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.

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.

Hoka One One Stinson B Evo Low Review

By Jason Robertson

I had been considering getting a pair of Hokas.  While I couldn't find the correct size, Jason (who is also a shoe nerd) picked up a pair of the new Stinson B Evos, and I begged him for a review.  Enjoy!

Get the name right damnit!  Minimalist shoe label from the running store.

Fit

A little narrow in the toe box.  My left foot is larger than my right and pinky toe was slightly rubbing.  I was able to change out the standard-sized, left insole for the thinner one provided-no more rubbing and nice customization.  This was the only concern I had with the fit of this shoe.  The upper has great lock-down and provides day-long comfort.  It also has a taller (more volume) and slightly more narrow fit than, say, a MT110 or the Brooks Pure Grit.  I run a size 10 in those models and have found the 10.5 in Hokas very nice, in addition to the thinner insole in my left shoe.

Accessories:  Extra insoles and laces

Traction

Traction rocks on this shoe.  You can hear it grip on pavement and the dry hard pack we’ve experienced here in Northeast Indiana this summer.  It does lack the deep lugs of a Salomon Speedcross, but I’d say the rubber is on par with the MT110 for tackiness. I felt very secure on wet, downhill corners during my outings in the Smokies and no problems on wet rock (the Brooks Pure Grit really let me down on the slick rock during our last trip so I was very cautious and was pleasantly surprised with the Stinson B Evo).  This outsole also receives high marks for self-cleaning action.

Wear resistant, very tacky Hoka outsole, very nice!

Cushion

Goes without saying…this shoe has lots of cush.  Confidence inspiring, feels like cheating, unfair advantage cush.  This shoe has allowed me, over the past month, to become a downhill bomber.   I’ve also, at the same time, been able to handle an increase in mileage as I’ve had time off from work this summer.  My legs have not had that “beat down” feeling they usually receive from such an increase into the 100 mile per week range. 

Some might say, and mentioned by Marshall Ulrich in his review of Hokas, that having so much cushion could prevent or hinder the gains (i.e. muscle breakdown-healing, ligament, joint, tendon strengthening/changing) of running in a more minimally cushioned shoe.  I do wear and run in the Minimus 00, Kinvara and the Pure Grit a few times each week and know there is benefit in low slung shoes.  I recovered from an injury 2 years ago through a process of running barefoot and utilizing minimal shoes.  Not having a serious injury since, I want to maintain my form.  The Hokas have allowed for more vigorous miles to be put in each week and I believe they have allowed some strengthening in areas that lesser cushioned shoe might not.  For instance, pounding the down hills helped strengthen my quads.  I also noticed my ankles feeling a bit worked-similar to when I do barefoot speed work on the soccer fields.  The Hokas also allow for the same cadence and running stance that I have developed with my other lower shoes.  It is interesting to note that Playmakers have a minimalist label on the box as seen in my first picture.

Lots of cushion in these bad boys

Protection

Search out the sharpest stingers on the trail.  Nothing short of a 3” nail will hurt your foot.  I totally understand why Darcy Africa (a PI sponsored runner) would opt for the Hokas at Hard Rock, even when she has Isoseeks at her disposal.  4-4.5 hour run/hikes in the Smokies had my feet begging for more. Usually after the four hour mark of running trail, especially in the Smoky Mountains, my feet start letting me know that they’re feeling the rocks, roots and uneven terrain. No matter what I stepped on, I felt no pain.  I am very excited to try these out in some fall 50 milers and next year’s mountain 100’s.

Flexibility

Next to none.  This did make my left arch sing a little (same tightness I had with the MT100/101s).  After some foam rolling on the calf, all was well.  With such a well cushioned midsole, the Hoka is a stiff shoe.  You can’t roll it up like a Nike Free.  This is just fine with me.  The stiffness actually inspires quite a bit of confidence when rolling fast on the downs and the rockered shape of the shoe allows for a nice seamless foot strike to toe off.

Likes

·        Awesome cushion and protection.  I will never again have to choose what shoe I’ll wear on a run over 3 hours…or question whether or not to bomb a downhill.

·        Great drainage.  After the several crossings we did in the Smokies, I was very impressed.  This shoe, surprisingly, drained and dried as well as a pair of 101s, which in my opinion; earned the title for the quickest drain/dry shoe.

·        Nice alternate insole/lacing options (comes with quick lace intact-laces optional, but you have to cut the quick lace in order to remove).

·        Overall fit and wear.  I plan on wearing this shoe through next summer and have no concerns about this shoes making it to 1,500 miles-seems very durable at this point. Also, the fit and drop of the shoe does not interfere with wearing my other shoes.  I simply throw on the extra cushion, no worries about a large ramp angle when switching to a more cushioned shoe. 

Dislikes

·        Weight claims.  I read from several sources that these shoes weighed in anywhere between 9 and 10.5 ounces for a men’s size 9.  The shoes I purchased, a size 10.5, weighed in at 13 1/8 ounces on my extremely accurate food scale.  This is about the weight of a pair of Cascadia 6s in the same size.  Interestingly enough, I planned to buy a pair of Cascadia 7s.  I tried on the Hokas 1st, ran around the store, ran a 5k with Scott Jurek(! Stopped in on his book tour) in a trial pair then tried on the Cascadias.  They felt very flat and unresponsive comparatively.  I dropped the extra $60 for the Hokas. 

          The Hokas do a good job of feeling lighter than they really are.  Just        looking at them, you would think they are heavy clodders.  Upon picking        them up they feel uber light.  Same thing happens when running in      them.  They have such a good bounce and energy return, that they seem          to shrug off some ounces and feel about the same weight as a pair of Pure Grits.

·        Cost.  These are the most expensive in my shoe quiver and gave me the most wife feedback.  But, if they last as long as I think, cost will be a mute point.  Plus, they do come with extra laces and another set of insoles allowing a more customizable fit.

Writer Bio

 

My name is Jason Robertson (33 years old).  I’ve been married for 15 years, have 3 kids and teach middle school Language Arts.

I grew up riding/racing dirt bikes and fell in love with running in ’09 after finally getting the right pair of shoes on my feet, ridding myself of shin splints, and completing my first 50k. 

Jason why so modest?  Jason has run over 20 Ultras, including 3 100 mile races.  Always up for a long run,  he is a constant source of inspiration and enthusiasm.

La Sportiva Vertical K Review

I bought the Vert K's almost as soon as they were released.  In fact, I might have even pre-ordered them.  The very first day that I owned them, I ran 10 miles on the treadmill and was thrilled.  They felt great.

Yellow morphodynamic midsole

After putting many more miles on these shoes I can safely say that they fill a niche that is somewhat under targeted in the shoe market.  light weight, cushioned shoes, with a low drop (4mm).

I was very surprised by how well they gripped even in the worst mud that I had the chance to run in.  I attribute this not to the small lugs, but to the waves in the morphodynamic midsole that provide flex points, but also increase traction when required.  They feel incredibly light when holding them and then fit like a slipper.  The tongue only has one seem, which seems to improve the fit of the shoe and supplements the booty-like scree guard that Sportiva is known for on several of their shoe models.

In the past Sportiva shoes have been too narrow for my feet (skylight 2.0 and crosslite 1.0) so I haven't been able to really test out a shoe from this well respected shoe maker.  However, the vert k's have a significantly wider feel.  I still wouldn't say that they are as wide as many other minimalist type shoes that I have run in, but better than the aforementioned sportivas.  Along with the wider fit and unique tongue, their is also a small bungee on the heel of the shoe to help one put it on and off, however it seems to be placed on the wrong side of the shoe to be very helpful (imho).

Unique tongue gives a slipper-like fit

What really appealed to me about the concept of the vertical K is that they are lightweight and cushioned, something that a shoe like the MT110 is lacking.  This allowed me to climb with the comfort of light shoes and quick turnover, but to bomb steep hills with the help of a midsole that compressed more readily.  This is achieved through the use of Sportiva's morphodynamic midsole which is also featured on the quantum, and electron.

I was pretty much madly in love with these shoes until I hit some pavement in order to connect a couple trails.  here, the grooves in the outsole can be felt SIGNIFICANTLY, and while it didn't hurt on a mile of roads during 15 mile run, I can see this causing discomfort in longer races or training runs.  However, the grooves to provide excellent flexibility, and as mentioned earlier, good traction.

Grooves in the fairly wide forefoot

There is no rockplate in the Verticle K.  The protection is supposed to come the highly compressible midsole material.  I found this to work well, but by the end of a 23 mile run on rocky terrain, a combination of the grooves in the forefoot and the occasional rock poke through, again had me feeling a little wary about using them for anything further. 

These shoes come with a very thin insole, and removing it reveals some nasty looking seems in the footbed, which were extremely uncomfortable even through socks, when I ran without the insoles.

Handled the mud very well

Overall, the fit and concept of these shoes is excellent.  I loved the roomy, wider fit, that allowed me to get into a pair of sportivas.  Traction was great on all the conditions that I tested the shoes, including mud, rocks, sand, and erosion netting.  The scree guard on the upper does a good job of keeping debris out of the shoes and the laces can be tucked inside.  I experienced no problems adjusting the fit, despite the built in scree guard.  The downsides were that the shoe had a strange feel on pavement, which wasn't as noticeable on dirt roads or trail.  I did find the cushioning to result in a great feel on hardpack trails, but seemed to suck up extra energy on really sandy trails (I think they would be best on the sometimes rocky, but solid and try trails I ran in San Diego recently).  Furthermore, high volume feet cannot take out the insole, but rather I would suggest sizing up .5 sizes.  Finally, the concept of a cushioned light trail runner is a great idea, but a light rock plate would have been nice to both minimize the feel of the waves underfoot and beef up the protection just a tad.

There are not many other shoes in this category (light and cushioned).  Other competitors for this niche seem to be the Rogue fly, the upcoming MT1010 and Kinvara TR.  After running in these, I can only imagine how soft Hokas must feel, it is definitely an interesting ride, and I like to rotate these shoes in for several runs each week, but don't think that I would ever race more than a marathon or 50k in them.