Article by Ryan Eiler, Mike Ellenberger, Nils Scharff and Matt Crehan
361 Degrees Furious Future ($180)
Introduction
The Furious Future from 361 Degrees is a state of the art super road race shoe with an exotic design, state of the art materials and low weight at approximately 7.3 oz / 208g. And on top of that, it is priced most reasonably at $180 compared to other super shoes in its class. Let's see how it performed for Ryan in our round 1 review.
Pros:
Explosive energy return - Ryan/MichaelNils/Matt
Upper is exceptionally secure and breathable - Ryan/Michael/Matt
Deep, protective cushioning - Ryan/MichaelNils/Matt
Highly enjoyable when running at hard effort - Ryan/MichaelNils/Matt
Very strong value at $180 for a state of the art super shoe Ryan/MichaelNils/Matt
Cons:
Sizing is off; runs too long, size down a half - Ryan/MichaelNils/Matt
Exotic ride takes some getting used to - Ryan/Michael
Forefoot rigidity & geometry severely limits versatility - Ryan
Unstable, overly soft heel - Ryan
A bit of heel slippage & therefore lace bite trying to make up for it through the lacing - Nils
Tester Brief Profiles (full profiles at the end of the review)
We're thrilled that Ryan Eiler got enough fast legs back to test the Furious after his recent Olympic Marathon Trials 2:17:16 at the Philadelphia Marathon.
Michael is a 2:21 marathoner with a 1:07 half
Matt is a 2:18 marathoner
Nils is a 2:46 marathoner
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 7.33 oz / 208g (US9 equivalent)
Samples: 7.58oz / 215g (US 9 sample equivalent in fit to US9.5)
Stack Height: men’s 36 mm heel / 28 mm forefoot (8mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 76mm heel / ~60mm midfoot / 112mm forefoot
$180 Available now.
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Ryan: In the Furious Future, I sense a blend of influences from Nike (Alphafly’s Atomknit upper), New Balance (SC Elite’s knitted, sock-like ‘tongue’ design), and Puma (Fast-R Nitro Elite underfoot geometry). Mash these all together, and you get a fairly exotic and exciting rocketship of a shoe. It goes out of its way to be a statement piece and draw attention, with its aggressive lines, crazy geometry, (fluorescent colorway, in my case), and even the box it comes in. The only ‘normal’ part of the shoe is the laces, funnily enough. The fit definitely runs long, which isn’t a surprise given that it's likely a challenge for a brand to translate its lasts to American sizing. I’m usually a M9.5, and the size 9 I received was still a touch too long.
While the upper’s mesh material is thin and light, it is also exceptionally strong, and tenaciously resists stretching.
Between the militant overlays and the robust nature of the toe bumper that extends around the forefoot, this construction doesn’t mess around when it comes to containing the forefoot.
There’s a familiar construction in the heel that we’ve seen in several competing shoes in this category – a moderate heel counter with the only softness coming in the form of a collar of padding around the achilles area.
It doesn’t do as good of a job as the front part of the upper at locking things down, but it’s still sufficient.
Michael: First, I’ll address the fit (way too long; they sent me an 8.0 and it fit like a 9.0). 361’s website suggests you go down a half-size (thus my 8.0), and I suppose I’d ultimately agree with that, but you may want to consider ordering two options and seeing what works best. It’s a frustrating caveat to have to add to a shoe that - as you’ll see - is actually quite awesome.
The color here is loud, you can see how the color shows up in different lights across the photos, but make no mistake - these are about as bright and visible as shoes can be. It comes in some other flavors (white, namely) that I probably would have preferred, but hey, at least the color is backed up by comfort; the upper here is a somewhat plastic-y mesh - low over the toebox (but not problematic, given the extra room) and with a slight amount of give that made these quite easy to pull on. There’s Alphafly DNA here (basically everywhere), but I actually slightly prefer this material to what Nike’s got on v1 and v2 (v3, perhaps a different story).
Nils: In contrast to other Chinese brands, 361° is fairly common in German run specialty stores. They even had a big presence at this year’s Berlin Marathon Expo and impressed me not just with their shoes but also with high quality (looking) apparel. Nonetheless the Furious Future is my very first shoe from the Chinese brand - and what a start it is! Even the shoebox screamed “I’m different” and the shoe inside definitely joined in the tone. I won’t repeat the others here - just look at the pictures, they speak for themselves.
In terms of fit, 361° suggested to size down half a size. That’s what I did and in my book the shoe fits perfectly for a long distance racer with sufficient room upfront. You could even consider going down a full size if you want to run this beast for shorter distances. While the toes have enough room to splay and the midfoot lockdown is near perfect, I unfortunately have to report some mild heel slippage. Therefore I really had to cinch down the laces which in the end resulted in a proper lockdown, but some lace bite over the midfoot as the tradeoff. The heel slippage on the other hand while noticeable doesn’t cause any irritation.
Matt: I’ll comment on the one negative as far as I’m concerned and which the other guys have all mentioned it does fit long, but unlike some of the others I’d say only marginally, I’m a UK10 in most brands can take a UK9.5 in some brands/models that fit longer, but the UK10 I was sent, though big didn’t feel uncomfortably and as I’ll talk about later this definitely hasn’t put me off using the Furious Future for my next Marathon.
Back to first impressions, I caught a glimpse of the 361 Furious Future on the feet of one or two of their elite athletes and staff at the Palama Marathon and Half Marathon in October, thinking it looked like an XTEP shoe, of which I’d seen rumors of a new Pro model on its way out (link here once review done).
I had to screenshot the Instagram post and send it to Sam once I noticed it was a 361 shoe to see what he knew about it, to which his reply was it was on its way to me to test. The box arrived and as you can see the similarities to XTEP continued which only filled me with hope, as XTEP 160X 3.0 Pro (RTR Review)has been my marathon race shoe for my last two marathons but getting hold of a pair, especially as that aforementioned new model has released has proven extremely difficult, shoutout to fellow review Derek Li who sent me my last pair over from Singapore before the Copenhagen Marathon back in May.
So the thought of a shoe similar in feel and performance that is more easily accessible and finally from a brand that I can stock in my store Made to Run as well, was very exciting.
Out of the box those similarities and excitement continued, max cushion, decoupled forefoot and heel cushioning connected with the visible carbon plate. The upper did give me some initial concerns as knit-style-esque uppers have never been my favourite, the padded heel counter, straight away placed it above the Adidas Adios Pro 3 in my marathon shoe choices, as ‘glass ankles’ mean I am always looking first at the structure of the heel collar of every shoe I get first.
Step in feel was exactly what I hoped, a super soft and responsive heel that naturally transitioned me through midfoot and toe off which was also soft and responsive, I was going to have some fun testing this shoe! For those that haven’t tried the XTEP shoe, then it and the Furious Future have the feel of a Nike Alphafly 1 but without the painful and possibly debilitating arch hang and pinch.
The upper as I mentioned earlier gave me concerns as knit uppers have never been my friend, and the Furious Future has a sort of Atomknit/Flyknit style upper, its biggest contrasting trait to the XTEP 3.0 Pro. It has however held up well, but just as with the flyknit esque upper it is not a friend of the rain. My second test of the Furious was at the Preston 10 Miler where I was to practice marathon pace. It handled 5:08 miles perfectly but the rain never let up from walking to the startline to the full drive home, the shoe got heavier and heavier as the knit upper took on water throughout the race, luckily my next marathon is in Seville so rain shouldn’t be a problem.
The colour of the shoe from a personal level is my least favourite and though the Furious is at the top of my marathon race day list for Seville I think I might be ordering one of the more fun US colourway options now they have been released for race day, as I’m just not an orange fan, but if you are wanting to be loud and seen on the startline then the orange has you covered.
Midsole & Platform
Ryan: When standing with it on, it’s hard to believe that this isn’t a ‘maximal’ stack shoe, coming in at 36mm, with 4mm of height to spare in the heel, legally speaking. The PEBA midsole compound is very reminiscent of ZoomX foam in its feel, its density, its performance, and even the way it develops creases after a couple uses. You get the same sort of airbag-style softness upon impact, and a controlled but energetic rebound.
There’s a tremendous feeling of softness, especially from the heel, which is eager to spring back and provide propulsion. My opinion is that the rear foam is a little too soft, however, as it is too willing to allow the heel to plunge dramatically downward. This midsole would likely benefit from a bit more firmness in the heel, and/or by having a wider footprint at the rear as at its platform width there is 76mm with for example the quite narrow heel platform adios Pro 3 at 80mm . By contrast, the forefoot feels far more stable and controllable, with the carbon plate and more copious outsole taking charge.
The Furious Future feels shorter underfoot than its true length while wearing it.
The heel flares up dramatically, while the forefoot also curves upward a considerable amount. When this shape is paired with such a stiff carbon plate, it makes the shoe feel shorter and more willing to transition quickly, if a bit less stable.
There’s a relatively large amount of pressure concentrated under the ball of the foot because of the midsole’s shape, which gave me a few minor sensations of discomfort that faded once I got rolling.
Michael: I would never have guessed this wasn’t a 40mm (or higher!) stack before running it; the midsole here is supremely bouncy, and (as Ryan says) really skews heel-centric. There are so many words stamped onto the various parts of the shoe, I can’t totally tell where one technology ends and another begins, but whatever composition is loaded into the heel here is soft, and really makes landings feel smooth.
What differentiates this most specifically from the Alphafly (especially Version 1), in my opinion, is the heel-toe transition; whereas the Nike uses Zoom Air units (alongside foam and a plate, of course) to spring you forward, the 361 has a plate and another helping of foam, without that firmer, somewhat more mechanical-feeling Nike Air unit. Ultimately, I think there are different purposes to be served; the Nike does feel like it’ll keep you going forever; here, there’s a little more input required, and I think the geometry of the forefoot even makes it a touch more aggressive than Alphafly.
Moreover, I would break slightly from Ryan’s opinions and say that, compared to the Adios Pro 3 (which has a similar feeling rear third), I found the 361 to be slightly more in control and less “wobbly,” which is really my only criticism of the adidas super shoe.
Nils: I’m echoing Michael and Ryan there is an outstanding foam underfoot, and plenty of it. ZoomX but also the a little firmer ASICS’ FFTurbo come to mind. And even if I haven’t run it yet, I sense a similarity to Saucony’s a little firmer, but very smooth PWRRUN HG foam. Even if the Furious Future is operating 4mm beneath max stack you are never going to miss anything under foot and I can recommend the Furious Future wholeheartedly for the marathon distance or even above.
I’m agreeing with Michael that the 361 is more aggressive than the Alphafly. I also sense a very clear segregation between forefoot and heel. As long as I can push myself and preserve good form the shoe rewards me with an amazing push through the forefoot. But as soon as I lose focus and slide more towards a rearfoot strike it feels almost as if there was a negative drop due to the very soft heel. I believe this is the exact reason why Puma decided to use a firmer (but less exciting) EVA foam under the Fast-R’s 1 heel. The other solution that obviously comes to mind is to implement a higher drop - but I’m not sure if that might mess with the great forefoot feel.
Matt: The midsole of the Furious Future is a delight to run in, since receiving to test I’ve run two back-to-back 10 milers at marathon pace, 5:05 & 5:08 average pace respectively, I’ve done a 14 miler at marathon pace (5:07 average) and a couple sessiona including 5x5km at marathon pace and the shoe has been fun, responsive and cushioned. Similar to other carbon plated super shoes, my legs haven’t felt fatigued post runs and sessions, and recovery for the next run/session has been massively reduced, all of which are things we expect from our super shoes these days.
As I mentioned earlier the heel is a super soft and cushioned section of the shoe reducing impact and excessive movement of the leg muscles reducing fatigue, I would say it is just a tad softer than the Alphafly 1 and again similar to the XTEP 3.0 Pro. Where it differs from the Alphfly and probably draws greater comparisons to shoes like the Puma Fast-R as well as the XTEP is the decoupled heel to forefoot which creates a more aggressive drive forward, compared to the slightly upward push the Alphfly provided by the Air pods, plus there are no worries of pods popping mid-race after training for 16 weeks of your life for one goal.
My one thought, and I wonder if it would work, but 361 have left themselves with room to play with giving this shoe a 36mm heel and 28mm forefoot drop, is could the shoe be even better at full stack, or possibly with a lower heel to toe drop allowing the forefoot to have just a tad more cushion which I do wonder if I’ll need on marathon day, because in contrast to the two shoes I reference the most, the Furious has similarities to, the Apalfly with 39mm heel and 35mm forefoot (4mm drop), and the XTEP 3.0 Pro 40mm heel and 34mm forefoot (6mm drop).
Nils: I’m echoing Michael and Ryan here in terms of that there is an outstanding foam underfoot, and plenty of it. ZoomX but also the a little firmer ASICS’ FFTurbo come to mind. And even if I haven’t run it yet, I sense a similarity to Saucony’s a little firmer, but very smooth PWRRUN HG foam. Even if the Furious Future is operating 4mm beneath max stack, you are never going to miss anything under foot and I can recommend the Furious Future wholeheartedly for the marathon distance or even above.
I’m agreeing with Michael that the 361 is more aggressive than the Alphafly. I also sense a very clear segregation between forefoot and heel. As long as I can push myself and preserve good form the shoe rewards me with an amazing push through the forefoot. But as soon as I lose focus and slide more towards a rearfoot strike it feels almost as if there was a negative drop due to the very soft heel. I believe this is the exact reason why Puma decided to use a firmer (but less exciting) EVA foam under the Fast-R’s 1 heel. The other solution that obviously comes to mind is to implement a higher drop - but I’m not sure if that might mess with the great forefoot feel.
Matt: The midsole of the Furious Future is a delight to run in, since receiving to test I’ve run two back-to-back 10 milers at marathon pace, 5:05 & 5:08 average pace respectively, I’ve done a 14 miler at marathon pace (5:07 average) and a couple sessiona including 5x5km at marathon pace and the shoe has been fun, responsive and cushioned. Similar to other carbon plated super shoes, my legs haven’t felt fatigued post runs and sessions, and recovery for the next run/session has been massively reduced, all of which are things we expect from our super shoes these days.
As I mentioned earlier the heel is a super soft and cushioned section of the shoe reducing impact and excessive movement of the leg muscles reducing fatigue, I would say it is just a tad softer than the Alphafly 1 and again similar to the XTEP 3.0 Pro. Where it differs from the Alphfly and probably draws greater comparisons to shoes like the Puma Fast-R as well as the XTEP is the decoupled heel to forefoot which creates a more aggressive drive forward, compared to the slightly upward push the Alphfly provided by the Air pods, plus there are no worries of pods popping mid-race after training for 16 weeks of your life for one goal.
My one thought, and I wonder if it would work, but 361 have left themselves with room to play with giving this shoe a 36mm heel and 28mm forefoot drop, is could the shoe be even better at full stack, or possibly with a lower heel to toe drop allowing the forefoot to have just a tad more cushion which I do wonder if I’ll need on marathon day, because in contrast to the two shoes I reference the most, the Furious has similarities to, the Apalfly with 39mm heel and 35mm forefoot (4mm drop), and the XTEP 3.0 Pro 40mm heel and 34mm forefoot (6mm drop).
Outsole
Ryan: The outsole gave me no reasons to complain, and left me confident in its abilities, even after some faster running on wet asphalt. While there’s relatively little rubber at the heel, there’s plenty of the stuff in the forefoot. This is a shoe that’s meant to be worked from the forefoot, anyway.
While the split patches of rubber at the heel allow the rear of the shoe to squirm and stretch, the monolithic patch of firm rubber up front does just the opposite, orchestrating a very orderly, serious toe-off.
Michael: Not much to add here, except that I ran the 361 twice in wet (not overtly rainy) conditions without issue. I’d wear these for wet races, though winter running and racing is always its own separate category (and I don’t know that this outsole will fare particularly well on snow and ice for example; there’s basically no depth - plus that inner-pocket will suck up ice chunks!) but by racing shoe standards, this one is right on par.
Nils: Nothing to add here. I ran exclusively in wet conditions through all my testing and I haven’t had any issue. It’s definitely a racing shoe that you can lace up in any condition.
Matt: Not huge amount to add here, the outsole is a similar outsole to that used on the Spire and Centuri training models from 361 which have been up there as top grip level outsoles for wet road and running track surfaces, just sitting below the likes of Continental Rubber used by Adidas and PumaGrip from Puma. This is in contrast to the Alphafly 1 & 2, which at the rather wet London Marathon last April saw quite a few elites slipping. So for wet conditions it definitely beats the Alphafly in terms of grip for race day.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ryan: This is undoubtedly a shoe that you need to lay into in order to make work properly. At anything other than a hard effort, the transition starts to feel clunky, and the stiff, segmented ride becomes somewhat of a distraction. Because of the carbon plate’s stiffness, and the wide midsole chasm between the heel and forefoot, you’re best served by mashing into the soft midfoot stack of this beast, and then snapping off of the sculpted forefoot, which falls off quickly under your toes. It’s a lot of fun once you figure it out and get the legs really turning over. I pushed it up to 4:40/mile pace, and was pleasantly surprised that things never got squirrely.
At the front of the shoe, it seems like the carbon plate is fairly close to the ground, given how soft but stable the forefoot performs when running. The heel, on the other hand, can feel like an undersized block of overly soft foam, and it will let your weight shift way too far backward if you let it.
I had a couple minor hotspots which quickly dissipated after 10 minutes of running, likely due to the shoe’s segmented geometry and ultra stiff plate. I had the same experience with Puma’s Fast-R Nitro, but I quickly adapted to it and I didn’t find it to be a serious issue – but it’s worth noting.
This is a special-purpose package made for striding like a bat out of hell over a long distance, and not much else. It slots in as a formidable opponent to many of the other long range super shoes out there, although its midsole design isn’t quite as approachable.
I wish that the heel was more robust, and that there was a larger contact patch under foot than this geometry permits, but that aside, the Furious Future worthy of a seat at the table among some of the top-end super shoes currently on the market.
Ryan’s Score: 9.2 (Deductions for sizing, exotic geometry/versatility, overly soft heel)
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊😊
Michael: First, let me give big kudos to Ryan, who just lodged the first Olympic Trials qualifying mark in RoadTrailRun history. Not in the Furious Future, but I’m sure he readily could have.
Unfortunately for Ryan, shoes like this are going to make fast times more feasible - I’ll go ahead and say that, strictly by MSRP, this is the best sub-$200 race shoe there is. There are some hang ups here (sizing, mainly, plus I’d take a little more firmness up front… and hey, why not take it to 40mm?) but, man, these are fun! I’m a little tired of saying this (and with the number of specialized shoes, I don’t know that I need to), but you won’t love taking the Furious Future out for your Friday recovery run - these shoes are meant to be run fast in, and they aren’t even particularly great at steady running paces (though they aren’t bad) - it’s really at tempo pace and fast when you feel the whole geometry at work. But once you reach those paces, you’ll see! A surprising hit, I’m glad I gave these a chance.
Michael’s Score: 9.5
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊😊
Nils: Uff! I just realized that I’m the slow one in this review losing roughly a minute per mile to the other two guys over the marathon distance. But that being said, I still have a lot of love for the 361° Furious Future. In terms of energy return and ride quality through the forefoot, it’s one of the best out there and can compete with my beloved Alphafly 1 and its Air pods. I even ran 300’s and 400’s in it and it turned over tremendously fast at 3k-race-pace during those reps. And through slower warm up miles in the Chinese racer my heart rate is noticeably lower than in regular trainers - which speaks for the efficiency of this shoe.
However, the limitations to make full use of the Furious Future as a 2:46 marathoner are a bit tighter than for Matt, Ryan and Michael. I have to ask myself how long I am able to maintain good form and run exclusively from the forefoot?! And the answer is definitely not over the full marathon distance. Therefore the Furious Future is a shorter distance racing shoe for me. The minor upper issues that I have - my heel is definitely moving and to counter that I have to lace up really tight - second this. Therefore this weapon from China is going to stay in my quiver for races up to the Half Marathon Distance.
One last caveat: While 361° is quite common in German run specialty stores I haven’t found the Furious Future listed anywhere. But if it becomes a regular offering the 180$ / 180€ price tag makes it the best value racer on the market.
Nils’ Score: 9.15
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊😊
Matt: You’ve probably guessed it but I’ve been a massive fan of the Furious Future and the price and availability of this shoe have put it right at the top of my marathon race day shoe list. I still have 10 weeks of training to go, but the goal of 2:15 or below is something I’m excited to see the Furious Future potentially take me to. Its ride is as mentioned similar to the Alphafly 1, though for me closer to that of the XTEP Pro 3.0
It has a soft and responsive heel and an aggressive transition through to mid and forefoot making it perfect for the marathon, though like the XTEP I’m confident it will work well for me for 10k and the half which I’ll give it a test for in just a couple weeks. In conclusion, with well over 50 miles already on the shoe, it still feels fresh and fast and of all the carbon racers I’ve tested, which is a good number, the Furious Future for me definitely ranks up as one of the best, and at £180 in the UK also comes as the most affordable.
Matt’s Score: 9.85
Ride (50%): 10 Fit (30%): 9.5 Value (15%): 10 Style (5%): 10
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊😊
7 Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Adizero Adios Pro 3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Adios Pro 3 is my all-time favorite racing shoe, so this is a tough match for the 361 in my eyes. What both shoes have in common are an explosive amount of rebound, energy conservation, fatigue mitigation, and breathability. The 361 might even win out on foot containment, as its mesh and overlays seem even more serious than the AP3’s, which is designed to be a bit looser in the toe box for marathon running.
However, the Adidas feels more manageable to me, and has a ride that is easier to translate into consistent speed. In the FF, the very soft heel and massive separation between the heel and forefoot make the experience feel more exotic. It’s a rollicking good time, but also maybe not what you want for a 2+ hour run on tired legs.
While the midsole of the FF acts more like Nike’s ZoomX, delivering a pillowy impact and a controlled rebound, Adidas’s Lightstrike Pro midsole is a touch firmer and is quicker to respond. Both outsoles have a healthy patch of forefoot rubber and relatively little in the rear, with the difference being that the 361’s rubber is textured, whereas the AP3’s is more of a smooth but grainy, rock climbing-like material.
The 361 is certainly a formidable opponent, but I give the win to the Adios Pro here for its more refined approach to going fast, even though it is ~$70 more expensive.
Nils: Both shoes offer quite the opposite in terms of super-shoe-rides. Despite it’s aggressive look the adidas is more of a cruiser in my book - you lock in a pace and the Adios Pro makes it really easy for you to maintain it. The 361 on the other hand is more aggressive, needs more attention to unleash its potential. I would say it has an even higher ceiling but you need to be a tremendous runner to fully make use of it. While I’m having some minor upper issues in the 361 I can’t run more than 10k in the adidas without rubbing away my heel. But I really seem to be an outlier in that regard. Both shoes US 10 (half size down).
Matt: I’m a complete contrast to the guys, as much as I want to like Adidas I just don’t get on with their shoes (the Takumi Sen is an outlier t for me, love it). The Adios Pro 3 is just too soft, I’m very much a Goldilocks when it comes to my race day shoe cushioning level, and I find the Pro 3 to simply be too soft that I don’t get the responsiveness from it I need in a race shoe, something that the Furious Future finds the balance with, being soft but just firm enough for me to really enjoy and feel fast in. The one thing the Adios has over the 361 is grip, Adidas and Continental Rubber are a step above most with the grip.
Nike Alphafly 3 (RTR Review)
Michael: The Alphafly 3 maintains that front Zoom Air unit, but is a little softer and less mechanical (more akin to the Vaporfly) compared to its predecessors. The heel is also slightly softened based on my testing, but the 361 does feel yet softer and more springy in the rear. For outright comfort, I think the Furious Future makes a strong case but (again, n=1), I think the Alphafly 3 may retain its crown for marathon racing due to efficient energy transfer and improved fit. More to come.
Nike Alphafly 2 (RTR Review)
Matt: The Alphafly 2 was a huge dud for me, they increased the heel-to-toe drop which didn’t suit though surprisingly is the same 8mm heel-to-toe drop of the Furious that I have no issues with. And somehow they made the ZoomX foam something that had been super soft and great, into a firm, clunky midsole of a shoe, and had the Alphafly 2 be the only shoe I’ve raced in which has forced me to pull out of the race, annoyingly being my debut in the Elite Field at the London Marathon and a smaller local marathon in the Liverbird New Years Double.
Nils: The AF2 was kind of a hit or miss experience for me. I raced my spring marathon in it and PR’d there. But when I pulled it back out during my Berlin prep later in the year it felt clunky and artificial. And while the artificial feel remains in the Furious Future it sure isn’t clunky. While the AF2 tries to be something for everyone the 361 is just made for the fastest. If I had to choose right now I wouldn’t race the AF2 at all but give the Furious Future a shot over a 10k or HM. Furious Future US 10, Nike US 10.5.
Nike Alphafly 1 (RTR Review)
Matt: The Alphafly 1 was my first marathon race shoe and apart from its dangerous blistering arch pinch it was a perfect shoe for me, soft yet responsive and the bounce of the Airpods was great..yet always left me worrying they’d pop midrace. The Furious Future has a lot of Alphafly 1 DNA, the upper is rather similar with it knit, though I’d place it closer to the Vaporfly 4% Flyknit than the Alphafly’s AtomKnit, though its hold was much closer to the Alphas, it didn’t have that arch pinch or hotspots which is a big winner, and its slightly more aggressive heel to toe off transition, placing it as a better shoe for me.
Nils: I agree with Matt that both shoes have a lot in common. But here again the Alphafly is friendlier and more approachable to me. It is a tad less aggressive, offers the same amount of energy return and bouncy forefoot sensation without the negatives. The upper is comfier, the heel is more stable. It’s still the best long distance racer in my book and while the Furious Future comes close and even is on par in some regards it just can’t beat the whole package the AF1 has to offer. Furious Future US 10, Nike US 10.5.
Nike Vaporfly 3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: As I mentioned above, the midsole characteristics of the FF’s foam are curiously similar to those of Nike’s ZoomX midsole. So while both of these shoes offer tons of cushions and world-class energy return, their midsole geometries cause them to deliver very different rides.
I never thought I’d call the Vaporfly ‘traditional’, but by comparison to the Furious Future, it is. A less dramatic profile underfoot gives the Nike a far more approachable transition, making it a much more versatile shoe. In the Vaporfly, there isn’t a feeling of excessive depth in the heel — it feels nicely balanced. Whereas unless you are consistently mashing onto the forefoot of the FF, the rear of the shoe can feel a bit too soft. There’s also an adjustment period, and potentially some minor hot spots to deal with in the 361, whereas this almost certainly is not the case with the Vaporfly.
I prefer the Vaporfly’s tongue and lace-up, as well as the way its outsole feels under foot. The uppers of both of these shoes are exquisitely crafted, but they take fairly different approaches. The Vaporfly uses a variety of weave patterns, strategically placed, in order to deliver ventilation in the right places and support where it’s most needed. It makes for a very comfortable, if somewhat less aggressive upper than the Furious Future’s. The 361 has robust, plasticky overlays and a fierce mesh which contain the foot in a more serious manner.
The Vaporfly has been refined and tested so thoroughly over the years, so while this might not be an entirely fair fight, the Vaporfly’s refinement is apparent and it wins this battle despite its higher price tag.
Michael: Unlike Ryan, I actually prefer the upper and lacing on the 361 (including its very comfortable heel-hold that was actually quite nice on my dodgy Achilles) but otherwise, I think the Vaporfly is just a faster-feeling shoe. Part of that is, even though I love the foam here, I do think the slightly firmer, more propulsive (as opposed to sink-in) feeling of the ZoomX on the VaporFly (in combination with its plate, etc.) just lend it a little faster feeling. The 361 is probably more springy, but if I was blind testing, I’d think the Vaporfly could get me across the line faster (if the 361 would be perhaps more comfortable doing it).
Nils: I’m on Ryan’s side here. In terms of the upper the Vaporfly just offers the better experience for me. It has a lot more room in the toe box while remaining a good but also comfy lockdown throughout the heel and midfoot area. It also feels (and is) lighter under foot and makes turning over very fast very effortless. But while the Vaporfly offers a great amount of energy return the Furious Future with it’s bouncy forefoot probably has the upper hand in that regard. So if you are able to hit it just there go with the 361, but if you don’t the VF is probably the better choice. Furious Future US 10, Nike US 10.5.
Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 1 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Fast-R is perhaps the closest comparison we have to the Furious Future. This is primarily due to the shoes’ similar geometries, as well as their midsole characteristics which are dominated by an ultra-stiff forefoot and a huge depth-of-cushion at the rear.
Their cavernous gaps between their forefoot and heel expose their slick carbon plates, and certainly look fast. Unsurprisingly, this creates a feeling of being less connected to the ground and sacrifices stability, but it can deliver a softer footstrike and a snappier toe roll if used as intended (i.e.: booking it).
I prefer the actual tongue of the Puma over the FF’s sock-like design, which can bunch up if laced tightly. I also slightly prefer the outsole rubber of the Puma, which felt a little tackier and willing to provide grip under such a stiff plate. However, the upper of the 361 wins by a smidge because of its ability to hold the mid/forefoot in place. It might be less comfortable than the Puma’s for folks with abnormal foot proportions, but its tenacious, highly breathable mesh outpowers the Puma’s comparatively supple upper material.
I think the 361 wins this matchup, primarily because it delivers a very similar performance at a price point ~$70 cheaper.
Nils: Both shoes are very close in terms of geometry. But while the 361 offers a soft and energetic foam both beneath the forefoot and the heel the Puma uses a more rigid EVA in the heel area to stabilize it and push the runner (faster) towards the forefoot. This works tremendously well and I prefer this approach to the soft heel of the Furious Future - especially if distances get longer and the form breaks down. When it comes to just the forefoot the 361 offers an even snappier ride, a more aggressive toe-off and a more energetic foam. If you can make use of it, the 361 has the upside in this comparison. But if you are like me the Puma might be the better bet - especially because of its amazingly comfy upper. Furious Future US 10, Fast-R US 10.5.
New Balance SC Elite v3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The SC Elite v3 takes a much gentler, friendlier approach in its quest to deliver speed. While both the FF and the SC Elite share very soft midsoles, stiff carbon plates, and sock-like tongue substitutes, the 361 is hyper-aggressive and exotic, whereas the New Balance is perhaps the friendliest of all the super shoes.
The SC Elite delivers soft, pillowy protection whose pressure feels better dispersed than does the 361’s crazy midsole geometry. Because of the SC Elite’s approachable nature, it is the far more versatile choice of these two, and would even be suitable for moderate running. It doesn’t feel as exciting or extreme as the 361, but it probably appeals to a much wider audience.
The upper of the FF is hands down more aggressive, as the NB’s upper could almost be described as ‘sock like’, with only a few moderate overlays to help support its mesh. I prefer the outsole of the Furious Future, with a larger contact patch and a more propulsive toe off. The huge Energy Arc channel of the NB adds to its friendly nature, but felt like it might be delivering suboptimal performance by allowing the midsole to splay onto the asphalt too much.
The choice here comes down to preference, given how differently these shoes behave. If you want an exotic, explosive ride with tons of lockdown but low versatility, the 361 is the way to go. If you prefer something more comfortable, neutral, and versatile, the SC Elite v3 is unlikely to disappoint.
Michael: I was a big fan of the SC Elite v3. I saw a recent interview with a New Balance designer who said “we don’t want to make the most accommodating super shoe, we want to make the fastest” - and while I take his point, I don’t know that there is (objectively) a fastest, and there’s really something to be said for accommodating. So while I do - slightly - prefer the 361 here for its generously bouncy midsole, I once again think the versatility of the New Balance will appeal to so many runners with no material disadvantage in performance. Both are great!
The Furious Future is available from 361° HERE
Tester Profiles
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 solo time trialed the 2020-2021 super shoes, often sub 15 minutes for 5K. Ryan has a PR of 2:17:16 Olympic Marathon Trials Qualifier from the 2023 Philadelphia Marathon.
Michael is a patent attorney and graduate of Northwestern University Law School. Prior to law school, he competed collegiately at Washington University in St. Louis (10,000m PR of 30:21). Michael’s PRs include a 67:43 half-marathon (Chicago Half-Marathon) and a 2:21:19 marathon PR at the 2023 Grandma’s Marathon. Michael continues to race on the roads, and is chasing a sub-2:20 marathon and potential OTQ in the future.
Matt is the owner of Made to Run an independent running store based between Manchester and Liverpool in the UK, which he runs alongside his mother Susan who competed in the 1987 Rome World Championships 10,000m and 1988 Seoul Olympic Marathon for Great Britain. So with running in the family, Matt has high goals of replicating what his mother did and having raced at the national level over in the UK for the last 15 years, Matt made a further step towards his goal on his 30th birthday when he won the 2021 Manchester Marathon in 2:18.23, followed two weeks later by winning the Liverpool Rock N Roll Marathon. Matt also has PR's for the 5km -14:18, 10km - 30:11 and HM - 65:28. Matt's next goal will be to try and run the 2022 Commonwealth Games Qualifying standard in the marathon over at the Seville Marathon in February. Matt is also the author of The Art of Running, a graphic novel about legendary runner Steve Prefontaine. Instagram - GoCre91
Nils: 33 years old. Heilbronn, Germany.. My young running career just started 6 years ago with a company run which I joined together with some colleagues in 2017. I ran roughly 1000km in my first year, doubled and then tripled that number in 2018 and 2019. I've run 6 marathons to date with a marathon PR of 2:46. My other PRs are 17:32 for the 5k, 36:15 for 10k and 1:17 for the half.
Samples were provided at no charge for review purposes. 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'.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
AMAZON
No comments:
Post a Comment