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.