Dead On Arrival: Brooks Hyperion Elite Performance Review

Wildhorse wrote:

The Believe in the Run folks have no credibility, and are too slow to assess the merits of a race shoe. I still remember Thomas raving about the Freedom ISO and then rating the Freedom ISO 2, which is pretty much the same shoe, as 'not recommended'. No credibility whatsoever.

I have no doubt the Nike (f@ck them!) are much better shoes than whatever Brooks can come up with. But I doubt they are as bad as BitR says they are.

Believe in the Run. Ginger Runner. Jamie's Reviews. Shallow reviews at best.

That's the takeaway from these reviews I think (or the Skechers review). The competition is miles away from catching up with the VF that are fast and forgiving. They're just producing more expensive versions of the Adios, who needs that ?!

Hopefully Saucony and Adidas will do better with their own "super shoes".

Raggedman wrote:

bladerunner wrote:

No one would pay 250 for the zoom fly because it sold for 160. The shoe proved one thing: that the carbon plate is not the primary reason the vaporfly is so fast. The cushioning in the zoom fly is so dead; it's like running in sand.

I picked up both the Zoom Fly Flyknit and Zoom Fly 3 with heavy discounts and both went in the donation bin. The Flyknit version was okay but nothing to write home about. I wore them at Houston but I don't think they helped or hurt. I could've put on a worn out pair of Altra Solstice and had the same result.

I don't think I even got over 30 miles with the Fly 3. More foam but somehow less cushion? They felt like bricks to me. Unless I was walking, then they felt super soft and wobbly.

My experience as well. The ZF3 is heavy, slow, and unappealing. The best of the ZF series was the ZF SP with the light upper, and while it was brutally efficient, it was also brutally firm. My legs always felt trashed the next day after racing in them, even though I raced well.

There's no comparison to the Next%, which feels like running a cloud, and my legs feel significantly better the next day.

deathinparadise wrote:

Wildhorse wrote:

The Believe in the Run folks have no credibility, and are too slow to assess the merits of a race shoe. I still remember Thomas raving about the Freedom ISO and then rating the Freedom ISO 2, which is pretty much the same shoe, as 'not recommended'. No credibility whatsoever.

I have no doubt the Nike (f@ck them!) are much better shoes than whatever Brooks can come up with. But I doubt they are as bad as BitR says they are.

Believe in the Run. Ginger Runner. Jamie's Reviews. Shallow reviews at best.

That's the takeaway from these reviews I think (or the Skechers review). The competition is miles away from catching up with the VF that are fast and forgiving. They're just producing more expensive versions of the Adios, who needs that ?!

Hopefully Saucony and Adidas will do better with their own "super shoes".

I think other companies will try to skin the same car via a different method. Not everyone can tolerate a super soft, squishy shoe, and I suspect that once other companies’ takes hit the market people will find that the Vaporfly may not actually be the best for them (like Evan Schwartz supposedly says for him).

Damn that's gotta be a tough read for the folks at Brooks. But I wouldn't buy it even if it matched the performance gains of Nike. The lifespan is too low. If someone comes up with a durable shoe with even just a 2% gain I'd be all over it instead of a flimsy slipper with a 4% gain. Or you can sell these flimsy slippers for half the price and then I'll consider them.

The real problem here for Brooks is that they are not going to make any money with these. Maybe the shoe is legit for sub 2:20 marathoners, but that's irrelevant if you're thinking of sales. If the folks at Believe in the Run can't use them, the majority can't and Nike will stay as the market leader.

I just read the review. What fascinates me , and I've never won the Vaporflys, is how the reviewers are talking about how the shoe has no energy return. When I raced in our standard flat, I never felt energy return. It's amazing to me that the Vapoflys are so good you can feel it.

They wrote, "The DNA ZERO foam has little-to-no bounce. It felt like I was stepping onto a hard memory foam mattress. On landing, my foot sunk down a little, but then it stayed there. There was no energy return whatsoever. The only time I felt a little bit of bounce in this shoe was when I was at an all-out sprint. It’s hard to believe there’s actually a carbon plate in there."

rojo wrote:

I just read the review. What fascinates me , and I've never won the Vaporflys, is how the reviewers are talking about how the shoe has no energy return. When I raced in our standard flat, I never felt energy return. It's amazing to me that the Vapoflys are so good you can feel it.

They wrote, "The DNA ZERO foam has little-to-no bounce. It felt like I was stepping onto a hard memory foam mattress. On landing, my foot sunk down a little, but then it stayed there. There was no energy return whatsoever. The only time I felt a little bit of bounce in this shoe was when I was at an all-out sprint. It’s hard to believe there’s actually a carbon plate in there."

But surely you've run in a TPU-based shoe? Something with Boost? Those shoes return energy at a considerably higher rate than an EVA-based shoe.

deathinparadise wrote:

Hopefully Saucony and Adidas will do better with their own "super shoes".

Saucony has a Pebax carbon racing shoe that looks interesting. What super shoe have adidas made?

I think we ought to ignore this review until a few more come out. I don't think you can "feel" the energy returning properties of the shoe. You can feel the bounce but that doesn't necessarily indicate any benefit in economy.

reed wrote:

I think we ought to ignore this review until a few more come out. I don't think you can "feel" the energy returning properties of the shoe. You can feel the bounce but that doesn't necessarily indicate any benefit in economy.

I guess you could say that but we know the bounce of the VF is the major part of what makes the shoe so good

RIP to the Brooks T7, the best shoe known to mankind before the Vaporfly.

You'll live on in our hearts

Raggedman wrote:

I picked up both the Zoom Fly Flyknit and Zoom Fly 3 with heavy discounts and both went in the donation bin. The Flyknit version was okay but nothing to write home about. I wore them at Houston but I don't think they helped or hurt. I could've put on a worn out pair of Altra Solstice and had the same result.

I don't think I even got over 30 miles with the Fly 3. More foam but somehow less cushion? They felt like bricks to me. Unless I was walking, then they felt super soft and wobbly.

The upper of the Flyknit version provided zero support. I had feeling that I am going to break my ankle. The ZF3 is heavy, there is no lock down, the heel is moving. In addition to that the shoe doesn't seem to be in balance. There is something wrong in weight distribution. I just don't understand that kind of a 'fast shoe' that weighs about the same what the Pegasus weighs.

<7 wrote:

deathinparadise wrote:

Hopefully Saucony and Adidas will do better with their own "super shoes".

Saucony has a Pebax carbon racing shoe that looks interesting. What super shoe have adidas made?

I was thinking of the prototype that some runners had in Houston. That one at least looked the part in terms of how much "foam" it had. It might be above the 40mm limit though.

Even Boost feels terribly "hard" compared to the ZoomX. I did some alternating 1000s the other days on the track and it was scary when going from the N% to the Adios. Felt like running on wood TBH. Now that doesn't mean it's a bad shoe and with no other comparison point it's ok I suppose but why not use the N% if you can ?

800 dude wrote:

I like the Hyperion Elite a lot. Feels more like the Zoom Fly than the Vaporfly. It’s less squishy at walking and jogging paces than the VF, but once you get moving, it feels great. I also have to say I find their comparison to the VF a little strange. I don’t “feel” like the VF is giving me energy back with each stride. I don’t even feel faster in it. When I first tried it, my reaction was, “no way is this a racing shoe.” The reason I wear it is because I trust the data. The only way to judge these kinds super shoes fairly is in the lab.

Exactly, without a running economy test these reviews aren't worth much to me

hobbyjogz wrote:

Most shoe reviewers are mid-pack runners, which advice is not very interesting for more "competitive" people.

Jami, Kofuzi, Thomas, as cool as they are, are not fast runners by any means.

Should ask the fast ones for more input, like Zach Levet, Chris Mocko if he's still alive, or even Ben Parkes ?

Seth DeMoor is a faster guy that does a lot of shoe reviews and is not afraid to be critical.

I have 4 ladies in the Marathon OT.

2:44:XX in a pair of 4% (FlyKnit)

2:43:xx in a pair of Next%

2:42:xx in a pair of 4% (FlyKnit)

2:39:xx in a pair of Skechers GoRunRide7 (in Oct "17" she ran 2:44 in a pr of Skechers MaxRoad Ultras)

Of these 4 only 1 will be in the Next% at the trials.

The other 3 will be in the Brooks Hyperion Elites. All 3 have said they are more firm but not in a bad way. (two wore the prototypes and loved them. Tempo/Speed/long runs.) As reported there is not "bounce" but they didn't see that as a negative. I actually think the 2:44 girl will PR in them, the 2:42 girl will come close.

We shall See.

Lenny Korir Fan wrote:

hobbyjogz wrote:

Most shoe reviewers are mid-pack runners, which advice is not very interesting for more "competitive" people.

Jami, Kofuzi, Thomas, as cool as they are, are not fast runners by any means.

Should ask the fast ones for more input, like Zach Levet, Chris Mocko if he's still alive, or even Ben Parkes ?

Seth DeMoor is a faster guy that does a lot of shoe reviews and is not afraid to be critical.

I'm really turned off by most YouTube "runners" (though some of Jami's reviews are quite amusing) but somehow SJD is so genuinely nice that... I can't hate it? So much of that positivity turns me off, and yet it's hard to dislike Seth. And yes, as discussed earlier in this thread, he's a (again, relatively) fast and efficient runner, so his reviews tend to align with my thinking, but I do look forward to his thoughts on this next generation of racers.

Unfortunately I've never heard of those other runners (Levit, Mocko, Parkes) and since I already waste too much of my life on YouTube... I might keep it that way :)

GaryB wrote:

I have 4 ladies in the Marathon OT.

2:44:XX in a pair of 4% (FlyKnit)

2:43:xx in a pair of Next%

2:42:xx in a pair of 4% (FlyKnit)

2:39:xx in a pair of Skechers GoRunRide7 (in Oct "17" she ran 2:44 in a pr of Skechers MaxRoad Ultras)

Of these 4 only 1 will be in the Next% at the trials.

The other 3 will be in the Brooks Hyperion Elites. All 3 have said they are more firm but not in a bad way. (two wore the prototypes and loved them. Tempo/Speed/long runs.) As reported there is not "bounce" but they didn't see that as a negative. I actually think the 2:44 girl will PR in them, the 2:42 girl will come close.

We shall See.

What's the reason here, coach? Sponsorship? Injury-prevention? Price? General aversion to Nike?