Article by Ryan Eiler and Sam Winebaum
adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 ($250)
Introduction
Sam: The Adios Pro 4 updates adi’s top of the line marathon super shoe, the winner of many marathons and other top races in recent years. The key elements of the update are:
A lighter, more fabric like slightly stretchy upper with Lightlock a new underlay support system
A longer rocker starting at 60% of the shoe length as in the Pro EVO 1
A new slightly softer and bouncier/energetic Lightstrike Pro midsole foam
A new outsole technology “Lightraxion”with yes still a bit of Continental at the high wear toe area.
A 16g drop in weight with no change to the 39mm heel / 33mm forefoot stack height
In my view it competes well with any other super shoe except.. the similar design and geometry specs but dramatically lighter Adizero Pro EVO 1.
Our review comes from very different perspectives. Long time RTR contributor Ryan Eiler ran a PR 2:14 at the the 2024 Boston Marathon in the Adios Pro 3 and yours truly is happy to run 10K to half marathons between 7 and 8 minute miles although, in my defense, I broke my knee cap in late 2023 and am considerably “older” than Ryan!
Pros:
Weight: one of the lightest super shoes with a 16g drop in weight from the Pro 3 at the same stack height Sam
Ride: smoother rolling: longer less aggressive rocker and front toe off: Sam
Midsole: slightly softer and bouncier foam: Sam
Upperl: light on foot, less rigid, more comfortable and more secure: Sam / Ryan
Energy return from composite rods and Lightstrike Pro is world class: Ryan
Cons:
Overly rigid rear to midfoot impeding transition (somewhat) to long rocker: Sam
Stability and responsiveness degraded with softer Lightstrike Pro allowing more lateral/medial roll: Ryan
Its unique, slightly less approachable ride (as compared to some competitors) takes some getting used to: Ryan
Stats
Sample Weights:
Sam: men’s 7.05 oz / 200g US 8.5 (Prior Version Weight: men’s 7.63 oz / 216 g US8.5)
Ryan: 7.30oz / 207g US M9.5
Stack Height: men’s 39 mm heel / 33 mm forefoot ( 6mm drop spec) same as prior
Platform Width:
AP4: 80 mm heel / 75 mm (30mm at contact) midfoot / 115mm forefoot
AP3: 80 mm heel / 80mm (45 mm at contact) midfoot / 115mm forefoot
Broadly available January 2025
Most comparable shoes
Adios Pro 3
Nike Vaporfly 3
Metaspeed Paris
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Ryan: It’s been over two years since the release of the Adios Pro 3, a shoe which has racked up dozens of major victories on the world stage. As a result, expectations are high for its successor, now in its fourth generation.
To make its current lineup even more interesting, Adidas decided to release its hyper-performant ‘EVO 1’ in between the Pro 3 and Pro 4, with a radically light construction and a radically heavy price tag.
I’ve run the Adios Pro since its first release, when it was still a bit unfinished, and it has served me well throughout the 7 marathons I’ve run. I’ve stood my ground over the years that the Lightstrike Pro midsole foam is the best in the market at returning energy, even if it doesn’t feel quite as bouncy or forgiving as some other compounds.
Given my affinity for the Pro 4, and the 800+ miles I’ve spent with them on my feet, my hope was that Adidas wouldn’t go too far off the reservation and change anything too drastically in version 4.
Upon first glance, the silhouette and general construction of the shoe appear fairly similar. However, upon closer inspection, they’ve made some significant changes to the upper which result in a more pleasant experience.
Most notably, the plasticky, very stout mesh from the Pro 3 has been replaced by a much softer and more supple reinforced fabric in the Pro 4.
It’s arguably a more appropriate design for a marathon-specific shoe, and while it sacrifices a bit of lockdown, it is still plenty strong and capable of proper securement.
To be sure, they’ve run a pair of underlays (“Light Lock”) from the heel of the shoe up to the front eyelets to aid with reinforcement, and the logo overlays on either side probably do some work to help with containment, as well.
The tongue picks up a bit more structure and is now tacked down along the Lightlock underlays so below the eyelets, to remediate the floppiness of the Pro 3 tongue.
And thankfully, the eyelets have been redesigned and should eliminate any of the rubbing issues that folks (myself included) complained about in v3.
The heel feels to have about the same amount of rigidity as before but using less plaiticky materila, and works well to keep the heel seated. We still have the triangular flip-tab (not sure why), and padded bumpers around the achilles which are now more suede-like and less abrasive than those in the Pro 3.
Overall, the refinements to the upper are all steps in the right direction. It’s less tenacious than before, but a befitting design for a marathon shoe.
Sam: The upper for sure evolves away from a quite rigid stiff plasticky mesh to a much more pliable and soft almost fabric like mesh. More foot conforming, less scratchy in feel the upper is as Ryan says befitting a marathon shoe in having forgiving room yet at the same time excellent hold.
The heel counter follows the rest of the design in being more conforming and easier on the foot if not quite as stable as it is not as rigid stiff in its materials. That is if the Pro 3’s worked for you. I had some heel slip in the Pro 3 and have none in the 4.
The toe box is appropriately broad yet secure in hold relying more on the light slightly stretchy mesh to add to foot shapes than before where fit was more determined by the volume of the toe box given the non stretch mesh and its overlays.
I am true to size for my narrower to medium volume and width feet. I was true to size in the Pro 3 but on the roomy side for volume. The new stretchier foot conforming mesh of the Pro 4 resolving that issue.
Midsole & Platform
Ryan: To the eye, not much has changed here. But upon closer inspection, there are two significant changes at work here: a longer, more gradual rocker shape at the toe as in the EVO 1, and a softer grade of Lightstrike Pro foam underfoot.
One of the things I liked best about the Pro 3 was its ability to cushion (as most supershoes do) while retaining a high level of responsiveness.
The decision to go with a softer foam here makes the Pro 4 feel a bit less sure-footed than the Pro 3, in my opinion. However, the softer foam makes the ride feel much bouncier and more dynamic, and I’m sure plenty of folks will appreciate these changes. Furthermore, it will improve its ability to reduce impact fatigue, although it makes for a less responsive shoe that feels a bit slower to turn over.
The increased softness was most noticeable in the heel for me. While the width of the heel hasn’t changed,
Adidas introduced a channel which runs from the rear of the shoe and up into the midfoot, effectively splitting the heel into two.
Even in hand while squeezing the sides , you can feel that the dynamics of the foam have changed here. While it feels bouncier and more playful, during harder efforts it makes for a less stable heel than the Pro 3 has with its more uniform, firmer heel.
Personally, I feel like I get more energy transfer from the Pro 3 midsole with its more direct response. However, I don’t think there’s necessarily a right answer here as to whether this was the right direction to take the midsole. They’ve certainly pushed the shoe toward the softer, bouncier end of the spectrum, though. Some folks will enjoy the sensation of the new Lightstrike Pro and deal with it just fine, and others may find it a bit too unwieldy and unstable at race efforts.
Sam: The stack height stays the same at a “legal” max of 39mm heel / 33 mm forefoot. I agree with Ryan that the new Lightstrike Pro is softer and bouncier, less reactive and firm than prior Lightstrike foams but..it is also firmer and less energetic than the amazing Lightstrike Pro + foam in the Pro EVO 1.
I find it somewhat less “springy” than Nike’s Zoom X foam in the latest Vaporfly and more dynamic than New Balance’s latest FuelCell foam in their Elite v4. I will update this paragraph as I do more comparisons.
The platform gets an earlier starting rocker at 60% of the shoe length, same as Pro EVO 1, and that shoe works very well for my not particularly dynamic more rolling stride type. I found the prior Pro’s rocker overly abrupt and requiring a consistent mid to forefoot strike and faster paces. Lose that strike pattern when tired and I had trouble rolling them forward, think later miles of a marathon for most. That is what I have observed in the Pro 2 and 3 at several recent Boston Marathon finish stretches watching thousands go by and comparing strides between shoes. For me the longer rocker is a positive development.
I agree with Ryan that while the new more deeply split heel softens landings (and reduces weight), and from my standpoint as more of a heel striker than Ryan, the softer heel has me lingering a bit too long.
Left: Adios Pro 4 Right: Adios Pro 3
To pressing it also appears the lower wedge of foam at the heel maybe softer than the rest of the midsole.
This sensation is amplified by the new rear outsole which unlike the Adios Pro 3 with its dual thickness medial outsole of firmer rubber has a single thin layer. The older outsole approach in combination with the now softer foam might haven’t been better as it might reducing the depth or the rear cavity or some combination.
I didn’t find the Pro 4 significantly less rear or midfoot stable but did find it less snappy off the heel and a bit slower to transition off the heel to midfoot and, significantly far slower to transition than the EVO 1 with its yet softer if more energy returning foam but.. with no central rear cavity..
Outsole
Ryan: Whereas the Pro 3 worked with a front smooth, grippy big patch of rubber with a patch of Continental brand rubber at the toe, the Pro 4 introduces some texture into the mix. The new LightTraxion outsole with a rectangular tread in the midfoot may work better in the wet, but I wasn’t able to notice any very meaningful differences on dry asphalt.
The coverage area is largely the same,
There are differences in the heel with the larger cavity splitting the rubber there, and the angular triangular cutout in the lateral forefoot of the Pro 3 giving way to a longer, and more uniform cutaway in that area of the Pro 4.
Sam: As Ryan says the coverage area remains about the same but the rubber and its patterning change. The new Lightraxion rubber was very sticky on wood floors when new, with almost a suction effect.
The deeper rear cavity and the move from a denser, firmer rear rubber with a small hardened foam medial plate “Adizero”above left moves in the Pro 4 to a single layer of softer Lightraxion rubber leads to a softer bouncier less responsive landing that is not quite as stable which I think goes a bit to far. As more of a heel striker I could use a bit more pop off the heel to help transition to midfoot.
The softer outsole trend continues up front with thinner (less patterning) smoother rubber on the lateral side and the now longer and shallower side lateral cut out. The combination, along with the softer foam and longer rocker, lead to smoother and more friendly toe offs than before, more marathon shoe in feel than shorter distance as the Pro 3 was for me with its abrupt rocker, firmer rubber and foam.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ryan: The ride of the Pro 4 has certainly taken a turn toward being more bouncy and dynamic. I surprisingly didn’t find the rocker changes to be too drastic, although I will say that the toe-off of the Pro 4 feels mellower. I think that the longer rocker and more gradual transition is accentuated further by the softer foam here.
One downside of the bouncier foam is that the turnover of the shoe suffers slightly. It’s not quite as responsive or snappy, which may or may not suit you, depending on your running style.
I appreciate most of the refinements made to version 4, and it’s clear that Adidas have considered a lot of athlete feedback before making the set of design changes we see here.
The upper is certainly a win, capable of performing at a high level and now with added comfort and perhaps less weight.
The midsole will likely be debated — do you prefer the more responsive, stable, foam found in v3, or do you like the mellower, more playful version that v4 brings to the table?
The outsole has effectively the same level of grip and performance, and should work well once again.
All of this said, if you’re in the market for a proper, creme-de-la-creme marathon racing shoe, the Pro 4 needs to be in consideration. It’s no fluke that the DNA of this Adios Pro line has consistently found its way onto podiums for several years now.
Ryan’s Score: 9.6/10
(Deductions for decreased stability and responsiveness)
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊1/2
Sam: The Adios Pro 4 follows the 2023-2024 trend towards somewhat more mellow, softer and less aggressive marathon super shoes. I ran mine straight out the box at a local hilly 5 miler and was pleased with their ride and my race. Dynamic, bouncy but not overly so, or over soft, they comfortably carried me to an AG win with no sore legs the next day. The uphills were steep and a bit labored with downhills just fine.
In comparison, the Adios Pro 3 which for my more pedestrian paces (than Ryan’s that’s for sure!) had a quite rigid midfoot and especially an aggressive abrupt front toe-off. Here we are easier to turn over at the front due to the long rocker but a bit slower to move off the heel due to the softness of the foam, deep cavity, and thin outsole.
Over the last 3 years I have observed the Boston Marathon finishing stretch final runners’ strides and it was clear to me that the Adios Pro 3’s aggressive geometry had many non elite (unlike Ryan!) and mid packers struggling to move in the Adios Pro while those in, for example the more rolling geometry Vaporfly 2 had an easier time of it. I think this new front geometry will really help mid packers in the final miles of a marathon.
I do wonder what keeping the foam the same firmness as before, and maybe accentuating the length of the rocker yet more, might deliver? Or filling the rear cavity for more pop off the heel as the EVO 1 does. I suspect we would have a more stable and yet easier to turn over ride with more of the response Ryan was missing and which I noticed too.
The upper is really polished and significantly improved. It is among the best of any super shoe and certainly far more foot conforming and comfortable than the rough mesh AP3’s. Heel hold is excellent, far better than AP '3, with here actually less foot irritating structure. Lacing is easy and the toe box, given the stretch fabric like mesh fits, and this also applies to the entire upper, more “glove like” than the Adios Pro 3/s more “cage like” fit.
Updates to signature shoes are tricky. Enough change to be a meaningful update for performance beyond cosmetics and of course a better upper, Changes in geometry, foam, and plates that work for top elites to get those top race podiums yet also benefit the rest of us.
The Adios Pro 4 largely succeeds with more upper and underfoot comfort and a ride that is friendlier for the mid pack without compromising elite performance too much. That said, in Adizero, now a two marathon super shoe line, the Pro EVO 1 is still clearly the summit for me.
Sam’s Score: 9.4 / 10
😊😊😊😊
Deductions for a more reactive quicker transitioning rear of the shoe
5 Comparisons
Adizero Adios Pro 3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: We’ve covered most of the details above, so in a nutshell: the upper of v4 has been nicely refined, removing some of the rougher spots of v3, and making for a kinder, more comfortable fit. The upper material isn’t as stiff or plasticky as before, and is now a lighter reinforced fabric with supporting underlays, and outer overlays. The midsole now has a longer, more gradual rocker up front, and more significantly, a softer version of Lightstrike Pro than in v3.
The resulting ride is noticeably bouncier and more dynamic, although I felt that some stability and responsiveness was sacrificed. The outsole picks up some texture in its tread (v3 was smooth, almost climbing shoe-like rubber), and has a slightly different notched shape in the lateral forefoot, but is otherwise pretty similar.
Adizeo Adios Pro EVO 1 (RTR Initial Review)
The adidas elephant (super shoe) in the room is of course the adidas Adizeo Pro EVO 1. It's dramatically lighter, 70g lighter! at 4.59 oz / 130g in my US8.5 sample than the Pro 4. Or really any other super shoe including the Vaporfly 3 which checks in at 6.3 oz / 179g (US8.5). Both share the the same 39mm heel height and 33mm forefoot
I ran the EVO 1 the week before the Pro 4 in a 10K race (will be updating the linked review soon) and while they both share the same longer rocker and easy to turn over ride flow, the EVO due to its weight is noticeably quicker to turn over and easier to maintain pace in. Its foam is softer yet noticeably more dynamic with a quicker return and more cushion feel. Both have superb uppers with the almost impossibly light and airy upper fo the EVO 1 yet more comfortable and secure. Such a groundbreaking leap forward in super shoe technology and for me performance comes at a high cost..t 2x the cost Adios Pro 4 which for sure gives pause but for me the EVO 1 is the ultimate racing machine.
Nike Vaporfly 3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The upper of the VF3 consists of a highly engineered mesh, which is more perforated and breathable than the new fabric upper of the Pro 4. As a result, the VF3 upper feels baggier in the forefoot and a bit less structured. I prefer the foot containment and lockdown of the Pro 4 as a result. The rear of each shoe performs at the same level, with achilles bumpers keeping the heel comfortably seated, and just enough structure to handle hard efforts.
This version of Lightstrike Pro foam in the Pro 4 is more similar to ZoomX than it was previously, with its new, bouncier personality. While the softness of the VF3 and AP4 are now fairly similar, they still produce a slightly different feeling underfoot.
The midsole of the Adidas seems to be thicker and more rockered in feel than that of the Nike. The very front end of the Vaporfly can start to feel pretty thin at the toe-off point, whereas it feels like there’s still plenty of cushion at the corresponding point in the Pro 4.
My preference here is for the energy return of the Lightspeed Pro midsole, but we’re really just splitting hairs at this point by comparing two of the most highly performant midsoles on the market. As for the outsoles, I think the Pro 4 wins by a slim margin with its more copious rubber coverage, but there’s not enough of a performance difference here to warrant much discussion.
ASICS Metaspeed Edge Paris (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Metaspeed Edge takes a more traditional approach in delivering supershoe performance as compared to the Pro 4. Its geometry is more straightforward and almost every part of the shoe is less complex but still highly effective. The ASICS is also the lightest feeling marathon shoe I’ve ever worn, coming in about 0.5oz lighter than the Pro 4.
The tradeoff here in performance comes down to inertia versus energy return – while the ASICS has unparalleled turnover thanks to its low weight, the Adidas midsole seems to provide more rebound and energy as the midsole decompresses.
As for the ride, the ASICS feels narrower underfoot and less stable than the Adidas, especially in the midfoot where the Pro 4 has a wider platform of foam. However, the Metaspeed Edge has a more approachable, less exotic ride style, with fewer cutouts and a more continuous slab of foam underfoot.
While the outsole of the ASICS is a bit more minimalist than the Pro 4 outsole, its continuous patch of rubber from toe to heel makes for a nice, clean transition that performs just as well as the Pro 4.
New Balance SC Elite v4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The SC Elite v4 seems to cater to a more “casua”l type of racer, with its softer, deeper cushioning, and more dynamic and playful ride.
New Balance’s ‘Energy Arc’ design runs a long cavity down the middle of the shoe and toward the heel, giving it a supremely soft and bouncy ride. While it’s fun, I personally don’t like that much movement and plunging feeling when running at race effort.
This version of the Pro 4 upper now arguably offers up just as much comfort as the SC Elite – which definitely wasn’t the case with the Pro 3.
The Pro 4 is still the more serious shoe of these two, with better lockdown, more directed energy return, lighter weight, and a quicker turnover. While the Adidas is the better choice for ultra-serious marathoners, the SC Elite may still be more suitable for heel strikers, or for those less concerned with outright high level performance.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Ryan’s Adios Pro 4 Initial Video Review with Comparisons to Adios Pro 3 (7:59)
The Adizero Adios Pro 4 will be available January 2025
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. Rya more recently has a PR of 2:14:23 from the 2024 Boston Marathon finishing 3d American and 15th overall, a 2:17:16 Olympic Marathon Trials qualifier, from the 2023 Philadelphia Marathon after two other 2:18 efforts in the last year.
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
3 comments:
Good stuff, Sam and Ryan. Can you please add a comparison to the Alphafly 2/3?
I haven't run the Alphafly 2, but as for the 3: The Adidas feels much less 'mechanical' to me in the forefoot. The pods in the Nike give it a very distinct feel during foot strike and transition, while the Adidas feels more continuous in its mannerisms from heel to toe. The Alphafly probably still feels a bit 'bouncier', especially in the heel, but the now-softer Pro 4 is fairly close on this front. I think foot containment and the upper of the Adidas is slightly superior, with its underlays/overlays providing more structure than the Nike's strong but supple ('baggier') mesh. Whereas the Alpha 3 slides on like a sock, the Pro 4 has a bit of a more serious lace-up and lockdown. The outer of the Nike is pretty solid, and I didn't have any complaints, but I personally prefer the more continuous patch of rubber on the bottom of the Adidas.
what about a comparison to the Asics Sky Paris?
Post a Comment