Article by Renee Krusemark, Peter Stuart, Jennifer Schmidt, Sally Reiley, Ryan Eiler and Reed Breuer
Hoka Cielo X 1 2.0 ($275)
Pros:
Massive 35g / 1.23 oz (US W8) drop in weight to 7.1 oz / 201g at the same 48/41 stack height: Renee/Peter/Sally/Ryan/Reed
Improved upper fit: Renee/Peter/Sally/Ryan/Reed
- Now race-pace oriented and weighted: Renee/Peter/Jen/SallyReed
- Responsive and bouncy: Jen
Cons:
Not as comfortable or easy to run at slow paces as v1: Renee/Sally/Ryan/Reed
Lack of midfoot/arch support: Renee'
- Actually feels pretty built up in the arch, maybe a bit too much Peter
- Not ideal for heel striking: will work better for midfoot and forefoot strikers: Jen/Sally
- Heel construction / pronation: Ryan/Reed
- Overly rockered midsole: Ryan
Spec Weight: men's 7.3 oz / 207g
Sample Weights: men’s 7.1 oz / 202g US8.5 (v1: men’s 8.54 oz / 242g US8.5
women’s 6.4 oz / 180 g US W8 (v1: 7.6 oz / 215 g)
Stack Height:
women’s 46mm heel / 39mm forefoot US W8
men’s 48mm heel / 41mm forefoot US M10
Platform Width:
v2 75mm heel / 40 mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot US M8.5
v1 80 mm heel / 60mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot US M8.5
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Renee: Reviews of the Cielo X1 1.0 were fairly consistent: a bit heavy for a racer with a “meh” upper and horrible laces. Yet, like many, I found myself reaching for the shoe for many long runs (mostly back to back 20-25 milers). My first impression of the 2.0 was great. The shoe felt like a lighter version of the 1.0 with a much better upper. Of course, there’s a reason we like at least 50 miles in a shoe before review. Opinions of the shoe will vary depending on foot strike and pronation. Skip down to my conclusion if you want those details. For review, I ran two long(ish) runs at 2.5 hours each and three workouts (two half-mile repeat workouts of 8 and 8.5 total miles and one 10-miler at marathon pace).
Who’s going to miss those rainbow laces from 1.0? No one. The upper is improved, which wasn’t that hard to do considering 1.0 had a rather stiff, thick material.
We now have a more race-oriented fit with an engineered jacquard mesh.
The heel is moderately padded but without the side padded strips like the 1.0. The tongue is not gusseted and I had no issues with bunching or shifting.
I tested a size 7.5 in the 1.0 and received a size 8 in the 2.0. I’m between half sizes and prefer the shorter size for Hoka. I suggest true to size or the same size as your other Hoka shoes.
Peter: I really liked the Cielo X1. Perhaps my favorite of the marathon racer super stack super shoe group. I agree it was a little heavy for a racer, but it was a trade-off I was okay with given the way the shoe performed at pace.
I was pleasantly surprised to receive the Cielo X1 2.0 (why not the X2?) and even more delighted to find out that it had lost almost 2 oz / 51g . The upper is terrific. It’s easy to get on, easy to lock the foot in and the laces are a good length for a solid race-worthy double knot. It’s a great looking shoe with an upper that is plenty breathable and doesn’t hold water (as I found out splashing through puddles this morning).
The heel collar on the 2.0 is more traditional than the first version and feels more secure to me. The tongue is ever so slightly thicker and has a little bit of rubber right where the laces tie, which should help protect from pressure on the top of the foot.
Jen: My last experience with a HOKA road “supershoe” was the first Carbon X, approximately a million years of shoe evolution ago. We’ve come a long way. The Cielo X1 2.0 is race-ready, with a springy and well-cushioned ride. The thin mesh upper is very comfortable, especially given the extra layer of padding on the tongue that Peter noted. The fit is true-to-size and needed no breaking in. Many HOKA shoes are a bit wide for my relatively narrow feet, but I appreciated that the toebox and midfoot were just right here and provided a secure fit. While the laces are long enough to need tucking in, it sounds like they are a dramatic improvement over v1.
Sally: The Cielo X1 2.0 was one of my most anticipated new shoes of 2025. V1 was a fun shoe and I personally loved it as an uptempo training and long run shoe, but it had its drawbacks (poor fitting upper and excessive weight, for starters). I was fortunate to be at TRE in Austin this past November and saw a preview of the updated version of the Cielo X1, and it was apparent that HOKA listened to runner feedback and addressed the issues.
The Cielo X1 2.0 is an incredibly good looking shoe, once again with a plethora of colors.
The improved engineered jacquard mesh upper now fits my foot TTS like a dream, even though I have somewhat narrow feet and Hokas tend to run wide on me.
Lockdown is solid and comfortable. It is much lighter, and has a more traditional and cushioned heel counter and more forefoot cushioning. The non-gusseted tongue is more structured and somewhat padded and stays nicely in place, and the ridiculous slippery box tape/christmas gift tying ribbon laces of V1 have been replaced with traditional laces that actually tie and stay tied (though they are a bit long).
There is always the concern that a popular shoe loses its “fun factor” in an update (think Adidas Prime X Strung) as the brands attempt to make the shoes more accessible to more runners, but I am confident that Hoka has kept the smiles here.
Ryan: Hoka's been trying to crack the super shoe code for a while now, and the Cielo X2 is their latest attempt. The original Cielo X 1... well, let's just say it wasn't exactly setting any speed records. Heavy, clunky, and with an upper that fit like a potato sack – it was a miss for me. But Hoka's been listening, and the X 2 is a totally different beast. They've clearly taken the criticisms to heart, and the result is a shoe that's actually worth talking about in the super shoe conversation.
The upper is where the Cielo X2 shines. It's a night-and-day difference from the X1. The material is dramatically lighter and thinner, yet it somehow manages to feel more supportive. I was particularly impressed with how well it held my foot in place during hard efforts. The toe box is also improved – no more bruised toes like I experienced with the X1, which is a huge plus.
There are well-placed overlays that contribute to a secure fit without being overly constricting. While the jury is still out on long-term durability, the initial impression is that this upper is a significant step forward. My only reservation is breathability. While lighter, the material feels a bit plasticky, and my feet did feel warmer than usual. It certainly doesn't breathe like the highly perforated uppers found on shoes like the Vaporfly or Metaspeed.
One final note: thank goodness they ditched those weird laces from the X1.! The heel cup is nicely designed and provides a secure fit.
Reed: Unlike Sally, I hadn’t been holding my breath for the update to the Cielo X1. My experience with v1 was mostly negative as I had expected a more reactive shoe for $275.
Additionally, the winged portion of the plate on the lateral midfoot bruised my foot after my first couple runs in the shoe, so I really never tried them again as there was little chance of that fixing itself.
I knew the v2 was getting big updates but it still wasn’t totally clear what Hoka was aiming for with the Cielo X. It’s fair to say now that Hoka’s aim has improved! I knew I was in for a treat just holding the bright blue box in my hands - the weight reduction is very noticeable! Even the experience of putting the shoe on for the first time sparked joy for me. Apologies to Marie Kondo, but surely just one more pair of shoes is okay?
So what about this Cielo sparks joy so quickly? To start with, it fits almost exactly how I’d want a long-distance racing shoe to fit. Not too much excess material in the forefoot, no excess material in the midfoot, and a heel that seems gripped to my foot without any need to fiddle with the laces.
Before running in the shoe I still questioned its purpose - the Cielo X1 was a super-trainer to me due to its heft and structure - would Cielo X1 v2 fall in line? I did my first run in it with the belief that it was still a trainer, as I didn’t have the stack height stats to know if it was even World Athletics legal. I can indeed confirm that both versions ARE legal despite our own stack measurements! More on the ride later!
Midsole & Platform
Renee: The midsole is PEBA with a super critical TPEE sockliner. Like most super shoes, the Cielo 2.0 has the magic of a bouncy, responsive ride that offers cushion and comfort. The most notable difference of the shoe’s ride from the 1.0 is caused by the cutouts of the midsole underfoot.
[lateral side of 2.0 (left) and 1.0 (right)]
[medial side of 1.0 (left) and 2.0 (right)]
The weight loss probably comes in part from the upper changes, but mostly from deeper, additional cutouts. In sum, the shoe has less midsole underfoot. The more aggressive rocker profile in the 2.0 is now from the forefoot rather than the midfoot. I wasn’t able to land on my midfoot as comfortably on the 2.0 as compared to the 1.0. The rocker and cutout under the medial side require a fast takeoff from the forefoot. The heel and midfoot width is narrower than the previous version, so I’m hesitant to say the shoe will work as well for heel strikers.
Peter: The Dual Density PEBA foam here feels great. It’s a goldilocks level of cushioning for me. Soft enough to be protective over long miles and firm enough to feel efficient and fast. What’s really interesting here is the drastic redesign of the cutouts between V1 and V2.
In version one (left below) the cutout on the middle of the shoe opened up to the lateral (or outer) side of the shoe and there was a deeper cutout under the heel.
In version two (right above) the cutout in the middle of the shoe is contained (a lot like the heel cutout of V1) and the heel cutout opens to the medial (or inside towards arch) side of the shoe.
Ultimately I’m not sure I would have been able to tell you that I felt this change in terms of ride quality. It’s a drastic change visually but in many ways V1 and V2 run similarly.
The front two cutouts expose the carbon plate and the rear cutout has some plate and then a big blob of soft orange foam in the middle of it. The other thing that’s notable is that if you squeeze the heel of V2 laterally there’s quite a bit of movement there.
Jen: The cutouts distinguish the Cielo V2 not only from V1, but also from other marathon racers. The lack of rigidity in the heel that Peter notes above makes for a bit of a wobbly ride while walking, and the shoe felt slightly unstable at slower running paces with longer ground contact. That issue disappeared once I picked up the pace and shifted forward into more of a midfoot/forefoot strike, however, and that’s when the shoe really began to shine.
The dual-density PEBA foam is soft and plenty comfortable enough for marathons, and the combination of forefoot rocker and carbon plate lends a springiness at higher speeds. My experience suggests that V2 will feel best for midfoot and forefoot strikers running 7:30/mi and faster, but I will look forward to hearing from other testers.
Sally: Who doesn’t love a responsive soft PEBA foam? I agree with Peter and likewise for me, this shoe has the Goldilocks level of cushioning, soft and forgiving and bouncy and yet also firm enough to be responsive. The faster the pace and the greater the effort, the more this shoe gives back. At slower paces, it is a bit unstable and feels downright wonky to walk in, as the heel and the forefoot seem to distinctly act independent of each other.
I found that the enhanced forefoot cushioning encourages a forefoot strike, fine by me as a forefoot striker but possibly a challenge for heel strikers. The more you push the pace, the more natural and smooth the shoe feels, and I found my paces to be faster than the perceived effort.
Ryan: The midsole of the Cielo X2 is where things get interesting, and a bit complicated. It's definitely bouncy, and the rockered shape is very pronounced. This creates a unique underfoot sensation – a small contact area that encourages quick turnover.
However, this rockered design is a double-edged sword. While it can be very efficient for midfoot/forefoot strikers like myself, it can also be problematic.
You really need to maintain a forward lean to maximize the benefits. If your form breaks down, or if you're a heel striker, the rockered shape can actually work against you, releasing energy in the wrong direction. I also noticed a distinct lack of stability in the heel.
There is an isolated section of midsole on the medial side that contributes to a feeling of overpronation. The lateral side, while connected to the rest of the midsole, just feels underbuilt. This instability is exacerbated when you get tired and naturally tend to heel strike more. While the midsole is undeniably bouncy and propulsive, the stability issues and the specific requirements of the rockered shape limit its versatility.
The platform, in conjunction with the midsole design, contributes to the overall ride experience. It's wide enough to feel stable in the forefoot, but the issues in the heel definitely affect the overall stability of the shoe.
The ride of the Cielo X2 is fast, no doubt about it. The combination of the bouncy midsole and the aggressive rocker creates a sensation of constant forward momentum. If you can maintain good form and stay towards the front of the shoe, it can feel incredibly efficient. However, that's a big "if." The unstable heel and the specific demands of the rockered shape mean that this shoe isn't as forgiving as some other super shoes. It requires a certain level of focus and intentionality to really unlock its potential.
Reed: There’s a reason that RoadTrailRun has so many testers, as there are so many different feet and gaits out there and we use them in different ways! I’m a heel-striking over-pronator (HSOP is my Myers-Briggs result) so my experience with the Cielo seems to slightly diverge from what you’ve read above.
I could see from the construction that the lateral heel crash pad would likely have some impact on my footstrike, and taking them out on a dog walk didn’t give me a lot of confidence.
Nevertheless I tried to go into my runs without thinking too much about the stability. And for that I was rewarded with a pleasant first run - 12 miles on a rolling bike path running on the quicker end of my easy pace range (6:45/mi). I should note that although my gait is not ideal, I probably run fast enough that I rarely encounter stability issues with road shoes. I can think of one prior example - the first New Balance Supercomp Trainer (45mm heel) that rubbed off hair on my knees because they “knocked” each other so often. This Cielo X1 v2 felt like a distant cousin of that Supercomp - more refined, road legal, lighter, and definitely faster.
The reality here is that this Cielo did cause exaggerated pronation for me, and I did notice some knee-knocking. I’m okay with that for a shoe I’d primary reserve for racing compared to a trainer I’d be logging miles in weekly. For lovers of the Cielo X1, if it was the stability and support that appealed to you, I’d proceed with caution with the v2.
Outsole
Renee: Surprisingly, I did not have rocks wedged in the cutouts, an issue I had in the 1.0. Both of my long runs were on gravel (cold, windy days). The shoe requires a forefoot takeoff, so I wasn’t landing in the areas where rocks would become wedged.
The rubber coverage is slightly thinner than the 1.0, and smoother to the touch without the deeper grooves. Hard heel strikers might start to see wear on the heel rubber at I am guessing 50 miles. The outsole rubber coverage also reduces weight but may be less durable. I have as much wear at 50+ miles in these shoes as I do on my 1.0, which has 200+ miles.
[Top: 2.0 outsole, Bottom: 1.0 outsole]
From the outsole view, the lack of midsole under the midfoot is notable. The first version had midsole coverage between the heel and midfoot cutouts. On the 2.0, the cutout starts at the heel and extends without break out from the medial side under the midfoot.
Jen: The cutouts on the outsole do pick up a fair amount of debris, but that’s perhaps the price we pay for 41g in weight savings. As Renee notes, durability may be a concern given how much of the foam is exposed. I was pleasantly surprised with the grip on a wet track and on wet pavement.
Sally: I don’t think I have had the privilege of running on anything but slick and snowy and frozen surfaces of late. This outsole has stood the test and the traction on wet and slippery has been just fine. Time will tell as to the durability, but so far there is no visible wear. I have had no gravel catchers, and this outsole passes the quiet test with flying colors (is it only me who despises a loud shoe?).'
Ryan: The outsole provides adequate grip and traction. There's a good amount of rubber in the forefoot for push-off, which is important given the lively ride. I'm not sure why they cut out a section of the midsole in the forefoot – perhaps it's for aesthetics, or maybe to expose the plate. The heel utilizes two small patches of rubber, which is a common design these days, but in the case of the Cielo X2, I wish there was more contiguous rubber here to mitigate the stability weakness in the heel.
Reed: I don’t often have much to comment about the traction of road shoes as I live in a mild climate without icy or snowy roads. However, my first run in this shoe did take me through some quite deep puddles that overtook the bike path I was running on during a storm. Wet for the whole run, neither the grip nor the performance suffered at all from the wet road surface although after a particularly deep submersion that did develop a squeak from the midsole that lasted the remainder of the run. I suspect it was two sections of wet foam rubbing together, possibly at the rearfoot where the foam sections are separated.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Renee: The Cielo 2.0 is a net positive from 1.0 with its lower weight and streamlined upper. I’m hesitant to say the ride is the same as the 1.0 because of the cutout under the medial side. Runners who need the arch support and bounce under the medial side of the foot might find the 2.0 uncomfortable for slow, long runs.
One-hour into a 2.5 hour long run, and I had to pick up the pace to land on my forefoot rather than shuffle from a midfoot/flat landing. I enjoyed the 1.0 for slow, long runs when I didn’t have the energy to constantly push from a forefoot landing. The 2.0 requires a stronger forefoot push. Forefoot strikers who wanted a race-day shoe will benefit from the ride. The 2.0 is better than the 1.0 for me at marathon or faster paces. 1.0 was great for mid to heel landing and a smooth, roll forward with a supported arch. I’d love to see the next version move the midsole cutout back to the lateral side and provide some support under the arch, a quality that can help distinguish the shoe from the numerous other plated-racers.
Renee’s Score: 9.5/10
Ride: 9/10 (lack of medial side midsole)
Fit: 10/10 (much improved from 1.0, comfortable/secure)
Value: 9/10 (can’t we keep plated racers to $250? Concern about durability with thinner and less outsole rubber)
Style: 10/10 (not performance affecting, but good)
😊😊😊😊😊
Peter: The Hoka Cielo X1 2.0 is delightful. I’ve been doing mostly pacework in it and it’s one of those shoes that makes MGP feel easy. The rocker is effective, the cushioning is excellent and the upper fits beautifully. The X1 was a shoe that just worked really well with my body and the 2.0 feels even better and is a way lighter. It’s a terrific shoe–particularly for Marathon and Half Marathon Pace work.
Peter's Score: 10/10
Nothing I don’t love about the shoe! Especially at marathon pace!
😊😊😊😊😊
Jen: This is the first time I’ve truly considered a HOKA offering to be competitive in the plated supershoe category. While I’d be curious to do A/B testing in an interval workout and compare it more directly to other high-stack marathon shoes, my feeling is that it’s just as light and responsive as most competitors. The Cielo X1 V2 seems made for my narrow feet and forefoot strike, but runners who don’t meet those characteristics may want to take it for a test run before dropping $275.
9.8/10
Ride: 9.7/10 (the faster I went, the better the ride; minor deduction for the unstable feeling)
Fit: 10/10
Value: 9/10
Style: 10/10
😊😊😊😊😊
Sally: My favorite Hoka to date! I have loved every mile so far in this shoe, and anticipate I will be lacing it up often as I get deeper in this Boston Marathon training block. It fits comfortably TTS with no hot spots whatsoever, the rocker geometry encourages a smooth and quick forefoot striking roll, and the PEBA foam provides that optimum amount of bounce. As a light forefoot striker V1 worked for me and now V2 works even better. This will be a great marathon pace training shoe, and now that it is even lighter it is even a contender for my race day shoe. Smiles all around!
Sally’s score: 9.7 / 10
Ride: 9.6/10 (deductions for slower paced instability) Fit: 10/10 Value: 9/10Style 10/10
😊😊😊😊😊
Ryan: The Hoka Cielo X1 2.0 is a mixed bag. It's a definite improvement over V1, especially in terms of the upper and weight. The midsole is bouncy and propulsive, and the rockered shape can be very efficient for certain runners. However, the unstable heel and the specific demands of the rockered design limit its appeal. This isn't a shoe I'd choose for a marathon, especially if I anticipated fatigue becoming a factor.
Compared to other competing super shoes, the Cielo X2 feels less versatile, more niche, and not as performant — for the same price. It leans more towards the "fun" end of the spectrum, like some of the recent New Balance super shoes, rather than being a pure performance-driven machine. Ultimately, the Cielo X2 is a shoe with a lot of potential, but the heel stability issues and the somewhat quirky ride hold it back from being a true top-tier super shoe.
Ryan’s Score: 8.1/10 (deductions for heel build, stability, excessive rocker, breathability)
😊😊😊😊
7 Comparisons
Hoka Cielo X1 1.0 (RTR Review)
Renee: Compared throughout. The 2.0 is much lighter with a better fitting upper. The 2.0 is the race day shoe the 1.0 was meant to be. The first version worked better for me as a long run, easy pace shoe thanks to the bouncy and well supported medial side. The 1.0 works better at faster paces, which is the intention. Sizing is similar.
Peter: Version 2.0 is lighter and the upper is more comfortable. I would have raced Version 1 despite the weight, but the weight loss makes racing in the 2.0 a no brainer. All changes seem to improve the overall ride and experience. Nothing I really miss from 1.0. Overall an excellent update!
Sally: V2 is much lighter, has a much improved upper, revised midsole geometry, more cushioned heel counter, and more aggressive rocker. V1 was a fun shoe with its responsive bouncy ride, but V2 has that and so much more, especially the better fitting upper and massive reduction in weight. V2 not so good at slow paces, but it is meant to run fast, and at that it excels. Great update.
Ryan: The X1 1.0 was a tough sell. V2.0 is a complete turnaround, and it’s clear that Hoka actually listened to feedback. We've got a vastly improved upper and a weight drop that's noticeable. It still feels a bit too experimental and overly rockered for me to consider using it, but you can’t deny that it’s a fun, snappy ride.
Reed: An undeniably improved shoe all-around, if you are looking for performance. These aren’t even in the same category of shoes for me despite having the same model name.
Hoka Mach X 2 (RTR Review)
Renee: The Mach X2 felt like a lot of work for me. I’m not the fastest, strongest runner and plated trainers can feel unnecessary at my training paces. Especially uphill, I struggled to flex at the mid and forefoot with the Mach X2. The Cielo X1 2.0 is by far the better race shoe and generally better for tempo to speed workouts. Sizing is similar.
Peter: The X2 dug into my achilles so badly that I was bloody on nearly every run. I didn’t mind the ride of it, and even enjoyed some tempo runs in them–but overall the X1 2.0 is a smoother, faster, more efficient and more fun shoe for me if a considerably pricier one.'
Sally: I enjoy the Mach X2 and assume I will really like the update when they change the heel. It is a stiffer and less cushioned shoe but also likes to go fast. Budget minded runners might want to consider the MachX2 for tempo training for the almost $100 savings, but if you can afford to drop $275, the Cielo is a super fun and fast tempo training and race day rocketship.
Puma FAST-R 2 Nitro (RTR Review)
Renee: With the additional cutouts underfoot, especially now on the medial side, the Cielo 2.0 gave me FAST-R 1 and 2 vibes. The FAST-R has a clearly more separated forefoot and heel. Both shoes require a strong forefoot landing. The Cielo feels (and is) lighter, quicker, and bouncier at most paces. While fun, the FAST-R requires a fast, constant forefoot landing, which is too rich for my paces and ability. Nothing beats that Puma Grip outsole though. Sizing is similar although the Cielo runs longer. I could wear a 7.5 in the Hoka and definitely need an 8 in the Puma.
Sally: I concur with Renee that the Fast-R 2 has the more distinct separated heel and forefoot and that both require a forefoot landing. The Cielo is a bouncier and more natural ride for me and thus more fun at marathon paces and faster.
New Balance SC Elite 4 (RTR Review)
Renee: If you need full coverage midsole underfoot, consider the Elite 4. While I think the Cielo is capable of being the faster shoe, I do think runners who need arch support might struggle with comfort at slow paces or when tiring later in a race. The Elite 4 is still capable of race paces and it’s more comfortable for me at easy to moderate efforts. Sizing is similar. As someone between half sizes, I can half size down in the Hoka but not the NB.
Peter: These two are probably my favorite race day super shoe options. The Hoka X1 2.0 comes in almost a full ounce lighter than the NB SC Elite 4, but the NB is probably a bit more stable. The ride of the Hoka is a little livelier and more fun. The wild card for me is what happens when my form starts to break down in the late miles of a marathon–and unfortunately that’s hard to know until you get there. Both are terrific options.
Sally: The New Balance is definitely a more traditional and stable ride, probably better suited for slower paces and a wider range of runners including heel strikers. Both are quick and soft and great marathon race day options, but the Cielo is much livelier and bouncier and in my opinion more fun.
Reed: For the general running public I think the SC Elite 4 would be a safer pick. It’s give-and-take of course, and if you’re willing to give up some stability and an ounce of weight in Cielo, you’ll get back more propulsion and bounce on each step as long as you run efficiently or fast enough.
Ryan: While the SC Elite v4 also occupies the more "casual/friendly" end of the super shoe spectrum, the NB feels like a more traditional super shoe feel whereas the Cielo X1 V2 feels more experimental. It's trying to stand out with that rockered design. Whether it works for you — that's the question. I take the SC Elite to be more of a serious tool, while the Cielo X2 is more of a fun toy. Both shoes have soft, lively rebound, but the rockered midsole of the Hoka gives it a very distinct feel. The upper of both shoes are nicely done, providing race-worthy foot containment without sacrificing comfort.
Saucony Endorphin Elite v1 (RTR Review)
Renee: In comparison to the Cielo 2.0, the Elite v1 has a far more aggressive forefoot rocker, a firmer midsole, and a less refined heel fit. The Cielo 2.0 is a more approachable ride.
ASICS Metaspeed Sky+ (RTR Review)
Renee: If the loss of medial midsole coverage doesn’t work for you, the older Sky+ is a more traditional plated racer, good for all foot strikes. I enjoy the forefoot landing with the Cielo 2.0 for fast paces but consider the Sky+ a safer option in terms of slower, or a mix of paces.
Brooks Hyperion Elite PB 4 (RTR Review)
Peter: The Brooks feels good at very fast paces but, for me, doesn’t have the same flow and energy return of the Hoka X1 2.0. Running at the same pace just FEELS easier in the Hoka.
Hoka wins this one for me.
Ryan: The Brooks is much firmer and snappier to turn over. It has a more stable platform, and doesn’t have the wild, wobbly bounce that the Hoka offers. The Brooks also feels lighter on foot, thanks in part to its minimalist, heavily ventilated upper. I prefer the Hyperion over the Cielo for all types of running, as it is easier to manage and doesn’t have the sloppiness of the Hoka.
Adidas Adios Pro 4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Adidas is much more of a racing-focused shoe, with a far more traditional ride and feeling underfoot. While the heel has been softened in v4, the Adidas is still more stable than the lively, crazily-rockered midsole of the Hoka. I strongly prefer the Adidas for the sake of performance, although I will say that the Hoka’s upper is less tenacious and a bit more comfortable. Choose the Hoka if you want to get wild, try something new, and have a forward-biased footstrike, but otherwise look to the Pro 4 for serious racing.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
Ryan Eller A hopeless soccer career led Ryan to take up running, and after taking a decade-long break from competing, he is back racking up mileage whenever he can. He calls the 2018 Boston Marathon the hardest race of his life, where he finished in 2:40, barely remembering his name at the finish line. Rya more recently has a PR of 2:13:36 at the 2024 NYC Marathon and ran 2:14:23 at the 2024 Boston Marathon, finishing 3d American and 15th overall.
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.
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.
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 eleven Boston Marathons, three NYC Marathons, two Chicagos, and one London with the WMM Six Star Medal now in her sights (Berlin in 2025). With a Boston PR of 3:25:55 in 2022 (9th place in AG) and three consecutive 2nd place in Age Group awards in NYC, she has competed in several Abbott WMM Age Group World Championships and placed 6th in the world in W 60-64 when she ran an all-time PR of 3:24:02 at age 63 at the 2022 London Marathon. She also competes in USATF races of all distances 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 stands tall at 5’2’’ and 105 pounds, and lives in Marblehead, MA where she trains outdoors year round. She blames her love of skiing out West for any and all Boston Marathon training challenges.
Peter lives in California and has been a sub 3 hour marathoner as well as a 1:21 half marathoner in recent years.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
1 comment:
Amazing review, as usual. Anybody able to compare it to the Alphafly 3?
Post a Comment