No, it is unstable in a different way. With the Nike it is because you more or less sink in the sole and with the adidas it is due to the narrow heel and it feels much more unstable in the forefoot because I have the feeling I’m ‘dropping’ off to the lateral side of the shoe.It is less soft then the Nike but more soft then the Saucony’s.
It is a nice fit though, a little like the Rocket X, quite snug in the midfoot and roomier in the forefoot. Just the first few runs that heel cup complete wore the skin of my achilles down. There is a little knot of the seams that sits for me in an very uncomfortable place.
Addressed this a bit with a tool and now it is okay.
I loved the nike but to be honest it was hard to get around the Saucony because it just works and is more forgiving. I didn’t have any faster times in the N% vs the SEP. I have no plans on the AN% because of the cost and there isn’t much difference between them and the N%.
**Yeah, the other aspect is that not all “old school” racing flats are created equa. I did my own “bro-science” test on the treadmill, compared Alphaflys, Endorphin Pros, vs old school racing flats Saucony Type A and Saucony Fastwitch. **
This should probably be looked into in more detail, but my sense from knowing a bit about human physiology and kinesiology is if you took 10 runners and tested 5 different shoes on them in the manner that this test was done the ranking of worst - best, would look a bit to a lot different with every runner. Such is the nature of difference of each of our physiologies and the kinematics and physics of the way each of us run.
Malindi Elmore and her team did the right thing - test two shoes - which one is better for ME!
**Yeah, the other aspect is that not all “old school” racing flats are created equa. I did my own “bro-science” test on the treadmill, compared Alphaflys, Endorphin Pros, vs old school racing flats Saucony Type A and Saucony Fastwitch. **
This should probably be looked into in more detail, but my sense from knowing a bit about human physiology and kinesiology is if you took 10 runners and tested 5 different shoes on them in the manner that this test was done the ranking of worst - best, would look a bit to a lot different with every runner. Such is the nature of difference of each of our physiologies and the kinematics and physics of the way each of us run.
Malindi Elmore and her team did the right thing - test two shoes - which one is better for ME!
I don’t follow…where did I claim that my results would be the same for every runner? If you keep reading the thread, I even mentioned that someone else had the best results with Endorphin speeds which shows that we are all different.
Also, what is logically incorrect with testing more than two alternatives for the same problem (i.e. various shoes for the same runner, at the same time)? As an engineer, I would get fired with that “logic”
My two cents, having run in the NEXT% last year, and this year the Endorphin Pro, the NB FuelCell TC, and the Alphafly. I’m 6’3" 180 lbs 33M:
Alphafly vs NEXT% feels like a wash. I’m slightly larger at 180 lbs so AF probably better for HM+ distance
Endorphin Pro is a very nice shoe but in my experience, not on par with the Nikes. The biggest difference is that the EP beats up my feet/legs a bit more like a normal shoe. The Nikes have this amazing quality where huge efforts don’t seem to do much damage. Really pays off during longer runs
The NB FuelCell TC feels closer to the Nikes for me. The TC I have is the older training version, which I grabbed on a steep discount, but I’m definitely going to grab the RC version after running in these. The TC is much heavier than a racing shoe but my god, that midsole/plate combo feels great. NB always tends to work well on my feet, FWIW (I’m also a fan of the Beacon 3’s)
Thanks for the input. I would love to test the TCs or RCs, but the wife is getting annoyed at . A friend loves the TCs. I am not sure whether to pull the trigger on the TCs or RCs.
About the pronation: been going back and forth myself with custom orthotics for the last few years after a few inuries. Last year I actually lost them, so this season I have been running without them and have decided to remain orthotic free for the foreseeable future. The first few months were awful, no niggles but my pace dropped 10-15s /km and felt like I had lost my foot responsiveness. This is totally unproven and maybe just a change of biomechanics with a mental component, but I wonder if stiff orthotics act like a bit of a spring/plate.
From my (short) experiences with orthotics, a stiff orthotic act like a plate, stiffening the shoes and having an impact on the gait / biomechanics.
Difference with a real plated shoe (VF 4% , Carbon X, …) is that the (orthotic) plate is directly under the foot (instead of under the foam under the foot), so it is less confortable for the foot… except if you don’t like your foot lying on something softer.
And probably stiff orthotic send back less flex energy than a carbon plate…
Has anyone in here worn the Endorphin Pro’s in a triathlon? I’m curious about how easy they are to get on in T2 if anyone’s got first-hand experience in that.
I’m trying to decide between Endorphin Pro’s and Carbon X’s…I was able to try the Endorphins at my local running store (they felt great on the treadmill), but they didn’t have any Carbon X’s in my size. I’ve read many people say the Carbon X’s are hard to get on quickly because of the stitching on the heel. Just wondering if anyone has experienced any quirks like that with the Endorphins that you wouldn’t necessarily notice putting them on in the store vs putting them in transition.
I don’t have a lot of experience with shoes designed for longer distances since I’ve focused on Sprint tris up until now…so any insight would be appreciated!
If it’s a matter simply of putting them on in transition, the Carbon X will be easier to get on. That should not be the determining factor though. The Carbon X has wider base nets. It will feel like more shoe under your foot. It’s by far the quietest shoe of the carbon shoes which mean’s it’s got really good balance throughout the shoe. The limiter is the foam. It’s EVA and kind of dead feeling if you compare it to Endorphin Pro. The Endorphin Pro delivers on every aspect as briefed by Jared Ward. He wrote the brief and Saucony delivered. Going down hill you can simply let it rip. You don’t feel the pounding at all. The down side, the tongue is kind of flimsy and it could be a slight issue pulling on wet feet.
Other notes on this thread: The Endorphin Pro, Speed and Vapor Fly Next % share the same foam, pbax. The chemistry make up of the foams between brands will be slightly different. The Endorphin Pro and Vapor Fly Next % can be compared shoe against shoe. The fastest one will be the one that fits you and works with your mechanics best. The Speed has a plastic plate and it is flexible in the forefoot out of the box and will become more flexible over time. The Pro and Vapor Fly Next % have little flex out of the box and because they have carbon plates they will stay that way.
Carbon Plate vs. Foam - You can test it yourself. You will feel faster in a shoe with a carbon plate. You feel faster in the Carbon X and that’s what athletes said about Zoot Racing shoes. Feeling faster is a major step to running faster. The difference with the Pbax foam and Plate is that you can run a fast pace over a long period of time. Over a traditional shoe that mean’s you maintain that speed where the pounding gets to you late in the run and slows you down in a traditional shoe. I feel the pbax is drastically better at saving the legs than EVA. It’s possible because the EVA based shoe simply works with your gait better that you have different results.
We have both shoes in a good stock and I have to tell you that we can’t sell the Carbon X. The foam is really dead compared to the EP and once people try both none have left with the Hoka. The fit through the middle of the foot seems far more form fitting in the Saucony. That said, I feel the heal of the Saucony will be hard to get into quickly in T2. It’s soft and collapses easily. Maybe you could have a tab put on? Once on, it’s a dream shoe.
If it’s a matter simply of putting them on in transition, the Carbon X will be easier to get on. That should not be the determining factor though. The Carbon X has wider base nets. It will feel like more shoe under your foot. It’s by far the quietest shoe of the carbon shoes which mean’s it’s got really good balance throughout the shoe. The limiter is the foam. It’s EVA and kind of dead feeling if you compare it to Endorphin Pro. The Endorphin Pro delivers on every aspect as briefed by Jared Ward. He wrote the brief and Saucony delivered. Going down hill you can simply let it rip. You don’t feel the pounding at all. The down side, the tongue is kind of flimsy and it could be a slight issue pulling on wet feet.
Other notes on this thread: The Endorphin Pro, Speed and Vapor Fly Next % share the same foam, pbax. The chemistry make up of the foams between brands will be slightly different. The Endorphin Pro and Vapor Fly Next % can be compared shoe against shoe. The fastest one will be the one that fits you and works with your mechanics best. The Speed has a plastic plate and it is flexible in the forefoot out of the box and will become more flexible over time. The Pro and Vapor Fly Next % have little flex out of the box and because they have carbon plates they will stay that way.
Carbon Plate vs. Foam - You can test it yourself. You will feel faster in a shoe with a carbon plate. You feel faster in the Carbon X and that’s what athletes said about Zoot Racing shoes. Feeling faster is a major step to running faster. The difference with the Pbax foam and Plate is that you can run a fast pace over a long period of time. Over a traditional shoe that mean’s you maintain that speed where the pounding gets to you late in the run and slows you down in a traditional shoe. I feel the pbax is drastically better at saving the legs than EVA. It’s possible because the EVA based shoe simply works with your gait better that you have different results.
HOKA hasn’t had any pebax on its shoes to date, yes? HOKA has always been behind on the foam wars, since its inception. it would be really interesting to me to see what HOKA shoes might become if they ever matched the other footwear brands on foam. it’s not like HOKA is broke. or that it doesn’t have buying power or juice at factories.
If it’s a matter simply of putting them on in transition, the Carbon X will be easier to get on. That should not be the determining factor though. The Carbon X has wider base nets. It will feel like more shoe under your foot. It’s by far the quietest shoe of the carbon shoes which mean’s it’s got really good balance throughout the shoe. The limiter is the foam. It’s EVA and kind of dead feeling if you compare it to Endorphin Pro. The Endorphin Pro delivers on every aspect as briefed by Jared Ward. He wrote the brief and Saucony delivered. Going down hill you can simply let it rip. You don’t feel the pounding at all. The down side, the tongue is kind of flimsy and it could be a slight issue pulling on wet feet
We have both shoes in a good stock and I have to tell you that we can’t sell the Carbon X. The foam is really dead compared to the EP and once people try both none have left with the Hoka. The fit through the middle of the foot seems far more form fitting in the Saucony. That said, I feel the heal of the Saucony will be hard to get into quickly in T2. It’s soft and collapses easily. Maybe you could have a tab put on? Once on, it’s a dream shoe.
Awesome, thanks for the feedback! I feel like there’s probably no wrong choice for me, since any of the mentioned shoes will be better for long distance than the shoes I have and have been using for shorter distances. But if I’m shelling out ~$200 for shoes, I’d like to try to make sure I get the best ones possible.
I do wish the store had had Carbon X’s in my size so I could have tried them both and compared, but it sounds like the Endorphin Pro is the way to go because of the foam. And I’m guessing a few extra seconds fiddling with a tongue or a heel in transition probably won’t be a deal-breaker in the context of a 70.3 or 140.6 race.
If it’s a matter simply of putting them on in transition, the Carbon X will be easier to get on. That should not be the determining factor though. The Carbon X has wider base nets. It will feel like more shoe under your foot. It’s by far the quietest shoe of the carbon shoes which mean’s it’s got really good balance throughout the shoe. The limiter is the foam. It’s EVA and kind of dead feeling if you compare it to Endorphin Pro. The Endorphin Pro delivers on every aspect as briefed by Jared Ward. He wrote the brief and Saucony delivered. Going down hill you can simply let it rip. You don’t feel the pounding at all. The down side, the tongue is kind of flimsy and it could be a slight issue pulling on wet feet
We have both shoes in a good stock and I have to tell you that we can’t sell the Carbon X. The foam is really dead compared to the EP and once people try both none have left with the Hoka. The fit through the middle of the foot seems far more form fitting in the Saucony. That said, I feel the heal of the Saucony will be hard to get into quickly in T2. It’s soft and collapses easily. Maybe you could have a tab put on? Once on, it’s a dream shoe.
Awesome, thanks for the feedback! I feel like there’s probably no wrong choice for me, since any of the mentioned shoes will be better for long distance than the shoes I have and have been using for shorter distances. But if I’m shelling out ~$200 for shoes, I’d like to try to make sure I get the best ones possible.
I do wish the store had had Carbon X’s in my size so I could have tried them both and compared, but it sounds like the Endorphin Pro is the way to go because of the foam. And I’m guessing a few extra seconds fiddling with a tongue or a heel in transition probably won’t be a deal-breaker in the context of a 70.3 or 140.6 race.
The Endorphin Pro is a really amazing shoe and the only people I’ve found that were not completely in love with it were already severe forefoot strikers. The shoe really seems to move you quickly to the forefoot. It’s great technology. Funny though I was thinking after the heal concern, have a shoe horn there and bingo! Fast transition.
I think the main reason on this is cost. The upfront cost on the mold of Pbax or the other Super Foams is super expensive. Adidas is the brand that developed the mold in the first place when they and BASF came up with Boost foam. If you’ve never seen that mold you should check it out.
I think the main reason on this is cost. The upfront cost on the mold of Pbax or the other Super Foams is super expensive. Adidas is the brand that developed the mold in the first place when they and BASF came up with Boost foam. If you’ve never seen that mold you should check it out.
can you give me a link? because i see ultraboost, ultraboost DNA, ultraboost 20, everything from $45 to $180. i don’t really know what i’m looking for.
but as to PEBA, okay, it’s pricey for a mold. but if saucony can do it, why can’t hoka? it’s a $600 million brand now in tech running.
I don’t have pictures it’s a a large injection mold with ports all over it.
Good question on Hoka One One. It may be price or it may be strategy. $600 million and how much of that is done in 2 shoes? You know which 2 I’m speaking of. They also have spent a great deal going their own way with Clifton Edge and the like. Maybe again strategically they opted to wait on a plastic based midsole and mold.
I did a 70.3 race on them. Put some lock laces and had no issues getting them in. One criticism towards the shoe was the sole traction. The race featured a rolling run course with multiple turns on gravel and it felt as if the shoes were slipping all over the place. This was on a 1:26 split, I figure someone running faster might have more issues and the other way around too. I think the general consensus is that the Carbon X are nowhere near as responsive as the Endorphins.
So the foam is their “lightest” EVA foam to date. So I’m guessing it’s a “Super Critical” EVA whatever that means. I know some people are running in those Atreyu plated prototypes which are a Super Critical EVA.
I just look at where Hoka is for me, and I don’t own any other brand at this point. Continuing to push the boundary with EVA is great. But they continue to lag behind in the foam war, considering they were ahead in the plate war for awhile when it came to prototypes that never hit the market. Basically every shoe is made in China or Southeast Asia now, so getting your hands on a PEBA based compound can’t be that difficult. You’d think. Even if it’s expensive up front.
I did a 70.3 race on them. Put some lock laces and had no issues getting them in. One criticism towards the shoe was the sole traction. The race featured a rolling run course with multiple turns on gravel and it felt as if the shoes were slipping all over the place. This was on a 1:26 split, I figure someone running faster might have more issues and the other way around too. I think the general consensus is that the Carbon X are nowhere near as responsive as the Endorphins.
Good to know, thanks. I have lock laces in most of my running shoes, and I plan on putting some in these too. If they can help me to a 1:26 split; I’d be stoked!
