ASICS MetaRide (the $250 one) review!!

$250 for an 11 oz + shoe?!?!?!?!?!? Are you freakin' kidding me? This thing better last 10,000 miles to justify that nonsense. Asics is done.

The rocker on that thing looks way too extreme, and the whole design looks clunky. If I had $250 to spend on a running shoe, I would go with the Vaporfly, which has already been proven.

No wonder Asics are losing so much money coming up with ugly heavy things like this!

Zero drop? No thanks. If I want the meta-rocker Hoka, which now seems to be a bargain at half the price of this!

Who briefed that thing? I'm guessing folks that are no longer with Asics US.... amazing how this brand has lost it's way and allowed multiple smaller brands to take the sales leadership positions at run specialty

Seriously mate? wrote:

$250 for an 11 oz + shoe?!?!?!?!?!? Are you freakin' kidding me? This thing better last 10,000 miles to justify that nonsense. Asics is done.

I would buy a pair if I got 5,000 miles on them. My Hokas were $150 and I am close to 2,800 miles on those.

Can't decide who to copy, so we'll just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and go with whatever sticks.

Exactly... it's like the brand has no idea what they stand for or has no overarching philosophy on shoe building so they've taken an industry sales report and tried to copy a 'best sellers' list. really poor brand management

*stipe wrote:

Can't decide who to copy, so we'll just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and go with whatever sticks.

Asics stopped being decent when they were no longer called Tiger.

And they're funny now, as you all are funny. A dozen or so Japanese guys surface every year, running 2:06 or something, in Tamolike Berezek shoes by Asics or something, and you flip out. Best shoe ever! Why can't we get these shoes in the US? How dumb is (online store name here)?

Then they do this, which means Mr. Jogger and Mrs. Whole Foods shopper can wear 'current' shoes like the 4%, only it's not the 4%. It's this thing. Which is actually good for everyone who is not 6-1 and 142. What did you want them to do?

If they were $150 and NOT zero drop, they'd fly off the shelves with the hobby joggers and the weekend warriors...Hell, Hoka created that market and capitalized on it. Asics still has a better reputation amongst these same runners as far as name and quality than Hoka does (even if they haven't been producing good shoes for the "serious runners" for 5+ years).

This ain't it, chief.

At $250, very heavy, and just a weird Asics: Hoka type shoe with normal EVA, who is this shoe even for???

I can't wait till they are in Marshall's this summer!!

I JUST PRE-ORDERED 3 PAIRS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWWwM2wwMww

like what is this shoe trying to be? it feels like a huge identity crisis.

it's at elite racing shoe price, but weighs almost as much as an old air max. Is it trying to fight the Zoom Fly or a Hoka?

the review was weird too - it reads like a "B" grade shoe but they gave it an A+ grade? he calls out a premium construction and material, but it's a $250 shoe - it should NOT be getting bonus points for premium materials at that price point. that should be expected.

jay see wrote:

like what is this shoe trying to be? it feels like a huge identity crisis.

it's at elite racing shoe price, but weighs almost as much as an old air max. Is it trying to fight the Zoom Fly or a Hoka?

the review was weird too - it reads like a "B" grade shoe but they gave it an A+ grade? he calls out a premium construction and material, but it's a $250 shoe - it should NOT be getting bonus points for premium materials at that price point. that should be expected.

What do you mean racing shoe price? It’s not meant to be a racing shoe, it’s meant to be a comfortable and efficient trainer. What makes you think it’s trying to be a racing shoe? That has not been said once

Idiot alert wrote:

What do you mean racing shoe price? It’s not meant to be a racing shoe, it’s meant to be a comfortable and efficient trainer. What makes you think it’s trying to be a racing shoe? That has not been said once

Can you read? He never said it was marketed as a racing shoe. He said it was priced like a racing shoe.

As in: It doesn't matter much if you run 5 seconds slower on your training run so nobody is (or should be) willing to spend that amount on a trainer.

If you care a lot about your race time you might be willing to spend more on a racing shoe.

Trainer = give me cheap and durable.

Racing shoe = give me fast.

And mega lol on the shoe: Just throw everything together randomly.

Hoka's max cushioning? Yes, please. ASICS gel that was hot in the 90ies? For sure! Oh, we've recently read Born to Run, and Altra seems to be successful, so give me some zero drop. And those holes in the sole in our triathlon shoes? Saves some material and we can call it a "feature", so why not? Vaporflys going crazy? Just price our shoes the same so people will think it's the same category.

I hope this works out for ASICS and some dumb people with too much money buy the shoes so ASICS can put some more money into the sport and sponsor elites. They seem to have very few.

I ditched asics after the cumulus 15/16 and gt 21XXs lines got properly screwed up. Their shoes are awful now!

Why all the hate? Doesn't the review make this sound like a solid hobby-jogger shoe? Sure it's a bit expensive, but the review makes it sound super comfortable and durable. Isn't the HJ market looking for comfortable trainers a lot bigger market than a VaporFly or Adios competitor? Add on super-popular and relatable Allie to market it to the people who run for fitness and maybe do a 'thon every year or two and isn't this a good thing for ASICS?

While $250 is a lot compared to buying the last gen Bostons from RW, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. Lulu and oiselle aren't exactly cheap, either is traveling to a destination race (like Disney!) and all those 3 are very, very popular.