster feeling shoe. Endorphin Speed is the better shoe for me.
Sam: While I agree with Derek that PB is liviler, at $30 less the Noosa Tri with its superior upper, better stability, and identical weight gets close if your need is for a speedy days shoe.
Saucony Freedom 4 (RTR Initial Review)
Sam: The upcoming Freedom, about a half ounce heavier, is also a low drop shoe at 4mm. It has a slightly firmer but springier PWRUN PB pebax midsole paired to a more flexible platform but equally stable platform for a more “traditional” uptempo ride that due to the flexibility of the shoe also makes it somewhat more versatile for slower paces.
Hoka Carbon X 2 (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. I think this is the best comparison to the Noosa Tri 13. Both are lower drop shoes, both have rocker profiles. I prefer the overall ride of the Carbon X 2. Carbon X 2 seems to have a faster and springier transition, with slightly better vibration dampening. The fit of the Carbon X 2 is also snugger and more supportive than the Noosa Tri 13. Where the Noosa might win out is in terms of durability, since the outsole of the Carbon X 2 is rubberized foam. The upper of the Noosa is also much more comfortable and suitable for sockless running. All in all, the Carbon X is a better shoe for me.
Hoka Mach 4 (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The Mach 4 is the bouncier shoe, but transitions slower than the Noosa due to lack of rocker. I find the Mach 4 to be more forgiving for easy runs, but the Noosa is the easier shoe to go fast/moderate paces in. Overall I prefer the Mach 4.
Sam: Mach 4 is flexible and has a mild rocker. At the same weight it has softer cushion and more stack and is more versatile as it can easily daily train. Yes, it leans milder and more forgiving in feel but it gets close enough as the pace picks up to be a more versatile option for me at the same pricing.
Nike Tempo Next% Fk (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The Tempo is a much higher stack, heavier and softer shoe, but it seems to hold tempo pace just as well as many lighter shoes, and I think it is maybe an even better/easier uptempo shoe than the Noosa Tri 13. Noosa Tri has better outsole grip, especially on wet surfaces, but is inferior to the Tempo Next% in all other respects.
Sam: Tons of cushion and a completely different approach to “tempo” from a rebounding air pod plus plate with a softer area up front for toe off. Very bionic and decisive in a more “vertical” than rocker sense I agree the ride of the Tempo is faster if noisy and more “awkward” than the Noosa’s smooth forward roll.
Products reviewed were provided at no charge for testing. The opinions herein are the authors'
EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
AMAZON Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
3 comments:
How would this fit compared to the Nimbus 22? I have a wide foot and find the regular width nimbus just a little too snug.
Hi Anonymous,
Noosa Tri 13 I expect snugger than Nimbus 22 by volume but.. upper is quite pliable. As a performance trainer racer it should fit snugger than a pure trainer as Nimbus is.
Hope this helps
Sam, Editor
Hi Anonymous,
Noosa Tri 13 I expect snugger than Nimbus 22 by volume but.. upper is quite pliable. As a performance trainer racer it should fit snugger than a pure trainer as Nimbus is.
Hope this helps
Sam, Editor
Post a Comment