Article by Mike Postaski, Dominick Layfield, and Jeff Valliere
The North Face Summit Series Vectiv Pro 2 ($250)
Introduction
Mike P: We’ve long been trying to get our hands on TNF’s flagship ultra racer here at RoadTrailRun. Finally it arrived for testing, and wow, it was worth the wait! I took them straight out of the box for a 27K race here in Boise right away after getting them. Please check my video review HERE for initial thoughts and footage from the race. I was blown away by the foothold, security, and plate impulse immediately. In terms of comparing them to other top trail supershoes on the market, I was reserving judgment until taking them out for a longer distance. Luckily I had Kodiak 100K coming up, so my portion of the review will focus on my thoughts and impressions after 10+ hours of racing.
Dom: Like every player in the trail shoe market, TNF have dabbled with plated trail shoes. But like (nearly) everyone else, their previous products have not been widely lauded. Rumors have been circulating recently that with their new Vectiv Pro they have stepped up their game. Is the excitement justified?
Pros:
Best security, foothold of any of the trail super shoes Mike P
Dream foam not as soft as others, but just as responsive Mike P
Carbon plate + rocker executed perfectly Mike P/Dom
Solid forefoot space for a North Face shoe Mike P
Cons:
Some may feel pressure from the carbon “wings” up front Mike P
Heel cup on the firm side Mike P
Outsole lugs on the shallow side Mike P/Jeff V
Traction: Jeff V
SURFACE CTRL rubber not as durable as Vibram Mike P/Dom/Jeff V
Heel a little loose (for narrow-heeled runners) Dom
Pointy toebox: Dom
Durability of upper fabric? Dom/Jeff
Most comparable shoes
Hoka Tecton X 2 Mike P, Dom
Hoka Tecton X 3 Mike P
Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra Mike P/Dom
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 9.9 oz /280 g US9
Sample Weight: men’s US M10: 10.4 oz / 296 g, 10.5 oz / 299 g
Stack Height: men’s 32mm heel / 26 mm forefoot ( 6mm drop spec)
Measured Heel Stack Height: approx. 34mm (difficult to assess with shoe this heavily rockered)
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Mike P: The first impression for the Vectiv Pro 2 definitely has to be the fit - it is excellent. I was somewhat concerned about the toebox, given past experience with TNF shoes. But they’ve done a much better job here - widening the forefoot.
If you look at the picture above, it still gives a pointy look up front, but I assure you - space across the forefoot is much improved and I had no issues getting squeezed at the toes.
The midfoot hold is excellent - snug and secure - the ribbed laces allow you to tension the fit perfectly to your liking. The heel area has perhaps the largest ring of interior bolstering that I’ve seen in a trail shoe. This really works to lock the heel into the heel cup with absolutely zero movement.
I do have to mention that the interior of the heel cup area does feel a bit on the firm side to me. That was one of my concerns going into my 100K, but I’m happy to report that it did not cause me any issue, blister, or irritation. But I could see that firmness might be uncomfortable for some.
Of note is the achilles heel flare - which prevents any element of the rear collar from pressing against the back of the heel. It’s really just that interior bolster that wraps and secures the heel. The downside is that this design does allow dirt and debris to more easily funnel into the shoe.
This is a notable difference in comparison to the Tecton X 3’s functional integrated collar. I did have to add an additional gaiter for my 100K race. After my first 27K test race - I did have quite a bit of sand in my shoes (seen above). No bueno for a longer race.
For sizing, I went with my typical half size up ultra fit - US 10.0. I also have the Adidas Speed Ultra and Tecton X 3 in the same US 10.0 sizing. Fit is perfect here, more snug and secure compared to the Adidas and the Hoka.
The tongue is flexible and well padded - no issues shifting around or with lace bite. I love, love, love the design of this shoe - I always like a light colored shoe due to the heat factor, and the blue paint drip look really spices up the look!
Dom: To be frank, my first impression of the Vectiv Pro wasn’t stellar. Unlike Mike, I’m not a fan of the dripping paint colorway, though I have to acknowledge that it is quite striking. I’m not a fan of the pixie heel, which makes the shoe easier to slide on quickly, but achieves little else. I’m also not a fan of the TNF last, which feels very twentieth-century (i.e. old fashioned), and looks nothing like the shape of any foot that I’ve ever seen.
Dom: When I first put them on, I was impressed that there was at least a decent amount of width in the forefoot. Most noticeable was the considerable amount of rocker, both in the forefoot and the heel, and the stiffness of the plate.
The combination of a stiff plate and heavy forefoot rocker was reminiscent of the putting on the original Nike Vaporfly Next% for the first time: that shoe felt quite different to any predecessors.
The Vectiv Pro feels firmer than Hoka Tecton X3 and Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra, but softer than Tecton X2. I was initially underwhelmed, but it didn’t take long (only a few minutes) for the shoe to break in and feel much nicer. The nominal 6mm heel-to-toe drop momentarily felt substantial, but softens up and becomes minor as the rockered shoe rolls forward: it feels more like a 4-5 mm drop (i.e. slightly less than one would expect from catalog specs).
Dom: Fit is very old-school, cookie-cutter. On the plus side, there’s a decent amount of width in the forefoot. On the negative, the toe-box narrows quickly, with no room for your big toe to straighten out, and with the apex almost dead center. I was aware of pressure on the medial side of my big toe on steep descents, but didn’t really notice it elsewhere.
Overall fit was dead-on true-to-size for my US M10. Midfoot retention is excellent, but heel retention is only okay: when I first put the shoe on, I worried that it was loose enough that I might experience some instability. In testing, however, it’s been fine. So maybe an issue in toe-sucking mud, but no problems on dry ground. I should note that I have unusually slim heels, though.
Dom: The more I ran in this shoe, the more I liked it. Against all my predispositions based on its shouty appearance, pointy toebox, pixie heel, firm foam and initial stiffness, the Vectiv Pro 2 is really nice to run in. There’s something almost magical about the way it flows. Even more strikingly, it doesn’t seem to have any nasty surprises: with previous plated trail shoes, I’ve found that the shoe can occasionally catch a rock and launch off unexpectedly. So far, I’ve found the Vectiv Pro 2 to be remarkably surefooted.
Dom: The lumpy laces worked well, holding their position and staying firmly tied. One minor concern that I had was that they can be difficult to untie, especially when knotted. I can imagine a scenario in a race where with numb fingers and poor light, the extra ‘security’ could backfire. I’m also not 100% convinced by the upper fabric that TNF have employed.
Behind the white, perforated mesh there’s another layer of fabric with denser weave that keeps out the dirt. But compared to the near bulletproof upper of the Tecton X series, the upper fabric feels a little flimsy. Time will tell if my concern is justified: so far it’s been absolutely fine, but I’m only about 50 miles or so of running into these shoes.
Other items of note: the tongue is on the more minimal side, but provides adequate cushioning, and most importantly, stays put nicely. The heel cup with exposed carbon fiber counter (presumably connected to the sole plate) looks a little overbuilt, but worked well during testing, even on steep, loose, technical descents.
Jeff V: Out of the box, I am impressed with the overall look and feel of the shoe. While the dripping paint design is not entirely my preference, they are overall very sharp looking in the blue/white colorway topped off by the visible carbon. Upon initial step in, they feel very comfortable and it is obvious this is a dedicated race shoe.
Fit for me is true to size in my US men’s size 10, with a secure heel, secure midfoot and a generous, but surprisingly well held forefoot.
The upper is a seamless engineered mesh made with 92% recycled material and reinforced with high tenacity yarns.
The toe bumper is overlaid by the upper, but is surprisingly robust and protective.
The laces are “crinkle cut” style and very snug and effective for one and done securing.
The North Face calls out on their feature list a “Seamless Internal Debris Bootie Is Made With 100% Recycled Polyester And Is Integrated With The Tongue For A Comfortable And Secure Fit”, but I think they are just trying to say the shoe has a gusseted tongue.
The tongue is moderately padded, with a faux leather coating on top for enhanced protection from lace bite.
The heel collar is ergonomically designed to cup the heel and does a really good job at providing security and comfort. The design along with the high flare does tend to funnel in dirt and trail debris as Mike mentions. It would be really nice to have a nice ankle gaiter similar to the Hoka Tecton X3, or even just a minimal mesh snug collar such as the Hoka Zinal 2 has.
The heel counter is stiff and seemed a bit overbuilt to me at first, especially with the carbon reinforcements, but in the end, it turns out to work very well, providing very good hold and control.
Overall, I find the upper to be a very good mix of well vented, lightweight minimalism, with good protection and surprisingly good security. While the Vectiv Pro 2 is not necessarily a shoe intended for technical terrain, I found that even running fast on rocky technical trails, steep offtrail and off camber, the upper holds my foot securely with very little movement, allowing me to keep them under control.
Midsole & Platform
Mike P: The platform is listed at 32/26mm of TNF’s Ultralight Dream Foam. I’d say it feels a touch higher than that - perhaps they’re not including the outsole or something else. But compared to other big stack racers the Speed Ultra and Tecton X 3 - it definitely feels and rides closer to the ground. In terms of feel, I’d say it’s like a bit more “dynamically foamed” Tecton X 2.
The Dream Foam doesn’t have the inherent softness or squishiness of Nike’s ZoomX, Hoka’s PEBA, or Adidas’ Lightstrike Pro. When you step into the shoe, you don’t immediately feel that super bouncy feel that some of the others have. But on the run - this midsole is every bit as responsive as any of those other foams (more in the Ride section below).
The carbon fiber plate is forked at both the front and the rear, and notably includes stability wings at the forefoot and the front of the toebox. There are also carbon elements that wrap the outer heel although I’m not sure if those are connected to the plate underfoot (I don’t think so).
Some runners have experienced irritation and even worse due to the carbon fiber “wings” located along the edges of the balls of the feet. The ones along the medial (inside) seem to be the culprit. When the midsole under the forefoot compresses - the wings can tend to angle inwards toward the edge of your foot. Depending on your foot width/shape, this can be a big problem or not a problem at all. Check out my YouTube video where I articulate the compression and you can clearly see what I’m talking about.
[The top edge of the larger, front/inside “wing” seems to be the issue]
This was my 2nd major concern for my 100K - if the pressure from that wing would be a problem over a longer period of time. Again, I’m happy to report that, at least for me, it didn’t affect me during the race. Yes, I did feel the pressure at that point, but no blister, irritation or pain after 10 hours of racing.
I do wonder if that element is truly necessary though. Perhaps it could be adjusted, or softened in some way. The Tecton X 3 uses a similar “winged” design, but those are not felt at all. But it must be said that the Vectiv Pro 2 is a much more stable shoe.
[This wing on the lateral side is not felt at all]
Dom: Like Mike, I thought the TNF Vectiv Pro 2 had echoes of the Hoka Tecton X2. Ride height and foam firmness is similar. With the Tecton X2 (and original X), I was never convinced that the plate helped much with forward propulsion. Subjectively, at least, the more heavily rockered Vectiv Pro 2 feels faster and smoother. It finally feels like shoe brands are figuring out how to simultaneously optimize foam durometer, rocker, plate stiffness etc. to make a shoe in which these elements harmonize – rather than just stuffing a carbon plate into a midsole and hoping for the best.
Jeff V: Mike describes the midsole perfectly and I agree with both his and Dom’s assessments. I appreciate that the foam is a bit more firm than the Tecton X3 and is a bit more similar to the Tecton X2, though in my opinion it is more forgiving, sort of a middle ground between the two that serves up better performance overall then either of the Tectons.
The rockered midsole helps a lot with forward propulsion and a quick, smooth transition, though I am unconvinced that the carbon plate is truly providing much of a propulsive advantage, but perhaps more of a structural role. I do find them to be relatively quick and responsive and great for rolling quick paces for long miles on moderate to less technical terrain. Flat to rolling terrain seems to be the sweet spot for the Vectiv Pro 2, at least that is where I have found they perform optimally, but they also climb quickly and descend with confidence and the substantial stack really helps absorb the impact.
I have not found the wings on either the medial or lateral sides to be noticeable or an issue.
Outsole
Mike P: If there’s anywhere to take point deductions, it would have to be the outsole.The lugs are somewhat on the shallow side, and quite spaced out. They're not well suited to very loose, and certainly not to muddy terrain either. Traction in mainly dry runnable terrain seems the target here, similar to the Terrex Speed Ultra. Luckily, for me at least, the outsole matches much of the terrain I encounter running and racing around the American West.
[outsole wear at 98 miles]
I haven’t really liked any TNF shoe in the past enough to put serious miles in them. I’ve heard that the durability of TNF rubber is not so great, but now I can somewhat confirm that. After the Kodiak 100K, I’ve got 98 total miles in my pair, and there’s definitely some noticeable abrasion on some of the lugs, especially under my landing area. It’s not excessive, but definitely does not rank as “durable”. The Vibram Megagrip of my Tection X1 and 2’s for example is in similar or better shape after hundreds more miles.
Dom: I didn’t experience any problems with the outsole traction, which was excellent on the dry, loose surface of the Southern California trails at this time of year. The outsole rubber is nicely tacky, and the lug pattern makes for very smooth running. That said, the widely-spaced, relatively shallow lugs will likely compromise grip in challenging conditions like snow and mud. I’m also not familiar with the durability of TNF’s “SURFACE CTRL™” rubber: is this likely to last a long time? When you’re dropping $250 on a shoe, you would hope for good durability.
Jeff V: For me, the outsole is probably the least exciting component of the Vectiv Pro 2. The lugs are shallow, spaced out and not particularly effective outside of tame conditions such as moderate buffed out trails and dry conditions. While I concede that this shoe is not necessarily designed for all mountain use or technical trails, grip seems to be lacking a bit and is significantly inferior to the Tecton X3 in this regard (the Tecton has a more grippy rubber compound, deeper traction lugs with a more effective design and are much more durable).
I agree with Mike that durability is a concern and am seeing significant wear after just 35 miles in them.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Mike P: Dom sums it up pretty succinctly - this is perhaps the best example so far of a brand shoe “figuring out” how to implement a carbon fiber plated super shoe for the trails.
The Terrex Speed Ultra also nails it - but in a different way. That one really rides closer to a road super shoe - it doesn’t have nearly the same level of stability of the Vectiv Pro 2. The Vectiv Pro 2 really hits the spot of giving that noticeable carbon-plated propulsive effect while sacrificing very little stability in the process.
This is achieved through several elements all working together coherently. The plate itself, being forked, surely adds at least a little bit of flexibility so you’re not completely at the mercy of tippiness. The rocker up front keeps everything moving - giving a smooth and dynamic ride, allowing the plate to activate. The Dream Foam midsole - being very responsive, yet not overly soft is a big key as well. A softer foam would likely bog down the ride and also hinder stability.
The ability to maintain a wide platform - similar to the Tecton X 3 - keeps the shoe usable on “real” trails. A narrower platform of course would save weight, but sacrifice stability. Speaking of weight, my US 10 comes in at 10.4 oz (296g), making it the heaviest of the “Top 3” trail supershoes. That’s certainly a downside, but again, you're trading a little weight for much, much more stability than those other two shoes.
Finally, the fit of the shoe is just completely dialed in for me. I’m surprised that Dom found the heel to be loose - I find it very snug and totally locked in. On the run, especially running very fast, the shoe feels glued to the bottom of my foot. For me, one of the most secure and stable uppers of any trail shoe.
This shoe certainly has versatility across a wide range of ultra distances. I ran a pretty fast, hard 27K effort in them. The security and stability is a huge factor in feeling comfortable running at those speeds in uneven terrain. The Dream Foam is also cushioned and well protective enough to cover the longest distances. I had no problems whatsoever doing 100K in them, and of course they’re a proven 100M race shoe.
The North Face jumps to the head of the line in the trail supershoe market here. If I had to choose one single supershoe to cover many different types of ultra races - this would be the one.
Mike P’s Score: 9.8 / 10
Ride: 10 - Dynamic, fast, stable
Fit: 10 - Most secure trail super shoe fit
Value: 9.5 - Price in line with other trail supershoes
Style: 10 - Love the white, love the blue accents
Traction: 9 - No issues in dry / mixed terrain. Not enough as it gets more rugged
Rock Protection: 10 - Adequate stack and plated to blunt any impacts
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
Dom: This is a shoe that genuinely feels greater than the sum of its parts. I wasn’t overly impressed with any single (tangible) aspect of the shoe, but I have been really enjoying running in it.
Most shockingly, I actually think I’m noticeably faster in this shoe than an ordinary non-plated shoe: the Vectiv Pro 2 is the first plated trail shoe where I’ve felt that the plate really helped with forward propulsion (my opinion still pending on Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra).
Sure, there are tweaks I would make in a perfect world: a millimeter or two less stack in the heel might enhance performance on steep descents, similarly a millimeter or two more room medially for my big toe would enhance comfort, and I would ditch the pixie heel. The shoe is also a little heavier than the competition. But once you’re rolling (and the heavy rocker really means that it really rolls), this shoe is speedy, stable, and a pleasure to run in.
Asking customers to put down $250 for a pair of running shoes is a big ask, even for “race” shoes. To date I’ve not really felt that kind of money is justified. But – as long as the durability proves respectable – the TNF Vectiv Pro 2 may be the first supershoe to be worth its considerable sticker price.
Dom’s score: 9.9/10
An outstanding shoe, that runs really well.
Jeff V: I am typically leery of the “trail supershoe” moniker and went into this review still a skeptic. While I have not yet experienced that “wow” factor such as I have when running in a legit road supershoe, I think the Vectiv Pro 2 is perhaps the closest yet. They are relatively light and the midsole foam is very responsive, soft but not too soft, supportive without being overly firm and the rockered midsole really helps to move you along.
The carbon plate provides support and structure to the shoe, but am not 100% convinced that the carbon properties of the plate is making a difference for me vs a composite more plastic plate. The fact that the plate is forked helps with stability, as well as a reasonably wide platform and not excessively high stack.
The upper is very well held and secure, breathable, yet has ample room in the toe box for swelling and splay. I think the #1 limiting factor here is outsole durability and you can definitely tell that the clock is ticking and each mile counts. At $250, depending on the type of terrain you run on, you could be looking at close to $1 per mile, so I definitely recommend them as a race day only shoe and for races that are less technical and ideally rolling to flatter terrain (hills are fine, but definitely not a mountain shoe). Despite the cost and outsole durability concerns, I would still highly recommend them.
Jeff V’s Score: 9.4/10
Ride: 9.8, Fit: 9.6, Value: 9, Style: 9, Traction: 8, Rock Protection: 10
4 Comparisons
Tecton X 1 and 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.5 / 10.0): Tecton X 1 was pretty snug in fit - I started with a 10, and later sized up even further to 10.5 for long ultras. X 2 sizing was more accurate, and my ultra sized 10 worked fine. Tecton X 1 & 2 feel closer to the Vectiv Pro 2 than the new X 3.
The first Tectons were closer to the ground, and way firmer than the X 3, and also just a bit firmer than Vectiv’s Dream Foam. I found the Tecton’s plates to be less noticeable than the Vectiv’s plate/rocker combo. The Vectiv just feels faster. The Tecton gets a slight flexibility edge which is more helpful in rugged terrain. The Tecton’s lugs are similarly shallow, but there’s more of them, and its Vibram is more durable. The Vectiv Pro 2 ultimately wins out though because, at the end of the day, you want to go fast.
Jeff V: Mike hits on all points and agreed, Vectiv Pro 2 is far superior and faster.
Dom: Mike is correct to lump Tecton X and X2 together, as they are basically the same shoe. Compared to recent plated trail supershoes, the X & X2 are noticeably firmer underfoot. The TNF Vectiv Pro 2 sits somewhere in the middle. The biggest difference is that the Vectiv Pro 2 toe rocker is a lot more pronounced than the Tectons: it begins to ramp up further back under the forefoot. Durability of early Tectons was unexpectedly great: Vectiv Pro 2 longevity remains unclear.
Below the TNF Vectiv Pro 2 rocker compared to Hoka Tecton X2. Vectiv Pro 2 forefoot rocker starts further back under the foot, with almost no area that could really be considered ‘flat’.
Tecton X 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): These shoes feel very different underfoot. The X 3’s PEBA is super soft and cushy - if cushion is your main priority, and you like a soft feel, look no further. The Tecton X 3 also feels fast, but in more of an efficient kind of way. The Vectiv Pro 2 can feel like a rocket at times. If you can handle the (relatively) firmer midsole, it is the faster shoe. The Tecton X 3 does get the edge in weight though, 0.7 oz less including the great built in gaiter. In my 100K I used a light gaiter with the Vectiv which adds a little bit more to the Vectiv’s weight disadvantage. The Tecton’s upper is not as strapped down as the Vectiv, more comfortable, and definitely has more wiggle room up front. Personally, in an all-out, faster, long ultra, I like the security and speed of the Vectiv. But over slower, longer, more rugged races, I’m undecided. The more cushioned, comfortable, lighter, yet still efficient Tecton X 3 package is very enticing.
Jeff V: Again agreed with Mike, somewhat of a toss up depending on preference, speed and the course, but I appreciate the firmer midsole of the Vectiv, where the Tecton can feel a bit mushy underfoot for me (and really nags/aggravates my mostly solved Plantar Fasciitis).
Dom: Whereas Vectiv is softer than early Tectons, it feels firmer than the X 3, which – as Jeff says – can virge on the mushy. Tecton X3 rocker is more pronounced than X/X2, but not as substantial as Vectiv Pro 2 (or Agravic Speed Ultra). Strengths of the Tecton X 3 are lighter weight (279 g vs 299 g in US M10, 9.9 oz vs 10.6 oz), built-in gaiter, better grip and expected durability. Vectiv Pro 2 upper is more conventional than stretchy slipper-like construction of Tecton X 3.
Subjectively, at least, the highly rockered Vectiv Pro 2 feels faster than Tecton X 3, and I would pick it over Tecton X 3 to race at shorter distances, with the cross-over somewhere around 100 km. For 100 miles, Tecton X 3. It might also be worth noting that VP2 has a slight edge in price at a mere USD $250 vs $275 for TX3.
Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): The Speed Ultra feels every bit as fast as the Vectiv Pro 2 - but in a more “runnable” way. It feels more like a road super shoe adapted for trails, whereas the Vectiv feels like a real trail shoe. How much “trail” terrain you can get away with in the Speed Ultra varies depending on your ability level - more skilled, balanced, and efficient runners can get away with more. The Adidas is very narrow under the midfoot and rear - it really promotes a fast and powerful footstrike off the forefoot. The Vectiv is more adaptable to varying footstrikes, and hence is more stable in varied terrain. There will be some overlap in usage for these shoes but the short of it is that the Adidas is faster in more runnable stuff, and the Vectiv gains advantage as the terrain gets rougher and its better security and stability becomes more advantageous.
Dom: I agree with Mike that the Agravic Speed Ultra feels more like a road supershoe. Its rocker is even more pronounced than the Vectiv Pro 2, and the upper is more spartan.
Consequently, the ASU seems more conspicuously a no-compromise “race” shoe, whereas the feel of the Vectiv Pro 2 is more balanced. ASU is slightly lighter: 276 vs 299 g, 9.8 vs 10.6 oz in US M10. The Vectiv Pro 2 is more sure-footed in technical terrain, and the upper is more comfortable than the minimally-padded ASU. ASU is also slightly less expensive: USD $220 vs $250 for VP2.
It’s probably worth noting, too, that some runners have struggled with ASU sizing (consider downsizing ½ size, and/or wearing thicker socks) whereas all RTR reviewers felt that VP2 was true to size. If you’re trying to break course records, the ASU might be faster. (But you might also break your leg trying!) Most mortals will find the Vectiv Pro 2 a less spicy choice that gives them some ‘free speed’ in a less extreme package.
Nike Ultrafly (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): This was supposed to be the first trail super shoe, but for me it missed the mark completely. It’s a very distant fourth compared to the Vectiv and the two models compared above. My US 9.5 comes in at 10.4 oz which is the same weight as the Vectiv, but it rides heavier. The ZoomX is very soft, but the carbon plate is a mismatch as it makes the shoe incredibly stiff and tippy. A super wide forefoot and generally non-dialed upper does not inspire confidence in a shoe that is inherently tippy. I’m hoping Nike completely revamps the shoe’s dynamics in the next version.
Jeff V: I am sounding like a broken record, but again, Mike gets this exact. The Ultrafly I found to run heavy (despite being close in weight, I stayed true to size in 10), feel mushy underfoot and not the least bit responsive or agile on the trails (or anywhere else), where the Vectiv is very fast, responsive and just rolls along easily.
Altra Mont Blanc Carbon (RTR Review)
Dom: The Mont Blanc Carbon is the shoe that the original, flawed Mont Blanc should have been. It is light (273 g, 9.6 oz in US M10), well cushioned, comfortable, secure: in short, an outstanding shoe for racing long ultras. At $260 MSRP, it’s also very expensive. Compared to the TNF VP2 (300 g, 10.6 oz), the MBC is significantly lighter, is built on a more anatomical last, and has better ground feel. The VP2 is much more heavily rockered and is stiffer. In the MBC, the carbon plate is far less intrusive and almost unnoticeable: it doesn’t contribute obviously to forward propulsion, but instead gives the shoe a gentle springiness. My opinion is that it acts more as a rock plate, providing extra underfoot strike protection for minimal weight penalty and stack height. In the VP2, the combination of heavy rocker (MBC is flatter underfoot, VP2 feels like a teeter-totter by comparion) and stiffer carbon plate makes the shoe feel more like a road supershoe. MBC is more conventional underfoot. Personally, I love the Mont Blanc Carbon – I wore this shoe for two different hundred-mile races in 2024 – but I have a hard time justifying the astronomical price. At $250, the TNF VP2 is very nearly as expensive, but here the supershoe tech is more evident.
Index to 100's of RTR reviews: HERE
The Vectiv Pro 2 is available at The North Face HERE
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.
Dom 51, trains and competes mainly on trails in Southern California. In 2017 he was 14th at Western States 100 and in 2018 finished 50th at UTMB and 32nd at the 2018 Los Angeles marathon in a time of 2:46. In 2019, his only notable finish was at the multi-day Dragon’s Back race in the UK. In 2022 Dom finished 4th in the Angeles Crest 100 and was 10th in his age group at UTMB.
Jeff Valliere loves to run and explore the mountains of Colorado, the steeper and more technical the better. He has summited all of the 14ers in the state, many 13ers and other peaks in Colorado and beyond, plus, he has summited his local Green Mountain over 2,100 times in the past 20 years. He can be found on mountain trails daily, no matter the weather, season, conditions or whether there is daylight or not. On the side he loves to ski (all forms) bike and hike, often with his family, as he introduces his twin daughters to the outdoors. Jeff was born and raised in New Hampshire, but has called Colorado home for over 25 years. He is 5’9” and 145 lbs.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
7 comments:
thank you very much for this great review! could one of you compare them to the altra mont blanc carbon?
Absolutely. I will add comparison to full review. Hold tight!
Thanks 🙏🏽
i'd be interested to hear comparisons to the saucony endorphin edge - i know Mike and Jeff have experience with this shoe which i see as the first trail super shoe and hence a good reference point
The Edge is not a long distance shoe as the other three are. It's best suited for very fast running over shorter distances. The PWRRUN PB is extremely bouncy and the carbon plate is also very active. It's gives more impulse in combination with the PB foam - but it is hard to control and can be highly unstable. The upper fit is not quite as dialed - definitely not as dialed as the Vectiv Pro 2. I still have my Edge pair, but haven't run them in a while. They would have also been a good pick for that fast 27K I ran recently. Perhaps faster than the Vectiv 2 due to their lighter weight.
My excitement evaporates with one look at the outsole: Those lugs are so disappointing, and lower the value proposition dramatically. How few miles will it be before the forefoot is worn completely smooth? I can't see buying them at this price point with what appears a 'planned obsolescence' outsole
I think that’s where you can really see how the shoe performs under pressure and over extended periods of time.
Post a Comment