r/RunningShoeGeeks

Quite an interesting look, tape on the heel. Maybe we’ll be seeing more of these soon

Runner Profile
Height: 6 feet 1 inch / 185 cm
Weight: 250 pounds / approximately 113 kilograms
Build: Heavier, muscular, athletic runner
Foot strike: Primarily midfoot
Normal everyday shoe size: US men’s 11.5
Typical running-shoe size: US men’s 12

My Current Running-Shoe Rotation
Kiprun Tempo — US men’s 11.5
Dynafish Xiaonian — US men’s 11.5
Adidas Adizero Evo SL — US men’s 11.5
Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 — US men’s 12
R.A.D UFO — US men’s 12
Puma MagMax Nitro 2 — US men’s 12
ANTA C202 7 — US men’s 12

Mileage and Use
I have put approximately seven miles into the Kiprun Tempo so far.
During those miles, I have used the shoe for a mixture of slower running, medium-paced running, and faster-paced efforts.
Although the Kiprun Tempo is presented as more of a faster-paced shoe, I could immediately tell that it can handle several different types of runs.
I can definitely see this being used as a daily trainer, especially for someone who wants one shoe that can remain comfortable at slower paces but still respond when it is time to pick up the speed.

Sizing and Fit
Sizing has been one of the biggest topics surrounding this shoe. Several reviewers have mentioned that the sizing can be confusing or that the shoe fits longer than expected.
My everyday shoe size is 11.5, but I often wear a size 12 in running shoes to give my feet additional space.
For the Kiprun Tempo, I decided to stay with my actual size and purchase an 11.5. I’m glad I did because the 11.5 fits me perfectly.
The toe box has a little extra room, which I like. My toes do not feel squeezed or restricted, but the shoe also does not feel excessively loose.
The midsole and sidewalls seem to hug and cradle the foot in a unique way. It is difficult to fully explain, but instead of feeling like my foot is simply sitting on top of the shoe, it feels like the shoe is holding my foot securely inside the platform.
I did experience a small amount of heel slippage at first. However, after using a runner’s knot, the heel lockdown improved significantly.

Upper and Interior
It has a gusseted tongue, which i like. My only issue is that I wish the tongue were slightly longer. Also, the shoes was very breathable and it’s been perfect for the hot summer days. The weakest part of the interior is the removable insole. It is extremely thin and feels noticeably cheaper than the rest of the shoe. The insole does not match the quality of the upper, midsole, and outsole. However, it has not stopped the shoe itself from feeling comfortable while running.

Midsole and Cushioning
The midsole is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy the Kiprun Tempo.It provides a very nice amount of bounce while still feeling comfortable and protective. It does not feel overly soft, mushy, or unstable.I have noticed that the shoe handles my weight very well. It feels good on my body and does not leave me feeling excessively beaten up after a run.
The best way I can describe the midsole is that it reminds me of the Adidas Evo SL after the Evo SL has been broken in.
After putting more miles into the Evo SL, the midsole begins to soften, but it still maintains its bounce and energy. The Kiprun Tempo gives me a similar combination of softness and responsiveness.
That is one of the main reasons I have been reaching for this shoe so often.

Comparison With the ASICS Superblast 3
I have not completed a run in the ASICS Superblast 3, so this is not a direct performance comparison.
However, when I tried the Superblast 3 on, the step-in feel did remind me a little bit of the Kiprun Tempo. That is only based on how the shoe felt underfoot, not how it performs during a run.

Rocker and Ride
It has a noticeable and fairly aggressive rocker.
The shoe encourages the foot to roll forward through the stride. It may take some time to understand the geometry, especially for runners who are not accustomed to strongly rockered shoes.
I can understand why the rocker has created mixed opinions among some reviewers. The ride feels different from a traditional daily trainer. Personally, I like it a lot.
Once I settled into the shoe, the rocker helped produce a smooth and enjoyable stride. The shape of the shoe works well with the bounce of the midsole and makes the transition through each step feel natural.
The shoe performs well during medium- and faster-paced running, but it has also remained comfortable during slower runs.
That versatility is one of its strongest qualities.

Stability
The Kiprun Tempo feels noticeably more stable than the Adidas Evo SL.
The Evo SL provides a lighter and slightly more effortless feeling, but the Kiprun Tempo gives me a more secure platform underneath my body.
For a heavier runner, that added stability can make a significant difference. I still get the bounce and responsiveness I enjoy, but I do not feel like I am sacrificing control.It balances cushioning, responsiveness, and stability very well.

Grip
I do not usually enjoy running in the rain, but I did get caught running in wet conditions with the Kiprun Tempo.
Even in the rain, I did not notice any slipping, which gave me confidence in the outsole grip so far.

Weight and On-Foot Feel
It does not feel excessively heavy or bulky while running.
The Adidas Evo SL still feels lighter on foot. It gives me a slightly more minimal and effortless sensation.
However, the Kiprun Tempo does not feel slow or cumbersome. Any additional weight comes with improved stability, structure, and support.
For many runners, especially heavier runners, that will be a worthwhile trade-off.

Appearance
This is a very attractive running shoe.
It has a sleek, aggressive, and fast-looking design. It is honestly one of the sexier shoes in my running rotation.
The appearance matches the character of the shoe. It looks modern, energetic, and performance-oriented.

Final Verdict

Overall, I really, really like the Kiprun Tempo.
For the price point, I think you are getting a lot of value. The shoe feels comfortable, responsive, stable, and protective without feeling too soft or lifeless.
I also think heavier runners could really enjoy this shoe because it gives you a secure platform while still having bounce.
I still need more mileage before judging durability, but so far, I think the midsole may continue to get better over time, and the overall build seems like it could hold up well.

Hi, all. I posted a fairly positive “first impressions” on the new Zegma Trail. I’ve now got 70 miles on them, and want to adjust my review (to the downside). Despite the excellent vibram outsole and the rugged looks, this runs closer to the Aero Glide Grvl than the Hoka Speadgoat I was hoping to replace, and is not proving as durable as I would want over moderately technical/rocky trails.

Shoe: Nike ACG Zegma Trail. US size 11

Original Retail Price: $180 USD

Runner Profile: 6', 175lbs. I typically run 6 miles x3 times per week at a jogging pace (8:00-10:00 minute miles). Occasionally I'll run a 1/2 marathon (typically a 1:45-ish time for road, 2:00 for trail).

Use Case / Reason for Buying: I bought this for trail running, backpacking, and potentially as an option for my next trail 1/2. My Hoka SpeedGoat 6s died early, and these had better step-in feel and toe room than the SpeedGoat 7 did, so I figured I'd give them a shot.

Fit: Still excellent, true to size, with good toe box width. If anything the fit has gotten better over these miles, as the upper padding packed out a bit (the tongue padding in particular was almost excessive at first).

Random Insole Note: I complained about the glued-in insole in my initial impressions. Well... I ended up ripping these out anyway (more on that in a second). They come out easy and the glue is actually a non-issue.

Total distance ran: 70 miles (110 km)

Type of runs: almost exactly a 50/50 split between running and hiking. A good mix of terrain: a lot of boring gravel roads, some muddy/rooted Midwest single track, and some T3 trails in the alps (tour de muverans).

Updated Running Impressions: This shoe sold me on its step-in comfort vs the Hoka. Unfortunately, partially as a result of that big stack of highly-cushioned ZoomX, it’s just not handling technical terrain very well. 39mm is a lot of stack. During my first impressions things actually felt fine stability-wise. However, once you’re running in rain over wet roots or shifting rocks, this much foam without any sort of stabilizing plate and a compliant (comfy, but only moderately structured) upper is just…. It’s not ideal. I never rolled an ankle, but I also didn’t feel secure in my footing, particularly when trying to push the pace. I actually ended up taking the insole out entirely, in an attempt to improve the stability. This didn’t impact comfort and sorta helped, but I still think that in the end this will become a gravel shoe primarily.

Durability: I got these because I felt like Hoka’s quality had decreased with the SpeedGoat6, and wanted to try a different brand. Welp… Nike doesn’t appear any better. The tread is just now starting to peel off on one shoe, there are some cosmetic cracks in the ZoomX, and the foam is separating from the upper in a few spots. Is any of this impacting the function? No. Is it still pretty disappointing for a $180 shoe? Yes. If this was an ultralight shoe I could forgive early wear, but this is on the heavy side of the trail shoe spectrum so I expected better durability given the extra weight.

Positives:
-Looks great
-Comfortable upper and protective midsole
-Good traction
-Fit and sizing is on-point

Negatives:
-Not well suited for technical/rocky trails due to stack height and soft+unstabilized foam
-Durability

Background

I have unusual preferences, and this is not a recommendation for others. I've been running trails in road marathon flats since the early 2000s when trail shoes were overbuilt and clunky. A stockpile of non-Boost Adios 2 was my go-to for almost a decade.

I've tried to make carbon plated super shoes work on trails with mixed results. Vaporfly 4%, 1, 2, 3, Endorphin Pro 1, 3, Deviate Elite 1, 2, 3, and Skechers Speed and Razor Elites. Stability, traction, and durability are always an issue. And I have to precision-crack or shatter the plates to attempt to bring back some stability.

Adios Pro 4

I've been using a pair for road racing since January. 84 miles with a 2:32 marathon and several half marathons. It performed plenty well, but I won't focus on reviewing its road performance.

I'm running the Hardrock 100 this year and hadn't found a shoe I wanted to race in. I prefer something 7-8oz that is nimble and durable/grippy enough for my running style, but maximum performance. After years in road super shoes, it's hard to "unsee" their high energy return and leg savings over this kind of distance, and I've only found inferior trail shoes in that respect.

I had previously ruled out the Adios Pro 4 because of its shallow lugs, which would be a problem on the terrain. But after seeing too many shoe resoling clips on Instagram, I decided if the shoe otherwise worked I could just swap out the outsole. I now have 230 additional trail miles for a total of 315. All of them in Telluride on Hardrock and similar trails with the original outsole. I have a brand new pair with Vibram Litebase Speedstar ready for the race, courtesy of San Juan Resole in Durango and am stoked to see what they can do.

How has the shoe been?

Upper

Lightlock has been awesome. Extremely secure and I haven't felt myself wishing for more lockdown. No pressure points and great on sharp turns. Tight enough weave to repel grit yet drains well. Several puncture wounds from sticks early on didn't cascade into big rips.

Midsole

More on this in the stability section, but it's also been awesome. Having one of the highest energy return super foams with a full stack height not only feels incredible, but it makes legs feel light even when I'm tired and beat up. This is what I'm hoping makes it all worth it late in a 100. At 300+ miles I would swear they feel new. Putting them on next to a new pair they have just as much comfort and energy return, though the forefoot seems to be softer which may be a result of the rods cutting through the lower foam.

A surprising and delightful aspect was the ride on uphills and downhills. Most of the other road super shoes I've tried have been bad on them. On uphills the shoe is too stiff and works against you. On the downs it doesn't really work with you. But the Pro 4 has such an early stage rocker that it lowers uphill activation energy noticeably. The foam squishes in so much that it further lowers the effective drop, but then rebounds on push off and you feel the spring. On the downs, the heel compresses noticeably which helps reduce pounding on really steep downhills. The roll forward through the rest of the midsole similarly squishes but rebounds, in a way I really enjoyed.

Outsole

Mind blowing. See the pics, I think every single rectangle still has a sharp edge. I don't understand how the CPU has held up like this on Hardrock terrain. As expected they slip more on really steep and loose surfaces, but on 80-90% of what I ran I didn't notice a difference. They gripped extremely well to almost everything and even did well with stream crossings and wet (but not muddy) trails.

Stability

One of the biggest surprises was how stable it is out of the box. The rods are far superior to plates and mold around rocks. The extreme softness further molds around them. The forefoot flares out wider than most of my trail shoes, but is still very nimble. The heel is less stable than I would like, but workable.

Durability

Touched on some pieces above, but there were a few emerging issues. Similar to older models, the rods started divoting into the foam on the bottom. A few miles ago they cut through small bits of the CPU outsole after some especially aggressive sharp rock running (Telluride to Chapman and back).

Unsurprisingly, rods started breaking pretty quickly. They click here and there but it hasn't negatively affected the ride. If anything it just made them more flexible in a good way. The shoe isn't quite as hard to bend but still has enough rods in tact to give some propulsion.

A major problem early on was the decoupled heel starting to tear where each half is attached. I addressed this first with shoe goo, then with a big wedge of foam that made the heel a continuous surface and spread pressure more evenly. I've had to touch up the shoe goo but otherwise this has worked well. The re-soled pair also uses a foam filler and completely solves this. I used shoe goo along the way to handle several other small rips, but it may have been ok without that.

Final Thoughts

I know this wouldn't work for most runners, but I really wonder if some aspects of this would make the best trail racer ever seen. Both lighter and more performant.

I have one run in the new pair with the Vibram outsole and I'm hoping it will work great at Hardrock. It's 8.5 oz which is heavier than I would like, but still lighter with better foam than anything else on the market.

The Adios Pro 5 looks even closer to my ideal trail shoe. With a few tweaks to the outsole grip and overall durability, I think it could be a sub 7 oz trail racer that outperforms most 9 oz trail shoes. Can't imagine this will be created, but I can still dream!

Posted here a few months ago looking for a good all around shoe. Don’t run trails too often so didn’t need a dedicated trail shoe. Also run in snow so needed something that could handle the snowy sidewalks in my area. Then found a post of someone replacing their road shoe sole with a trail sole so decided to give it a try!

Had a pair of Evo SL that had a pretty worn sole since there’s not much rubber anyway and figured they’d be the perfect shoe for it. I love them on the roads and run more winter miles than trail miles so thought they’d be able to eat up winter miles.

Removing old sole was easy enough and sanding down the sole was also pretty easy. I wanted to get the Zegalite sole but couldn’t find one for less than $85 and didn’t want to wait for 2 months to get it from Hong Kong so found a Zegama set on eBay and bought them.

For the sole I decided to cut it to fit the shape instead of putting the whole sole on. Wasn’t sure the sole would stick well since the middle of the shoe indented and want to get the best adhesion as I could. Might sand the edges down a bit but honestly not sure it’s worth the effort when it won’t do anything besides look better. Heading to Colorado in a few weeks so I’ll be testing these out there and if they work well I’ll be super happy.

Wish me luck!

It pains me that this shoe is not more talked about. I believe it can compete with rotation killers like the Hyperboost Edge and Megablast, the showstopping EVO SL, and more stable alternatives. This is an older shoe but Craft reused the midsole tooling in the Pacer 2, as well as in 3 iterations of the gravel version, the Xplor, like what Adidas is doing with the EVO SL. Craft seems to do this with its Nordlite and Endurance series as well, preferring iteration over innovation. This is great news for those who don't like it when brands mess up what was perfect just for the sake of change.

Craft is a global apparel brand, but it hasn't broken into the reviewer hivemind like Kiprun has. I first learned about the Craft Pacer shopping for a replacement to my 4yo New Balances. They had a couple of glowing reviews online, but no hype. The mention of a overly wide and baggy upper attracted this fat-footer. They sounded like a good replacement for my 4-year-old New Balances. I ultimately settled on its older sibling from Craft, the Pro Endur(ance v1). 5 months later, I picked this pair of Pacers up from another runner for $45 CAD shipped. The catch: it was a full size down from my usual size.

Original Retail Price: $150 USD/$180 CAD

Total distance ran: 70 miles (110 km)

Type of runs:

Range of pace with this shoe: Walking pace (12:00min/km) to 5:10-6:00km easy pace to 3:25min/km (5:30min/mi) 400m intervals and hill sprints on gravel

10k fartlek with 3minutes intervals at 4:20min/km

My profile

Height: 5'6" (168cm)

Weight: 130 lbs (59kg)

Strike Type: I'm naturally a heel striker, but I mostly midfoot strike at faster-than-recovery speeds (5:10/km). My left foot tells tends to strike on the outside edge, so I avoid laterally biased shoes.

Average mileage a week: 45km.

Run middle distances, with the average run being 8k and long runs from 12 to 18k.

Positives:

• The cushioning is luxurious: if you land in the right place, you get an deeply protective squish, and very energetic rebound. It's soft enough to coddle you at very slow paces without being a drag at tempo paces. I set a 5k PB in this shoe.
• The wide platform and thick outsole rubber create a stable and grounded ride. The Pacer won't throw you around like the EVO SL if you didn't like that.
• The 6mm drop does not stress my hips or lower back. Though the drop height is noticeable compared to softer shoes, and the wide platform somewhat gets in the way of landing further forwards.
• Laces are great. Durable, the right width and thickness, slightly stretchy, and not too coarse or long. Not the best hold but they are easy to handle. Makes lacing the Pacers up satisfying.
• On that note, the perforated tongue is perfect. Plush but thin for a daily trainer.

Negatives:

• There is excess material at the bottom of the eyelet chain. The fit may have too much volume and be too wide for normal feet, especially in the midfoot. To make matters worse, the left and right eyelets are already close together, so you can't really cinch down the shoe any further.
• The firm, thick outsole may feel awkward if you land on a rockered part of it.
• Instead of having a squared edge on the sides of midsole, the outsole is rounded all the way through. i.e. there is a side-to-side rocker as well, which may make you roll your ankle on a bad landing. The platform width does mitigate this.
• Instead of being a nicely sculpted ramp on the lateral side of the heel, the heel bevel has the same roundedness all the way through. More extreme heel strikers might find it mechanical-feeling.
• Wide-footers may prefer a wider toebox. No knock on Craft here as I made do with a full size down from my lower size, but note that Craft doesn't set out to make their toeboxes anatomic.

Midsole/Outsole:

Here's why I'm combining these two sections: Craft likes to brand its road-to-trail shoes as the running version of a fat bike. It's uncanny how closely they were able to recreate the sensation of riding one in a running shoe. Rarely does a product live up to the marketing this well. The ride brings back good memories of hoping curbs in a cheap mountain bike as a kid. I also remember Under Armour's goofy fat tire shoe from c.2015.

The bounce of the Px foam is not subtle. There is a brief 'jiggle' before it softly rebounds. The bounce is so nice in the heel that I want to slow myself to a shuffle and exaggerate a heel strike to enjoy it. Running that slow is possible because of the (90mm) wide and flat midfoot platform.

The pop is controlled and quick enough at tempo paces, though you do notice it less. The forefoot rocker rolls you forward without feeling aggressive at all. It's not a fast feeling shoe. As a lighter runner I personally prefer more ground feel in the forefoot, but you can still get an explosive bounce off the toes.

The firm, thick rubber outsole produces a 'clinking' sound similar to mountain bike tires or an outdoor basketball. The firmness and thickness contains the compression and forces the foam to rebound fairly quickly, like a overinflated tire. The tread also sticks to asphalt like a tire. I would recommend choosing the Pacer over the Xplor for gravel paths because the full coverage Vittoria rubber in the later will mute the ride.

Fit/Upper:

This will be a weird one to evaluate. The engineered mesh is high volume and unstructured in the first version of the Pacer. The Pacer 2 has a more form-fitting fit.

I rolled the dice on buying a full-size down because I heard of how roomy the upper is. Get this: I have blocky, 2E wide feet, and this almost fit perfectly. There was no pinching, but it was a little tight in the toebox for my longer right foot. I relaced that shoe and heel-locked, and I haven't gotten any discomfort since. Any pressure disappears 5 minutes into a run due to the generous amount of volume in the toebox.

What does this means for normal/or slender feet? There might be too much volume and width, especially in the midfoot. To make matters worse, the left and right eyelets strangely are close together, so you can't really bring the upper closer much further. It's more like a ski-glove than a cycling glove.

The heel collar is really tall. It never caused any issues, besides feeling strange when I'm lacing up.

Competitors:

Craft Xplor 2/Pro, Adidas EVO SL ATR, EVO SL, Salomon Aero Glide 3/4 GRVL, NB 8 1080, 880 and 860, Saucony Endorphn Azura, Puma Velocity Nitro 4/5 and Deviate Pure, and likely some higher stack shoes!

Worth buying?:

Absolutely. With how shameless brands are at raising prices on their flagship daily trainers, the $150 Pacer is a good deal because it is a jack-of-all trades. I love how it doesn't pretend to be a revolutionary speed trainer, supertrainer, or overbuilt road-to-trail weapon. It's just a superb shoe.

If you didn't like the EVO SL's cheap upper, found the EVO SL too unstable, found yourself sliding in the EVO SL in rain, or wanted more room in the heel and midfoot of the EVO SL, try the Pacer. It makes up for being 12g heavier in a US sz9 with its versatility. Because few people know about Craft's shoes, the Pacer will likely be on discount.

This is the upcoming Sonicblast 2, last year it wws kinda overshadowed by its bigger and pricier brother, but this year it is all grown up and not releasing alongside each other.

It utilizes a new FFTurbo² trampoline pod in the forefoot which enhances energy return and responsiveness.

Sonicblast remains a two-layer foam experience: FFTurbo² (ATPU) provides a springy and supportive feel for the top layer. FFBlast Max cushioning sits at the bottom, creating a plush underfoot experience and rebound.

This year, the ASTROPLATE technology (3/4 Pebax plate) is a forked design which offers a balance of propulsion and flexibility for versatile movement.

Last years Sonicblast also had an ASTROPLATE, 3/4 Pebax plate but was not forked.

Finally, there is an ASICSGRIP rubber outsole which delivers superior traction on various surfaces. Compared to last year's Sonicblast, there is more rubber coverage in the heel.

In Canada, the shoe is getting a price bump from 230 CAD to 240 CAD.

Releasing this fall/winter whilst Megablast will get pushed to 2027.

Seems like Sportchek (a large sporting goods store) up here in Canada has posted the new Peg Plus 2 for CAD 210.

Description confirms full length ZoomX and an Air Zoom unit that’s only in the forefoot.

Genuinely enjoyed the OG Peg Plus - looking forward to this one.

https://www.sportchek.ca/en/pdp/nike-men-s-pegasus-plus-2-running-shoes-87124723f.html#nl-product-details

This is the new colorway that will be released for the upcoming Asics Gel-Slowcush, Orange Glow/Cherry Tomato. The second colorway Soft Oat/Simply Taupe was already leaked last year but according to 21run is set to be released on October 1st.

The Gel-Slowcush is meant to be a max cushion everyday mileage, recovery shoe with a forefoot height of 40mm and a heel height of 48mm, drop of 8mm.

It will weigh 298grams (US Men's 9)

Asic's has added PureGel PLUS technology to help increase impact absorptipn, approxiametely 20% lighter than PureGel. Hexagonal prisms of the PureGel PLUS are arranged with gaps between them, allowing the material to compress softly.

Asic's has also added a new foam called FFLuxe+ which offers a higher level of bounce, plushness and responsiveness compared to FFLuxe which is also a new foam.

There is an engineered mesh upper and familiar padding around the heel.

There is a combination of rubber, ASICSGRIP and AHARPLUS. There is also an OrthoLite sockliner.

This shoe reminds me of the previous generation New Balance More V5 in terms of design.

Just announced on Running Warehouse.
Specs
4.3 ounces, 123g in US Size 9
Stack Height - 30-22, 8mm drop.
Retailing at $225 USD
Releasing in August

Super interesting to me as a mid distance runner (5k and below), but cmon, 225 DOLLARS!!! I thought the new Puma Fast Fwd Nitro Elite 2 was a bit pricey at 200, but atleast that has a carbon plate and a little more stack. I mean cmon, this is the same price as the MEGABLAST with alot less stack, The adios 9 is much cheaper and the Takumi Sen 11 is only 185 and has more stack + rods and a likely more durable construction. This seems awesome to me, but I wont be picking this up for full retail, thats just crazy,

Seems to be a new color out for the SB3. Probably my favorite besides white since they don't have an all-Black color release yet. I've seen the "black toe" version mentioned but no solid information yet on if it's making its way to the United States yet or what vendors will be carrying it. I would love a solid black, or at least white logo on black vs the current black marbled version.

Midsole looks just like the Novablast 4.

Source: https://www.asics.com.br/1011c372-800/p

Boutique running store Distance is getting a collab, part of a similar series to the one that Renegade was already featured in. Source / More info

Adidas Terrex Agravic SL - First Run Review

About me

Run around 50/50 road and trail. Currently tapering for my second 100 miler in July. Average 70-90 miles per week during training - 50-60 per week off season. Enjoy road running, track workouts, and marathons as well as bigger mountain stuff and trail ultras. I averaged around a 9 min pace with 800ft of gain/loss for this 7.5 miles test run - which is uptempo for these conditions and the humididy.

I ran these shoes on a summer morning 70 degrees with 95% humidity. We’re in the real thick of it down in Western NC and this is a true test for this shoe as I’ve got at least a month of this type of weather left and my kit needs to be able to handle it

Terrain was a 7.5 mile loop of mixed gravel, MTB single track, and a little technical hiking trails. Basically a taste test of all the types of terrain that I’d need these shoes to work for me.

Sizing

I actually ordered 2 sizes, 11.5 and 12 mens. This was largely due to difficulties with every other Adidas running shoe that I’ve ever owned from them. Hopefully this review helps with those who have struggled with sizing issues for this brand. For reference I wear:

mens 11.5 in the OG Evo SL

mens 12 in the SL Woven.

mens 11.5 in the Prime X strung 2

mens 11.5 in the Boston 12

mens 12 in the Boston 13 (and this is so snug I rarely use them.)

I really love the ride of Adidas shoes but their sizing is a horror.

I’m solidly a size 12 in every other running shoe that I own so its always a gamble with Adidas.

I have a narrow to regular volume foot and the 11.5 in the Agravic SL fits well, maybe a little tight when downhilling super steep sections, but I haven’t run enough to really know yet.

Fit and feel

I was nervous, as usual, that I picked the wrong size with these. Should I have gone up to the 12? I think that ultimately sizing down was the right choice as there’s nothing I dislike more than a sloppy trail shoe. I didn’t get any hotspots or rubbing - except for maybe some very steep downhills that I bombed down to test out the feel (could feel my big toes moving forward to the end of the shoe - but my feet were wet so who knows). At this point in the run my socks were completely soaked so I’m confident that I made the right choice when there’s a reasonable amount of humidity. The laces and upper feel great, easy to lock down, and quick to get adjusted right. I’ve taken my Evo SL wovens out on some light trails and these were a world of difference. Very structured in all the right ways. I hit some really off camber stones and never felt like the shoe was moving or twisting.

Ride

Very pleasant. I’m a big fan of the lightstrike pro, should be obvious from the amount of money I’ve dumped into ill fitting Adidas shoes. I bought these because I’ve always wanted to try the Agravic Speed Ultra but just don’t have any real use case for them. Big stable platform with a noticeable rocker. That familiar firm but bouncy lightstrike. I’ve seen other reviews saying that the Agravic SL’s are boring but they felt really fun to me - Like a North Face Vectiv but more forgiving. They climbed well, decended well, and were fun on the short gaps of pavement that I had to run. I’ll say that the Agravic SL is better on road than the Evo SL is on trail in terms of ease of use and smoothness.

The shoe is very stable. This is big plus for me. My favorite fast trail shoe is the North Face Vectiv Pro 3 - I love that I don’t need to think about foot placement so much with a huge, locked down platform. The Agravic SL feels very similar. For MTB and runnable single track it’s my favorite type of feel and geometry. I feel like the SL will be forgiving at slower paces, unlike the North Face Vectiv Pro

Midsole felt great. I’m actually a huge fan of what Adidas is doing with the Evo line. Taking a homerun piece of high end shoe tech and applying it across the board makes for some really interesting iterations and I think this is one of the better versions

Outsole was actually great - again other reviews have said its too much lug, but things were really soft out on the trails due to recent rain and humidity and I actually needed the traction along some sloppy banked downhill turns. I like that these run a bit like a gravel shoe but with a real mountain shoe outsole.

Use case

Things get a little murky here. I’m hoping that these will be a swiss army knife shoe for the summer season. I need something to replace a pair of packed out Prodigio Pro’s. I feel like there’s big saturation in the market for non-technical, faster, shorter distance trail shoes - a category that I don’t really need as I have a workout shoe that works for me and I really need a versatile easy shoe and a trail tank - I don’t really race short distances so those more nimble, snappy trail shoes don’t have a place in my quiver.

Comparisons:

There’s a lot here so I’ll keep them short and to the point

North Face Vectiv Pro 3

Probably the closest comparison. Big platform, fun ride. Softer, more forgiving foam. The issue for me with the Vectiv Pro’s is that they are super unforgiving at slower paces. I end up kicking rocks when I get tired and don’t engage the rocker or plates

North Face Vectiv Enduris 4

Only run around 30 miles in these but close comparison as well. Both shoes have great lockdown. Enduris feels more workout / race oriented as the foam is a bit more firm. Outsole is far superior on the Agravic SL

La Spo Prodigio Pro

Never really loved these shoes. Feld unstable and slappy for the most part. The upper also didn’t work at all for me in the summer temps - held a lot of moisture. Agravic SL feels much more structured and stable underfoot. Haven’t run a workout or hard effort in the SL”s - the Prodigio Pro’s were nice at intensity when they were new

Norda 001A

Have owned the 001’s as well and these are my cooler weather trail tanks. Agravics have much more fun geometry and ride. Will be curious to see how the Agravics hold up over time as I love the durability with the Nordas. Agravic has a much more breathable upper

Nike ACG Zegama

Feel like maybe this is the compairson that is most applicable, as both shoes feature premium elements arranged in an affordable package. Zegama was a disaster for me. Hotspots all along the front of the foot. Sizing was off from my TTS 12, very hot upper, and heavy. Agravic SL is better in every way, from fit to ride. I feel like the Zegama is a shoe that’s purely for west coast carpet trails. The Agravic SL really feels like Adidas tried hard to take thier super shoe trail offering and make it accessible for a broad audience. I wish Nike would do the same.

Evo SL Woven

I do feel like these shoes have some of the same feel - in the sense the Evo SL is just really easy to lace up and take out for any pace. The Agravic SL is firmer, with a very structured upper. I actually want to try to get a Vibram sole put on my old pair of SL wovens when they’re at the end of their life to feel how different the two shoes would be. I can easily run the SL woven on gravel and uneven terrain. I would have twisted both my ankles had i tried to make it through this mornings run with them - More miles will tell if I reach for the Agravic SL’s the same way that I do with the Evo wovens.

Only the Hyrox color as of now, seems like an iterative update. Running Warehouse confirmed both this and VN4 use an A-TPU compound for those curious.

I’ve scoured the internet and haven’t found any information elsewhere (except for one Redditor briefly mentioning it in an Evo SL2 thread), but it appears a review is in the works at RunRepeat.