We tested these models through the streets of Durango, Colorado. While not known for its road running, we implemented a standard testing loop for each model. This 7-mile loop contains 450 feet of elevation gain and multiple surface types such as a concrete sidewalk, asphalt pavement, gravel road, grass fields, single-track dirt, and stairs. This loop has an extended downhill for two miles (-.5% through -2% grade), three miles of flats, and one steep staircase climb. We kept the pace constant throughout the testing between 6- to 7-minute mile pace.
Each shoe also went through extended long runs. This was performed to analyze long-distance comfort and to look for potential blister issues. Additionally, a tempo run was performed for 3 miles which helped us analyze the responsiveness and comfort during harder efforts. While most of these metrics are subjective, we know we provided fair assessment between the different models, testing them multiple times under many conditions.
Cushioning and Landing Comfort
To better compare cushioning and landing comfort, we created the standardized test loop, which features various terrain and gradients. We took each model on a run around the loop and noted what we liked about the cushioning and what we didn't like. We then took each model on an extended long run to see how our legs held up. Taking notes of fatigue and discomfort helped us narrow down which cushioning we liked the best.
Our tempo runs determined how we felt about the responsiveness of each model. We performed a threshold run of 3 miles for each model and noted how we liked the responsiveness. While we did take time/pace into account, we recognize that different days could produce different levels of freshness, so we did not only consider this. We did side-by-side testing to see which had the fastest feel and which produced the most rebound for our energy input.
Upper comfort was evaluated by comparing all of the run types (test loop, long, and tempo) and evaluating which upper worked best with our foot. We tried differing thicknesses of socks and ran in different weather conditions, we analyzed the toe-box and heel cups and looked at the different footbeds and arch support types, and we checked for hot spots or blisters and pressure points from the upper. At the end of our testing, we did a short 400-meter track loop to check if our notes were in line with the ending comfort to see if durability or breaking in of materials caused us to change our mind.
Lateral Stability and Support
One of the main reasons we wanted to make sure our test loop had different surfaces was to check for lateral stability and support. This allowed us to analyze how the different heel drops and stack heights impacted this performance metric. We took careful note of how the stability transferred into our ankles and knees. We also examined the wideness of the models to see if there was a correlation between width and stability. Models which were more stable and supportive received the highest scores.
All weight comparisons were taken using a personal scale and the left foot size 9.5 shoe and were recorded in ounces. The lightest models received the highest scores, and the lowest models received the lowest scores.