Hoka One One Huaka - A Confession and Chagrin

I got some Cliftons in the mail recently, put them on my feet and then put them right back in the box and shipped them back. I just couldn't do it...

Shawn H wrote:

The only Hokas I would even consider buying are the Huaka, the Clifton, and the Challenger ATR (which is really a trail version of the Clifton, but with RMAT rather than EVA for the midsole. I greatly prefer the RMAT.

The Challenger ATR has an EVA midsole. Great shoes.

I'm a masters runner and I tried the Huakas in Feb (got them on sale...at the RUnning warehouse...) and I wasn't sure. But man, I've never had an upper that was so comfortable, and the aches and pains I normally get when a shoe reaches 300 miles haven't surfaced. Very comfortable. Ordered a pair of Cliftons... :)

well,. wrote:

The problem is that people these days both want running shoes to be ultra light and durable. The reason why Clifton is so light is the flimsy upper and the almost complete lack of outsole. Problem is that you can't have it both ways.

Yes, I know you're right. But would it really be so bad to just make those tiny patches of rubber they put in the highest wear areas out of the Continental Rubber material used in the Adidas? Not thicker, just a little tougher. The rest of the sole is RMAT or exposed EVA, after all. Would it be so bad to put just a tiny bit of padding in the tongue like they've done with the new Bondi 4? We're talking ultra light stuff akin to the old, cheap Nike tongue on the Waffle Racer. And would it really be so bad to put in an actual insole? You know, the ultra light ones found in racing flats that still have a removeable insole? Ok, so we might be talking .25 of an ounce. You'd have a much better shoe. Keep the ultra-light upper, but just make sure you use the right method (better glue?) to keep those overlays from coming off so soon.

Now, with all that said . . . today I took my brand new pair of Saucony Ride 6's out of the box. I had been saving them, thinking I'd take them to Thailand with me in the fall and leave them at the house there. But after running in the Huakas and finding I liked them even better than my beloved Adidas Supernova Glide Boost, I wanted to compare them with a brand new top-of-the-line Saucony. I've always loved Saucony, ever since the TC-84 back in the early 80s. Anyway, I went on a 6-mile run in the Saucony Ride 6's this morning. They felt pretty good, but after running in the Huakas they actually felt clunky! I expected to feel the nice ride I've grown accustomed to with top-of-the-line Saucony shoes, especially since the Ride has been rated so highly on running shoe review sites.

So here's the problem, and I guess it's a good problem to have: Now that I've experienced the Huakas, I don't want to run in anything else. Even those incredible Adidas Boost that I've been talking up on this forum ever since I got them. The Adidas and the Saucony are built much better with higher quality materials than the Hokas, but the Huakas just feel fantastic. They've spoiled me. All I ask is that Hoka just make a few very minor adjustments, and they'll be stuck with me as a customer.

zzzz wrote:

Shawn H wrote:

The only Hokas I would even consider buying are the Huaka, the Clifton, and the Challenger ATR (which is really a trail version of the Clifton, but with RMAT rather than EVA for the midsole. I greatly prefer the RMAT.

The Challenger ATR has an EVA midsole. Great shoes.

You're right, zzzz. I stand corrected. I thought the Challenger ATR was RMAT because it feels stiffer and more solid than the cushy Clifton. I tried both of them on at REI and did a little "running" on the hardwood floor. So . . . I guess I'll stick with the Huaka. I like the RMAT because it feels a bit more responsive--kind of like the Adidas Boost material, and because it is supposedly more durable and resilient than regular EVA. Not sayng the Clifton and Challenger ATR wouldn't be great shoes for me, too, but just that the Huaka has them beat in my opinion. Thanks for the correction.

i too had to "widen" the cliftons soon after i got them. they were pinching my little toes too much - bad blisters. but i liked them too much to send them back without trying something.

like you, i slit the upper outside my little toe about an inch. it hasn't gotten bigger or worse - the upper material is holding strong around the slit after 200 miles.

but it wasn't just the upper (and maybe i didn't need to slit it after all), the top 1/8" band of midsole is higher than the insole, and was binding my forefoot. so i cut it out of both shoes, removing about 1.5" of that top band of foam, on both feet.

the shoes fit much better now. i'm done with the mods.

i expect the clifton 2s to have the same issue, but will be getting a pair anyway.

Just a word of warning to Hoka Huaka lovers...

I was one too. Still love the way they feel, they're the fastest, lightest, smoothest, ugliest shoes i've ever enjoyed, until i rolled my ankle in them.

I admittedly have pretty floppy ankles to begin with, but when I rolled my ankles in my minimal New Balance MT110's it wasn't really a big deal. After suffering foot bruising during a 35 mile trail race I decided I was ready to take the plunge into maximalist footwear and bought the Huakas. The first time i rolled my ankle was intense, I'd never felt that pain in my ankle before...but a couple days of rest later and I was back it it. Fast forward 6 weeks and it happened again, same recipe and I was back at it in a few days. Second run back I roll the same ankle, this time it's black and blue halfway up my shin and I can't run for about a month.

Obviously, the whole point is that with a shoe as "narrow" and high as the Huaka if you happen to be prone to rolling your ankle you have a lot further to fall. I've gone from someone who never had injury issues to being a chronic ankle sprainer I think in large part due to the extra torque you put on your ankle when you sprain it in a shoe this tall.

My unstable ankle has lead to knee issues in this leg and I'm wishing I'd never given the Huakas a try.

one caveat wrote:

My unstable ankle has lead to knee issues in this leg and I'm wishing I'd never given the Huakas a try.

It's not the shoes fault you are a klutz.

Really, who the hell rolls their ankles this much? Are you playing basketball in them?

If not, there are other things you need to look at besides shoes.

I ordered a pair of these at the same time and got the same deal. A couple of observations so far after a couple 4 mile runs. The toe box is tight and I went a half size up. I may be spoiled from my Altra Instinct though. The tongue being thin doesn't bother me much but the way it is attached might be an issue as I noticed it scratched the top of my foot a bit.

The ride is amazing! My only concern is I noticed the movement of my foot on impact and I am worried that moisture bay build up or my sock might move on me and lead to problems on long runs over 10 miles. I notice very little wear on the lugs after two runs well see how the hold up after a few hundred. I have about two hundred on my Altra's on the road and you would swear it was a thousand. Altra great shoe but terrible wear.

So far I have been using the speed laces and haven't really had any issue's. Maybe I'm missing something though.

I also started with a four mile run and felt like I had run 1 pretty amazing really. If I can keep my feet dry I will be using these a lot this summer.

At any rate there good enough for this guy

http://www.statesrunner.com/

uh well wrote:

one caveat wrote:

My unstable ankle has lead to knee issues in this leg and I'm wishing I'd never given the Huakas a try.

It's not the shoes fault you are a klutz.

Really, who the hell rolls their ankles this much? Are you playing basketball in them?

If not, there are other things you need to look at besides shoes.

Not wanting to be mean, but this guy does have an ankle problem. The Huakas, although having a thicker midsole than other brands of running shoes, are actually lower to the ground than other Hokas like the Stinson, Bondi, etc. Just look at the pictures of all the Hoka models on the Hoka site. Also, the Huakas have a semi-straight last with a wider outsole than most shoes. This makes it pretty stable, in my opinion. Now, if I were actually going to run mountain trails I might go for a tougher trail shoe. I love the Huakas for what they do for me on pavement and cement, even though they're advertised as a kind of hybrid road/trail shoe. On trails, as opposed to pavement, you don't need as much cushion, but you do need a tough, firmer shoe. Some swear by the Huaka's trail-running prowess, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a trail shoe.

Seriously, I don´t understand the need for Hoka shoes on trails. Clifton is a fabulous shoe for asphalt or hard packed dirt roads, but on trails a shoe like Nike Wildhorse or Montrail Fluidflex have a lot of soft cushioning but are lower to the ground.

you're not being mean. I said I have floppy ankles to begin with. In the past this has made me particularly well suited to technical trail running as a roll here or there didn't do much to my ankles in the past and wouldn't slow me down in a run.

I'm not advocating against the shoe in general, just pointing out that if you're like me, with looser ligaments, and might have a problem with rolled ankles, then Huakas may not be for you. This is especially the case because one more major sprain makes future sprains much easier to come by. The huaka might not be as tall as other hokas, but the other hokas have a wider base, which makes it less likely that one might have this problem, especially running on terrain that is not Rupp Certified.

One caveat wrote:

you're not being mean. I said I have floppy ankles to begin with. In the past this has made me particularly well suited to technical trail running as a roll here or there didn't do much to my ankles in the past and wouldn't slow me down in a run.

I'm not advocating against the shoe in general, just pointing out that if you're like me, with looser ligaments, and might have a problem with rolled ankles, then Huakas may not be for you. This is especially the case because one more major sprain makes future sprains much easier to come by. The huaka might not be as tall as other hokas, but the other hokas have a wider base, which makes it less likely that one might have this problem, especially running on terrain that is not Rupp Certified.

It's true that a major sprain makes future sprains easier to come by. I sprained my right ankle so badly once that I had it in a cast for two weeks. I've had a few more minor sprains since then, but nothing recently. Now, when I feel that ankle starting to go over, I just take the fall rather than let it sprain. I feel pretty stupid, taking a fall, but it's always been on a trail where no one's around. You're also right that a lower shoe with a wider base would definitely be better for anything off road. Good points.

I went from very thin and stable flats to Cliftons and found the Hokas to be actually the most stable trail shoe I have tried. They cradle your foot and "float" you above all but the biggest irregularities. I understand the concerns, but in practice I find they have no basis, quite the contrary.

Hey runners, I'm quite late on this one but if anyone is interested I just put together a YouTube Review on the Hoka One One Clifton 2. A lot of the same of what has already been mentioned, but here's the video if you're interested in hearing more about the Clifton 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD-NxgupML0

Hello one. Just turned my ankle again in my Hoka Biondi for about the fifth time. Your story is almost identical to mine. I’m supposed to be running the marathon at the end of the month but I’m icing my twisted ankle. It’s got to be the shoes, I don’t remember being that big of a klutz. I’ve been running over forty years. After this last time I’ve been snooping around and came across your letter. I love the cushioning but these shoes are dangerous.