I still have a pair of T7s with only around 60 miles on them. Talk about lack of bounce and energy return (but weirdly high drop). Pretty much any shoe with one of today's superfoams, plate or no plate, is superior to the T7, in my opinion.
I still have a pair of T7s with only around 60 miles on them. Talk about lack of bounce and energy return (but weirdly high drop). Pretty much any shoe with one of today's superfoams, plate or no plate, is superior to the T7, in my opinion.
anon197 wrote:
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.
Isn't the lifespan of the Next % supposedly only 50 miles or so? I've put 30 miles on my pair and am deathly scared to put many more before my next marathon.
It seems like it’s ruined regular shoes for you? Good reason to not use it imo. If on the track which has its own springiness and wearing a shoe with boost you’re having issues that’s probably not great. All for racing in these shoes but why the need to do training runs or track workouts in them?
Alberto's Dog 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 ?
I review shoes for RoadTrailRun and am (reasonably) fast. I've run a bit under 68 in the half, and will hopefully bring that down this spring. With that, I want to make something clear - you don't necessarily have to be fast to review shoes effectively. Sam, our EIC, is an absolute guru - I think he could blindly identify nearly any shoe in the past few years. He understands running shoe technology better than I ever will.
BUT! Some of these shoes are just designed for a faster, more efficient cadence. If you look at the footstrike of a slower runner - expert though they may be - it doesn't look like mine. And mine doesn't look like Galen Rupp's. And the more technical a shoe becomes (ala New Balance 5280, Brooks Hyperion Elite, Nike AlphaFly) the more you need to be in the target market (elite runners) for it to be effective.
I haven't worn the Hyperion Elite, so I can't say - but I would give more value to, for example, Evan Schwartz (small bias though there may be) who has run a OTQ and is clearly a very efficient runner.
Just my $0.02 on the matter.
Good points. However it makes it sound less likely that any running stores (physical or online) are going to want to take a chance on supplying these shoes. It's already hard enough to find the Takumi Sen or Carbon Rocket... Sadly. Best sellers are expensive moon shoes for the masses.
However, this means Brooks athletes can at least wear these shoes after WA rules come into effect - better than nothing. I doubt too many shoe companies will want to have their athletes racing in Nike....
Alberto's Dog wrote:
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?
2 are sponsored by Brooks. The 2:39 (former Skechers) really wasn't impressed with the 4% when she tried them didn't work with her foot. (long story but bad ankle) The 2:44 girl has always liked Brooks. The 2:42 girl might have an "aversion" to Nike...not sure, but she did want to try the Elite so I made a call and got her a pair. By the way, all three like the Tempo.
The girl that is gonna stay in Nike has always been a Nike runner, had a small sponsorship post college and they just work for her..
I don't understand the unnecessary hate on Carbon X, it's a wonderful shoe for people who constantly run at paces faster than 6. I've owned 2 pairs and I'm actually about to buy some new ones next week. They are definitely not a shoe for the average joe but, behind the vaporfly's and next % they are the best carbon plate shoe on the market that's affordable and durable.
The Tempos are fantastic! I've run quite a few races in them and they always feel great. I raced a marathon recently and it was the first time my feet didn't feel crappy during the last few miles. The Elites are good. I honestly haven't worn them in several months. As you stated, I do think they aren't as likely to be as broadly appealing, but the people who like them really like them. It's going to be hard to go wrong with either shoe. As for the energy return conversation, it is not always possible for us to feel the energy return. We expect a certain feeling, but that doesn't mean a different feeling isn't actually giving us more energy. It's been fun to work on these shoes and see that in real time.
Alberto's Dog wrote:
hobbyjogz wrote:
Very valuable 2 cents. Thanks, and very good job on your site, your reviews are the best ;)
Watched the "tempo" version first impression on youtube today by the way; doesn't seem like a bad shoe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWmSWEnusZsNo, I actually think the Tempo version is the more appealing of the two shoes, at a broad level. For those of us un-sponsored, it seems like a great workout shoe to pair with a Nike (or NB, or Skechers) racer, regardless of how the Elite is to run in.
Adidas is announcing their shoe today ("Adizero Pro"?) as well - no idea about availability. That leaves ASICS, though we are still wanting some details on NB and Saucony's offerings!
And thanks for the kind words! I can't claim to do most of it - we have a very solid reviewing crew, and it definitely motivates me to put in the miles! Hoping for a busy racing season this spring so I have cause to try out more shoes!
Lenny Korir Fan wrote:
Seth DeMoor is a faster guy that does a lot of shoe reviews and is not afraid to be critical.
yeah but his preferences differ a lot from many others. First of all, he doesn't have much knowledge of the shoes in general. Secondly, he often does his first impression video after jogging slowly for few miles. Thirdly, he is extremely light-weighted guy with a small shoe size. At least I have noticed that I like many shoes that he hates and vice versa.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
It seems like it’s ruined regular shoes for you? Good reason to not use it imo. If on the track which has its own springiness and wearing a shoe with boost you’re having issues that’s probably not great. All for racing in these shoes but why the need to do training runs or track workouts in them?
Exactly. If one can get 2 marathons out of a 4%, it's enough for one year. Almost any shoe is good enough for training.
Alberto's Dog wrote:
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 :)
Levit is a 19 years old young guy who lives in a van and travels around. He tried to run a sub 2:19 marathon at CIM but failed. I think it was his debut marathon. Parkes is from London, UK and runs all distances from 100-mile trail runs to marathons. His PB is 2:25 but he has no running background. He was a regular booze drinking dude who liked to party and play hard. Then he started running more seriously and has improved a lot. He probably could be even faster if he raced less. He will have several marathons and the Comrades coming up in spring and then UTMB and Ultravasan later on this year. So he is extremely busy with all those races and a great guy.
bladerunner wrote:
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
The Zoom Fly was a disaster. Why would anyone pay $250 for a Zoom Fly? Also the heel on the Zoom Fly is squishy and from this it seems like the Hyperion elite is just firm. What is the point of having so much midsole if the shoe is just going to be hard? Massive fail here even worse than the carbon x which is very baggy on the forefoot, horrible fit. I won't even pick these up when they go half price.
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.
More like concrete. I tried out some zoom flys a while back, as I stood up I thought my achilles would tear off. A year later the Footlocker store near me had the Zoomfly SPs in the white/red 'Chicago' model, they felt great. I went back two weeks ago for a sale and they only had the camouflage model left and they felt dead, like a shytty pair of Sauconys.
Subway Surfers wrote:
More like concrete. I tried out some zoom flys a while back, as I stood up I thought my achilles would tear off. A year later the Footlocker store near me had the Zoomfly SPs in the white/red 'Chicago' model, they felt great. I went back two weeks ago for a sale and they only had the camouflage model left and they felt dead, like a shytty pair of Sauconys.
there is a difference between Zoom Fly generations. The original ZF was hard as rock. It had a Lunarlon midsole and a nylon plate. The current ZF3 has React and a carbon plate and is much softer. Those SPs don't have the newer midsole. In my opinion, the original ZF was a marketing gimmick. They just wanted to make a shoe that looked like a VF but was nothing like it. The current one is supposed to be like VF but I just don't get it. Why would a shoe need to be so tall and heavy when you can get enough cushioning in a much lighter package when you buy the Peg Turbo 2. There is no need for a carbon plate. I am not by any means a fast guy but when I ran a 5K in 17 mins during my workout on Tuesday I didn't feel that the Peg Turbo 2 was a slow shoe or that it needed a plate or more stack height.
2:39 in a pair of Sketchers Gorun Ride ! That's a feat for what is considered a daily trainer. Whatever works, right ?
And talking about pedestrian shoe reviewers, Jamison Michael chose them as shoe of the year twice in a row lol
https://youtu.be/E6kvvTXYIkM?t=455
Well, this shoe conversation is going nowhere ... But it's entertaining.
Spanish website foroatletismo.com attended the European launch and report a 50% energy return. Here are some graphics presented by Brooks at the event:
It is odd, I know, but energy return isn't everything. The bounciest shoe I have is probably the Forever Energy, but it's also a tad unstable and fatiguea my legs more than firmer shoes.
It's not just the plate. It's not just the foam. It's not just the geometry of the midsole. It's all combined. We'll see what actual runners have to say of the shoe. Pay no attention to youtube clowns.
https://www.foroatletismo.com/zapatillas/brooks-innovation-camp/
Interesting link ! Lighter but less energy return, not a revolutionary foam then, compared to Boost or ZoomX...
My guess is that Brooks is only releasing this shoe to be compliant with World Athletics new rule about prototypes, the lifespan of the Elite is too short to appeal to anyone (not mentioning the crazy price tag) except Brooks-sponsored athletes.
The Tempo on the other hand is more interesting from a business standpoint, as their line-up lacks a lightweight trainer / racer (apart from the 3 year old Hyperion); any info on the price ?
hobbyjogz wrote:
2:39 in a pair of Sketchers Gorun Ride ! That's a feat for what is considered a daily trainer. Whatever works, right ?
And talking about pedestrian shoe reviewers, Jamison Michael chose them as shoe of the year twice in a row lol
https://youtu.be/E6kvvTXYIkM?t=455Well, this shoe conversation is going nowhere ... But it's entertaining.
LOL - actually my training group found the GoRunRide 7 to be a very responsive shoe. I had a group of 3 ladies that had a Skechers deal thru 2018 and they all loved that shoe. I still rotate the new Ride 8 in my training shoe choice but don’t like it as much as the 7.
Ok back to talking about the Brooks Elite!
hobbyjogz wrote:
The Tempo on the other hand is more interesting from a business standpoint, as their line-up lacks a lightweight trainer / racer (apart from the 3 year old Hyperion); any info on the price ?
$150, £140 in the UK
GaryB wrote:
LOL - actually my training group found the GoRunRide 7 to be a very responsive shoe. I had a group of 3 ladies that had a Skechers deal thru 2018 and they all loved that shoe. I still rotate the new Ride 8 in my training shoe choice but don’t like it as much as the 7.
I liked the GRR7 too. In the beginning I wore it only for long runs. Did 9 or 10 long runs that were longer than 30K and it was a great shoe because I could run those LRs at any pace. It felt responsive and cushioned. When it lost some of that amazing cushioning, I started to wear it for easy runs. Actually I still have that pair. It has 998K already and I wear it every now and then for very slow morning runs. It's ugly af and therefore I am not going to wear it casually. I could put much more miles on it but probably going to wear it only once more to get it over the 1000K mark and then retire it.
Brooks tried covering for this comparison by saying the Elite is about stability. I trust this review. It is just sad that this is the Brooks response. We will see what Saucony and New Balance can do. These companies have had a lot of time and they keep coming up short. As far as taking it to a lab, that is just pseudo science. RW tries this and it’s laughable.
Brooks makes shoes for fat runners. Change my mind.
