Dead On Arrival: Brooks Hyperion Elite Performance Review

yikes

L.O.L.

I appreciate them being aware that these products are designed by teams and involve a lot of people and decisions.

But LOL. Brooks has had over 4 years to march the 4%, or come even remotely near it. They make this. LOL.

Brooks has been irrelevant forever... maybe more so now.

They've had 50 years, since Brooks loves to blab about how they did research on carbon plates in shoes in the 80s.

Or maybe the reviewers are the problem..... maybe the shoe comes alive under 5' and slow runners should have no business with it... who knows

In any case shelling that amount of money for that little expected mileage, for any shoe, is borderline asinine, but that's off topic....

How many runners, here or in the mass-market, are running sub 5min miles for full/half? “Slow” runners... lol.

30 miles is more than fair to judge a shoe. By then you know if it’s going to work (for you) or not.

Brooks is useless. They should just start making loafers for the retirement home in suburban Mass.

Hmmm.... 30 miles is (was) the expected stated life of the shoe..... after which you'd need a new pair... Slightly different LOL

I like the Hyperion Elite a lot. Feels more like the Zoom Fly than the Vaporfly. It’s less squishy at walking and jogging paces than the VF, but once you get moving, it feels great. I also have to say I find their comparison to the VF a little strange. I don’t “feel” like the VF is giving me energy back with each stride. I don’t even feel faster in it. When I first tried it, my reaction was, “no way is this a racing shoe.” The reason I wear it is because I trust the data. The only way to judge these kinds super shoes fairly is in the lab.

KAV wrote:

Or maybe the reviewers are the problem..... maybe the shoe comes alive under 5' and slow runners should have no business with it... who knows

In any case shelling that amount of money for that little expected mileage, for any shoe, is borderline asinine, but that's off topic....

Does anyone take these reviewers seriously? Thomas is too heavy and slow for these shoes.

Most shoe reviewers are mid-pack runners, which advice is not very interesting for more "competitive" people.

Jami, Kofuzi, Thomas, as cool as they are, are not fast runners by any means.

Should ask the fast ones for more input, like Zach Levet, Chris Mocko if he's still alive, or even Ben Parkes ?

hobbyjogz wrote:

Most shoe reviewers are mid-pack runners, which advice is not very interesting for more "competitive" people.

Jami, Kofuzi, Thomas, as cool as they are, are not fast runners by any means.

Should ask the fast ones for more input, like Zach Levet, Chris Mocko if he's still alive, or even Ben Parkes ?

I review shoes for RoadTrailRun and am (reasonably) fast. I've run a bit under 68 in the half, and will hopefully bring that down this spring. With that, I want to make something clear - you don't necessarily have to be fast to review shoes effectively. Sam, our EIC, is an absolute guru - I think he could blindly identify nearly any shoe in the past few years. He understands running shoe technology better than I ever will.

BUT! Some of these shoes are just designed for a faster, more efficient cadence. If you look at the footstrike of a slower runner - expert though they may be - it doesn't look like mine. And mine doesn't look like Galen Rupp's. And the more technical a shoe becomes (ala New Balance 5280, Brooks Hyperion Elite, Nike AlphaFly) the more you need to be in the target market (elite runners) for it to be effective.

I haven't worn the Hyperion Elite, so I can't say - but I would give more value to, for example, Evan Schwartz (small bias though there may be) who has run a OTQ and is clearly a very efficient runner.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

800 dude wrote:

I like the Hyperion Elite a lot. Feels more like the Zoom Fly than the Vaporfly. It’s less squishy at walking and jogging paces than the VF, but once you get moving, it feels great. I also have to say I find their comparison to the VF a little strange. I don’t “feel” like the VF is giving me energy back with each stride. I don’t even feel faster in it. When I first tried it, my reaction was, “no way is this a racing shoe.” The reason I wear it is because I trust the data. The only way to judge these kinds super shoes fairly is in the lab.

The Zoom Fly was a disaster. Why would anyone pay $250 for a Zoom Fly? Also the heel on the Zoom Fly is squishy and from this it seems like the Hyperion elite is just firm. What is the point of having so much midsole if the shoe is just going to be hard? Massive fail here even worse than the carbon x which is very baggy on the forefoot, horrible fit. I won't even pick these up when they go half price.

Your post makes too much sense for many on this board. ?

That said, BITR probably needed to state things like this in their review but I’m sure they needed the clicks. ?

hobbyjogz wrote:

Most shoe reviewers are mid-pack runners, which advice is not very interesting for more "competitive" people.

Jami, Kofuzi, Thomas, as cool as they are, are not fast runners by any means.

Should ask the fast ones for more input, like Zach Levet, Chris Mocko if he's still alive, or even Ben Parkes ?

YouTuber Evan Schwartz is going to run the Olympic Trial marathon in the Brooks Hyperion Elite.

No one would pay 250 for the zoom fly because it sold for 160. The shoe proved one thing: that the carbon plate is not the primary reason the vaporfly is so fast. The cushioning in the zoom fly is so dead; it's like running in sand.

Very valuable 2 cents. Thanks, and very good job on your site, your reviews are the best ;)

Watched the "tempo" version first impression on youtube today by the way; doesn't seem like a bad shoe.

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

bladerunner wrote:

No one would pay 250 for the zoom fly because it sold for 160. The shoe proved one thing: that the carbon plate is not the primary reason the vaporfly is so fast. The cushioning in the zoom fly is so dead; it's like running in sand.

ZF3 is way too heavy.

The Peg Turbo 2 is fast enough for workouts and over 50 grams lighter.

bladerunner wrote:

No one would pay 250 for the zoom fly because it sold for 160. The shoe proved one thing: that the carbon plate is not the primary reason the vaporfly is so fast. The cushioning in the zoom fly is so dead; it's like running in sand.

I picked up both the Zoom Fly Flyknit and Zoom Fly 3 with heavy discounts and both went in the donation bin. The Flyknit version was okay but nothing to write home about. I wore them at Houston but I don't think they helped or hurt. I could've put on a worn out pair of Altra Solstice and had the same result.

I don't think I even got over 30 miles with the Fly 3. More foam but somehow less cushion? They felt like bricks to me. Unless I was walking, then they felt super soft and wobbly.

The Believe in the Run folks have no credibility, and are too slow to assess the merits of a race shoe. I still remember Thomas raving about the Freedom ISO and then rating the Freedom ISO 2, which is pretty much the same shoe, as 'not recommended'. No credibility whatsoever.

I have no doubt the Nike (f@ck them!) are much better shoes than whatever Brooks can come up with. But I doubt they are as bad as BitR says they are.

Believe in the Run. Ginger Runner. Jamie's Reviews. Shallow reviews at best.