Nike Lunarspider

TK/TZ are trainers, LT is a more cushioned racing shoe (marathon) and the Spider R is a scaled down racing flat. I have the Lunar Spider R (got them as a sample prototype) and are my favorite racing flat for anything up to a half.

Is the Lunarspider R2 recommended for the marathon? They seemed to work well for Shalane in NYC last year.

The Lunarspider LT2 is a training shoe - it stands for Lightweight Trainer. The Lunarspider R2 is a racing shoe - it stands for Racer. The R2 can certainly be used for a marathon, it seemed to work well for Shalane.

Yes, the LT is the lightweight trainer (which may work well for longer races if you need the additional cushioning); the fit is more like a racer. The R is the racing flat version. The "2" means it is the second generation of the shoes (first generation appears to be only available in the Asian market). The TZ designation stands for "Tier Zero"; any shoe with the TZ designation means that Nike released it to certain retailers that have the Tier Zero designation. The difference between the TZ versions and the non-TZ versions of any Nike shoe is usually only in appearance (a unique color combination, etc.). Most TZ versions are limited release through the NIKE SPORTSWEAR division.

One difference between the original versions of the Lunarspider and the second generation now being released in the US appears to be the upper. The original version used flywire in the upper; however, the pictures that I have seen of the new Lunarspider R2 and the Lunarspider LT2 do not appear to use flywire. Perhaps someone that has a pair of the new version can verify or dispute this.

Having worn the Lunar Spider R, my opinion is that there's not enough cushioning for a full marathon unless you're VERY light on your feet. I've worn them for a half, but the Nike Speed Lite ST 3 is my favorite shoe for a full. Hopefully they'll release those in the U.S. market too. There are a few available on E Bay from foreign markets.

For those concerned regarding the lunarspider:

I have the lunarspider r in the yellow black color way, the lt+ the streak xc 2 and the lunaracer+. Having worn all 4 pairs of these shoes (you can buy all of these in Aus and have been able to since nov last year)it depends what you want them for. The lunarspider r is a good comfy shoe, but it is heavier than the streak and far less responsive. It is a good shoe if you want it for road races but for xc and training on the track its a no go. The laces are also different to the xc (not flat) and dig in when you tie your shoes up. The lt+ is heavier, and is like have a block of wood for a sole. Its heavy, unresponsive and uncomfortable and the part of the shoe that your heel locks into isn't high enough so your foot falls out (i'm a US10). The lunaracer is great just because its so comfy :). However, by far the best show overall is the streak xc 2. Its comfy, locks down well and is a responsive flat on all surfaces. I've seen the lunarspider's on running warehouse for $125...which to most over there is expensive - they are $220 here. The streak however is only $49 and in my tried opinion a far better shoe both price and quality wise.

hope it helps.

I disagree with your analysis. The LT is better than most shoes for a "lightweight trainer" (note - not a true racer) and I do NOT feel that it it like a block of wood. The Lunarspider R is very responsive and only marginally heavier than the XC but has more cushioning. The XC is probably better for a XC flat, that I agree with. It really depends on the person; the lunaracer for a lot of people is way too spongy and the Lunaracer R is a great compromise between the XC (responsive but not much cushioning) and the Lunaracer (great cushioning but very spongy).

Bottom line - different runners like different shoes. What I wore 20 years ago wouldn't work for me today. For the record - I have gone through many pairs of the XCs, the Lunaracers, the Lunarspider LTs, and have a few pair of the Lunarspider Rs.

calsnailer wrote:

One difference between the original versions of the Lunarspider and the second generation now being released in the US appears to be the upper. The original version used flywire in the upper; however, the pictures that I have seen of the new Lunarspider R2 and the Lunarspider LT2 do not appear to use flywire. Perhaps someone that has a pair of the new version can verify or dispute this.

Calsnailer, the LunarSpider LT+2 has Flywire in the midfoot like its predecessor. The main difference comes from using less overlays around the toebox/midfoot junction, which has softened up this area. The upper feels much more comfortable as a result, while retaining the lockdown in the midfoot, but is still too low across the tips of the toes (same as the LT+1). I went up a 1/2 size in the LT+2.

The R2 has lost the Flywire and switched to a bonded material overlay. I haven`t had a chance to try it yet so I don`t know what difference this has made.

Bun

Bun - Thanks for the insight. I did some more investigating and you are right - the flywire is gone for the R2, but still remains for the LT+2 althought the LT+2 has a more open (mesh-like) upper. The R2s are available right now from Running Warehouse, but it is not clear whether the LT+2 will be offered in the US (but you can pre-order them from KIX-FILES and RMK STORE).

how light is the lt+ exactly?

LT weight is approximately 7.5 oz

I like the Nike Katana.

Why were they discontinued? LOL

I just saw that the Nike Lunarspider LT+2 is about to be released on 4/24 on the Nike iD site for $160. That's a little pricey, but at least they will be available to the US market.

funny, the LunarSpider R reminds me A LOT of the katana....almost identical bottom. upper fits really nice, just not nearly enough cushion for someone at my weight. LunarMontreal is the bomb for us fat guys....dude~

RealTalk wrote:

I like the Nike Katana.

Why were they discontinued? LOL

I just got the prototypes for the new LunarSpider R3. Slightly different outsole and different upper material. I like them quite a bit so far, although I've only ran in them once. Just got the LunarSpider LT+ too. Really similar to the LunarSpeed Lite. I weighed them both and in my size (clown shoes)12 the LunarSpeed Lite weighs 9.1 oz and the LunarSpider LT 8.2 oz.My Lunar Montreals are 7.3 oz.

Montreals will likely be my new marathon shoe, but I need to do some longer runs in them first.

Did lots of long training runs last fall in another pair of LunarSpider LTs and liked them immensely, but had trouble with the durability of the upper.New upper material looks to be much improved.

Just weighed txRUNNERgirl's shoes (all men's 8.5) and weights were LunarSpeed Lite (GYAKUSOU)7.8 oz, LunarSpider R3 (new)5.3 oz. and Lunar Montreal 6.2 oz.

How are the outsoles different? I thought they were the same as the R2...

Upper looks much improved - I prefer the Flywire over the screenmesh of the R2.

Bun

different tread pattern. These are prototypes. They say R3 on them, but really should be R4. I have the R3 in the "Volt" colorway and they are a different shoe (outsole and upper).

How do you get a gig to test out all of Nike's shoes? I would love to provide feedback for free, just the shoes anyway.

I ran in my LunarSpider R2's today for the first time. Definitely the best road flats I've worn, but I was surprised at how many [positive] comments I got about them before and during the race. I suppose anything in highlighter draws extra attention, but it struck me as odd.

Dan