Ran in the Clifton last night... did an easy 7 miles. I'm coming off the Conquest but the ride is amazing. Pillowy soft. I imagine it is just like the Bondi based on what I've read others say.

I will say that it is a MASSIVE difference in ride from the Conquest to Clifton. Not just the weight... the entire ride. I still love the Clifton for what it is but am now really curious if the Huaka is the shoe for ME.

Does anyone know if the Conquest has more stability than the Bondi? I've asked Hoka directly and they respond with, "they are both neutral shoes, so one will not have more stability than the other." Even with that said, I "feel" that the Conquest has more. Any thoughts or comments?

i got my cliftons a couple of days ago, have run around in them, your analysis mirrors mine. you have a pretty good sense for this shoe.

"Does anyone know if the Conquest has more stability than the Bondi?"

this is a difficult question to answer easily. first, there are 2 versions of the bondi as far as i'm concerned. there's on the one hand the bondi b and the bondi 2; and on the other hand there's the bondi 3. in my view the bondi 3 was a step backward. i expect to see the bondi 4 and i really, really hope it's a resurrection of the bondi 2. so, when you ask about the clifton versus the bondi, i'm going to answer your question by choosing the bondi 2 as the default bondi for comparison purposes.

both the bondi and the conquest are structural. when i write about the clifton i'm going to include a lot of images that explain what i mean. the bondi is not a neutral shoe in my opinion. the clifton is a neutral shoe, or, neutral + a little structure. the bondi is a structured shoe for those who hate structure. i will back up that description in my review of the clifton.

the bondi and the conquest share a similar architecture. the bondi has a heavier, canvassy upper than the conquest and that makes the bondi a little bit more structural - i like that. that's part of what makes the bondi the almost perfect shoe for me. the conquest has a harder ride, and that makes the conquest more structural in one sense, but less in another. where it is less structural is on trails, where the bondi's softer ride sucks up imperfections but the conquest does not. that makes the conquest, for me, an iffy shoe offroad. the bondi is a brilliant shoe offroad. but RMAT is harder than EVA, it compresses less, deforms less, so in one sense it should be, on paper, a moderately more structured shoe than the bondi, at least on the road. but, again, the upper is if anything less structured than the bondi's upper.

in my opinion the conquest would be improved if they replaced a lot of the RMAT with EVA. i would love, love, love the conquest if it just had that bondi cushy ride. to me, the conquest is like a mountain bike with the suspension permanently locked out. what's the point? now, maybe some people just don't like all that cushion, and the conquest is their kind of shoe. fine. but then why do you want a cushioned shoe if you don't want cushion? i don't get it. okay, the conquest has a ton of structure, and it's a very free shoe, so, if you're an overpronater, you need structure, but you hate structure - and you don't like too much cushion - that's the conquest. but it seems to me that the whole hoka message is built around the idea of an ultra fast, high performance shoe... with cushioning to protect from leg soreness. maybe if i was 140 pounds instead of 170 pounds the conquest would seem perfect for me. but i'm not, so it doesn't.

the huaka i haven't run in yet. looking at the shoe, for me, the shoe seems not to have the conquest's structure (which i want), so if i want an RMAT shoe i'm going to choose the conquest over the huaka. if i want lightweight, i'm going to choose the clifton over the huaka. i can't figure out when i'd choose the huaka over either the bondi, clifton or conquest. but maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised when i run in it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Have you had a chance to try the Rapa Nui 2 Tarmac? Just curious, ordered a pair yesterday, on sale for $69, so I couldn't pass it up.
I have over 500 miles on the Stinson Tarmac, so that is my only point of reference for Hokas. Definitely intrigued by the Clifton though too.

---

--------------------------------------------
TEAM F3 Undurance

Ditto.

I resurrected my running over the last 6 months in the Bondi 3's. Ramping up my miles for a fall marathon and am ready for another pair. The only thing I don't like about the 3's is the tongue. It sounds like the Clifton fixed that. Lighter is appealing too.

Still, I'm reluctant to change as the 3's have made me a runner again.

in my opinion the conquest would be improved if they replaced a lot of the RMAT with EVA

agreed


okay, the conquest has a ton of structure, and it's a very free shoe, so, if you're an overpronater, you need structure, but you hate structure - and you don't like too much cushion - that's the conquest.

ME! - this with the top comment (more EVA) would be the perfect training shoe (and racing if you can make it lighter)


the huaka i haven't run in yet. looking at the shoe, for me, the shoe seems not to have the conquest's structure (which i want), so if i want an RMAT shoe i'm going to choose the conquest over the huaka. if i want lightweight, i'm going to choose the clifton over the huaka. i can't figure out when i'd choose the huaka over either the bondi, clifton or conquest. but maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised when i run in it.

agreed and sounds exactly like what I'll end up doing (Conquest to train and Clifton to race)

"agreed and sounds exactly like what I'll end up doing (Conquest to train and Clifton to race)"

for me, it's bondi to train and clifton to race. but i could be persuaded to move to the conquest with less RMAT and more EVA. even still, i'm probably bondi for offroad because it's just a more rugged shoe.

i think hoka has its platforms pretty well roughed out. put the padded tongue back in the bondi - hell, just reissue the bondi 2, new colors, and call it the bondi 4. take most of the RMAT out of the conquest. the clifton will be my race shoe 10k and shorter.

with those changes i'd be in hoka heaven. the thing about the clifton, as an overpronater, that shoe can't be used for anything other than tempo runs and races. i'm too heavy and too much of a pronater to run in that shoe very often or else i'll burn through them too quickly.

the huaka, i don't know where this fits. it reminds me more of an altra than a hoka.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i have never run in the rapa nui so i can't give you advice.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This actually got me thinking about something I've been meaning to ask for some time now. If I'm an overpronater, what am I losing if I wear neutral shoes for an IM race? Anything? I get the problems that will arise if I wear neutral all the time.

I have 2 pair and love the Clifton's. Way lighter than other Hokas. My size 11 weighs 8 5/8. Far lighter than the others.

"If I'm an overpronater, what am I losing if I wear neutral shoes for an IM race?"

go to our site, search "covert". watch the video of him run. that's overpronation, in the extreme, eventually, if you don't correct for it. but in the shorter term, it's just a recipe for injury in my opinion. i started my running journey almost 45 years ago, pretty much the year covert started his daily running journey. i was derailed. the only thing that got me back on track was the ability to control what happened to my knees, hips, etc. through controlling what happened at my feet.

if running in a clifton means i can't control my base of support, i can't run in the clifton. at all. for any distance. to me, the clifton is a supportive shoe, just not with the strength to remain a supportive shoe for a lot of miles. but a truly unsupportive neutral shoe, like a kinvara, i wouldn't run a 5k in it. i'm not saying you shouldn't, i'm saying i couldn't, because of my own running mechanics.

if you're not an overpronator then 'tsall good. you probably don't need the kind of shoe i need.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Clifton's arrived at our shop on Thursday. It's a fit more similar to Conquest than Bondi. My assessment, excellent fit for most D width types. I love the fit and I hope Hoka continues to refine and grow the market.
PS, we did a race expo with Hoka here in central NY last weekend and it was pretty successful. A fair number of folks who weren't necessarily ready for new shoes tried them on and were impressed. We tried to communicate that for recovery days, long cruisers, or for maximum protection coming back from injury(especially for us oldie farts), they're the ticket!

"We tried to communicate that for recovery days"

i find that i have fewer recovery days when i don't run in shoes requiring me to have recovery days ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Right on. It's also a clever thought to encourage folks to keep their other shoes in the rotation just to remind them how good the Hoka's feel!

I was thinking about this on my morning run. Can Hokas become a crutch for bad form? Bondis have so much cushion that sometimes on hard efforts I find myself slamming my feet down and it's no problem because they absorb it so well. I also use other brands in my rotation but not for hard efforts because I want to protect my middle-aged joints, almost all my miles are on concrete...

Is it a good idea to do some amount of training in less cushioned shoes to point out form flaws and highlight the value of staying light on your feet?

Oh well...there goes the hope of us wide-footed freaks of having another option besides the Bondi. Guess I'll be waiting for the Bondi 4 for my next Hoka purchase.

---

------------------
My business-eBodyboarding.com

I too was thinking about this on my morning run as well. Conclusion: Nah, they're not a crutch, they're just well cushioned and supportive. Remember, the ramp is quite low at around 4mm so as far as equipment influencing your technique, you shouldn't be any more prone to slamming those heels. My wear pattern is more lateral than I expected, no heel wear, decent wear at toe off. Point being, for an over-pronator, my sole wear indicates I run well in the Hokas.
Short interval type of workouts, absolutely consider your other lighter shoes to enhance turnover.

"Oh well...there goes the hope of us wide-footed freaks of having another option besides the Bondi. Guess I'll be waiting for the Bondi 4 for my next Hoka purchase."

if i were you i'd stock up on bondi 3s if you're super wide footed. my guess is that the bondi 4 will be more like the bondi 2, which is more like the clifton. it's a bit wider than the conquest but not nearly as wide as the bondi 3.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan, I didn't find the Bondi 2 a problem in terms of width. The only reason I found a bit more room in the 3 is due to the thinner tongue, but I found the last of the 2 and 3 to be nearly identical and I think ZachP confirmed that in another thread.

---

------------------
My business-eBodyboarding.com

Dan - any word on how many miles these Cliftons will give me? Just got home from vacation last night, put these things on and am blown away by the feel just walking around.

Im going to do my outside training in the Rapa Nui, then race IM distances in the cliftons. Just want to get your input on what type of life I can expect from these things.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com

You may have covered this but I missed it. In your opinion....which shoe has more stability to it. Bondi or conquest?

Todd

"You may have covered this but I missed it. In your opinion....which shoe has more stability to it. Bondi or conquest? "

i answered that in post 52 above, same question was asked that you're asking.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks. I can try the conquest now

Any feedback on how these shoes drain? Love the Bondi's but after 10 miles in humid conditions i have a small pool in each of my shoes.

Best,
Greg

First run in Clifton's last night, ended up going with them over Huaka and quite satisfied.

For me the Clifton are the first Hoka's a I've felt at home in but I'm somewhat young-ish (<30), tend to run on the lighter side although I'm a bit heavier this year (6'0 ~160lbs) and not much of an over-pronator. Just pointing out the obvious that everyone is different and while I've tried and subsequently returned a few pairs of Hoka's in the past the Clifton is the first shoe that really has worked for me from an overall weight, bulk and structure standpoint and honestly it doesn't hurt that it is the most normal-looking Hoka I've ever seen, you might actually be able to wear them in public without passer-bys commenting on your moon shoes.

I'm not sure the Clifton is the salvation for long time Hoka converts but I think it will do extremely well for them to get people in the door and tasting the Hoka kool-aide who may not need / quite be ready for full on Bondi levels of shoe.

That's been my experience as well. At Florida this year I tried to avoid the people spraying hoses like the plague.