Can anyone compare these two models from Hoka? I’ve tried the Bondi B. I’m interested in how the Stinson Tarmac compares.
How does the cushioning compare? I see that the Tarmac has slightly more midsole. But I’ve heard it’s a little firmer than the Bondi.
How does the fit (length, toebox width, midfoot volume, heel fit, etc.) compare?
Thanks.
I’ve got both. I prefer the Bondi and do 90% of my runs in them. Definitely more cushion in the Bondi. Except for races I keep my Stinson runs in he 3-4 mile range. Fit is about the same for both.
I have tried both. I’m normally a 10 1/2 2E. Tried a size 11 Tarmac…too narrow for me, particularly in the toe box. Got the Bondi B in size 11. Definitely wider particularly in the toe box. Can’t recall the difference in cushioning, but I now have done several longer races, including IMAZ in the Bondis and just got some Mafate 2s for some trail races. They are noticeably heavier and stiffer, but grip the earth like a mofo and have more cushioning than the Bondis.
Thanks, Jay. Do you recall… How was the length in the Tarmac size 11 compared to the Bondi size 11?
I’m typically OK in a standard D width. So I’m hopefully that toebox width won’t be an issue.
My biggest complaint about the Bondi was the fast (for such an expensive shoe) wear in the midfoot area. The Tarmac seems that it would be an improvement here.
My biggest complaint about the Bondi was the fast (for such an expensive shoe) wear in the midfoot area.
I had the same problem, but I’ve found it hasn’t limited the overall life of the shoe. The wear on the white portion of the soles was incredibly fast, but the rest of the sole and shoe have been very durable. Within 100miles those while sections were worn smooth, but so far I’ve put on another couple hundred miles and the shoe still feels like new and still grips really well. It’s disappointing that such an expensive shoe would do that, but I’m still getting my money out of them.
I just brought home my 1st pair of Hokas and I’m having a hard time not thinking that all that cushion is going to slow me down I.e. no pain no gain mentality.
High end shoe store folks say they will not, and obviously I’m willing to try them since I bought them, but I’m curious what you folks have experienced?
Do you see any differences in your times? Better or worse?
I just brought home my 1st pair of Hokas and I’m having a hard time not thinking that all that cushion is going to slow me down I.e. no pain no gain mentality.
High end shoe store folks say they will not, and obviously I’m willing to try them since I bought them, but I’m curious what you folks have experienced?
Do you see any differences in your times? Better or worse?
Any “better or worse” will be due to differences in training load, not due to the shoe. I was skeptical of the size of the Hokas as well, especially since I was coming from doing all my running in minimalist shoes. However, the Hoka’s are extremely light for their size and compare favorably to most other trainers out there.
The actual cushion is not going to impact your speed at all. I’ve noticed no loss of energy from impact through push off. If anything I feel like they’re more efficient. I have not raced in my Hokas, but my hard training runs are just as fast as before with no noticeable difference in effort required.
I just brought home my 1st pair of Hokas and I’m having a hard time not thinking that all that cushion is going to slow me down I.e. no pain no gain mentality.
High end shoe store folks say they will not, and obviously I’m willing to try them since I bought them, but I’m curious what you folks have experienced?
Do you see any differences in your times? Better or worse?
No loss for me. I used to run in light, thin-soled shoes, and since switching to Hokas, have thrown down equal times from full IM down to sprint tris in them. That goes for the Bondis at least, which are pretty light!
My biggest complaint about the Bondi was the fast (for such an expensive shoe) wear in the midfoot area.
I had the same problem, but I’ve found it hasn’t limited the overall life of the shoe. The wear on the white portion of the soles was incredibly fast, but the rest of the sole and shoe have been very durable. Within 100miles those while sections were worn smooth, but so far I’ve put on another couple hundred miles and the shoe still feels like new and still grips really well. It’s disappointing that such an expensive shoe would do that, but I’m still getting my money out of them.
My very first pair of Hokas, Stinson Bs have about 1,000 miles on them and I still use them. The sole is so thick, that even a few mms of wear isn’t noticeable, at least for me. The first layer of the sole is gone near the heel, but they still feel great. The upper is starting to get holes from a couple of rough trail races though.
Hi Steve,
Seems like the length was the same on both the Tarmac and the Bondi. IIRC, the sole was very similar too, so I’m not certain you’re going to see less wear on the Tarmac as compared to the Bondis, unless they’ve changed the rubber outsole formula somehow.
Thanks for the feedback, that’s the same change I’m making so its good to see it worked for you guys.
I have the Tarmac and the Speed. The Speed is about an ounce lighter and I can feel the subtle difference. It is also slightly cushier than the Tarmac. The differences are very small however. They are both great shoes. I have about 300-400 miles on the Tarmac and they hardly look worn.
My biggest complaint about the Bondi was the fast (for such an expensive shoe) wear in the midfoot area.
I read somewhere that they’ve made some changes to the new Bondi’s to try to address this. I can’t confirm it though as I still have my original pair that are going strong with about 400 miles on them. The mid-foot area did wear pretty bad real quickly but I haven’t noticed any effects during my runs.
Is the Bondi B shoe more cushioned than the Tarmac? I’m trying to decide between the two and looking for the more cushioned shoe of the two. A previous poster said the Bondi has more cushion but this doesn’t make sense since the Tarmac has a thicker heel.
Also, if I’m looking for an upper fit similar to an Asics 2150 or Brooks, which shoe should I go with?
thanks
I’ve got both and to me the Bondi is a softer ride. I don’t wear my Tarmacs that much typically only for shorter runs as they are the shoes that I use in sprint races with no socks.
Ok thanks. I’ll give them a try.
I just brought home my 1st pair of Hokas and I’m having a hard time not thinking that all that cushion is going to slow me down I.e. no pain no gain mentality.
High end shoe store folks say they will not, and obviously I’m willing to try them since I bought them, but I’m curious what you folks have experienced?
Do you see any differences in your times? Better or worse?
I’ve been running in Bondi Bs for around 2 months, and I’ve been super happy with them. I had the same worry about loss of speed, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
Bondi is lighter, firmer, and wider in to toebox. The Stinson outsole is far more durable and will last at least twice as long.
So, which shoe can you run faster in? The Tarmac is supposed to be stiffer and more responsive but has a larger footprint. The bondi has a more cushioned so the drawback is its harder to push off of?