Quantcast
    MAIN INDEX RULES & LEGEND LOG IN  

Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum:
Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity

 

   


TexanTriathlete

Apr 30, 13 11:20

Post #1 of 20 (4071 views)
Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity Quote | Reply

Just wondering how the two shoe models compare with each other. Both are relatively light on cushion and neutral it seems. Both seem pretty lightweight. I know the Newtons have the lugs which is different. I've heard great things about both. Any major differences between the Brooks Pureflow and the Newton Gravity? How do the Pureflow hold up on runs over 10 miles?


SurfL

Apr 30, 13 11:26

Post #2 of 20 (4050 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Depends on your gait, your weight, and running style.

Both of those shoes are very different from each other, and both may work fine for you and neither may work for you. What's the driving force behind moving to one of these shoes?


Sbradley11

Apr 30, 13 11:30

Post #3 of 20 (4038 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I don't have any experience with the Brooks, but the Newtons are a great shoe, especially if you mid/forefoot strike. I train in the Gravity and race in the Distance. It is essentially the same shoe (neither is a stability shoe) but the Distance is a little lighter. They have been fine for my longer 15-18 mile training runs.

____________________________________________________
TriSports.com Team | Towpath Bike Shop | My Blog | Twitter


TexanTriathlete

Apr 30, 13 11:32

Post #4 of 20 (4026 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [SurfingLamb] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

My last shoe was the Newton Gravity. I've had good luck out of them. I put almost 1,000 miles on them before my right knee started hurting. I was looking to try the Brook Pure Flow because I've heard good things about them and because you could buy last years model for under $60. The new Newton Gravity is a hefty $175.


Azr43l

Apr 30, 13 11:39

Post #5 of 20 (4011 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I use Pureflow's for shorter and tempo runs - generally less than 8 miles and am happy with them. BTW, they're pretty cushy for a lightweight, low drop, neutral shoe. I wear Hoka Bondi's for long and recovery runs. Don't know anything about the Newtons. The Pureflow's are the most cushy in the Pureproject line.


urbantriathlete

Apr 30, 13 11:49

Post #6 of 20 (3993 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I use the Pureflow's as my long-distance show (10k-Marathon). Plenty of cushion. I am a mid-foot striker, although when tired my form slacks off and can become a heel striker. The pureflow provides a little guidance to make your feet a little more comfortable striking midfoot. I really love these shoes. No experience with Newton.

I run Nike Frees 3.0 for my <10k runs.

Thoughts on being an Urban Triathlete


808State

Apr 30, 13 12:20

Post #7 of 20 (3959 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I haven't tried the Brooks, but I LOVE my Newton Gravity!! I have converted from a heavy heel strike to a mid foot strike due to a few herniated discs in my back. The change/shoes have literally saved my triathlon/running career!

I was able to find last years model on sale at sunandski.com for $85 shipped! Good luck!!!

A true warrior leave no openings-Except in his mind.


Jaymz

Apr 30, 13 12:26

Post #8 of 20 (3950 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [urbantriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

urbantriathlete wrote:
I use the Pureflow's as my long-distance show (10k-Marathon). Plenty of cushion. I am a mid-foot striker, although when tired my form slacks off and can become a heel striker. The pureflow provides a little guidance to make your feet a little more comfortable striking midfoot. I really love these shoes.

I think I may have written that! Same for me on all counts. I have Inov8 233 for short and track intervals, Inov8 255 for mid distance but I can run all day in Flows and my feet feel fine. I tried the Newtons on. There is less cushion and the toe box is smaller.

For short stuff I don't want cushion. The Pure Flows are like a Cadillac so I don't use them for short stuff.

Worth noting that the gen 1 Flows had a much wider toe box right at the end of the show, which was great, then they annoyingly changed to the same shape as the Pure Cadence or Pure Connect, so the toe box is no longer as wide at the end. The Newtons were mid wide at the end from what I recall, the Newtons were also a lot less squishy.

I love the gen 1 flows so much I had to track down 2 pairs on eBay as backups.


urbantriathlete

Apr 30, 13 12:33

Post #9 of 20 (3945 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [Jaymz] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Always nice to have my opinions confirmed! Either I have a partner in crime with bad choices, or made the right one for once! I definitely noticed a difference in the Gen2 toe-box, it is different but not annoyingly so for me. I do like the realignment of the lacing - which is more comfortable for the longer runs.

Thoughts on being an Urban Triathlete


nstearns

Apr 30, 13 12:44

Post #10 of 20 (3925 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [urbantriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I haven't run in the Gravity but I've rub in the Distance-S for 6 months. Main difference seems to be the feel of the shoe. I've found the distance to be very responsive almost to the point of too responsive. The Brooks Pure Line to me felt like running on clouds. When I did a side by side comparison, I went with the Newtons because the Brooks felt like I was wearing a marshmallow


Jaymz

Apr 30, 13 12:56

Post #11 of 20 (3904 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [nstearns] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

nstearns wrote:
The Brooks Pure Line to me felt like running on clouds. When I did a side by side comparison, I went with the Newtons because the Brooks felt like I was wearing a marshmallow

This is somewhat true from my POV too. The Flow's felt more marshmallowey (?) than the Zoots I was wearing. The difference was the Flow's still felt completely stable. The cushion wasn't throwing my foot off at any funny angles, maybe because of the lower drop (4mm). I would say they are very soft but stable. The other Pure range are not quite as soft as the Flow's. Your weight and foot shape may sway your choice here.


Tryin'

Apr 30, 13 13:02

Post #12 of 20 (3899 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I've worn both. Loved the Newton's for barefoot running because they gave me no blisters even after 21K.

Then I tore my calf skiing.

No more Newtons for me :( (too hard onthe calf)

Now I run Brooks and love them. Especially the new versions with the integrated tongue. I can run barefoot again!!

I don't think you can go too wrong with either (unless you tear your calf in which case no Newtons for you).


spr-2-cus

May 1, 13 2:22

Post #13 of 20 (3760 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Love the Pure Flows, have done 22 miles in them and they hold up great.


dseiler

May 1, 13 12:11

Post #14 of 20 (3685 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I've been running in the Gravity for about six months and am just not convinced it is the shoe for me.

With the lugs, I find that the shoe encourages me to land in that spot and that spot only, whereas, with the Pureflow (version 1), the footfall is genuinely more natural and, consequently, more comfortable. The Gravity has been tested only up to 18 miles, while I've done two marathons in the (same pair of) Pureflow, plus numerous shorter runs. For track work, the Pureflow is my shoe of choice.

With that said, my wife loves the Gravity.



Join the fight against MS!
http://off242.com/donate


TexanTriathlete

May 1, 13 12:33

Post #15 of 20 (3677 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [dseiler] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I just pulled the trigger on last years Pureflow shoe. At a price point of $59 its hard to beat. I'll try them out and see how I like them. I'm on a budget so saving $120 on a shoe is nice.


ElGordo

May 1, 13 12:41

Post #16 of 20 (3670 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I am a bigger guy (6ft/183cm, 198lbs/90kg) and have been running in Brooks Pure Flows since they came out. Been doing a fair amount of running so bought a second pair after I had about 800km on the first, although they still feel fine. I have not tried the update that came out fairly recently. I dropped down to the Pure Flows after wearing their big, cushy shoes (Adrenaline series) for several years and have no ill effects for the change.

No experience whatsoever with Newtons so I can't help to compare them.


fastpug

May 1, 13 20:05

Post #17 of 20 (3602 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

TexanTriathlete wrote:
How do the Pureflow hold up on runs over 10 miles?
FWIW, I have run three Sub 3 marathons in the Pureflow 1's (the original, not the PF2's). I'm 5'7" and 130 lbs.

As far as the PF2's go, I have run a couple 22 milers in them. While I like the new Burrito wrap tongue in the PF2's, the PF1's are still my go-to shoe on race day. The PF1's seem to be lighter and have a wider toe box. It's hard for me to move away from the PF1's come race day. That said, I do really like the PF2's and my plan is to run marathon #4 in the PF2's.


robb6876

May 1, 13 20:13

Post #18 of 20 (3591 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I've run in the Newton Distance and the Brooks Pure Cadence. The main difference I see is that the Brooks are better for people with wider forefoot. I ran in Newtons for a long time and battled a neuroma every time I got into longer mileage (9+ mile runs). Didn't realize that it was the shoe until I switched to the Brooks. Haven't looked back. If I didn't have a wider forefoot probably would have stayed with the Newtons, but I didn't feel any real big differences other than the width.


NateVeldhoen

May 1, 13 20:14

Post #19 of 20 (3591 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [TexanTriathlete] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I've ran two ironmans in them ...pretty good shoe, toe was a bit to wide for me so I'm going with a Pure Cadence, I've also ran in the Connect in a ironman but not enough shoe for plus 13 miles.

----------------------------------------
http://www.nathanveldhoen.com
http://twitter.com/NateVeldhoen

(This post was edited by NateVeldhoen on May 1, 13 20:15)


dseiler

May 2, 13 18:54

Post #20 of 20 (3505 views)
Re: Brooks Pureflow vs. Newton Gravity [NateVeldhoen] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

NateVeldhoen wrote:
I've ran two ironmans in them ...pretty good shoe, toe was a bit to wide for me so I'm going with a Pure Cadence, I've also ran in the Connect in a ironman but not enough shoe for plus 13 miles.

Both the Flow & the Cadence (originals, not gen2+) have proven to be good shoes for me. The Flow is reserved for track work and racing and is still doing just fine more than a year later. For a 200-mile shoe, the Cadence gave me more than my money's worth: 400+ miles before I ditched them...for the Newtons.

Once the Newtons give out, I'll likely gravitate back towards another set of Cadences or similar. Newton seems to do a lot right, but Brooks continues to impress me.



Join the fight against MS!
http://off242.com/donate

   
 
 
 



Swimming
Now that it's off season, are you shutting it down for a couple of months? Or will you swim through the Winter?
Shutting it down
Swim thru Winter
I don't swim