Article by Jennifer Schmidt and Sally Reiley
Nike Zoom Fly 6 ($170)
“Kipchoge tested and approved”
Jen: Forget what you thought you knew about the Zoom Fly from the Zoom Fly 5, and treat #6 as its own brand new shoe. Nike has made some major updates and improvements in this version, creating a lighter, cushier, and bouncier supertrainer with many of the same benefits but a lower price tag than its race-day counterparts. It drops significantly in weight while increasing in stack height.
Pros:
Immediately comfortable, dialed in true to size fit: Sally, Jen
Noticeably lighter, softer, and snappier than the Zoom Fly 5: Jen
Nike did away with the unresponsive recycled zoom x foam of previous versions: Sally
Nice versatility, excelling at slower paces as well as uptempo faster paces: Sally, Jen
Good value for a plated zoom x supertrainer: Sally
Smooth rocker ride that trends faster than your perceived effort: Sally
Cons:
Laces are too skinny; why not the fantastic serrated edge laces Nike uses on their race shoes?: Sally
If you tend to lose toenails in the Alphafly, you may have the same issue with this one (runs short/shallow): Jen/Sally
True to Nike form, this shoe is a bit loud underfoot (although nowhere near as noisy as the Alphafly): Sally
Most comparable shoes
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 (Sally, Jen)
New Balance SC Trainer V3 (Sally)
ASICS Superblast 2 (Sally)
Hoka Mach X 2 (Sally, Jen)
Nike Alphafly NEXT% 2 (Jen)
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Spec Weight: W US8 - 7.69 oz / 218g // M US 10 -9.35 oz / 265g
Zoom Fly 5: W US8 8.54 oz /242g; M US10 11 oz / 314g
women’s 7.5 oz / 212 g (US W8)
Stack Height: men’s 42 mm heel / 34 mm forefoot ( 8 mm drop spec, previous 10mm drop)
Zoom Fly 5 Stack Height: Approx. 39mm heel / 29mm forefoot
Platform Width: 84 mm heel / 66 mm midfoot /108 mm forefoot (US W8.5)
84 mm heel / 66 mm midfoot /105 mm forefoot (US W10 equivalent M10)
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Jen: Immediately upon picking up the Zoom Fly 6, I had to double-check that it was indeed a Zoom Fly. The Zoom Fly 5 was a solid shoe, don’t get me wrong: nicely rockered, durable, and a reliable choice for long uptempo workouts. But the Zoom Fly 6 is fundamentally different, and in my opinion is closer to the Alphafly NEXT% 2 than the Zoom Fly 5.
The upper is lighter and lies smoothly, locking your foot nicely into the true-to-size fit. The toe box feels wide enough, but after a few runs I did notice the same pressure on the big toenail as in the Alphafly.
Sally: I personally was a big fan of the earlier Zoom Fly models, as I tend to prefer uptempo trainers for most of my miles. I did not run in the Zoom Fly 5, but from what I heard and read, I did not miss anything. The Zoom Fly 5 did not get much love at all, and Nike has had a real void in their lineup for a performance training companion for Vaporfly and Alphafly fans.
I was intrigued and cautiously optimistic when I received the Zoom Fly 6; this is a totally different looking shoe than its predecessor.
And when I put it on my feet, wow, it felt great.
It fits comfortably with a nicely padded heel and slightly padded gusseted tongue that stays obediently in place. Nike runs a bit narrow which is fine for my narrow feet, but I find there is plenty of width in the toebox for the average foot.
I would call it true to size but leaning toward a snugger race-day shoe performance fit, with the caveat that the toebox is a bit shallow at the front so you might prefer to size up half a size if you will be doing long runs in this shoe (if you value your toenails).
The hold of your foot is nice and secure throughout, and I have had no hotspots anywhere after 35 miles.
The laces are a bit skinny - we know Nike can make amazing serrated laces that they use on their carbon-plates racers, so why skimp on the laces here? Otherwise the lacing system is simple and effective.
There are two layers of woven mesh that holds the foot nicely. It feels a bit plasticky on the outside, but it seems to work well and I had no concerns with breathability. Finally, it is a great looking shoe!
Midsole & Platform
Jen: With the addition of more ZoomX foam, the midsole feels indulgently plush, another striking difference from the firmer ride of the Zoom Fly 5. The additional stack height in this version isn’t noticeable underfoot and I didn’t notice any loss of lateral stability around turns.
Sally: This is where the magic happens; this midsole is what makes this shoe such a versatile training and racing hybrid supertrainer. There is a large slab of bouncy ZoomX PEBA foam stacked on top of a layer of firmer SRO2 foam; sandwiched between the two foams is a full-length carbon plate they call the Flyplate.
With a stack height of 42mm, there is a lot of foam. While the feel underfoot is soft and somewhat bouncy, it is not a dramatic bounce but a controlled responsiveness. The rocker geometry is quite noticeable, which makes it fun to run in but awkward to walk in.
Heel strikers might find an issue with stability in the heel due to the cantilevered geometry.
All in all, the combination of the two foams and the carbon plate make for a responsive, peppy midsole that seemingly returns back more energy than you give.
Outsole
Jen: The outsole has enough grip not to be slippery on wet pavement or hills, but doesn’t interfere with the ride. I wouldn’t change anything on this one.
Sally: There is plenty of rubber with nice waffle grip on the forefoot of the shoe, and two big pieces of rubber under the heel. The grip is solid on leaves and wet roads. Like many Nike race day shoes, it is a bit loud and noisy underfoot, but fortunately nowhere near as loud as the super noisy AlphaFly. Still, there is no sneaking up on the runner in front of you. The waffle grips are substantial enough to assume good durability.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Jen: Supershoes can feel like a guilty pleasure: that combination of softness, spring, and a little more speed than you’re used to at the same effort.
The hefty price tag and limited longevity of most supershoes lead many runners to restrict their use to certain workouts and race day, but the Zoom Fly 6 presents itself as a very appealing alternative.
My impression is that it’s 80% of an Alphafly NEXT%: the same combination of marshmallow and trampoline, but with slightly less forward propulsion on the toe-off.
The Zoom Fly 6 also feels fairly democratic in its benefits, at least compared to some of the early supershoes that felt noticeably smoother the closer you got to elite male marathoners’ paces. It felt equally good from 8:30/mi warmup down to 4:20/mi strides, and I found myself reaching for it without hesitation for both speedwork and tempo days.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it on some Turkey Trot start lines this fall, though I doubt it will lure many marathoners away from race-day versions.
Kudos to Nike for a comprehensive update that turns the Zoom Fly from fine to top of the line for plated trainers.
Jen’s Score: 9.8/10
(-0.2 for the fit of the upper over the big toe),
😊😊😊😊😊
Sally: Nike needed a win in this challenging year and in the growing super trainer category and I think they have one in this revamped Zoom Fly 6! It is a massive improvement over its predecessor, and can now compete solidly with the other brands’ successful carbon-plated super trainers.
It fits the bill nicely as an uptempo companion trainer for the runner who races in the Alphafly or Vaporfly.
The nice combination of the Zoom X Foam and the firmer more durable SRO2 foam with the full-length carbon fiber Flyplate make for a peppy, smooth, nimble ride. It seems quite versatile, working nicely at slower paces as well as faster tempo paces.
Of course, we all love a shoe that helps us run at faster paces than our perceived effort would indicate; my Garmin often surprised me on some “easy” runs while testing this shoe. It is super comfortable and stable, and rolls smoothly and with nice spunk. And at “only” $170, it is a great value as a carbon plated high stack supertrainer that looks and feels and performs incredibly well. Well done, Nike, you are back!
Sally’s score: 9.7/10
Smiles score: 😊😊😊😊😊!
5 Comparisons
Zoom Fly 5 (RTR Review):
Jen: Besides both being true-to-size, these shoes don’t have a whole lot in common. The ZF6 is lighter, cushier, and bouncier, with a redesigned upper and updates to the foam, as mentioned above. The ZF6 is a marked improvement - if you wrote off the ZF5, you may want to reconsider.
NB SC Trainer 3 (RTR Review)
Sally: (W8 in both, short at end of big toe in both but much more so in NB) Both of these are great super trainers that deserve a spot in your rotation, but the ZoomFly 6 is more versatile, bouncier and peppier, more flexible, lighter, less expensive, feels faster, and is more fun to run. I have previously picked the wildly fun SC Trainer (V1/2) as my favorite shoe of the year, but V3 is more conservative and more universally appealing.
It is wider and perhaps more stable than the Zoom Fly, and yet neither are good for wide fore feet fitwise. I will continue to lace up the SC Trainer V3 for mid long runs, but the Zoom Fly 6 is a joy to run in and can be used for that long run, that tempo run, and even that race. Zoom Fly 6 for the pick!
Hoka Mach X 1 and 2 (RTR Review)
Sally: (W8 in both) Both fun energetic shoes, but my achilles had a tough time with the Hoka Mach X2. Zoom Fly 6 has more stack height and I think a bit firmer and more propulsive feel, and is also more versatile as a race day option. Zoom Fly 6 costs $30 less, and gets my vote for as the pick here.
Endorphin Speed 3 and 4 (RTR Review):
Jen: Similar shoes and these are direct competitors in the supertrainer category. The Endorphin Speed feels more rockered to me, whereas the ZF6 has more spring. The Endorphin Speed also feels firmer underfoot and I found the nylon plate tended to roll my foot towards the lateral side, whereas the ZF6 allows a balanced mid- or forefoot strike. The fit is similar for a W8.5 in both shoes (and in my opinion, both could use just a touch more length in the toe box).Both are light, although the ZF6 feels lighter and the upper is more minimal.
Sally: (W8 in both, toe length equally short in both so I would prefer half size up for long runs) I love the Endorphin Speed family! But might I like the Zoom Fly 6 more? I think so. I see the Zoom Fly 6 as closer to the previous Endorphin Speed trainers, the ES4 a bit more “democratic” and universally appealing to more runners with more control and less pizzazz. The Zoom Fly 6 costs less, has a carbon plate vs a plastic plate, more stack height, and Zoom X foam. Both are awesome shoes for uptempo runs, but if I can only have one pair, I will go with the Zoom Fly 6. And I could even race in it.
ASICS Superblast 2 (RTR Review)
Sally: (W8 in both).The SuperBlast 2 is very well-loved and has an impressive stack of fun foam, but it can be polarizing. I loved it until I didn’t - and that was several weeks ago on a 21-mile NYC Marathon training run. Ouch, the blister under my big toe is almost healed. The Zoom Fly 6 feels lighter (check stats!) and costs less. Both can be thought of as versatile trainers with the racing option, but the Zoom Fly 6 suits my running style better. And you will save some $$$.
Brooks Hyperion Max (RTR Review)
Jen: My W8.5 fits the same in this shoe as in the Zoom Fly (both true-to-size). Both are light and cushioned shoes well-suited for uptempo runs, but the Hyperion Max is firmer underfoot and less noticeably springy. It has lightly more room in the toe, though. The Zoom Fly is equally versatile, but gives a little extra speed boost that the Hyperion Max doesn’t..
Tester Profiles
Jennifer found trail running in her mid-20's and began dabbling on the roads a few years later. Trail 50k's and road marathons are nearest and dearest to her heart, but she loves chasing competitive and personal goals on any surface and over any distance. These days, you can find her primarily on the sweet California singletrack around Auburn and Truckee, usually averaging 70-95 mpw. Depending on the season, she also competes in the USATF road and XC circuits for Sacramento Running Association's racing team. She has a marathon PR of 2:41 and was recently selected as an alternate for the USA team for 50k world championships.
Sally is a lifelong runner and mother of five who agreed against her better judgment to run her first marathon at age 54; she has since run the past 11 Boston Marathons, two NYC Marathons, two Chicagos, and one London with the WMM Six Star Medal now in her sights. With a Boston PR of 3:25:55 in 2022 (9th place in AG) and two consecutive 2nd place in Age Group W60 awards in NYC, she competed in the Abbott World Marathon Majors Age Group World Championships at the 2022 London Marathon and ran an all-time PR of 3:24:02, placing 6th in the world in her women’s 60-64 age group. She also competes in USATF races with the Greater Lowell Road Runners team. To add meaning to her Boston Marathon races she runs with Team Eye and Ear and has raised over $320,000 for Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital. Sally is 5’2’’ and 105 pounds and lives in Marblehead, MA, training outdoors year round. She blames her love of skiing out West for any and all Boston Marathon training challenges.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
6 comments:
Where’s the comparison to the New Balance SC Trainer V3?
If you have the alphafly 3 (the only NIke I like..) is this shoe still worth it?
To me, the Zoom Fly 6 doesn't feel or run even remotely like the Alphafly 3. I might even say it's the furthest from it compared to many other shoes I own. I love the AF3, but I don't love the Zoom 6 - it's fine. Strange to see people considering it a good training companion to the AF. (The "no longer in service" Tempo Next % is a pretty close ride though)
What about comparison to Nike's last GOAT: the tempo next%? is it a successor? or an also-ran?
And what about vs the Boston 12?
I am still mourning the loss of the Tempo Next % and need to figure out what shoe I move to ! Any advice appreciated
How is the Zoomfly 6 compared to the NeoVista and MagMax?
Post a Comment