Article by Renee Krusemark and Mike Postaski
On Cloudvista 2 ($150)
Pros:
Prominent Speedboard feel is now gone Mike P/Renee
Upper fit seems to have been relaxed from V1 Mike P
Heel fit and security Mike P/Renee
Cons:
Firm feel underfoot Mike P/Renee
Tongue material is rough Mike P
Weight gain - somewhat heavy now Mike P/Renee
Most comparable shoes
Adidas Agravic Flow 2 Mike P
Scott Kinabalu Ultra RC Mike P
Saucony Ride TR 2 Mike P
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 10.9 oz / 309g
Sample Weight: men’s 11.4 oz / 324g US 10
women’s 9.17 oz / 260g US8
Stack Height: 29mm heel / 24mm forefoot (5mm drop spec)
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Renee: On shoes have a good aesthetic in my opinion, and the Cloudvista 2 is no different. I enjoyed the first version’s agility and style, but like many runners, the Speedboard plate felt uncomfortable under my forefoot. The Cloudvista 2 occupies a space between On’s Cloudsurfer Trail and Cloudultra 2. It’s more trail ready than the Surfer Trail but not as technical focused as the Ultra.
The upper is secure with more volume than the Cloudultra 2 or previous Cloudvista. True to size is my recommendation or your typical On size. The tongue is thin and felt stiff during my first run, causing some irritation on my ankle because I was wearing short socks. The material loosened some, and when wearing crew length socks I had no issues. The gusseted tongue maintains a secure fit, although this is a place that traps dirt.
Mike P: The fit of the Cloudvista 2 upper seems to have been relaxed a bit from the previous version. I had V1 in a US 9.5, and it was quite tight, even with thin socks. So I requested V2 in a 10.0 and the increased volume all around was very noticeable, even wearing thick socks.. The volume increase seems to be more than just me going a half size up. That being said, I agree with Renee - go true to size in these.
Precision fit and quality of materials is typical of On - with one glaring exception. The tongue is made of some type of felty, almost papery kind of material. It’s rather stiff and doesn’t lie or contour well over the top of the foot. You can see in the above picture how it is stiff and even creases right above the top lace row. This was felt almost immediately on the run and caused me big problems as seen below.
I tried to remedy the situation by trimming down the top of the tongue (so it wouldn’t crease), and also adding some felt padding along the interior. This helped and at least made the shoe runnable for me. It’s very curious that On would use such a material for this tongue - it looks and feels cheap, which is something I’ve never said about any element of an On shoe before. I was so surprised by this that I even went to my local running shop to check out other On models and none of their tongues used anything like the material in the Cloudvista 2. Very strange.
Aside from that issue - the rest of the upper is everything you typically get from On - refined, well fitting, and secure. The upper has an interior gusset and a tight exterior mesh to keep dust and debris out. It works well and maintains breathability. There’s not much stretch to the material itself, so use lace tension to get the correct fit. I had to adjust here and there to get the right foothold, as it’s easy to squeeze the foot too much since the upper material does not stretch.
Midsole & Platform
Renee: The midsole is a 24/29mm stack of CloudTec with Helion. The feel is firm despite On stating it is “softer.” I didn’t mind the firm feel, and although the shoe is not light, I was able to run fast when I wanted to. On mellow or flat areas, the rocker is apparent, but it’s not overbearing (something I experienced with the new Hoka Torrent 4). The Speedboard’s design is an improvement from the previous version. For runnable terrain, I need something softer under my forefoot for long distances. For varied terrain, the shoe is comfortable for hours.
Mike P: On says that the foam has been softened, and a few mms of stack have been added, but I agree with Renee - the ride is firm. Having recently tested the Cloudsurfer Trail - the difference is stark. I don’t want to go so far as to call it jarring, but almost. When standing in the shoe and pushing through into the ground - I can see the pods compressing, but that doesn’t give any feel of cushioning on the run. The sensation is far different than the compressive pods found in the Cloudsurfer Trail.
One area of noticeable improvement is the implementation of the Speedboard. V1’s Speedboard was extremely noticeable and irritating in feel - directly under the center of the ball of the foot. On has changed to a forked design here, which has eliminated that annoying marble-type feel under the foot. I’m not sure if the new Speedboard contributes to the firm feel though, but at least there’s no apparent protrusion under foot as before.
Perhaps the increased stack and different foam comes at too much of a weight cost. My US 10.0 comes in at 11.4 oz (324g), which is at the very high end of the weight range for me. At this weight, I’d be expecting a soft, wide base, huge stack cruiser or something along those lines. For a firm, narrow, somewhat limited light-trails shoe, that’s just too heavy for what you get.
Outsole
Renee: Featuring On’s Missiongrip, the Vista 2 outsole is similar to On’s other trail shoes. The lug profile is updated with a “new rubber.” I don’t notice a significant difference. The rubber compound itself is quality and the traction is on par for small lugs. The shoe runs comfortably on mellow surfaces and like most nonaggressive lugs, it’s not the best choice for mud.
Mike P: The outsole was definitely a limiting factor in V1 - very shallow square lugs meant limited traction, and pretty much light trails, dirt, and gravel use only. On has added 1 mm of lug depth and also added more chevron-shaped lugs under the ball of the foot and under the heel. While still not meant for mud or loose terrain, general traction is improved. The cutout to display the Speedboard in V1 has also been removed. That was a rock catcher, so that’s another improvement.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Renee: On states the shoe is “a precise and agile” product. I enjoyed running the shoe, but I don’t consider it precise or agile because of the weight and rocker. The rocker, along with the firm midsole, aids the ride of the shoe though. My strides were fast in them despite the weight and the ground feel is good for a rockered shoe.
For technical terrain, I prefer the Cloudultra 2, mostly because it is a lighter shoe and the upper is less voluminous and more secure (I don’t have voluminous feet).
For easier terrain, the Cloudsurfer Trail is more forgiving underfoot with its softer midsole. Like most On shoes, the Cloudvista 2 is good looking (in my opinion), so it doubles as a casual shoe.
As Mike wrote, the firm midsole and weight are a limiting factor for this shoe as compared to other options. At this weight, one would expect a more aggressive outsole or a softer midsole at a higher stack. I enjoyed the shoe, I just question its use as someone with numerous shoe choices.
Renee’s Score: 9.0/10 (-.50 weight, -.30 firmness, -.20 price)
😊😊😊
Mike P: I found the ride of the Cloudvista 2 to be solid, and stable underfoot. They do run a bit lighter than their weight, but there’s only so far you can go at the high weight here. They do feel heavy on the run. The firmness of the ride is also quite apparent. It’s a departure from most shoes on the market these days. I say they’re solid and stable underfoot - if you’re running more or less on a controlled surface and straight ahead.
The firm feel and stiffness limits agility. There’s very little torsional flex to the shoe, which for me, is the limiting factor in their agility and maneuverability. The rocker towards the front does help - like I said - cruising along in a straight line feels smooth and controlled. But any departure from that, and the Cloudvista’s limitations are noticed.
I think On took a bit of a mis-step in this version. Increasing stack, updated softer(???) foam, and increased outsole coverage and depth, seems to ultimately add up to just more weight. I noted that V1 felt firm and only moderately heavy, but I did like the quick-feeling ride despite the firm feel. It was a fun shoe to take out for short runs here and there, and doubling up for casual use. In V2, the added weight seems to have exacerbated the firmness, and put a damper on the fun feel. The rough tongue issue is also a problem, and I wonder how it ssue slipped by. Hopefully this shoe was just a blip on the radar for On.
Mike P’s Score: 7.2 / 10
Ride: 7 - Ok in straight line on easy terrain, but firm
Fit: 7 - Relaxed from V1, comfortable, but stiff tongue material is a problem
Value: 6 - Unless you value the casual style factor, there are more performant shoes
Style: 8 - I always like a white shoe, but this one is a little plain
Traction: 8 - Lugs are improved, and now decent
Rock Protection: 8 - Good protection on gravel, but I wouldn’t take these near real rocks
Smiles 😊😊😊
7 Comparisons
On Cloudvista v1 (RTR Review)
Renee: The Cloudvista 1 weighs less and is more agile and trail ready. Unfortunately, the Speedboard in v1 became uncomfortable even at mid distance efforts. The v2 does not have that issue, although it loses the agile, quick ride that made v1 a fun shoe. Sizing is similar although v2 has slightly more volume in the upper.
Mike P (9.5): Totally agree with Renee. While not a light shoe, V1’s ride felt so much quicker and it was much more agile. Perhaps they should have just updated the Speedboard in V2 and done whatever they could to maintain the same weight. V1 was tight in my true to size 9.5, but I’d go 9.5 with the more relaxed fit of V2.
On Cloudultra v2 (RTR Review)
Renee: The upper of the Cloudultra 2 is more secure, working better for single track or uneven terrain. Both shoes have a firm midsole. For casual use, the Vista might be better, for running on trails I prefer the Cloudultra. Sizing is similar, with the Ultra having a tighter fit overall.
On Cloudsurfer Trail (RTR Review)
Renee: For trails, the firm midsole of the Vista is a safer option. The Cloudsurfer Trail has a loose, but comfortable upper that is fine for mellow trails only. The midsole of the Surfer is more forgiving too. Sizing is similar.
Mike P (9.5): I found the soft and smooth feel of the Cloudsurfer Trail to be much more enjoyable and fun on the trails. It’s not the most stable shoe, but it’s probably limited to the same trails as the Cloudvista 2 - I’d pick the CS Trail in a heartbeat. The upper is less secure, has some stretch to it, and is very comfortable. No issues whatsoever with the tongue. Unless you don’t like a soft midsole, I’d highly recommend the CS Trail over the CV 2.
Adidas Agravic Flow 2
Mike P (9.5): This is an older shoe - Adidas lineup is much better now. But it was similarly firm underfoot and also quite heavy for what you get. It was billed as more of a technical shoe, and had the appropriate outsole, but similar to the CV 2 - the firmness and weight just didn’t work for me.
Scott Kinabalu Ultra RC (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): This shoe is really quite similar to the CV 2, but it was released several years ago. Firm in feel underfoot, rockered up front, a secure fit, with a limited outsole. The difference is the Scott is a full ounce or 28g lighter - and that difference makes a big difference in the light trails or door-to-trail segment. Scott doesn’t have the casual appeal of the On brand, but as far as running performance, for two similar shoes - the Scott wins.
Saucony Ride TR 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): Another recent door-to-trail model that missed the mark for me. It’s similarly heavy for its intended usage (although a little lighter than the CV 2), and firm in feel underfoot. I’d say it’s not as firm as the CV 2, but the PWWRRUN+ of the TR 2 has a mostly dull feel. At 10.9 oz, the midsole does it no favors in terms of livening up the ride. The Saucony upper is a lot less refined than the On, and its materials are mostly generic. It does have a “normal” tongue that causes no fuss. The Saucony fit is tight and tapered - I’d think about sizing up. Ultimately I would not recommend either shoe.
Renee: Mike has good points about both shoes. Both are heavy, although the Ride TR 2 has a softer more forgiving midsole, making it better for easy long runs on gravel roads. The CV2 can be a faster shoe, although at its weight and firmness, it’s not a distance shoe. I enjoyed the Ride TR 2 for my usual hilly gravel roads.
Scarpa Golden Gate ATR 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): If you’re looking for a door-to-trail option - look no further. The ATR 2 is lower to the ground, yet feels softer underfoot. Fit is just about perfect, comfortable on easy trails and secure on real trails. The fit, flexibility, and light weight gives you wonderful agility. It has a lot more range on trail than most door-to-trail options. Oh, and it’s 9.3 oz - a full 2 oz lighter than the On !
Renee: Everything Mike wrote. The GG is a fun shoe for a variety of terrain. If you want an agile and ground feel, the GG is a great shoe. I wore a 7.5 in the Scarpa as compared to an 8 in the On.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
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.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
No comments:
Post a Comment