NB Zero Drop Minimus: Ain’t no barbeque shoe

by John Schrup

New Balance is proving, at least in running specialty, that it ain’t your uncle’s New Balance.  The makers the most popular non-running shoes in backyards and fraternity houses across the country, New Balance are known mostly for making monochromatic footwear in a multitude of widths for the pudgy guy flipping your burgers on the Fourth of July and the scrawny kid with the bowl cut and the genetically attached beer can.

In running specialty, New Balance had fallen so far as to barely register on the radar.  Oh sure, there were a few die-hards who remember the 320 from back in the day, but for the most part, NB had little or no credibility in running.  Someone saw the writing on the wall–more than half of their customers would be, um, no longer purchasing barbeque shoes in 10 years–and recognized the need for a huge market about-face.  So NB went out and hired the best marketers and designers from the other running shoe companies, and in very little time began to produce some of the best shoes on the wall.

Take, for example, the 1400.  Technically a race flat, is serves well as a daily trainer for most of the population.  It is simple, lightweight, unencumbered by bells and whistles.  It is almost exactly what a running shoe should be.  So is cousin 890, the trainer version of the 1400.  Their Minimus series–Trail and Road–are some of the best available in those categories, the Trail 110 being arguably the best.  NB are firing on all cylinders, they are en fuego, they are bomb.com.  And now with the Zero Drop Minimus on the wall, NB are again proving to be the real deal.  They are making some of the best feeling, best fitting, most functional shoes on the wall, period.

The Zero Drop Minimus is a true minimal running shoe.  You know how I dislike the word minimal when it comes to running shoes, but I’m far too lazy to come up with another, more appropriate word, and “biomechanically appropriate” is a hard sell.  But it is a true minimal shoe:  12mm forefoot and rearfoot, simple upper with overlays placed sparingly, light and flexible.  In an improvement over the original Minimus–which is thankfully still available–the fit is a little less roomy through the forefoot, while still allowing for plenty of toe splay.  Through the midfoot, the upper is just snug enough that you don’t need to really pull the strings tight.  When the shoe is laced to the foot it disappears, just as a good shoe should.

Underneath, the midsole foam is firm without being stiff.  The original Minimus was a bit too stiff for some, but here they’ve nailed both comfort and function.  There are a couple shoes in the minimal range–coughBrooksPureFlowcough–that are a wee bit too spongey-soft to really allow for a quick turnover.  All told, this is what a true minimal shoe should be.  And, for those of you who tuck your shirts in and match socks by color, the Zero Drop look cool too.

The Zero Drop will work well for those who are looking for a true minimalist shoe:  They’re going to run to feel the ground beneath them and enjoy the sensation of movement.  It will be a brilliant shoe for doing General Strength circuits.  It will function well as a daily shoe for kicking around the Central Market comparing olives and cheeses and shit, since the high flexibility and zero drop will strengthen the feet and lower leg while you shop.  I’m using it as a daily kick around shoe, though I don’t put in a lot of thought about olives and cheeses, and when I go over to the park to do strides or some GS stuff.  I’ve done three runs in them–35, 45 and 60 minutes–and each time I felt like I was barefoot while being very well protected against the rough and tumble bike lanes of Brentwood.  And the other day when I was in the Thunderbird on 2222, TWO people asked me what shoes I was wearing and where I got them.  Rogue, I said.  Rogue.

Brooks Pure Cadence

by John Schrup

By now you are familiar with the Brooks Pure Project line—the lower-profile, lighter, “minimalist” running footwear designed to allow for a more natural running gait.  The Pure Cadence is the last of our reviews, and we will continue to review new shoes in the Rogue way—no rainbows and unicorns, maybe a nip here or there on the hand that feeds us, etc.

The Pure Cadence is the, ahem, “stability” model in the Pure lineup.  It is difficult for me to call it a stability shoe in the traditional sense, but it does have some features that do make for more lateral-medial stability.  I think Brooks is calling it “assurance.”

To begin, by lowering the offset to 4mm, there is an automatic decrease in the lever that can increase overpronation.  Picture a stilletto next to a ballet slipper.  It’s a little dramatic as an example, but it is right on.  The higher you are off the ground, the less inherent stability you have, don’t you?  Brooks has also used an internal roll bar, or post, in the midsole of the shoe, rather than the out-dated medial posts that we are all familiar with.  The midsole is two pieces of the DNA/BioMoGo compound sandwiched together, with a firmer, medially-angled piece underneath to provide the “assurance” against overpronation.  If you’ve seen the Nike Lunarglide adverts for those stability shoes, you’ve essentially seen the Brooks version.  I like the feel of the Brooks product much better.

The Cadence ride is a firmer version of the Flow’s bouncy, responsive feel.  Firmer is the way to go, as far as I’m concerned—it means less time on the ground, greater durability and more inherent stability–and I think Brooks would do well to spread that feel to other models to differentiate themselves from all the other marshmallows.  Soft feels good initially, but it will go away quickly, and more importantly, sugar coating the feel of running shoes, as so many companies have done in the last decade, does no good for the body I am almost completely convinced.  Several years ago, a study out of McGill University in Canada showed that gymnasts landing on softer crash pads had higher rates of injury than those landing on firmer crash pads.  Different sport yes, but same proprioceptive response.

The fit of the Cadence is Flow-like, with a roomier forefoot,  and a comfortably snug midfoot.  The narrowest of feet will not work well in this model, and the NavBand does little (do we see a pattern here) to secure the foot.  On the lateral side of the shoe, the NavBand is anchored externally to the midsole pod under the cuboid bone and is designed to reduce the rate of overpronation.  Does it contribute?  Not that I can tell, and it looks cheap as well.  They really could have designed that insertion point to appear a bit cleaner, but I do understand that they need to call out their technologies.

Interestingly enough, the Cadence is, I’ve been told by the Brooks sales rep, the best selling of the four Pure Project models.  I can believe that, knowing that people want their shoes simpler and lighter, yet are not yet willing to let go of the idea that they “need” stability.  I can’t think of the appropriate example, but perhaps it is like having a tape player in your hybrid car.  You keep the tape player around because that’s what you’ve always had, and you can’t yet believe that an Mp3 is the new paradigm—I mean, you can’t SEE them, right?  Not a great example I know, but you get the idea.

Running in the Cadence feels good.  This is a shoe that, with some tweaks here and there could build into something really long-lasting and impressive.  If you like the bouncy feel of the Pure Project line and are more comfortable with a bit of “assurance” in your running footwear, I’d go with the Pure Cadence if I were you.  Brooks has done a really nice job of creating a line of biomechanically appropriate footwear for the average runner who is looking for a little less shoe than what they’ve traditionally worn.  Brooks doesn’t officially advocate the “less is more” model of shoe design, but it is obvious that they know this is the way to go, even if it is dressed up as something more familiar.

The hype vs the shoe: part II

A Brooks Pure Flow review by John Schrup

Last week, or at some time in recent history, I wrote about the new Brooks Pure Connect, the lightweight, go-fast shoe from the Pure Project line.  In essence, it is a really nice shoe, let’s say with great potential and surrounded by a silly marketing presentation.  Now that I’ve been running in the shoe for more than a month, my feeling is that it is a nice shoe, but that they are placing focus on the wrong shoe.  The Connect is the shoe you see in all the ads, yet it will work for the smallest range of people along the footwear spectrum.  For one, it is far too narrow for the average foot (though it fits me just fine) and it because the platform is so narrow that there is an inherent instability that many will find a little unnerving.

The shoe that Brooks ought to highlight is the Pure Flow.  It is the everyday, neutral model in the Pure Project line.  And, in my opinion, it is the one that most people could wear.  Brooks would be wise to take note from the Mizuno texts when they introduced the Wave Rider back in the late 90′s.  Mizuno identified the Wave Rider as the cornerstone of the line, and built other models around it.  In the Pure Project line, the Flow is that shoe.

The Pure Flow is “minimal” in the same way that the Saucony Kinvara is “minimal.”  Each has a differential of 4mm; 18mm in the heel, 14mm in the forefoot, and is at once cushioned like a trainer and as light as a racer.  This is the new breed of shoe, and it was a long time coming.  They feel unlike anything you’ve worn, yet are as familiar as your favorite trainer.  Brooks has created a shoe that is biomechanically appropriate for almost the entire spectrum of runners, and it is on this shoe that they should put their money.

The fit is noticeably higher volume than the Connect.  Thankfully.  On my foot is is aaaalmost a bit too roomy, but for most of you, the fit will be right on.  There was a visible buckle in the excess fabric on the top of my foot, but after running in it I can say that it caused no worries.  The materials are soft enough that there was no blistering or irritation whatsoever.  And I was surprised that the roomier fit did not detract from the overall feel of the shoe.  Often, if the shoe tends to be higher volume, we of the narrower feet will have the sense that the shoe feels bulkier and less connected to the foot.  Not so here, thankfully.  The Nav Band, that silly little elastic strap designed to help hold the foot in the shoe, would flop around unnecessarily if it weren’t anchored down by the laces–it is entirely negligible as a component of the shoe.  But when laced it feels to me like it not-quite disappears on the foot, which is what you’re looking for in the fit and feel in any running shoe.

The feel is similar to the Connect’s, only a big more sugary sweet and nearly as responsive.  A little more marshmallow, though it is still bouncier than most in recent memory.  Because of the lower offset, you’ll feel faster than you would in, say, the Ghost, but it retains that familiar padding that so many people are used to.  It is protective, moderately flexible and quick.  To be entirely honest, when first we received the Pure Project line, I felt like the hype let me down.  But as I spend more time in them, my thoughts congeal and I’m liking them more and more.

And now I’m going to get snarky up in here:  Brooks needs to pay more attention to design, to aesthetics.  Normally, I really could not care less about the look of the shoe, and often raise an eyebrow to those who do, but really, there is work to be done.  Running shoe design has gone largely unchanged for the last decade and a half or more.  There is an obvious shift in that, but creativity here is less of a concern to the shoe companies than “technologies”–the Nav Band, a technology?–which are little more than branded components.  Of the four in the Pure line, the Grit (for you trailheads) is the only one that really reflects a contemporary design aesthetic.  The Green Silence?  Good.  The Ghost?  Not good.  And the Pure Flow, a shoe that uses contemporary biomechanical ideals in the foundation, looks as if it was created in the late 1990′s or early 2000′s, save for the fashionably green paint scheme.  It’s like combining a Prius with a late 80′s Camry body.  Ok, disregard that.  Form follows function.  Which is exactly why I’m thankful for the Pure line, and others like it.

I’ve had only positive feedback with this shoe, save for our initial (and snarky) thoughts.  But our customers have been unanimously approving.  This morning I ran with my good friend Trey Bob.  He wore his Pure Flow for the first time as he, our fearless leader Jessica and I blasted through Hyde Park before sunrise, alternately jogging and trying to see who would throw up first.  Says Trey Bob:  “I like ‘em.”  Yep.

Going, going…awesome.

The adidas Rocket shoe review, by John Schrup

One of the biggest pet peeves we hear from you is that once you determine a shoe to be your very favorite, the shoe company changes it in such a way as to be unrecognizable as your favorite shoe, or better yet, sends it to the shoe graveyard, leaving you hunting far and wide a replacement that might be as comfortable, forgiving and familiar.

And so I became a bit worried when I heard that my beloved Rocket—the adidas low-pro, Japanese designed racer—was going buh bye!  Three pairs (and well over the recommend mileage recommendation on each) of this gem and I had become convinced that, with a few slight changes, this could be the ONE shoe I use, day-to-day.  When the crew from adidas was in to discuss various and sundry with Team Rogue Elite, I went so far as to beg, order, direct and plead to them to build a series of shoes around the Rocket, a few tweaks here and there, so that all of us on the running spectrum could share the Rocket experience.

First, I love that the shoe is $80.  I am a cheap sumbitch, and visible hives manifest when I wear-test shoes north of the $100 barrier.  Sure, $100 is average these days, but my brain is, in many ways, stuck back in the, oh, late 80’s, early 90’s.  And that means that if you are blowing through shoes on a monthly basis, you’ll have fresh shoes AND enough money left over for the luxurious Chameleon Cold Brew.

Second, and this could be the topic sentence, the Rocket fits my ideal of what a running shoe is supposed to be.  A running shoe, in my very humble opinion, is supposed to protect the foot from the ground and all the attendant niggles that asphalt and concrete can so generously provide.  But because we all have different histories and DNA and attention spans and such, we all don’t want a shoe to be a really protective house slipper with some reflective doo dads.  Most of us want a bit of the soft stuff here and there to make us feel safe.    The Rocket gives you that, too.

It is maybe a bit narrower in the toe box than it could be.  The asymmetrical lacing overlays can be irritating, both to your tender toes and to your contemporary aesthetic, but it does leave you with a clean, snug fit from heel through the metatarsals.  When the shoe is laced up, it disappears on the foot, as it should.  Only toward the end of some 2.5 hour runs did I begin to notice my toes feeling slightly pinched, though nothing that really detracted from the run.

Underneath the foot, the midsole and outsole combination provide a firm and responsive ride that makes you feel fast, whether you are jogging through 6:30 kilometers or sailing through 6:30 miles.  The heel to toe offset is at a claimed 6mm, but because of the relatively low heel stack and firm ride, the shoe feels much, much lower.  The combination of snug fit and firm ride deliver one of the most performance oriented feels of any shoe I’ve worn in a long, long time.  I love this shoe so much (I wouldn’t marry it, but you get the idea) that I don’t select it for any particular run or workout, I wear it to run in, period.

The thing that I find most appealing about the shoe perhaps is the broad spectrum of people who wear it.  Not restricted to the Light and Fast Club, the Rocket appears on the feet of mostly people who prefer some simplicity in their footwear, regardless of the pace or volume of their training.  It is a minimalist (biomechanically appropriate) yet very protective shoe that doesn’t really feel minimalist.

Aesthetically, the Rocket leans a bit retro.  Other than the asymmetrical toe piece, the Rocket looks like something Mr. Shorter might have worn back in the day.   But for the subtly cool color accents, the look is mostly unremarkable, though I do get comments and questions about them when standing in line at the Ho Foo juice bar.  So, maybe not so unremarkable.

Alas, after this year, the Rocket is going through a slight, but dramatic metamorphosis.  The midsole will be all that remains—upper, outsole and name all get refashioned into a more contemporary, more competition focused package.

The new Hagio (named after the guy who designed it, as I understand the story) will sport the new adidas badge, rather than the traditional three stripes, a lighter, cleaner upper and a lighter, more flexible outsole.  All of which leads me to believe that this new incarnation will find its way onto my feet and into my heart.