Hoka Carbon X vs Nike Alphafly: Case Study

This wasn't the best designed study because it was only one athlete that only ran 4x6 minutes in each shoe.

However, looking at actual races over the two years since the Carbon X was released, other than the Hoka Project X and X2, how many world records were set by runners wearing the Hoka Carbon X? Then contrast that to the number of world records set by athletes wearing Nike carbon-plated shoes or Adidas carbon-plated shoes. The contrast is striking and shows it takes more than just adding a carbon plate to a shoe.

I’ve got a pair of both. My verdict is that carbon Xs are awesome for tempos and endurance intervals but I’d take the 4%s in any race any day. I would absolutely pick carbon Xs over any non plated shoe for racing tho.

Ha and they used a Garmin HRM-TRI which also gives wrong numbers compared to my Stryd when you compare them to the same second or split on the same run.

But it's easy to believe the Hoka is no better than a 10 year old shoe, they are still using EVA

I've been playing around with the Rocket X and it's ridiculously bad for a $200 shoe, and don't even bother to run to run slower than 7 minute pace or they work against you.

Aliphine must be extra insanely great to do what she did at Atlanta in these.

Hoka needs to give her a better shoe replacing EVA asap before Tokyo (Sapporo) if Sara Hall can use prototypes to race still despite rules, then she should too.

Walmsley would have had the WR in anything else.

shoo smoo wrote:

Ha and they used a Garmin HRM-TRI which also gives wrong numbers compared to my Stryd when you compare them to the same second or split on the same run.

Actual accelerometer traces (not numbers reduced from hidden algorithms) is the way to achieving accuracy when evaluating ground contact time and forces.

shoo smoo wrote:

I've been playing around with the Rocket X and it's ridiculously bad for a $200 shoe...

I see the shoe 'sticker-shock inflation' which has occurred over the last few years as analogous to what happened to the prices of fancy coffee 12 years ago. Starbucks first led the trend by getting away with charging $4 for a cup of coffee; then all the mom & pop coffee shops sprung up and followed en masse in doing so, too.

The carbon plate in the Carbon X is more to support the rockered profile, whereas in the Nike it's there to provide propulsion.

King Tiger wrote:

The carbon plate in the Carbon X is more to support the rockered profile, whereas in the Nike it's there to provide propulsion.

This. Always felt the plate in the Carbon X was there solely to make the shoes stack and rocker work. Not a ton of propulsion. Stiff as all get out still. This shoe was always a training shoe as compared to the other plated non-eva choices. I also find it faster than a traditional flat still, but not a bonafide racer.

Thanks for this thread as I have been wondering which shoe to buy and it's difficult to find a good cross section of reviews.

How Many WR by Hoka Athletes? wrote:

This wasn't the best designed study because it was only one athlete that only ran 4x6 minutes in each shoe.

However, looking at actual races over the two years since the Carbon X was released, other than the Hoka Project X and X2, how many world records were set by runners wearing the Hoka Carbon X? Then contrast that to the number of world records set by athletes wearing Nike carbon-plated shoes or Adidas carbon-plated shoes. The contrast is striking and shows it takes more than just adding a carbon plate to a shoe.

How many world class athletes are sponsored by Hoka, though? I think this is a misleading way to look at it because you can't separate sponsorship budget from shoe quality. Although probably true looking at the Hoka shoes, I think it's murkier if you think about Saucony or Brooks.

I ran twice in the Carbon X and gave it back to the friend who gave it to me. A seriously awful shoe for me. Felt clunky at all paces, and even sub 4min/km wasn't easy. Cushioning was mediocre at best. No sense in comparing the modern super shoes to that overpriced garbage (they're all overpriced, but the Next% is still by far the best shoe I've ever worn, bar none).

You shouldn't really be comparing the Carbon X and Alphafly. The Carbon X is more for ultra-length races and distance training. The Rocket X would be a better comparison.

Seems like a comparison of shoes using the new foams is needed...Stack and carbon alone do not make a shoe great.

I made the mistake of buying the Carbon X instead of the Next%. It's a decent shoe for training, but rather firm. Nothing at all like the Next%, I'd even consider the Zoomfly to be a faster shoe.

I'd agree with the opinion that Hoka need to get rid of EVA. They really need to get into the Pebax game if they want to be competitive.

From everything I have seen and heard from most runners, the next % is light years ahead of anything else. I would imagine at the least a 30 second improvement for the average college 10k runner(30-36 min runners).

Bot.