Wednesday, September 13, 2023

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080 v13 Multi Tester Review: Bigger, Softer, and Lighter! 9 Comparisons

Article by Dominique Winebaum, Sam Winebaum. Jeff Beck and Sally Reiley

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080 v13 ($165)


Introduction

The Fresh Foam X 1080, New Balance’s max cushion daily trainer, sees big changes for its 13th edition. It sees more stack height (+4mm at the heel and +6mm at the forefoot) of a new lighter Fresh Foam X foam while at the same time losing a significant approximate 1 oz /28g in weight which comes from less dense Fresh Foam and slightly thinner outsole rubber. Topped with a plush engineered knit upper,  it for sure signals comfort top to bottom on the run but does it lose some performance edge? Please read on to find out what our testers discovered.

Pros:

Soft and very comfortable top to sole: Sam/Dominique/Sally/Jeff

Ideal recovery, slow and easy days ride: soft foam, flex, rocker, fit  Sam/Dominique/Sally/Jeff

Wonderfully smooth transitions for such a big stack soft shoe : Sam/Dominique/Jeff/Sally

Strong cushion to weight ratio: very light at about men's 9.28 oz / 263g (US9) for a big 38/32 stack height and substantial upper: Sam/Dominique/Jeff/Sally

1 oz (28g) drop in weight with 4mm more heel height and 6mm more forefoot Sam/Jeff

A fit for any foot: available in 4 widths for both men and women Sam/Jeff


Cons:

Soft foam and stretch knit upper are not a great combination for performance (but are for sheer comfort): Sam/Dominique/Sally

Less of an all around performance focused big cushion daily trainer: Sam/Dominique

Could use more pop and response: firmer front rubber? Sam/Dominique/Jeff/Sally

Stretch knit upper may require selecting narrower than usual fit sizing: Sam/Dominique/Sally


Stats

Approx. Weight: men's 9.28 oz / 263g (US9)  /  women's oz / g (US8)

  Samples: women’s 8.64 oz / 245g US9, 9.28 oz / 263g US W10.5 

                                 8.08 oz/ 229 g US W8

                   men’s 10.3 oz / 292g US10.5

Full Stack Height: men’s 38 mm heel (measured) / 32 mm forefoot ( 6mm drop spec) 

V12 Full Stack Height: 34 heel / 26 mm forefoot 10.30 oz / 292g  (US9)

$165. men’s widths: B Narrow, D Medium, 2E Wide 4E X Wide) , 

           women’s widths: B Medium, D Wide, 2E X Wide, 2A Narrow

Available October 13, 2023


First Impressions, Fit and Upper

Dominique:  This is my first time running in the Fresh Foam 1080 v13 and my second time reviewing New Balance running shoes.  Last year I tested the Fresh Foam X More v4, which I felt was just too much soft cushioning, not enough rebound, and quite clunky for a running shoe.  Let’s just say that I am pretty upbeat about the 1080v13 in contrast to the Fresh Foam X More v4.  


In comparison to its predecessor, this new edition weighs less, thanks to a new Fresh Foam X, has a higher stack height, 38 mm heel / 32 mm forefoot, and a lower drop at  6 mm versus 8 mm.  On my first run, I was pleasantly surprised by the super cushioned feel of the midsole, responsive ride and smooth transitioning – the heel-to-toe rocker is quite pronounced, and in a good way!  

The fit is true to size and very comfortable, yet not particularly snug with ample room in the toe box though it is not a wide toe box (Wide and X-Wide and even 2A Narrow are also available). There is quite a bit of stretch in the engineered knit upper creating a supple feel but one which would benefit from being slightly tighter. 


Denser knit along with overlays placed in strategic areas add structure to the upper. The collar is well padded and secure, extending in the back with a soft and fairly high heel collar. 

The shoe lacing  system is well designed with shoelaces gliding smoothly through the eyelets and a padded tongue that is also gusseted ensuring a comfortable and secure fit. 

Sam: My test pair due to availability is a women’s US10.5 which corresponds to a men’s US9. Further, it is in narrower B width not the usual D width for men’s shoes.

The upper is an engineered stretch knit with denser, more supportive areas of denser knit, most notably along the lower parts of the upper and at the toe box. The knit is soft and friendly on the foot.

The heel counter and tongue are well padded and thankfully don’t overplush so foot hold at the rear is excellent, helped by a thin plastic clip on either side of the heel. 

The midfoot has no overlays beyond a thin “N” on either side.  Thankfully, and correctly for a stretch knit upper we have a perforated stretch gusset from tongue to midsole. Without it for sure the midfoot hold would suffer, looking at you Brooks Glycerin 20 with your similar upper and un gusseted tongue.  The hold is just fine, and very comfortable, but not of the super locked down variety as for example the Triumph from Saucony, their equivalent big neutral trainer has.

The toe bumper is made up of a quite pliable but real front internal piece with an over if you will denser knit that extends quite far back.

Now the fit… Recall my pair is a US women’s 10.5 in the narrower B width. This corresponds in size in men’s to a half size up from my normal US8.5. No question they are a bit long so for length they are true to size. 

As to width and volume, also no question the narrower B width given the stretch knit is the way to go for me and my narrower to medium feet and even then, as said above, this is not in any way a snug performance type fit. I am quite sure in a regular men’s D width I might find the hold shaky. As noted 4 widths for both men and women are available so every foot should find a good fit.


I wish New Balance would either lose the stretch knits or tighten the stretch of the knit. All of this said, the 1080 has a supremely comfortable upper, if one of the easy going variety and one that goes with the rest of the v13’s mellow fun vibe. 

Jeff: I’ve reviewed each 1080 for the last few years, starting with the v9 - so I’ve seen it go from a slightly-more-cushioned-than-your-standard-trainer to effectively a max cushion beast. 

Most of the changes from year to year have been minor iterations, and usually moving in the right directly (except for you v11 and your extra short heel fit), but the v12 to v13 feels like the biggest single jump New Balance has made.

Call me crazy, I like the stretchy upper. Part of that is the toebox, which isn’t all that wide, gets effectively wider with the stretchy upper. 

While it doesn’t have an incredible lockdown hold, it’s not a trail or performance shoe, so I’m not looking for a supreme foothold. Meanwhile it doesn’t have any heel slip issues, while also being plenty breathable and not remotely overbuilt.

Fit is spot on for length, my 10.5 is true-to-size, while the standard width D is fine for close to wide foot, but not really accommodating. Luckily, New Balance offers different widths, and I would strongly recommend that you take advantage of that if your foot is even remotely wide. 

Sally: I have tested numerous iterations of the 1080 and have had mostly positive experiences with all of them as a solid premium performance highly cushioned trainer (V11 was the big miss with its unpopular posterior heel flare in the heel counter - a real achilles buster). 


Last year’s V12 was a welcome return to all things good about the 1080 and was an enjoyable well-cushioned daily trainer. What changes has NB made with this newest V13? The others have thoroughly detailed the specs. 

Right out of the box this is an uber comfortable shoe that fits very true to size - I find NB usually does a great job with consistent sizing. My W8 was neither short nor long, and has an accommodating toe box that would stretch over a more high volume foot than my own narrow woman’s foot.

Left: Fresh Foam 1080 v13    Right:Fresh Foam 1080 v12

It is available in wider widths as well as a narrow width so there is a fit for every runner, but I was fine in the medium B width. This is not a tight performance fit, but rather a super comfortable soft well-cushioned fit, which is appropriate for the intended use of this shoe.


Midsole

Dominique: The midsole is a definite highlight of this new edition with a lighter new Fresh Foam, a higher 39mm / 33mm stack height, along with a more middle of the ground drop at 6mm. It is extremely cushy and the platform is slightly wider than my just now retired Diadora Atomo v7000.  Generous underfoot cushioning both in height and width that generates a decidedly pleasant feel with plenty of rebound and a great rolling of the foot enhanced by the pronounced heel-to-toe rocker. 

Sam: Dominique describes the midsole well. This new Fresh Foam is softer, somewhat bouncier and lighter than prior flavors. For such a big stack height the geometry is excellent with not only very decent long flexibility but also a noticeable rolling rocker effect. Without a plate I find both are essential when shoes pass 30 mm in height at the forefoot. 


The midsole forefoot stack is lower than the ponderous More v4  (-4mm with the same heel height so we have 2mm more drop in the V13) and that is a good thing . 

Left: 1080v12 Right: 1080 v13

It is higher by 6mm at the forefoot and 4mm at the heel than the 1080 v12 yet lighter by about 1 oz / 28g as the new Fresh Foam is less dense. 

Left: 1080v12 Right: 1080 v13

There is plenty of cushion here and the v13 is never a chore to turn over even at slower paces with the midsole softness (and height) not overdone.  

This said due to well (overly well) matched and also soft outsole rubber, and especially upfront, I think the v13 lacks some response and pop off the road end up slotting it (despite its fine foam and light weight) to easier paced runs for me. If you like a soft and bouncy smooth flowing feel you will like this midsole. It’s almost there for me.

Jeff: Bigger stack and an overall softer midsole is a solid 1-2 upgrade punch from the v12. It’s hard to tell where the extra squish makes a bigger impact, both the heel and forefoot are a big step up for this iteration. It’s definitely in the Goldilocks zone of “soft, but not too soft” which makes it still very runnable for everyday runs, or even your easiest recovery runs. As Sam pointed out, with this much soft stack and no plate, the geometry plays a big part in a shoe’s success - and this is well executed.

Sally: Bigger is better seems to hold true here. 

There is more Fresh Foam here with a higher stack of soft, and yet there is less weight. 

As the others point out, the rocker geometry is what enables this big soft midsole to respond with a smooth transition from landing to toe-off. I likewise might prefer a firmer forefoot for more “pop,” but this shoe is fantastic as a mellow and comfortable highly cushioned daily trainer. 


Outsole

Dominique: We have a mostly blown rubber outsole with a new configuration exposing more midsole than its predecessor.  The blown rubber adds some spring and is quite soft in some spots, especially in the forefoot.  A portion of the midfoot and center of the heel is just exposed midsole.  The outsole is designed to enhance the cushiony and springy features of the midsole.  

Jeff: New Balance has done well with the 1080 midsole over the years, they always seem to stick with a new blown rubber segmented outsole that gives solid traction and durability without hindering any midsole flexibility. Considering how much foam is underfoot, I’m a little surprised there’s as much flex as there is - and the diagonal outsole isn’t hindering it whatsoever.

Sam: Well segmented, and agreeing with Jeff, the new more diagonal segmentation really helps with flexibility and flow forward. 

While the rubber is well matched to the midsole for a smooth consistent feel I wish for firmer or maybe thicker front rubber to give the 1080 more response at faster paces.


Sally: I initially look for several qualities in an outsole: traction, durability, and quietness. This outsole checks all the boxes. 

I agree with Sam and Jeff that the new diagonal segmentation contributes to a more flexible and smooth rolling ride. This outsole gets huge bonus points for being so nice and quiet underfoot.



Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations


Sam:  New Balance has succeeded in creating a soft, very well cushioned, maximal stack trainer that is not a chore to run. The combination of rocker and flex is particularly effective in light of the big 32 mm forefoot stack height and new softer foam. 


The smooth ride is helped along by the notably light weight for the 38/32 stack height, at a mere 9.28 oz / 263g (US9) and 28g lighter than the v12 which had a lower 34/26 stack height.  


The bottom line is that NB has perfected the geometry of the big soft trainer here with the pillowy ride moving along lively (low weight) and smooth (geometry). That said, for me, it focuses on those mellow runs at easier paces losing some of the prior versions' somewhat more uptempo capabilities.  I think making the forefoot rubber a bit firmer or thicker would give it some needed pop and responsiveness. Ironic, as the earliest versions of the 1080 had notably overly firm and stiff rubber, here the opposite. I wish New Balance returned to the middle in terms of the outsole especially given the soft foam above. 


The stretch knit upper is most comfortable but has a bit too much give. I was glad my sample was in B width instead of my usual D, but even then, I wished for a bit less stretchy fit to better lock me to the softness underfoot. Not to worry there are many widths available.


Looking for a soft, super plush light trainer? The 1080v13 is a super friendly shoe leaning more to overall top to bottom comfort, softness, and smoothness than snappy performance daily training and that is fine. 

Sam’s Score: 9.1 / 10

Ride (50%): 9.2 a big stack, soft bouncy and light shoe that moves very well, hard to pull off. Deductions for lack of response and pop limiting uses for me to slower and easier runs.

Fit (30%): 8.9 less stretch please

Value (15%): 9 pricing up there, wish for more versatility but appreciate super light weight for cushion

Style (5%): 9 my women’s colorway is clean and sharp 

😊😊😊😊


Dominique:  I am a slow runner yet I noted that I was picking up the pace a bit running in the 1080v13.  It has an enjoyable ride that is very protective with a soft underfoot feel and good rebound.  I really like the enhanced rocker which helps create a smooth transition.  

In short, I have experienced added enjoyment when running, which is what matters to me, not the pace nor the pain, and especially as I am trying to stay injury free. My plan is to keep running in them and not retire them as I did the Fresh Foam X More v4. 


I also tend to walk in my running shoes when testing them.  Often, I find that running shoes make great walking shoes, however, not so with 1080 v13 for me.  I prefer a tighter upper and a firmer outsole for a more stable landing when walking.  


Although this is my first pair of Fresh FoamX 1080, I find that all the updates propel the model to new heights.  A true maximalist shoe with a pleasing and protective platform delivering  a smooth ride though I would agree with Sam that it could use more pop and response.  The outsole rubber in the front might be a bit firmer.  


Priced at $165, this is not exactly a budget friendly pair of running shoes. However, it is within the range of comparably high end cushioned shoes.

Dominique’s Score: 9/10   

Dominique: Ride 9.2,  Fit, 9,  Value, 8.5, Style 9: 

😊😊😊😊


Jeff: New Balance’s big daily trainer got even bigger, and much better. I’ve been a little underwhelmed with FreshFoam for a while, but whatever changes New Balance has made to the formula have made all the difference. Adding even more of it has further helped the execution - this doesn’t feel like a single year update from last year, this feels like two-to-three iterations of improvement.


The fit is dialed in enough that even with plenty of stretch I didn’t have any complaints. As a bigger runner I wouldn’t hesitate to make this my everyday trainer, but could see more svelte runners treating it the same - or if they prefer less squish this could be their go-to shoe every time they need an extra comfortable and easy ride. 

Jeff’s Score: 9.4/10

Ride: 9.5 (50%) Fit: 9.5 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 9 (5%)  

😊😊😊😊


Sally: Bigger is indeed better! New Balance managed to add more Fresh Foam and stack height while simultaneously reducing the weight of this popular plush soft trainer. They hit the sweet spot with a maximal stack soft cushioned midsole that combines with a subtle rocker geometry to provide a smooth slightly bouncy easy ride. This is not my choice for tempo runs, but I don't think that was the intent; this is a shoe that will be in my rotation for mellow paced easy comfortable runs. I differ with Dominique in that I think this is also a great walking shoe - my dogs have seen lots of miles already with me in my 1080 V13. I can easily see how larger runners with a bit more heft than my 106 pounds would love this shoe. And no, it is not a bargain at $165, but the price is not out of line with other premium maximal cushioned trainers.

Sally’s Score: 9.2/10

Ride: 9.3 (50%)   Fit: 9.2 (30%)   Value: 9 (15%)   Style: 9 (5%)  

😊😊😊😊


9 Comparisons

Index to all RTR reviews: HERE Roadtrailrun 


Fresh Foam X 1080v13 Stats

38 mm/32 mm, 6mm drop 

9.28 oz / 263g (men’s US9)


Fresh Foam 1080 v12 (RTR Review)

34 heel / 26 mm forefoot 10.30 oz / 292g  (US9)

Jeff: One of the biggest single year updates we’ve seen for big daily trainers (this is on the same level as the Triumph 19 to 20), the v13 is bigger, softer, more comfortable, and nearly a full ounce lighter (US10.5 my v12 is 11.14/316g to the v13 10.3/292g). 

A year ago I was impressed by how much better the v12 was from the v11/v10, but this is an even bigger change. Max stack runners continue to have more and more great options. 

Sally: W8 true to size in both: Bigger is better! I will retire my V12 and choose to do my easy runs in V13.


Nike InfinityRN 4 (RTR Review)

39mm heel / 30 mm forefoot, 11.16 oz / 316g (US9)

Dominique: For a shoe with almost a similar high stack height  and a super cushioned platform, the Nike Infinity RN4 was just too soft with not enough rebound.  The upper, though extremely comfortable, did not have the best hold.  The Nike weighs close to 2 ounces more for my size 9.   It has a higher drop at 9mm.  I prefer the smoother transition of the 1080v13 with its 5mm drop. 

Sam: Totally concur with Dominique. Similarly soft and bouncy the Nike is softer yet and its higher weight is for sure noticed. I will add the New Balance’s stretch knit upper is more secure than the Nike’s especially up front. 

Jeff: I agree as well, the Nike lets you sink in, but doesn’t have as much dynamic performance for rebound. Also, I try not to be too precious with shoe weight, but the ~2 ounce difference can be felt when worn against each other. The Nike has a much more robust outsole, so it’d probably win the durability test, but the 1080 is a much better running shoe.


Fresh Foam More v4 (RTR Review)

38mm heel / 34mm forefoot, 4mm drop men's oz 11.05 / g (US9) 

Sam: No contest at all here. With 2mm more and I would say unnecessary forefoot stack and at a weight close to 2 oz / 50g heavier, the More is too much. Much more lumbering and ponderous,  the 1080 v13 is the clear choice between these two for me.


Saucony Triumph 20/21/ RFG (RTR Review)

9.8oz  / 279g (US9), 37 mm heel / 27 mm forefoot ( 10mm drop spec)

Sam: Somewhat heavier and with 4mm drop on a slightly lower stack height the Triumph is Saucony’s comparable max cushion neutral daily trainer. It has a PWRRUN+ TPU/EVA midsole that is more reactive if not quite as bouncy soft. The quicker rebounding foam, firmer outsole, higher drop and geometry have it rolling more decisively than the New Balance leaning it more towards all around daily training. The highly sustainable RFG version is somewhat softer than the regular Triumph, so closest to the v13, with a touch more easy going ride than the regular. It has a very roomy cotton based upper that has superior hold to the 1080v13. I lean Triumph in this match up.


Jeff: Sam gets it right, the Triumph has a little bit firmer foam, but it’s a much more dynamic rebound. Very comparable cushioning, with the Saucony feeling more cushioning under the forefoot, and the New Balance feeling more cushioned under the heel. The Triumph also has a more performance-centric upper, though it’s still as comfortable, if not more, than the 1080. If you are looking for a purely easy day shoe, the 1080 has the edge, for everything else, go Triumph.


Sally: W8 true to size in both: I agree with Sam’s and Jeff’s summaries. I would choose the somewhat firmer Triumph for more performance oriented daily training (still short of tempos though),  but would choose the 1080 for the relaxed easy run. Both super comfortable on the feet and fit well


Brooks Ghost Max (RTR Review)

men's 10.25 oz  / 290g (US9), 39 mm heel / 33 mm forefoot, 6mm drop 

Sam: Brooks new max cushion trainer has almost identical stack height but weighs 28g more. It has a stiffer more rocker based ride and more response. While soft it is not as pleasingly soft and bouncy as the 1080 v13. No stretch knit upper for the Brooks, a more secure performance oriented mesh.  For sheer soft comfort and easy going vibes and noticeably lighter weight the 1080,  for a more traditional ride feel and fit in a max cushion the Brooks.

Jeff: I’m with Sam. The Ghost Max is much more rocker based, and as noted in that review, far more “normal” than its spec/looks would suggest. While they are comfortable, they aren’t nearly as comfortable as the 1080v13. It’s the right shoe if you prefer a well cushioned, but more traditional trainer.


Puma Magnify Nitro 2 (RTR Review)

men's 10 oz  / 284g (US9), 40mm heel / 30mm forefoot

Sam:With a higher heel and bigger drop the Puma weighs 20g more. It’s supercritical Nitro foam is not quite as soft but is more energetic with a similar but more directed bounce and ride. I found them slightly more stable and secure than the 1080 given the broad platform and more traditional engineered mesh upper. Similar the Puma is more “serious” in ride while the New Balance is more about all around comfort. 


ASICS GEL-Nimbus 25 (RTR Review)

men's 10.3 oz  / 292 g (US9), 41.5mm heel / 33.5mm forefoot 

Sam:The Nimbus went way up in stack and platform width for its 25th edition. It has more stack than the 1080 and weighs about 28g more.  It is a more stable shoe, overly blocky at the heel for me with a somewhat awkward rocker to the 1080’S smooth forward flow at any pace. The v13 is clearly an easier shoe to pleasantly run slower paces in. The Nimbus’s FlightFoam Plus foam is less bouncy, not as soft, but quicker reacting in combination with its rocker making it favor faster paces. Both have super comfy roomy uppers with the ASICS true to size no question and the New Balance with its stretch not quite as locked down and requiring consideration of width sizing.   

Jeff: The 25 is a big step up for the Nimbus, and lines up very well with the 1080v13. Both big daily trainers that prioritize comfort over performance. The ASICS wins the upper battle, it has a more accommodating fit, wider toebox, and more premium/plush feel. Worn against each other it’s hard to differentiate the cushioning, with very subtle differences - the Nimbus midsole is a little more dense, the 1080 allows you to sink in just a bit more. 


Brooks Glycerin 20 (RTR Review)

Stealthfit (US9) 275g /  9.7 oz (US9) ., 34 mm heel / 24 mm forefoot, 10mm drop 

Jeff: Brooks biggest stacked daily trainer debuted about 18 months ago (where’s the Glycerin 21?) and when it first showed up, I was amazed. The DNA Loft v3 midsole is well executed, with plenty of dynamic bounce, while still being restrained and easy to run in daily. Fast forward to September 2023, and it feels relatively low stacked and kind of flat - like putting on a speed shoe from 2012.  I don’t think it’s aged in that time, more that standards have shifted quite a bit in the last couple of years. I think it runs a little bit better at faster paces than the 1080v3, but there are many better options for those runs.


Nike Zoom X Invincible Run 3 (RTR Review)

10.35 oz  / 293g (US9), 39mm heel (measured) / 30.6mm forefoot ( 8.4mm drop spec)

Sam: Nike’s newest Invincible is quite different from its earlier editions whose fun bouncy rides more resembled the 1080 v13. More stable, with a super broad platform and somewhat firmer in feel, the Invincible has a similar stack height but 2.4mm more drop. It is clearly more rocker based than the more flexible 1080. It is a better long distance faster trainer than the more easy going 1080 with its ZoomX foam quicker in return and its outsole providing more response and stability. While there should be a nice and comfy fit in the 1080 if you get the right width, the Invinicble’s more rigid mesh going with its rigid rocker and for some not as secure heel (not enough rear bolster padding) may challenge.


Jeff: The latest Invincible still has lots of bounce, I don’t think you can have a shoe filled with this much ZoomX and not have “bouncy” be the principal description. Sam’s spot on about the fit, and especially the heel slip issue in the Invincible - I’ve yet to have a single run in the shoe that wasn’t ruined by the constant slipping, regardless of a runner’s loop. Not everyone has had that issue, but I’d strongly recommend that you try the Invincible on before committing.


Sally: W8 in both: I was surprised to love the early versions of the Invincible as much as I did - it was like bouncing on a trampoline throughout your daily run. The latest V3 was a disappointment, also influenced by a serious issue with heel slippage. Running uphill was not hampered by my nagging hamstring injury, but by my heel lifting up. I did have some fast long training runs prior to Boston last spring in the Invincible, so I would choose the Nike over the 1080 for those runs if you can dial in the fit.  For the easy comfortable runs, the 1080 is the softer and more mellow choice.


The Fresh Foam X 1080 v13 will release October 13, 2023


Tester Profiles

Dominique has run for over 40 years, consistently about 25 miles per week at paces between 10 and 11 minute miles and once a week down in the mid 9 minute miles. She races rarely, but always surprises more hard core runners in her age group when she does. She has a 1985 marathon PR of 3:16 in her second marathon which at the time put her on the top 10 Swiss women’s lists. She is the mother of two grown children, both runners post college, and also enjoys nordic and alpine skiing, tennis, hiking and trekking, and gardening. 

Jeff Beck 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 20 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.

Sally is a lifelong runner and mother of five who agreed against her better judgment to run her first marathon at age 54; she has since run the past ten Boston Marathons, two NYC Marathons, one Chicago, and one London with the WMM Six Star Medal now in her sights. With a Boston PR of 3:25:55 in 2022 (9th place in AG) and two consecutive 2nd place in Age Group W60 awards in NYC, she competed in the Abbott World Marathon Majors Age Group World Championships at the 2022 London Marathon and ran an all-time PR of 3:24:02, placing 6th in the world in her women’s 60-64 age group.  She also competes in USATF races with the Greater Lowell Road Runners team. To add meaning to her Boston Marathon races she runs with Team Eye and Ear and has raised over $275,000 for Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital. Sally is 5’2’’ and 105 pounds and lives in Marblehead, MA, training outdoors year round. She blames her love of skiing out West for any and all Boston Marathon training challenges.

Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is 66 with a 2018 3:40 Boston qualifier. 2022 was 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 if he gets very very lucky. Sam trains 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run, hiking or on nordic skis. 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 cost. RoadTrail Run has affiliate partnerships and may earn commission on products purchased via shopping 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 current preferred shoes

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

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US
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 


AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE


WATCH OUR YOUTUBE REVIEWS ON THE ROADTRAILRUN CHANNEL


Find all RoadTrailRun reviews at our index page HERE 
Google "roadtrailrun Shoe Name" and you can be quite sure to find just about any run shoe over the last 10 years

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:

Anonymous said...

Hi Sam / Jeff, how would you compare the 1080 v13 to the ForeverRun Nitro?

Mads Olesen said...

Did you remeasure the More v4? It the review of that shoe you label it 35/31 (which I thought sounded low), but here you refer to it as 38/34?

Sam Winebaum said...

@mads Olesen
New Balance never very clear on stack heights at release, It is 38/34 or close.
Sam, Editor