NB Zante/1400 vs. Adidas Boston 6/Adios 3

bro what mental disorder do you have? it's just a pair of shoes

What are you talking about? Did you read my post? Do you run? Have you ever ended up in the wrong shoe?

I'm asking about the FIT and FEEL of two different lines of shoes. I live in a place where none of the stores stock any of the models I'm looking for and don't want to put $1000 on my credit card just to try them all on.

Why do you frequent a message board specifically for these kinds of questions only to provide unhelpful answers?

The 1400 has been my everyday shoe since the first version. I've worn 9.5 in all of them. V5 seems a little narrower in the forefoot. Every couple of days I undo the top few rows of lacing to get a little more width back in the forefoot. I didn't have to do this with earlier versions. Size 9.75 would be ideal.

Unfortunately, durability of the 1400 hasn't improved. That's its main flaw. Yeah, yeah, it's supposed to be a racing shoe, but come on, it's a lightweight trainer. Sole wear and midsole losing its oomph shouldn't be so dramatic after a few hundred miles.

You can usually find discounts on earlier versions on Running Warehouse right after a new version comes out, and get another 10% off with the code from runblogger.com.

Have the 1400v5 and Adios 3. First pair of 1400s for me, so can't really compare to previous iterations. They're stiff, yes. Slightly stiffer than the Adios, I think.

As for 500 miles on the Adios 3? I really think not. They seem much more of a race day shoe to me. Ditto the 1400. The 1400 feels more like a regular trainer, just shrunk down. But I'd be surprised if, with the minimalizing of certain elements, they get you to 400-450.

@smd, @dork_rothko:

Thanks for the info, helpful posts. The 1400s are stiffer than the Adios? That's good to know, and is pushing me in the direction of the 1400v5, as I don't want something softer for now since I'm not really trying to race yet; just get back in racing shape.

I've used every shoe you mentioned and would recommend the boost. Adios 3 are great too but for a trainer the boost is a better choice. The nb models are good everyday runners to wear for ather activities but for running they felt too squishy and were fully worn out way too fast. The boosts don't have that soft, sock-like feel to them but in terms of performance they are the best neutral trainer out right now imo. Nice firm feel, responsive, light, no extra bulk, and feel great for anything from intervals to a marathon.

Another vote for the Bostons. They're a perfect mix of cushion and responsiveness. I've tried a ton of shoes, and in terms of versatility, comfort, and durability, this is hands down the best neutral trainer on the market today. The adios 3 is ok for tempos or races from 10k to the half. I've run a marathon in them, but I think I'd opt for the Bostons if I had to do it again.

GIANTSteps wrote:

@smd, @dork_rothko:

Thanks for the info, helpful posts. The 1400s are stiffer than the Adios? That's good to know, and is pushing me in the direction of the 1400v5, as I don't want something softer for now since I'm not really trying to race yet; just get back in racing shape.

The NB Zantes are way different from the 890v5.

The Zantes and the NB 1500 are similar shape but the 1500 uses the revlite not fresh foam and has almost a trail shoe grip (which is good for the rain).

I have a pair of NB 1600s and the 1400 is identical but a thicker sole. After I race or do faster time trials in the 1600 I get the ITB knee flicking problem. Probably just the cambered pavements. They are good for doing strides in. The 1400 looks good, but it is a 10k to 1/2 Marathon shoe.

The Adios 3 is really thin, felt like a 5k shoe to me.

Interesting - thanks for the feedback. Looking again, I see how similar the profile and drop are between the 1500 and the Zante, which is indeed flatter than the 890. Looks like NB positions the 1500 as their stability HM-Marathon racer/fast trainer and the Zante as the essentially neutral equivalent.

Based on all the feedback so far, it sounds like all shoes fit pretty close to true to size so I'm pretty confident the 9.5 will work across the board. I ordered the Zante, 1400 and Boston all in a 9.5 and will do a treadmill session in each next week.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback.

GIANTSteps wrote:

Interesting - thanks for the feedback. Looking again, I see how similar the profile and drop are between the 1500 and the Zante, which is indeed flatter than the 890. Looks like NB positions the 1500 as their stability HM-Marathon racer/fast trainer and the Zante as the essentially neutral equivalent.

Based on all the feedback so far, it sounds like all shoes fit pretty close to true to size so I'm pretty confident the 9.5 will work across the board. I ordered the Zante, 1400 and Boston all in a 9.5 and will do a treadmill session in each next week.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback.

Correct, the 1400/Boston are the best options for racing a 1/2, but fresh foam in the Zante allows you to recover the next day from say an 8k time trial.

I use the Bostons for tempos, intervals, and races. One thing I would add is that they are not made for people with wide feet. I really like the responsiveness of the shoe. I can't compare it to the other shoes

Width has been my fear with the Boston's - I'm wide across the forefoot, but narrow in the heel. We'll wait and see...

GIANTSteps wrote:

Width has been my fear with the Boston's - I'm wide across the forefoot, but narrow in the heel. We'll wait and see...

Adidas do tend to be narrower, I'm usually 11 and was walking past the Adidas store in my mall and they had the tempo in an 11.5 on a clearance table and they were still quite tight but plenty of toe room. So maybe 1/2 larger.

I have a half size larger in the Bostons and my wide (4E) feet are snug all around. Wouldn't be comfortable for me for a daily trainer, but fine for workouts/races

FriendlyLobo wrote:

I use the Bostons for tempos, intervals, and races. One thing I would add is that they are not made for people with wide feet. I really like the responsiveness of the shoe. I can't compare it to the other shoes

The Boston 6 I tried at the Adidas Outlet about 3 months ago did not fit me in the toe box but I have bought others elsewhere the fit fine. I need a wide toe box. I read that early versions of the Boston 6 were sized or cut incorrectly which would explain the ones at the outlet. Most of the shoes I do not fit in have too narrow of a toe box for me. Many push my large toe in. The Boston 6 are almost too roomy for me when I wear thin soaks. I like them so much I stocked on them over the last several months when I could get them for under $70 a pair from Amazon, RunningWarehouse, or Adidas.com.

GIANTSteps wrote:

Width has been my fear with the Boston's - I'm wide across the forefoot, but narrow in the heel. We'll wait and see...

Adidas.com has free returns. Signup a new e-mail address and receive a 15% coupon code. If I wear the normal thin running socks then width is not a problem for me. I worn them at the Boston Marathon and it was the first of my three marathons where I had no black toes, blisters, and other toe or foot damage after completing a marathon. I can't wear many running shoes due to insufficient forefoot width but I can wear the Boston 6. I also wear Brooks Ghost 8s and Nike LunarGlides 7. I have also worn prior versions of the LunarGlides. I may never buy the current LunarGlides because they changed too much. I think I wore the LunarGlides at my first two marathons where I did have some damage to my toenails and maybe some blisters. I worn LunarEclipse prior to the LunarGlides. I am not sure I needed a stability or motion control shoe. I do wear the inside forefoot area of the Brooks and Nike faster than elsewhere. My first pair of Boston 6 have only about 75 miles on them an almost no wear on the bottom. The Boston 6 feel like a racing flats compare to Ghost and LunarGlides.

Okay, so all three shoes have arrived and I'm damn tempted to keep all three.

I'm maybe in the minority here, but I've always liked the squishy feel of New Balance runners and the new 1400s are basically as I remember the previous versions. I think the 890v3 actually went a little far on the cushioning - hard to say with certainty, but the Zante reminds me more of what I recall the 890v2 ride being like.

I've worn the Zante and the Boston around the house, and they feel remarkably similar, though the Boston just feels ever so slightly stiffer. I'm surprised there's a 4mm difference in the drop between the two. No issues in the forefoot with either, though the Bostons seem to narrow more quickly going from the forefoot to arch.

The Boston feels like more of a racing shoe, and if the statistics didn't say otherwise, I'd swear they run closer to the ground up front.

It would be impossible for me to say which shoe I'll like more in the long run until they each get their fair chance so out the door I go...

How are you liking your shoes? I've got a downhill race coming up soon and would be interested which pair is your preference. I am leaning towards the Boston 6's for marathon races.

SDRunnerRudy wrote:

How are you liking your shoes?

Sorry, no.