Article by Ryan Eiler and Michael Ellenberger
ASICS Glideride Max ($170)
Pros:
Stable, well-behaved rebound and ride - Ryan/Michael
Upper feels high quality, plush, and durable - Ryan/Michael
Superior impact protection for high mileage - Ryan
Cons:
Ho-hum midsole (but by design) - Ryan
Not the same GlideRide..ride (for better or worse) - Michael
Breathability - Ryan
Ride can feel a bit flat/blocky - Ryan
Stats
Weight:: M 10.12 oz / 287g US9 | W 8.85 oz / 251g
Sample Weight: men’s 10.23oz / 290g US9.5
Stack Height: men’s 44 mm heel / 38 mm forefoot ( 6mm drop)
Platform Width: 86mm heel / 70mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot
Most comparable shoes
ASICS Glideride 2mm less stack height for older Glideriide
ASICS Gel Nimbus 26
Hoka Skyward X
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Ryan: While some brands have been incorporating highly energetic midsoles into many of their high-mileage workhorses, ASICS have generally kept this line of shoe fairly tame, reliable, and well behaved, and this Glideride Max appears to follow in those footsteps. It looks and feels a lot like the Nimbus 26, so I was curious as to whether this would be something new, or simply a minor iteration on that idea.
While the engineered mesh isn’t anything fancy or eye-catching, it feels to be of a high-quality, both in hand and on foot. The single-ply material is of above average thickness, and should work very well for lots of comfortable high mileage.
The obvious drawback here is that there isn’t a ton of breathability, as the perforations in the toe section don’t pass all the way through to the foot, and the mesh becomes very tightly woven and even less breathable toward the middle and rear of the shoe. It does deliver a plush, inviting feeling though, and this attribute might be appreciated come late fall or early spring.
In a surprise to nobody, the heel of the shoe is solidly built, with a large, strong heel cup and a generous amount of padding throughout. I’ve been impressed by the durability of the upper on Nimbus 26 I own, and this upper appears to be of a very similar build quality, so I’m confident that this upper will perform comparably.
I found the fit to be true to size, with its casual lockdown pressure nicely distributed throughout my midfoot.
The toe box is fairly voluminous and the heel has a chunky enough collar of padding that heel movement is nonexistent.
Michael: I was immediately drawn to the aesthetics of the GlideRide Max. ASICS is consistently churning out some of the cleanest designs in running I think, and no exception here. A really sharp looking shoe, with no excess elements added and a color scheme that pops without being gaudy. A great start.
Fortunately our weather began to cool down (relatively) in late September for the majority of my testing miles here, but on my few treadmill runs (where the old GlideRide really shined - more on that later), I didn’t have an issue with breathability, though the material is quite thick. I suspect this would be a decent winter shoe, actually (not fully waterproofed, of course, but warmer than most and not all that permeable), though I’d elect for a color other than white.
Fit-wise, no issues in my traditional US 8.5. The heel pad was firmer than my Achilles usually appreciates, but it’s slowly trending better, and I didn’t have any issues. Haugland’s sufferers likely should look elsewhere, though - most of these heel cups on recent ASICS models are quite stiff, and there’s no exception here.
Midsole & Platform
Ryan: In comparison to many other ‘super foams’, which release their energy aggressively and at times haphazardly, this one focuses on damping road impact and releasing its energy in a more controlled manner. The shoe delivers a pleasantly controlled and unsurprising transition with each stride. While the FFBlastMax layer of the midsole adds a touch of softness and bounce, I’d still describe the overall feeling as predictable and guided, lacking any real pizazz.
The sensation is very reminiscent of a Nimbus 26, with just a shade more cushion and softness, thanks to the hybrid midsole. On the plus side, the Guideride Max is fantastically stable, especially when you consider its 44mm stack height at the rear. This is certainly one of the more mellow and reassuring performers in the ‘max-stacked casual trainer’ category at the moment.
I felt the ride to be on the flatter end of the spectrum (as opposed to a rockered feeling), due to its underfoot geometry and midfoot rigidity, There is a ¾ length pressed EVA plate within the shoe. As it moves forward toward the forefoot, the plate widens out to the full width of the shoe. This is what creates the GuideSole rocker. There’s still some welcome flex at the toe which helps to keep things moving at the casual paces the shoe was built for.
While some might knock it for its relatively boring character, others might love how it mindlessly blends onto the foot during longer runs with its demure demeanor. The shoe’s transition is, again, predictable and very guided despite its stack height, with the wide and well-behaved platform keeping things in check.
Michael: This is the first shoe to roll out ASICS’s new FF Blast Max foam and, if you don’t know what that is, you’re not alone. The Superblast 2 has FlyteFoam Turbo Plus. The Novablast 4 has FF Blast Plus Eco. So what does this add over those already terrific shoes? In my book, it’s a little more dull - lacking that real “next-gen” feeling of the Superblast 2. Hardly a bad midsole - it’s still energetic and light, and could handle workouts to be sure (I tried!), but simply considering the bar ASICS has set (intersecting some of the softest midsoles with some absolutely terrific energy return!), this just feels… fine. It’s good! It’s just, unspectacular.
But what was really lacking here was that kinetic feel of the GlideRide of old (RTR Review). The technology is there - the GlideRide has a ¾ length pressed-EVA plate, which widens out to the full width of the shoe in the forefoot. This provides some of that rocker sensation that we’re used to, but didn’t quite provide that distinct, nearly-plastic, back-front rocker that made the GlideRide what it was. The sensation is more muddled here - maybe overrun by the FF Blast Max midsole and its super max big (44mm heel 38mm forefoot) and bigger than Glideride (+2mm heel, 1mm forefoot) stack height.
Outsole
Ryan: I’ve had great luck with ASICS’s ‘AHAR’ grade of outsole rubber, and this outsole which combines AHARPLUS and ASISCSGRIP is likely to be just as good, if not better, than its predecessors. It borrows a lot of its design from the Nimbus 26, both in texture and in shape, with the only significant difference being its now-continuous run of rubber up the lateral side of the shoe.
I think the nubbed texture and distribution of rubber here works very well for what this shoe is meant to do. Durability is likely to be top notch, and worthy of a shoe intended to tackle high mileage.
Michael: The outsole follows the trends of a lot of recent model ASICS - it has nubbed rubber running up and down the lateral and medial sides of the shoe, which should provide durability for a variety of footstrikes. In fact, I’m not sure why more shoes don’t use this exact pattern - durable without getting in the way.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ryan: While the GliderideMax doesn’t take many risks with its design, it delivers a delightfully stable and cushioned ride, capable of handling even the highest mileage regimens. Its midsole concentrates its efforts on absorbing and releasing energy in a metered manner, so as to not be overly bouncy or explosive. This results in the sensation of a wide, stable platform underfoot, regardless of where you land. As a result, it lacks in the ‘turnover’ department, and its midfoot stiffness can occasionally leave it feeling a bit blocky at more casual efforts.
The shoe’s upper is robust, high quality, and slightly thicker than average, and works well for this type of everyday workhorse. No frills to be found here — just a plush and effective assortment of materials and padding. The outsole works in the same vein, performing with durability and sure-footedness as its key features.
If you seek a reliable trainer that can comfortably meld with your foot day in, day out, this is worth considering. However, if it’s bounce and turnover that you favor in a trainer, you’d be better off looking elsewhere.
Ryan’s score: 8.8/10
(Deductions for its minimal differentiation from the Nimbus, its flattish/blocky, ho-hum ride, and breathability)
Smiles score: 😊😊
Michael: Ultimately, my feelings on the GlideRide Max are mixed. The design - while handsome - doesn’t break any design boundaries, but there’s still a well-done, stable, cushioned ride that will likely be appreciated by runners across the spectrum. What it lacks, in my opinion, is that distinct “pop” of the GlideRide of old - which had a firm, kinetic, rocker-first ride that is muddled here. Even so, a solid upper and outsole make this a reasonable recommendation. At $170, I think ASICS has better options, but for a high-mileage, high-cushion trainer, you could do much worse.
Michael’s Score: 8.8/10
Smiles score: 😊😊😊/5
4 Comparisons
ASICS Gel-Nimbus 26 (RTR Review)
Ryan: This iteration of the Nimbus is very similar in almost every way. It just has a little bit less of some things. The stack height of the 26 is a few mm shorter, it doesn’t utilize the FFBlast Max midsole foam, and it doesn’t have quite the outsole coverage that the Glideride does.
However, in most ways, this is a very similar shoe. The uppers are durable, comfortable engineered meshes with the same tactile feel. Their rides are wide and stable, without an overzealous amount of rebound. The Glideride Max feels perhaps like a very minor upgrade to the Nimbus, as it’s a bit softer and deeper in its cushioning, but is all in all a very similar shoe. Both fit comparably, with casual but effective lockdown and plenty of space in their toe boxes.
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: Here’s a shoe with nearly the same stack height, at the same price point, but which is almost 2 ounces lighter. Unlike the Nimbus, which has a super similar personality, the Magic Speed 4 and this GRMax ride very differently. The MS4 focuses much more on quick, poppy turnover, whereas the GRMax makes plush, casual comfort its primary objective. This is certainly a byproduct of a firmer, more responsive foam on the MS4, as well as its stiffer internal plate. While the MS4 is also surprisingly stable for a mega-stacked shoe, it doesn’t feel quite as wide and docile as the GRMax. The upper on the MS4 is racier, with a thinner and more breathable mesh which isn’t quite as luxurious on the foot. I think of the MS4 as a simpler, more affordable version of a super shoe, whereas the GRMax comes across as more of a friendly, everyday companion for long, mellow runs.
Mizuno Neo Vista (RTR Review)
Ryan: While these two shoes compete in the high-mileage daily trainer category, they take very different approaches in their methods. They share a similar stack height and a similar price tag, but the GRMax is the much more traditional, well-mannered pick here. The Mizuno’s soft, bouncy, and deeply channeled midsole gives it a lively and deeply cushioned feel. It’s definitely the more ‘fun’ of these two, if that’s what you’re looking for. It’s also much more longitudinally supple and rockered, allowing for a very smooth heel-toe transition, although that transition tends to be very slow even though it is noticeably lighter than the ASICS. By contrast, the GRMax has a much more stable platform underfoot, controlling rotation nicely and managing energy absorption and return in a more disciplined manner.
Whereas the Mizuno relies on a stretchy and lighthearted knit upper, the engineered mesh of the GRMax is again more traditional and functional, although we were pleasantly surprised with how well the Neo Vista’s knit worked. The Mizuno feels like wearing a thick sock, whereas the GRMax is more structured and plush, but still supremely comfortable. As for the outsoles, you get a lot more rubber and ground contact and traction with the ASICS. The Mizuno’s massive channel running down the midline of the shoe is only noticeable in that it provides extreme softness and perhaps a bit less traction. Choose the ASICS if you want a more serious, stable high mileage trainer, and choose the Mizuno if you want something fun and unique, if maybe a tad sloppy. I have a neutral stride and love the bottomless cushioning and the innovative design of the Neo Vista, so that’s my personal preference for high mileage running.
Hoka Skyward X (RTR Review)
Ryan: Both of these shoes are beastly, high mileage mega-trainers with 44mm and 48mm stack heights for the ASICS and Hoka, respectively. They admittedly both feel like 10+ oz shoes, but they both provide massive amounts of protection for warding off those overuse injuries.
The Hoka feels like you could wear it forever, with its stout upper and energetic, massive, carbon-plated midsole. While it will happily return impact energy and keep you rolling for hours with its stable, rockered ride, it definitely feels like a lot of shoe, and its turnover is on the lumbering end of the spectrum. Perhaps not an issue for mere training miles, but also not the most pleasant during the middle of a marathon training block. As compared to the ride of the GRMax, the Hoka’s footstrike feels more squared around its edges. Its plate is more noticeable, and its stiffness is probably necessary given the stack height here, but it can feel overly rigid as the most casual paces.
As for the ASICS — it doesn’t have stellar turnover either, and has less of a rockered feeling than the Hoka, but feels much more natural underfoot and its slight weight advantage seems to shine through. Its midsole returns its energy in a more metered fashion, mostly damping impact as opposed to amplifying it back ‘skyward’ (apologies).
Both uppers are substantial, relatively thick and high quality, and perform their duties well. As with midsoles of this nature, they tend to run warm. There’s not a ton to pick apart when it comes to either midsole, as they both offer generous patches of rubber that work well with their towering midsoles.
The GRMax is the simpler, more traditional choice for approaching casual, high-mileage running, while the Hoka seems to throw together a bunch of technologies to try and accomplish the same result in a less natural, but still effective way.
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.
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.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below! Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
1 comment:
I have the Glideride Max and like it for easy/steady runs. It rides and fits like a lite version of the Neo Vista, which is a good thing!.
Post a Comment