Article by Jeff Beck, Marcel Krebs, Derek Li, Peter Stuart, Alex Tilsely, and Sam Winebaum
Scott Sports Pursuit ($150)
Introduction
Sam: The Pursuit is a maximally cushioned trainer with a 36mm heel / 28mm forefoot full stack height weighing a very light weight 8.8 oz / 250g in a US9. Seeing the specs I immediately thought of the Clifton, Rincon and Mach 4 from Hoka as closest comparables.
It features a plateless midsole made of Kinetic Light Foam, an EVA/ Olefin block polymer blend from Dow. This Infuse foam is in the same family as Nike React and Salomon’s Optivibe and Energy Surge with the proportions of each key material specified by the brands. Here, Scott chose a relatively firm flavor but with noted vibration reduction, plenty of cushion, and a quick rebound. The Pursuit has Scott’s ER 2 rocker geometry which delivers rear stability and a distinct front which combines a pronounced rocker and after break in some flexibility.
Scott-Sports is a Swiss based brand whose forte has been cycling, sports clothing, ski poles, helmets, sunglasses, goggles, and trail running shoes and lots of carbon in cycling. Founded in 1958 in Sun Valley, Idaho and now based in Switzerland Scott invented the first tapered aluminum ski pole replacing bamboo and steel, the first aero handlebars so famously used by Greg Lemond, the first carbon MTB, and more over the years.
Their running shoes have not been consistently distributed in the US (that is going to change we hope!) while their trail running shoes are well known in Europe most especially in the past for the most technical of running with an initial focus on Sky Running and for tri. In recent years their trail line has expanded with a more diverse offering the RTR team is testing now.
In a call with RTR, Scott told us their work on rocker geometries for running shoes goes back 12 years, apparently even predating Hoka’s rocker geometry efforts.
Having just tested the Speed Carbon (RTR Multi Tester Review) with the same rocker but with a Carbitex plate and lower 5mm drop, I was eager to see how they would compare and differ. See the comparison video review here)
Jeff: Coming out of nowhere, sort of, as they are a pioneer in ski, cycle, and have fine trail shoes, If you haven’t seen our recent review of the Speed Carbon RC (RTR Review), the reviewers were impressed by the Swiss brand’s performance shoe - and here’s we have its more training focused sibling. The Pursuit checks a number of boxes with a relatively high stack height, modern geometry rocker midsole, light weight, breathable upper, and accommodating fit, for a seemingly very fair $150 price tag - on paper this shoe seems like a home run. Will it hold up to the many testers’ expectations?
Marcel: While Scott does not have a very broad run awareness in the US so far, in Europe Scott is a quite well known sports brand. But in the past it was more focused on bikes and accessories. Nonetheless, in the last years this changed noticeably as Scott brought great trail shoes to the market - namely the Kinabalu for shorter and lighter trails and the Supertrac for the technical and muddy stuff. In addition they have released great apparel, especially in their RC (stands for Racing) series - comparable to the Salomon S/Lab product line.
Therefore, I was pumped to see that Scott also entered the road running market in the course of the last couple of months with new products like the Speed Carbon RC (and the product at hand, the Scott Pursuit.
On paper, the Pursuit seems to me to be a kind of a “Saucony Shift Lite” with a significantly wider toe box (round vs. pointed), seeming quite promising to me because of my wide forefoot.
So read on to find out how the Scott Pursuit holds up against those expectations.
Peter: I didn’t see this one coming at all. I don’t know if I’ve ever run in a Scott shoe. Lightweight, high stack and a forgiving upper. Let’s do this.
Derek: I think I've lost track of how many times I've come across people saying what a great trainer XX carbon-plated shoe is, but it would be great if they could do one without the plate.
After seeing several attempts at making maximalist shoes with some sort of rocker technology, but without the embedded carbon plate, I think it can safely be said that it is not as simple as removing a plate and getting a shoe with a more flexible forefoot as a result. The interaction between the foam and the plate and the underfoot feel and ride are incredibly complex, and I think very few brands have figured it out.
In the Scott Pursuit, they have come up with a trainer that seems at first glance to be the training companion to their flagship Speed Carbon RC, but there are so many things about the shoe that make it better, and worse, than the RC that I think it is not very fair to say the Pursuit sits firmly in the bridesmaid category. Clear as mud so far? Yeah… I wasn't quite sure what to expect either when I started testing the shoe. You will have to read on to find out.
Alex: I think of Scott as a bike brand, so I had no idea what to expect from the Pursuit. But, I’ve been in the market for a good long run shoe for a while now, so I figured it was worth a shot!
Pros:
Light for its 36mm heel / 28 mm full stack height - Jeff, Marcel, Peter, Sam, Derek, Alex
Rocker midsole is aggressive without being awkward - Jeff, Marcel, Peter, Sam
Stable platform - Jeff, Marcel, Peter, Sam, Derek
Takes “firm squish” back from the oxymoron list - Jeff, Peter, Alex
Well cushioned without being overly firm or mushy soft with noted quick rebound Sam, Marcel, Derek, Alex
A midsole and geometry tuned for efficiency and cushion Sam, Marcel
Breathable upper - Jeff, Marcel, Peter, Derek, Alex
Nice wide toe box - Jeff, Marcel, Alex
Outsole grip very good for a road shoe - Marcel
Cons:
Thin laces aren’t great - Jeff, Marcel, Peter, Sam (they’re so not great that they’re terrible), Alex
Arch/midfoot fit issues - Jeff, Derek
Forefoot rubber could be a touch firmer or thicker for more response Sam
Lacing system (double eyelets) could be simplified Sam, Marcel
Issues with heel lockdown required lace lock Sam
Forefoot cushion causes some numbness - Alex
Stats
Samples Weights: men’s 8.57 oz /243g (241/245) US8.5, 8.9 oz / 253g US10.5, 254g / 8.93 oz US10, US9.5 8.59oz / 243.5g
Official MidsoleStack Height: 30 mm heel / 22 mm forefoot manufacturer listed
Measured (Derek) full stack 36/28 including sockliner.
Midsole Stack Height: 30/22
Available now $150
First Impressions and Fit
Jeff: There aren’t many running shoe companies that I haven’t tried at least one of their shoes prior to 2021, and Scott Sports is on that list. I was eager to throw my hat in the ring especially for the Pursuit, because well, I’m always curious to try well-cushioned daily trainers. And right out of the box, this one impresses for sure. Aesthetically I’m trying not to let the opposite color McLaren colorway influence me too much, but visually I’m a big fan, and I can’t get over just how well cushioned they are for the weight. While I seem to weigh every shoe at some point, I’m not hung up on the weight for performance; daily trainers are meant for lots of easy miles, an extra ounce or two doesn’t change how it works on the road when you’ve got more than a couple extra pounds like me.
Besides being absurdly light, they have a unique feel underfoot as well. Despite being very well cushioned, they are also surprisingly firm, and stable, with an immediately noticeable rocker under the forefoot. This shoe does not like standing still.
The fit is less straightforward. Lengthwise they are very nice, just on the generous side of true-to-size with one of the best non-Altra/Topo toe boxes I’ve ever tried. However, the midsole/arch area has proven to be problematic. I noticed it shortly after putting them on for the first time, but wasn’t sure how much of an issue it would be out on the run. My initial easy run brought it back some, but during the four miles it was a minor annoyance at most. Unfortunately that wouldn’t be the last of my midfoot issues with the Pursuit.
Marcel: Having the brand’s trademark shoe and apparel yellow/ black colorway in mind when opening the package, I was surprised to see the nice blue colors of the Pursuit samples. While the Pursuit is available in other colorways as well, I really like the blue I received.
Even more important, the step-in feel was excellent. The fit was really accommodating. Especially the toe box is quite roomy, which I highly appreciate as a narrow toe-box often causes blisters between the toes for me. After the first step-in, I was convinced that this will not be the case with the Pursuit and this should hold true after the first runs too (little spoiler; see the ‘Ride’-section for further details).
When walking around in the Pursuit in my apartment, I immediately felt something like a medial arch support under the midfoot. But when I took the Pursuit out for my first run, this feeling immediately disappeared.
Peter: Ahh, the beauty of low expectations. Huh, Scott, okay, let’s check it out. Love the cushion to weight ratio right out of the box. Colorway is fine if not stunning. First run impression was that they were pretty stiff/firm for such a highly cushioned shoe and there was definitely a pressure under my right arch that caused some irritation. About 6 miles into my first run they started to shapeshift a bit and, dare I say it, break in! Arch irritation went away.
Derek: Finally, we are seeing a simple no-nonsense upper on a modern shoe. The colours are okay. Nothing overly eye-catching but that’s okay. Step-in feel was worrying. Even without socks, I could immediately feel the raised midsole sidewall overlay biting into my feet on the medial sides. It’s a bit like the Infinity React which was a major deal-breaker for me. I am going to have to be very careful the first couple of runs, maybe choose some thicker socks to protect that arch a little more. Hopefully the foam softens up a bit. Besides this, the fit is true to size. Unlike the others, I do not find the toebox to be roomy. It’s just right for a trainer. I’d say only marginally wider than say an Endorphin Speed for me. Definitely lower toe-box height than the Endorphin Speed. In other words, significantly less roomy than the Speed Carbon RC.
Sam: A bright looking shoe that conveys light and lively without overdoing it. The upper is soft and very pliable with some midfoot underlays and no gusset tongue.
Most notable are the olive overlays at the front of the toe box and especially the medial and lateral ones down low extending from the heel. On try on I felt the medial one biting a bit but this disappeared on all runs including a half race in them. In part I think the shoe needs some break in as once it got more flexible (and there is some flex here after a few miles) there is less pressure as the foot moves forward at mid foot. Strangely it reappeared walking around barefoot in them so I suspect the issue is the interface between the thin sockliner and those overlays. Derek has some solutions in his upper section.
I initially struggled with heel (especially) and mid foot lock down in my half size up pair. Then thanks to Jeff I discovered that the lacing went through 2 sets of eyelets for each row out of the box as shown below.
Running the laces just through the inner eyelets in each row solved the mid foot lock down and doing a lace lock the rear.
The shoe should be laced up that way “out of the box” and Scott should consider eliminating the second set of eyelets and maybe consider a gusset tongue. The thin laces are a struggle to pull through the doubled up eyelets and somewhat easier through when laced in the single. I also think a wider lace might be helpful to ensure better lockdown and comfort out of the box. The achilles collar is a bit too “square” and might be brought in tighter. Once I got everything “adjusted” I have had no issues.
In terms of toe box volume, comfort, and hold it is superb and especially so in such an unstructured upper. I was sent a half size up and would for sure go true to size as they were a bit too roomy for me requiring thicker socks and a lace lock. While not super wide the mesh is so pliable that even wider feet should be happy here. Any wider and I think they would get sloppy for even moderate width feet given the mesh. The front olive overlay shown above I think plays a key role in locking down the front of the foot. The front fit is right dead center on the border of comfort fit /performance fit.
Alex: I was already excited -- or at least, curious -- to try the Pursuit, and opening the box had me even more excited. The women’s colorway is, at least in my opinion, really nice. The “coral pink” is not super pink, and the green/coral combination is enough color to be interesting but muted enough that I suspect even those averse to bright colors will be ok with the Pursuit. More important than color, though, I was shocked by how light they are. They reminded me a bit of Hokas, which always seem to weigh far less than they look like they’re going to. The step-in feel had a bit of a hint of Hoka, as well. I could feel the rocker -- not in a bad way -- and was excited about the cushion, which even walking around my kitchen felt somehow both soft and responsive.
Fit-wise, my usual women’s 6.5 felt right, and the toe box is just about generous enough for my D-width feet. (I would love if it were a touch wider, but it’s workable.) The thin laces make it hard to get the shoe locked down, and I’ll admit I’m still playing with that on my runs, but heel-lock lacing seems to help a bit.
Upper
Jeff: Scott outfitted the Pursuit with what they call “super lightweight” mesh, and they aren’t kidding. It isn’t quite so thin as to allow you to see your socks underneath, but it’s close. The thin mesh makes the shoe extremely breathable, especially given the minimal overlays. The bottom four eyelets have overlay reinforcing the thin upper, probably a good move to prevent the thin laces from tearing through the upper. The next three sets of eyelets are more built up, utilizing a double eyelet on each, with standard lacing going in through the first eyelet then out the second - we’ve seen similar setups on knit uppers that are one piece. Personally I found the double eyelets prevented the shoe from getting solid lockdown, but luckily with the fairly traditional construction you can skip an eyelet and get a good fit. The tongue is decently cushioned, which is good, and though it isn’t gusseted it stayed in place during all of my runs. The padded tongue is essential because the laces are very thin and could be prone to lace bite. The heel collar is relatively firm, with a little flex near the bottom, and completely flexible at the top. It’s nicely done.
Marcel: As far as the lacing is concerned, I totally agree with Jeff. This can be optimized in the next version of the Pursuit for sure. Good thing is that it can be fixed very easily by using classic lace holes combined with slightly thicker laces. I personally prefer round and soft laces but this comes down to personal preference. The padding of the tongue and the heel counter hits exactly the sweet spot of being nicely padded but not overbuilt. Well done Scott!
Fit is true to size for me and there is no heel slippage.
The upper feels nicely soft without being too thin for autumn and winter. The volume of the shoes also leaves room for thicker socks even when having a wider forefoot like me.
Peter: The upper feels great for the most part. It looks a little like a Skechers knit upper from a few years ago, but it’s a thinner engineered mesh. The toebox is accommodating and once the bite in the arch went away (about 6 miles into my first run) the Scott Pursuit has been a terrifically comfortable shoe to run in.
The positives are that the shoe holds my foot well, the tongue is adequately padded and stays in place.
The laces, however, need to be addressed. They are very thin. Very thin indeed. This is problematic in a couple of ways. First, they’re so thin that they tend to cause some lace bite. The bigger issue for me is that they are really difficult to adjust. It’s hard to get a lockdown on the upper part of the foot due to the combination of very thin laces and very small eyelets.
To complicate matters, the shoe comes laced with double eyelets, which make it nearly impossible to pull laces through. I’m experimenting with lacing them by using only 1 of the 2 eyelets that are side by side to see if it allows better lockdown.
Derek: The upper materials are pretty nice. Nothing very radical, but works very well in its simplicity. It reminds me of the mesh from the Skechers GoRun Ride 7, but in a much thinner variety. It is thin, but does not stretch at all, and does not have much structure. As a result, the height of the toebox is fairly low by trainer standards, I don’t find the toebox to be particularly wide, and if you regularly use thicker socks, it may even be on the snugger side. I find overall toebox volume to be marginally lower than e.g. Saucony Endorphin Speed even if it is wider, because of the lower toebox height.
A few of the others had issues with the laces, but personally, it has not been an issue for me. I like that this shoe has plenty of eyelets (especially in contrast to the Speed Carbon RC), and the consequence of this is I do not need much lace tension to get a good fit. I only needed minimal lace tension and no runners loop needed and my foot stayed pretty well held in the shoe, so that’s a major win for this upper in my book. Simple, no-nonsense effective fit. There’s just enough padding around the ankle opening to make things comfortable and you really get everything you need from a trainer in this upper.
My sole gripe with the upper isn’t strictly speaking part of the upper - the sockliner. The sockliner is, in my opinion, too thin. I would have liked a thicker liner, with a little more arch structure. I know this because I experimented running with 3 different liners: the stock liner, a more built up EVA-based liner which I randomly took from another trainer, and a pair of customized orthotics. In case you don’t already know, sock liners make a huge difference to the underfoot feel. The stock liner is fairly thin, but more importantly, I really feel the raised midsole sidewalls a little more with it (especially at the medial side), because my foot sits lower in the shoe with a thinner liner. The EVA-based liner is a little bit thicker but more importantly, seems to be less compressive than the stock liner. So the underfoot feel here is not necessarily softer but it has the advantage of keeping my foot above the raised midsole sidewall due to the slightly more prominent arch structure. Finally, with the custom orthotics, the stack of the orthotics is such that there is a couple mm more heel stack than forefoot stack, and that messes a bit with the overall drop of the shoe. It is also more supportive and built up than either of the other 2 sockliners (as orthotics often are) and so the underfoot feel is the firmest with this. Bottom line is I felt best with the EVA sockliner in this shoe, because it helped me get around the midfoot irritation issue, without messing with the drop and geometry of the shoe too much. This is something I think Scott could look at. I will address this more in the midsole section.
Alex: I really, really like this upper. It is super lightweight, with minimal overlays, and has plenty of volume. The additional structure of the heel counter and the midfoot wall help keep my foot in place, in spite of the thin and almost useless laces. At the beginning of one early run I could feel the front laces overlay bending into my toes for about two minutes, but it quickly went away and hasn’t returned. Overall, big fan of this upper, but really wish the laces were thicker. (At the very least, I wish the laces were easier to get through the eyelets, so I could better adjust on the run!)
Midsole
Jeff: The midsole is made from Kinetic Light Foam, which is a light and firm EVA/ Olefin block copolymer blend from Dow branded by them as Infuse. The shoe has an accentuated front rocker that tapers down quite a bit under the toes, resulting in a very quick turnover. The listed midsole stack height of 22mm/30mm, resulting in a near maximum stacked shoe with a wider-than-average forefoot, and unfortunately for me, a narrow midfoot with a pronounced medial midfoot that slopes into the arch.
I mentioned in the fit section that it was a mild annoyance early on, but as the mileage racked up I started having a major issue. My last run was planned to be eight miles, but I had to shut it down shortly after mile six as pre-blister abrasions were developing in the middle of each arch. Measuring the midfoot against similar shoes such as Endorphin Shift, Aurora BL, Glycerin 19, Wave Sky 5, Invincible, and Triumph 19 I found the Pursuit more narrow by four to twenty millimeters, with the built up midsole effectively making the midfoot even more narrow. I’m curious to see if any of my fellow reviewers struggle with the same issue - or if this is a result of having a slightly wider than D foot and weighing north of 200 pounds.
Marcel: As indicated above, when stepping into the Pursuit for the first time, the arch support on the medial side felt quite harsh. But this disappeared immediately when I started running. I did not recognize any of the problems Jeff described above. I neither over- or underpronate.
This holds true even though I have flat feet. As a result, for me the midsole is just fine: I like the firm but not hard ride a lot (comparable to Salomon midsoles before the introduction of softer bouncier Energy Surge midsoles also made of the same family of Dow foams). This also includes the rocker which works exactly as it should: Quick turnover results ina smooth ride.
Therefore, even with having a wide (fore) foot I can say that I did not have any of the problems Jeff described above. Difference might be that my midfoot is not that wide (but relatively high). In contrast, I have been pain and blister-free since day one, which is quite seldom for me as most toe-boxes cause me blisters between the toes. As a result, I am not sure if the Scott Pursuit can be “blamed” for the blisters occurring for my highly appreciated colleague Jeff, as I made the experience that blisters are highly individual, even for one person. For example, even though my feet are really similar on paper, the Salomon Pulsar causes me serious blisters under the midfoot at my right foot at each race (even when taped with plasters), while the left foot remains totally unaffected (independently of sock choice).
As far as the drop is concerned, it does not feel like 8mm for me. Instead, it feels similar to the 4mm drop Saucony Endorphin Shift (1&2 share the same drop).
To sum up, the midsole is highly appreciated - well done Scott!
Peter: As I mentioned above, I wasn’t thrilled by the midsole on the first few miles. It felt overly stiff and surprisingly firm for the amount of cushion I was standing on. That has completely disappeared. By my second run, the Pursuit had really started to open up. The midsole feels protective and cushioned but is still on the firm side. But a good, efficient, stable sort of firm. I too had some issues with the arch, but they have gone away. No problems at all since that first run. Overall, it’s a really nice feeling foam that I am enjoying running in. I don’t feel beat up AT ALL--and have been enjoying them on recovery runs too.
Derek: Jeff is a braver man than I am. After 6 miles in the stock sockliner, I knew I had to do something about that midsole sidewall. Scott midsoles seem to always need a bit of a break-in period. With the Speed Carbon RC, it was about 5 miles, and here it took about 9-10 miles for me.
After breaking in, the shoe feels a little more flexible through the toe-box, and has noticeably more compression and rebound. The forefoot rocker is perceptible when running, but is not overbearing in the sense that you don’t really notice it at all at slower paces, which is really what you want in a versatile trainer. Rocker at speed, no rocker for the slower stuff.
What i like about the shoe is that while it is still on the firmer side of things, it does not beat you up on the longer 10-12 milers, which is something i found that previous firmer rockered shoes tended to do (with or without a plate) e.g. ASICS NoosaTri13.
So here we have a trainer with a not too aggressive rocker, that is decently cushioned, and has a simple upper. What could go wrong? Not a lot except it’s somewhat difficult to decide where such it should fit in a rotation. Too firm for recovery runs, not aggressive enough for solid uptempo work by modern standards.
Now it’s time to address the raised midsole sidewalls, which I think everyone testing it seemed to notice to varying degrees. I get that it is a “thing” that shoe designers like to do to introduce medio-lateral stability at the heel-midfoot in higher stack shoes.
Let me just come out and say that this approach is extremely polarizing for runners. It was polarizing in the Reebok Run Fast and the Nike Epic React / Infinity React. It will very likely be polarizing here too. If you want to introduce stability, flare out the midsole/outsole a little. Add very grippy outsole rubber around the edges where you expect hard shearing forces during a cornering event. If you insist on using the bucket seat design, take a leaf from Hoka and make the raised sidewalls SUPER SOFT, because it will irritate your feet otherwise. Your average consumer is not going to wait for a break-in period if the first thing they feel when they step into the shoe in the store is the midsole biting into their medial arch.
Sam: One of the finest all around midsoles of the year. Why? It blends tremendous shock attenuation, very little downward forces squish and energy loss with a quick rebound, and has a great geometry.
As noted above the single density foam is a EVA/ Olefin block copolymer blend Infuse blend from Dow so similar to React, Optivibe from Salomon (without the rear elastomer disk) and their most recent Energy Surge. This foam can be blended with different proportions of EVA and Olefin with the more Olefin the softer and bouncier it gets (for example Salomon Energy Surge). I find it slightly firmer and more energetic than React. It is not as dense feeling as Optivibe and has more rebound (quick short amplitude) than say Saucony PWRRUN and “regular” ASICS Flytefoam with a more steady stable feel than FlyteFoam Blast, FuelCell, or Puma Nitro but with less bounce. In terms of firmness it sits between the softer Hyperblast in the Skechers Go Run and Max Road and the firmer flavors in the Razor and Excess. It is less springy than the Skechers foams and due to the rocker geometry and somewhat higher 8mm drop smoother flowing more consistent in feel from heel to toe off.
Here Scott went with a fairly “firm” mix but in no way a punishing one. I ran a half race in them and the next day was no worse for wear with almost zero quad and calf soreness. Firmer,yes but also very forgiving as the Olefin in the mix provides resilience and rebound..
In part that rapid race recovery can also be attributed to the ER2 rocker geometry which for sure provides great rear stability with a distinctly felt front rocker effect that gets better yet when the shoe gets more flexible once broken in.
Alex: It’s interesting reading so many different takes on the arch support/midsole wall! I didn’t notice the arch at all when I first tried on the Pursuits. I did feel it on the first run, and was a little worried because I have a history of having to retire good shoes because of arch blisters. But about a mile into my second run I mostly stopped noticing the arch, and there are no signs of blisters yet. I haven’t run any super long runs in the Pursuit yet, but I’m cautiously optimistic.
As for the midsole, well, I really, really like it. There’s definitely cushion underfoot, but it’s not overly soft. There’s energy return, but it’s not bouncy. The rocker geometry is noticeable but not intrusive. Though the Pursuit reminded me a bit of the Hoka Clifton when I first examined it, I think the midsole is less Hoka-feeling and closer to Saucony PWRRUN, but a little less dense and a little more firm.
Trying on the shoe initially, the high stack height was pretty noticeable (I grew at least an inch!) and the rocker felt like it could be a little unstable, but all of that disappeared on the run for me. The only negative for me was the feel of the forefoot rocker, which was distinctly firm on the first few runs and caused some forefoot numbness.
Outsole
Jeff: The Pursuit outsole is elegantly simple, consisting of two pieces of rubber that cover an adequate portion of the forefoot and most of the heel, Scott refers to it as Speed Traction. It doesn’t offer complete coverage, but the exposed midsole is dense enough it is holding up better than most. It has a few dozen sipes, giving the shoe good traction, even on wet roads. The shoe isn’t very flexible, but it isn’t the outsole’s fault. The midsole’s firmness would be the culprit, not the thin rubber coating. As a supinator I had slight concerns at first that the exposed midsole along the lateral edge of the forefoot could be a point of failure, but the midsole’s aversion to wear is making that concern unfounded.
Marcel: Jeff describes the outsole very well. I’d like to add that the grip for such kind of outsole on a road shoe in wet conditions is really good. I had several test runs in the rain and the grip on concrete was very good even when there was some dirt on the road. Of course, lots of wet leaves are always a pitfall for every roadrunner, but beside this, the grip exceeded my expectations.
Peter: I haven’t been on slick surfaces in these yet. There’s a decent amount of wear on the forefoot rubber after about 60 miles that I want to keep an eye on. There’s nothing too fancy going on here, but the rubber is in all the right places and feels good on the road.
Derek: I’ve been hit by a hot and dry spell in Singapore lately, so no chance of wet grip testing, but the outsole seems to be fairly grippy on road and sandy paths so far, and durability seems decent too. I don’t expect there to be many complaints about the outsole here. I do notice a bit of chewing into the exposed midsole at midfoot, but nothing excessive so far.
Sam: A simple outsole with coverage in all the right places. Grip has been excellent on the road and I like how silent the Pursuit is on the pavement. The coverage and deep decoupling groove from heel to the ball of the foot is an integral part of why the overall geometry works so well for me at all paces. I do think the front rubber could be a touch firmer to give the shoe more toe off response.
Alex: Simple but effective. I can’t say I’ve really put the traction to the test yet, but the rubber seems to be in the right places without intruding on the ride at all.
Ride
Jeff: Not a huge surprise, the Pursuit has a smooth ride with a fast turnover from the rocker. While it is a very firm shoe, it isn’t harsh in the least. For years Mizuno held the title for most firm cushioning, but the Pursuit easily dethrones the king. I’m surprised how little flex the shoe has, considering that there isn’t a plate inside, but it doesn’t feel rigid when out on the road. The shoe’s light stature is noticeable, in a good way, making this daily trainer perform well while running easy miles or most uptempo efforts as well.
Marcel: I agree with Jeff almost 100%. As far as the use cases are concerned, I do not necessarily see the sweet spot for the Pursuit for running easy miles. Indeed, the Scott Pursuit does handle slower paces very well too but the rocker really starts to shine for me when the pace is a little faster at ~5 min/km (8:00 min mile) pace and faster, which of course for some of you guys might be easy miles;-) So fI think it is best suited or its sweet sport is uptempo runs..
Peter: I am pleasantly surprised by the ride of the Scott Pursuit. I’ve actually found them to be really nice at easy paces. They line my body up well and I feel efficient and smooth in them. They are firm, but definitely not harsh. The turnover is fast and smooth due to the rocker and the cushion seems to help keep fatigue at bay. They aren’t laugh out loud fun, but they are an “I feel like running in those again” for days in a row sort of shoe.
Derek: I found the shoe to perform fairly well across a range of paces, but it works best at around 7:20-7:30/mile for me, which is just about fast enough to take advantage of the forefoot rocker and keep the turnover feeling smooth. It’s fine at slower paces, but I would prefer a softer feeling shoe for those recovery runs. I may have been a little spoiled over the past couple of years, but I really feel like I want that carbon stiffness/rebound at sub 7:00/mile pace and I feel like I am working pretty hard when I try to do those paces in this shoe.
This would definitely not be a racing option for me because of that. In terms of utility, I think it would do ok for a moderate pace run in the 5-15 mile range, but if I was going for a longer 18+ miler then I would want something a little softer underfoot. So all in all, the utility of this shoe is sort of limited for me, even though it is one of the best fitting uppers for me.
Sam: I most agree with Peter above. The ride is on the firmer side but in no way punishing or harsh. Efficient and versatile is how I would describe it. I have taken them for easy runs (not their forte), daily miles and even racing.
Seemingly all the carbon shoes I have recently tested gave me a sore hip so for my recent half I went with the Pursuit. I averaged 8:12 miles, slow for me but it wasn’t the shoe! Yes, it does not have carbon snap or a totally rigid rocker and it could use a touch more front rubber for response but it was steady, comfortable, and just what the doctor ordered.
The rocker was clearly felt but never over aggressive as a stiffer or plated shoe can feel. During the later miles the inherent stability of the platform had me tracking smoothly and true, no wobbling! The next day zero soreness in the usual places: quads and calves even if my feet were a bit sore. It was almost like I had taken the day off the day before with actually less hip soreness than when I started the race. Once broken in easy paces are also as smooth as faster paces as the shoe is stable, tracks well and is without gimmicks.
Alex: Again, I really, really like the ride. I should perhaps caveat that I am a fan of firm cushioning. I don’t like to feel like I’m sinking into a shoe, but I don’t like to feel the ground, either. That combination can be hard to find, but the Pursuit mostly does that for me.
On slower runs, the Pursuit felt soft enough to qualify as a recovery shoe and the rocker helped keep me rolling forward even at a jog. Though I haven’t done any true speed or tempo work in these shoes yet (still in recovery mode after a couple of adventure races), I’ve really liked how the ride feels on short, fast strides. There’s some pop underfoot at faster paces, but it’s not at all harsh. I obviously need to try a few tempo runs before I commit, but based on my experience so far I wouldn’t hesitate to pull these out for a half or a 10k.
As mentioned in the discussion of the midsole, my one real quibble is the firmness of the forefoot. Toward the end of an initial, longer run, I started to feel the balls of my feet going numb. But that has softened a bit with time, and to be honest I like the rest of the shoe enough that it’s something I’m willing to live with (though it might discourage me from taking the Pursuits out for much more than 10 miles).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Jeff: The Scott Pursuit is a fresh take on running shoes. It’s a unique package that gives you a firmly cushioned daily trainer with an excellent upper, a firm-yet-nicely-cushioned ride, and an aggressive rocker all packaged in an incredibly light shoe that’s a pleasure to run in - as long as your midfoot is either narrow or you have a high arch. If the midfoot was just a few millimeters wider (or more forgivingly built or tuned) I’d have much kinder things to say about the shoe. There are other minor quibbles, but they are effectively rounding errors compared to the arch issues I experienced, but if you have a different foot profile than I do, you may find yourself with a near flawless shoe.
Jeff’s Score: 7.85/10
Ride: 9 (50%) Fit: 5 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 10 (5%)
Marcel: For me, the Scott Pursuit checks all the boxes I hoped it would before I started my test. It is indeed the Saucony Endorphin Shift “Lite” I hoped it would be which exactly fixes the three criticisms I had regarding the Shift (an otherwise really great shoe!): a wider toebox with a softer and flexible upper, significantly less weight (almost 50g!) and better grip on wet surfaces!
This makes it for me an almost perfect daily trainer, as the lacing issues can be easily fixed. Therefore, I recommend the Scott Pursuit for those who: 1) does not run fast enough to really take advantage of carbon plated shoes or 2) those looking for an excellent daily trainer or 3.) those seeking a single shoe in the quiver which can handle easy miles but also perform well on race day.
Marcel’s Score: 9.38
Ride: 9.5 (50%) Fit: 9.5 (30%) Value: 9.0 (15%) Style: 8.5 (5%)
Peter: I feel like the Scott Pursuit is one or two iterations from being a solid 10. I highly recommend it for anyone. It’s in the same zone as the Hoka Mach 4 for me. A solid daily trainer that you can log hella miles in and not feel beat up. It’s cushioned but firm and is a very comfortable shoe indeed. The laces/eyelets need some work but overall I highly recommend the Scott Pursuit
Peter’s Score: 9.2 /10
Derek: The Scott Pursuit presents a dilemma for me in the sense that I don't quite know where it should sit in a rotation. The price point of $150 is on the higher side, and if you look at what it is competing against in the daily trainer / medium pace, medium distance run arena, you have the Adidas Boston 10 ($140), the Saucony Endorphin Shift ($140) and Speed ($160), the ASICS Novablast ($120), Nike Zoom Invincible ($180), Skechers MaxRoad 5 ($135), and a whole legion of new trainers coming out of China that i think will pose a huge threat to your traditional big players in the coming years. I look at the shoes the Pursuit is up against, and I really don’t see a key differentiating winning attribute here that would make a consumer want to buy the Pursuit over another similarly priced or often cheaper alternative.
I think the Pursuit will appeal to someone with narrow feet, who needs a bit of midfoot stability but doesn’t need a full-on stability shoe, and who wants a rockered trainer but doesn’t necessarily like the excessive stiffness of a plated trainer. Now that I've written all this, I realize that’ may be a pretty small niche of consumers.
Derek’s Score: 8.63
Ride 8.7 (50%) Fit 9 (30%) Value 8 (15%) Style 7.5 (5%)
Sam: The sub 9 oz weight for the big full stack of 36mm heel / 28mm forefoot is commendable as is the inherent stability and smooth flow of the rocker geometry. The midsole feel is just about right for the stack height and current outsole for me. Any softer and I think stability would suffer and the shoe would become mushier (as I find for example Clifton to be) as the foam is not “supercritical”. Given the weight for stack, and current ride, I am not sure a supercritical would add that much beyond potential dropping weight but Scott might consider such a foam in a future version.
The lacing and rear lockdown need some work but this is one comfortable upper that neatly bridges comfort and performance fit, leaning a touch more towards comfort. At $150, pricing is at the high end of competitors in its plateless class but Pursuit’s versatility helps mitigate the sticker.
Bottom line: Pursuit has a light, stable, and well cushioned ride that can take me from daily training, to longer racing, to recovery runs. Ideal for any one use, probably not, but versatile and fine for all making it a great single shoe in the quiver option if you want a light, well cushioned, steady and quite lively option.
Sam’s Score: 9.21 /10
Ride: 9.6 (50%) Fit:8.7 (30%) Value: 8.8 (15%) Style: 9.5 (5%)
Alex: A lightweight, high-cushioned shoe that feels good at slow paces and better at moderate-to-fast paces. As I’ve been writing this review, I feel a bit like I’m describing a Goldilocks shoe: firm, but not too firm; soft, but not too soft; rockered, but not too aggressive, etc. And though the Pursuit is not quite the be-all, end-all of shoes, it really is an impressive combination of lightweight cushion in a stable shoe that turns over easily and doesn’t beat up your legs in the process. Though a few things need tweaking (I’m looking at you, laces), overall I think runners who like a firmer cushioned shoe for mid-distances races or training runs will be pleasantly surprised by the Scott Pursuit.
Score: 9.15/10
Ride: 9.5 (50%), Fit: 9 (30%), Value: 8 (15%), Style: 10 (5%)
16 Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Scott Speed Carbon RC (RTR Review)
Sam: The two are distinctly different while sharing the same effective rocker geometry. They weigh almost the same and have the same heel stack height with the Speed Carbon having 3mm more forefoot stack so a 5mm vs. 8mm drop in Pursuit. They are both versatile with the Speed Carbon firmer yet, faster and with a more dynamic forefoot rebound from its Carbitex dynamically flexible plate. The lower drop of the Speed Carbon and plate favors a mid to forefoot strike somewhat more than the Pursuit or if you are a heel striker as I am faster paces. While it leans more towards performance, and for sure can be raced, especially if you need some stability, its weight and 5mm drop vs 8mm here for me puts it more in the tempo training class with shoes such Tempo Next and Endorphin Speed while Pursuit has a broader range of uses leaning more towards daily training. Speed Carbon has the same main midsole foam and firmness as Pursuit but with a second slightly softer piece above the Carbitex plate. The plate literally gets “firmer” the faster you go so easy paces are more than possible in the Speed Carbon. The Pursuit has a more forgiving ride, is more flexible while Speed Carbon is rigid and is more slower paces friendly for me.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both models. Fit wise, both are true to size but RC has way more volume in the toebox and the heel. I think overall lockdown is better in the Pursuit. In terms of stability, Pursuit is better because of the lower stack and the overall firmer underfoot feel. Platform width is about the same for both shoes. In general, I think the RC is a more fun shoe to run in, even at recovery paces. The rocker is more dynamic and the ride is significantly more lively (think Adios Pro vs Boston 10). If I were looking for a do-it-all type of shoe, the RC would be a much better candidate than the Pursuit.
Watch Sam's Pursuit vs Speed Carbon Comparison Review (14:32)
Hoka Clifton (RTR Review)
Sam: The Clifton 1 was the original light max cushioned trainer racer. The latest version is softer than the Pursuit with a somewhat more easy going vibe. The Pursuit rocker is more effective for me with a much more distinct front propulsion feel with the Clifton upper more polished.
Hoka Rincon 3 (RTR Review)
Sam: The Rincon is closer to the Pursuit than Clifton with a similar firmer more uptempo ride and with a foam that likely won’t prove as resilient and durable, not as much stability, and a lower $115 price point and weight of a mere 7.2 oz. As with Clifton its rocker doesn’t compare to the Scott but is more effective than Clifton’s If you like light max cushioned rides get them both! Pursuit as your all arounder and Rincon as your more pure uptempo and even racer.
Saucony Endorphin Shift (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. My immediate comparison when I tried the Pursuit on, the Shift uses Saucony’s firmer PWRRUN midsole with a high stack and pronounced rocker. The Pursuit rocker is more aggressive, more firm, and noticeably lighter. The Saucony is higher stacked, softer, and decidedly wider. Both are really great shoes, but I favor the wider Endorphin Shift.
Marcel: US M10 in both. For the reasons listed in my conclusion above (wider toe box, less weight, better heel hold, superior outsole grip) i prefer the Pursuit while the Shift still remains one of my favorite shoes of the last two years, but the toe box is just a little to pointed which in combination with the less flexible upper and platform leads to less space in the toe box. So if you have a wide forefoot, you should pick the Scott for sure. If you are looking for a shoe with focus on recovery or slow long runs, you might feel more comfortable in the Shift.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Both shoes have similar fit, though I find Shift to be a little snugger overall. I find the ride of the Shift to be softer, and bouncier overall (though Shift does take about 30-40 miles to break in), but it is noticeably heavier and so it doesn’t like faster paces as much as the Pursuit. Both shoes have a fairly natural effective forefoot rocker. Pursuit has a much better outsole in terms of grip.
adidas Boston 10 (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. adidas overhauled the Boston with the 10, making it much higher stacked than previous models, and they included rods in the midsole - and yet the Pursuit may have less flex. The Boston fit isn’t sloppy, but it is noticeably wider in the midfoot. If you have high arches or a narrow midfoot, go Pursuit without hesitation.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Boston fits looser but more comfortable for me, and has a more aggressive rockered ride. It is heavier than Pursuit for sure, but overall is the more versatile and more fun shoe for me. Boston’s outsole is also much grippier. I prefer Boston 10 by far.
Sam: I am going with the Pursuit here although I do prefer the Boston 10’s light and effective hold upper. The Boston is more rigid, more uptempo focused and while fast less any pace friendly and versatile. At about 10.4 oz it is considerably heavier than the Pursuit at 8.8 oz.
Brooks Aurora-BL (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. Two shoes on the opposite sides of the spectrum, the Aurora is soft and bouncy, the Pursuit firm with a fast turnover. Similarly lightweight, both shoes are versatile, with the Pursuit more stable and despite the geometry, a more traditional ride.
Sam: Agree with Jeff. The Aurora relies on a near the heel hinge while Pursuit relies on the rocker for forward motion. Aurora friendlier in that department than Pursuit at slower paces with Pursuit faster turnover smoother as the pace picks up. I would add the $200 Aurora upper is a thing of effective beauty with a much easier to dial in hold despite its very light materials.
Brooks Glycerin 19 (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. Brooks’ latest well-cushioned daily trainer is the best of the lineage, and presents a far more traditional experience than the Pursuit’s firm-yet-rockered ride. The Pursuit comes in quite a bit lighter, while the Glycerin fit is more accomodating.
Alex: Jeff describes it well -- the Glycerin is a far more traditional ride, and it comes in a women’s D width, which is a big plus for me. But, it’s also heavier and, well, more traditional. For marathon training I’d go Glycerin for the forefoot width. For everything else I’d take the Pursuit.
Mizuno Wave Sky 5 (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. Mizuno’s big cushioned trainer strikes a nice balance between firm and cushioned, while the Pursuit goes further to the firm side. The rocker makes the Pursuit better at faster speeds, while the Mizuno is smoother at slower paces.
Sam: The much much heavier Wave Sky is a boat in comparison. Any day Pursuit for me.
Mizuno Wave Rider 25 (RTR Review)
Sam: Somewhat heavier the Wave Rider also has a very effective geometry and a more complex on with Wave Plate and deep rear crash pad. It is classic daily trainer really well updated with the new Wave and a lively softer foam. It is a safer but still very fun to run (really!) bet than the Pursuit unless your need is for a lighter more uptempo do it all shoe.
Puma Deviate Nitro (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. Puma’s plated daily trainer is similar in stack height to the Pursuit, but noticeably softer and bouncier. The Pursuit’s upper is both thinner and holds the foot better than the Puma. Both shoes have issues for me, the Puma’s upper hold can be somewhat remedied with a runner’s knot, but the narrow midfoot of the Pursuit can’t be fixed without shoe surgery.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Deviate Nitro has a finicky heel fit and a much higher overall fit volume. Deviate has a softer and more cushioned underfoot feel, but the rocker is not as pronounced as the Pursuit for me. I think the Nitro is the more versatile overall shoe, but this is countered by the much simpler and effective fit of the upper of the Pursuit. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how special the midsole is if you can’t get the shoe to fit right. With that in mind, I think the Pursuit is the better shoe for me.
Skechers Performance Go Run Ride 9 (RTR Review)
Jeff: Both fit true-to-size 10.5. The Skechers is similarly lightweight with a straightforward upper that isn’t complicated, and doesn’t need to be. Underfoot the Pursuit is much firmer, higher stacked, with a rocker that turns the foot over quickly, with a more premium upper, while the Ride 9 is softer and bouncier and has more rubber coverage.
Peter: I’ve pulled the Scott Pursuit out to run more often than I’ve gone to the GoRun Ride 9. The 9 is fine, but there’s something about the combination of the rocker and the high stack that makes the Pursuit an easy choice for me. I find more similarity between the Skechers Max Road 5 and the Scott Pursuit.
Sam: I am with Peter on this one. I personally also find the Pursuit softer or at least more forgiving. The Ride is more traditional daily trainer in feel (and that is good as it is not as radical as some Skechers) with more extensive rubber for wear and also for more response as a result
Hoka Mach 4 (RTR Review)
Peter:Scott Pursuit has a full stack height of 36/28 at 8.8 oz while Hoka Mach 4 is 35/30 and 8 oz flat. These are both great daily trainers that are fine to speed up in for pickups or intervals. I think the upper on the Mach 4 is better. The Pursuit feels a bit stiffer and firmer. I think in a pinch I’d choose the Mach 4, but they’re both great. Just ran these two back to back--so hard to choose, the Mach 4 is a little more forgiving and incredibly comfortable. The Pursuit turns over just a hair quicker due to the more aggressive rocker.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Mach 4 has a similar simple effective fit to the Pursuit. As soft and fun as the midsole of the Mach 4 is, I do wish it had a bit more of a forefoot rocker to the ride. The rocker makes all the difference here, and I find the Pursuit to be the more efficient overall shoe, even if the ride is less dynamic and springy.
New Balance Beacon 3 (RTR Review)
Alex: Both fit true to size, though the Beacon comes in wide. The Beacon is similarly light and cushioned without being overly soft, and like the Pursuit has been in my rotation for basically everything besides true long runs or true speed work. The Beacon is better straight out of the box, but the rocker of the Pursuit is more fun on strides or short pick-ups. If I had to pick one it’s probably the Beacon, but it’s close.
New Balance Rebel V2 (RTR Review)
Peter: The Rebel V2 and the Scott Pursuit are very different feeling shoes. They’re both fun to run in but in different ways. The Scott is firmer, stiffer and has a much higher stack than the Rebel V2. The Rebel V2 is considerably softer, bouncier and more fun to run in. I really like both of these shoes, they’re both easy to run in. I’d have to say the Rebel V2 is the one I’d save in a fire--I’m on my third pair of them.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. Rebel has a marginally more relaxed fit for me, but I find the Pursuit’s upper more supportive. Rebel has a much bouncier ride, but the rocker is less aggressive than the Pursuit. Pursuit has the better outsole in terms of grip and wear resistance. I find Rebel 2 to be the overall more fun and versatile shoe, but Pursuit is likely to be twice as durable.
Sam: The Rebel v2 is super fun and bouncy but not as practical as the more stable and steady yet still fun to run Pursuit.
Skechers Max Road 5 (RTR Review)
Peter: The Pursuit and the Max Road 5 have a lot in common. The Max Road 5 has stack heights of 39/33 for a 6mm drop--weighing 8.7 oz, the Scott Pursuit is 36/28 and 8.8 oz. The Scott Pursuit is a bit firmer and the rocker keeps turnover feeling a bit faster. Just ran these two back to back. The Pursuit turns over quicker, is a little speedier feeling, but the Max Road has a softer forefoot. Would probably take the Max Road out for a longer (more than 16) run, while i would defer to the Pursuit for quicker days.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The Pursuit has slightly lower fit volume here. In terms of ride, the MaxRoad is much softer and springier in feel, but the Pursuit is more stable with the more prominent forefoot rocker. Pursuit seems to have better outsole grip here. I feel like if i am going to go for a medium-faster pace run, the Pursuit is the better option, while if the run is going to be on the longer side, or veer toward more of an easy run / recovery run focus, then the MaxRoad would be a better option. Overall, I think the MaxRoad is the more versatile and fun shoe for me.
ASICS Noosa Tri 13 (RTR Review)
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The Noosa Tri 13 at $130 and 30/25mm in stack is somewhat lower to the ground compared to Pursuit, and has a firmer underfoot feel than the Pursuit. In terms of fit, Noosa is roomier in the toebox but about the same for heel and midfoot. Pursuit seems to have marginally better grip than the Noosa. Overall, I find the Pursuit to have a more cushioned ride, if not as effective a one at uptempo paces, and is consequently more versatile and tolerant of slower and longer runs. All in all, the Pursuit is a better all-round option for me.
Jeff is the token slow runner of the RTR lineup, and as such his viewpoints on shoe and gear can differ from those who routinely finish marathons in three hours or less. Jeff runs 30 miles per week on roads and trails around Denver, CO (and sometimes on the treadmill when the weather gets too much for a Phoenix native). Jeff only got into running in his 30s, as a result his career PR's are 4:07 for the marathon and 5K at 23:39. Jeff has finished several ultra marathons, from 50K up to 50 miles, and is still debating if he wants to go down that road again.
Peter lives in Austin, Texas and has been a sub 3 hour marathoner as well as a 1:25 half marathoner in recent years.
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.
Alex Tilsley is a displaced trail runner, currently living in DC and finding dirt wherever she can. Alex discovered running in college and was a happy 3-miles-a-day hobby jogger until her mom tricked her into running a 10k and it was all downhill from there. She has since run several marathons (PR 3:38) and dabbled in triathlons, but her true love is the trails, whether running, mountain biking, orienteering, or long-distance backpacking. When she’s not running or riding, Alex works full-time in education policy and part-time putting on trail races with EX2 Adventures.
Marcel, almost 40 years old, works as a Legal Technology Consultant and is an avid Obstacle Course Racer (OCR). In addition to his fascination with shoe releases for road and trail, Marcel is also passionate about technical innovations and gadgets.
After years of too much work and too much fast food, Marcel started to work off his excess pounds in 2014 by doing short runs at the Alster lake in Hamburg, Germany before he discovered the world of obstacle course racing. Initially just for fun in competitions like Tough Mudder and Xletix, his ambition was quickly awakened and Marcel increasingly focused on challenging race series like Spartan Races all over Europe. In addition, Marcel has successfully finished the "toughest obstacle course in Europe" five times in a row with Getting Tough The Race.
As an additional challenge he was always accompanied by - unintentionally of course - his vulnerability to injuries in the area of the tendons and calves. The combination of a time-consuming office job in combination with a certain susceptibility to injury also gives Marcel a special perspective on the tested models in his shoe reviews. Namely less that of the competitive athlete, but much more the view of an ambitious recreational runner with a love for obstacle races. If you also have a comparatively wide forefoot, you should take a closer look at Marcel's impressions of the tested models.
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is 64 with a 2018 3:40 Boston qualifier. Sam has been running for over 48 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 if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA.
Some tested samples were provided at no charge for review purposes others were personal purchases. RoadTrail Run has affiliate partnerships and may earn commission on products purchased through affiliate links. These partnerships do not influence our editorial content
EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
AMAZON Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
4 comments:
following
how do you compare it vs. Levitate for cushioning and ride?
Hi albertosenia,
Didn't compare as not really comparable for me. Levitate is denser yet, has an inferior forward momentum (no rocker, poor decoupling, and over built stiff outsole) and is considerably heavier especially in the equivalent more comfort oriented upper. Leviate might have have an advantage for a heavier runner who is hard on their shoes and its outsole likely will last longer than Pursuit"s. Not nearly the fun or the speed of the Pursuit which also has more forefoot cushion.
Sam, Editor
React foam is SEBS (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene) so something totally different to EVA/olefin blends
Post a Comment