Nike Free 3.0 V3 Review!!!!

Nice review, I loved my V2's so if their anything like that i'm getting a pair. I'm a little worried about the spandex in the back though

Looks sick and the spandex in the back looks sick too!

No thanks - I'm a Vibram Five Fingers guy.

I have a pair of the 3.0 V3's that I have about 90 miles on and they are MUCH more runable than many other "minimalistic" products. Clearly, the overall flexibility of the shoe is great for stimulating the proprioceptors of the lower leg, foot and ankle. After my first day in them, I actually needed a "recovery day", wearing conventional running shoes as they caused some fatigue in the lower leg. My biggest concern about the shoes would be they spandex window in the heel area, as this feature was extremely problematic in the very first Free product many years ago. Being the owner of a retail running shop, I can unequivocally say that we had an extremely high retuirn rate, due to the spandex ripping out prematurely. It remains to be seen on the new 3.0's if this problem has been solved. I will continue to monitor this and post accordingly.

Wow, the 1st version was that bad. I'm not sure how this will do if they kept the same design but so far the spandex on the back of mine is fine. The only problem i have with it is that the forefoot is wearing away so quick. I have about 100 miles in them now and the squares that stuck out at first are 3/4 worn away. On my free runs they are gone but i still run in them so it should be fine when the squares are gone. The upper is doing great with no rips or anything. I hope sole stays together for another 200 miles but overall the shoe is great and provides the little cushion needed if i fall to my heels at the end of a long run. Thx for checking out the video guys!

I just ordered a pair off of runnningwarehouse thanks for the info. I'm going to use this as a transition shoe to vibrams but until vibrams i'll be rotating this with my current lunarglides.

The only nice thing about that video is that I was able to see a 360 version of the shoe without actually having to go to the store myself. It was a nice attempt at trying to give it a review, but the original poster needs to learn a few things about how shoes are made and the actually terminology of various parts of shoes before saying "mesh-like," using the word "re-inforced" like its a technical term, and using the word "mid-sole" for the middle of the sole. The video is amateur, however, thank you for posting. It's better than not trying at all!

Secondly, Nike Free shoes are not meant to be an every day running shoe, just like the vibram five fingers. It is merely a supplemental shoe use to strengthen certain leg and foot muscles that don't get used on an every day basis. Think of it as lifting weights for your feet and legs. I've found that most people that train regularly in Nike Free's or Vibram's are marginal at best at running and just want to look cool doing it. If you are serious about your training, and want the most out of your body, don't train in these every day. The Nike Free isn't a shoe that is meant to last through 300 miles of training runs. If you don't believe me, do some research on some of our countries or the worlds fastest runners.

Well, this was just a first look video but i din't have enough to say to add on this to make another long video. The point of it was to just show people what the shoe is about. I named it "review" simple because i haven't posted the full review yet which i'll do at like 200 miles in cause than i'll know everything about it. However, free runs are fine for lots of training. I've gotten 600 miles out of my free runs and their fine except for some half inch cuts in the sole from stepping on glass. I use my free 3.0 for easy runs and my free runs for long runs as well as flats for tempo/track workouts.

what did I just watch? wrote:

Secondly, Nike Free shoes are not meant to be an every day running shoe, just like the vibram five fingers. It is merely a supplemental shoe use to strengthen certain leg and foot muscles that don't get used on an every day basis. Think of it as lifting weights for your feet and legs. I've found that most people that train regularly in Nike Free's or Vibram's are marginal at best at running and just want to look cool doing it. If you are serious about your training, and want the most out of your body, don't train in these every day. The Nike Free isn't a shoe that is meant to last through 300 miles of training runs. If you don't believe me, do some research on some of our countries or the worlds fastest runners.

Well, I agree with you somewhat. First off, I admit I don't think I could have done ALL my runs with the help of the Frees if it wasn't for the assistance of my orthotics. With that said, I am currently using the Free Run plus the orthotics for recovery/LRs and Free 3.0 v3 for tempo/speed work w/o the orthotics. Yeah, I know I am an experiment of one.

what did I just watch? wrote:

Secondly, Nike Free shoes are not meant to be an every day running shoe, just like the vibram five fingers. It is merely a supplemental shoe use to strengthen certain leg and foot muscles that don't get used on an every day basis. Think of it as lifting weights for your feet and legs. I've found that most people that train regularly in Nike Free's or Vibram's are marginal at best at running and just want to look cool doing it. If you are serious about your training, and want the most out of your body, don't train in these every day. The Nike Free isn't a shoe that is meant to last through 300 miles of training runs. If you don't believe me, do some research on some of our countries or the worlds fastest runners.

i may be an exception because it seems that i don't get over-use injuries running in the nike free runs like i did when i was running in more conventional running shoes. i run 60-75 mpw as well and i could care less about how they make me look. i've gotten up to 500 miles out of a pair as well. it all depends on the surfaces you run on.

I do a very similar thing, free runs for long runs since they definitely have enough cushioning. After trying more minimal stuff i don't even know if i can consider free runs minimal anymore more of just a lightweight neutral trainer.

d

this "review" is more like an overview, i dont think you are qualified for reviewing if you only use words like "mesh-like" (several times) and "grey lines" haha at least we got to see a 360 of the shoe

'bout the shoe though, it sucks that nike hasn't updated the midsole at all, i've had two of the V2 and lost interest once i tried the saucony hattori

I really hope they don't ever change the midsole of the 3.0.

How are the Hattoris compared to the 3.0? They look lower to the ground, but Ive only seen a pic.

what did I just watch? wrote:

Secondly, Nike Free shoes are not meant to be an every day running shoe, just like the vibram five fingers. It is merely a supplemental shoe use to strengthen certain leg and foot muscles that don't get used on an every day basis. Think of it as lifting weights for your feet and legs. I've found that most people that train regularly in Nike Free's or Vibram's are marginal at best at running and just want to look cool doing it. If you are serious about your training, and want the most out of your body, don't train in these every day. The Nike Free isn't a shoe that is meant to last through 300 miles of training runs. If you don't believe me, do some research on some of our countries or the worlds fastest runners.

What? The Free is a great everyday running shoe. The V2 was also the longest lasting shoe I've ever had - the sole seems much more durable than that of other shoes. I can tell you that I ran every day, 13-16 miles a day for the better part of a year in the same pair of Frees, rarely got hurt, and ran pretty fast. They're good training shoes, not some gimmick like the Vibrams.