Looks interesting. I was talking to one of their reps at a race this summer and he said these were coming to replace the Tracers. I was racing for a while in Tracers and after trying the 4%s and Peg Turbos, they got dumped quicky.

At that price point, I'd rather splurge for the 4%s.

They're the Hoka version of the 4% essentially. I'm actually pretty excited to give them a try this year. Nike shoes in general are narrower in form factor and the toebox of the 4% just did not agree with me, heres to hoping the hokas would be a different story.

Really? The 4% is still 50-60 dollars more than this shoe. I had read various forums that they were doing away with the Tracer (which fucking sucks and makes me angry), but then they just updated the colors (albeit to one color). When they introduced the Machs I had emailed and asked if it was replacing the Tracer, but they had said then (last year) they were keeping it.

I guess I haven't seen any reviews on the shoe yet, but I can't drop that much coin on the 4% for them to only last through a couple of races. That's what I am worried about with the Carbon Rocket upon looking at the amount of tread. However, my Claytons had zero rubber so perhaps its all good?

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

This is the Hoka 4%

Apparently Hoka was given the chance to make the 4% and they turned the project down because they didn't think the shoe fit in their lineup and wasn't stable enough, the guys then took the project to Nike....

fascinating. Do you have a source for this? I always just assumed it was a Nike idea. Anyone seen any reviews yet of the Rocket?

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

I think the zoomx foam and the dramatic rocker sole of the 4% are more important to their performance than the carbon midsole and this shoe has neither of those. I've never run on the "PROFLY" foam. Maybe it's really good? But I doubt it had nearly the R&D behind it...

---

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

The profly is actually pretty responsive and the Tracers have a meta-rocker, whether its similar or not I wouldn't know as I don't have experience with the Nikes. From my experience with the Tracer, it's noticable.

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

Well, this is their second attempt at a shoe with a Carbon plate. The Previous one was for their internal pros only.

I've been trying to find information on this and it's been pretty scant.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

That's actually all I have found as well. Looks like this is the same shoe, perhaps with some updates from the feedback of the pros, so it would be great to get some better information.

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

Say this again? So it was the runners/or the runner's agents who went to the shoe companies to make the project? I'm not sure I'm buying that, as to me this was all more an extremely great "marketing" project that almost worked to 100% perfection.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I don't deny Nike has amazing marketing, but to me, the killer feature for this shoe was the NYT article that finally presents some decent evidence that this 4% shoe is the 'real deal' for speed. No, it's not a closed perfect case where Nike wins, but for sure, its like 100x better than the near-total lack of data for any shoe that claimed to be 'fast' before it.

I guarantee that if that NYT article came out and some no-name shoe came out way on top, that 4% would be history by now. Of course, it's doubtful a no-name shoe would get its own NYT article in the first place without the $$$$ of Nike behind it, but I think the actual results are much bigger than the hype for the 4%.

What I'm saying is that I dont see this free agent whiz scientist out there with this idea that's shopping it out to the companies. Especially not against Nike. Nike has a shit ton of more money/investments than Hoka does from what I can tell.

So this idea that some whiz was shopping the shoe idea to companies, I'm not buying. I can buy the shoe companies shopping the idea around to certain athlete groups, not the other way around.

ETA: I'd need to see some evidence that this 4% project wasn't based within Nike to start with, that instead it was somehow some athlete/agent/shoe expert was shopping the idea to shoe companies and only got Nike cus Hoka turned them down?

ETA: I'm not saying this shoe is a "marketing" only non-real idea. I'm saying it's a project that was based entirely on selling a shoe. Nike doesn't do things just do to projects. They aren't going to do a project to push the limits of human ability to not then turn around and sell said product attached to that project. That's not how it works. Everything they do is based on pushing products.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Nike has a shit ton of more money/investments than Hoka does from what I can tell. //

Well why then didnt Nike invent the Hoka shoe before they did? Super large companies often fall into a kind of stasis when it comes to true innovation, that comes from the new start ups or smaller companies without so much baggage in the status quo. And as far as I could see, Nike was even late to the party in copying the Hoka shoe, that went to other shoe companies first.


Not really commenting on the whole 4% thing, dont know the particulars, but I do know Hoka had a carbon shoe they played with awhile back. And you see that is the difference in big and small companies, Hoka is already on the bandwagon of the proven Nike 4%, and getting to market very early in that space..

Not really commenting on the whole 4% thing, dont know the particulars, but I do know Hoka had a carbon shoe they played with awhile back.


-----


And that's what I asked specifically. I want to see where Hoka was the 1st shoe company pitched the 4% idea. If you don't have that info not sure what your point was, other than want to argue a point I'm not even discussing.


ETA: I'll be glad to say I'm wrong, but the info was thrown out there that the 4% project was not an Nike project to begin with. If that can be proven, I'd like to hear the backstory to that....that's all.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

So, the previous one was called just the Carbon Rocket.

Now it's the Evo Carbon Rocket+

So, the changes are the addition of the Evo Upper and something else...

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

If your asking me why Nike didn't invent it, it was probaly cus they didn't want to invent the max cushioned "clown" shoe. There's a reason why a niche company idea works- it's not being done in the current market. That's business 101. It's not groundbreaking how a small company can bring in a new product and be successful- it usually happens when said product isn't already in the market. ETA: And it's usually the niche companies "idea", it's not like Hoka had 12 neutral style shoes and oh yeah they'll add 1 max cushioned shoe and see how it goes. No they went with the max cushioning idea to the market. You know something that hasn't been done before and they in tern do it really well, and thus become a success.

So what does all the other companies do now? They make their own "max" cushioned shoes, etc. But Hoka wasn't going to be a success without some type of "in" for their product. They weren't going to created 5 neutral shoes, 2 stability shoes and oh yeah 1 max cushion shoe and it be a success. No they went all in on the 1 idea that wasn't really in the market, and that's why/how they were a success and you can hear people say "I've never heard of that brand" before, while now looking at what ~10 models of shoes that are now in their line (this happens all the time at the tri shop that I work for that sales Hoka, and now we have roughly 6 different versions in stock; trail/road/stability/neutral/lightweight, etc...."who's Hoka" gets asked probaly once a day when I'm on the sales floor).


ETA: But that's not my point. I want to hear the backstory of the story getting shopped around to different shoe companies. It's why I'm asking for some validity cus that's a interesting point that I'm very curious about.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

yeah, I was trying to dig and can't really find anything about the shoes. I saw some athletes IG back in 2016 when he got the shoe, and random tidbits on letsrun, but they haven't really put a lot of discussion forward at least from what I can find.


IMO, I also don't feel like anyone went around approaching shoe companies about a carbon fiber insert in their shoes. It looks more like this technology was being applied by multiple brands, but seeing as Nike has some of the fastest male runners, they went for, and marketed the hell out of the breaking2 attempt. Des had an insert in her shoes, and Stephanie Bruce was wearing the carbon rockets in races last year.

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

If I was going to give away the name of the source, I would have done it. Not sure he/she was supposed to tell me.

In fact, just forget it. Doesn't matter. Hoka probably regrets it, but I think there's a lot of truth in the argument that if they had gone through with it and the designer team hadn't transferred to nike, the shoe would be FAR less popular

Don’t believe everything you hear or see on the internet.

https://www.slowtwitch.com/...bon_Plates_7130.html

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

size 9.5 in stock?

instabuy!

im really curious how these fit and feel up against the arahis i love.

---

80/20 Endurance Ambassador

I've seen it here someone saying Heather Jackson ran really fast first 5 or 10K with Hoka Carbon Rocket + at Kona this year.

Almost makes you wonder why they weren't advertising it, or at least make it known some professionals were wearing them, a little better considering the hype going on with the 4%s. They could have almost let that drive the sales of the rockets when noone could get their hands on the 4%, plus the pricepoint. Just been like, "pst, lookie here."

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

AlyraD wrote:

Almost makes you wonder why they weren't advertising it, or at least make it known some professionals were wearing them, a little better considering the hype going on with the 4%s. They could have almost let that drive the sales of the rockets when noone could get their hands on the 4%, plus the pricepoint. Just been like, "pst, lookie here."

New color is out and almost all sizes are available. I like blue more than orange. I got my pair recently here.

https://www.nike.com/...oe-v7G3FB/AJ3857-400

4% is not a hype. I PRed in my 5K with them recently and if I wear other shoes, it feels sluggish.
Eliud Kipchoge broke the world record wearing 4%.

Has anyone noticed they only have a 1mm drop? I ran in Altra and other 0mm drop shoes for a while but I like the 10mm drop in the Nike Vaporfly and Pegasus Turbo now. That alone will be a game changer for some.