I have used the SB3s for daily road runs over the last 40 days (3 mile daily average), disappointed with how little it took to see wear. For a $200+ shoe, i expected it to last atleast 6 months. 165 lbs, 9 min/mil avg.
I have never had a running shoe show wear this fast
This post is dedicated purely to those who just want to share their new purchases or shoe collections without needing to give any comments about them.
Photo upload has been enabled in the comments.
M 6ft.2 83kg HM 1:19 M 2:54. Currently training for a 90km road ultra in June (why I bought these shoes as will use one for race day).
Mid foot striker, with slightly narrow feet with a neutral gate/running mechanics.
Other shoes in rotation(use case):
Vomero 18 (daily/recovery), Boston 13 (tempo/speed), Rebel v5 (daily), Superblast 2 (long), Salomon Aero blaze 3 (daily), Adidas pro 4 (race 21+), ASICS Sky Paris (21 and under).
Hey all, recently picked up the SB3 so thought would share my opinion on them vs the Azura. As if you considering one i think it worth considering the other.
Reference images: Azura at 210km, SB3 at 50km.
I am not actually sure if you would classify these shoes in the same category, but I have used these in basically the same manner and fill the same space in my rotation so think they are fairly comparable.
Use case: Both shoes have been picked up for an ultra race shoe option. Original picked up the Azura but having an issue with it (see below) so ended up getting the SB3 as a back up option. So being used for long runs, some tempo work, and some session work intervals in the longer efforts.
Fit/feel: went tts in both and works well with no issues. Both have a very nice step in feel and have no rubbing/hot spots in either. They both on the bigger shoe size (though SB definite the bigger of the two) but very light on the feet and have a nice disappearing feel to them. Only thing I will call out, the Azura has a slightly interesting foot shape to it. The forefoot is wide but the mid foot is pretty narrow (for support i imagine). Was a slightly strange feeling when first stepping into them but didn’t notice on the run at all. SB3 feels very similar to the SB2 (in terms of upper feel) for me.
Ride:
Both of these are very comfortable cruisers. The SB3 feels pretty soft when you first step into it but found it firmed up a bit on the run. The Azura overall a firmer shoe but not by a huge amount, in terms of softness/firmness I would say they much of a much. If I had to call out differences I would say the SB3 has more a bouncy feel to it whereas the Azura as more a reactive feel to it. But I imagine if you like the one you’ll like the other.
For specific to each shoe:
Azura: firmer and more reactive midsole vs a bouncy midsole. It feels like it has more of a rocker vs the SB so found it turns over a little easier. It still feels like quite a big shoe on the foot but turns over very easily. I have also done interval works in it (around 3:20 min/km) which I didn’t think it would handle that well but actually did really nicely. I find it a shoe that rewards you for putting effort into it and find it best when I am pushing a little harder through the shoe.
SB3: a common issue with the SB was people saying it felt “slappy and like a brick” - my opinion was I agree on the slappy comment but never found it brick like. The SB3 I still get that slappy feeling (it’s still quite a loud shoe), but think the softer feeling to it people who didn’t like the SB2 will like this (I don’t think it actually is less stiff but I think cause of the softness it feels like it rolls through the stride a bit nicer than the SB2 which should help that brick like feel if you felt that). I haven’t done interval work in them yet but find they excel at just long run pace at any effort (have run between 4:00 up to 6:00 min/km and all done well). They certainly a bulky shoe though so don’t think they would handle intervals as well as the Azura.
Durability: still early on in both but currently no issues to report. Have seen some comments on durability issues with the SB3 which would be unfortunate as durability of the SB2 were one of its best traits but will have to see how they last.
Issues:
Haven’t had any issues with the SB3. The Azura has had a constant issue with the tongue. Specifically on one of the shoes (only the one) the tongue keeps sliding down when I run. To the point where the laces are directly on my foot and causes really bad lace bite. You can see in one of the photos I have cut a slit in the tongue to try stop this. It has helped a little but not completely. I have tried new laces, different tightness etc but nothing has worked 100%. This is actually why I ended up getting the SB3 as don’t want to be having to stop every few km to pull up my tongue. It feels like such a minor issue but truthfully it’s a minor issue that putting me off using these shoe - finding myself not being wanting to reach for it because I just don’t want to deal with the tongue.
Price:
I think this is the biggest difference here. Take out the tongue issue, these shoes are so similar I struggle to see why I would pay an extra $50-$75 dollars for the SB3 over the Azura. Especially if you don’t have any tongue issues with the Azura. The SB3 is still an amazing shoe and if cash is not a worry then doesn’t really matter, just pick the one you think you’ll like more. But if cash is tight, as good as the SB3 is, I don’t think it’s $50+ better than the Azura.
Who is best for:
Not considering price here, I think there are slight differences between these which could lead you to one or the other.
I think the Azura works slightly better at uptempo quicker paces. If most of your runs are slightly quicker would say (5:15-5:30 m/km and below) the I think Azura is better. But if you keen on a long run beast and those runs you not to worried about pace the SB3 will be better. If you wanting a non carbon race shoe would say go for the Azura if you targeting sub 3:30-4:00 hour marathon, if over 4 hour marathon would say go for the SB (just cause you’ll be putting more into the Azura at those paced which is where I find it does best).
But honestly I’m splitting hairs here. I still think the Azura is better at quicker effort and the SB3 is better at longer runs but they both could handle either effort very well and you’ll be happy in both.
Verdict:
For me the tongue is such an issue on the Azura I will give it to the SB3 (for me). But ignoring the tongue, I think the Azura is an overall better deal. It can handle everything the SB3 can and is a chunk cheaper.
Worth trying on both if you can but truthfully can’t go wrong with either.
Happy to answer any questions.
Yesterday I bought the new Nimbus 28 after having the 25 for a couple of years.
So far, I’m pretty disappointed - the 28 feels stiffer, less breathable, and for some reason my toe touches the top part of the shoes (took the same size).
I do mainly walks with the nimbus.
I consider returning them and getting someone else.
What’s your experience with the Gel Nimbus 28?
Haven’t seen anyone posting about it yet so I thought I’d share my thoughts.
About Me: 37M, 5’8”, 165lbs. Training for a 1:30 HM. My PRs is a 42min 10k, and 1:10 10mi. I am currently rebuilding from a calf strain. Easy pace 9:00-9:30. I have a mid volume foot (typically have to use a runners knot on ASICS) with a midfoot strike. My current rotation is Zoom Fly 6 for speed work, threshold, long runs. Megablast for easy/interval, and long runs. Sky Tokyo for race. I primarily run 4 days a week, and strength train the other 3. 174 cadence today.
What this shoe is intended to do for me: 2hr LSS running, and something I can take on trips and do other workouts in.
Fit: It fits great. TTS is 10.5 for me. No runners knot or special lacing needed. The heel fit great, no slippage. The tongue is thin with enough padding so I don’t get lace bite.
Sole: My run today was one of those where dressmyrun was trying to convince me to stay inside. 20-30mph winds, rain the whole time. No issues with grip or slipping across asphalt and the occasional wood bridge.
Ride: This is a firm, responsive, protective ride. Although today’s pace was faster than I bought it for, it handled it well. The rocker on this is great, more on that down below in comparisons. It rolled through without and hitches or flat landings no matter how I ran.
Run: I took them out for a 8mi run. I wanted to see how it handled a faster 7:45mi pace. The CM3H just locked in and I didn’t have to think about it. It handled the pace great, the ride was responsive and controlled. The grip in the rain was solid. I had no heel slippage. Up and down hills had no issue. The midfoot lock down was perfect. I took them to a sub 6min pace towards the end and it picked up well. No issue with turn over.
Opinion: it was only my first run and I will take them on a long slow steady later this week and will report back. But it think this maybe exactly what I was looking for. I also travel a bit, and was trying to find a shoe to bring a long for multiple different workouts. The price is up there, but compared to all the other top shoes out there, $10-$20 extra doesn’t bother me if it can keep me from hurting and help stave off injury. If this does slow well, then it’s the best multipurpose shoe I’ve tried in the past 6 months.
Comparisons:
Why I got it: I have the Megablast, Hyperion Max 3, and Zoom Fly 6. The Megablast is great, but not for me at my easy pace. Too much bounce. The Hyperion Max 3 is fun, but heavy and my legs felt thrashed after 10 miles. The zoom fly is my favorite but is dull when slow. I’ve read a ton on the Vomero+ and Superblast 3, and was eyeing those as potential candidates. Recently the On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper has been reviewing well, but I hadn’t seen any feedback here. Luckily my local running store had all three in stock and I went to test run in them. The Vomero Plus felt great but I could definitely tell feel the big heel/drop in them. The Superblast 3 felt great, much better than the Superblast 2, which felt like a slappy brick, even after putting 50 miles on them. The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper felt also great. I then did back to back test runs on them in store.
The main differences between the Superblast 3 (SB3) and Cloudmonster 3 Hyper (CM3H) I felt was the SB3 was much softer in the forefoot, the SB3 was much wider, and the rockers felt different. The forefoot softness was great in the SB3. The width however was the main issue for me. Through my landing and transition I felt the SB3 aggressively rotate my foot inward. The CM3H felt like it helped correct but was much smoother, mainly to it feeling less wide. The rocker was slightly different but I could cruise in either.
Megablast - a great shoe. Megablast is lighter, but with a worse lockdown for me. I have to be careful when I lace up otherwise I do get lace bit from it. The feel is different, Megablast has immediate return upon impact, the CM3H is supportive but doesn’t propel me the same. Megablast is will stay as a tempo/threshold/progressive long run shoe for me.
Zoom Fly 6: this is my favorite trainer. I have multiple pairs. The ZF6 is less stable in the heel, but at pace it just works. It’s dull when slow for me, hence the search for an easy day shoe. This is my primary speed/progressive long run shoe.
I’ll update after my 11mi slow run this week, but I’ll try to answer anything in the meantime.
Massive fan of current Topo shoes - and a Portuguese video came up on my YT feed of the new 2026 lineup and it mentioned the Traverse 2.
I want to use it for my upcoming 6 months overlanding of Africa and South East Asia.
I can’t find (and neither can AI) any further details about this upcoming model, and yet the guy is showing it off in the video!
If anyone knows more, please share!
I know race shoes don’t last long but damn, just raced my second half marathon in these today and noticed they’re already falling apart. I was considering getting alphaflys for my marathon next month but now I have beef with Nike lol. Gonna try the adidas pro 4 instead I guess🤷
Despite saying not for resale, I did manage to buy a pair of these almost 3 months early. Seems to have addressed all the problems I had with the ghost series like the high drop (now 6mm in these) and the foam. Weight is significantly reduced as well, with an ounce taken off. At first glance it seems like it would be Brooks' version of a speedier daily trainer much like the EVO SL, Rebel V5, and novablast 5. Looking forward to trying these out in the next few weeks.
New Balance Supercomp Elite v5 (100km review)
I rarely see these shoes being talked about in this sub, so I thought I’d just add some insights about the shoe, especially that the shoes are going on sale left and right for these (well, at least here in SEA). I’ve reached roughly 100km in these racers, and here is my review of the SC Elite v5.
About me:
- 5ft6
- 142lbs
- everything foot striker lmao (generally midfoot striker, but I forefoot strike when running very fast and heel strike when running slower than easy)
5k - 17:55
10k - 49:44
HM- 1:57:50
M - 5:35:☠️☠️
Additional context: I’ve long been a fast runner (relatively) on shorter distances but pretty terrible when the distance goes farther than 10km. New Balance has always worked for me as a half marathon/marathon racing shoes due to how comfortable and unaggressive they are. Excluding the RC Elite v1, I have raced in the RC Elite v2, SC Elite v3, SC Elite v4, and now the SC Elite v5. I i were to quickly rank them based on my experience with them
SC Elite v5 - Propulsive, energetic, but stable enough. Firmest NB racer yet.
SC Elite v3 - Smooth Rolling and very accommodating fit. Most comfortable NB racer.
RC Elite v2 - Buttery soft midsole with tons of shock absorption. Non-existent bounce.
SC Elite v4 - Blocky and bottom heavy. Terrible ‘racing’ shoe.
Upper:
\\- New Balance went with a mesh upper again but on this iteration, it felt very… durable. It’s a lot less breathable compared to v3 and v4 (which had awesome breathability) but it now feels very sturdy and resistant to foot movement. Lockdown of the shoe is great due to the full gusset the v5 has, and this has honestly been a very big change. I got very used to New Balance making racing shoes that do not feel like racing shoes because they lean heavily on comfort. While a remnant of that remains with the roomy toebox (relative to racing shoes), this definitely feels like a clear move towards the performance side. As a result, the step in comfort of the SC Elite v5 is easily the weakest out of NB racing shoes, but also the best upper in terms of lockdown and performance.
Midsole:
\\- Year 2 of New Balance finally using non-eva midsole for its racing shoe, and I like the changes they made in this version. It feels a bit firmer compared to v4, and would daresay this is the firmest midsole from NB racing shoes yet. While I can’t necessarily say if it’s an entirely different iteration of peba-based fuelcell, this feels very energetic. Not a lot of squish, but a whole lot of give back after each push-off without bottoming out on the foam. I can’t feel the plate but I am reaping the benefits of it. It’s also weird to say as early as now, but I have a feeling this midsole will last a long time… The midsole didn’t have a break-in period, but now at 100kms, this feels near pristine— something that I cannot say for the v2 and v3, which lost the limited pop they have quite quickly.
Outsole:
\\- The outsole has a ton of rubber underfoot, and while I was initially skeptical of the semi-translucent outsole, it has performed really really well. It has gripped every surface I ran on perfectly, and was awesome when I ran on the track oval with it. I would honestly throw in the hot take that the grip is on par with PumaGrip, which is the best outsole on the market in terms of performance and durability.
Ride:
\\- The ride of these shoes feels very balanced. It deviates far away from the comfortable and smooth rolling ride experience from previous NB Racing shoes, but it also doesn’t feel as aggressive as Nike or Hoka racing shoes. It sits firmly in the middle as a hybrid of still-comfortable but now mildly aggressive racing shoes. It’s energetic, but controlled. It’s snappy, but forgiving.
Weight/ Comfort:
\\- It feels like magic how New Balance went with Mesh for the upper, more rubber on the outsole, but made the shoes 40 grams lighter. But in reality, they did it through cutting what used to be always a wide base on NB racing shoes (and on the V4 it was one uncomfy slab) into a more modern approach of racing shoes. It’s now a lot less accommodating in fit as a result.
Overall:
\\- as a terrible distance runner, the departure of New Balance from their comfort focused racing shoes into a more modern and aggressive racing shoes was something that initially scared me. But after trying it on, it remains comfortable enough for me to run in but at the same time be able to enjoy the massive reduction in weight, propulsive but controlled ride, and a seemingly very durable midsole and outsole.
New colourways of the MTC H1 showcased at a running event in Berlin.
I know I'm late to the party, but some people are curious about getting the Adios while they still can.
About me:
30M, 135lbs/61kg, midfoot strike but I'll forefoot strike on hills and heel strike when fatigued. Wide feet through with tailor's bunions but no big toe bunions, Roman footshape (2nd toe longest), low-ish arches
40-60km per week starting this January, after 8 years of not running consistently. I'm training for a sub-20 5k and a sub 42 10k. I run in a hilly area, not the steepest hills, but constantly switching between uphill and downhill.
How I've used this shoe:
I've done everything from 1k repeats to 10k tempo at 4:30/km to a 18k long run. I think they're ideal for anything 12k and under. I've worn them casually a bit because of how nice they feel to slip on, but I didn't love it because of the narrow heel.
Upper/Fit:
Adidas deserves its flowers for its Lightlock uppers, after the cheap, recycled plastic mess of the previous two generations of Adizero shoes. It's ultra-lightweight, and secures your foot without any hotspots. Even for my 2E feet. There is no stitching on the inside, no sharp edges, and a pliable, but traditional heel. It reminds me of moccasins - it's like supple leather.
The fit is very narrow in the toebox, normal width and volume in the midfoot, and slightly narrow in the heel. Lengthwise, it is TTS. The material is supposed to stretch in one direction to accomdate a larger foot, but things are quite tight up front.
While the laces aren't special, I didn't need to tighten them very much for them to stay in place and give me perfect lockdown for the entire run. I never needed to heel-lock or double knot. The Lightlock system (see the pics) is a single piece of thin felt behind the eyelet chain that creates that personalized, sock-like fit. It tightens the fit around the ankle when you tighten the rest of the shoe, and vice-versa. It pulls the midfoot and the pliable heel counter together. When I pulled laces out too much, I actually felt the toebox get uncomfortably tight. This may be an issue for those who somehow can't get good heel lockdown and have wide feet.
Like leather though, the upper doesn't have visible perforations. I'm not looking forward to the lack of ventilation in 30*C weather. It does prevent a little bit of rain from soaking your socks. Where the insole of my Adios 8 would get toeprints on them from landing in mud, the Adios 9's volt insole was spotless after going through many puddles.
Outsole:
The CPU outsole is said to be the most durable part of the shoe, despite its softness. Not even a hint of wear so far. I never had to think twice about the traction. It allowed me to push hard through corners. It bites hard on downhills, allowing for a faster but controlled descent landing on my forefoot (!). In the rain, the grip was excellent through puddles, downhill, and on painted surfaces. Curiously the heel section has no traction pattern, although its fully covered. This further softens the heel landing, which I'll discuss next.
Midsole:
This is the part of the Adios 9 that will make or break the shoe for you. This is an unique run for this era of shoes.
The new Lightstrike Pro is plush, but with the mid-20mm stack height there's only so far the foam can compress. So you get a very low-to-the ground ride that feels protective in the forefoot, but a bit harsh in the back. Because of the heel bevel and the thin, soft outsole in the heel, the heel bottoms out if you heel strike. The curve of your own heel becomes the bevel😂.
But if you land in the midfoot and forwards, the foam springs you forward when your heel briefly makes contact with the ground. While the Adios 8 had a firm snap in the front and a marshmellow in the back, the Adios 9 has a consistent, softer, and more elastic ride with less bounce.
The amount of speed assistance they provide is very mild, and my splits seem to confirm this. The sub-200g weight is what keeps your legs lively. I find it easy to increase cadence and stride length because my feet are unencumbered by a massive slab of foam. They are great for hills because of the flexibility. They are fine at recovery paces if I don't heel strike, but unstable for my tastes. I actually find these perfect for steady long runs 5:10/km or faster because the lower stack/drop relieves impact from my hips. Barring an achilles strain, I find that hip and back fatigue holds me back more than lower leg fatigue.
Stabillity:
If you are looking for a substantial underfoot feel with some support for your workouts, this shoe won't be for you. You get more sink in the lateral portion of the shoe than the medial. The uneven sink can feel unstable. The narrow heel platform is unstable.
This is a shoe that lets you use the natural flexibility and impact controlling motions of your feet. You need decent flexibility in you toes, ankles, and achilles. Do your calve raises, lower leg stretches, and back squats. The Adios 9 feels like a fully-actualized Kinvara or Nike Free. I ran barefoot on the treadmill before I was running consistently, which maybe prepared me for these Adios.
Final thoughts
It's hard to say if Adidas will make a Adios 10 with the unenthusiastic release the 9s got. I think they'll kill either the Adios or the Bostons, or merge them to bring the Boston back to its roots. But Adidas created something fresh yet streamlined here.
This post is a place where any questions (especially those that may not deserve their own thread) can be asked. Feel free to engage and help others with questions.
For new runners or people who just found this sub, please don't forget to check out the handy FAQ where you can find a helpful list of different shoes for your needs.
This is more of initial review because I only did about 60km so far, ranging from 4:30 to 6:00 min/km pace.
Mostly on concrete and in dry conditions.
About me:
181cm, ~90kg, heel striker, running 70-100km per week.
Upper:
Well fitting, breathable, knit upper.
I am usually not a fan of knit but this one is built in a way that does not create bunching with laced.
Plenty of heel padding to ensure comfort and good lockdown. A bit of padding on the tongue where laces put more pressure.
Colour could be less aggressive but I appreciate that the "jumpman" logo is very small on this model.
Outsole:
Plenty of solid coverage, especially compared to most racing shoes. No signs of wear but it is very early.
No traction issues so far.
Midsole:
This one is quite special.
It is a triple-layer, PEBA construction with a full-length carbon plate. There is also a small window in the middle, but I doubt it does much. The middle layer in the forefoot supposedly improves running efficiency by 3%.
This is very low-density PEBA, which results in an overall low weight (~213-214g for EU size 44) with 40mm in the heel and 33mm in the forefoot.
I typically prefer more squishy ride (Saucony Endorphin Elite 2 type) but I really enjoy the energetic bounce this shoe offers. Last time I felt something like this from the shoe was in Hoka Cielo X1 (which was noticably heavier).
I had no issues with stability, even on U-turns.
I don't really have anything negative to say at this stage.
Durability is something to be tested but the manufacturer claims that they can last 1000km and so far even the foam in the heel looks better than many of my other racing shoes after 50-60km.
For me, this may be the best racing shoe available currently, even before taking into account the 160USD price.
I have not tried Plaid 1.5 or 2 so can't compared but I will likely get 1.5 as many people say it's also an amazing shoe, especially for heel strikers.
Compared to Li-ning Feidan 6 Elite, they are less squishy but more energetic and bouncy.
I also feel like 6 Elite is a bit too fast for me at the moment and it works a bit against me unless I go sub 4:30min/km.
Happy weekend!
This is our weekend post where you can give your reviews, tell us what you hated/loved, comparisons between versions, share photos, or ask questions below for everything Adidas!
Been over two weeks since I made my "first run" post regarding my Adidas Boston 13. After this run, I was optimistic that these shoes could replace my now-retired Boston 10 as daily trainers.
I've now used them for all my base runs over the last 16 days (~15mi), and am disappointed to realize these will not be my next pair of daily trainers.
Fit and Feel
When I first put the 13 on, it felt like home. Despite being lighter and more breathable, it was very familiar feeling to my foot. Certainly found them to fit a little longer than the 10s, and the midfoot was supported, but not quite as strongly as in the 10s.
Initial feel suggested the Lightstrike 2.0 had a little more give out of the box versus the the OG Lightstrike, and could potentially require less break in. And first run suggested "new shoe, and kinda close to the old one". But more mileage highlighted a few areas where the Boston 10 worked well for me, and the 13 are not.
Subtle Differences
The stripe differences are not subtle. But there are a few things I wished I had paid closer attention to:
I never understood what people meant when they described the Boston as "slappy" or "bricks" as I never found this with the 10. But man, were these bad boys slapping on the treadmill last night.
The lower stack is also detrimental to non-lightweight rigid foot midfoot strikers. The extra Lightstrike Pro benefits forefoot strikers, while heavier runners actually get less shock absorbency than they did in the slightly plumper Boston 10.
Conclusion
If I actually want to run the 10k I was planning to run in June, these have to go in the cupboard immediately. Having less stability, less shock absorption, and less drop than the 10 all are detrimental to me as a runner, and I am feeling the effects of this in my calves, hamstrings, quads, and knees.
Will I wear these again? Unsure at this point, and I may donate them to a local high school.
Are they nice shoes? Yes. Could they be a good daily trainer? Yes, for someone who is much faster than me, and who has normal pronation. But these seem more of a "serious" runners shoe now, and less of an everyman's versatile shoe, especially for heavier runners.
Hi shoe geeks!
I currently moved back to the countryside and was no longer in need off all my road running shoes. I still wanted to benefit from all the awesomeness under foot since I haven’t found anything quite similar within the trail world. My favourite was the NB more trail v3 (so heavy though), aero glide 3 was nice and I’m currently awaiting the norda 055.
For a past 100k ultra I swapped outsoles of my favoueite road running shoe back then. I decided to give it a go once more and boy - it did not disappoint!
I swapped outsoles on both my Evo SL and the Xiaonian and they are imo the best (light) trail shoes I could get rn. If anyone has the chance to find some kind of shoemaker or orthopedics specialist, go and consult them! such shops might be more common around mountain sports areas (s/o to Orthopädie Schuhtechnik Schwarz in Bayern!)
A few things to consider though:
Choice of outsole: find the right pattern and lug depth. My evo sl got a vibram fast trail and can handle more gnarly stuff, the Dynafish has a shallower vibram megagrip pattern for smoother trails. I would always opt for vibram though!
Fit: with most road shoes you can get away with a fit that’s below optimal. I would address such issues, if you consider using it for trails. I swapped insoles for Curex high profile ones, that suit my arch perfectly and take away excess room, making the shoe mould to my foot. I also swapped laces for these sawtooth ones that you can get on Amazon for a few bucks so the fit remains the same throughout the run.
Feel: obviously, the outsole makes the shoe a bit heavier and dampens the ride a bit, still they feel awesome and are more energetic than any trail shoe I tried (plateless, but even with a plate I’m not sure there’s better out there). I’m hoping for the norda 055 to change that.
Terrain: with high stack shoes, you still have to be careful of extremely technical trails and especially long off camber sections. your ankles will notice the slope on such high stack of foam. anything else is perfectly fine, if you are „sure footed“. I haven’t rolled an ankle once in both shoes and have accumulated roughly 700km.
durability: that’s maybe the best part. my evo sl have now 900km on them and there’s no sign of wear within the midsole or outsole (except the first lug at the very front). I feel like the proper outsole conserves some midsole bounce over a longer period of time
In conclusion, I recommend to anyone to try an outsole swap in case you’re on the trails regularly. be aware of fit, feel and the combination of lug pattern, depth and the terrain your running on. with a great shop at hand, I can’t see myself buying a trail shoe soon again (again, except the norda), but will buy great and discounted road shoes that will get a new outsole. I might change my mind once the brands fully conquer the „gravel market“ and bring a superblast 3 with a light trail outsole and same weight (lol)
Just got the DNE4.
Was waiting for a cool colorway and these really don’t disappoint! IRL they look even better.
Slight throwback to the mismatch colorway of DNE2
I love this type of style.
Haven’t run in them - so will share a detailed review later.
But the one thing I did notice is that most Puma Nitro series shoes have always been narrow and I’ve enjoyed that since I have narrow feet as well. But the DNE4 has a wider toe box and not just toebox but even midfoot is slightly broader which made my usual UK size 10 feel slightly lose for me. I’ve worn DNE 1,2,3 and Fast R 3 in Size 10 but got these in UK 9.5 and that seems like a much better fit for me.
Excited to run in them but in terms of looks they’re absolutely stellar tbh!
Happy weekend!
This is our weekend post where you can give your reviews, tell us what you hated/loved, comparisons between versions, share photos, or ask questions below for everything Asics!
Made a post a couple of days ago about the white/blue color, and now they added two more colors. $5 shipping.
At time of posting:
Pink: size 5-10 (men’s 4-9).
Wonder White: size 7.5-8.5, 9.5, and 10 (men’s 6.5-7.5, 8.5, and 9).
https://shop.simon.com/products/womens-adidas-adizero-evo-sl-shoes
