ON Cloudracer/Merrell Bare Access/ Newton Distance/Vibram KSO/Skora/Altra Instinct comparisons

[devashish_paul]

OK, first of all, seems like the comparison in the title is a bit eclectic, but please bare with this for a second. Soon it will make a bit more sense.

Second…disclaimer, I’m not being asked by anyone to compare any shoes. I have all of these shoes, and they are all close to or at zero drop, so that’s the angle I am coming from. The Newtons I got for free when I was sponsored by them, the rest, I paid full retail.

I just got some ON Cloudracers from Switzerland. Pretty cool, you pay your $129 US and they are shipped to your door.

I got size 10, which are a bit on the big side for me, but they don’t fit small or large. I’d say they fit like a true size 10. I also have size 10 in the Newton and 43.5 in the Merrell and 43 in Vibram. I prefer, in general to go slightly larger for conventional shoes so that I don’t get black toe nails in racing.

Anyway, these are the zero to 4 mm ramp shoes I have kicking around so I thought I’d summarize my thoughts comparing them

ON

Newton

Vibram

Merrell

OK, next is, “why all these shoes”. I’ve been running in zero to 4 mm drop now since 2008 when I first started using Newtons. Before that, my last experience in zero drop was soccer cleats and track spikes in high school. That ended in 1983, so basically I had a 25 year hiatus on ramped shoes. The first time I put on Newton Distance, my comment was, “I feel the same form as when I used to run in track spikes”. Not really a surprise, not because of the lugs but the ramp.

The only similarity in these shoes (I uses “shoes” loosely because Vibrams are more of a protective sock) is the ramp. Personally I don’t find a ton of difference between 4 mm ramp and zero, because I switch back and forth enough. 4 mm is low enough that I don’t catch the heel and can mid foot strike.

The biggest reason for comparing these (for me) is because I can compare from “least padded to most padded”. In my book padding has a place. I’m a 45-49 age group athlete, so I’m not one of those militant, “padding is evil” types. It has a place for sure. I guess the next step would be to bring some Saucony Viratas and Hokas into the rotation, but they are not there yet.

Most to least padding:

NewtonOn CloudracerMerrellVibram
Just to be clear, the Vibram and the Merrell, I only use on treadmill or on grass soccer fields. I love the feel of Vibrams on grass for doing sprints and drills. I have nerve damage in one leg, and these have been helpful to help me regain coordination…at least enough so I don’t twist an ankle on uneven terrain. I can also use the Merrell to run intervals on grass. I never run on pavement with Vibram and almost never withe Merrell.

The ON Cloudracer, seemed to have a really nice mix between “padded and firm”. Initially they dissipate the first road shock but then the “membrane” underneath compresses and becomes "firm"and you develop a solid “connection” to the ground. The Newton always feel soft and cushy. You get the feedback from the lugs, but at the same time, you never really develop that “firm connection to the ground”

Ground Feel/Connection to the ground

VibramMerrellOn CloudracerNewton

**Fit **(for me, this is very personal)

On the fit front, I have a wide forefoot, narrow heel, functionally flat feet, even though I have an arch (the arch compresses easily when it is loaded), but overall a neutral gate. Obviously the Vibram KSO (assuming you get the right size) will literally fit like a glove. Here is how I found the rest stacked up
VibramMerrellONNewton
Durability

I just got the ON’s so I can’t comment, so I will leave them out. I have been really pleased with how many miles I get out of all these shoes. This is how I would rate them for a 140 lb runner who does around 2500K of running per year

NewtonMerrellVibram
Running without socks

This would come into play if you wanted to use them in triathlons. I was not sure how the ON’s would do, but was really pleased. In fairness, my feet do well with no socks. I have done almost all my ironman races sock less. I’'d put all these shoes on par. If some of you guys want to run a tri with Vibrams, more power to you, but I have no intention of that. I know some people have issues without socks in Newtons. I never have, and I am really happy to say that the ON’s were awesome today running without socks

Downhill Running

Why did I add this? Well, because the padding comes into play, especially on pavement and it depends on how the sole is also made. ON has a unique feature that allows for some vertical compression, but also some horizontal plane “sheer” movement, that seems to really make downhill running less quad busting than other shoes.

Weight/Lightweight “feel”

Well, no surprise on the order of the top two which are around 4 ounces. I also felt that the ON seemed to run “heavier” than the Newton although both are claimed to be in the same weight range at over 8 ounces. I’d like both to be lighter, but there is a cost to carrying around your padding system under your feet. When I run with Vibrams on grass, nature provides the padding. When I run on pavement, I have to bring the padding with me. Both Newton and ON shine, but there is cost to padding

VibramMerrellNewtonON
Stability on Uneven Terrain

VibramMerrell/ONNewton

Mid Foot/Arch Support

I’m not talking about anything here to control pronation. If you need that, I don’t think any of these shoes is good for you. I’m just talking about filling in a bit of the space under the arch so that there is material under it and it is not totally unsupported

ONMerrellNewtonVibram
Toe Box Width (widest to least)

NewtonONMerrell

I left Vibram out of the above list. Kind of hard to compare

Traction on water, snow, ice

I have not taken the ON’s on water, snow or ice yet. The rest, I don’t. I think they all suck for that, but maybe the ON won’t. I’ll update that later. I have an entirely different set of shoes for winter running.

Conclusion

I don’t have a ton to conclude. I wanted to seed a bit of discussion with the above. These are some of the shoes in my rotation, all at zero to 4 mm ramp, but all for slightly different usage models. I’ll probably add more categories over time and amend this.

I’m trying to decide if the ON will be my next Ironman shoe or if I stick with Newtons. I know many people are using ON for Ironman, and I kind of like the thought of padding with “connection to the ground”. I’ll probably also add some Nike Free’s, and perhaps Saucony Virata’s to the rotation. I tried Kinvara’s in the past and hated the feel (but that was personal). By the way, I also have pair of Vibram Bikila’s but I don’t find them that much different than the KSO…they are just a thicker KSO.

I know this “seems” like a weird comparison as the shoes are for slightly different purposes. I view some as tools for technique, while others as tools for putting in a lot of miles, but they all have a place in the “rotation”. In terms of head to head, the ON and Newton are in the same category of tool. I’ve had Newtons for 5 years and think they are great, but ON seems to offer me something that I missed in Newtons, and that is that better connection to the ground and “stability” that I felt lacking in Newtons.

So far, really like the ON’s the best, but I need more time in them to determine if they surpass the Newton’s as the main mileage workhorse shoe.

[Jan_de_Visser]

I’ve been running a lot in Kinvara 3s, which have 4mm drop. Do you have any idea how those compare to the shoes you’ve tested?

I do know that coming from the high-ramp, medial-support world (Asics 21xx and Brooks Adrenaline) to the low-ramp scene (Kinvara and Mirage) has made me much faster, but it’s not for everybody. It took me a year of weaning myself of the Adrenalines, by carefully building both total volume and relative volume in the low-ramp shoes, and not everybody is going to have the patience for that. And running long and hard on the Kinvaras still gives me soleus pain for days. But sometimes I’ll do an easy or a long run in the last pair of Adrenalines I have left and I wonder how I’ve ever been able to run fast in those. I feel like I’m tripping almost every single step…

Oh, and there’s a difference between the Kinvara 2 and 3. Don’t know what it is, but the 2 will give me way more soleus pain than the 3.

[devashish_paul]

Jan,

I can’t compare with the newer Kinvara. I ran in an older Kinvara model.

As I explained, I was a "zero ramp"guy in high school with track spikes and soccer cleats, and then had a 25 year detour to high ramp. I wish I never did, but we never had the choice. It took me around ~1 year from 2008 to 2009 to exclusively get to 100% low ramp, but in that time I never had any injuries. I was conservative and also in that time frame, I ran my fastest times at age 44-45 than any times after the age of 32. But that was not all due to low ramp, but part of it is.

My intent here is to add some other low ramp high cushion shoes to the above rotation over time, and update to the original post by sliding new shoes in to the list. I do have some Brooks Pure Connect that I could also add in here that I have not, largely because I don’t run in them “that much”. It would be interesting to add the Hokas in too, given that they are a topic of discussion around here as as I mentioned, also roll in the Virata.

[fierceSun]

Durability

I just got the ON’s so I can’t comment, so I will leave them out. I have been really pleased with how many miles I get out of all these shoes. This is how I would rate them for a 140 lb runner who does around 2500K of running per year

NewtonMerrellVibram

Don’t the ON’s say something like “Will self destruct after 222 kms” on the insole?

[tmcg]

I have just added a pair of Newton’s to my rotation that includes both Ons and the Virrata. Overall I like them all. It’s interesting you comment on road feel, that’s something I wasn’t crazy about with my Ons (although I think it was the lateral shift more so than true road feel). I just felt a bit unstable in them particularly on uneven ground. They really did feel fast and comfortable on smooth flat ground though. I also had a small hotspot at the base of one of my toenails in them (unlike you, I really can’t get away with much sockless running—5 to 10k at best).

The Newton’s seem great so far, although where I’m at with them sounds pretty similar to where you’re at with your Ons.

I’m sure you’d be happy with the Virata. They have a very cushiony feel, particularly in such a light shoe and really feel fast.

My take on ice, snow and wet terrain is that the Ons were a lot like ice skates…pretty sketchy.

Overall I liked them all. I ended up trying the Newton’s because there were just a few things about the Ons I wasn’t as crazy about and thought the Newtons would be similar to them with everything I liked and maybe a little better in what I didn’t like.

[jjcha]

Very fair and helpful compario. I also run with Vibrams, Newtons (MV2s) and your comments make sense to me. I’ve also run with Nike Free 3.0s, but I honestly do feel a difference between 0 drop and 4mm (maybe my form just sucks) as the latter almost, but not quite, gets in the way of my forefoot strike. Frees are about as padded as the Newtons, at least in the front of the shoe.

I just got a pair of New Balance Minimus Hi Rez. I like them. They’re fairly close to the Vibrams, though do offer a touch more padding. But definitely on the minimal side of things (though nothing touches the Vibrams for that). I don’t know how they compare to your Merrells. I imagine you would keep them to the treadmill or grass. I guess I’m ok with them on good pavement, but noticed that gravel/manhole covers/yellow raised bumps for the visually impaired, definitely translate right on through and my feet aren’t tough enough for a lot of that.

Sounds like I might be interested in the Merrell Bare Access based on your review, so looking forward to trying them.

[devashish_paul]

I’ll probably pick up some Virata’s this summer and see how those fare.

As for ON use on ice and snow, just looking at the sole, they look like they would be pretty sketchy on ice. I ran with the ON shoes today on grass. They felt more stable than Newton’s but definitely less stable than the Merrell and certainly Vibrams. Basically physics kick in here. The flatter the sole and thinner the better it is going to be on uneven grass. Newton with the lugs and the “edge” outside of the last lug make them a bit dicey on technical off road. Actually when I was with Newton, I had an agreement with that that if a race had a lot of uneven grass or trail, then I could use a conventional shoe for those races. They understood that.

I really like the Merrell Bare Access for treadmill running and also for general walking. I can’t explain why, but I don’t like a “too cushy shoe” on treadmill or for walking. At the same time, the problem with running fast with Vibrams on treadmill is that the treadmill does not conform to the shape of your foot like grass does. The Merrell on treadmill “almost” feels like Vibrams on grass. As I don’t have access to grass for ~4 months per year due to snow, this is the best ‘equivalent’.

I do have a chronic knee injury in my left leg from an accident in 2011. What I found interesting is that when I run with Vibrams on grass, my knee does not bother me. It seems to like the stability of the direct connection. On Newtons, the instability of “too much cushy” actually makes me do something in the knee where it hurts for my entire 10 min warmup process before the joint is “oiled up and lubricated”. With the ON, I barely felt this for a minute. I can’t explain what, but the initial padding with the “hard connect” that ensues, seemed to be a better approximation to Vibrams on grass.

Dev

[Optimal_Adrian]

I’ve also used Vibram and Merrell shoes only for treadmill work, since they force me to a higher turnover rate to meet the same speed.

However, I like the Bikila over the KSO. I think the extra beef of the Bikila helps guard my foot from the heat build up I get on the treadmill in the KSO.

I also prefer the Flux Glove version of the Merrells. I think it’s got a nice wide toe box and good arch support. Also it’s the stickiest shoe I’ve ever worn (has a Vibram sole).

[jono]

Hi Dev, I am currently running in newton distance , have been for last 3 years , i am looking at some cloudracers as i am due for a new pair of shoes , i am doing ironman france in 6 weeks , would it be too soon in your opinion to switch to cloudracers now , ie is there an adjustment period (apart from them being new) or should i stick to the distance for now ? - thanks - jono

[devashish_paul]

My quick answer is that once you are used to any shoe that is zero to 4 mm ramp (aside from Vibrams with no padding), any padded low ramp shoe has zero adjustment time other than the break in time for a pair of running shoes.

Personally, if I was doing IMFrance, I’d stick to the Newton at this point, because you know it works. I’ve only done in a few runs in the ON and I would say it would work fine.

Actually while running in the ON’s I had some addtional thoughts that I did not put in my summary. The ON’s are “soft on initial impact” and hard on “closure”. The Newtons are the opposite. They are harder on initial impact and get soft thereafter.

My best analogy is how we describe XC skis…stiff initial camber, softer final camber (Rossi’s) , versus soft initial camber, hard final camber (Fischer). The ON padding mechanism gives easily at first until the compression chambers “close” and then it is first. The Newtons on the other hand are stiffer at first but softer as the lugs compress. In a sense the Newton’s feel more springy, while the ON’s feel more forgiving especially at “slow speed”.

Maybe another way of describing it is that the Newton seems to be more responsive, and the ON more cushy. I can see the ON actually being a nicer shoe at slower speeds while the Newton being a better shoe at higher speeds where the impact force is higher.

That is just my personal opinion, looking at the mechanism and running in both so far, but I don’t have enough experience in the ON.

I went to the track with my ON’s and Vibrams and was running 100m accelerations in my Vibrams at my standard speeds and then did some 400’s in the ONs and SEEMED to be 1s per 400m slower than I was 2 weeks earlier in Newtons. In between the 2, I ran the St. Croix half IM, so it could be St. Croix in my legs, but then I SHOULD have been running slower in my 100m accelerations in the Vibrams…then again, 100m is not enough for fatigue to kick in (given that I was recovering from a half IM). So I need to give the ONs some more rounds at the track. They did seem to run “heavier” and “duller” than the Newtons for 400m repeats, but as I said, this could just be “me” being tired and nothing to do with the shoe. I did get kind of sick on Sunday evening, so that may have been it.

So given that I have had 5 years in Newtons and 5 days in ONs let’s wait for some more time to give them a fair shake. So far, I am actually quite impressed with them and thinking about using them for my next Ironman…and my left knee that is banged up from an accident in 2011 really seems to like them better given that the initial impact is “soft”, but there is more “stability” at final closure and when I am doing an ironman my pace is so slow that this might just be perfect. At a 5k or 10K race, no, I would not use the Cloudracer. I probably would not use them in an Olympic tri. Maybe a half IM. I don’t see the Cloudracer as much of a racing shoe. I’d classify it in the lightweight trainer category.

[kylekranz]

Have you seen or heard of the SKORA shoes before? These models below are 13mm, zero drop, with a high density EVA outsole. May be to your liking as well.

[NordicSkier]

I’m similar in stature to yourself. I have been running in ON Cloudracers since last fall.
I’ve used them in all conditions… everything from cross country, pavement, ice, etc… seem to be pretty good and durable too.
They feel a bit heavy, but I’ve swapped a couple runs between the ON and my Adidas racing flats and my paces are quite similar.
For pure speed running I still prefer my flats, but for long distance, and especially Ironman… the ON’s will be my shoe of choice.

[devashish_paul]

Thanks for your feedback as you are 6+ months ahead of me in the ON usage. I’ll keep plugging away with them, but they seem great for the lightweight trainer category. I’d also prefer something lighter for racing. In my book, the perfect racing flat would be the Nike Lunaracer with zero ramp. Even with ramp that is a pretty awesome shoe. You may want to consider that as a good Ironman shoe as it has a ton of padding, assuming the ramp does not bother you.

[jono]

thanks Dev !

[devashish_paul]

Have you seen or heard of the SKORA shoes before? These models below are 13mm, zero drop, with a high density EVA outsole. May be to your liking as well.

Just looked at the Skora site. They kind of look like a Saucony Hattori in some ways. They also “seem” a bit expensive, but maybe they last forever like Newtons, so they are not actually that expensive. Also, I can’t tell the diff between all the models by what they have on their website. Finally they “seem” a bit heavy. I’d expect something like this to be down in the 5 ounce range. 7.9 seems high. What’s in there jacking up the weight.

Having said all that, as Rroof would say, “stop searching for the unicorn shoe, as it does not exist” but when it comes to running, cycling, or XC skiing footwear as my wife will attest to, it is like a sporting footwear store in my basement so I would not rule out adding these to the “rotation”

[kylekranz]

The expense is due to a number of reasons. Mainly, we are still a small brand and we feel our material and workmanship is superior to most other shoes available on the general market today. I ran 1100 miles in my last pair, and a few friends have hit or approached 2000. For a shoe with a 9mm out/mid sole, I’d say that’s pretty long lasting.

They are a bit heavier, but that is simply due to the high density outsole (which increases durability) and the leather (which is also a very strong and durable material).

[devashish_paul]

The expense is due to a number of reasons. Mainly, we are still a small brand and we feel our material and workmanship is superior to most other shoes available on the general market today. I ran 1100 miles in my last pair, and a few friends have hit or approached 2000. For a shoe with a 9mm out/mid sole, I’d say that’s pretty long lasting.

They are a bit heavier, but that is simply due to the high density outsole (which increases durability) and the leather (which is also a very strong and durable material).

Thanks, that makes sense. It is not like they are “that heavy”, I just expect them to be a tough lighter. Slightly higher price is fine if they last 2x longer than a conventional shoe (which I have been saying now for 5 years about Newtons…I have around 8 pairs of different types that won’t really die…they are still fine for running). So if you last 2x longer that would be fine. How would you rank them on the “padding” front compared to a Newton or ON? Softer? Harder?

[kylekranz]

Yeah, I could probably get 3000+ miles out of a Newton Gravity outsole (assuming the upper lasted that long) since they are thicker than the Form that lasted me 1100 miles. With the dense EVA they wear less unevenly, which is why people often change shoes when they feel knee pain or shin splints coming on.

The Form & Base are 13mm tall. They’re quite a bit more flexible than Newtons. But, 13mm is tall enough that many hardcore minimalist runners do not consider them an option.

If you look at the img below, this pair here has 750 miles on them (light 2:30 marathoner). The grey and black EVA is the high density stuff, but it’s separated by the midsole, to still allow the shoe to flex and bend.

[devashish_paul]

Yeah, I could probably get 3000+ miles out of a Newton Gravity outsole (assuming the upper lasted that long) since they are thicker than the Form that lasted me 1100 miles. With the dense EVA they wear less unevenly, which is why people often change shoes when they feel knee pain or shin splints coming on.

The Form & Base are 13mm tall. They’re quite a bit more flexible than Newtons. But, 13mm is tall enough that many hardcore minimalist runners do not consider them an option.

If you look at the img below, this pair here has 750 miles on them (light 2:30 marathoner). The grey and black EVA is the high density stuff, but it’s separated by the midsole, to still allow the shoe to flex and bend.

Yes, the issue with the Newtons is the upper tends to die and fall apart long before the outsole. These Skora’s look pretty good. I can’t buy them anywhere locally, so I would need to buy from “online” (as I did with ON). How would you say the sizing is? I’m in a size 10 Newton and size 10 ON. I could probably go with a size 9.5 ON, but I like more space up front. I am glad that there is enough padding that the minimalist crowd is not interested. They can have their stress fractures running without padding on concrete and pavement. I’ll save the Vibrams for truly soft surfaces. These look good for actual real world use where pavement may be involved. How would you compare to a Saucony Hattori?

[kylekranz]

I’ve only ran in the early Hattori for a couple days, and returned it because I felt they would wear out very very quickly. Which, according to many reviews that have came out, they do. The Form (which is my favorite SKORA model) with the insole in, has the same stack height as the Hattori, of 13mm if I remember correctly. However I believe the R01 platform on Form & Base is much more dense and may be a bit less inflexible (thus why it lasts longer).

What is the length of your longer foot? After having a guy who had 4 different sized running shoes that fit him in his house, which size SKORA he should wear, I’ve been using foot length first, and shoe size second.

Our toebox tends to be wider than most other shoes (especially our Phase & Core models) so we often suggest ordering a smaller size than you generally wear.