Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Saucony Tempus Multi Tester Review: A Versatile, Support Daily Training Ride for all Runner Types! 18 Comparisons

Article by Renee Krusemark, Beto Hughes, Ryan Eiler, Joost de Raeymaeker, Derek Li, Michael Ellenberger, and Sam Winebaum 

Saucony Tempus ($160)


Introduction


Sam: The Tempus is a light “stability” trainer that upends the usual, tired and often over prescriptive approaches to stability. No posts, no plastic pieces, no over firm foam or overbuilt upper here. Saucony simply used a moderately firm PWRRUN EVA foam to create an external guidance frame running along most of the outer sidewalls and under foot at the outsole but just along the outer edges except at the medial midfoot where it becomes a pad of support at the road. 

Diagram: Saucony China


They then filled the frame  with PEBA expanded beads PWRRUN PB foam with its responsive rebound. In a  neat twist, they kept the PB as the entire midsole at the heel laterally and to a lesser extent medially to provide a soft and rebounding landing. 

PB foam as used in Saucony’s Endorphin Speed and Pro and in their new Endorphin Edge  is lighter than EVA while providing strong energy return and as a result the high stacked  36.5 heel / 28.5 mm forefoot Tempus weighs a mere 9.03 oz  / 266g (US9). 


Carrying forward the support and light theme, the upper is thin, dense engineered mesh reminiscent of trail shoe uppers with a single stout overlay on both sides  tied into the laces 



The Tempus is for sure intriguing, potentially bridging several worlds: support trainer, neutral trainer, high stack max cushion, and super foam powered ride. Let’s see what our testers thought, noting  that most as a rule steer clear of “support/stability” type shoes.



Pros:

Good weight/cushion ratio: Renee/Sam/Beto/Ryan/Joost/Derek

Smooth and comfortable ride: Renee/Sam/Beto/Ryan/Joost/Derek

Versatile: Sam/Joost/Derek

Easy riding, unobtrusive and adaptive support, for all runner types & not just “pronators”: Sam/Ryan/Joost/Michael

Firmer EVA frame gently but cleary guides and “hugs”  in direction of travel:Sam/Beto 

PEBA core softens landings and provides some toe off rebound: Sam/Beto

Recycled upper content is very high: Sam/Ryan/Joost

Shoe feels light on foot: Beto

Firmer EVA guides the foot naturally with a smooth roll forward sensation and a nice rebound from the PWRRUN PB: Beto/Derek

Breathable upper and nice balance between comfort and performance lockdown: Beto, Michael

Good for most types of paces and runs: Joost, Michael/Derek


Cons:

Price: Renee/Sam/Joost/Derek

A bit less vertical medial sidewall would perfect ride for more neutral runners: Sam/Joost/Michael

Bit firmer feel than expected: Beto

Takes a bit of break-in / getting used to: Ryan/Sam/Joost/Michael

Relatively slow ride transition, could use more forefoot snap and pop: Ryan/Sam/Joost

Confusing place in the Saucony lineup (beefed up Kinvara? Toned down Guide?): Joost


Stats

Estimated Weight: men's 9.03 oz  / 266g (US9)  /  women's oz / g (US8) 

Samples: 

men’s  8.78 oz / 249g (US8.5) 10.4oz / 295g (US12.5) 269g / 9.49 oz (US10)  9.24oz / 262g (US9.5)

women’s 7.83 oz / 221g (US8)

Stack Height: men’s mm 36.5 heel / 28.5 mm forefoot, 8mm drop

Available June 28, 2022. $160


First Impressions, Fit and Upper


Renee: With its light weight and stack height, the Tempus is a shoe that’s easy to love. What’s that? It’s a stability shoe!? As a neutral runner, I don’t often enjoy running in shoes with guidance, but the Tempus manages to provide stability without interfering with my natural foot landing. 


I liked the Tempus right out of the box. The fit is comfortable and true to size. The length might be a touch long. Runners between half sizes could go either way, and I suggest sizing similar to any other Saucony road shoe. The toe box height and width are generous. The heel and midfoot hold are good for a daily trainer. I’m not sure the upper warrants the shoe’s $160 price tag, but kudos for the upper textile being 100% recycled materials (collar lining is 90%). 

Sam: Bright and fast looking in yellow with the big stack midsole promising lots of cushion, and the sweeping geometry on the lateral side forward motion with the more vertical side walls on the medial side and flat on the ground stance there calling out stability.

The upper is a dense but thin, almost trail shoe like engineered mesh with clear ventilation slots over the toes. The height over the toes is as Renee says generous as is the width. Do not mistake this upper or its fit for soft and plush. We are talking about a performance oriented highly secure fit yet a relatively roomy one. Everything is locked down to the platform, no question about it.  

The forefoot has strategic overlays at the bunions, no pressures at all on mine, ventilation slots over the toes and a stiffened toe bumper with the mesh non stretch but generous in volume upfront. 


The midfoot is secured by a thinly padded tongue and gusset. 

A stout single external overlay on both sides  ties the lace up to the rear to lock the foot down at the back. It is not the similar A strap found in the Ride and Guide 15 and to me “visually” and functionally it for sure shows and does what it means to. Why other shoes such as the NB880 v12 don’t use such a connection I don’t know,  and that upper is soft and pliable and needs such a connection to the rear of the shoe for lockdown badly.


Finally we have a more than adequately padded but not over plush ankle and collar. 


Everything in this upper purposeful and effective providing great support and lockdown while remaining comfortable.

The fit is a perfect true to size for me with a somewhat more substantial hold than in the Ride and Guide 15.


Beto: A very comfortable upper and high stack shoe. The upper has a roomy toe box and the lockdown is on point with support where you need it with the padding on the heel just enough for comfort and support. The tongue is nice with just the right amount of padding considering this is a performance shoe. The midsole of  PWRRUN PB with dense EVA for the support guide feels soft at touch but dense and a bit firm on foot.


Ryan: If you’re like me, you hear ‘stability’ and you think ‘boring, stiff, and heavy’. But a stability shoe around 9 ounces, with PWRRUN PB? Ok, I’m interested.


The Tempus definitely shows its multifaceted personality right from the start. The platform underfoot is noticeably wide and stable, but the rubbery bounce from the PWRRUN PB hints at a lively ride. 


With a hybrid EVA/PEBA construction, it was initially hard to tell how the midsole would perform during various types of running. The upper I tested was strikingly yellow, with some small but unique embellishments, such as the ribbon overlays for diverting lace tension back toward the heel, as well as a small pull loop at the rear. As Sam notes, the material used in the upper is very capable of a secure hold, although the fit is on the roomy side. 


On the sustainability front, I give a huge thumbs up to Saucony for using a high percentage of recycled materials in creating this upper. It’s refreshing to see bigger brands prove that sustainability doesn’t have to detract from performance in a meaningful way.


As for the fit, the length might be a hair long, but it was still pretty close to true in my M9.5. The toe box feels wide and accommodating, with lengthwise slits atop the forefoot allowing things to settle out as needed. Overall, it’s a great first step-in experience that feels stout and well-built.

Joost: I was wondering what sort of shoe I might be getting, with a name like the Tempus suggesting it would be a performance (as in fast) oriented shoe. The fact that it is a mild stability shoe put me off a little before even putting it on my feet. 


I distinctly remembered feeling the medial Hollow Tech support on every step I ran in the Guide 15, Saucony’s traditional light stability option. I also had a hard time understanding the true identity of the Tempus. It sits in the lineup between the Kinvara and the Ride/Guide duo. Is there a place for it? Would this have been a better Guide? Could a shoe like this replace both the Guide and the Ride? 


Spoiler alert: After 115km (71.5 miles) and all sorts of runs in them, I still don’t know. I also can’t reach a 100% accurate conclusion because I received a review pair in a size 10, half a size up from my usual. But as an extra spoiler alert: I really enjoyed the Tempus after a short break-in and it’s become part of my rotation for my upcoming marathon.

First impression upon putting it on was of comfort. The upper is very well done and the fact that it’s made almost entirely from recycled materials is an added plus in my book. I wish that all brands would go the same route and do their bit in saving the planet. This upper proves that that’s perfectly possible and can be done. 


Technically, it has been described in detail. I can only add that it doesn’t have any hot spots, is relatively breathable in my tropical running conditions in Africa, supports the foot where it’s needed and locks down well, even in the oversized sample. The orange version I got is also a very good looking colorway.


Michael: We’ve got a ton of testers on this one (for good reason - it’s a sweet new shoe from a brand that’s been doing things right!) so I’m going to keep my comments short, and focus on what really makes this shoe stand out (for better or worse) from the competition. As for the upper, I’m a big fan - I was worried, before running, that it would be too hefty and overlay-laden. Not so. The mesh is breathable even on 100+ degree runs, and across-the-board comfortable. The tongue is stretchy and well-positioned, and the lockdown is nice. I did find it easier to over tighten than most trainers - I ended up tying it ever so slightly looser than I’m used to - but that just speaks to the shoe’s ability to lock you in. Extremely well done.

Derek: I hardly ever test stability shoes, as stability elements have a habit of making shoes feel less dynamic in their ride. That said, this is the first maximalist stability shoe I have tried. I was struck by the very large footprint of the shoes when I first took them out of the box. There is a lot of flaring of the midsole going on, and clearly quite a high stack. 

The bright yellow reminds me a lot of the Kinvara 13 that we recently tested and it is a colorway that really pops when you see it in person. Stepping into the shoes and lacing them up, it is quite clear early on that the lockdown is solid for this one. 

There is a lot of structure around the heel cup, the ankle opening ends up being quite small after lacing up. 

Fit is definitely true to size, and reminds me quite a lot of the Endorphin Speed v1, except it’s a bit wider across the arch and forefoot. The first couple of steps suggest that this is going to be one of those firmer heel, softer forefoot type of shoes, and the forefoot rocker is quite noticeable, though more flexible and natural here without a plate. At about 9oz, this shoe sits squarely in the weight range of many other daily trainers that I often use, like the Nike Tempo Next% and the New Balance FuelCell TC, so it will be interesting to see how it stacks up.

Focusing now on the upper, the front end is remarkably similar to the Endorphin Speed 1. You have a very thin engineered mesh with a semi-rigid internal toe bumper at the toe box. 

If anything, the toe bumper is even high here, so there is plenty of height and volume for bigger feet. In terms of width, I put it at the wider end of the spectrum for Saucony shoes. Roomier than Endo Speed 2 and Kinvara 13, and closer to the Ride 15 in terms of width. Mid-foot is also wider than the Endorphin range, but I feel like the foam at the arch is a little more rigid here, so it can feel a little more restrictive if you have wider feet or low arches. For me, the real magic of the upper is at the heel. 

The heel cup is very solid, and more built up even than Endorphin Speed 1, which I remember some people felt was a little too stiff and firm. That said, heel volume is decent and the fit is saying more “trainer” than “racer” to me. The plastic overlays and the raised midsole sidewalls at the heel really give you a pronounced scalloped foot bed here. It does not feel awkward, but you definitely feel like your heel is not going to roll inward or outward anytime soon. 

Another key feature for me is the diagonally running strap from the base of the heel on both sides, and attaching to the penultimate lace eyelet. 

This feature, combined with the rigid midsole sidewall, works very well to support the arch of the foot at the subtalar joint. It almost felt like I was wearing an orthotic insole the first time I ran in the shoe, but as I put more miles in it, that feeling quickly went away and now I don’t even notice the heel structure anymore. Incidentally, a similar type of strap overlay is also  seen in the Adidas Prime X, and I didn’t think much of it at the time but it seems to work well to reinforce heel stability, and it looks like the newer Adios Pro 3 has inherited that design feature from the Prime X. Clearly, this technology works and I would expect to see it trickling over to Saucony’s race offerings soon. (Hint: leaked photos of next year’s Endorphin Elite show a diagonal strap in the same spot)

All in all, the upper works very well. I have no complaints about it at all, and it has one of the best lockdowns of any trainer I have worn in recent memory. 


Midsole


Renee: The midsole is firm, but not hard, with a slight amount of give/softness. The PWRRUN PB cushioning and PWRRUN frame work well together. Smooth is a good adjective. Sometimes, a stability shoe feels like it's wearing me. The Tempus works with my foot landing and stride. The stability features are felt, but it’s not controlling.


Sam: The Tempus has a dual material midsole with a frame of PWRRUN EVA TPU blend similar in firmness to the main midsole of the Ride 15 maybe a touch firmer but not as firm as some previous PWRRUN . The PWRRUN frame is not continuous in making up all the sidewalls of the shoe with the PWRRUN PB expanded PEBA foam not a mere insert or core say as in the Topo Specter or Craft CTM Ultra 2. 

The PWRRUN layer starts as a top layer below the foot at the heel. It is asymmetrical in the sense that it is not as deep or as long forward on the lateral side being replaced with the rebounding PB  than on the medial side where the vertical sidewalls come into the action for support.


Below at the heel we have the magic PB foam. 

Thus we get a high rebounding softer landing laterally with a shorter PB layer at the heel more rapidly ending medially and transitioning to PWRRUN for the support there including as a medial pad at midfoot for support.  

The PWRRUN frame then plunges  downwards to become the bottom layer at the forefoot where it sits as sidewalls and as an inch or so wide layer around the front of the edges of the toe box, thus providing stability.  

Filling the frame everywhere else in the midsole is PWRRUN PB including below the foot at the forefoot and all the way to the outsole in the center as can be seen in the picture above and  below with the PWRRUN PB the beaded bumpy textured material. 

What this construction does is provide a guided, stable  flow through the stride without resorting to any “firm” or harsh elements. The PB foam feels softer and more rebounding while the PWRRUN is denser, a touch firmer and more supportive around the edges. By using a mostly PB heel we get a soft dynamic landing which is followed medially by relatively gentle “support” with up front the toes sinking into the PB to deliver a fairly mellow smooth and stable toe off but not one with lots of decisive pop. A just right stable yet forgiving feel for big miles at most all paces but the fastest. 


Renee has it right:  Tempus isn’t wearing me. Smooth, the  stability element is really just the medial side wall geometry and the unusual flat exposed PWRRUN midsole foam on the ground medially at mid foot. Usually in a stability shoe, and say as in the Guide 15, we would see a big chunk of  rubber there. Here none such and the support is as such  felt as a long gentle but present hug (only word that comes to mind) just below the arch with no sharp post plastic piece, or that extra rubber in the mix so the support is all of a piece with the main midsole. The shoe did require a dozen miles or so to get some breakin and get flex just ahead of the midfoot. 


Beto: The midsole is a PWRRUN PB and PWRRUN with the midsole having a more a dual density feel when running. The s]denser EVA frame works as a guide rail that rolls you in a very smooth way and guides the foot from heel to toe stabilizes the ankle to be more neutral and also help with pronation control. On the other side the shoe feels firmer not a soft Endorphin Speed kind of feel but more of a dense ride with a firmer touch at toe off. When I supinate I can feel the guide frame and when landing the dual midsoles denser on the outside and a bit softer on the center which helps to feel a bit of bounce and that working together gives a nice and smooth rocker sensation but not a Speedroll kind of feel.


Ryan: This a demonstration of how marrying two dissimilar midsole compounds can be superior to one, do-it-all compound. I was skeptical about PWRRUN PB having any place in a stability shoe, but pairing it with an EVA frame keeps the Tempus worthy of being called a stability shoe. Both the heel and the forefoot have pleasant amounts of soft, high-rebound cushioning.


Adding to the stability is the width of the Tempus’s platform. The couple extra millimeters of platform width give a feeling of directed, sure-footedness. Lace em’ up and look down at your feet, and you’ll see a handy serving of PWRRUN PB bulging out around the heel and forefoot. 

While there aren’t any especially imposing areas of support here (e.g. posts, inserts, etc), an exposed chunk of EVA foam in the medial midfoot plays a discernible role in guiding the stride. This section of the shoe took a bit of time to acclimate to and break in, but after 20-ish miles, it became much less noticeable.


This midsole combo-construction is definitely the highlight of the Tempus. The addition of PWRRUN PB both reduces weight and injects lively rebound into what would otherwise be just another dull stability shoe. Even if you’re someone who generally avoids the stability category, the ability of this midsole to both return energy and provide unintrusive support merits consideration.


Joost: Like Ryan and Sam, I needed a couple of runs to break in the combination of the two foams and get the shoe to flex where it needed to in order to work for my gait. This is the second shoe in a row I reviewed with some sort of “caged” PEBA type foam in a more traditional EVA frame. Both use different approaches. The TOPO Specter (RTR Review) doesn’t make any attempt at guiding your foot, but uses the EVA cage to tame the PEBA insert. The Tempus takes a different approach, exposing the PEBA in the heel and the forefoot, and using the frame to add more medial than lateral support, a touch of motion control (if we can still use that word in 2022). After the breakin, and being a forefoot striker, the support wasn’t really that obvious to me.


Michael: Count me in the “needs a break-in” camp, but it really was only a run or two. The medial support was very noticeable early, but considerably less so after a few runs. When rotating with neutral trainers, I would be gently reminded that there were midsole support features here, but it did not inhibit my stride. If you’re a runner who likes a stability trainer (or even if you’re just tempted by the Tempus!), don’t let the first run solidify your opinion.

Derek: Well, score one for hot and humid tropical weather here in Singapore to break in a shoe fast!  My shoes broke within 20 minutes of running! Initially, the midsole feels a bit stiff and presses on your ankle and foot bones in random areas, but after a couple of miles at moderate paces, everything softens up nicely and the shoe ends up wrapping my foot perfectly, so the point that I don’t even notice the stability elements anymore. 

I like how the PWRRUN foam works here as a sort of stabilizing cage for the softer and springer PWRRUN PB foam at the core. The platform’s stability features work well. The wide base makes the high stack feel right at home, and is no different from any other conventional daily trainer. In terms of underfoot feel, the heel does not seem to compress a whole lot, but there is a lot of spring once you transition to the forefoot. 

Vibration dampening is really good here, and my legs have felt surprisingly fresh towards the end of longer runs, compared to other shoes of similar firmness. Overall, I was very impressed with the feel of the midsole and how it performs as a unified dual density system. I fully expect neutral runners to love this shoe.


Outsole

Renee: The outsole coverage is decent for a road shoe without adding unnecessary weight. As compared to the Shift 2 and Axon 2, the Tempus outsole has better grip and traction, which I found much more comfortable on smooth gravel and crushed rock in comparison to the Shift, Axon, and even the Freedom 5. 

Left to Right: Tempus, Axon 2, Shift 2)


Beto: The outsole has enough rubber to keep the weight down and is arrayed in the right places for traction and durability. The shoe has a wider platform thansay the Speed 2 and is similar to the Shift 2 or Guide 15 but more in the middle. Normally the outsoles on stability shoes have a denser rubber in the arch area but this is not the case here. The Tempus as it is a more uptempo/speed shoe has a lateral side rubber from heel to forefoot which helps when landing on the lateral side and then as one moves in the stride to the center or inner side of the forefoot. The wider platform with the hard rubber and the EVA frame really work together to help pronation and keep the foot ankle stable at any pace. The rubber outsole had no issues on wet roads and as every Saucony shoe this outsole should last many miles.


Ryan: There’s a generous amount of moderately ridged rubber available, with the only notable exception being the omission of rubber under the arch. I also ran several miles on mellow gravel and dirt, and I have to agree with Renee that the outsole seemed to work extremely well in conjunction with the midsole to provide grip without getting sloppy.


The Saucony designers seem to be big proponents of dividing outsoles into distinct longitudinal sections as of late. That is especially the case here, where the forefoot consists of three distinct strips of chevron-shaped tread, separated by two small channels of exposed PB foam. 

It seems to allow those different sections of the forefoot to work somewhat independently of one other – at least to me. This might be helping the ability of the shoe to guide the footstrike, although I’ll admit that this is mostly a guess.

This separation can also produce a slight sensation of the rubber ‘clawing’, or grinding, on dry asphalt, with each segment of rubber wanting to splay in its own direction. Not a real cause for concern, but it is noticeable when firm rubber is bonded to a softer foam as here.

At the rear of the shoe, the thick slabs of rubber are again split by a channel of exposed PB foam, although the rubber on the lateral side is continuous from toe to tail, helping to create a blissfully smooth ride. The rubber at the heel works well to both guide and create a solid platform. I can’t imagine that durability will be a problem for the Tempus.


Sam: I would agree with Ryan that the longitudinal array upfront with its 3 separate zones wants to grip and function independently for me leading, in conjunction with the soft foam above to a bit less than ideal forefoot pop and impulse. A bit more connection across the shoe might help provide a more consistent dynamic forefoot platform?


Michael: At time of drafting, I have just under 100 miles on my Tempus, but you wouldn’t know it from the outsole. Extremely hefty without being overdone. I wore this shoe in rain (including some thunderstorm action!) and dry and had zero issues. Durability-wise, this is absolutely on the higher-end - I am guessing most runners can easily net over 400 miles here.

Derek: Saucony has struggled a bit with the outsole of their Endorphin range, and I think quite a  few people struggle with it on wet surfaces. I did find that the rubber was a little bit grippier in the Ride 15, but still slipped a bit on the corners. 

The Tempus, to its credit, has a lot better outsole coverage than the Endorphin v2 range, and that seems to help somewhat. I managed to test it on a couple of wet runs, and it grips pretty well on wet tarmac now, though once you get to something like smooth concrete, the shoe still skids and slips a bit. 

Durability has proven to be incredibly good so far, and I think that will be a key selling point here. You expect a $160 shoe to last, and with this outsole (and you also expect good durability from PWRRUN and PWRRUN PB foams), durability should not be an issue. 

I have about 80 miles in my pair and there is really zero scuffing of the rubber. The only signs of wear are some staining of the exposed midsole. 


Joost: The outsole is a variation of the typical Saucony style outsole, with varying amounts of rubber, but the basics are there: A couple of flex grooves and three different longitudinal sections up front. Grip is very good and after more than 70 miles, there’s no visible wear, so as Michael said, easily over 400 miles in these.


Ride


Renee: The ride is enjoyable, even as a stability shoe, not my usual preference. While I wouldn’t choose the Tempus for speed days, it works well for anything else. The stability features do not over control my natural ankle movement (as some stability shoes do), and while it does guide the foot landing, it’s not overwhelming. The underfoot stack and midsole will be great for long runs and the light weight makes the Tempus a useful shoe at moderate paces too (and some strides). Saucony states the midsole has deep contouring that allows a runner to “sit into the shoe, instead of on top of it.” That’s true. I think it’s the best stability feature a neutral runner could ask for. 


Beto: The ride of the Tempus is good for those long runs at steady paces for me. I tried them on 200mts reps and 400mts reps on road and it worked ok, not bad but I was expecting a faster feel similar to the Speed but it was bot the case. The Tempus has a nice transition from heel to toe with  a touch of bounce which I enjoyed on runs at steady pace but at faster paces Tempus if lacks of pop at toe off, not bad, but this shoe might benefit from a nylon plate or Speedroll technology to make it faster and maybe get that pop that is missing. 


Yet the shoe performed very well at any workout with the stability elements helping a lot when the legs are fatigued and when doing some easy run plus strides the shoe really responds and has a nice and smooth transition  at shorter reps. Maybe if the shoe was more flexible it might have a better toe off at faster paces?  Still I will recommend this shoe for training as I don’t like the idea of training in plated shoes that often and in this case the Tempus is a winner for those who need light stability or want to train in the Tempus and race in the Speed or Pro.


Ryan: While the EVA component of the midsole provides a noticeable amount of direction throughout the stride, the PWRRUN PB component provides a lively amount of bounce, which is hard to dislike. Upon footstrike, the initial feeling is of the PB foam providing pleasant cushioning. At peak impact, the EVA frame becomes more noticeable, and chaperones the PB to prevent it from rolling or swaying too far out of line.


Because of the PB’s softness and overall stability of this shoe, I felt that the entire transition was a touch slower than I’d prefer – but I don’t count this as a big issue given that this is intended to be a high-mileage daily trainer. The softness and structure aren’t optimized for faster running, but that’s not what this package is about, after all.


I agree with all of Renee’s thinking above – the Tempus provides an impressive dose of lightweight protection without meddling with one’s stride. This design is likely to appeal to most runners, especially those with a neutral foot strike. The result is a ride which is buttery smooth, springy, and guided – three characteristics that really make this shoe likely to find many new fans.


Sam: Lightweight, mildly guided with dynamic bounce from the PB heel and center main midsole the Tempus delivers a very versatile and reliable ride for me. As Ryan says, the transition and toe off  is not as snappy as I might prefer but as a daily all around trainer with a focus on everything except speed it delivers a well cushioned, PB powered fun, and stable ride without in any way overdoing its mild stability which is entirely from its geometry and PWRRUN frame and not firm pieces. 


Michael: I ran this shoe including some faster runs and workouts. Sometimes that was unintentional (you’ll see from my Strava that workout days aren’t always planned), but often quite intentional - I had a lot of faith in the Tempus, after the requisite break-in period, to handle runs fast or slow. There isn’t as much of that forward roll as we got from Saucony’s SPEEDROLL Technology (side note to any Saucony designers/engineers - a SPEEDROLL-equipped Tempus is an instant-buy from me!), but the spring off the PWRRUN PB is more than sufficient to let this shoe handle marathon pace. The energy return isn’t hampered by the stiffer midsole guards, and neutral runners don’t need to worry than the stability elements will “get in the way” of running fast.


Joost: Like Michael, I’ve worn this shoe for a little bit of everything. From track strides and 200s with some athletes to a 2h15 minute long slow run with some others. The Tempus always felt great, except  at the very fastest paces. Transition is great, but I do feel a little lack of pop on toe off. This might also have to do with the fact that I got half a size up from my normal 9.5, making it feel a little more sluggish. The stability side of the Tempus is not very obvious, which is a plus for me, but probably just enough so that you can easily use it for those longer marathon pace runs without resorting to a plated shoe.


Derek: This is the most neutral-feeling stability shoe I have ever run. Ok maybe the Brooks ST5 came close. As Joost says, you don’t notice the stability at all in the shoe. That said, I do know that my forefoot tends to overpronate a little as I fatigue, and I can sometimes get pain in my big toe or around the big toe joint towards the end of a longer run in a less stable shoe like the Adidas Adios Pro 2 or Adidas Prime X. However, here I can almost feel the PWRRUN frame keeping the forefoot platform level and rolling only forward as I fatigue in this shoe. That to me is very helpful in a trainer, when the paces are often not quite as hard. 

The shoe is incredibly smooooth and versatile over a wide range of paces, and most importantly, vibration dampening seems to be the absolute best of all the Saucony shoes I have tested so far, including the likes of the Triumph, Endorphin Shift etc. It is firm but predictable underfoot, yet does not beat you up. 

I cannot emphasize enough how good the vibration dampening is here. It is right up there with Tempo Next%, and better than Adios Pro for me. As others have said, it can handle pretty much everything you throw at it in terms of paces. I think I would still want something lighter and sleeker for 5k-pace type workouts, but anything slower than that, and especially moderate pace long runs with a bit of uptempo, this is my new go-to shoe of the year. The rocker works very well, plus it is one of those shoes that just gets springier in the toe-off as you pick up the pace, and you really want to just keep rolling in this shoe. It is incredibly fun.


Conclusions and Recommendations


Renee: For runners who need stability, but like control of ankle movement, the Tempus is a good pick. For runners who need a lightweight, long run shoe with some stability, the Tempus is a good pick. And neutral runners shouldn’t shy away either. I enjoyed the ride of the shoe, and it’s an all-day comfort. My only negative about the Tempus is the price. At $160, it’s priced as a diverse daily trainer that a runner would use several days each week. I’m not sure the Tempus will be a first pick for runners who don’t need a stability shoe on a daily basis. That said, I prefer it over the Shift 2 and Axon 2 (even as a neutral runner). The Tempus is very comfortable to walk in or wear all day (even when not running!), so getting your money’s worth is not hard.

Renee’s score: 9.4/10 (-.60 price)

Smiles score:  😊😊😊😊

New Smiles Score!  Out of 5 This score is about how pleasing/fun the experience is on the run, or in the case of race type shoes how effective it is to race.



Ryan: The combination of PB and EVA foams in the Tempus midsole creates a very special package which stands to nudge the ‘stability’ category in the right direction. While the shoe controls the ride in a pleasant manner, it isn’t overbearing, overly stiff, or overweight. Kudos to Saucony on a successful experiment of blending two very different foams in one midsole, and for using a high percentage of recycled material for the upper. The transition could be a bit quicker, and the outsole better behaved, but all-in-all, the Tempus is an exceptionally versatile shoe that is likely to garner much praise.

Ryan’s score: 9.3/10 Deductions for break-in period, slow transition, and price

Smiles score:  😊😊😊 ½



Michael: The Tempus likely comes down as my favorite stability trainer on the market, and once again solidifies Saucony’s place as the master of trainers. The Tempus isn’t perfect, but once you get past the break-in, you might mistake it for perfection on many runs. It could do with a slightly more aggressive geometry to truly become a “performance trainer,” but the light weight covers much of that up. Overpronating runners, look no further.


Michael’s score: 9.3/10

Smiles score:  😊😊😊😊


Sam: A bold yet simple new take on stability the Tempus delivers very adequate support without overdoing it or getting unpleasantly in the way of my stride as most stability/control shoes do  Light, high stacked and dynamically cushioned from its PB main midsole, it is fun to run with a great upper. The Tempus is an excellent new daily trainer for all but the fastest of runs.

Neutral runners as well as those seeking a bit of non obtrusive support should be equally happy here for many miles as for sure it should prove durable from midsole to outsole. As such and while priced at $160 it is a decent value. I only wish it had a touch more forefoot pop.

Sam’s Score 9.4 / 10

(Ride 9.35 - 50%, Fit 9.7 - 30%, Value 9 - 15%, Style 9.5 - 5%)

Smiles score: 😊😊😊1/2


Joost: I definitely enjoyed the Tempus a lot more than the Guide after breaking it in. As I said in the intro, it has become a part of my rotation for my upcoming marathon. Like Michael, I think a little change to the geometry, creating a bit more of a rocker, or alternatively, having a little bit more of the PWRRUN in the forefoot to get that pop would make it an even better shoe. All said and done, the Tempus is a great addition to the Saucony lineup of shoes, although I’m still not certain of its place and if it could not simply replace the Ride/Guide duo.


Joost’s score: 9.15 /10

(Ride 9.1 - 50%, Fit 9.5 - 30%, Value 8 - 15%, Style 9.5 - 5%)

Smiles score: 😊😊😊😊


Beto: I really enjoyed the Tempus more than I tought despite the lack of pop at faster paces for the most part the Tempus can do it all. The Tempus needs to be more flexible in my opinion to have a better toe off similar to the Kinvara 13 which is an amazing fast shoe or maybe adding a Nylon plate and Speedroll will help the shoe to be more responsive at faster paces.

Still I will recommend this shoe for training as I don’t like the idea of training in plated shoes that often and in this case the Tempus is a winner for those who need light stability without the feel of a stability shoe or want to train in the Tempus and race in the Speed or Pro.


Beto’s score: 9.2/10

(Ride 9.0 - 50%, Fit 9.5 - 30%, Value 9.0- 15%, Style 10 - 5%)

Smiles score:  😊😊😊😊 ½


Derek: This shoe should be on everyone’s must-try trainer list. I am incredibly particular about what shoe I use for my long runs as they are a big part of my training programme. Right now, for my steady pace, long runs (7:00-7:20/mile pace), the Tempus is top of the list. It used to be the Xtep 160x Pro, but it has since been usurped. What the Tempus does better is its cornering stability and  forefoot rocker. 

Both shoes actually have similar stacks and truth be told, the Xtep has the better, deeper forefoot rebound and spring, courtesy of a very rigid carbon plate, but it requires you to front load the shoe a lot throughout the run to take advantage of it. 

The Tempus is much more forgiving in this respect, with a rocker that is very easy to engage, while still retaining a bit of extra oomph when you want to pick up the pace. The big selling point for Tempus is that it does a lot of what the Endorphin Speed does, with a lot less harshness at slower paces. Tempus is the absolute best-in-class non-plated shoe on the market right now. It has been great fun testing this shoe.

Derek’s score: 9.43 / 10 (Ride 9.2 - 50%, Fit 10 - 30%, Value 9.0- 15%, Style 9.5 - 5%)
Smiles score: 😊😊😊😊

18 Comparisons

Index to all RTR reviews: HERE


Saucony Guide 15 (RTR Review)

Joost: The Guide 15 is a lot firmer and has a the Hollow Tech medial stability element, which is very obvious on the run. Unless you really need that much medial stability, the Tempus is a much more enjoyable shoe for almost all of your running.

Sam: I agree with Joost. While not an overwhelmingly stability focused design the firmer Guide clearly has more control from the plastic hoop, a big chunk of medial rubber (the Tempus only having a flat section of exposed PWRRUN there) and more support from its A straps connecting lace up to midsole inside the shoe. If you need more serious stability in a light shoe and more decisive firmer response, Guide while  the Tempus provides a much more pleasant supportive ride that neutral runners for sure can also enjoy.

Watch the Video Comparison Review: Tempus to Guide 15



Saucony Ride 15 (RTR Review)

Ryan (M9.5): The Ride 15 wields a fully PWRRUN midsole, and feels much more responsive but far less forgiving than the Tempus. The Ride is much firmer underfoot but lacks the springy rebound that the Tempus provides. 

Because the Ride is geared toward faster, uptempo training, it has a lower inertia and is much more capable of a quick turnover than the stability-focused Tempus. 

The upper of the Tempus is a touch more complex in its overlays and material, but both uppers do a fine job of locking the foot down, offering a similar ribbon connected near the top eyelet to direct lace pressure toward the rear of the shoe (this is partially hidden on the Ride). 

The Tempus has a slightly more spacious toebox, thanks in part to the vent slits running above the toes. 

While the outsoles have a similar construction – the rubber in both the forefoot and the heel is split into sections –  this design is much more apparent in the Tempus, as the rubber is bonded to a much more lively PEBA foam. Durability on the Tempus is almost certain to outperform the Ride. Both shoes have a comparable fit, with a slightly more spacious toe box in the Tempus.


Derek (M9.5): The Ride 15 is a really good daily trainer and is a little lighter and sleeker than Tempus at 35/27 stack and 8.82oz in my size, vs Tempus at 40/32 and 9.24oz. In my opinion the Tempus is an overall better shoe because the cushioning is significantly better, and the outsole grip is also superior. The Tempus also feels more dynamic underfoot, courtesy of the PWRRUN PB foam. For me the $30 price premium of the Tempus is well worth it here.


Saucony Endorphin Shift (RTR Review)

Renee: The Shift 2 is much softer underfoot and higher stacked at , making it a recovery/slow run shoe. The Tempus can be an easy day shoe and a daily trainer, making it a more diverse option (even for neutral runners). For me, the Shift 2 feels heavy, and despite the Speedroll, the weight became taxing on tired legs. The Shift 2 weighs more than one ounce more in my women’s size 8 as compared to the Tempus. Sizing is comparable, with slightly more length/room in the Tempus toebox.


Derek (M9.5): Shift feels higher off the ground but it also feels noticeably heavier and bulkier, and is a little harder to hold a faster pace in. Ironically, the Shift has a more aggressive rocker for me so perhaps a faster runner might appreciate the Shift more. In terms of stability, durability and grip, the Tempus is clearly better with a wider and more stable platform, and more outsole rubber coverage.


Saucony Axon (RTR Review)

Renee: The Axon 2 is a budget shoe at $100 compared to the Tempus $160 price tag. The Axon 2 features Saucony’s SpeedRoll/lower drop and is a surprisingly smooth shoe once it is broken in. The Axon 2 is significantly heavier than the Tempus. While I like neutral shoes more than stability shoes, the light weight Tempus is my pick. Sizing is comparable. 


ASICS Kayano Lite (RTR Review)

Michael: I only ran the Kayano Lite 1 (not 2), but was a fan - it’s a “Kayano” in name only, and considerably lighter and more fun than the tank of a trainer than the name may illicit. But, the Tempus is the lighter, cooler, and overall more enjoyable. ASICS is on  the right track with the recycled materials of the KL, but judged purely as a trainer, the Saucony is much more engaging. 


ASICS GT 2000  (RTR Review)

Renee: The GT 2000 is lower to the ground, and might work better for shorter, faster efforts when ground feel is appreciated. The Tempus is lighter in weight and runs lighter despite the higher stack height. For longer runs, I’d choose the Tempus. The stability of the GT 2000 controlled my ankle movement more than the Tempus, whereas the stability of the Tempus is felt more so from the contouring of how the foot sits inside the midsole. Overall, I prefer the Tempus (note: it is $30 more). For sizing, I wore a women’s size 8 in both. 


Beto: I agree with Renee the GT 2000 10 is lower to the ground and has more ground feel than the Tempus. The Tempus feels lighter on foot and when doing longer runs the weight is not an issue despite the high stack the shoe performs amazing ly well on those easy long runs but still can pick up the pace easily. The GT 2000 10 has a feel of a more stable shoe especially in the heel area and ankle flex which is good, the Lite Truss works together with the Flytefoam to be stable and yet responsive when picking up the pace and still soft at front as I can recall it has a front gel pad too. I feel the GT 2000 10 makes me go more toward my midfoot and the Tempus I feel a more roll forward sensation thanks to the firmer EVA frame which guides the foot in that direction.


Diadora Blushield Volo 2 (RTR Review)

Beto: The Volo 2 is the stability trainer from Diadora it is heavier than the Tempus but feels light on foot, the Volo 2 feels more like a traditional daily trainer and the stability elements Blushield helps to keep the foot stable without noticing which is good for neutral runners, the main thing in the Volo 2 is the new midsole DD Anima which is very responsive and soft while running in the Volo it is easy to pick up the pace and good to do some Tempos too. The Tempus feels lighter and still responsive but works better for longer runs it lacks of pop but can do some Tempos too with no issue. This two shoes with its own stability elements are good for neutral runners too their own technology don’t get in the way when running and they don’t feel like stability trainers.


Nike React Infinity Run (RTR Review)

Michael: The React Infinity is a stability shoe, but wearing these two side-by-side wouldn’t be particularly informative, given their different approaches to stability with the Nike focused more on stabilizing the knee more than the foot.  Honestly, both shoes are quite fun, and while Nike’s React foam is quite fun, I come down more in favor of the Saucony (which I wouldn’t necessarily have predicted, before testing) - it’s got some sort of old-school charm that really makes it a treat to run in. Plus, I think the Tempus has more range (i.e. more easily can be dropped into tempo runs) than the Nike, even though the Infinity is no slouch.


Brooks Launch 9 GTS (RTR Review)

Sam: ½ ounce lighter and $50 less the similar stack Launch 9 GTS provides support focused on the knee more than the foot through foam Guide Rails at the top of the midsole. The ride is not nearly as smooth flowing or its foam as dynamic and pleasing as the Tempus dual foam combination.  The upper while fine in its support and comfort, is comparatively crude. The Launch may be a slightly better up tempo option for those really needing stability and on a budget  but for everything else Tempus.


Brooks Glycerin GTS 20 (RTR Review)

Sam: A completely different approach to stability with the Brooks. Basically take the neutral version and add top of midsole Guide Rails. I find them more obtrusive than Saucony’s approach. The Brooks DNA Loft v3 midsole and its all one density is a supercritical EVA foam which is overall more energetic but softer than the Saucony combo of foams. Far heavier at ​​10.9 oz / 309g but more deeply cushioned with a plush and barely supportive upper with no overlays, no gusset and very soft mesh in the regular upper version ( a lighter Stealthfit knit version is available) the Brooks is for sure comfier but less effective as a support or neutral shoe due to its comparatively unstructured fit and less than ideal Guide Rails. I was a half size up and could have easily been true to size in the Brooks and true to size in the Tempus. If you need support and faster performance paces in a trainer go Tempus. If you want mellow and pleasing for easier to recovery runs go with the Glycerin


Ryan: I strongly agree with Sam’s angle on this one. The big slab of DNA Loft in the Brooks feels more intrusive and ‘blocky’ feeling, thanks to its guide rails, heavier weight, and a far less sophisticated midsole design. While the Brooks’s upper is fairly plush and casual, the Saucony takes a much more serious approach, with superior lockdown but without sacrificing comfort. The Glycerin provides its support through a massive, uniform midsole platform, whereas the Tempus takes a more clever approach – framing out the most important areas with EVA, and injecting the rest of the midsole with a more lively compound for superior energy return. For the same price of $160, I would pick the Saucony, unless a plush upper is your dominant criterion in selecting a stability shoe.


Skechers Forza 4 (RTR Review)

Michael: The Skechers Forza 4 is the shoe I thought of most - at first, because they’re both stability options, then (after runs 1 and 2), because they both required break-in (and both bled onto white socks - alas), and finally, after nearly 100 miles on the Tempus, to judge which is superior… it’s the Saucony. The Skechers is really fun, and (as you’re probably tired of me saying), Hyperburst is a supremely good midsole. But the fit and finish on the Saucony are world’s better, and it’s undoubtedly a more dynamic option for neutral and stability runners alike.


Puma RunXX  (RTR Review soon)

Renee: I’m still getting miles in the RunXX, but so far, it’s a stability shoe that “wears me” instead of me “wearing it.” The RunXX is a women’s specific fit shoe, and I think unless a runner has serious stability issues, the RunXX will be polarizing.  In comparison, the stability of Tempus is light and will cater better to both neutral and stability runners. Sizing is comparable. 



Asics Gel Cumulus 24 (RTR Review)

Ryan (M9.5): While the Tempus focuses its eye on stability, the Cumulus takes a somewhat more neutral approach to stability, aiming to be a more balanced daily trainer. The Asics is a touch heavier, although the weight difference of these two isn’t worth worrying about. Both uppers are commendable for being made from recycled materials, but the Tempus takes a more serious approach to lockdown. Whereas the Cumulus features an ultra comfortable engineered mesh, a plush heel collar and a padded tongue, the Saucony uses extra overlays, a stronger upper material, and uses a unique lace tensioning ribbon to increase lockdown. Both are multi-compound midsoles, but they behave quite differently. In the Cumulus, the FF Blast foam pairs with a ‘GEL’ insert to deliver a velvety and highly damped ride. By contrast, the Saucony’s EVA frame steers the foot, while the PWRRUN PB focuses on returning energy, and as a result delivers a much bouncier ride than the Cumulus. The outer on the Asics felt better behaved to me, probably because of the more docile FF Blast behind it. 

If you value a moderate amount of control, and like it paired with some bounce, the Saucony is likely your ticket. However, if you want a more neutral, comfort-focused workhorse, the Cumulus is more likely to be the proper choice. The Cumulus has been one of my favorite trainers this year, and as a neutral runner is the winner in my book by a small margin. Both shoes offer a wide, comfortable toe box and fit true to size.

Nike Tempo Next% Fk (RTR Review)

Derek (M9.5): Tempo is a neutral shoe but has a fairly rigid platform such that I think it’s actually quite hard to overpronate in this shoe. The Tempus wins in spades in terms of stability, courtesy of a wider base, and this is particularly noticeable at the heel. Tempus also has better outsole grip on wet surfaces. In terms of ride performance, Tempo is still the faster and more assistive shoe, and its cushioning is slightly better than Tempus in that it has a softer and springier underfoot feel. In terms of fit, I think the Tempus has a more conventional fit and should accommodate many more foot shapes than the Tempo Next%. If you are looking for a performance trainer for moderate – faster paces, then Tempo is the better shoe. Otherwise, Tempus is the more versatile and more value-for-money option here.

adidas Prime X (RTR Review)

Derek (M9.0): I had to go down a half size in the Prime X. I like the super-dynamic and cushioned ride of the Prime X but it is also the most unstable shoe in my rotation so cornering and uneven terrain require special attention in this shoe. I also don’t get good heel lockdown in the Prime X (Note that this does not seem to be an issue for many other people so it could just be that I have narrow heels.) Overall, I think the Tempus is the more versatile and user-friendly shoe, though it pales to the Prime X in terms of ride “wow” factor and cushioning. Both shoes have very good outsole grip, and here I would say the Adidas outsole is better. If you are looking for a daily trainer, then Tempus is the obvious choice. If you want a high cushioning cruiser that is just for steady long runs, then I think Prime X could be a better option.  

New Balance SC Trainer (RTR Review)

Derek (M9.5): The SC Trainer fits marginally longer, but I would not go a half size down here. Overall shoe volumes are pretty similar; wide roomy toe box, narrower toward the arch and heel. For me, the SC Trainer has a more aggressive, faster rocker sensation to the ride, and is also softer underfoot. This is particularly noticeable when going in a straight line. However, it is heavier than Tempus and doesn’t handle pace variations as well as the Tempus. In terms of outsole grip, I think the SC Trainer uses a softer and grippier outsole compound and so it is better than the Tempus. However, I am also seeing faster outsole wear in SC Trainer than in the Tempus. (Note that SC Trainer also has less outsole rubber than Tempus) In terms of stability, I would say Tempus is better. The firmer peripheral foam resists deformation better and give you a more sure-footed landing. In addition, the upper material is a bit stiffer and combines well with the flared midsole/outsole to resist sideways forces better. Overall, both are incredibly good maximalist trainers and you really can’t go wrong with either. I would say Tempus is more versatile and accommodates a bigger pace range, while the SC Trainer is more like Prime X in being a steady pace cruiser for long, long runs.

New Balance FuelCell TC (RTR Review)

Derek (M9.5): I am a big fan of the TC, and it was Sam’s trainer of the year for 2020 so that’s saying something. The TC comes in at a very similar weight to the Tempus, but with a little lower stack. The TC is a lot softer, and many people actually find TC’s heel too unstable. So TC is definitely not for people needing stability. However, if you are a neutral runner looking for a new daily trainer, I think it will be a close call between Tempus and TC. The big selling point for Tempus is that it does a lot of what the Endorphin Speed does, with a lot less harshness at slower paces. I think, if you prefer a softer, mushier ride, then TC is still the better shoe, but if you like a slightly tamer ride, while still getting loads of cushioning and rockered ride, then Tempus is the solution for you.

Puma Deviate Nitro (RTR Review)

Derek (M9.5): The Deviate Nitro is somewhat of a polarizing shoe. I’ve had some incredible runs in the shoe, but at the same time, the heel lock and Achilles rubbing are a bit of a gamble for many runners. Deviate Nitro is plenty stable, but Tempus is even more stable. Deviate has a slightly bouncier and softer ride, and the outsole seems to be slightly better in terms of grip for me. Both outsoles appear to be bombproof in terms of durability. I think if the fit of the DN works for you, DN is still the better overall shoe. Otherwise, the Tempus is the easier fitting and more hassle-free shoe.

The Tempus will be available late June 2022

Tester Profiles

Renee is a former U. S. Marine journalist, which is when her enjoyment of running and writing started. She isn’t that awesome of a runner, but she tries really hard. Most of her weekly 50-60 miles take place on rural country roads in Nebraska, meaning mud, gravel, dirt, hills, and the occasional field. She has PR’s of 1:30:59 for the half marathon and 3:26:45 for the marathon.


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 2:39 marathon PR from the 2022 Zurich Marathon.


Joost is a Belgian in his 50s living in Luanda, Angola, Africa, where he faces the heat, humidity and general chaos to run anything between 60-100 miles per week. He’s on a mission to win in his age group in the 6 marathon majors and has completed half of his project, with a 2:26:10 PB in Berlin in 2019 at 51. He ran in primary school, but then thought it would be a lot cooler to be a guitar player in a hard rock band, only picking up running again in 2012, gradually improving his results. His Strava is here:https://www.strava.com/athletes/reimaka His coaching service Kufukula can be found here


Ryan Eller 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 2020-2021 super shoes, often sub 15 minutes for 5K and in 2021 marathon had PR’s of 2:27 at the Maine Marathon and 1:09 for the half marathon.


Michael is a 2019 graduate of Northwestern University Law School in Chicago and is a patent and intellectual property attorney. Prior to law school, he competed collegiately at Washington University in St. Louis (10,000m PR of 30:21). He recently finished 2nd at the Chicago Half-Marathon in a PR of 67:43. He has a 2:23 marathon PR (2nd place) from the 2021 Lakefront Marathon in Wisconsin.


Beto Hughes Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico 

32 yrs old, Height: 5’10,, Weight: 195 lbs

I started running in 2016 and training to lose weight. I used to weigh 295 lbs and between running and Crossfit began my love for the fitness life and for running. I am now aiming to be a Boston Qualifier.

Weekly mileage: 60 - 75 miles 

Favorite distances: Marathon, Half Marathon and Ultra Marathon.

You can follow me on Instagram @betohughes  https://www.instagram.com/betohughes/


Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is 64 with a 2018 3:40 Boston qualifier. 2022 will be Sam’s 50th year of running. He has a decades old 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’s.

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 in this article. These partnerships do not influence our editorial content. The opinions herein are entirely the authors'

Comments and Questions Welcome Below!
Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and currently preferred shoes

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

SAUCONY
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
 
RUNNING WAREHOUSE
USA  Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products 

FREE Shipping, 30 days return policy, Low Price Guarantee


AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

ROADRUNNERSPORTS
Men's and Women's SHOP HERE
Join RRS VIP


FLEET FEET
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

REI 
Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

BACKCOUNTRY
Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

TOP4RUNNING EUROPE
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
Use RTR code RTRTOP4 for 5% off all products, even sale products
FREE Shipping on orders over 99€,, 30 days return policy, no questions asked.

HOLABIRD SPORTS
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
FREE Shipping on most orders over $40

AMAZON  
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

NEW BALANCE
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

WATCH OUR YOUTUBE REVIEWS ON THE ROADTRAILRUN CHANNEL


Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by Following RoadTrailRun News Feed

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

3 comments:

Mike said...

You touch on it in the review, but would you please be able to compare the Tempus to the Topo Specter? Thanks.

Nic said...

This seems like an ideal shoe for running ultra-distances to me. Not overly supportive, but enough to help you along towards the end of the race when fatigue increases and your form starts to suffer. Or do you think the cushioning is too firm to be comfortable over longer distances?

Anonymous said...

Same question as above