re: tOfficial Running Shoe Thread

I've been intrigued by all the vaporfly talk in this thread and elsewhere. So, I tried on the Vaporfly 4% flyknit at the local running store yesterday. Took them out for a little spin as well (with the store's blessing, of course). I have to say, the shoe felt strange to me when just trying it on. The midsole seemed to fit extremely narrow, even for a racing shoe. I have a narrow foot, and my foot was hanging off the shoe.

I didn't get to take them too far, since they are precious commodity. During the time I wore them, they felt to me slightly snappier than other shoes, but not significantly so to the point I was blown away.

My questions to those who have them are: do the shoes wear that narrow for everyone? Does the ride feel more natural once you really get going? And do you find them to be significantly faster/more efficient than other lightweight race shoes in the distance racing category?

Thanks

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in buying this shoe anytime soon. Just wanted to start up a little "shoe talk" out of curiosity.

Yeah, I do. The ZF FK are narrow, which I would expect in a racing shoe. But I would say the vaporfly were a good bit more narrow than the zoom fly in the midfoot area. Toe box seemed to be about the same.

So, I just googled to see if I was crazy or if there was something to the way the shoe felt for me. Found this review which sets out some info on it:

LINK

quote:

---

VAPORFLY 4% FLYKNIT VERSUS ZOOM FLY Width of Mid-Foot - One of the biggest differences between the Zoom Fly (left) and Vaporfly Flyknit (right) is the width of the mid-foot. At the narrowest point, the Zoom Fly’s mid-foot is 69mm while the Vaporfly Flyknit’s mid-foot is 56mm. That is a difference of 13mm (1.3cm) or in other words the Vaporfly is 19% narrower in the mid-foot, which is a big difference! The mid-foot of the Vaporfly Flyknits is the narrowest midfoot of any shoe I have ever worn (and I have probably run at least 30,000 km). One of the first things I noticed when I tried them on was that the inside of my feet (in the mid-foot area) seemed to hang in space off the inside of the shoe; there is no foam beneath the inside of the mid-foot. I personally do not like this. I believe that in an effort to save weight, Nike has trimmed away the foam that would normally be in the inside mid-foot area. In addition to foam weight savings, Nike is also able to save weight (and cost) on the carbon fibre plate that is in the soles of these shoes.

---

quote:

---

Definite deterrent for me.

---

the $300 price tag is enough of one for me.

Other companies are starting to use Pebax (Float ride, 4%) pretty soon I imagine it’ll be like TPU (EGO, Boost) and you’ll be able to get that type of foam return in almost every brand. Fingers crossed.

... and here we go with the carbon wars! Damn it does look quite nice.

quote:

---

Weight
7.30 OZ

Heel-toe drop
1.00 MM

---

oh yeah

Grabbed a pair of the Razor 2 from Amazon for $85. About the cheapest I’ve found in my size. Now gonna decide if I’ll bring the 600s back or just keep them for pavement pounding.

Think I’ll bring the 600’s back. Closet space and less guilt if nothing else, ha. The more I read up on the Razor 2 the more I like them. Pumped to get them in and get outside!

What size are you? There has to be cheaper options.

quote:

---

Spot on about those Altra Escalantes. They'd be just fine if I ran straight ahead all the time. But I feel like I'm going to twist my ankle every time I go around a corner

---

Supposedly they shored this up with the Racer and maybe even the 1.5. I read it somewhere but can’t remember for which shoe.