Reebok Forever Floatride Energy

AhWhatTheCheese wrote:

Go half size down for the correct fit, and the weight will be essentially identical to the Boston in the regular size.

I'm a bit confused by the sizing.

I'm normally a US 11 (typically translates to EU 45), however the size guide (here in a European stores) for the Energy states (US 11, EU 44½, heel-toe: 11.4"), which sounds just about right given your advice of going down half a size, at least considering size in EU terms. Or should I go for a US 10½ (EU 44, heel-toe: 11.2")?

*scratching head*

Northern lights runner wrote:

AhWhatTheCheese wrote:

Go half size down for the correct fit, and the weight will be essentially identical to the Boston in the regular size.

I'm a bit confused by the sizing.

I'm normally a US 11 (typically translates to EU 45), however the size guide (here in a European stores) for the Energy states (US 11, EU 44½, heel-toe: 11.4"), which sounds just about right given your advice of going down half a size, at least considering size in EU terms. Or should I go for a US 10½ (EU 44, heel-toe: 11.2")?

*scratching head*

I like a US 9.5 in most shoes, but wear a US 9 in the Forever Floatride Energy.

AhWhatTheCheese wrote:

Northern lights runner wrote:

I'm a bit confused by the sizing.

I'm normally a US 11 (typically translates to EU 45), however the size guide (here in a European stores) for the Energy states (US 11, EU 44½, heel-toe: 11.4"), which sounds just about right given your advice of going down half a size, at least considering size in EU terms. Or should I go for a US 10½ (EU 44, heel-toe: 11.2")?

*scratching head*

I like a US 9.5 in most shoes, but wear a US 9 in the Forever Floatride Energy.

I wear US9.5 for Saucony, New Balance but 9 for the Floatride Energy and Floatride run fast....interestingly, the Floatride run fast pro, i'd wear 9.5

AhWhatTheCheese wrote:

Northern lights runner wrote:

A lot of similarities with the Adidas Boston as I understand, but seemingly favoring the Reebok as having a more cushioned forefoot.

I've been considering Boston as a marathon racer. I'm looking for something forgiving for the forefoot in the late miles of a marathon. Would the Reebok floatride energy be an even better option than the Bostons?

Thanks.

Yes. It is more cushioned and bouncy in the midfoot/forefoot. Go half size down for the correct fit, and the weight will be essentially identical to the Boston in the regular size.

Wouldn't the Floatride Run fast be a better marathon shoe? I ran in them and had plenty of cushioning and way lighter than the Floatride Energy

Tron wrote:

Wouldn't the Floatride Run fast be a better marathon shoe? I ran in them and had plenty of cushioning and way lighter than the Floatride Energy

Interesting. Would you say you're a heelstriker? I'm a midfoot striker.

Northern lights runner wrote:

Tron wrote:

Wouldn't the Floatride Run fast be a better marathon shoe? I ran in them and had plenty of cushioning and way lighter than the Floatride Energy

Interesting. Would you say you're a heelstriker? I'm a midfoot striker.

I'm definitely not a forefoot striker, I'm somewhere between heel and mid striker. Not super fast (2:52 marathon), but cushioning never came into play for the Floatride run fast...would definitely use them again for a marathon.

even though not forefoot striker, minimal shoes don't seem to bother me much. Ran my last Half in Saucony Type A8s with no issues

Tron wrote:

Not super fast (2:52 marathon), but cushioning never came into play for the Floatride run fast...would definitely use them again for a marathon.

even though not forefoot striker, minimal shoes don't seem to bother me much.

That's plenty fast in my book! I'm looking to hopefully break 3 this fall (recent results on shorter distances seem to indicate I'm good for it). I just turned 40 and it seems like my (fore)feet need more cushioning these days.

As an example I found the initial version of Nike Zoom fly too firm (haven't tried the Flyknit which uses a different foam and carbon plate). Same goes for Nike Zoom elite 10.

Do you still think Reebok run fast could be an option for marathon race day for me?

Northern lights runner wrote:

As an example I found the initial version of Nike Zoom fly too firm (haven't tried the Flyknit which uses a different foam and carbon plate). Same goes for Nike Zoom elite 10.

Too firm for the _marathon distance_, that is.

Northern lights runner wrote:

Tron wrote:

Not super fast (2:52 marathon), but cushioning never came into play for the Floatride run fast...would definitely use them again for a marathon.

even though not forefoot striker, minimal shoes don't seem to bother me much.

That's plenty fast in my book! I'm looking to hopefully break 3 this fall (recent results on shorter distances seem to indicate I'm good for it). I just turned 40 and it seems like my (fore)feet need more cushioning these days.

As an example I found the initial version of Nike Zoom fly too firm (haven't tried the Flyknit which uses a different foam and carbon plate). Same goes for Nike Zoom elite 10.

Do you still think Reebok run fast could be an option for marathon race day for me?

I haven't worn Nike's in a while so maybe not the best person to answer for you since hard to compare..I guess from my perspective when I wear the Floatride energy vs. Floatride fast, I don't feel much of a difference in the forefoot but the Floatride fast does feel a lot more responsive to me going quicker

I use the Run Fast for workouts and the Forever Energy as a daily trainer. With that said, the Forever Energy will work if you want a bit more protection for the marathon distance. I think the Run Fast is lighter and snappier than the Adios/Boston, but also feels more protected.

I think the Forever Energy will be fine at a sub 3 pace (~6:50 pace I think?). If you want more of a racer/trainer feel, go with the run fast. If you want more of a light trainer feel, go with the Forever. I think both will be fine for the marathon, but the Forever will lean more towards comfort and the Run Fast will lean towards speed. At 6:50 pace, I think you can go either way.

I haven't run a marathon, but I have done up to 14 mile long runs in the Forever Energy and am on my second pair of Run Fasts for workouts/tempos/races.

I go normal size in the Run Fast (US9.5) and half size down in the Forever (US9).

I use same size for both, but feel it's possible I could go a bit smaller with the Energy.

Just get both to try out. Reebok website always have deals promotions

Tron and AhWhatTheCheese: thanks for the advice. Much appreciated!

Hi

Ahwhat the cheese and TheJeff, you must check out the new reebok harmony road 3. A great daily trainer, I started a forum post on it. Get it while its on sale, I got 50% .

Cheers

Steve

stevenn wrote:

Hi

Ahwhat the cheese and TheJeff, you must check out the new reebok harmony road 3. A great daily trainer, I started a forum post on it. Get it while its on sale, I got 50% .

Cheers

Steve

Does it feel significantly softer? Do you know the stack heights?

I don't see a sale on it here in the US.

I have been passing on it because it is heavier than the Forever Energy, but looks like it just added EVA in the heel. It would be worth trying if it had a softer and more cushioned ride though maybe. How does the forefoot feel compared to the Forever Energy?

Hi,

Slightly softer in the heel and front. I measured it , seems around 5mm more at heel and 3 mm at front. Significantly more impact protection especially at heel certaintly more stable. Weight is probably only extra 20-30 g, slightly bulkier at the heel. Buy it online on reebok and get it on sale ( I got it 50% off - blue and gold version - send back if not like it you have 30 days) or runningwarehouse. The EVA is only a heel cup around the foam to keep it stable -its full of the foam, so the quality foam throughout midsole.

Compared to forever energy, the HR3 has more impact protection (softer landing), more stable, more cushioned ride, and it has all the bounce and response of the forever energy but not quite as flexible. If anything I say because of the higher drop you seem to be pushed with faster transitions. The forever may be a faster shoe overall though but only been one short run in the harmony road 3.

The HR3 Upper is better quality too, good breathability . Cushioning levels are as high as new balance 1080 v9 and saucony triumph iso 5 levels, but the HR3 is more flexible, lighter , softer more responsive shoe. I am 75kg so probably needed more impact protection. You must try it.

Cheers

Steve

Interesting. I may try it out as a lighter higher cushioned TPU shoe. The Ultrboost 19 felt nice underfoot, but was way too heavy. It seems like this may offer as much TPU underfoot to have a similar ride, but at a much lighter weight.

Much better than ultraboost 19 - lighter - far less bulk, lot more breathable, faster much more versatile.

stevenn wrote:

Much better than ultraboost 19 - lighter - far less bulk, lot more breathable, faster much more versatile.

Similar amount of cushion to Ultra Boost 19 at a lighter weight? Is the sizing a half size big in US size like the Forever Energy?

I am also interested in waiting for the Floatride Run 2.0. They are removing the EVA and the midsole is all Floatride Pebax with more of it. Should be well cushioned, light, soft, and bouncy. I was told it comes out this month.