Article by Mike Postaski and Sam Winebaum
adidas Terrex Agravic 3 ($130)
Introduction
Sam: Hot on the heels of a completely revamped road trainer line, adidas Terrex joins the party with a completely revamped trail running line including the Agravic Speed Ultra, Speed and here the Agravic 3.
A modern, simple design all around trail runner at a great $130 price, the Agravic 3 features:
Lightstrike 2.0 foam an energetic, vibration absorbing foam that is more forgiving than the usual trail shoe foam,
an internal midfoot plastic stability/protection plate that delivers a touch of springy propulsion,
a reinforced debris mesh upper
an all terrain even some road 4mm lug always fine Continental rubber outsole.
The whole package weighs a commendable 10.25 oz / 290g US9 with a just sub “maximal” stack height of 34 mm heel / 26 mm forefoot. After finding the Ultra and Speed a bit too “springy” at all but very fast paces and not that well held at the upper level for my paces, I was eager to see how this more "conventional" yet throughly modern trail runner would perform.
Mike P: I’m fresh off testing (and racing) Adidas’ flagship ultra racer - the Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra (RTR Review). Given my good experience with those, I was interested to test another Adidas shoe, in the hopes that they had turned the corner with their latest trail offerings. I’ve mentioned this before, but Adidas’ previous trail shoes have been somewhat lackluster, but this changed drastically with the recent Speed Ultra.
The Agravic 3 is billed as a “trainer” - I’d say it’s targeted as a companion shoe if you’re planning to race in the Speed Ultras for longer distances or the regular “Speed” for shorter distances. Adidas is looking to cover the spectrum here from short/fast to mid-distance/training to longer ultras. Does the Agravic 3 handle the job - as the workhorse of the bunch? Read on..
Pros:
- All around trail option: any terrain, any distance, wide range of paces Sam/Mike P
- Energetic friendly riding midsole foam with plenty of cushion depth (34/26) and protection/stability (TPU plate) Sam/Mike P
- Balanced, stable and smooth ride Sam/Mike P
- Surprisingly smooth, friendly door to trail option, great traction for any trail & winter roads: Sam
- Light, very secure and comfortable upper Sam/Mike P
- Continental rubber outsole (full coverage) with 4mm lugs Sam/Mike P
- Great value Sam/Mike P
Cons:
- Shouldn’t complain at $130 but wish for a sub 10 oz weight. Sam/Mike P
Most Comparable shoes
Salomon Genesis Sam, Mike P
Xodus Ultra 3 Sam, Mike P
Merrell Agility Peak Mike P, Sam
Brooks Catamount 3 Mike P
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 10.25 oz / 290g US9
Sample Weights: men’s 10 oz / 283g US8.5 , 10.8 oz / 306 g US 10.0
Stack Height: men’s 34 mm heel / 26 mm forefoot ( 8 mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 85 mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 110 mm forefoot
$130. Available now
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Mike P: Based on previous Adidas trail models, the first thing I absolutely needed to inspect was the ankle and heel collar. I’ve had very bad experiences with three models specifically - Flow 2, Agravic Pro, and Agravic Ultra. All three featured some combination of high, rigid, and downright ankle grating collars that made them mostly un-runnable for me after testing.
I’m happy to report that Adidas has gone with a more “general” design here, and it is much improved. I’d say it’s still a tad on the high side, but they’ve added plenty of cushioning around the edges and along the interior. Also - the edge is pliable with no hidden sharp/plastic edge inside - a big problem with the models I previously mentioned. I’ve got 47 miles in my test pair already, with not a hint of discomfort in the rear or the shoe. Big improvement!
The rest of the upper is made up of an engineered mesh, with a matrix of underlays around the midfoot for security. As you can see above, the mesh is open, and quite breathable on the run. It’s probably a bit lighter and stiffer than the upper of the Speed Ultra, but we’re talking about a $130 shoe here. The upper holds the foot quite well, and should also be durable.
The heel counter is a bit stiff, keeping with the “daily trainer” style - it provides some control and safety from ankle rolls without being intrusive. Up front, I found Adidas’ general toebox shape, which works for me. It’s plenty wide at the forefoot, tapering to a squared-off front, not a point. I find sizing up to a 10.0 gives me plenty of comfort without sacrificing any foot hold. If you have a narrower foot or don’t prefer as much space up front, you could go true to size.
Sam: Mike describes the upper details well. Unlike the Speed and Speed Ultra’s uppers which are as far as I am concerned close to road racing super shoe minimal (held structure and hold) designs this upper is a more conventional trail shoe upper with great hold back to front, plenty of room and good breathability. Not the usual corners cut here at the low $130 price point.
There are plenty of overlays and underlays for support and for durability at critical areas such as the front flex point.
The tongue has decent internal padding down its center and the tongue is gusseted. The semi rigid heel counter is comfortable and secure.
iI also note unlike its “speedier” siblings that the front is lined with a thin soft mesh for added comfort and debris resistance.
There is plenty of toe box room and, as Mike says, the squared off front prevents any sensation of a pointy toe box. The fit is true to my usual US8.5 and narrower to medium feet. For long long runs in heat or for wider feet one could size up half a size as Mike did but I am fine as is,
Midsole & Platform
Mike P: Again, I refer back to those previous Adidas trail shoes that I tested. I won’t go back to the details about their foams, except to say that I found all of them to be disappointingly firm underfoot. Here in the Agravic 3 we have a new Lightstrike 2.0 formula. It’s quite a noticeable difference in feel between from those previous models, but definitely not quite as bouncy and energetic as the Lightstrike Pro found in the Speed Ultra. It sits somewhere in the middle.
The term I’d use to describe the feel is “pleasingly dampening”. There’s a subtle softness, not quite soft, but not firm either. It seems to dampen the ride just enough on firmer ground, and feels nice and responsive on softer footing. There’s clearly some energy in there, not just a slab of dense foam, but it’s a bit more reserved - as opposed to the all-out bounce and wildness of the Speed Ultra.
I really like the feel of the cushion, especially for a training shoe. For longer racing, I’d prefer a bit more depth of cushion, and a bit more softness. But for training miles, even long training days, this flavor of Lightstrike does hit the spot. After my first run or two, I found myself reaching for them over the next days as they felt so easy to run in, and my legs also felt fresh after runs.
There is a full length TPU plate embedded in the midsole, but I could not really feel it through the midsole foam. It does stiffen the ride a bit, but I think for training days, especially in rugged terrain, the protection helps keep your feet from fatiguing.
Sam: The midsole and platform is very well executed balancing plenty of cushion and stability, with a lively yet also forgiving ride. The new Lightstrike 2.0 foam is not to be confused with the earlier flavor as it is softer, less harsh and more energetic. Very little vibration is transmitted even on hard surfaces. It is clearly not a conventional EVA that might have been seen even a couple of years ago in most trail shoes. The foam reminds me of Salomon’s Energy Foam if a bit firmer and quicker reacting,
The platform is cleverly designed with a very broad (110mm) forefoot, a narrowish 70mm midfoot and a quite broad 85mm heel landing. As shown above it clearly has a prominent and long rocker which is clearly felt as somewhat propulsive. When combined with its snappy flex it climbs very well.
Internally is a plastic shank which reminds a lot on the run of adidas famous Torsion System seen in the past in many road shoes. The plate stabilizes, protects from rocks and provides some gentle propulsion complimenting the soft foam. It is not a full plate (or Energy Rods) as found in the Speed Ultra.
The overall design allows stable heel landings, a quite agile yet stable transition off the midfoot and a broad stable push off with some snappy flex just ahead of the midfoot. I was surprised how relatively “quiet” not slappy they are on hard surfaces as trail shoes with a big outsole often are, a tribute to the overall design.
Outsole
Mike P: The outsole is full coverage, Continental rubber. I do stress “full”, because there are no cutouts for weight savings or to enhance flexibility. With a combination of 4 and 5 mm lugs (4mm on the interior, 5mm around the edges) - this outsole is made for a workhorse shoe.
Compared to the Speed Ultra, the lugs are deeper, and the lugs under the middle of the foot are a bit more ruggedly oriented. It’s more of an all-mountain outsole as compared to the speedier terrain-oriented Speed Ultra. I don’t find the lack of cutouts or flex grooves or whatever to be a hindrance. I tested them on very mixed terrain, from smooth, sandy and easy, to rugged/rocky, and even some off-trail bushwacking. I never lacked grip or traction in any scenario.
[Deeper more aggressive lugs in the Agravic 3 - more width underfoot - especially under the midfoot and also under the heel]
Sam: The outsole combines sharp lugs (tech terrain) with very decent at the ground contact areas (smoother terrain) making it any surface versatile. The full coverage does add to weight but adds to the overall stability of the shoe.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Mike P: The Agravic 3 has a do-it-all, all mountain ride. The upper security gives full confidence in all manner of terrain, from smooth stuff up to rocky, hard, and technical mountain stuff. I’d say that nothing in particular jumps out at you, but the total package gives a smooth, stable, and predictable ride in all conditions.
Compared to its racing sibling the Speed Ultra - you get much more stability in the Agravic 3 - especially in the mid/rear of the shoe. In the pic below you can see the difference in rear rocker between the two. The Agravic 3 has an extra row of lugs on the ground compared to the Speed Ultra. This allows you to land on the heel a bit more when needed, and also stabilizes the ride underfoot. You don’t have to be so much up on your forefoot as in the Speed Ultra.
[Much more ground contact area at the Agravic 3 heel]
The Agravic 3’s much more stable ride should work for a wider range of runner abilities. I’d also point out that the Agravic 3 does have better heel hold than the Agravic 3. The more standard bolstering is shaped well, cups the heel and holds securely. The Speed Ultra is a bit vertical, with extremely minimal padding on the interior.
Again, I found the Lightstrike 2.0 foam to be a perfect fit for such a versatile trail shoe that the Agravic 3 aims to be. It absorbs impact, giving comfort for longer days and on harsher terrain. But it’s also not overly soft, which gives a stable and predictable ride - perfect when you just want to knock out some trail miles.
The weight is slightly on the high side at 10.8 oz (306g) in my US 10, but keep in mind we’re talking about a $130 shoe here - with full coverage rubber (didn’t skimp on the lugs either) and a somewhat denser midsole foam. I think it’s ok for the price point and the intention of the shoe. It is massively lighter compared to the duds that I tested previously (Flow 2 - 11.7 oz, Agravic Pro - 12.4 oz, Agravic Ultra - 11.8 oz).
So that makes it 2 for 2 for Adidas trail shoes that I’ve recently tested. The Agravic 3 is a great companion option if you’re racing in either or both of the Terrex Speed or Terrex Speed Ultra models. Even if you don’t have the full Adidas quiver, it’s as solid of a trail trainer that you can get.
Mike P’s Score: 9.13 / 10
Ride: 9 - Smooth and predictable, relatively agile, absorbs impact
Fit: 9 - Much improved over previous models - heel hold is better than Speed Ultra. Perhaps the ankle collar can be lowered a touch, but I have no issues
Value: 10 - $130 is a great value these days for a workhorse shoe
Style: 9.5 - The burnt orange mixup looks pretty nice
Traction: 9 - Not much lacking here
Rock Protection: 9 - Very protective without having a massive slab underfoot
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
Sam: Most of my runs have been on smoother terrain and even quite a bit of pavement and gravel paths. The Agravic 3 performed surprisingly well as a “door to trail” shoe with a relatively silent strike, plenty of cushion, and some propulsive rebound and spring. Stable and with great grip and hold with a breathable upper I will not hesitate to take them hiking in the Alps next week. And they will be my choice this coming weekend for a 17K trail race in Switzerland on moderate terrain for their dynamic forgiving ride on varied terrain which will include some pavement and gravel roads.
As with their road shoes adidas here at Terrex has dramatically stepped up their game in the last year with modern foams, lighter weights, and far more versatile rides. Here the Agravic 3 can easily serve as a single trail shoe in the quiver, a trainer to go with plated springier race shoes, and also a fine hiking shoe. At $130 the versatile thoroughly modern Agravic 3 is a great value.
Sam’s Score: 9.4 / 10
No significant deductions in any area but it would be nice if it could weigh somewhat less, sub 10 oz / 283g.
😊😊😊😊😊
Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): Compared throughout - Agravic 3 is a heavier, more versatile, less expensive training shoe which can easily be paired with the Speed Ultra. Foam underfoot is nowhere near as dynamic, but much more stable. The platform underfoot is also wider at the midfoot rear, with less wild rocker. You don’t have to be as discerning with your foot placements as with the Speed Ultra. Sizing is the same, I size up to 10 for comfort, but could go 9.5 if I was running shorter/faster in both. Heel hold is better in the Agravic 3, but otherwise the uppers fit similarly.
Sam: (8.5)For runners not as speedy as Mike, including me! the Agravic 3 is a clear choice for its versatility, far lower price, more stable and manageable any pace ride, and more secure upper.
Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed (RTR Review)
Sam: (8.5): Almost 2 oz / 6g lighter on the same 36/24 stack height, the Speed features a combination of Lightstrike 2.0 foam (as in the Agravic 3) as an outer carrier with a core of supercritical Lightstrike Pro (as in the Speed Ultra which is all Pro foam). Its upper is more minimal and less supportive than the 3’s with its ride, even without a mid foot plate, as springier than the 3’s. It is a great option for all out fast running on smoother terrain, and easier to control than the Speed Ultra while the Agravic 3 is a considerably more versatile day in day out shoe for a wider variety of terrain and is $30 less.
Altra Experience Wild (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): One of my favorite training shoes - the Wild gives a different feel - softer, less dense cushion, and a more flexible feel underfoot. The Wild has no plate so I’d say it works your feet a bit more if you’re not used to the wider toebox. The Wild is a full ounce lighter - I really like it on smoother stuff, but the foothold is nowhere near as secure as the Agravic 3. I’d surely pick the Adidas if your terrain skews more rugged. These are two of my favorite training shoes at the moment.
Brooks Catamount 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): This is a bit of a sleeper shoe - I haven’t had occasion to take them out that much as I haven’t raced recently in their sweet spot - which I’d say is around 50k. The Cat 3 has a similar level of upper foothold and security. Some minor differences - the Cat 3 ankle collar is a little lower, which feels better. Also, the Cat 3 is wider at the forefoot which is preferable. Also a 1 oz weight difference as the Cat 3 comes in a very nice 9.5 oz. The Brooks foam is lighter and less dense, and with its plate - is the faster shoe. I’d say the Cat 3 leans more towards racing, while the more cushioned Adidas is squarely a training shoe.
Hoka Mafate Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): This is a training option if you want to go all-out on cush, yet still maintains solid foothold and traction. The MS4 has a noticeably softer feel underfoot and contours more over terrain than the stiffer Adidas. You do have to be careful to manage the softness in technical terrain. The Adidas’ firmer feel seems to make them more agile, but that comes down to personal preference. Both are about the same weight, but the Hoka is $50 more. I really like both those - I’d train mostly in the Adidas, but go with the Hoka in scenarios where I really want cushion to protect my feet for all day(s) affairs.
Merrell Agility Peak 5 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): This shoe is set up similarly to the Agravic 3 - with a similar dense type foam and a stiffer ride. The Agility Peak has a bit more rocker up front, and is a bit less agile. It kind of wants you to roll on footstrike, whereas the Adidas allows more versatility. The Merrell upper is a cut behind the Adidas too. It’s somewhat narrow and tapered up front, with a bit more volume in the heel cup. The Merrell is slightly lighter, but I’d go with the Agravic 3, with its more versatile and fun ride.
Salomon Genesis (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): The “budget” or “regular” Genesis has a softer foam underfoot than the Adidas. Ride is similarly smooth and responsive, but there’s a bit more flexibility and as I mentioned, softness with the Genesis. Both full coverage outsoles perform similarly. I tested a US 9.5 in the Genesis, which was less spacious than the S/LAB Genesis in the same size. Volume over the top in the toebox is a bit shallow and I get some pinky side pressure after a while. I’d ideally size up to a 10 in those if I had the choice again. Both shoes target the same market - I tend to favor the fit up front of the Agravic 3, which breaks the tie for me. It’s also less expensive by $30.
Sam (8.5): I have the similar if lighter S/Lab version of the Genesis. To re-familiarize myself with them I ran them on consecutive days on firmer smooth terrain. The Agravic 3 has a springier somewhat firmer ride while the Genesis is softer, more agile and more ground conforming with more trail feel as it does not have the midfoot plate/shank of the adidas. The 30/22 stack height of the Salomon is less than the 36/24 of the Agravic with less heel cushion and more shock transmitted there. The S/Lab Genesis upper is yet more secure and lower volume and is more appropriate for technical terrain while both are true to size for me. For racing and training on more technical terrain the Salomon, for all around versatility and better value the Agravic.
Topo Ultraventure 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5/10.0): This is a favorite training shoe of mine - so nice I bought a second (with first a test pair)! Major differentiating factors are the Topo’s broad and spacious toebox and its flat, non-technical lugs. The Ultraventure is oh so smooth and comfortable on easy trails, but struggles beyond that. The foothold cannot match that of the Agravic 3, and its outsole also is nowhere near as versatile. I’m happy to have both options for different scenarios.
VJ MAXx 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.0): Both shoes are in the same stack range, with the VJ at 31/25mm with a touch less drop, but it’s not noticeable. The VJ foam is light and super bouncy - very different from Lightstrike 2.0. It wants to bounce and go fast - it’s also 2+ oz lighter! The MAXx2 is one of the best shoe releases this year, and I reach for it for shorter, faster outings in any terrain. You do need to be careful in technical terrain though due to the bounciness. The Adidas is a more versatile shoe, especially for longer outings. The VJ upper also needs some refinement - the material is oddly thick and there’s some extra spaciousness in the heel area. But other than that, it’s a great shoe. Again, I like both shoes for different scenarios.
Tester Profiles
Mike Postaski currently focuses on long mountainous ultras - anywhere from 50K up to his favorite - 100M. 5'10", 138 lbs, midfoot/forefoot striker - he typically averages 70 mpw (mostly on trails), ramping up to 100+ mpw during race buildups. A recent 2:39 road marathoner, his easy running pace ranges from 7:30 - 9:00/mi. From 2022-23 Mike has won the Standhope 100M, IMTUF 100M, and Scout Mountain 100M trail ultras, winning the Scout 50M in 2024. He also set a CR of 123.74M at the Pulse Endurance Runs 24H and completed the Boise Trails Challenge on foot in 3 days 13 hours, besting the previous record by 7 hours. Mike's shoe preferences lean towards firmer, dense cushioning, and shoes with narrower profiles. He prefers extra forefoot space, especially for long ultras, and he strongly dislikes pointy toe boxes.
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2024 Sam’s 52th year of running roads and trails. 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
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
17 comments:
I'll add some 'cons' and my 2 cents for this shoe. First the fit is odd, in my normal size 11 I couldn't get a locked down fit at all no matter what I did. I had the same issue with the Speed version of this shoe which I returned because the upper was so uncomfortable and odd fit. This shoe is much more comfortable than the Speed but fit was not good so I sized down to 10.5. This was a big mistake as after just a couple of runs I ended up with the worst ankle roll of over 10 years of running ultras. Now I don't know if its just related to sizing down (never had an issue with other shoes sizing down) but this shoe in my estimation is very tippy and I would suggest anyone trying this shoe go with caution until you know for sure you don't experience a similar issue. This was on just gravel service road too, not even a technical trail.
I've run in nearly every brand and have tried most popular models of trail shoes just fyi, ran my fastest 50k in the first Adidas Speed Ultra before this new line. After that ankle roll derailed my 100 mile training I am skipping this generation of adidas and may not try another again. Bit traumatized to say the least haha
How does this compare to Xodus Ultra 3
Mike, since you’ve been in the Adidas trail mood, lol, I’d love to hear your review on the new Adidas Agravic Speed. I’d love to hear how you compare it to the VJ MAXx2, Catamount 3 and Adidas Speed Ultras. I got 3 50k races lined up during the next 5 months and those shoes are my thoughts. Loved to hear your thoughts and comparisons on the Agravic Speed.
Surprised to hear issues with sizing and stability. I'm not sure how sizing down would impact stability that much. For me, this is the best fitting Adidas shoe in a while. But everyone's feet are different. The first Adidas Speed Ultra was definitely more agile - lower to the ground (less stack) and the heel counter was not as stiff/high, so that probably gave you more confidence and feel. I did take them in some pretty rugged and even off-trail terrain, and I found them stable enough. I've got some footage - I'll probably do a quick follow up vid on YT when I get a chance to put it together.
Xodus Ultra 3 - good catch - forgot about that one. XU3 has more foam underfoot - it's noticeable under the forefoot - its 36/30mm compared to 31/23 for the Adidas. The foam feels a bit duller to me, and also the ride. It's a little heavier, a little wider under the rear of the foot, and I get more cruisy vibes from it. Not quite as versatile as the Agravic 3. The Continental outsole of the Adidas is also much better - if traction is a concern. The XU3 could be good if you're looking for a smooth cruiser, but I think there's a lot of options on the market for that. The Adidas is more versatile, and the price is right.
Sam- wondering if you could compare this Lightstrike to the stuff they used in the SL2? I found that to be wayyyyy too soft
Seems to me that Adidas is getting their fit right. Any chance you could this also to the Topo MTN Racer 3?
MTN Racer 3 is much softer and flexy underfoot. The upper is just as secure as the Adidas and of course you get a wider toebox. The Adidas TPU plate also gives more protection underfoot - The Topo contours more around terrain and you have more ground feel. I liked them a lot when they came out but I think they've been surpassed by some other shoes. They need to figure out a way to make the foam a bit snappier or more responsive.
All I can think is the smaller size makes it easier for my foot to rollover the edge and since the foam is pretty dense and not very pliable the whole shoe just went with it. To be fair they didn't feel unstable at all up to that point. Could've been a fluke too idk. I will say that I don't run in a lot of high stack shoes but have been doing most of my training in the Nike Wildhorse 8 this year.
This is a great trail lineup from adidas (Agr Speed, Spd ultra, Agr 3). Each nails the performance design intent. Lightstrike (dampen) and LS Pro (pop) are great. I found that 1/2 size down is apropos across the line for sub 50K runs… reduces bagginess, length becomes normal. The Agravic 3 is best recent all-rounder.
Hello Mike
First of all thank you for the thorough reviews always good to listen to a true athlete feedbacks.
How does it compare to the Nike Pegasus trail 5?
Thank you for your time and passion
I haven't tested that exact version, but I did test Pegasus Trail 4 GTX which is somewhat similar in setup. I think the Nike foam is a little softer, but the most noticeable thing to me is the drop. The Nike is listed at 9mm compared to the Adidas' 8mm, but the Nike feels much steeper. I feel like my heel is jacked up higher in the Nike. I did pass those off since I don't really like a high drop shoe. The Agravic 3's 8mm doesn't feel that high, and it feels more balanced. I'm keeping this one for training.
I'm a bad ankle guy and I found the Agravix Flow 3 to be very stable. For reference I find the following shoes stable: Salomon Genesis, Arcteryx Norvan LD 3, any Brooks Cascadia model, Hoka Torrent (mainly stable), LaSpo Prodigio. Shoes that I don't find to be stable: Peregrine 13 and prob 14 too (these shoes are the ankle roll kings), surprisingly the Brooks Catamount 2 (I think due to the extra soft Flash DNA? Or lockdown?) Xodus Ultra 1.
By "Agravic Flow 3" do you mean this shoe - the "Agravic 3"? Adidas reworked their naming, it's confusing.
I also didn't find the recent Peregrines to be stable: V13/14. 12 was good. Xodus Ultra 1 was good, 2 felt tall and unstable to me, but they did fix that a bit in V3.
Catamount I'd say is firm-ish (at least compared to other shoes), not soft, and has a nice wide base, and spacious forefoot space. I think this gives good proprioception and leads to good stability.
Yes, I'm, referring to the Agravic 3. I fully agree with the assessment on the Peregrine 12; it's firmer midsole, wider heel crash pad, better lock down, and with more torsional stiffness made it way more stable on the trails than the 13 or 14. I think with the Xodus Ultra 1 the upper just doesn't provide the lock down for techy stuff. I think the Catamount definitely has more stiffness (firmer midsole in regards to impact), in comparison to the above mentioned shoes. But I find the torsional stiffness of the Catamount 2 to be lacking. I think the quick rebound and elasticity of some of these newer foams can do weird things to rear foot stability out on the trail. Out of the above mentioned shoes, DNA Flash and Saucony's PB foams just don't feel like they're as tempered and tamed down on the lateral sides as say the Genesis, Arcteryx LD3, Agravic 3, LaSpo Prodigio. One thing that makes shoes like the Agravic 3 and the Prodigio stable is the moderate rocker, combined with a good lockdown, and with some elements of stiffness laterally and medially. Shoes like these really guide most folks thru the gait cycle. The rocker helps keep the foot in a dorsiflexed position, which is a more stable position for the ankle and helps to reduce foot'ankle/lower leg fatigue. There are people out there, like one of the folks that commented above, who probably have more of an outlying foot strike/body kinetic profile which can make running in rockered shoes more awkward. Thanks.
Not sure it has anything to do with the rocker, I've run in plenty of rockered shoes without issue. For example I've run quite a bit in the Salomon SLAB Pulsar and Pulsar Pro neither of which ever felt unstable or lead to any ankle rolling. But the 'outlying foot strike' comment could have some merit, I forefoot strike with the outside front edge being the first to wear down. Maybe these are more friendly to a heal strike?
And like I said, very well could have been a fluke. But after having to DNF my 100 mile race because of the ankle, I am not willing to put them on again to to find out.
This version I think is friendly to all manner of footstrikes. The new Speed Ultra definitely works best for a forefoot/midfoot strike.
Post a Comment