Article by Mike Postaski, Renee Krusemark, and Sam Winebaum
Scarpa Golden Gate ATR 2 ($169)
Introduction
Sam: The Golden Gate ATR 2, Scarpa's door to trail sees a dramatic and positive update to its first version. It moves from a kind of clunky stiff and lumbering shoe to an agile quick door to trails option at a lighter weight of 9.2 oz / 261g (-40g /1.45 oz), lower stack height of 28mm heel 24 mm forefoot (-4mm) and has more dynamic foams. It leans more trails than some of its competitors such as the Pegasus Trail 5 and Saucony TR2 and that is a good thing for those whose trails after those roads are.. more than park paths or gravel roads.
Mike P: Scarpa hasn’t been on my radar for a while now. I previously tested a variety of this shoe (by name only?) - the Golden Gate Kima. That shoe was completely different though - carbon plated, stiff, with somewhat odd sizing. We were actually offered a different shoe to test, but the Golden Gate ATR 2 looked very interesting to me, so thanks to Scarpa NA for accommodating.
Although the shoe I previously tested and this one both share “Golden Gate” in their name - they’re completely different shoes. This one, the ATR 2 is billed as a door-to-trail shoe, although even based on looks alone, it seems like it could handle more on the trail side. Sam previously tested the first version, which based on his review, seemed to have been a bit bulkier. This V2 seems quite streamlined in many ways. So just to set the stage, we have a non-plated, moderately cushioned, light, flexible, and versatile trail shoe in for test here. First impressions are very good - see below!
Pros:
Versatile Door to Trail leaning more trail than road:: Sam/Renee/Mike P
Dramatically lighter, less bulky, more agile, and more fun than prior version:: Sam
Light, breathable highly supportive upper: Sam/Renee/Mike P
Excellent foothold and great upper shape up front Mike P/Renee
Cushion punches above its specs Mike P/Renee/Sam
Unique, friendly, softer propulsive yet stable midfoot foam design: Sam/Renee
Great segmentation of midsole/outsole - very flexible and smooth underfoot Mike P/Renee
Best, effectively padded tongue, ever Mike P/Renee
Cons:
Forefoot a bit thin on rockier terrain: Sam
Slightly roomy inside, under the heel (nitpick) Mike P
Could be lighter in weight for use (nitpick) Renee
Possible wear issues across toe box: Renee
Most comparable shoes
Saucony Ride TR2 Mike P/Renee
Tecnica Prolox Hybrid Sam
Craft Explor Hybrid am
Nike Pegasus Trail Renee
Salomon Ultra Glide
ASICS Fuji Lite Mike P
Merrell Long Sky 2 Mike P
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Sample Weights:
men’s 9.2 oz / 261g US9 (prior version: 10.64 oz / 301g US9)
women’s 8.25oz /233 g (US7.5)
Stack Height: men’s 28mm heel / 24mm forefoot ( 4mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 90 mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Renee: The Golden Gate ATR 2 is a great shoe. I had fun and fast runs with this shoe during review, running on dirt, gravel, single track, hills and rolling terrain. While it’s labeled as a door to trail shoe, it’s much more trail friendly than other hybrid shoes. Not to say it doesn’t work well on mellow dirt roads. I have 50 miles for review in these shoes, and each mile was enjoyable.
Part of my love for this shoe is the fit. The upper security in the heel and mid foot are great. I don’t always like the high heel counter, but it works well here. The “bio based” printed reinforcements on the mid foot allow for flex. While it doesn’t look like a comfy upper, it is comfortable for me. The thin tongue is perfect. I’ve developed a bone spur on the top my right foot and had no irritation when wearing the GG ATR 2. The toe box is wide and high enough for my average width feet. The upper is a mesh/microfiber. Across the toe box, I can see how some wear and ripping might occur when running through wet or muddy conditions. Any dirt drying in this area can prohibit the flex of the fabric. I don’t have issues after 50 miles, but I can see one small area where the mesh is starting to rip (very small and not an issue). I’m between half sizes, and gambled with a 7.5 instead of an 8, which lengthwise is perfect.
Mike P: I second Renee’s initial intro. The ATR 2 has grown on me from the moment I first tried them on. To the point where I just got back from a long weekend trip to Glacier NP and the ATR 2 was one of only two shoes I brought along (the other being the Altra Flow, for travel, walking, and any road/treadmill runs). Like Renee found, and as I mentioned earlier- the ATR 2 has much more range on the true trail side than the door-to-trail description would suggest.
The fit is the key factor here. I received a US 9.5, which initially felt quite snug and had me a bit concerned. The fit did loosen up slightly and with thin-medium socks the fit is just right. The “EXO” fit is snug and secure through the midfoot - reminiscent of a Topo shoe. The forefoot opens up nicely to a comfortable and wide-enough toebox. It’s perhaps one of the best-shaped lasts for my foot.
I do find the lower heel area on the roomy side, but this could possibly be a sizing issue. It seems like the sculpted achilles collar seats the heel slightly forward, giving a touch of extra space around the lower heel area. This could likely be filled up with a thicker heel sock, but my US 9.5 doesn’t have the space to accommodate a thicker sock. This is somewhat of a nitpick though as I’ve had no problems at all with fit or comfort.
I’ll also point out the well designed tongue - perhaps the best design I’ve come across, EVER?! It’s thin, lies well across the top of the foot, with a specific padded section in the exact area below where the upper laces cross. It also sits at a perfect height - which is no small feat given the amount of short tongues I see these days. Just the ideal design for a tongue - I’d take this setup on every shoe I have.
Sam: Mike and Renee have described the upper well. It is a true trail shoe upper that is just fine on the road. Often “door to trail” shoes prioritize essentially a road shoe upper compromising trail hold and security but not so here.
The light, fairly stiff mesh and EXO construction molds to my foot extremely well and is very comfortable and breathable.
There is plenty of toe box room without being sloppy for my narrow to medium feet. And yes the tongue is superb with lace up once and done every time.
My sample was a half size up from my normal US8.5 and fits fine. I note that they are marked US9/EU42. Some brands call a US9 out as EU42 others such as Salomon as a EU 42 2/3.
Midsole & Platform
Renee: Scarpa labels the cushion as high, although 28/24mm is fairly mid to low in terms of stack these days. I probably wouldn’t wear the shoes for anything longer than a 50k, but more efficient runners probably could. The white midsole is a mid/high density EVA meant for “support and thrust” and the upper portion (blue) is “Bounce Foam” for shock absorption and rebound. All of that feels like a supercritical midsole to me and we are getting confirmation if in fact it is .
The shoe isn’t particularly light for its stack, but it runs fast and comfortable, whether that was 200+ feet per mile of gain on single track or 100+ feet per mile of gain on rolling gravel roads. I didn’t find the forefoot cushion to be unproductive for running gravel or through rooted trails, although for rocky terrain, especially for long distances, I’d probably need more underfoot.
Mike P: The midsole stack sits squarely in the mid-level cushion classification. At 28/24mm, to me it feels neither thin nor overly high. I immediately got Merrell Long Sky 2 vibes on my first run, and that shoe is similarly listed at 24/20, although I measured 30/26mm. Scarpa calls its midsole foam “Bounce” foam. It’s a dual layer setup with softer and bouncier on top and at the midfoot (blue) and higher density (white) closer to the ground at heel and forefoot.
I do like this setup - it works for a smooth and well-dampened ride. Although named “Bounce” foam, I don’t find it to be overly bouncy (or unstable) as some superfoams can tend to be. With the firmer EVA in the mix, there’s no issues with ground feel or stability. I like how the softer Bounce foam extends to ground-level under the midfoot - it seems to smooth out the impact, while the white areas under the forefoot and heel provide a level of control.
Sam: This is an all purpose midsole that provides a solid combination of rebounding softer cushion (blue Bounce foam) underfoot and stable and protective at the ground support, the white foam. The midsole leans more trail than road but is just fine on road as well.
With its 28/24 stack height this is not a super deeply cushioned shoe as its predecessor was and as many current door to trail shoes are. That is fine by me as I prefer a more agile quicker reacting door to trail shoe.
The lower stack gives it a lighter weight of 9.2 oz / 261g US9 than most of its competition while sitting on a broad platform 90 mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot. especially at the heel and forefoot . Keeping the midfoot platform width at 70mm with the softer blue foam medially for sure assists with the roll forward and agile feel here.
I particularly like the unusual softer center midfoot area of bouncier blue foam. It provides very pleasing soft and easy transitions off the fairly firm heel through the midfoot and then, as not overly rigid, a smooth flow and flex to toe off.
All of this without compromising midfoot support/stability or underfoot protection in part I due to the very solid midfoot upper hold in the mix along with the outsole design.
The words that come to mind when describing the midsole are adequately if not deeply cushioned, versatile, agile and quick to respond.
Outsole
Renee: The Presa outsole features 3mm lugs, fairly typical depth for a road to trail shoe. The exposed midsole area helped with the ride from a midfoot landing. I don’t have excessive wear on the midsole, but I wasn’t running rocky terrain. The lugs did not hurtt the ride on mellow terrain. I did not run much more than a few feet on pavement with the shoes between trail heads, although the ride on packed dirt roads was great.
Mike P: The lugs are pretty solid, as far as 3 mm lugs go. No, you don’t have the depth of a 4-5mm all-terrain lug, but the shape and setup works very well in most terrain. I think the segmentation of the outsole is a key to the smooth ride of the ATR 2 here.
That long segmentation between the lateral outsole segment and the medial segment really seems to smooth out landings. To me it feels like the shoe rolls comfortably from a lateral forefoot/midfoot strike towards the medial side of the shoe. The large blue area of exposed foam under the midfoot no doubt aids flexibility and also saves weight.
Sam: So far a really fine well segmented outsole that handles both trail and road well. Durability so far has been excellent.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Renee: The ride is fast, fun, and nimble. The two midsole layers work well to provide rebound and cushion despite the lower stack height. On rolling dirt/gravel (100 feet of gain per mile), I ran 5x 5 minutes at 5k pace amidst a 10 mile run and found my stride natural and my cadence high. As someone who prefers a non plated shoe for workouts, the GG was perfect.
For single track running (200+ feet of gain per mile on frequent but short ups/downs), the shoe also excelled. The toe flex is great for uphills and when landing mid foot, the bounce foam is noticeable. In all my runs, I ran faster paces than my perceived effort. We have a list of other hybrid shoes for comparison, although the shoe reminds me most of trail shoes with low drops and relatively low stacks, namely the Inov-8 Trailfly G270 and the Hoka Torrent 2 or 3 (not the 4). I highly recommend the shoe for trail runners who prefer low stack and low drop shoes without a rocker. While the shoe is heavier than some similar trail shoes, it runs much lighter. Easily a 5 out of 5 on the “fun/smile” scale.
Renee’s Score: 9.6/10 (-.20 could be slightly lighter, -.20 minor upper wear concerns)
😊😊😊😊😊
Sam: A beautifully executed door to trail shoe that does not leave trail, pretty much any trail, out of the picture. Road miles are fine if a bit old school given the stack height and low 4mm drop. They are a touch firmer at the heel than I would like at slower paces on road but pick up the pace and things for sure smooth out.
The softer bouncier blue layer extending to the ground at the midfoot really gives the ride a pleasing dynamic flow while the toe off is decisive and agile.
The upper is near perfection for me with any trails worthy hold, breathability, and solid if not “plush” road shoe comfort. Plush and not solid upper hold is often the bane of the door to trail shoe relegating them to road and easy paths for me regardless of their underfoot platform. Not so here!
I would like to see it be slightly higher stacked and higher drop for greater distance potential.
For those who have some nostalgic for the more agile lower stack trails shoes of old but here with a modern dynamic foam package and superb upper I think you will find big smiles here.
The ATR 2 is for sure versatile. It can serve as a single shoe in the quiver option for the runner who is often transitioning between surfaces, but with a focus on trails over roads, and whose runs are not “ultra” every day. It also makes for an excellent light hiking and walking shoe and is an ideal single run shoe for travels.
Sam’s Score: 9.5 / 10
Only deductions are wish list: slightly more stack and heel to toe drop
😊😊😊😊
Mike P: Here I’ll mention the weight of the shoe - 264g (9.3 oz) in my US 9.5. Surely middle-of-the pack, not the extreme lightest out there, but plenty below the mid-10oz - 11oz (in my size) “training” shoes that I’ve tested and run in. It feels very clearly like a versatile, throwback shoe that can do it all. No plate interference, no overly soft or firm foam. A nearly perfect fit and foothold. I have a hard time finding faults with this shoe. Perhaps the very slightly roomy heel that I mentioned earlier? But honestly, I may pick up a size 10.0 in the future so I can take them out for longer runs with more comfort.
The ride is smooth and comfortable from mellow dirt, to sandy rollers, to rocky ups and downs. I haven’t really found a limit to terrain where I would run these. Perhaps the exposed bit of midsole might get chewed up over time in more rugged, sharp rocks, but the shoe itself handles mountain terrain well. Perhaps the cushion isn’t enough for very long stuff, but that’s a matter of personal preference - there’s more underfoot than the Kjerag for example.
Ultimately, a well designed upper - with a secure fit and comfortable toebox - goes a long way and provides a shoe a lot of range. The ATR 2 is not just about that great upper though. The midsole really gives a smooth, moderate cushion, and punches above its stack height. This is a great shoe from Scarpa, and an easy recommendation for any trail runner looking for a do-it-all (and beyond) shoe.
Mike P’s Score: 9.73 / 10
Ride: 10 - Smooth & comfortable across the full spectrum of terrain
Fit: 9.5 - Very small amount of extra space at the heel ? maybe ?
Value: 10 - An everyday, many miles kind of shoe
Style: 10 - Looks cool, Scarpa blue pops with the hint of yellow/lime
Traction: 9.5 - Not much limitation here
Rock Protection: 10 - Protects more than you’d expect at this stack with no plate
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
6 Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Merrell Long Sky 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): This is the closest comp, and the shoe that immediately came to mind when running in the ATR 2. Unplated flexibility, solid foothold, smooth ride, and light weight are the calling cards or both shoes. I scored them exactly the same except for giving the Long Sky 2 a slight edge in traction with its deeper outsole lugs. The Merrell is a touch more flexible, but the Scarpa is a touch more cushioned and protective. Both uppers are equally secure, although the Scarpa has more comfortable forefoot space. Perhaps the Merrell’s Matryx will be more durable. I find the Scarpa slightly roomy in the heel, but Merrell’s heel is very rigid at the heel bone, which I think is a bigger issue. The Merrell’s non-sealed collar is also an issue keeping debris out. I ultimately really like both shoes - if you want pure light weight and flexibility - the Merrell gets the edge. If you want a little more cushion underfoot, and almost as much flexibility the Scarpa gives that at a cost of 0.5 more oz. For me the Long Sky heel has been a sticking point - I find myself at times worried about taking them too far due to the hard heel area. In the end the versatility and almost perfect fit of the Scarpa makes me want to run in them all the time.
Saucony Ride TR2 (RTR Review)
Renee: Both road to trail shoes, but totally different rides and uses. The Ride TR 2 is a heavier shoe with more cushion and a softer midsole. The shoe is better for easy efforts on mellow terrain. The GG ATR 2 is far more nimble, faster, and better for trail. I wore a half size shorter in the GG ATR 2.
Sam: I agree with Renee. The Ride TR2 softer bouncier foam and higher stack make it less stable on more technical trails while it has a softer friendlier ride on road. It’s upper is closer to a road shoe’s than the Scarpa’s also affecting its trail utility.
Mike P (US 9.5): Ride TR 2 is a “road-to-trail” shoe that doesn’t work at all for me. The new midsole foam makes it overly heavy - shouldn’t the “road” part mean that it should be lighter? The toebox is also uncomfortably snug and tapered in my US 9.5. The fit, feel, and design of the Scarpa upper is more refined in every way. The Scarpa is a much better shoe within the door-to-trail as well as trail segments.
Tecnica Pyrox Hybrid (RTR Review)
Sam: The 2025 releasing Pyrox has a roomier essentially road shoe upper while the Scarpa has a for sure a more trail oriented upper. The Pyrox’s only weakness is its trail upper hold at rear to midfoot. Its midsole is softer, bouncier and more dynamic given its 2 supercritical foams combo of PEBAX and EVA. Its segmented terrain and foot strike adapting midsole geometry is smoother and more fluid on firm surfaces. The Scrapa’s midsole blends some softness from its blue Bounce Foam through the center of the shoe with firmer, more stable foam below and as such is slightly more stable underfoot While considerably heavier, the Tecnica is a better road shoe especially for longer distances and more mellow paces while the Scarpa leans more trail and is more agile and quicker everywhere if not quite as well cushioned.
Nike Pegasus Trail 5 (RTR Review)
Renee: The Peg Trail 5 and GG are both labeled as hybrid shoes, but that’s about all they have in common. The GG is more trail friendly because of the secure upper, lower drop, and firmer (yet more dynamic) midsole. For casual use or flatter terrain, maybe the Peg Trail 5 has some advantages. It’s a comfortable shoe, but the GG is more performance oriented.
Salomon Ultra Glide (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): The Ultra Glide feels more like a long distance cruiser - there’s more cushion underfoot, and a rocker-oriented design that encourages a rear-to-front rolling footstrike. The Scarpa is much more nimble, and versatile, and I’d say the cushion is almost on par. If you want more ground feel, flexibility in a shoe, and more versatility, go with the ATR 2. If you just need a little more cushion and just need to cruise in a mostly straight line, go with the rolling rocker of the Ultra Glide.
ASICS Fuji Lite 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): I tested V2, not V3, but I think they are similar. The Asics feels softer underfoot, but softness doesn’t equal responsiveness. The Scarpa is a touch firmer, but the Bounce foam absorbs shock just as well as the squishier Fuji Lite, and feels more stable a is much more responsive and nimble. The Asics softness makes it unstable and also challenges its upper to hold the foot well. The Scarpa upper is much more refined and secure. The ATR 2 wins by a long shot for me.
Shopping at our partners for the is much appreciated and helps support RoadTrailRun
Tester Profiles
Renee is a former U.S. Marine journalist, which is when her enjoyment of running and writing started. She isn’t that awesome of a runner, but she tries really hard. Most of her weekly 50-60 miles take place on rural country roads in Nebraska, meaning mud, gravel, dirt, hills, and the occasional field. She has PR’s of 1:30:59 for the half marathon and 3:26:45 for the marathon.
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
2 comments:
I picked up the ATR 2 on discount just before a trip to Alaska this summer and it was nice surprise. Agree that the tongue might be the best in the biz. These fit my foot perfectly. If you're a larger runner (I'm 6'4" 230 lb), these will likely feel a bit flat/minimal cushion. Honestly, they work best for short stretches of running and light hiking/scrambling, IMHO. Great on downhills and when you pick up the pace, not so great for slow cruising. The heel is very stable and as a supinator, can often feel like it's pushing me into pronation. Tweaked my ankle on a run in Girdwood but otherwise, no issues. Another great option from Scarpa but prefer the Spin Planet overall.
Anon - yes, I'm a bit lighter so I get more versatility out of them. How are they holding up for you in terms of durability? I plan to have mine in rotation for a while.
Post a Comment