I have been using the various models of the Saucony Triumph over the past 7 years, without any major issues. I think they are a good fit for me, since I have high arches and use orthotics. They are just a heavy set-up. A couple of years ago in picked-up a pair of Saucony Fastwitch Ensurance-2’s, and used them mostly for shorter races, but I have used them up to a stand-alone marathon. Fast forward to now: I decided to get the Fastwitch out yesterday for my tempo run, and I felt faster and in the in end was 10 seconds per mile faster than my Triumphs on the same route I did last week. I also found I had more of a forefoot stride, than the Triumph.
So I started to think about using them at IMCdA, but I am not sure if I should stick with the Triumphs because they offer more support and cushioing than the Fastwitch. Which shoe is a better choice? FWIW I weigh about 170 lbs.
Also, I read here last night that the Fastwitch provides some type stability and is not a neutral shoe. I need to replace my Fastwitch-2’s anyway, so should I look for another model to replace them? Are the current Fastwitch models the same as the old Endurance version? The current models don’t really differentiate between a ‘speed’ or ‘endurance’ model.
The new Fastwitch 4 is less shoe than the FT2 (about 1oz lighter) and it’s mostly lost in the forefoot cushion. I have done marathons in the FT1 (loved it), they removed 0.5oz for the FT2. I wasn’t as happy with the FT2 and only ran up 15 miles training and a 1/2 marathon racing in them. The new FT3-4 are super light and fun, but they are a 10k maybe a 1/2 marathon shoe if you don’t have a super strong foot or ankles. If you need some stability via a strong arch plate, the FT isn’t it.
They call the Triumph a “neutral” but it’s a strong neutral + shoe. Compared to the Triumph the FT is very flexible. FT is a true race shoe for a strong foot and the medial posting is minimal. I can roll up the front of a new shoe sideways in one hand. While the Triumph is a true trainer and with added stability through the arch.
So question for you… Are you “Racing” your IM? Like 3:30 marathon or better, age group qualifier racing? If so it might be worth the risk to gain your 10 seconds per mile (4:00 minutes total). If you are going for your own time goal, run in comfy shoes. Just being comfortable could save you 5 minutes in the end.
Thanks, so I’ve used the FT 1 and 2…and from what you say, if the 3 and 4 are less of a shoe, they may be a little too minimalist for me in an IM marathon. Do you know if there are any other Saucony shoes that are more like the older FT’s? I am open to other brands, it’s just Saucony seem to fit my foot shape perfectly (wide forefoot, narrow heel).
In terms of the benefit / risk question, if I can find a lighter shoe I can comfortably run my long runs in, I would definitely go for the potential 4 min gain. Still alot more training to do, but I would say sub-3:30 is not unreasonable (hence the 4 min benefit is pretty substantial).
How would you compare the fit/feel of the Zoot to the FT over a marathon distance? Which Zoot would be comparable to the FT? The Energy, Ultra TT, other?
I’ve got two pairs of the Zoot shoes (the Ultra TT and the Yangtze race ones) from the first year they came out. I’ve run stand alone marathons in both. And I’ve run them in the FT’s as well. They are both lightweight and breathe well. But I’d probably say I like the feel of the FT’s better. The Zoots are a lot more minimal in the forefoot cushioning and because they use elastic instead of laces it is not as easy to get the right “feel” to how they are tightened. But they are easy to adjust if you need to loosen them when your feet swell a little during the race.
If I had to peg a label to what the FT would be comparable to I’d say the Ultra TT personally. But they are really two completely different “style” of shoes.
I do know some pretty strong runners that cannot run longer in the Zoots without issues. The key thing is to be comfortable in what you are using and do some shorter stuff with them to get a sense of how you’ll physically respond.
No. I am happy with the Triumph, but trying to see if other viable options for a lighter weight racing shoe, because I have used the Fastwitch with success in the past I was asking about that one. But they’ve change it with several updates and it’s no longer available in the version I used. I think the Paramount is a ‘normal’ shoe, similar in weight to the Triumph, isn’t it?
Ah you’re right I thought the Paramount was a bit lighter than the Triumphs. Maybe they just feel that way. Take a look at the Tangent it is a lightweight trainer which could be the perfect in between if you’re worried about the Fastwitch being too little of a shoe for the run leg.
I recently ran a Marathon in the FT3’s and I was wishing for a little more shoe for the last 10K. I’m a little heavy (~175)
and I was feeling every groove and pebble in the road towards the end - not in a good way.
I’m interested in the new Kinvara (sp?) that was reviewed on ST a month or two ago…that seems like a nice compromise.
Well first of all…I love the fastwitch because it’s a shoe I can race barefoot in (awesome drainage) and perfect interior material. But as for running 10 sec. faster per mile because of the shoe…I highly doubt it was the shoe that did it. With that being said i think you do get a better road feel on a less cushioned, less supportive shoe so it’s possible that you ran more efficiently. The weight of the shoe however probably didn’t make that big of a difference over a relatively short run. And as for wearing them in an IM…I can’t say for sure, but I will know soon how they feel since I’ll be wearing them on my debut in IM Switzerland. I have also worn them in an open marathon.
No. I am happy with the Triumph, but trying to see if other viable options for a lighter weight racing shoe, because I have used the Fastwitch with success in the past I was asking about that one. But they’ve change it with several updates and it’s no longer available in the version I used. I think the Paramount is a ‘normal’ shoe, similar in weight to the Triumph, isn’t it?
Correct. The paramount and the triumph are in the same league.
Now the Tangent is a performance trainer, however it’s posted like the Paramount. Keep in mind the Tangent has a very narrow toe box (more than almost any other Saucony I can think of). Something similar with a larger toe box and a snug heel is the Mizuno Elixer (although still lightly posted) it weighs 9.9oz in a size 10 (a little more than an 1oz heavier than the FT2 Endurance and the same as a Tangent).
As others say, a great alternative to the Saucony FT 3 or 4 is from Zoot. Check out the Ultra 2.0. I find it well supportive with a more forefoot protection than the FT. Plus it has a nice carbon fiber arch piece for support and still weighs in at only 7.7oz in a size 10. Down side is it comes with a $150 price tag, but they look SWEET!
Which Ultra? They are all Ultra, just differet variations, the TT, the Race, the Tempo. Based on the descriptions, the TT seems like the closest fit. The Race, seems a little minimalist for a marathon, and the Tempo has some stability features. Thanks.
Which Ultra? They are all Ultra, just differet variations, the TT, the Race, the Tempo. Based on the descriptions, the TT seems like the closest fit. The Race, seems a little minimalist for a marathon, and the Tempo has some stability features. Thanks.
Oh sorry, I was thinking the “Race” is closest to something like the FT (plus it has enough support for a marathon). But yes the “TT” will give you a little more cushion for the longer runs and only adds about .5oz.
They have last years model of TT and Tempo (I think they are about the same shoe, except for the “air mesh upper”) on sale at Sierra Trading Post for $86
Thanks. I also have a 25% off coupon in my email from Sierra, so they are about $65. How do the sizes compare to Saucony? I wear a size 13 in Saucony, would the Zoot fit the same length (size 13) or do you need to go smaller due to the different type of fit? All they have is up to a size 12 in the Zoot at Sierra.
Thanks. I also have a 25% off coupon in my email from Sierra, so they are about $65. How do the sizes compare to Saucony? I wear a size 13 in Saucony, would the Zoot fit the same length (size 13) or do you need to go smaller due to the different type of fit? All they have is up to a size 12 in the Zoot at Sierra.
Similar sizing… I am a 10 in both Saucony FT3 & Zoot Race 2.0.