dewman wrote:
Well, of course the 4% has more pop than the cheaper versions in the line. Why else would anyone buy them? The OP's question was which shoes were closest to the 4% for feel/fit. I have run in every iteration of the Zoom Fly / Flyknit / 4% line, apart from the original "Elite" model used at Monza. I have run probably 1000 miles in Zoom Flys and Flyknits and about 200 in 4%'s, including a PR in the half-marathon and a PR at Boston. (Pretty good counterfeit, I'd say.) The Zoom Flyknit is the closest to the 4% in ride, and the Zoom Fly SP is the closest to the 4% in fit.
Fair enough. I apologize and stand corrected with respect to your qualifications to speak about the shoes. (I am new to both, having just picked up a pair of both shoes about a month ago, and am liking them). But they're really leagues apart.
It's like answering the question, "Should I buy a 911 Turbo, or wait for the next 911 Turbo" and answering "well, you could could buy a Boxter to see if you find the seats comfortable..." Similar interior finishing, but very different ride. (And I really do think they are that different).
Edit: Add, the only reason I'm kind of harping on this is I wouldn't want OP to buy a pair of Flyknits and be like... meh, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I wasn't overwhelmed by the FK, it was quick, but wouldn't have turned me onto Nike. But first time I ran in the 4% my mind was kind of blown.