Article by Dom Layfield
Altra Mont Blanc Speed ($185)
Introduction
When I reviewed the Altra Mont Blanc Carbon, I noted that it had been many years – almost a decade – since Altra had released a shoe that I wanted to race in. The excellent Mont Blanc Carbon upended that, and I wore the MBC in several races, including a couple of hundred milers in notably challenging conditions. From a functional perspective, the MBC has few weak points, but the one big issue is price. The $260 MSRP is a big chunk of change, and hard to justify since the expensive carbon plate doesn’t provide any discernible propulsive benefit.
Altra have just released the Mont Blanc Speed, which is almost the same shoe, but with a TPU layer replacing the carbon plate. The new shoe, at $185, is much more reasonably priced and is actually very slightly lighter than the MBC (267 g vs 273 g in size US M10), although the 2% difference is too slight to be noticeable in practice. Spoiler alert: When comparing the two shoes, I didn’t notice any loss of performance from the removal of the carbon plate.
Pros:
Enough cushion and rock protection for long miles over rough terrain
“Narrow for Altra” forefoot is still plenty roomy for most runners
Light enough to be a competitive race shoe.
Easy-going enough to be a daily trainer.
Significantly less expensive than pricey Mont Blanc Carbon
No real weaknesses: this is a refined, well-rounded shoe.
Cons:
Zero-drop shoes still a tough sell for a lot of runners.
Could do with more rocker to maximize race-day speed?
Tester Profile
Dom 51, trains and competes mainly on trails in Southern California. In 2017 he was 14th at Western States 100 and in 2018 finished 50th at UTMB and 32nd at the 2018 Los Angeles marathon in a time of 2:46. In 2019, his only notable finish was at the multi-day Dragon’s Back race in the UK. In 2022 Dom finished 4th in the Angeles Crest 100 and was 10th in his age group at UTMB. In 2025 Dom won the Ray Miller 50 Mile in California.
Stats
Spec Weight: men’s 10.1 oz / 286.3 g
Women’s 8.2 oz / 232.5 g
Sample Weight: size US M10: 9.4 oz / 267 g
Notably, sample shoe is lighter than Altra catalog specs.
Stack Height: men’s 29 mm heel / 29 mm forefoot (zero drop spec)
Platform Width: 84 mm heel / 73 mm midfoot / 115 mm forefoot in US M10 samples
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
The Mont Blanc Speed is strikingly similar to the Mont Blanc Carbon, using similar upper materials and overlays, and nearly identical sole foams and molds.
As with the Mont Blanc Carbon, the Mont Blanc Speed forefoot, while roomy, is not as wide as most Altras, although the slight stretchiness of the forefoot fabric allows the shoe to accommodate a range of foot widths. I’ve found most Altras run true to size, and the Mont Blanc Speed is no exception: no issues for me of toes pressing on the end of the shoe or excessive roominess.
Pretty much everything I said about the Mont Blanc Carbon (RTR Review) applies here. The MBC carbon was overtly race-oriented, so lightweight materials were used throughout. I was skeptical about the flimsiness of the stretchy fabric used in the forefoot (vamp), but to my happy surprise, this concern has proved unfounded: after putting in perhaps 300 miles, many of them grinding through wet, muddy, and gritty conditions, the uppers of my MBCs remain impressively unscathed. Given the almost identical construction of the two shoes, the durability outlook for the Mont Blanc Speed looks good.
Otherwise, there are minor changes, particularly in the heel area. The heel collar is slightly higher in the new Speed, and the bolsters are slightly slimmer. I have narrow heels and had zero issues with the modified heel. The Speed also foregoes the reflective coating on the velcro flap for gaiter attachment, which is a minor loss. On the other hand, a reflective trim around the lace eyelets (eyestay) is still there. I thought the updated tongue is an improvement, reverting to a more conventional construction than the MBC and providing a little more coverage.
My Mont Blanc Speeds arrived with the laces not fed through the last set of eyelets. This made the laces feel too long, and the collar a little loose. For me, the shoe definitely fit better when fully laced.
Of note also, the supplied laces (which are excellent) are long enough for lock-lacing if you find that helpful. I’ll occasionally do this to improve the fit of loose shoes, but felt no need with the Mont Blanc Speed.
Midsole & Ride
The Mont Blanc Speed midsole is dual foam, using firmer “EGO MAX” around the periphery and bouncy “EGO PRO” in the core of the sole. The TPU “Stoneguard” that replaces the carbon plate used in the Mont Blanc Carbon does an excellent job of protecting against rock penetration. I deliberately stomped on a bunch of sharp rocks and never felt any discomfort. At the same time, ground feel – while muted compared to a true “barefoot” style shoe – remains good, excellent even for a shoe intended for long distance trail racing.
I enjoyed the bouncy, firm ride of the Mont Blanc Speed. In fact, I think I slightly prefer the slightly more flexible underfoot feel resulting from the removal of the carbon plate. The extra conformability does noticeably reduce the ‘teeter-totter’ sensation of plated shoes balancing on prominences: the Mont Blanc Speed is more sure-footed than the carbon version when hopping from rock to rock.
That said, when running with the Speed on one foot and the Carbon on the other, the difference between them is barely noticeable.
Essentially, the Mont Blanc Speed has enough protection for running serious mileage over gnarly terrain. The rockered forefoot allows for rapid toe-off that is particularly noticeable when running uphill. At the same time, this is not a harsh, stripped down “race day only” shoe, it is comfortable, easy to get along with, and will please a wide swath of runners.
If I had to nitpick, I might note that if looking at the Mont Blanc Speed as a race shoe, it is fairly flat underfoot compared to more heavily-rockered shoes like the Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra that roll more on smooth ground. Of course, whether this is a strength or weakness is debatable. Certainly, the more conventional profile makes the MBS more stable and forgiving on difficult terrain.
The supplied footbed is thin and lightweight, and for the most part unremarkable. It is completely unchanged from the Mont Blanc Carbon, except for a color switch. The footbed has many small perforations that I assume are intended for ventilation or drainage. One interesting quirk of this is that these small holes can act as receptacles for grit and small pebbles.
In one of my races, after wading through a flooded area, I was aware that there was a lot of sediment in my shoes, and anticipated that I would need to stop to empty it out.
Surprisingly, the sensation of grittiness went away, and I thought no more of it until after the race, when I noticed that the little holes were now all plugged with rock: all the grit rolling around the shoe had collected here, in these little openings. While I doubt this is the function that the designers intended, I’ve found it a pleasing “feature-not-bug”.
Left shoe (below) is slightly wider than right (above)
Outsole
The Mont Blanc Speed outsole is Vibram Litebase Megagrip, with consistent but partial coverage from front to back. It appears to be absolutely identical to the outsole used on the Mont Blanc Carbon, and given the many hundred miles I’ve logged in that shoe without any issues at all, I have high expectations for the Mont Blanc Speed.
Outsole lugs are a sporty 3.5 mm, so while this is not a toothy fell-running Jabberwocky, the outsole feels like an excellent match for racing and general trail use.
Outsole appears unchanged between new Mont Blanc Speed (below) and Mont Blanc Carbon (above)
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Mont Blanc Speed takes everything that made the Mont Blanc Carbon great, and delivers it in a more economical package. My expectation was that the removal of the carbon plate would change the character of the shoe, but it does not: the two feel almost identical.
The Mont Blanc Speed is cushioned and protective enough to run long distances over technical terrain. It is light enough to race, and feels fast, thanks to the sole rocker and bouncy midsole. At the same time, it is comfortable and sure-footed and very pleasant as a daily trainer.
This is a really solid shoe. While there is no single standout quality that I can really get effusive about, it is rare to find a shoe that gets so much right. It is strong across the board, and has no real weaknesses to speak of – except that zero-drop running shoes are still a tough sell for some runners.
Anyone who is skeptical of the merits of carbon-plated trail shoes should make a beeline for the Mont Blanc Speed.
6 Comparisons
Altra Mont Blanc Carbon (RTR Review)
Covered in detail above, to summarize: Mont Blanc Speed is almost identical to Mont Blanc Carbon, but forgoes the carbon plate. Surprisingly, this doesn’t seem to compromise performance at all, and in my opinion, the Speed is a better shoe at a lower price. Weight of the MBS is very slightly lighter than carbon version (267 g vs 273 g in US M10)
Well-worn Mont Blanc Carbon (above) is slightly wider than Mont Blanc Speed (below). 120 mm vs 115 mm in forefoot. I’m not clear if this is due to manufacturing tweak or whether my MBC have stretched over 300+ miles of use.
Altra Timp 5 (left) vs Alta Mont Blanc Speed (right)
Altra Timp 5 (RTR Review)
The Timp version 5 is an excellent shoe. One of my favorites, in fact. Like the Mont Blanc Speed, I would describe it as a shoe with no real weak points. According to Altra specs the Timp 5 is 29 mm stack, exactly the same as Mont Blanc Speed, but Timp 5 is heavier (297 g vs 267 g, 10.5 vs 9.4 oz in US M10) and feels altogether more substantial.
On the foot, Timp 5 feels like a zero-drop Speedgoat. MBS is softer, has more groundfeel and feels more efficient, particularly at faster paces.
Timp 5 is very aggressively priced at $155, MBS at $185 a little more expensive. Rocker profile is similar, although MBS rolls off the toe more easily.
The Timp 5 uses Altra’s firmer Ego Max foam throughout; the Mont Blanc Speed uses softer, bouncier Ego Pro foam in the core and Ego Max around the periphery. For slower runners and/or those looking for a beefier shoe, Timp 5 is a solid choice; pick the MB Speed if you want to zoom.
Topo Pursuit 2 (RTR Review)
The zero-drop Topo Athletic Pursuit 2 is an understated but highly competent shoe. At 28 mm underfoot it has plenty of protection for the long haul. It is most similar in character to the Altra Timp 5. Its only real weakness is weight, at 317 g (11.2 oz) for US M10, it doesn’t feel like a raceable shoe. On the other hand, for daily training the Pursuit is excellent: solid, durable, dependable, and at $145 is significantly cheaper. Mont Blanc Speed is much lighter (267 g, 9.4 oz in US M10), more rockered, and clearly a faster shoe.
Salomon Genesis (RTR Review)
The non-S/LAB version of the Genesis is impressively light (276g / 9.7 oz in US M10), although Mont Blanc Speed is very slightly lighter (267 g / 9.4 oz in same size). The Genesis is a very popular option, and at $150 offers exceptional value and performance. However, while most people – including RTR reviewers – loved the Genesis, I was somewhat tepid. I found the forefoot a little on the narrow side (although better in this regard than most Salomon shoes). More importantly, the 30/22 stack felt imbalanced to me.
To be clear, I’m not a zero-drop zealot, but I don’t like heel-to-toe drops above 6 mm. (As an aside, I’m somewhat vindicated to note that newer road-racing supershoes seem to be trending back down to moderate drop.)
While the plush heel cushioning of the Genesis is nice, the forefoot felt under-protected. If I’m going to race ultra distances in a shoe, I personally want more cushioning up front. That said, in all other respects, the Genesis is a very good shoe indeed.
So, if you have a medium-to-narrow forefoot and you like an old-school heel-to-toe drop, then the Salomon may be a better choice. If you’re after a flatter platform, wider forefoot, and/or more forefoot protection, the Mont Blanc Speed is for you.
Hoka Speedgoat 6 (RTR review)
As a race shoe, the Hoka Speedgoat has arguably been eclipsed by flashier carbon-plated options. But for those who are skeptical and prefer a shoe with traditional construction, the Speedgoat remains a standout choice for long days in the mountains. The weight of the SG6 is notably improved over the previous generation. Also worth noting that Speedgoat is available in ‘wide’ version. The 37/32 mm stack of the Speedgoat is higher than the Mont Blanc Speed (29 mm flat), and it feels generally more beefy, but underfoot protection is comparable, likely due to the TPU rock plate in the MBS. Otherwise Mont Blanc Speed is lighter (267 vs 281 g in US M10), softer, bouncier and feels better at high speed. Speedgoat has an edge in traction, and – obviously – if you don’t get along with zero-drop shoes.
Inov-8 Trailfly G 270 V2 (RTR review)
Another non-Altra zero-drop option, the Trailfly G270 V2 is a classic trail shoe beloved by RTR reviewers, but now a little long in the tooth. (We are expecting an imminent refresh!) In comparison to the Mont Blanc Speed, the G270 is a little narrower throughout, and less cushioned (22 mm vs 29 mm stack). The difference in protection is particularly noticeable under the forefoot. Both shoes have a pleasing, bouncy ride. MBS is more rockered and feels faster. G270’s graphene-enhanced outsole will probably last longer. MBS is a little lighter at 267 vs 275 g (9.4 vs 9.7 oz).
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
No comments:
Post a Comment