I was looking for a different trail shoe as my current Mizuno Wave Ascends have not protected my feet well on real rocky courses. Both times my forefoot felt a little bruised after just a HM. I normally used the ascends on singletrack that isn't very rocky, but the course I'm looking at for my first 50K is very rocky. In the past I had used the Mizuno Cabrakan and they did great! After some research and talking to some local trail runners, I decided to go with the Pearl Izumi EM Trail N2. Today was my first run with them, 5.5 miles, but they felt great. They're definitely less flexible than my ascends, but that might actually be a good thing.
Has anyone had any experience with the N2s? I'm hopeful that they will suit my purposes. What are you go-to shoes for rocky courses?
Eric
Faster Than Your Couch!
No experience with the Pearl Izumi's.
My go-to shoes are the Brooks Cascadia 7's, but they are (in contrast to the 6's) very cushiony, almost a bit too much for my taste. However, they really protect your soles from sharp and pointy rocks of any size.
They don't protect the sides and top of the feet very well, in case you run over scree downhills. Anything that works there? Gaiters?
If I expect it to be totally dry, I like my Brooks Pure Grit 1's, but they are terrible if it's wet, or on lichen-and-algae-covered rocks (e.g. creek beds, along creeks in shaded areas, wet wood,...).
Run for fun.
running under the BigSky
I've broken in a pair of N1's and I like them, nice wide toe box, but relatively snug in the heel and mid-foot, good protection, but still pretty darn light- love the "sausage" laces too (although mine were a little short), the drop is moderate (4mm-ish) and the stack height is low- very responsive shoes
I liked them enough that I ordered a pair of N2's, but I have yet to give them a go. I have two races that are going to be pretty rocky to very rocky and my plan is to use them (hoping they are as nice as the N1's)
2023 goal 2023 miles √
2022 goal- 2022 miles √
2021 goal- 2021 miles √
No experience with the N2. Here is what I have used so far.
My Cascadia 5s did real well on rocky courses and DS liked his Cascadia 7s. I decided to switch to the NB 1210 when they came out this winter. I've used those on moderately rocky courses and they do well for me in regards to foot protection.
I also used Hoka Mafates on some very rocky courses and they protected my feet very well. Unfortunately it was the first generation shoe and the soles didn't hold up well. I used my Bondi Bs on some of the same type stuff and the sole held up well and my feet felt well protected with no bruising or soreness. I want to get a pair of Stinson's to see how they do.
I just picked up a pair of the N2s about a week ago, have ~40 miles on them so far. I was originally looking at the N1's but decided to try something with a little more protection. I was really surprised how cushy the N2s feel. The other shoes I use are Saucony Peregrine and La Sportiva Vertical K. The N2s feel way softer than the Peregrines. I was surprised since the specs are very similar as far as midsole thickness goes. They are super comfortable right out of the box and have been great so far. The longest run I used them on was 22 miles with ~6200 ft of gain/decent. My feet felt perfect at the end. I did go up a 1/2 size from my Peregrines, the length seemed shorter for the same size although the width felt good. They are noticeably wider which still feels weird to me, almost like they are too big since my feet are relatively narrow. But I have not had any blisters or other problems(I had quite a few blisters on the sides of my toes in the peregrines, probably too narrow?), so I think the fit is good. I am so impressed I'm tempted to pick up a pair of the N1s for my shorter runs. We'll see how durable they are, but seem solid so far.
The N2s seem like a good shoe. I only have 15 or so miles on mine, and my impression is that they are cushier than the N1s, but so far I have felt a tad of hot foot in them on downhills (not been a problem in the N1s, but it has been hot!).
In terms of rock protection, the PIs have good rock protection in my view. The tension for me is rock protection versus traction. My Helios have a decent little rock plate, and I appreciated the extra traction yesterday near Mt. Tam (almost slide off the trail once or twice since it was washed away and off camber). If it was either super rocky or rocky and less technical, I would use the PIs.
Here is a review of the M2 from IRunFar.com
http://www.irunfar.com/2013/07/pearl-izumi-e-motion-trail-m2-review.html
Ok, another update.
Got to run the amazing Dipsea/Steep Ravine/Matt Davis loop from Stinson Beach in sun, fog, wet on Saturday, and I brought the N2s for the test.
Verdict: comfortable, good on the climbs and bad a$$ on the technical downhill. Even being respectful of the hikers, I ran down pretty fast on this very technical trail that a few more downed branches, mud, etc. than two days prior.
A very good runner was saying their down Matt Davis time was slower than the ascent of a really tough climb here (Deer Park Fire Road).
The protection was great, I did slip a bit more on the wet roots than would be the case in Sportivas, but on par again with the S-Lab Sense Ultras, which are starting to rip a bit in the upper (boo).
I did a PR on Matt Davis, good for 6th out of 174 folks on Strava.
Data below (you need to click segments and hidden efforts for the Matt Davis Descent)
http://app.strava.com/activities/65249671
sugnim
I got a pair of them this June, and I love them. They are actually my first pair of real trail shoes, as I was just using my road shoes. They seem to have great traction, are light weight, and they dry quickly. They also come with standard bubble laces, which help keep the shoes tied. But my favorite thing about them is the super-roomy, seamless toe box which keeps my toes comfortable, even when running downhill on steep trails.
Don't they come in a brighter color?
sure
So far I have ran in them twice and am really liking them. They provided good traction while running a rocky descent. I like how light they are, but wish the toe box was a bit wider, compared to the Mizuno Ascends, the N2s feel narrower. Granted, they do seem to loosen during the run, so maybe the Ascends have stretched out over time. The N2s are also comfortable while running the road between sections of the trail.
Not sure if this will work, but here are some pictures from the 5K this weekend.
About 2 miles through the 5K heading up a hill.
heading down a hill about 1 mile into the race.
Thanks everyone for the comments and reviews!
FTYC - I tried on the Cascadias back in 2010 at the same time I tried the Cabrakans. IIRC, the reason I went with the Cabrakans was that they were wider. I haven't tried on the Cascadias since then, it might be worth another try.
mtwarden - I went with the N2's because the drop isn't as minimal as the N1's and supposedly my feet aren't flexible enough for a low heel drop.
Daydreamer - I know someone who has the Stinson's and he says the soles don't hold up well on pavement.
Low_O2 - Thanks for the review. I'm liking the N2's so far as well.
Watoni - Thanks for the review and the link to the review of the M2's. Like you, I found the N2's to do very well on technical descents.
Sugnim - Nice shoes. I'm really liking the N2's so far, but the do seem a bit narrow to me. They're still comfortable, just snug around the toes. They do tend to loosen up during the run though.
OK, so I'm late to the party. Just ordered a pair today.
I'm on my fourth pair and close to ordering my fifth. I've run over a ton of torturous country and they outperform every other shoe I've used. Comfy, yet light. The drop is perfect for me- not too high, not too low. The fit is relatively snug where you want it- heel and mid-foot, yet the toe box is plenty roomy (even for my extra long toes!).