Article by Renee Krusemark
Altra Experience Wild 2 ($140)
Introduction
The Experience Wild 2, a less technical trails and gravel focused shoe, is the 2nd edition of zero drop pioneer Altra's 4mm drop series shoes joined this season by the road Experience Flow 2 (RTR Review).
It has a moderate 32mm heel / 28mm forefoot stack height, compression molded EVA blend midsole and 3.5 mm lug outsole. The updates are to the upper with an added eyelet, new mesh, overlays to protect the lower upper and add some structure and a D ring for gaiters. Our Experience Wild 1 review is here.
Pros:
Overall comfort: Renee
Diverse uses (gravel, moderate trails): Renee
Cons:
Not for super technical terrain: Renee
Stats
Spec Weight: women’s 8.8 oz / 249g US8.5 // men's 10.35 oz / 293g US10.5
Sample Weight: 8.5 oz / 241 g (US W8)
Spec. Stack Height: 32mm heel / 28mm forefoot
Platform Width: 86mm heel / 75mm forefoot / 113mm heel
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Renee: I did not review the first version of the Experience Wild, although I tried it on at a local running store after reviewing the Flow, Altra’s 4mm drop road shoe. I liked the lightweight, simplicity of the Flow but needed some grip on the outsole for my gravel and trail runs. The Experience Wild 2 is a diverse use shoe, working well for moderate trails or gravel terrain.
The toebox shape is Altra’s Standard FootShape Fit, which is wide. I appreciate the space for toe splay although the roominess can lead some slowing down when foot placement becomes tricky on more technical terrain.
The security is good thanks to the new overlays across the toebox and along the heel cup/counter. I’m between half sizes and reviewed a women’s size 8. I think a 7.5 would work better on more technical terrain. If between half sizes, I suggest the smaller size especially if your terrain is more technical than moderate/easy. I had some foot slippage on steep declines, likely because of the length.
The top eyelet is useful and the shoe also has an additional eyelet across the midfoot (see above) if needed.
The tongue is moderately padded and the heel counters have padding, all which contribute to the shoe’s overall comfortable fit.
The heel and midfoot security is good for the shoes intended purposes and the upper has enough volume if needed. I needed to retie the shoes very tight half way into my 2.5 hour run to get a more secure fit. I have low volume feet.
Midsole & Platform
Renee: I’m measuring 30mm in the heel, with official stack height 32mm heel / 28mm forefoot. The foot sits down into the shoe so the ground-feel is better than the height suggests. The shoe does not have a rock plate but the protection was okay across roots.
My longest run was 2.5 hours on trails with 200 ft of gain per mile. The comfort is enough for a 50k, and compared to shoes I’ve worn for 50 milers, the shoe might be enough at that distance too (note: I’m a midpack runner on trails).
The underfoot flex is great while still being controllable on switchbacks. At 8.5oz in a women’s size 8, I don’t consider this a lightweight shoe, but it’s not heavy and runs lighter than other shoes at similar weights.
The compression molded EVA blend midsole isn’t that dynamic but it doesn’t need to be. I classify the feel as in the middle of firm and soft with a good roll through the midfoot on flat/runnable terrain and flex at the forefoot for climbing/ascents.
Outsole
Renee: I’m measuring 3.5mm lugs, plus 1mm of rubber base/plate coverage.
The midfoot is exposed along with a separation of the heel coverage. Under the forefoot, four lines of exposed midsole help with flex and match your toe bones. For uneven terrain, the flex helps with stability and on hard and even surfaces the flex helps with comfort. For miles upon miles of thick rock, such exposed sections and flex might lead tol tired and sore feet. This wasn’t an issue for my terrain, but it’s something to consider if running mountain/rocky surfaces. The triangle shaped lugs worked well for me on debris covered trails.
I have no wear at 50 miles, but as with any outsole with exposed midsole, hitting one sharp rock or root at just the right angle can create tearing/separation between the exposed areas and the rubber coverage.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Renee: The ride is comfortable with a good midfoot roll on runnable terrain. While not light at 8.5oz in a women’s size 8, the shoe has a light quick feel with a good amount of flex at the forefoot for climbs.
On descents/declines, the non technical trails focus is apparent, but with a half size down I think more technical uses would be possible (note: I’m between half sizes).
I like the Wild for its versatility. I can wear it for gravel roads and trails, short to long distances. Those needing a super technical trail shoe might look elsewhere but that’s not the fault of the shoe and its intended purpose. The midsole foamisn’t super dynamic but for trail running (with lots of switchbacks, ascents, descents) I don’t always benefit or notice a dynamic midsole (midpack paces here).
Renee’s Score: 9.3/10
Ride 9/10, Fit 9/10, Value 10/10, Traction 9/10, Protection 9/10, Style 10/10
😊😊😊😊
5 Comparisons
Altra Superior 6 (RTR Review)
Renee: The Superior is lower to the ground at 21mm vs 32/28 here and zero drop, so very different shoes. I’m using this as a sizing comparison. I have a women’s size 8 in both. While I could wear a 7.5 in the Experience Wild, the 8 works. My size 8 Superior is way too lengthy.
Topo MTN Racer 4 (RTR Review)
Renee: The MTN Racer is a more protective shoe and earns the “mountain” in its name in comparison to the Wild. The Wild is a lighter shoe, but it’s mostly because of the greater weight of the TPU beads insole of the MTN Racer, which I like. For technical terrain and ultras, the Topo. For mellow terrain, the Wild. Sizing will be comparable although for review a wore a half size down in the Topo.
Topo Ultraventure 4 (RTR Review)
Renee: I had to A/B these shoes to consider the differences and unique benefits of each. These shoes feel basically the same. Slight advantage to the UV for a more secure upper fit. The underfoot ride of the Wild has a better roll from the midfoot while the UV feels slightly more protective. I wore a half size smaller in the Topo although sizing will be similar as I could wear a half size down in the Wild. Weight in the same size will be similar. The outsole of the Wild has better traction because of the lug size and pattern. Flip a coin or go with the brand you prefer because these shoes are very similar.
Hoka Torrent 4 (RTR Review)
Renee: Unlike previous versions, the Torrent 4 has a notable midfoot rocker that felt constricting for me. That said, it’s a lighter shoe and has a more secure fit for technical terrain along with a firmer midsole for more protection. For narrow midfoots, I’d choose the Torrent although the Wild is more comfortable in the midfoot for me. Sizing is comparable although I wore a half size shorter for the Torrent.
Hoka Challenger 7 (RTR Review)
Renee: Probably the closest comparison for me aside from the Topo Ultraventure 4. The Challenger has a midfoot rocker, but that rocker is not as constricting/narrow as compared to what I experienced in the Torrent v4. As compared to either of those Hokas, the Wild has more width/room in the midfoot. The outsole doesn’t offer the same traction as the Wild but otherwise I find it the better option because of the firmer underfoot feel and lighter weight. Sizing will be comparable although I reviewed a half size smaller in the Challenger. For those needing the wider forefoot, the Wild is a good alternative to the Challenger.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profile
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'.
No comments:
Post a Comment