Already out of the most common sizes, including mine :(

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I've put several runners and a triathlete or two in these shoes.

The feedback has ranged from "I love them!" to "I LOVE THEM"

The only negative if you can call it a negative is one athlete said they feel like they take a bit to get up to speed.

For 98% of all triathletes, and 100% of all age groupers that's not going to matter. For 85-90% of all only runners that's also not going to matter

If you can't find them the 2 athletes I know who have the Adidas and Saucony Endorphin Pro really like both shoes. The Endorphin Pro could be an option

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

If it makes you feel better, I think they’re scheduled for a less-limited release on 10/1. You can sign up for alerts through the adidas app.

Sweet! I already signed up for notification.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I've seen a couple youtube reviews that indicate sizing down .5 to 1.0 size based on initial testing/fit. Any thoughts based on your athletes experience?

---

tinman

No one has mentioned this to me.

If they do I'll circle back on this thread and update it

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

So one thing i'm curious about, when new cycling gear comes out, it doesn't seem long before independent testing happens to verify or debunk gain claims. It seemed like it took a while for the 4% to be tested and I haven't seen anything robust done on other later releases (NEXT%, Alpha, Metaracer, Hoka CarbonX etc), is that because it is more difficult to test shoes or is the idea of having to test running gear too new for the running world?

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

It is significantly more difficult to confirm these claims. You have to do controlled studies on a carefully selected population of runners, conducting controlled metabolic tests with multiple pairs of shoes for each runner. Then you have to run some statistics on your results.

With a wind tunnel test you can get quick results in half a day for a couple grand. That doesn't mean the test was conducted well.... but you get results.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Yes

Plus the fact, with these "high perf shoes" a runner can have an individual gain from one model better than from another model, while for another runner, it will be the opposite.

Even if a Saucony Endorphin Pro was measured "statistically" as efficient as an Adios Pro or a Next or a New Balance Elite RC or... it might not be true for me, or for you.

It will be good to have these statistical comparaisons, but it will not fully solve the individual cases :-)

A bit like aero helmet. You can have 2 aero helmet with excellent wind tunnels results, but wich one is better for my own position :-) ?

I tried these and returned them. It's a good first attempt at a carbon shoe, but I think Adidas might come out with a better v2. The "energy carbon rods" don't do anything and the carbon plate on the heel won't do anything either b/c it's not connected to the mid/forefoot. If you watch some of the Youtube reviews, you can see the outsole probably won't last long. The carbon rod imprints are visible after a 4k run. Don't get me wrong, the colour and upper are really nice. I love that pink colour and almost kept them for that reason! They were true to size for me as well.

Nike just has such a big lead on carbon shoes. It's not the carbon plate as much as the Zoom foam. The feedback, energy return, and impact absorption are just so much better than anything out there. Maybe the next gen of competitors will have something better, but I think Nike is still ahead.

In terms of price, I know it's a lot of money, but I think the Nike's last a lot longer than people say. I've run in a few pairs of all previous versions of the Vaporfly 4%, Next% and current Alphafly for at least 250-300miles and they seem fine (though I usually get rid of them around the 300mile mark).

I also tried the Saucony Endorphin and they were like running in a rock. Super super stiff and the "roll" technology didn't do anything for me. No impact absorption. They are more stable than Nike's, so that might work for some. Though, the new Alphafly seem to have added a little more stability or maybe it's the decreased drop (4m). I think the Next% might be the most versatile of the bunch, though the Alphafly is growing on me a lot.

Good luck!

Yes as mentioned it is much more onerous to test these shoes. The metabolic testing requires a lot of time in the lab just to compare between two shoes for a single athlete. You're looking to measure an athletes running economy most likely at a range of speeds. A very controlled environment also has to be created in order to have valid data. This likely results in the tests being performed on a treadmill which may not replicate the data which would be produced on a road surface. If we're going to look at full data applicable to say marathon performance this would even mean taking the athlete to close to race distance to ensure there are no economy changes at 15-20+ miles into a run. Also as mentioned, all of this is going to be very specific to each athlete; different athletes will have different results in different shoes based on individual biomechanics. To get a sample of athletes large enough for relevant comparison data is a massive undertaking and will likely only be undertaken by shoe companies looking to exploit a marketing advantage.

Having actually been in the lab to perform these running economy tests on supershoes for a single athlete, I'd suggest that the differences have likely become relatively minor in actual performance terms (we found a shoe which outperformed the Next% by a different manufacturer). They're all now working with a similar foam and carbon plate technology. Unless you're willing to go through some rigorous testing my feeling is that it's probably back to the old method of picking your favored racing shoe... which one feels best and gives you the most confidence to perform... of course in the color scheme of your preference.

Can you mention which shoe showed better running economy than Vaporfly ? Very curious to know.

Was this the pro or speed? I've heard the speed is more flexible/softer than the pro

I have run in both the Endorphin Pro and the Speed. I bought the Speed....its simply the best trainer I have ever used........but.........

If Saucony could put the soft anti-leg betting feel of the Speed into the Pro (the pro's upper and the carbon "pop" is outstanding but its too firm), Saucony would have a "Nike Killer". Until then I will keep racing in my Next% but Saucony is on to something.

I have only run in the Pro, but read/heard the Speed is softer. Generally, it seems like the Speed is a better everyday trainer. I didn't enjoy the Pro at all at various speeds. The Nike's are just a lot better. I've been running more in the Alphafly's lately and they are growing on me a lot. I've pushed them at various efforts and it's just been easier in every way.

The Nike’s aren’t better, they might be for you but overall I really think the Saucony’s beat the Nike Next%.
Better stability, more pop, by far better upper to run in sockless, etc.
But that is for me, so ‘better’ is just depending on the personal level.

Although I do think there is some stuff that for a large audience it makes the Saucony’s the better shoe at MD and LD triathlon when you tun on tired legs.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

The speed is softer and easier on the legs. There is a small pop but not a lot (think alpha fly)however its there. The speed is a super good trainer....much better than any Nike trainer I have tried.... It can be a good race shoe if your pace isn't fast because you could gain more with the Nike as a faster pace runner.

The Pro is pretty firm compared to the speed IMO. It has a big pop and the upper is awesome but the Speed feels more cushy and is easier on the legs. If you could add the cushy feeling of the Speed to the Pro it would the the go to shoe for most people who can't wear (or don't want to) the Nike. Saucony is close but the Pro isn't there yet but they nailed it in the training shoe category.

Sorry - I can't at the moment.

I just got the Alphafly and I don’t know how you would wear those sockless. But I 100 percent agree on the speed. I’ve been using that and it’s one of the few shoes I’ve found that doesn’t cause knee/leg pain. I had PCL and LCL reconstruction last fall so I’ve been trying to find something that works. I like the Tempos also, but they seem a bit harder to run with on the treadmill which is where I’ve mostly been with the fires in colorado.

I can now...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2418501/malindi-elmore-shoe-test-vaporflys-saucony

interesting, thanks for sharing.
however i would be wary of reading too much into treadmill testing

I ordered half size down from normal mens 11 based on Seth James DeMoor's youtube review and recommendation. Nope - too tight. Sent back for true to size 11 for me. First few runs and I really like them. Maybe not quite the pop of the Next% but definitely better stability and not as soft/squishy.

---

tinman