Thursday, January 30, 2025

The North Face Summit Series Vectiv Sky 2 Multi Tester Review: Ready to Rip! 10 Comparisons

Article by Reed Breuer, Sam Winebaum, Jen Schmidt, Renee Krusemark, and Mike Postaski

The North Face Vectiv Sky 2 ($200)


Introduction

Reed: The Summit Series VECTIV Sky 2, the fast and light trail runner/racer in the Vectiv series offers key updates to its predecessor.  


The lug height increases to 5mm (from 3.5 mm in the Sky 1). It drops a full ounce (28g) in weight as its midsole moves from a combination of EVA and nitrogen infused TPU to all nitrogen TPU Dream foam while the upper is also lighter. 


Designed to be the lightest race shoe in the VECTIV lineup, the Sky 2 sports a redesigned carbon plate and lightweight upper with just enough TPU foam to cover the plate. Sub-ultra trail racers, this one's for you!


Pros:

  • Very light at 8.3 oz / 235g US9 and at the same time substantial underfoot: Sam, Jen, Renee, Mike P.

  • 28g / 1 oz drop in weight from prior version: Sam,Mike P.

  • Carbon plating designed for trail: propulsive without being overly rigid and springy, flexible at the front and stabilizing at midfoot: Sam, Reed, Jen, Renee, Mike P.

  • Dense supercritical foam cushioning is reactive, and very protective for a relatively low stack shoe: Sam, Reed, Jen, Renee, Mike P.

  • Very secure foothold allows confidence on trail: Reed, Sam, Jen, Renee, Mike P.

  • Increased lug depth and single piece outsole extends v2 to more technical terrain: Sam, Mike P.

  • Surprisingly smooth riding on firm smooth surfaces for a 5mm lug shoe: Sam, Reed, Jen, Renee, Mike P.

  • Better lateral stability than most plated trail shoes: Jen, Reed, Mike P.
  • Could be the top short distance racer on the market: Mike P.


Cons:

  • Not a long run or “ultra” shoe: combination of firm midsole and substantial outsole reduces comfort for longer runs: Reed, Sam, Jen, Renee
  • Ankle collar caused discomfort on ankle bone: Reed, Renee. Noticed and could be more forgiving: Sam
  • Traction not as good as expected on wet rock: Jen
  • Ankle collar edge could be rigid for some (fine for me) Mike P

  • Rear Vectiv rocker can make the drop feel lower than 6mm Mike P



Most comparable shoes 

Vectiv Sky 1 (Sam)

VJ MAXx2 (Sam)

NNormal Kjerag (Reed, Jen)

Brooks Catamount Agil (Mike P)

Merrell Long Sky 2/Skyfire 2 - combined (Mike P)

Salomon Pulsar Pro (Reed)

Salomon Pulsar SG (Jen)


Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.

Stats

Spec Weight: men's 8.3 oz / 235g US9

  Sample Weight: men’s 7.7 oz / 220g US8.5 (Prior Version: 8.73 oz / 248g US8.5) 

      8.7 oz / 248g US 10,

                                      9.3 oz / 263 g US11,

                                      7.21 oz / 204g US men’s 6.5, women’s 8

Measured Approximate Full Stack Height: 28mm heel / 22mm forefoot (US M10)

Midsole + Outsole Stack Height (not including sockliner):  

v2 25mm heel / 19mm forefoot ( 6mm drop spec) 

v1 : 23mm heel / 17mm forefoot ( 4mm drop spec) 

Platform Width: 85 mm heel / 65 mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot (unchanged from v1)


First Impressions, Fit and Upper


Reed: Before even slipping them on, the Sky 2 have an in-hand feel that screams RACING at you. I’d credit that to the weight, the colorway, and the feel of the airy but structured upper. 


On the foot they’re roomier than you’d think but secure snugly and easily on my narrow feet. I don’t even get much bunching in the forefoot which is typical for me in any racing shoe. What’s notable for my narrow foot is that the midfoot fits snugly with no extra material at all bulging out from the side. 


Wiggling my toes around, it seems like I’d maybe feel the medial winglet of the carbon plate in the forefoot (spoiler alert - I can’t feel it). One thing I do feel right away is the heel collar - it’s stiff and high, hitting my ankle bone immediately. You can’t help but worry about something like that, especially for me who maybe once in my life has had an issue with a shoe hitting my ankle bone. 

The heel collar has a thoughtful amount of structure to it but isn’t rigid. There’s a puffy heel cushion wrapping around the back of the heel - hopefully enough to keep heels from slipping. 


The gusseted tongue is a thin neoprene-ish fabric with a thin overlay to protect against lace bite and has a butterfly shape to avoid biting into the instep. 


Jen: As Reed mentioned, a shoe this lightweight and this neon is ready to rip. It’s one of the lightest trail shoes I’ve run, on a par with the NNormal Kjerag and Salomon Pulsar SG2. What sets the Sky 2 apart from those shoes is the full-length VECTIV 3.0 carbon-fiber propulsion plate, giving it a firmness underfoot that is immediately noticeable. 

Out of the box, the fit was true-to-size and perfect for my narrow midfoot. Unlike Reed, I never had any problems with the heel collar - in fact, I loved the stiff, breathable mesh upper. 


The forefoot has just the right amount of room to allow natural toe splay without slipping around. I especially appreciated the integrated winged tongue, which helps lock down the fit and stays securely in place. 


Sam: Definitely a race type upper here. 

The mesh is thin, quite stiff,  non-stretch and very well ventilated, and I expect well draining as well. Compared to the sort of “chainmail” 3d upper mesh of v1, it is thinner and smoother in feel although this is not a soft mesh.

Lace up is impeccable and easy to lock in given the ridged laces. Small pads under the tongue at the lace tie area provide a touch of padding and we have a gusset tongue. All work together to really lock the midfoot to the platform.


The now more conventional lighter and airer tongue design differs from v1’s neoprene like all in one piece tongue and gusset “bootie” construction which even extended back towards the heel with the rear black upper panel very closed mesh which in combination made the shoe quite warm. 

Dual underlays run in parallel from the bottom front edge of the heel counter curving upwards towards the front of the shoe on both the lateral and medial side for some extra support

On the minus side, the new ankle collars construction is more rigid. I think this is due to the stiff rolled top edge of the collars.  While I didn’t have any big issues, I could feel its stiffness at my ankles on the lateral side as Reed and Renee also note and more so on more uneven terrain.

The heel counter is now semi rigid whereas in v1 it was very rigid down low as the carbon external cup is now removed. I think the bit more give it provides helps with agility in technical terrain 

The toe box is decently broad and as Reed says there is enough toe splay without hold being compromised. It is slightly lower volume than v1 but clearly more secure. 

The toe bumper area, the white shown above, is very stiff as it rises vertically and definitely protective with more structure than v1’s. 

The small carbon front wings are a little lower and go unnoticed on the run as they did in v1 for me.


I was true to size with no issues for my narrower to medium volume feet.


In conclusion the Vectiv Sky 2 has a race and performance oriented upper that is adequately comfortable and lighter and more breathable than the 1st versions. 


Renee: The details are covered above. For sizing, I recommend true to size. The shoe is unisex sizing, so the 6.5 is equivalent to a women’s 8. If between half sizes, go with the half size up.

The toe box is roomy and wide, but my little toe appreciates extra space. Like other reviewers, I have low volume feet, not necessarily narrow but rather average, with a need for a narrow heel hold. Overall, the upper is race-ready secure while being comfortable. I had to pull the laces tight and had bunching of the tongue. Noted but not a performance factor. 

I used the extra eyelet and the laces sit wellon my foot thanks to the notched, winged tongue. Not much of an issue for comfort because I wore wool socks on each run and couldn’t feel it.

In terms of the heel collar, I did feel it for a few miles of one run. On single track with ice (very narrow single track), I had to run with my foot at an angle at times, and the lateral heel collar rubbed my ankle. Once returning to a wider path, no issues. As seen in the photo above, my ankle normally sits well above the heel collar. 



Mike P (US 10.0): When I first saw the shoe at TRE, I was immediately impressed. The weight drop was mentioned, but in hand the lightweight feel is very striking. You can tell that everything has been dialed in to achieve such a huge weight loss, and I knew immediately this has the potential to be a top short distance racer, before even getting them on my feet.


I did choose a US 10.0, a half size up from true-to-size for me, which has been working for me in TNF. They’ve traditionally had toeboxes on the pointy side, but I’ve noticed a big improvement in that area with the Pro 2 and now this Sky 2. 


Fit is quite roomy for me in my US 10 - I’ve got a legit thumbs width up front, which can be concerning if a shoe does not fit well.  This one does.


This is perhaps one of the best fitting uppers, especially for a lightweight trail shoe, of any I can think of.  The width across the forefoot is just perfectly wide - enough so that I feel like I can feel and grab the ground with the ball of my foot. I get no issues of tension or rubbing anywhere up front. Midfoot hold is as good as any shoe - and I can really squeeze the midfoot lacing super tight without squeezing the forefoot. This is just perfect in my book. 



The high, rigid ankle collar that others have mentioned also struck me as an immediate red flag. My heart actually sank when I put them on for the first time, expecting a minor detail to derail an otherwise awesome shoe. It’s just a rigid piping along the top edge of the ankle area. Typically this spells doom for sensitive ankles but it has not been an issue for me. 

I think what saves it is the nice, soft ring of interior bolstering that serves to keep the heel locked in. It seems to me like that padding gives a bit of buffer and keeps the rigid upper edge from pressing into the foot. This rigid ankle collar still might turn out to be an issue for sensitive ankles, but it’s been fine for me, and I am typically sensitive to that. Crisis averted..


Midsole & Platform

Sam: The midsole is an all supercritical Nitrogen infused TPU “Dream” foam. The Sky 1 had an EVA outer carrier with a drop in of the same Dream foam that now makes up the entire midsole of the Sky 2. 


The lighter, more energetic foam now making up the entire midsole contributes to a big 1 oz / 28g drop in weight, and this despite the boost in outsole lug height from 3.5 mm to 5mm, rubber being the heaviest material in a shoe. The increase in lug height of about  1.5 mm moves the stack height up the same, all other elements remaining the same.


The foam feel is dense and stable and at the same time energetic with a quick energy return. It is, for example, firmer than the VJ MAXx2 supercritical EVA foam. The foam density is not a disadvantage as it contributes to the shoe’s stability and plenty of front protection. 


This is not a “soft” or "bouncy" midsole and for its intended fast shorter more technical trails purposes it shouldn’t be. Yet, I even ran on an indoor track and found plenty of cushioning  with the big 5mm lugs not as present as I might have expected.


The Sky includes a redesigned carbon fiber plate. The rear very stiff wrap around the heel carbon element is eliminated, a good thing as it made the rear of the counter a bit too stiff for me. Upfront, the carbon wings are about the same length if a bit lower and have presented no issues. 


The plate provides lively propulsion, protection and some stability especially noted at the mid foot. The new platform is slightly more flexible than the prior with especially noted a bit more pronounced front flex, for climbing. I for sure prefer some flex in a trail shoe and especially a plated one to allow for steep grade climbing, agility, and a range of paces. Overly stiff and springy plated shoes are not for me and the Sky 2 is not overly springy.


Reed: Adding onto Sam’s comments, I agree that the midsole feels energetic in comparison to other short-distance trail racing shoes. You wouldn’t want too much midsole compression or you’d lose lateral stability on technical terrain. This isn’t really helpful for the terrain I frequent, but when I ran some hard intervals on trail I did feel more in control than I would in a more cushioned trail shoe.

The ground protection felt better than some of its competitors although not enough for me personally to use for 2+ hours unless you were running on softer terrain. We’ve had no recent rain in California so my trails were hard-packed and even icy in the mornings.

It’s important that I note that to be able to get in enough testing miles in this shoe, I had to swap out the thin insoles for a thicker pair to help lift my heel up. My right ankle bone hit the ankle collar of the shoe. I hoped it would become less stiff with some miles but 30ish miles so far hasn’t been enough. I have not had this issue (that I can remember) in any other shoe before but the insole swap and some tape has fixed the issue for me.

Jen: As Sam and Reed mentioned, the Sky 2 is firm and fast. Energy return is excellent on a hard-packed trail if you can open up your stride. I found that the carbon plate and firm nitrogen-TPU midsole were pleasantly protective against sharp rocks underfoot, especially in comparison to the similarly lightweight but unplated Kjerag and Pulsar SG. Like Sam, I expected the lugs to be somewhat uncomfortable on hard surfaces but that did not turn out to be the case. 


Carbon-plated shoes always bring up questions of stability on technical trails, and I found the Sky 2 to outperform other plated trail shoes I’ve tried in that regard. Perhaps it’s the lower stack height, perhaps it’s the improved flex that Sam noted in comparison to v1, but I experienced less tippiness than with the Hoka Tecton X3 or Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra. The stack height feels just about perfect in that regard: not so high that you fear for your ankles, but with enough protection to race a trail half marathon or 30k. 


Renee: What to add? My fellow reviewers cover the details. I’ll concur that the midsole is firm, but it’s not harsh by any means. If you have a runnable stretch of trail, the shoe is fast and controllable.

The ground feel is great and rather surprising for a plated shoe. I don’t mind it for slower efforts, especially when pace is limited by terrain (i.e. dodging ice, roots, or simply being slow on steep ascents/descents). I question whether or not I could use the shoe for a 50k as I’m getting slower with each passing day. Shorter distances, you bet. If you need comfort underfoot, the Sky 2 isn’t it, but it’s not meant for that purpose. Even at my slow paces, the Sky 2 is fun. 

Mike P: Bottom line - the flavor of Dream foam in the Sky 2 (nitrogen TPU) is highly dynamic, especially with the forked carbon plate in the mix. I don’t know if it's the same composition as the foam in the Pro 2, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is - just less of it of course. Others have mentioned the term “firm” in their descriptions, but I feel like that gives off an unnecessary negative connotation. 


This is really a low to the ground, fast, racing shoe. Some “firmness” is just part of the package by default. But if you’re going to be this close to the ground, with a carbon plate in between, I’d say this is one of the better if not the best feeling foams you can have underfoot. 



Sitting on top of the Dream foam is a forked carbon fiber plate - there are three sections under the forefoot which come together at the rear/ball of the foot and then it continues full length through the heel. There are “wings” which wrap along the front edges, but I don’t feel those at all. There is no sense of pressure from the edges of those wings into the edge of the foot, as in the Pro 2 model. The plate must be quite flexible as I can easily flex the shoe in hand. More on that in the ride section below..



Quick note on stack height, I was definitely told different numbers at TRE, so I may have given incorrect information in my post (I had 31mm).  I just did a quick measurement and got 28 mm at the heel. It’s a bit tricky to measure though due to the Vectiv rocker at the heel. I had to tilt the shoe back onto the rear rocker to measure the width at where the center of the heel would be.


Outsole

Sam: The outsole goes from 3.5mm lugs to big 5mm lugs. My trail running to date has been on very hard packed snow and I found the traction very good. As I say above, I was surprised that a run on an indoor track did not have me dreading or over noticing the 5mm lugs.


I’ll keep the big lugs as they for sure grip when their depth is needed and are not overbearing when things are smoother. This is rare in my experience when lugs go to 5mm and beyond so going up from the prior 3.5 mm is a win for me.

I also note the outsole (despite front and rear color difference is now a single piece with more midfoot coverage, and even with that, plus the additional lug height the shoe loses weight, rubber being the heaviest material in a shoe. What’s not to like!


Reed: I haven’t faced conditions that really put the outsole to the test, but on some steep descents I run regularly I could notice the effect of the 5mm lugs compared to most shoes I wear with 3-4mm lugs.


Jen: The outsole was well-suited to hard-packed singletrack and rocky sections, less so to wet rock. 5 mm lugs are significant, but don’t let that dissuade you from trying the shoe: as I mentioned previously, they don’t feel too deep. I look forward to testing the traction in muddier conditions after the next rainstorm. 


Renee: I agree with my peers here. Given the firm midsole, lugs, and stack, one would think the shoe would be uncomfortable on hard surfaces. It’s not. The plate and responsiveness factor ion anything packed and flat or rolling means fast for this shoe. 


I ran on snow, gravel, dirt, and ice. I can’t account for wet rock, but on single track, the ice was a bit dicey (not a fault of the outsole: ice is icy!). The 5mm lugs were useful on debris-covered trails and they didn't get in the way when dodging roots.  

When you need the 5mm lugs, they work. When you don’t need them, they seem to disappear, in part because of the midsole feel.

The exposed midsole underfoot allows for flex as does the segmentation on the outer lugs. This flex keeps the shoe controllable. I really only noticed the plate when running fast sections. In terms of protection, the exposed midsole might limit use for those running only on rocky terrain, but as a race shoe, that exposed section is necessary. 

Mike P: I absolutely love that they went to a full 5mm with the lugs on this one. So many shoes stick to the standard 3.5-4mm, and I see all the times in comments people wishing and hoping for deeper lugs. The fact that they were able to deliver here, and still cut so much weight is very impressive. 


I’m a big fan of the lug pattern too - no nonsense, no funny shaped lugs (Pro 2).. Just straight chevrons, and quite a lot of them too. The fact that the pattern is so dense also picks up some slack and adds some protection with the shoe being so close to the ground.  The density also eliminated the cleat-like feel of some deeper-lugged shoes. I think they did hit a sweet spot here with this setup.



The flexibility of the shoe (more on that below) also helps the shoe grip well - a huge improvement over the stiffer Sky 1.  With the weather being as it is, I’ve only been able to get wet a few times, as wet rocks are icy rocks at the moment, so I’ve been more on the careful side. The rubber does feel tacky though, and grip and traction has been excellent in all the conditions I’ve tried - including a quite muddy first run. 


Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations

Reed: I have a soft spot in my heart for trail racing shoes, and although I don’t think the Vectiv Sky 2 totally matches my needs, I could see it being a 50k race-day shoes for more than half of my local training group who run the same trails. The upper is fantastic and the ride is not “super” for every trail but is extremely capable for its intended use case.
Reed’s Score: 9.15/  10

Ride 9.5, Fit 9.0 (-1 for ankle collar). Value 8.0 (price on the higher end and durability untested), Style 10
😊😊😊😊


Jen: When Reed says it could be a 50k race-day shoe for the folks he trains with, he’s probably talking about me. This is my kind of shoe: light, energetic, and more protective than the other shoes I’ve raced a 50k in recently. My only questions are about what terrain it’s best suited for, since I haven’t tested it in the mountains or mud yet. I’d recommend the Sky 2 to runners racing sub-ultra distances up to 50k on trails, especially those with narrow-volume feet who don’t mind a slightly firmer ride.

Jen’s Score: 9.7 /10

Ride: 9.5, Fit: 10, Value 9, Style 10. 

😊😊😊😊😊


Renee: I’m mediocre, so when Reed talks about runners using the shoe for a 50k, he is not talking about me. I would need to be in better shape and running a fast 50k (less than 5 hours, trail terrain dependent). That’s not to say the Sky 2 is not comfortable. It is. 


I had fun with the shoe running strides at sub 5-minute mile paces (sure, only for 40 seconds) and at 15-minute mile paces slugging up steep inclines. Many runners could wear the shoe for a 50k, and it’s for sure a solid option for anything shorter. Fast runners, slow runners, it’s a good shoe best for those who like some ground feel in a lightweight shoe.

The flex under the midfoot is great, which is likely why the ride is smooth on packed/hard surfaces. The control and security is also great, which is why it’s nimble and fun on single track. On rolling terrain, I’d likely need more comfort under my forefoot for an ultra distance, but I’ll stress that I’m a midpack runner on difficult terrain. 

Renee’s Score: 9.4/10 

Ride: 9.5 (fun, just perhaps limited distance for some runners)

Fit: 9/10 (possible heel collar irritation on lateral side)

Value: 9/10 (typical race shoe price, but still costly)

Traction: 9.5/10 (questionable wet traction given the lug depth, although good for loose/soft terrain)

Style: 10/10 

😊😊😊😊😊


Sam: Light, energetic, protective, multi terrain versatile and with deep traction when needed, but not in the way otherwise, the Vectiv Sky 2 is one finely tuned shorter distances trail runner and racer. I say runner as my typical trail run is about an hour and I have always gravitated to lighter and more agile shoes when moving along. Vectiv Sky 2 is just such a shoe! Why not have fast fun on shorter runs I say.


The North Face is to be commended for going all supercritical TPU foam in v2, which even with the deeper 5mm lugs, brings the weight down 28g to a mere 8.3 oz / 235g US9.


I especially like the multi dimensional carbon plate. Yes, multi dimensional in shape but also in function in different parts of the shoe providing plenty of both mid foot stability and in a big plus for me front flexibility . 


As far as I am concerned, fully rigid carbon plated trail shoes are not the way to go in trail shoes. Here, the TNF’s plate delivers agility, protection, stability and propulsion with excellent flexibility, essential on climbs and dare I say also for slower paces such as mine. I also like that the plate and geometry is not overly “springy” at slower paces as the Catamount Agil,  VJ MAXx2 and even plateless Agravic Speed are for me, and this with a carbon plate and not plastic or with fiberglass content as the others have.


The upper is for sure streamlined but comfortable and very secure. Yes, that top ankle edge could be softened a bit.


The Vectiv Sky 2 is state of the art in shorter distance light and speedy, although, unlike many in its category, all out speed is not required to enjoy them which is a big positive for me, and they even handled the road well. Yes, at $200, their pricing is up there but for their light weight, versatility, energy  (and fun), and I expect good durability, they are a decent value. 

Sam’s Score: 9.4 /10

Deductions for need to soften ankle collars top edges, wish for a touch more stack height of cushion and pricing. 

😊😊😊😊


Mike P: I am extremely high on the Vectiv Sky 2 - I think this could possibly be the best shoe on the market (when it comes out) for shorter, faster, agile, and vertical efforts. Honestly there are not too many options as far as pure racers in that category these days, as stack heights continue to rise.


28/22mm (by my measurement), with a dynamic TPU supercritical midsole foam, and flexible carbon plate is really a great and modern setup for fast trail racing these days. 


The forked plate is highly flexible - it allows great ground feel which is somewhat unexpected based on past experiences with full length plates. The plate itself also sits quite close to the foot - directly under the insole and strobel board. But surprisingly it doesn’t feel super harsh either, perhaps something to do with its composite design, and not a full stiffer fiber weave.


The fit of the shoe is so dialed in - I recently put it up against other top shoes for my trail race this past weekend (Catamount 4 and norda 005), and the Sky 2 definitely had the most secure and dialed fit.  For any situation where you need to be fully locked in - the Sky 2 will be your shoe.  I’m thinking, twisty, turny, rocky, steep ups & downs, consistently throughout a course. For some of the forested trails that I ran on a recent trip out to Oregon, Sky 2 would be so good there. 


Shorter, sky-running type events, or Golden Trail type terrain would be ideal terrain as well. I’m not sure who’s on the TNF roster for that series, but I would expect to see the Sky 2 on many runners in those events.  Fantastic speed shoe from The North Face here - top pick in the category. TNF is on fire at the moment! 


Mike P’s Score:  9.8 / 10

Ride: 10 - Dynamic, fast, flexible, great ground feel

Fit: 9.5 - Super dialed, one of the most secure fits out. Why the rigid collar edge?

Value: 9.5 - Super shoe for the speedster category, high price, but worth it

Style: 10 - sweeeeeeeet look

Traction: 10 - 5mm lugs are a standout feature these days

Rock Protection: 10 - Plate + 5mm lugs help, excellent for this range of stack/flexibility

Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊



10 Comparisons


The North Face Vectiv Sky 1 (RTR Review)

Mike P (9.5): I really did not like Sky 1 - this new version is a complete turnaround for me. Sky 1 really did feel “firm” - there was the same supercritical TPU foam as in v2 but just under the forefoot, but it wasn’t that noticeable. The shoe overall just felt tall (although it is actually lower stack than v2)  and stiff. I thought it was hazardous due to that nature- and definitely stayed away from technical terrain in it.  Sky 2 is totally different - I feel way more connected to the ground and stable, much quicker and dynamic with the foam/plate, and way more stable. Throw in 5mm lugs, and it’s just a complete 100% improvement over V1. 


The North Face  Vectiv Pro 2 (RTR Review)

Mike P (10.0): Love the Vectiv Pro 2 as well - that’s 2 in a row for me from TNF. I ran Kodiak 100K in those and they were great. Obviously they’re a much higher stack full supershoe for the 50M+ distance, ideally 100K - 100M. In that regard, there’s more foam, a softer feel, yet the same dynamic plate impulse and rockered Vectiv setup. The Vectiv rocker feels more apparent in the Pro 2 though. In the Sky 2 it’s there, but the shoe is so flexible that the “Vectiv roll” aspect doesn’t overpower everything else. The Sky 2 is sort of a dialed down, more flexible supershoe for shorter distances.


Nnormal Kjerag (RTR Review

Reed: M10 Kjerag vs M11 Sky 2 (Kjerag runs long). The Kjerag ride is a bit more dulled (on purpose) and it feels agile although a bit lacking in ground protection. I’d take the Kjerag for a VK but the Sky 2 for probably anything else. 

Jen:  W8.5 in both. I find the Kjerag to be lower to the ground with maximal ground feel and much more flexion given the lack of plate. 

Mike P (9.5): I call the Kjerag true to size, with a wide spacious forefoot in my US 9.5. I actually initially had a 10.0 but it was HUGE, and I had to send it back. I want to like the Kjerag, but it’s just too minimal for me, and likely for most runners. It’s an old school shoe for runners like Kilian with feet of steel, but most others need a bit more. I’d honestly take the Sky 2 in pretty much any scenario over the Kjerag. I think NNormal realized that it’s a bit too minimal for mere mortals - they’re going up 2.5mm and going to TPE foam in V2. 


Terrex Agravic Speed (RTR Review)

Sam: The Agravic Speed is about the same weight, higher stacked at 34/28 and less agile. Its rocker geometry and narrower heel landing gives it a more springy, less stable ride than the more flexible and propulsive Sky 2. It is more cushioned.


Hoka Tecton X 1 (RTR Review

Reed: Not truly comparable shoes here but both have similar fits with flexible plates. Bigger lugs in Sky 2 and more cushion in the Tecton. As expected the Tecton would perform better on mild/moderate terrain over 2+ hours but the Sky 2 would have the edge in rougher conditions or terrain.

Mike P (10.0): Not really comparable - Tecton is a true 100M shoe, while the Sky 2 is a short distance speedster. Anything where you would need to be agile especially at higher speeds, the Sky 2 would be better. Of course for longer, slower distances the Tecton will protect more and be more efficient.


Brooks Catamount Agil (RTR Review)

Renee: The Agil is better for shorter distances and is more suited for VK races. The Sky 2 has a more diverse use for distance and terrain. Unfortunately, the overlay across the toe box of the Agil hit my toes, so upper comfort points goes to the Sky 2. Sizing is comparable. 

Mike P (9.5): Honestly, I think the Sky 2 is just a better version of the Agil, and I really like the Agil. But its SkyVault plate feels a bit stiffer in comparison - not as propulsive and definitely not as flexible.  The foam also feels firmer in comparison, and not quite as dynamic. Both uppers have an excellent fit and lockdown, but there’s a bit more forefoot width in the Sky 2, which I prefer. I do wish that Sky 2 could steal the Agil’s knit ankle collar though.

 

Brooks Catamount 4 (RTR Review)

Renee: Initially, these seemed like comparable shoes. After a few runs, it’s clear that the Sky 2 is meant for faster paces with a bit more ground feel. At longer distances, the Catamount 4 is better for me thanks to its stack under the forefoot. Sizing is comparable.  

Mike P (10.0): As Renee calls out - noticeable difference in stack underfoot with the Cat 4. It’s faster and more efficient in more wide open and runnable terrain. Also moderate, extended descents would be favorable to the Cat with its added cushion. But anything short, super fast, and twisty would absolutely favor the Sky 2.


Hoka Zinal (RTR Review)

Sam: The Zinal is firmer with less dynamic foam (EVA) but  is considerably lighter at 7.4 oz US9 with a similar 5mm lug depth outsole. It is a fast shoe but less versatile in terms of distance, energy return and propulsion (no plate) compared to the Sky 2. TNF was clearly aiming at the Zinal as a competitor in the shorter distance game and outdoes Hoka here. While the Sky 2 is $20 more it is clearly a more technologically advanced shoe and a more performant one,


Merrell MTL Skyfire 2 Matryx (RTR Review)

Renee: The Long Sky 2 is probably the more appropriate comparison, but I don’t have it. I’ll add that the upper of the Skyfire 2 is a bit tighter and more secure. The lugs are more spaced and the shoe is lighter and with less cushion. The Sky 2 has more underfoot for distances and is more runnable on hard surfaces. For VK efforts, the Skyfire has the edge. For everything else, the Sky 2. Sizing is comparable. 


Mike P (9.5): Long Sky 2 / Skyfire 2 Matryx (RTR Review): I have both Merrell shoes in a 9.5, and they both do have a snugger, narrower fit. But due to the nature of the Matryx uppers, I have no problem with foothold in those. The Sky 2 seems to me like a mashup of those two shoes - then throwing in a carbon plate. The Sky 2 has the flexibility and ground feel of the Long Sky - but the Long Sky is just a bit more “loosely flexible” with less impulse (no plate).  The Skyfire 2 does have a rockplate, but it doesn’t propel like the Sky 2’s and the Skyfire feels quite firm underfoot. So take the soft feel of the Long Sky, the firm-ish ride of the Skyfire, throw in a flexible plate- and you have the Sky 2. I do have to note that I find the heel of both Merrell shoes to be a weak point - they’re overly vertical and stiff, leading me to worry about using them for longer stuff. The Sky 2 heel is much better, although I wish Sky 2’s upper material was more closed like the Matryx upper to keep out debris.


Salomon Pulsar SG Soft Ground (RTR Review)

Jen: The SG version of the Pulsar feels like an entirely different shoe to me, which is why I list it separately here. Similarly light and grippy, but again with more ground feel than the VECTIV Sky 2 and a tighter fit. My guess is that the Pulsar SG outperforms the Sky 2 in mud, with the Sky 2 is better suited for firm and rocky trails.

VJ MAXx2 (RTR Review)

Renee: The MAXx2 has a dense, dynamic midsole along with a quality grip outsole. I dare say it might have an edge for those reasons in more technical terrain. The upper and sizing was an issue for me, however, which many reviewers mention in the review. For a higher and roomier toe box, the Sky 2 is much more comfortable. Sizing might be comparable for some. If between half sizes, the MAXx2 might work best in a half size smaller than the Sky 2. 

Mike P (9.0): Again, note the weird sizing with the MAXx2. The MAXx2 was a big leap forward for VJ - with a legit supercritical EVA midsole foam in a more flexible package. I like taking it out once in a while for short - mid distance runs, but never considered it for racing. It’s nice and flexible, and comfortable, along the lines of the Long Sky 2, but it just doesn’t have that certain “pop” you’d want from a racing shoe. The upper is the MAXx2 is also weird - it’s just oddly thick and dense. I think the Sky 2 outdoes the MAXx2 in almost all regards, except for wet grip (not 100% sure though) and likely outsole durability. 


New Balance SC Trail (RTR Review)

Renee: The 10mm drop of the SC Trail can be polarizing but with the Vibram outsole and tight upper, it’s controllable. The smaller lugs don’t give the same traction as compared to the Sky 2’s 5mm lugs. The SC Trail has a softer midsole, but without more stack under the forefoot, the distance capability of both shoes is comparable. 


Index to all RTR reviews: HERE


Shopping at our partners for the Vectiv Sky 2 is much appreciated and helps support RoadTrailRun

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

REI 
Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

Tester Profiles


Reed Breuer, 32 years old from Auburn, CA. Reed began running at age 18 and did the classic track/cross country route through college. After college he ran a couple road marathons and started racing on trails in 2017. He moved from Sacramento to Auburn in 2023 to live closer to the historic Western States 100 course and he primarily trains and races on trails from 50k to 100mi. He has run a 15:28 5k and 2:28 marathon and is locally competitive in races of any surface or distance. He manages a local running shoe store and is starting a coaching business on the side (capital-endurance.com). He is a closeted heel-striker and over-pronator with a very low-volume foot.


Jennifer Schmidt  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.


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.


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 160 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s.


Samples were provided at no charge for review purposes. RoadTrail Run has affiliate partnerships and may earn commission on products purchased via shopping links in this article. These partnerships do not influence our editorial content. The opinions herein are entirely the authors'


RUNNING WAREHOUSE US
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products 


AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

AMAZON
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

FLEET FEET
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

BACKCOUNTRY
Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

ROADRUNNERSPORTS
Men's and Women's SHOP HERE

TOP4RUNNING EUROPE
Men's & Women's SHOP HERE
Use RTR code RTRTOP4 for 5% off all products, even sale products

SPORTSSHOES.COM UK/EU
Use our code RTR235 for 5% off all products


MARATHON SPORTS BOSTON
Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

RoadTrailRun Official Store Custom Fractel Caps and Bucket Hats
Cap:$35                                                            Bucket:$39
Free US Economy Shipping!
Limited Release! SHOP HERE

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun

Comments and Questions Welcome Below! Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes
WATCH OUR YOUTUBE REVIEWS ON THE ROADTRAILRUN CHANNEL


Find all RoadTrailRun reviews at our index page HERE 
Google "roadtrailrun Shoe Name" and you can be quite sure to find just about any run shoe over the last 10 plus years

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

hello
thank you for this great review
would you say that the tnf sky 2 can hold the same distances as the merell long sky 2 matryx?

Mike P said...

Anon- Yes, they are similar shoes, very close in stack, distance-wise they're comparable.

Anonymous said...

Any chance that you all will review the Infinite 3? I had both the Infinite 2 and Sky 1, and found the Infinite to be the much better bang for buck shoe (which also did not eat away the flesh on my forefoot). Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Beautiful shoe, but TNF should drop it, put more into the Infinite (given wing issues of the sky and lack of general appeal for mixed uses). This is a 25km shoe at best for most users. If I'm going to do a 50km to 50 miler I might as well save money and get the $140 Asics Trabuco 13 that Tom Evan won with at the Arc.

Mike P said...

I have to check on the Infinite, that seems to be the one that we're not hearing about too much. It doesn't seem like they're pushing it. I'm still working on an Enduris 4 review at the moment and really hoping to try the Pro 3. I do agree - the Infinite could be a good sweet spot shoe - the Enduris is a lot and the Sky 2 is pretty light.

But the Sky 2 is really great, I would by no means drop it. There are lots of short distance races out there and many are sick of so many shoes upping stack heights year after year. There's certainly an appetite for a well-executed trail speed shoe. I may do a 19 mile race in the spring with 7,600+ feet of vert. This would be my shoe pick as of now for that one.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mike. Quite a testament to the quality of the show you give. I just wish shoe companies would not offer so many options, since I can only afford to buy 3-4 shoes a year. 😉

Anonymous said...

How about the Cat 2/3. Specs of the Sky seem a bit closer to those two than the 4. Would you all feel that the Sky 2 is as protective as the Cat 2/3? Thank you!

Mike P said...

Cat 2/3 - good call. Those are definitely closer to the Sky 2 than Catamount 4. I've got my Cat 3's spec'ed at 32/26, but I think it feels like there's a little more underfoot with those. I may have to try them on side-by-side. The Cat 2/3 plate is just as flexible, but I think you feel it less than the Sky 2's. The Sky 2 feels closer to the ground, but again, have to try them on..

Anonymous said...

Hello!!
Some "Believe in The Run" reviewers have experienced issues with dream foam durability in vectiv pro 3, enduris 4 and sky 2.. do you have the same issues?
Thanhs