Review: Nimble Saucony ProGrid Peregrine Trail Runner is also a Mighty Fine Road Runner

I have had 2 pairs of the Saucony ProGrid Kinvara and have liked their low (4mm) heel to toe drop and light weight. My only complaints has been that the combination of light soft, foam and minimal upper makes the Kinvara somewhat mushy and sloppy for me.

Saucony Peregrine

 I saw the Saucony ProGrid Peregrine at Outdoor Retailer this winter. Saucony offered to send me a review pair.  I sensed that while a trail runner the Peregrine might solve some some of the minor issues I had with the Kinvara, on the road, while also being a lightweight responsive trail runner in the mold of the Inov-8 295 and 305's.  I am always looking for that elusive shoe that performs equally well on trail and roads. Could the Peregrine be a shoe for all terrains?

After approximately 40 miles of hard pack gravel trails, muddy Utah single track and  a good deal of pavement  I am very impressed with the Peregrine. It is indeed a close cousin of the Kinvara. It shares the same 4mm drop, and  roomy, non restrictive toe box.

Roomy Non Restrictive Toe Boxes
Peregrine (left)                     Kinvara (right) 

Differences between Peregrine and Kinvara:

• Peregrine has a more traditional upper with a welded on overlay of ovals to reinforce the upper. It also has a  secondary fabric over the instep (see below). The Kinvara's only has light welded instep reinforcements under the upper. Peregrine while not a stability shoe has a very small piece of hard plastic down near the outer sole on both sides of the arch. The Kinvara has none. 

• Peregrine has a real heel counter vs. a mininal heel counter on Kinvara 
• a deeply lugged sole for Peregrine vs. a blown rubber midsole with reinforcement patches for Kinvara. While I have not had sole durability issues with my Kinvara,  I retired them when the upper got sloppy  the Peregrine clearly has a more durable outer sole.

Kinvara (left)        Peregrine (right)

• The outer sole on the Peregrine is narrower in the heel and mid foot and about the same in the forefoot.
• When the more reinforced and traditional upper is combined with firmer heel counter, narrower overall footprint and lugged sole the Peregrine feels more responsive and supportive, especially on the road. And few would want to take the Kinvara on a trail, the Peregrine's true home!
• The Peregrine is heavier at 9.7 oz vs. 7.7 oz for Kinvara.  Not much heavier in my view based on what you get for those 2 oz. 
• The total stack height for Peregrine is 24mm heel/ 20 mm forefoot vs. 21mm/17mm for the Kinvara

* Weight and stack height from Running Warehouse.

On the Trail:
I ran some muddy, non technical single track in Park City's Round Valley last week.

Round Valley, Park City UT looking towards Park City Mountain and Deer Valley

Western mud can be very sticky due to the clay and most shoes end up with a block of mud which one has to scrape off on rocks. Peregrine evacuated the mud very nicely indeed. I was pleasantly surprised.

While the trails I ran weren't particularly rocky, I felt sure footed and didn't feel any "rock stabs" through the sole.  Peregrine is a great Western trails shoe. A test of rocky, rooty New England trails will follow this week.

On the Road:
The Peregrines are proving to be an excellent road shoe. A bit slappy due to the lugged sole they are very responsive and well cushioned. The combination of more substantial upper, the lugged sole, and thus higher overall height, give a great ride on pavement. A touch firmer than Kinvara, likely due to the narrower heel and firmer outsole material, they have a great road feel and sense of directed forward motion.

Pros:
Under 10 oz. trail runner which can handily double as a very capable road runner. Not sure yet if it is better road or trail runner as it handles both well. So far no compromises on either trail or road with a single shoe. Low drop at 4mm for more a natural mid foot running form. Roomy toe box. Deeply lugged, durable sole has great trail grip.

Cons:
None so far. Have not tested on technical rocky rooty single track as of yet.

Analysis of my Boston Marathon Shoe Options-Review New Balance 890 & Initial Impressions.

As the Boston Marathon approaches I have been mulling my shoe choices.  I run in neutral shoes and have a short slide without much knee lift. My half marathon times at age 52-53 have been between 1;35 and 1:39. I qualified for Boston at the St. George Marathon with a 3:29 at the St. George Marathon in 2009.

In 2010 I ran St. George in Saucony Kinvaras and found them to have adequate cushioning for the mostly downhill final 13 miles. Most of my shorter 2010 races were run in Nike Zooms, Kinvaras, adizero Rockets, and Newtons. In recent months I have been running in Hoka One One Bondi B and Mafates,  Adidas adizero Rockets, and Saucony Kinvaras,

For the hills of Boston and a planned pace of 8:00-8:10 I need a responsive shoe with adequate heel cushioning. While I have been improving my mid foot stride I will not be able to hold form all the way to the end. I also want a light shoe, less than 10 oz. Below an analysis of my current shoe quiver.

What I am finding is that a low forefoot height is key to a responsive feel but I also need good heel cushion for the later miles when form starts to fall apart. Both the adizero Rockets and my brand new New Balance 890 have about 10 mm of forefoot height. The Kinvaras at 14mm feel high are somewhat unstable, feel high, at speed. They also flex gradually ie not  pronounced at the flex point in the forefoot and are somewhat stiff. The Hokas with a low heel to forefoot  drop at 4mm with incredible cushion and light weight 8.8 oz are so far ( and they do require break in given the high stiff midsole) are somewhat harder to maintain paces below 8:30 per mile. The Kinvaras while adequately cushioned in forefoot and heel but are narrow in upper toe box and forefoot midsole strike platform.

Yesterday at my local running store Runner's Alley in Portsmouth NH I tried a pair of the brand new New Balance 890.

New Balance 890  Source: New Balance

Very light at 9.5 oz the 890's feature  REVlite midsole foam, the white foam in the picture below is 30% lighter than conventional midsole foams according to NB.

The white REVLite extends  to the front of the shoe all the way to the toe box with all REVLite on the inner part of the foot and partial REVLite on the outside of the foot. No motion control features on the inner side. The yellow foam is firmer and extends on the outside of the foot up to just before the flex point in the forefoot. The softer REVLite forward across the whole shoe forward allows a good flex. The thin layer of yellow foam is the outer sole material up front.

Likely REVLite is more or less the same material as the Kinvaras and Hokas but to me it felt more responsive on the run: firmer yet also cushioned. Part of the responsiveness is of course the low forefoot height and it seems a wide forefoot strike platform, and a well designed easy flex at the forefoot flex point. The upper is not over reinforced. The toe box is wide without excess material or stiff overlays. I sized up half a size to 9 for a little extra room as feet swell in the marathon.

My first run in the 890's, a 6.39 mile jaunt around New Castle in blustery weather was excellent. 8:00 pace. I liked the 23mm of heel cushion on the rolling downhills. The forefoot is responsive and flexible. They climb well. My only concern so far is the greater than usual, for me, heel toe ramp of 12 mm. Most of my current shoes are 4-6mm and I do feel something today I have not felt in months, some calf tightness something I never feel in the Hokas.   I will continue to focus on the 890's and Hoka One One Bondi B as potential Boston shoes in the coming weeks.

Hoka One One Bondi B

My 2010 Favorite Running Shoes

My 2010 Favorites:

1) Hoka One One Mafate-totally different yet minimal in a way. Clown shoe high, almost 2" off the ground yet in my view oh so cushy and natural. Great on the trails and on the road a feeling like running barefoot on grass  For long, long hauls road or trails and recovery runs.  Effectively zero heel to toe drop??

2) Saucony Kinvara-solid minimalism, light and cushioned, Good for every distance ( I ran my marathon in these) and speed. 4 mm drop

3) adidas Adizero Rockets- very light, fast and responsive yet also cushioned, firmly. The shoe that runs fast!  6 mm drop. Narrow over the instep and at the toes and hard to put on. Not for wide feet.

Runner ups:

Golite Flash Lite- first zero drop "shoe". Solid smooth trail runner. Road runnable. Very comfortable walker.  If you can only take one shoe for multiple purposes this is it.

Ascis Hyperspeed- similar to Rockets but not quite as snappy on the go. 7 mm drop