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.

6mm drop Speedcross 3

Well I'm on the 2nd pair of Speedcrosses.  The first pair served me well through the winter, but received significant abuse on the snow-sidewalk style running.  And as my feet keep growing, they became too small, so with Woodstock 100 mile approaching, I opted to get a new pair.

I like the speedcross 3, they are a solid built shoe, that is very comfortable, provides adequate protection, and fantastic traction, especially in gnarly mud.  But, extensive running in them definitely lets the sides of my knees (IT bands) know that they have a pretty heavy/overbuilt heel.

So, lets fix this.  The Speedcross actually have a nearly perfect heel for manipulation.  While Salomon claimed to have reduced the drop on the SC3 to 9mm, I thought it felt more like the typical 10-11 used in the 2.  Thus, I wanted to cut out 5-6 mm and end up with a 5-6 mm drop.

Its pretty simple:  Get a hacksaw and go at it.  Tools required:  Tape measure or ruler, hacksaw, gorilla glue.

First I used the tape measure to draw an outline to determine where to cut using the saw.  Be patient when doing the cutting.

Trying to follow my outline

Cut all the way to the edge of the red foam, where the black line ends, top middle

After making your initial cut, go ahead and cut a slice (5-6mm slice) for me.  Again exercise patience when doing this.

Saw'd out a 5-6mm foam slice

Shoes - foam slice

Gorilla glue the shoe back together

When glueing them back together - I used Gorilla glue.  Gorilla glue requires a little bit of water to activate, thus lightly dab water onto both of the sides of the midsole you want to glue back together.  Be very conservative in your application of gorilla glue as it tends to expand and bubble if over applied.  Also, you'll need some weight to keep the midsole compressed while the glue dries.  I used a chair, and by having a chair leg sitting into the heel cup of each shoe, I was able to weigh down the chair, and thus compress the midsole (sorry I forgot to take a picture of this).

6mm drop speedcross 3 hard at work @ Woodstock 100 mile

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.

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.