Article by Courtney Kelly, Ben David, Sally Reiley, and Derek Li
Diadora Gara Carbon 2 ($310)
Introduction
Courtney: Diadora a brand known for ultimate sports comfort, takes their Gara Carbon 2 marathon racer to new heights of comfort nd performance. With 39mm stack in the heel and 34mm in the forefoot for a 5mm total drop, the Carbon 2 boasts a geometry and fit that makes it a contender on race day and for long faster training runs.
Pros:
Soft foam and comfortable fit -Courtney/Ben/Sally/Derek
Natural rolling ride-Courtney
Very plush heel collar (especially for a race shoe)-Courtney/Ben/Sally
Supercritical midsole is very bouncy, light and comfortable underfoot-Courtney/Sally
- Very grippy Duratech 5000 outsole!
- 19g drop in weight in a US M9.5 from v1
Cons:
Not a super snappy ride -Courtney/Ben/Sally
- Softer than I would normally choose for a racer. Perhaps better suited for longer miles training runs -Courtney/Ben/Sally
- Narrower forefoot than V1 - Derek
- Premium pricing -Courtney/Ben/Sally/DerekLess support for the overpronators, definitely a neutral shoe -Courtney
Most comparable shoes
Nike Vaporfly 3 (Ben)
Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 PB (Ben)
Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 (Ben)
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 7.7 oz / 218g US M9
Prior Version Weight: 7.7 oz / 218g US M9
Sample Weights
women’s 6.7 oz / 192 g US W8, 7.00oz/ 200 g US W9
Stack Height: men’s 39 mm heel / 34 mm forefoot (mm drop spec)
Platform Width: Heel 75mm/ midfoot 70mm/ forefoot 110mm US W9
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Courtney: The Carbon 2 is a racing shoe with a responsive cushioned ride. On step in, the shoe laces up like a racer. The laces themselves are well executed with an effective sawtooth style that stays put once tied. The overall fit is beautifully designed, creating an all over comfortable and soft experience.
The upper is composed of Diadora’s signature Matryx mesh with carbon yarns, a thin and breathable upper with plenty of comfortable solid hold.
The heel collar is very well cushioned extending into the sides of the shoe and looks more like a plush trainer’s than a racer.
Surprisingly, the shoe still stays at a 7 ounce weight in my women’s US9. I did notice the heel collar rides a bit lower on the ankle which may lead to some stability issues during longer efforts.
Though it doesn’t immediately jump out at you as the fastest shoe out there, it certainly owns its place in a shoe rotation.
Ben: Like its predecessor, the Gara Carbon 2 is just a delightful shoe to run in; it is an absolute joy. It checks nearly every box. Upper: GREAT. Lockdown: GREAT. Ride: FANTASTIC.
For many, the main two knocks against this shoe are going to be the price and the fact that it does not bring the quite the POP that today’s carbon-plated racers generally bring.
That said, this is a premium Italian designed shoe, and the craftsmanship is evident in myriad ways. The Matryx mesh is breathable and light-feeling and allows for great hold.
As Courtney notes, the heel collar is hardly akin to other high-end race models. It’s robust and ample and actually very comfortable, something that the likes of the AlphaFly 3 or recently launched Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 PB are lacking.
I also feel that the upper, just like its predecessor, is roomier in the toebox than you would find with most other carbon-plated race-day shoes, including those noted just above. In short, if you liked version one of this shoe, you are almost guaranteed to like this version as well.
Sally: I now have over 100 comfortable miles in this beauty. Yes, it simply looks fast, and has numerous premium features like the Matryx mesh of the upper, the carbon fiber plate sourced from the Ducati motorcycle factory, and the Anima Pebax midsole. I personally only knew the name Diadora from soccer (ok, European football), but they have been pushing into the running world quite successfully recently with their high-end Italian design footwear.
As Courtney and Ben have noted, the shoe fits very comfortably, belying its purpose as a race shoe. The toe box is pleasantly roomier and more accommodating than the typical race fit, and the heel collar is more padded and somewhat plusher.
The non-gusseted forked tongue is thin but protects the top of the foot from the lace. The first run or two took some adjustments to get the lacing just right, made easier by the brilliant serrated edge laces (why can’t all race day shoes have these laces? And by the way, Diadora sent TWO pair!), but once the tension was worked out, the hold was fantastic.
From heel to midfoot, my foot feels totally secure. I have done two long runs of 18 and 20 miles in this shoe (Boston Marathon in 4 weeks) and am pleased to report that my feet were comfortable and pain-free with no hot spots whatsoever, even after the long miles.
I did not have the chance to run in the original version of the Gara Carbon, but others say this version 2 is basically the same shoe. Oftentimes that is very good news: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (and yet the shoe companies continue to “update” beloved shoe models, frustrating runners who love the status quo).
Derek: I was very happy with v1 of this shoe. Although not the absolute best on the market, I consider the Gara Carbon v1 to have among the best cushioned and springy forefoot experiences of the 2024 crop of racers.
One issue I had with v1 was that the shoe sizing was a little long for me in my usual US9.5. Therefore with a second bite at the proverbial cherry, I decided to give US9.0 a try for v2.
Upon first unboxing these shoes, one thing that struck me was how similar it was to v1 in appearance. The upper materials and designs looked for all in intents and purposes identical, right down to the design of the slots in the tongue and the choice of lace design.
That said, Diadora’s website lists the upper as using carbon yarns in the Matryx mesh now, while in v1, it was advertised as using Kevlar fibres. The sculpting of the midsole looked the same. Even the outsole rubber patterns looks identical.
Nevertheless, I knew something had to be different. So out came the calipers and scales. This is where it becomes more of a projection, because I was comparing a US9.5 v1 with a US9.0 v2. Anecdotally, a half size difference would translate to a 5-8g difference in weight, so we have that to go with.
My pair of v1’s in men’s US9.5 came in at an average 226g for both pairs; the v2’s in men’s US9.0 come in at a svelte 207g, a 19g drop, which is actually quite significant.
Further measurements revealed that the width of the forefoot has been streamlined significantly for v2; the widest width of the forefoot comes in 4mm narrower in v2 vs v1 (112mm vs 108mm for my sizes).
Midfoot and heel width are identical. It’s actually quite rare for a brand to update the midsole without updating the upper even a little bit. It’s like pushing out a new iPhone with a new chip but keeping the external appearance exactly the same. It’s not really a good sales tactic when trying to get people to part with their money for an upgrade.
I did not find v1 to have an unduly wide forefoot so it would be interesting to see how this affects the overall ride. Step-in feel is familiar. The durometer of the foam seems to be the same. The fit is now perfect for me with just a smidge under a full thumb’s width of space from the longest toe to the front of the shoe. Lacing up and walking/jogging around, everything feels very familiar.
The upper on this shoe is very good and strikes a good balance between a performance fit and comfort. That’s probably why it has not been updated; there wasn’t anything worth changing.
The materials are malleable enough without feeling unsupportive, and the double-slot tongue really works well to keep it centred on the run.
Ribbed laces, now quite ubiquitous among high end performance shoes are retained from v1, and do their job well.
The conventional heel with its semi-rigid heel cup provide excellent support, once again showing that there was never a need to reinvent the wheel. All in all, everything feels the same as it was in v1. I don’t have very wide feet, so the narrower forefoot wasn’t noticeable for me.
Midsole & Platform
Courtney: The removable insole of the Diadora is EVA sheared and micro-perforated making it very breathable, comfortable and durable in all conditions (removable also allows for the potential of an orthotic to be used if necessary).
The super critical foamed ANIMA PBX midsole foam is not very dense yet still responsive and durable. Shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Elite 1 provide a firmer ride, and in my experience a more propulsive ride. The Nike Alphafly 3 lands somewhere in the middle with the density of its foam. I find the pods are what really give you the extra speed in the Alphafly.
The carbon plate that spans the width of the Diadora provides structure and support within the soft foam.
The extreme curvature down of the full carbon plate, a change from v1) places more ANIMA PBX foam between the plate and the ground in the heel and less foam between plate and ground at the forefoot. This design allows the plate to really propel you forward, most noticeably at faster paces and is helpful given the relatively low 5mm drop, most super shoes have 8mm or more.
The pronounced posterior heel flare and well-curved heel bevel act to cushion each foot strike and roll you forward nicely. I was a bit nervous seeing the size of the sole flare as this could cause early landing and excessive stress on the joints, but I think the bevel counteracts this nicely, enhancing the overall stability and landing platform.
Ben: The midsole is very cushioned and soft, thanks to the generous amount of ANIMA PBX foam underfoot. For some, the ride might be even too soft. It is not an aggressive shoe, nor is it aching to go fast. I found that it also works well at slower paces, in fact.
The platform is wide, making for a very stable ride, with no nervousness on uneven ground or running around tight turns. This also sets it apart from many of its competitors. In Diadora’s words, the shoe is “‘powered by a full-length carbon plate with an optimized curvature that stiffens the sole, preventing the energy discharged by the athlete from dissipating to the ground”. I found the plate to be just rigid enough to be noticeable without being overbearing.
Sally: 100 miles in, I clearly enjoy the ride of this shoe. It has a soft, bouncy, smooth rolling ride that is quick but mellow, more rolling than propulsive and less aggressive than other race day shoes.
I am not sure about the pronounced heel flare at the back - I am a midfoot striker so it didn’t “bother” me on the run, but I would think heel strikers might struggle with so much heel flare.
The forefoot rocker is noticeable and I felt it most as an early forefoot roll, pushing you forward to the firmer toe off. Bear in mind that for me, this is not a quick driving toe spring at all; just a smooth bouncy rolling transition. The shoe likes to pick up the tempo and excels at my marathon pace, but does well at the slower paces as well.
This is a neutral shoe, and I had no issues with stability, but the midfoot narrows considerably and some may have a problem with lateral movement, especially those who land toward the back of their feet.
Derek: In terms of the performance of the midsole, I would not say there was a discernible difference in terms of the cushioning and bounciness. I will say that getting the sizing right this time for me has proven to have a big impact on the transitional properties of the shoe.
The rocker engages earlier and there is a lot more forward tipping in v2, whereas v1 felt a bit flat for me, likely because the slightly large sizing put the rocker a bit too far forward for my liking.
One big thing i like about the Gara Carbon is the way the plate is quite stiff but the shoe does ot feel clunky even at sower paces. There is a very good interplay of softer PEBAX foam and the plate here. This makes the rocker effective over a wide range of paces, something not alot of brands manage to pull off.
The narrower forefoot for me actually makes the shoe feel a little LESS cushioned. I put this down to the way my foot strikes the ground in a narrower shoe vs a wider one. With v1, I was naturally inclined to land a little more square with the ground due to the wider forefoot, whereas I was landing in a more supinated angle with the narrower forefoot of v2. With the more supinated landing, there is a smaller surface area to distribute load at first strike and so there is a perception that perhaps the shoe is less cushioned.
Of course, we already know from measurements that forefoot and heel stack, and heel-toe drop are unchanged in this update.
Outsole
Courtney: This is where Diadora knocks it out of the park for me. A special Duratech 5000 wear resistant compound across the entire forefoot is super grippy allowing you to focus on your natural stride rather than expending energy trying to grip the road surface.
I tested in wet conditions and felt more safe and secure than in any other race shoes I have tested. The chevron multi-directional pattern of the orange Duratech on the forefoot does an excellent job on toe off.
The segmented rubber pieces at the heel of the shoe do enough to get you towards the forefoot.
There is some foam exposed in the middle and a cut out showing the carbon plate inside leaving an opportunity for lodged rocks, but this isn’t really the terrain we would take this shoe to anyway.
Even shoes known for their great outsoles like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 aren’t quite as effective as the Carbon 2 due to the stickiness of the Duratech. Durability wise, the heel may wear down quite quickly if that is your natural landing pattern and the exposed foam may also be at risk.
Ben: I agree with Courtney that the outsole is outstanding, very grippy and reliable. This is a shoe that can handle most weather conditions, which cannot be said for many of the carbon-plated shoes on the market. I will note that the shoe seems unnecessarily "long" in the heel (the bevel), which is more noticeable when looking at the shoe than when running it. People may balk at that, though it was not a problem for me in terms of performance.
Sally: I agree that this outsole checks all the boxes and excels at the task. I ran in snow and in rain and on sand, and the grip was fantastic. I did discover a stowaway rock in the cutout of the midsole - who knows how long it was there! And I love the orange of the rubber - it complements the robins egg blue/royal blue upper nicely with an unexpected pop of color. '
Derek: The outsole design appears unchanged from v1. V2’s outsole seems to perform quite similarly in terms of traction on both wet and dry roads. With v1, I have ~400km in the shoes with not much wear on the outsole, so durability should not be an issue here.
The durability actually surprised me a little because the rubber compound is quite soft at the forefoot.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Courtney: With a more compliant foam and less responsive ride than its competitors, this shoe is an excellent choice for longer training miles. It is likely something I would enjoy reaching for time and time again for the comfort, but also for its ability to hit marathon to 1/2 marathon paces.
For my faster paces, a shoe with a firmer midsole gives me the option to really push off. That being said, the Gara Carbon 2 is a great choice for a protective, well fitting shoe with its highly cushioned heel collar and shock absorbing foam.
Those with stability needs should be aware that there is not quite as much support in the ankle and midsole due the lower cut and more compliant foam. The Gara Carbon 2 can certainly be an excellent #1 race shoe if comfort is paramount. The approachability of the shoe is also something to note. I would definitely recommend it to runners interested in making a first time investment in a super shoe for its natural and less aggressive ride.
Overall: 9.20/10
Ride: 9 Fit: 10 Value: 8.5 Style: 8.5
Excellent fit and comfort. Deductions for less responsive ride than competitors--especially at its price
😊😊😊+3/4
Ben: This is a mellow, enjoyable race-day option for those not looking for something aggressive and overly opinionated. The ride is fast and smooth, effortless. The soft midsole is reminiscent of V1 as is the generous toe box. In rode, appearance, fit and function, the changes to V2 are quite minimal, outside of colorway. For many, this will work as a long-run shoe or a workout shoe. For others, this will work as a starting point to carbon-plated racers. While the price tag is quite high, it’s clear that you are getting an exceptionally well-made Italian designed product for your money. I find them a joy to run in and really refreshing, very gentle, almost disappearing on the foot no matter the pace.
Ben's Score: 9.6 /10
😊😊😊😊😊
Sally: The Gara Carbon 2 is a comfortable and smooth rolling carbon-plated super shoe that might be the perfect race day shoe for the runner who prioritizes comfort, and the perfect long run supertrainer for the other runner who prioritizes aggressive energy return and pop in his race day shoe.
The roomier toe box meant my feet were comfortable and yet secure for twenty mile training runs, and the shoe excels for me in this long run role. Yet I also found the shoe responds well to faster strides and speedy intervals when I pick up the pace.
All in all, it is a beautiful shoe that showcases its fine Italian workmanship and provides a comfortable, natural rolling ride that feels effortless and quick, though far from aggressive and mechanical.
Some may balk at the $300 price tag, especially with the current choice of many other fine supershoes out there. This might be the perfect marathon day shoe for some, but I will keep these in my rotation for the high performance long runs when I don't want to think about my feet.
Sally’s score: 9.5 / 10
Ride (50%): 9.6 Fit (30%): 10.0 Value (15%): 8.0 Style (5%): 10.0
😊😊😊😊😊
Derek: The Diadora Gara Carbon 2 is a refined and smooth racer that can definitely handle long distance road races.
The shoe transitions very smoothly for a 5mm drop shoe and really runs more like a 6-8mm drop shoe so don’t be put off by the lower drop. I haven’t done a lot of speed work in the shoes, but they have performed well for medium effort runs in the 10-12mile range.
Gara Carbon 2 has a bit of a ASICS Metaspeed Sky OG vibe for me now, but with a softer underfoot feel. The narrower forefoot definitely makes the shoe feel a bit more nimble through transition, but you also lose a bit of forefoot stability in the process.
Late stage overpronators should stay away from this shoe, not so much because it’s that unstable, but more because the upper around the toe guard is not that stiff, and if you overpronate there, there is a good chance your foot risks spilling over medially, and there is the small risk of blistering/hotspots as your toe runs up against that side edge of the sockliner.
There aren’t many soft 5mm drop super shoes on the market these days. The Hoka Rocket X2 and Cielo X1 2.0 come to mind, so if you are looking for an alternative with a more conventional upper, the Diadora Gara Carbon 2 is one shoe you should consider. The Gara Carbon 2 sits in the middle of the Rocket X 2 and the Cielo X1 2.0 on the softness spectrum, with Rocket X2 being the softest of the 3 shoes.
The biggest barrier I see to people giving the Gara Carbon 2 a go is the price point. Diadora have always positioned their shoes at a premium price point. At a princely US$310, it sits squarely above all the other mainstream supershoes short of the Adidas Adios EVO Pro. Aesthetics and build quality aside, I’m just not very sure the ride is able to justify the price.
Derek’s Score 9.03 / 10
Ride 9 (50%) Fit 10 (30%) Value 7 (15%) Style 9.5 (5%)
7 Comparisons
Adidas Adios Pro 4 (RTR Review)
Courtney: The Adios Pro 4 and the Carbon 2 are a really interesting comparison. Although the two have the exact same platform width (i.e. narrower heel and wider forefoot) with the heel stack also the same but with the Adios Pro 4 coming in at 33mm in the forefoot with the 6mm drop.
Interestingly, upon step-in, you feel overall higher off the ground in the Adios Pro 4 and with less of a natural drop feel in the forefoot. The Carbon 2’s more compliant foam sinks you down lower than its stats. This is a much more natural feel compared to the aggressive quality of the Pro 4. The Diadora also comes with more cushion in the heel of the shoe.
The bevel is much more developed on Carbon 2 suiting a heel striker well and creating efficiency in your stride as you roll forward, though the Pro 4 still wins in overall speed. The heel bias on adios pro angles in medially, whereas Carbon 2 is evenly cut across the heel. For me, the Carbon 2 is an excellent choice for a marathon or 1/2 marathon, giving you all the cushion but with real responsive quality.
The Adios Pro’s aggressive nature and propulsive power, but less accommodating features is something I would always choose for up to the 10 mile effort. As a final note, those sensitive to noisy shoes will prefer the very quiet landings of the Carbon 2 to the quite noisy Adios Pro 4.
Derek: I went down a half size in both these shoes. The AP4 has a lower volume fit at the toebox but both midfoot and heel have a similar fit. AP4 feels bouncier and has a slightly smoother rocker for me. The AP4 has a wider forefoot and feels a little more stable for me than the Gara Carbon. Overall I prefer the fit and comfort level of the Gara Carbon, but the AP4 has a nicer and more aggressive ride for me. For racing purposes, the AP4 is the better shoe.
Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 (RTR Review)
Courtney: A completely different ride for me, the Pro 4 has a much firmer midsole due to the PWRRUN HG layered on top of PEBA foam. Though some loved the speed of the Endorphin Pro 4, I had trouble finding that next gear in it, especially after the first few reps. I didn’t find it worked well at 10k speed or slower, but it also wasn’t comfortable enough for longer efforts. I found my hips to be very sore after my workouts. The foam definitely fell flat early on, whereas the Carbon 2 foam seems more resilient and made for a bit more longevity.
The Pro 4 created a friction point for me at the big toe, leading to a hole after only a few runs. The Pro fits wide causing the tongue to buckle which could lead to lace bite or irritation issues for some. The Carbon 2’s upper is much more durable with its Matryx mesh with carbon threads vs Pro 4’s perforated mesh.
The Pro 4 and Carbon 2 have a similar, very well designed outsole with chevron pattern rubber on the forefoot and two rear rubber pads. Both also have a slightly larger medial rear pad to assist with wear and tear on typical landing patterns. The one difference I see in the outsole is the more sticky quality of the Carbon 2’s rubber. Perhaps this is something Saucony is working on for version 5?
(Carbon 2 top, a very dirty Endorphin Pro 4 Bottom)
Ben: I found the Pro to be unreasonably harsh and aggressive. As much as I appreciated the fit and overall geometry of the shoe, it tended to aggravate my feet and calves quite a bit with each run. The Diadora is not any of that, but rather gentle, easy and democratic. Again, if you’re looking for something more dramatic, the Saucony will likely be the choice, but I prefer the Diadora.
Nike Alphafly 3 (RTR Review)
Courtney: The Alphafly 3 comes in an ounce lighter than the Carbon 2. With a slightly firmer ZoomX foam, Flyplate, and air pods, this shoe really propels you forward. The Alphafly's versatility for speed is pretty tough to outmatch in the super shoe market.
This being said, the Alphafly is a much less natural feeling shoe and a ride you have to learn to control especially as your foot needs to pushoff the forefoot pods.
The Carbon 2’s has a more rolling, natural ride that can lock you into your ½ marathon to marathon pace with ease. The Diadora’s overall cushion and comfort is a step above the Alphafly but may sacrifice weight for that reason. I would recommend the Carbon 2 over the Alphafly to runners breaking into the world of super shoes. Those looking for an extra edge on speed should stick with the Alphafly.
Ben: The Alphafly 3 is a race car. It’s light, very snappy and very firm. It begs to go fast. If you’re lacing up for a half marathon or marathon, few other shoes can even compete with it in my opinion. Some would even say it’s too firm or too snappy.
The Diadora is the opposite of all of this, for better and for worse. It’s much more natural-feeling and easy-going, as Courtney notes. It’s not a PR shoe per se, but it depends what you’re looking for. If you’re after an extremely fast shoe for race day, it has to be the Alphafly 3 (or Alphafly 1 to be honest). If you’re after a comfortable, accommodating racer, trainer and long-run shoe, it’s the Gara Carbon 2 (or - especially if on sale - the original Gara Carbon).
Sally: Ben is 100% right in calling the AlphaFly 3 a race car. The ride is not for everyone, but if the geometry and the mechanics of that unnatural midsole work for you, it is a PR race day shoe. The AF3 works for me and I will most likely lace it up on Marathon Monday here in Boston, but I will continue to enjoy my long training runs in the Gara Carbon 2, a softer and more natural and more comfortable shoe that is also quick and responsive in its own more subtle way.
Derek: I can go a half size down in both AF3 and Gara Carbon 2. The AF3 is the more cushioned and smoother shoe, but it doesn’t have as aggressive a rocker. Both fit me quite well, while AF3 feels slightly more stable courtesy of a wider forefoot. I think for marathons, the AF3 would still be the better option, but for shorter races and for any sort of training run, I would go with the Gara Carbon 2.
Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 PB (RTR Multi Tester Review)
Ben: This is a good, close comparison. The Hyperion Elite 4 PB is not overly aggressive, as far as I’m concerned. It also rides more comfortably than many counterparts. To me, the fit of the Gara Carbon 2 is more accommodating. The ride is more mellow than the Brooks. The Brooks is likely more of a race-day option for most though, in terms of overall versatility and wearability, I’d go with the Diadora.ASICS Metaspeed Edge Paris (RTR Review)
Derek: I am true to size in Edge Paris, and a half size down in the Gara Carbon 2. The Gara Carbon has a more supportive upper and a significantly softer underfoot feel. Both shoes are 5mm drop, but Edge Paris is harsher, particularly under the heel. Both have quite effective rockers, with Edge Paris feeling like the more aggressive racer. I would use Edge Paris for half marathons and shorter, but the Gara Carbon 2 for full marathons.
Hoka Rocket X 2 (RTR Review)
Derek: I am true to size in the Rocket X 2, and a half size down in the Gara Carbon 2. The Rocket X2 has a softer heel (maybe a little too soft) and this gives it a strong “zero drop” feel on the run. You really need to be up on your toes with the shoe, otherwise the transition just stalls for me. Gara Carbon feels more cushioned and is the easier shoe to keep going in, especially at sub-race paces. I prefer the ride of the Gara Carbon 2.
Hoka Cielo X1 2.0 (RTR Review)
Derek: I am true to size in the Cielo, and a half size down in the Gara Carbon 2. Both shoes have a reported 5mm drop but the Cielo has a much more aggressive rocker, and is also slightly firmer underfoot. I would say the Cielo is the more unstable of the two because of the higher stack.
In terms of fit, I think they are quite similar at the heel and midfoot, but the Cielo has the roomier toebox. The Gara Carbon has the more breathable upper for me.
Overall, I think the Cielo X1 2.0 has the more interesting ride, though both are about the same in terms of HR/pace efficiency. I would probably go with the Gara Carbon for a full marathon, mainly because it is more forgiving in terms of running form, whereas you need good mechanics to keep driving the Cielo X1 2.0. For shorter races, I think the Cielo would feel faster.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
Courtney Kelly, age 37 is a college lacrosse player turned avid runner. She lives in Manchester, MA with her husband and two daughters ages 4 and 8. Courtney signed up for her first 1/2 marathon the morning of the race in 2022, winning second place in a time of 1:26. She decided to take running a bit more seriously, joining Wicked Running Club and trying some training plans. She ran her first marathon this fall in 3:04:27. In addition, she holds a half marathon PR of 1:25, a 5 mile PR 30:17, and a 5k PR of 18:20. She looks forward to getting some more strength and speed under her belt this next season, before taking a crack at the marathon again. She is 5’4”, 110 lbs. Off the roads, Courtney is a painter and loving mother to her girls.
Ben David is the Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel of Elkins Park, PA. A cancer survivor, he has run 23 marathons. He holds PRs of 3:15 for the marathon and 1:30 for the half. At 46, he still enjoys pushing himself and combining his running with supporting a variety of causes. Follow him on Instagram: @RabbiBPD or Twitter: @BDinPA
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.
Derek is in his 40’s and trains 70-80 miles per week at 7 to 8 minute pace in mostly tropical conditions in Singapore. He has a 2:39 marathon PR from the 2022 Zurich Marathon.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below! Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes
How would you compare the ride to that of the Cloudboom Strike?
ReplyDeleteI bought these and have done 2 runs so far. The first I needed to stop because I got an asthma attack next to the forest I was running by (my fault for having a cold) but in all honesty I was running at least 30s a km faster than I had been expecting, and the second 2 days ago for the 5km running leg of a sprint triathlon.
ReplyDeleteThe reviews are spot on. Stepping comfort is excellent, but what is incredible is that these shoes disappear under your feet completely, I really did not think about them at all. Compare this to my Cielo X1 which are super aggressive and let you and your calves know about it, or the Alpha 2s which will force you to run in their particular way.
The only thing I would add is that I laced them hard on the last loop to make certain my heel would not slip and pronate much as the shoes heel width is restricted.