Nike Zoom Terra Kiger Review

Enter the Nike Trail Collection: Nike Zoom Terra Kiger Review
By Jason Robertson

        After my block of 50 milers in July I was ready to explore a new shoe.  I had run the Devil's Lake 50 miler in the Nike Zoom Streak XC3s on July 13th.  Two weeks later, I competed in the Voyageur 50.  In this race I tried the La Sportiva Vert K and switched into the XC3 about 20 miles into the race.  The upper on the Vert K was just too loose, allowing for a lot of forward foot movement on the downs.  I'm sure this is why my two big toes have black nails.  I love the XCs, but they just aren't built for the long, technical terrain that the Voyageur dished out.

Nike Zoom Streak XC3: Not quite a 50 mile shoe...

        Towards the end of the Voyageur,  I came up to a guy wearing the Nike Zoom Terra Kigers.  Chris Beck had sent me some info on these a few days before the race, so I was pretty excited to spot these shoes out on the course.  I initially passed him about mile 38ish, not noticing his footwear.  However we came to a steep downhill leading into the Chamber's Grove aid station and he quickly caught me, then passed me upon our exit from the station.  I managed to catch him a little later and we started chatting shoes.  He had purchased the Kigers the day before the race and he stated that they were great, right out of the box.  I had noted his downhill prowess in the shoes and thought I should try them out.

What is this new line?:
        The new Nike Zoom Terra line derives from an old 'Earthy' line of, what I think, was a cross country shoe line.  Nike pulled the name Kiger from a breed of wild Mustang native to the Oregon area.  Two shoes exist as of now in this line: The Terra Kiger and The Wildhorse.  The Kigers have Nike Trail printed on the insole, so I do believe the company is entering the foray of low-drop, lightweight, trail racers.  And in my opinion, have entered in a crushingly, fantastic way.

Enter the Kiger:
        The Kiger is NOT a new shoe.  The Kiger is pieced together from several other Nike shoes and a brand new sticky rubber outsole has been added. According to Nike the last is taken from the Free 5.0.  In my opinion, the entire shoe reminds me of the Free 3.0 v.3.  With its half-tongue (think New Balance road 00) and buttery smooth inner with a beautifully loose (no heel counter allowing for a flexible but still supportive heel, it is hands down the most comfortable trail shoe I have.  The Brooks Pure Grit comes close with its satin-like heel material.  But, the award for the most comfortable upper now belongs to the Kiger.  This didn't surprise me, I loved the Free 3.0 and this shoe is a direct blood relative.  

Very nice heel fit, soft yet supportive

The fit of this shoe is not overly wide like the Altra Lone Peak, but not as narrow as the XC3.  Overall, sizing is comparable to the MT110, I wear a size 10 in both of these shoes.  There is no rockplate but because the shoe has a full length rubber outsole, the protection is somewhat comparable to the peregrine.  Runningwarehouse has the stack height at 23mm in the heel and 19mm in the forefoot.  The shoe feels very flexible and has a nice amount of energy return.

Lacing system and shoe

The lacing derives from the new Flyknit system, where little string eyelets are looped to receive the laces.  This system performs the midfoot lockdown, and does this quite well.  While the upper and the last of the Kiger is not new, the outsole has not been seen before.

all new outsole- the colors create a bullseye to reveal where the zoom air units are located, good stuff!

Initial findings out on the trail:
        Socks or no?  I decided the very first run with these would be sockless.  The upper feels great on the skin. Satin on the heel/achilles area, seamless construction throughout- out of the box, sockless run- no problems, no blisters.  If you've ran in the Frees and felt good, you'll like this upper.  This is one of the nicest uppers of the trail shoes that I have worn.  However, it did loosen a little on my initial run.  I have a foot length discrepancy: my left is a full size bigger than my right.  I size to my left foot, which puts me in a 10.  My right would fit nicely in a 9.  On my right foot, the shoe did slip a little, especially after the water crossing.  I simply tightened it up, and on my way I went.  No major issues, but I did read a few initial reviews about how the Kiger's upper was too loose for some tastes, so I wanted to take notice.  The shoe drains nicely, laces stay put, and there is good mid-foot lockdown.  The upper is not as responsive as, say a 110.  It gives a little, but I did not think it squirmed too much on the tight, twisty mountain bike course where I was testing.

Is the outsole good enough?:
        Ok, this was my dilemma.  The Brooks Pure Grit were the most comfortable shoes in my quiver.  However, if I even thought of running when a little moisture was present, the shoe became downright dangerous.  After slipping on the Kiger, I immediately thought of the Grit's comfort and hoped this thing hooked up on the slicks.  Sure enough, at least my initial findings, this thing grips just fine.  The trail was relatively dry, but I went through the stream twice and with a wet bank on either side.  The shoe gripped going up and down, no slippage.  Took the Kiger over a wet, wooden bridge, no problems.  I'm thinking the shoe will hook up well, but until I run through a slop-fest, rain-dance, I'll be slightly cautious.  It seems the outsole patterns itself similarly to a Cascadia.  It has a similar lug pattern around the outside of the shoe and little blocks/pods in the center switching directions just after the arch creating a multi-directional system.

Final Thoughts:
        This is a beautiful shoe.  I had wished back in 2010, when I had worn the XC2 for Stumpjump and the Free 3.0 for a few long trail runs, that Nike would create a trail specific shoe that would hang with the likes of the New Balance 100/101. I think their first shot at this is successful. I think they waited until the ultra-minimal phase was over and then jump in with both feet. The shoe is not uber light, but the company did not false advertise: a male size 10 is 8.6 oz, just as mentioned on the Nike site.  The 4mm midsole drop shoe is VERY comfortable and so far, does a good job on hooking up on the trails.  The shoe is pricey at $125 U.S., but with Salomon's Sense line toping out at $180-200, nice trail shoes are going to put you back a little.

Just on a side note - I think this is a great direction for trail shoes to be headed.  "Minimalist" shoes such as the 110 just don't have enough protection and cushion for a lot of us, yet personally I still desire something with a low drop and relatively light weight.  The Kiger achieves both these things, while also providing adequate protection.  Nike has been a long time coming in entering this arena, but I think this shoe not only performs great, but also represents the direction consumers (and thus the industry) are desiring.

Review of Salomon Sense Ultra

I've had the pleasure of tooling around in a pair of Salomon Sense Ultra's for several months now.  The short review is that they are a tremendous lightweight shoe with decent protection and decent durability.

First, I have to say that in general, all the lives of my shoes are dramatically reduced now that I'm running in Colorado.  But it seems the Sense Ultra is particularity susceptible to dying quicker in the Rocky Mountains. Its a sacrifice one has to make for a lightweight shoe I guess.  I wouldn't mind seeing a little more outsole on these guys.

I ran quite a bit in the original Sense, but it was never quite comfortable enough for me.  I'm not sure what it was.  I would get blisters on the outside of my pinky toes on both feet and never could lock the heel down quite good enough.  When I was at 3-Rivers Running Company, I had the chance to look at the Sense Ultras.  I thought the toebox looked a little wider, and the heel cup was slightly different, in so much as it seemed to offer a greater hook to come up over the back of the heel.

I actually decided to size down to a 10.5 from my typical size 11 (MT110, Speedcross 3, Pearl Izumi Trail N1) and the shoes fit nearly perfectly for most of their lifespan.  I have concluded that the heel cup is better and the Ultras either have a wider toebox or it is easier to stretch it out over the life of the shoe.  They accommodated my feet, which tend to be on the wide side, very nicely.

Grand Canyon R2R2R

I've put these shoes through hell.  I ran several long Poto runs back in Michigan in them.  After that they still looked like new, maybe with a little bit of midsole wrinkling, which didn't seem to influence the cushion.  Then I went to Colorado for a job interview and starting running in the Front Range  in the Sense Ultras.  Then I took them to the Grand Canyon for a R2R2R.  Then back to Colorado for more Front Range running.

I've taken them through numerous water crossings, both deep and shallow, and the shoes drained and dried out very well, which is perhaps unsurprising.  The low profile nature of the shoes also allowed them to handle well in the river when you aren't quite sure what you're stepping on.

I found the outsole to be plenty sticky on most rocks, as long as they weren't too wet and grimy (the rocks not the shoes).

Protection in someplace like Michigan is fantastic.  Protection in Colorado is decent.  Forefoot/midfoot is usually protected enough that you even if you catch a stinger, the pain is fleeting and doesn't last long. It seems Salomons special carbon fiber rockplate does its job.  I did notice that if I stepped on a narrow or sharp rock in the arch area of my foot it would be quite painful.   I attribute this to the flexibility of the shoe.  Its nice for running fast to have a flexible shoe, but it does allow for the occasional painful reminder that these shoes are intended to be a racing flat.

My longest run in them was the R2R2R at the Grand Canyon, which was 48 miles and I probably had the shoes on my feet for 13+ hours.  No blisters, which is great and I'm sure I wouldn't have had such luck with the regular Sense.

After about 300 miles now, the shoes are totally toast.  At least in my terms.

Missing lugs and outsole

After about 200 miles the tread started wearing down and lugs were shredded off.  I continued to abuse them, doing a Hope Pass double crossing and summiting a 14'er in them.  Now, there are several spots where the glue seems to have failed and I can peel back the outsole to expose more midsole.  In other places the outsole just appears to be gone.  One of the great things though is that the protection never failed on these shoes.  The rockplate is still in great shape, despite numerous attempts to puncture it by sharp rocks.  Kudos to Salomon.

Still not destroyed

Despite the wear on the outsole, I can probably get a few more miles out of these guys.  I feel that the traction is starting to be reduced, but really they never had tremendous traction in the first place.  Speaking of traction, the rubber is decently sticky, but they're no La Sportiva.  The shoes have a great ride on hard pack trail, fireroads, and pavement.  The small footprint allows them to be very maneuverable.  Unfortunately I found them to be VERY skatey in loose dirt/gravel on switchbacks and in the mud.

Holes in the medial sides of both pairs

Another hole forming on the lateral sides

The upper is probably the biggest issue with these guys right now.  I'm not worried about them ripping and becoming "unusable" during a run, but they have developed holes in the medial side of the toebox.  Now they let in a ton of dust and gravel.  Otherwise the mesh upper and Sensi-fit sock/sleeve thing was amazing.

Now I just need to save up enough $ to get another pair, or wait for a new iteration of these shoes.  I've noticed a few pictures from Zegama where it looked like the Salomon team had a pair of Sense Softgrounds!  When can I get these!  I think they will probably be a slight bit heavier, but the added weight for what I can only imagine is a more durable outsole with better traction would be a no brainer for me.  I just love the fit of the Sense Ultra so much, that a shoe with a more rugged outsole sounds like a great combo.

Looks a lot like the Speedcross outsole (Photo by Ian Corless)

Niice!  (Photo by Ian Corless)

Overall, the Sense Ultra is a great shoe.  Excellent fit.  A shoe that makes you want to run fast.  Protective for how lightweight.  Very maneuverable with their low profile/small footprint.  The cushion does its job even though it tends to wrinkle quickly.  The biggest downsides are the poor traction on anything that is loose or muddy as well as the relatively short lifespan.  Oh and they are so freaking expensive.  I should mention though that I've heard through the grapevine that Salomon plans on progressively lowering the price over the next couple years.

Waist belts

Or should I say "waste" belts.  Most runners that I know have at least attempted to use a waist belt of some sort.  My first experience with a waste belt was using a Nathan hydration belt to carry a 22 ounce water bottle and a few gels.  While this belt seemed to work fine for short runs - 8-12 mile range - I noticed that it was difficult to get it to stay cinched down, and that having a belt/water bottle around my waste bothered by stomach.

That was years ago.  I haven't messed around with belts much since then.  Shorts with pockets are becoming more standard, and I just figured that I would carry handheld water bottles.  But then I ran a 50k where I ran out of gels and since I was in the mix for a top slot, I did not want to take the time to go over to my drop bag to grab more.  The rest of the race I relied on aid station fare, and it all worked out OK, but I thought, hmmm, if I had had a belt, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

So come time for the hallucination 100, I dug out my old Inov-8 Race Elite pack and it worked great for carrying around extra food and I never felt anxious about running out of calories.  But it still bothered my stomach a little bit and I found that it probably had too much storage.  It also seemed to bounce around more than I would have liked.

So the idea of using a waist pack kinda went to the back burner, again.  Then through some fortunate circumstance I got my hands on one of Salomon's new creations, the S-lab Advanced Skin 2 (AS2) belt.  A few trial runs with it, and I was sold, waist belts seem to have come a long ways since I bought my old Inov-8 race elite pack.  They don't even look like awesome (ugly) fanny packs anymore!

After a little fiddling around I think I finally got the AS2 to be tight enough around the waste.  This brings up my one and only complaint, I have my belt tied down as small as the waste belt will allow, and it is just barely tight enough.  What about other runners who have a skinnier waste than I do?  I will never understand why some running gear (specifically waste packs) seem to have enough room in the belt to fit someone with a 45 inch waste, but skinny runners, sorry you're SOL.  Ok end rant.

As tight as it will go

The AS2 comes with a soft flask, and I bought another one to throw in there.  This allows me to carry 16 ounces of fluid, with no bounce at all.  The belt has small elastic loops that fit over the top of the bottles to fully secure them.  I've put 10 ounces hard flasks of other varieties in the belt, and while it will comfortably carry one, it seems to start to get bouncy again if I have two in there.  The AS2 also provides plenty of room for gels and a camera or whatever other small nick-knacks you'd like to carry.  My only other knock against the AS2 belt, is that there is not a great spot to secure a light shell, although if you don't mind the awkwardness, you can stuff one into a large pocket due to the stretch mesh.

18 ounces of H20

The buckle system on the AS2 is different than many other buckles, but it works nicely and I have never had a problem with it coming undone.  What is interesting  is that the AS2 essentially has 4 panels, and you can orient them however you like, depending on what you have in the pockets.  It does seem to ride up more if you put the pockets that are meant to be in the back facing forwards.

Now while I really liked the AS2, sometimes it seemed like a lot of material and a lot of storage, especially if I only needed to carry 1 or 2 gels and a camera or car key.  So I decided to try a more minimal belt.

Ultraspire Quantum

I had heard great things about the Ultraspire line of products, and wanted to see what the hype was about.  I noticed the Quantum was about as minimal a belt as they made and it was relatively cheap.  So I ordered one.  I was a little amused at first, as I hadn't noticed before I ordered it that there was no buckle.  Its meant to be pulled on just like a pair of shorts.  You then tighten the belt with a small cinching strap.  My initial skepticism quickly faded as I noticed that this meant you could put the belt in any orientation you wanted, with pockets facing whatever direction you require with little to no problem.

Pockets and cinching strap

The Quantum has two small mesh pockets that I've put two gels into each, and the back pocket is primo.  I fit a camera, my car key, and a clif bar into it without issue.  Sometimes I'll even crumble an empty soft flask and stuff it in there, if I know there is a water source down the trail.

Now between the AS2 belt and the Quantum, I am constantly forced to choose which one to wear.  I prefer the Quantum's fit and feel over the AS2, but the storage space on the AS2 is clearly superior, and it offers the nice functionality of carrying water.  Both seem to have very nice features, I especially like the zipper on the Quantum, as it is by far, the easiest zipper I have ever used, even when descending technical trail.

Nice mesh on both

Overall, I don't think anyone would be disappointed with either, as long as the specific purpose of each belt. The AS2 belt has the downside that if you are too skinny, you might not be able to get it to fit tight enough. Both have a nice mesh material that does not bother me at all when I am shirtless, which is certainly appreciated.

Quantum

S-Lab Advanced Skin

Review of Ultimate Direction AK Race Vest

Like a lot of my ultrarunning friends, I am a sucker for anything Anton related.  Something about that guy just oozes cool.  So when I saw that he was designing a race vest I knew that I would end up buying it.  I ordered it wayyy back in December, the second I saw it was available, which is lucky because it sold out FAST.  I think you can find them now, or at least pre-order them.  As spring approaches and the weather heats up, it will be time to start thinking about carrying bottles again, and the Ultimate Direction AK signature vest certainly offers up an alternative method for carrying two 20oz bottles.

Making it look cool

I think the main utility of this vest is the opportunity to use bottles, but not have to carry them in your hands.   I've definitely run into problems carrying handhelds during races before; lack of dexterity is MY major issue during a race.  Other problems include falling down and not having free hands to catch myself, sweaty sweaty sweaty hands glued to bottles, and tired shoulders and arms after 12 hours of carrying bottles.  So why not wear a pack?  Well I have also been at races, rather exhausted and pulled off my hydration pack, been unable to get it open myself, or handed it to a volunteer to be filled, not realizing they had no idea how to open it, fill it, or close it (not their fault, its just confusing sometimes). 

UD stock photo

So when I saw the AK vest, I was very intrigued, the Eurostyle bottles in the front definitely has application for us Americans, but you generally see US runners carrying bottles or wearing hydration packs with bladders.  

I was very excited when I first opened up the package and put on my size S/M vest.  It fits very well.  Super snug, incredibly lightweight, and it didn't seem to rub me in any strange places.  And then I put the bottles in - Sweet!  This is going to be a great piece of gear for race day.  One problem, the bottles weren't filled with water yet.

Filling the bottles with water soon revealed that it was not as comfortable as I initially thought.  There was quite a bit of bouncing.  I tried to adjust the pack in multiple different fashion, and eventually settled on a fit that seemed to work out OK.  The one thing I quickly realized is that the front of my pack (and thus the bottles) looked to ride quite a bit lower on my chest than it did when Krupicka is wearing it in pictures. 

I went for an 18 mile run in the winter with 2 filled bottles, more to test out the pack rather than actually needing the water.  Besides the slightly annoying bouncing and sloshing noises, it seemed to work ok.  Then towards the end of the run, I noticed myself getting more and more sore across my chest.  My man boobs were really not liking having full water bottles strapped across them for miles and miles.  I quickly drank down the bottles, and once they were empty, I wasn't bothered anymore. 

I feel like this chick is about to be in a world of chest pain

I ended up with some bruises on my ribcage/pectoral area, and haven't tried to run with full 20oz UD bottles in the pack since then.  Maybe its my running form, maybe its my build, maybe its the fact that its sold as a S/M size, rather than allowing for someone who needs a small to get a small, but I just can't get it to fit quite right.  I dunno why, but its a serious flaw and drawback.

Back view

What I have used the pack for is to carry stuff (camera, gels, jacket, etc.) because it is so light and fits great.  Further experiment has lead me to conclude that I can get away with either small 10oz nutrition flasks in the chest pockets, Salomon softflasks, and I have heard other people (who have had similar bruises as mine) mention that the Amphipod style bottles seem to work.

Notice the lack of bottles

Stuff anything you dont want into the back sleeve

In the end I am kinda disappointed, If I'm stuck using two 10oz bottles, that's not really enough water to get between aid stations that are spread out.  Perhaps it will suffice as a training tool.  The vest has nice pockets, including 2 zipper pockets in the back and Velcro pocket in the front.  There are also two sleeve-like pockets that can be found in the shoulder area.   These are great for stuffing gel into.  Be warned using the Velcro pocket, car keys can fall out!  The back of the pack also features one giant pocket, which is what I generally stick things in if I know I don't need them for a while.  Part of me is considering putting a 1.5L hydration bladder in it, and using that, combined with two 10oz bottles up front, could provide ample hydration for long outings and also allowing me to customize fuels in the front bottles.

Review of the La Sportiva Helios

Review of the Helios and a comparison to the Vertical K

I was a huge fan of the La Sportiva Vertical K, I was excited when I saw that the Helios was a similar shoe, but built with longer distances in mind.  Unfortunately, I don't wear my Vertical K's much anymore, as they either shrunk, or my feet grew, and all of a sudden they're too small.  I made sure to size up when ordering the Helios.

Usually I wear between an 11 and 11.5.  I have a pair of Vertical K's that are 45.0 - they're too small.  So I went with a 45.5 when I ordered the Helios, and they are just right, although if I wanted to wear big socks (Drymax Maxpro or Trail) I might find myself a little constricted.  I hope that helps anyone trying to figure out what size Helios to buy.

Helios foreground, Vertical K background

First Impressions

The Helios is heavier than the Vertical K.  I noticed it as soon as I took them out of the box.  I assume this is mostly due to the 2mm rockplate/eva layer that was added to the shoe in order to provide a little bit more protection.  La Sportiva also made some modifications to the upper.  Gone is the one-piece upper with built in scree guard.  Instead, La Sportiva has used a new "air mesh" upper, which I have to say is incredibly comfortable, although it doesn't look as sturdy as the scree guard upper.  

I've run about 100 miles in the Helios in the last 3 weeks, so I feel comfortable reviewing them.  I haven't noticed any hotspots or problems, which is a great start.  The local trails have oscillated between frozen mud and mucky mud, and the Helios handle both well.  

Upper

Speaking of the upper; the lacing system is much more traditional than most other La Sportiva shoes. Relatively thick laces with normal anchors provides a more customizable fit than can be achieved with laces that are hidden under a scree guard.  Also, a big bonus is the extra eyelet that can be used to tie the shoes in an ankle-lock down fashion, something I thought the Vertical K really would have benefited from.  While the Helios does not have a scree guard style upper, the tongue is gusseted, and I haven't noticed any problems when running through sand, so I'd say it works well.  The shoe also breathes very well with the air mesh that is used for the top of the upper.  I'm not big on sockless running, but even if I was, I don't think the Helios is built for it, there are exposed seems in several places.

The last difference in the upper between the Vertical K and the Helios is the overall stability provided by the upper.  The Helios has a substantial heel counter that probably adds a little weight, as well as thermoplastic overlays that are used to help secure the midfoot.  There has also been the addition of a pulltab on the heel of the Helios, which helps get them on and off quickly.

Gusseted Tongue

Thermoplastic overlays to secure the midfoot

Midsole/outsole

Morphodynamic.  Pretty sweet.  Light and cushioned.  Actually, the Helios feels a little firmer than the Vertical K does.  I am not sure if this is due to the rockplate or whether it is because they used a midsole foam with a higher density.  Along with the slighter firmer ride is perhaps a lesser degree of flexibility.  Don't get me wrong, the wave pattern still allows for good flexibility, but it is not quite as slipper-like as the Vertical K.  I also feel like the back heel of the helios is not quite as cut-out as the Vertical K.  This might be why runningwarehouse spec's the Helios as a 5mm drop and the Vertical K as a 4mm drop.  I agree, the Helios feels not quite as minimal in general as the Vertical K.  This could be good or bad, depends on your preferences and the type of race you're running.  I should also mention that both shoes use a sticky Sportiva (FriXion AT) rubber that seems to wear pretty well.

Pretty similar outsole?

Morphodynamic in both

Conclusions/overall feeling

I think the Helios is very much what I expected.  A more robust version of the Vertical K.  The protection on gravel roads and local trails seems pretty good, although its hard to test them fully without making a trip to somewhere rockier.  The overall fit is excellent, the Helios feels wider in the toe-box than the Vertical K, and less pointed up towards the toes.  At first I was a tad disappointed by the fact that the Helios felt firmer than the Vertical K, but I adjusted pretty quickly, and now enjoy the energy transfer that a slightly firmer midsole allows.  Overall, I rate this shoe very highly.  Excellent fit, good traction, adequate protection and cushion, low drop, and fairly lightweight (8.5oz size 9 men's).  I think anyone who likes the Vertical K, but wants a little bit more for longer runs would find the Helios to be a nice compromise.  Also I think someone looking to step down from more traditional shoes would find this is a nice intermediate shoe that combines lightweight with moderate drop, and makes for an aggressive and comfortable ride.  I don't mind a little extra weight on my shoes when I feel it is put used for practical purposes, and I think that the extra 1.5-2oz on the Helios serves a purpose, making them a well-rounded trail shoe.

Are they built for Ultras?  Yes, I think so, but to be honest I haven't run more than 15 miles in them yet.  Its winter, give me some time and I'll try to get a few longer runs in.  The roomy toe box and extra protection really make them a nice shoe, def my favorite La Sportiva offering in a long time.

Toecaps

With insoles removed

My friend Mark just ran the 2013 Rocky Raccoon in his Helios, here is what he had to say about them:  " I wore these for 100 miles at Rocky Raccoon over the weekend. It was a drier year than last, and then the challenge is the dust and sand that often gets into the shoes and grinds away at your feet. The Vertical K's have the gaiter built in, but the Helios does it a little different. The real question to me was, does the Helios work. In a word, yes. I changed socks at about mile 72, due to a blister forming on the outside of my little toe. There was no sand or anything else to be removed from my shoes the, and the same was true at the end. I wore them for the full 100 miles, and I never regretted the choice. I kicked a number of roots, but none of them bothered my toes a bit-- though there was a little loss of blood involved. The Helios fine mesh must be an adequate virtual gaiter, and they seem to give me more support than the Vertical K for the long run."

Asics Gel Fuji Trainer 2 Review

I was very impressed by the Gel Fuji Racer, which caused me to be quite optimistic about the new Gel Fuji Trainer 2, a midweight trail shoe from Asics that fits into the Gel Fuji line of shoes.

The geometry of this shoe is quite appealing to me.  A decent stack height with the forefoot being spec'd at 19mm and the heel at 25mm.  Overall, creating a 6mm heel to toe drop.  Furthermore, the lugging pattern looked much more aggressive than the Gel Fuji Racer, and the weight wasn't too crazy (under 10oz)


Fit
I ordered a size 11.5, which seems to be the typical size I order these days.  It is also the size I wear for the Gel Fuji Racer, and lengthwise I would say these shoes are very comparable in fit, and just right for me.  However, the Fuji Trainer 2 feels much wider throughout the midfoot and maybe a touch wider in the forefoot, something I found a little disappointing.  I should mention, I hated the skinny black laces that came with the shoes and swapped them out for a pair of old MT100 laces.

While most Asics shoes fit my feet like a glove, with a nicely tight midfoot wrap, the Fuji Trainers felt loose and baggy.  Combine this with the fact that the lacing system is a little unique (and strange), I have found it hard to really get these shoes to be tight enough without cutting off circulation to my feet.  I think this is magnified by the fact that there is not a traditional lowset eyelet and the end of the eyelets, which usually allows for the lockdown style of lacing.  Honestly, the little cloth lacing eyelet seemed kinda useless and stupid.  Thinking about it harder, I think because of the wide base of the shoe, the overlays aren't as useful as the typical Asics overlays; maybe if my feet were a little bit higher volume this wouldn't be a problem.

No eyelet for ankle lockdown lacing

Very roomy around the ankle (a little too much) (ignore the saucony insole)

Careful study of the shoes has led me to conclude that the entire area from the tongue to the heel collar is very large and open, thus if you have somewhat skinny bony ankles like myself, there is a lot of room for your feet to move around.  I am unable to get my heel to lock down even though the length of the shoe is perfect.  It hasn't caused me too much grief, except for the fact that debris enter the shoe a little too easily.  Also, there is a perforated, removable insole, which I swapped out for my favorite Kinvara insoles.

Traction
Traction on these shoes is pretty awesome.  The lugs do exactly what you'd expect.  Combine this with a full contact outsole and a wide platform and I found that they bite into just about any type of trail I have available to test them on.  The wide platform really helps give the foot a stable landing pad when running through sandy sections of trail.  The lugging almost reminds me of the Speedcross, except they aren't quite as tall.

Lug height isn't crazy, but its enough

However, towards the heel, Asics implemented a series of offset square lugs rather than the winged lug pattern found on the rest of the shoe.  I think this is to help de-couple the heel if you're a heel striker, but what I have found is that these guys really suck up mud and don't shed it well.  I've ended up with clumps of my stuck only to my heels on several wet runs.

Mud sticks to the heels a little bit

Ride
Along with the traction, the ride and underfoot feel of the Fuji Trainer 2 is probably my favorite aspect.  They are protective without being sluggish, firm without being too solid, and the 6mm drop really feels smooth when running fast or slow.  There is no rockplate, but the foam is fairly firm and I haven't noticed any problems when running across gravel on dirt roads (my nemesis).  They are moderately flexible, but nothing compared to the Fuji Racer.  I have about 150 miles on my pair, and when I definitely feel as though they have been getting a little more flexible as I break them in.  I have noticed that when running across road or very firm trail, the lugs seem to add more cushion, but also a slightly unstable feeling.  It is nothing series, but I just thought I should mention it.

Conclusions
As of right now, I like this shoe, but its not quite what I was expecting.  The fit and lacing issue is a big disappointment on what otherwise is a very solid offering from Asics.  If you have wide feet, high volume feet, I could see this being a great shoe.  I have since tried to add an eyelet of my own in order to help secure my heel, and it has helped, but for some reason I can't help but think Asics could have done a better job of this than I did.

Added my own eyelet

Because of the traction, relatively low weight, and the comfortable, protective ride, I can see these shoes being a great choice for a long race such as a 50 or 100, especially one that has mixed terrain.  If these fit your feet properly, I think they would be an amazing shoe.  I still enjoy mine, even though I can get irritated that with the roomy feel.  I just wouldn't expect them to fit like a pair of Fuji Racers.

Questions?  Comments?  If there is anything I haven't covered, or if you have experience with these shoes, please leave a comment to help anyone else out there, looking for...  The Perfect Shoe.

RecoFit Leg Compressor Review

I'm not sure the last road trip that I went on that didn't involve some sort of running.  Similarly, I'm not sure the last road trip I went on that I didn't bring my RecoFit Leg Compressor Leg Sleeves with me.

These are full leg sleeves that are intended to provide compression for your hamstrings, quads, calves, and any other muscles that might exist in there.

Fit
I'm not going to bore you with the details that you can look up on RecoFITs website, but rather tell you about my experience with them.  I should also say that they have a very comprehensive sizing chart on the website that helps out a ton.

The first thing I should emphasize, despite having skinny runner legs, these things really stay put nicely.  I've had trouble with other brands of compression wear slipping and sliding down my legs, making me question the degree of compression and making the sleeves essentially useless.

Photo Wilderness Running

RecoFIT sleeves have a nice sticky polymer that is at the very top of the sleeve to that they stay in place.  The polymer seems to have just the right amount of tack, as they dont pull on my leg hair (when I let it grow out you know?).  They are a little difficult to get on, but I think that's just fine, it lets me know they are nice and tight, and actually doing some compressing.

Photo Wilderness Running

Durability
After using them for months, they still stay in place just as well as they did originally, the only noticeable wear is that the label on the outside of the sleeve is starting to peel, which in no way influences the function.

In my opinion the durability is a huge benefit to the Compressors, since I am kinda rough on my gear.  Sometimes tights/compression wear tend to rip and tear wayyy too easily, especially for stuff that you have to tug a little bit to get on.



Performance
To be completely honest, I don't notice much of a benefit of using the leg sleeves on a weekly day-day basis, where my runs are usually between 1-2 hours.  HOWEVER, over the months that I have been using them, I personally have found the Leg Compressors to be very useful in two specific applications.

1.  Recovering from hard biking - I don't bike too often these days, but occasionally get out for a nice quad hammering.  The leg compression benefits from the RecoFIT sleeves was clearly noticeable as I started working more biking into my cross-training/recovery routine post-100 mile races.  Without the Compressors, my legs felt totally flat when I ran the day after a bike ride, with the sleeves, my runs felt significantly more fluid the day after.  I think this has something to do with the nature of biking, in which you really isolate the big muscles in your legs.

2.  Recovering from long runs - especially during car rides.  I'm not a huge fan of driving several hours after a long run, mostly because I find it hard to sit in a car for extended periods of time after running for 5-6 hours, however I frequently find myself in this situation.  Normally, I try to stay mobile post-run, I think moving around, even if its just walking up and down the street helps promote blood flow and speeds recovery.  But, if you are incapable of moving (post-100 miles or riding in a car), these babies are awesome.  Something about the compression keeps my legs feeling fresh, even when I take those first few steps out of the car after driving post-long run.

I think noticed it the most when Ben Vanhoose and I were driving back from a week of pretty aggressive trail running in the Upper Peninsula.   It was a long, rather impromptu car ride home, and boy was I happy to have the Compressors to pull on.

The nice thing about the Leg Compressors is that they aren't overly warm.  Sometimes I even sleep in them, and usually I don't like to sleep with much more than a sheet.

Conclusion
While I don't use these on a daily basis, they are a must when I am packing my bag for a trip that involves a lot of running.  I will again emphasize the durability and excellent fit, because I think those are really important aspects to consider when purchasing compression gear.  That being said, the RecoFIT Leg Compressors retail at $75.00, which I seems reasonable for a piece of clothing that seems as if will last me for well over a year.

If I had one complaint or suggestion, I think it would be nice to incorporate a sock, even if it just pulled on separate from the sleeve, as this would aid in maintaining the compression for the entire leg.  I put on the sleeves after the Woodstock 100 mile, and while my legs felt nice and secure, my feet did swell up like sausages (not unusual for me).

* I was given a pair of RecoFIT leg compressor sleeves to try by the Wolfhound Marketing Group.

Saucony Kinvara TR Review

The original Kinvara was somewhat of a break through shoe.  The first cushioned model to sport a 4mm heel to toe drop, the stack height and soft midsole allowed for a dramatic number of people to begin a foray into minimalistic shoes.

Me, personally, I went through a pair of Kinvara 1 and Kinvara 2's, and found them to be a good shoe when doing casual running, but experienced a little trouble getting them up to top speed.

Kinvara TR (left) vs. Peregrine 2 (right)

Looking for a trail version of the Kinvara, I tried out the Peregrine 1 and Peregrine 2.  While the Peregrines fit my feet nearly perfectly, something about the lack of flexibility, combined with a thick midsole, really left me feeling like there was NO energy return in the Peregrine.  I still run in them occasionally, but never fell in love with them.

So when the Kinvara TR was announced, I was very excited, could this be a great semi-minimalistic option for those of us who like lightweight shoes with a low-profile midsole?

The stats:  Stack height 18 mm (heel) down to 15 mm (forefoot).  My size 11 weigh just under 10oz (9.96oz), which is comparable to a pair of Rogue Racers.

Flat and simple midsole with plenty of flex (Kinvara TR left and Peregrine 2 right)

When I first put it on my foot, I was surprised by a couple feelings.  First, they felt a touch firmer than I expected, which I attribute to a lower stack height than the actual Kinvara, as well as a fairly substantial outsole/rockplate.  Overall, I liked the feeling, it makes them feel very racey, and you want to run fast.  Second, they are a touch more narrow in the toe box than the Peregrine or Kinvara, in fact, they are almost pointy, more similar to my Adios 2s or Speedcross 3s.  The tongue is gusseted, but only towards the bottom, and they use a different lacing design/system than the Peregrine 2.  I bought a size 11, which is the same size I wear in the Peregrine 2 as well as the Kinvara 2.  They use Saucony's flex film technology in the upper, which works, I guess, to me, it was nothing too unique or special.

Kinvara TR (left) more narrow than Peregrine 2 (right)

Running in them, I really notice the minimal heel to toe drop.  More than I have noticed in other 4mm drop shoes like the Peregrine, MT110 and MT10s.  Turns out the Kinvara TR are a 3mm drop, but does 1mm really make a big difference?  Either way, it has taken a little bit of re-adjusting to let my calves and achilles stretch out.

Now that I am more or less used to them, I have really enjoyed running in the Kinvara TR.  Total, since they arrived on July 23rd, I have a little over 200 miles on them (wow really?).  I guess I must like them, as they have been my go to shoe for several 5 hour long runs, on the Mohican 100 mile course, and in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore (more to come on that epic trip).  They fit (and feel) more like a racing flat than the road Kinvara or Peregrines. 

The lugging on the outsole is somewhat unique with multidirectional lugs facing both forwards and backwards.  While the lugs look like something found on the Speedcross, they are very shallow, maybe 3mm in height at the most.  Secondly, although they are described as "soft lugs" I found them to be a fairly hard rubber.  So much so, that they make a clicking sound on wood bridges, rocks, and pavement.  I do wish they were a touch softer, and it would make the ride of the shoe a little more forgiving, but with such shallow lugs, they would wear out very quickly.  Maybe there will be a Kinvara Mud with a more aggressive outsole??  (Wishful thinking I suspect).

The outsole also has a few black numbs, that I assume are supposed to function as traction devices, although I doubt they provide much in the way of grip.  Compared to the Peregrines outsole, it is a much lower profile, and does a great job shedding mud.  Similar to the Peregrine, Saucony advertises a bedrock outsole on the Kinvara TR, which does a great job in providing protection, from what I have experienced thus far.  To me, it also appears that there is an exposed rock plate in the forefoot, viewable as the red/yellow sections towards the middle of the above picture.  Overall, the outsole provides decent traction and decent protection, perfectly acceptable for this catagory of shoe.

Perhaps my favorite thing about the Kinvara TR is the responsiveness and flexibility.  To me, they feel very race ready.  Wearing them, my cadence picks up, and I don't notice a bulky heel at all.  They have a tightly fitting upper, which may bother some people with high volume feet.  While my feet are wide, they are not very tall, so I am accommodated nicely in the Kinvara TR.   Compared to the Peregrine, they are lighter, more flexible, and almost feel softer once broken in (I have always found the Peregrine to feel very firm underfoot), but are not quite as protective.

 Despite the fact that I have read several less than stellar reviews of the Kinvara TR, I personally am a huge fan.  I think I do like the upper from the Peregrine better than the Kinvara, but the midsole + ride easily won me over.  Maybe Saucony can mate the upper/last from the Peregrine to this midsole/outsole and have a truely outstanding shoe. 

I hope this review was helpful.  I will keep updating as I continue to run in these.  Feel free to ask any questions in the comments section.

2Toms Sportshield Review

 Adios Body Glide!

                In running (ultrarunning?) circles, it seems that Body Glide is the quintessential anti-chafe product, and with good reason, the stuff works pretty well.  At least, that’s what I thought until I tried out a product in a similar market niche’ made by 2Toms:  Sportshield.  Now I wonder if I will ever use up my extra stock of Glide. 

                Last year, several of my running buddies succumbed to horrendous chaffing at Mohican, and I was sufficiently notified that I should make sure to avoid chaffing as much as possible as I made my attempt at the race.  Being given a stick of Sportshield to test out, 2 weeks before Mohican, must have been the running gods telling me to use this product.  And so I did, pretty much without having the opportunity to test it on a long run before the big one.  

                My usual chaffing areas are between my thighs, aka chub rub.  I applied a decent amount of Sportshield to the inside of my legs, and then also decided to put some on my ummm, nipples.  Friends know I can frequently be caught with duct tape covering my nipples to avoid chaffing/bleeding, but it’s kind of a strange thing to do, so I am always looking for alternatives.  Sportshield is a very viscous lube, unlike the slightly-firmer-than-peteroleum-jelly feeling that Body Glide has, Sportshield feels like a liquid.  Once applied, there is little evidence of its presence, except for the exceptionally slick feeling.  Apparently and uniquely, silicone is used in Sportshield and this makes it waterproof and very friction resistant.  Another thing I noticed was that it doesn’t seem to have that initial sticky feeling that I associate with having Body Glide between my thighs. 

                I survived Mohican, with absolutely no chaffing and I never had to reapply Sportshield, even after peeing on myself a little bit, on accident (TMI?).  I really liked the fact that I pretty much forgot it was there, and then never had to worry about it again all race.  It smells much better than Body Glide, in my opinion.  I also really like the roll-on application, reducing messiness.  I think the only downsides to Sportshield is that it can be difficult to tell how much you have left in your bottle, which I think could be remedied with the addition of a clear viewing port along the side of the product. It is also slightly more expensive than Body Glide, but I have been using my 1.5oz bottle for almost 2 months and it still sounds like there is liquid inside.  

 I have since tried it on my feet, and it also seems to help prevent hotspots.  2Toms makes another product, specifically for blister prevention, but I usually don’t run into blister problems, making it difficult for me to evaluate this product. 

**  I was given a free sample of Sportshield to test and evaluate**