The RTR initial review indicate it have more forefoot cushion than the Mach 2 and Tracer, in this order :

Clifton 5 (soft cushion)
Carbon Rocket + (well cushionned)
Mach 2 (intermediate)
Tracer (the firmer cushion - quite harsh)

Do you feel the same ?

Apparently they also feel it is more cushioned (forefoot) than Kinvara 10 and Razor 3. Do you confirm ?

How's the fit compared to Mach 2? I'm a size 9 in the Mach 2 should I stay with 9 on the Carbon Rocket or size up/down?

What i don’t get is what hoka wants with the shoe. I have seen nothing so far from hoka athletes, no promotional material came with the shoe, it was even so that we had a meeting with Hoka /Deckers 10 days ago and told us to expect delivery in early March, to find them on our floor yesterday....
Marketing wise they can learn a lot from Nike. If you bring something like this to the market you would expect that you mobilize your athletes and tell them to promote the shoe through their social media channels, have a video with explanation ready, show how the carbon plate works, etc.

Askes my contacts at Hoka some tech information and was send from door to another. Nothing was at hand to send out. Strange.....

Jeroen

I mentioned this after it had been mentioned in the other thread. None of their athletes are talking about the shoe, maybe that's the point? I've been staring down another pair of Napalis and have been wanting to get this shoe since Steve Jewell mentioned it.

3. The Hoka Carbon could very well still suck. I think it's highly unlikely to given Hoka's experience in making shoes now but who knows - maybe the shoe wears out, carbon breaks quickly, or even works totally fine but is different enough from the full stack Bondi 6 / Clifton 5 popular type maxi shoes that it's utterly rejected by their main crowd of buyers. I actually suspect this is more of a test run for them - if it not only sells well, but performs well, they'll def quickly come out with another, more strongly backed model after there's less risk. Can't say I disagree there.

I too am surprised a bit by Hoka's total lack of ad hype on their carbon shoe.

But I def can see some very good reasons that would def help explain it:

1. Hoka has been aware to not overstate the (key) features of their shoes. Everyone who's over 40 and wears Hokas knows that they're ALL about embracing big cushioning, minimalism be danged. When you're getting arthritis joints (count me in), even if you run faster with minimalist stuff, at some point, you will look to at least try a maxi shoe to see if it can alleviate some of the joint pain that's killing your running. Yet Hoka has been super careful to not even mention that in their ads, even though pretty much everyone knows that's the #1 feature of their shoe (maxi cushioning to allow a gentler run, particularly for the 40+ crowd.) Hoka will never make the medical-like claims of 'injury reduction' or 'easier on your joints' and risk getting sued like Vibram Fivefingers, despite the fact that anyone who buys Hokas buys them specifically for hopes of injury reduction due to maxi shoes feeling easier on joints.

——————————————————————————————————————-
The real question is if they ever developed the shoe with max cushioning with the intention to ‘solve’ or relief pain from arthritis, etc. I don’t think this was the case and it was just a side effect that came with the shoe.
——————————————————————————————————————

2. They are only going to lose if they put their shoe head to head against Nike's carbon shoe in performance tests. Nike's shoe is worn by faster (the fastest) sponsored runners, Nike has more money to make a sub2 optimized event,and it's a lighter shoe to begin with. Plus, I'm not even sure anyone believed Nike's 4% data for joe average runner until the big NYT article put up some pretty astonishing large-scale data showing a real trend that's hard to ignore/disprove about those shoes being the fastest out there. In fact, to date I haven't even seen a single other analysis of shoe type that could make any sort of statistical and evidence backed claim of being truly 'faster for normal folks' until that NYT article. Hoka would def lose a head to head battle against the 4% shoe. Even if it's by a tiny amount, it's not going to come out on top.

———————————————————————————————————————

It has nothing to do with going head to head with Nike, but they still can do some form of attention, social media or in a different way to attract attention. It almost seems like they released this in complete silence.

———————————————————————————————————————

3. The Hoka Carbon could very well still suck. I think it's highly unlikely to given Hoka's experience in making shoes now but who knows - maybe the shoe wears out, carbon breaks quickly, or even works totally fine but is different enough from the full stack Bondi 6 / Clifton 5 popular type maxi shoes that it's utterly rejected by their main crowd of buyers. I actually suspect this is more of a test run for them - if it not only sells well, but performs well, they'll def quickly come out with another, more strongly backed model after there's less risk. Can't say I disagree there.

Thanks for the feedback

You say they feel soft at slower pace and firmer at higher paces. Because of heel softer ? Or foam reacting to impact (a bit like the DNA of Brook Ghost / Ravenna) ?

Regarding marketing : in France, Manon Genet is sponsored by Hoka, and by i-run (selling Hoka shoes) : the Carbon Rocket + does not appear anywhere.
Not in Hoka web site
Not in resellers sites
Not mentionned by athletes

Maybe you get some early deliveries, and the marketing wave still to come (a bit like for the Cervelo P5 disk ;-)

The Mach was the replacement for the Clayton 2, you might want to try that shoe. I've run in both, and I like the Mach a little better, but they are very similar. The Clayton 2 had issues for many people (including me) with rubbing towards the front of the foot arch. Check out leftlanesports, they seem to have some inventory of old Machs if you want an inexpensive purchase to try them out.

No, I heard probably why there is no marketing. Numbers of ordered pairs by shops were extremely low and perhaps also their stock. But that didn't hold Nike off to make a big hoompa on their 4% shoes at the time of release. But, hey, that is the power of the Nike brand ;-) Still think Hoka misses an opportunity and it also looks a bit if they dont believe in the shoes themselves if you don't launch it with some global marketing around it

Jeroen

Even if the Nike 'carbon plate research' was more hype than hard objective science, they do have at least SOME legit data about the plate construction and beneficial results on actual running.

I would be very surprised if Hoka had ANY data about either. This isn't to say Hoka's fradulent - nearly no major shoe features that we recognize are backed by true, objective peer-reviewed science other than Nike's carbon plate. All that motion control, prontation control, cushioned, heel-drop/etc. - are driven by consumer preference and are marketing based. For sure, they aren't doing scientific peer-reviewed research to drive the innovations or new designs of their shoes (duh).

Nike's 4% carbon plate shoe was the first I've seen to make an actual running shoe scientific claim (and I'd use scientific in a very limited sense here!) backed up with peer-reviewable data. Hoka would be setting themselves up for a huge embarrasment if they don't have this sort of data yet marketed their shoes aggressively without it against Nike. It could end up really bad, like the Fivefinger smackdown when they started claiming their shoes could reduce injury.

Should I size up in this shoe? Original Nike Vaporfly 4, Saucony Kinvara, A2 all perfect fit size 13. New Nike Vaporfly 4 snug at size 13 could most definitely use 1/2 size up if made. Should I go with 13 or 14 in Hoka Carbon Rocket?

Should I size up in this shoe?

. I got a size 9, same as my current pair of Mach but these things are narrow AF