I'm currently in need of some trail shoes, and wanted to see if anyone here had any helpful thoughts.
I'm a fan of minimalist shoes. My day-to-day road runs are split between the Asics Tarther (which have sadly been discontinued) and the Brooks Green Silence. I like wider forefoots, and a little bit of cushioning.
My experience with minimal trail shoes has been a bit mixed. I ran 20ish miles on the rugged and remote Ozark Highlands Trail in the New Balance Minimus Trail, and they weren't enough for the rocky footing. I ran the first 50 of Tahoe in the New Balance MT101's, and they tore me up on the downhills. I've worn them for 50k on gravel roads and a lot of other trail runs since then, but they don't provide enough rock protection to make them work well on the rocky trails we have around here.
So, I'm looking for something that's a bit light, but will provide enough underfoot to handle 100 miles. It needs to provide enough rock protection that I can handle very rocky trails. I need more than just a rock plate... a good bit of cushioning to go along with it will help a ton.
The options I'm considering are:
I am needing something for everyday trail running, but I do have two target races coming up: Bartlett Park 50 and Arkansas Traveller. Bartlett 50 isn't too technical, so I don't necessarily need it for that. And I've run the more technical sections of the Traveller in my Asics Speedstars and don't remember having any issues. But, the trails around here can get fairly rocky, so I'd like something that can hold up.
Any thoughts?
I hope you do not take a wrong turn and need 105 mile shoes
Long dead ... But my stench lingers !
I think they are just not going to be sold in US - Although I did by 4 pair about a month ago to make sure I had them for a few years worth of racing.
Yeah... I can find them online. My wife bought me three pair for Christmas, and I still have around 300 miles of life left in my second pair.
I haven't found a better fitting and performing road shoe, and I've run in a LOT. Green Silence is a close second, but the Tarther is the best. I can easily get 1,000 miles out of them.
And to answer my own question, I think I'm going to go with the Cascadia.
My logic: It's a great all-around shoe. Yeah, it's a bit heavy. But it works well in all conditions. Seems like it's the best and safest choice for a broad range of terrain.
You'll ruin your knees!
You might check out some of the Inov8 line. I found them to have a great weight-to-protection ratio and many of their styles have a very low heel which always felt minimalist to me (but then I was a tank-for-a-shoe lover).
Good luck!
""...the truth that someday, you will go for your last run. But not today—today you got to run." - Matt Crownover (after Western States)
A lot of people love the Cascadia. It's too heavy for me.
I ran Western States in the Rogue Fly, which is like the Rogue Racer, but significantly lighter. (Same base, minimal upper.) My feet did take a real pounding, and it hurt to walk for a few days afterwards just from the pressure on my soles. I think I'd likely have been happy if I'd switched shoes in the middle.
I was going to wear them at Cascade Crest last week, probably switching pairs at 50, but I pulled out (Achilles).
They were fine at White River 50.
Yes, Cascadia is going to seem like a whole lot of shoe compared to what you are used to.
Pure Grit is a weird shoe. For one, it has a flatter heel-to-toe drop, especially compared to Green Silence (which is a lightweight shoe, but kind of old school steep when it comes to the drop). It is light. It is also super flexible. My best friend is quite sure that she broke her foot after running lots of technical miles in Pure Grit. She wishes she had had a shoe that was much stiffer. Is that the real reason? I dunno... although I was with her on the 15 miler where she broke the foot, and yeah she was in the PGs, as well as wearing them for lots of other runs and a 12 hour... but I *do* know that Cascadia and PG are night and day different from each other.
I had only one experience with Montrails. I hated my Mountain Masochists with a strong passion. They hurt me. I metaphorically lit them on fire (ok ok, really, I just sent them to Goodwill). But lots and lots of folks in these parts love Montrails.
I want, so badly, to be able to handle very long distances in the MT101's, or to replace them with the 110's. But, if there are rocks on the trail, it's just not enough. And I have run up to 50 miles in them, but it was really rough on my feet, particularly on the fast descents.
And while I like a minimal shoe, this has mostly been with a traditional drop of 10mm or more.
I went with the Cascadia for three reasons. First, it's more of a traditional drop, and that's what I'm used to. Second, it's great all around, and handles rocks well. Third, I'll use it for trail and ultras, where speed and weight aren't really my primary concern. Shorter trail runs, I can still use my 101's. But longer and I'll lace up the Cascadias.
I'll end up adding another trail shoe to my collection later in the year or early next. Thankfully, I have great trail options close that I can take advantage of. The next one I add will be more minimal. But for this purchase, I wanted more of a general purpose shoe, and one that would hold up for 100.
And while I like a minimal shoe, this has mostly been with a traditional drop of 10mm or more. I'll end up adding another trail shoe to my collection later in the year or early next. ...
I'll end up adding another trail shoe to my collection later in the year or early next. ...
FWIW, when the time for a more minimal shoe rolls around, the Rogue Fly also has a 10mm drop. That's why it was the unique solution to my set of shoe requirements.
I love my 101s. I won't buy the 110s, not only do they feel funny but they look like moon boots.
I have 2 pair of 101 left, I will wear them until they get unserviceable. One has 750 miles on them, the other just over 500. I haven't found a great replacement for them either.
The longest I've ever run in them is the JFK 50, they were fine for that race, but most of it isn't very technical. I was looking at the Salomon Sense if I can swallow the price tag!
Lots of people, even some fast people, are going with Hokas these days for 100s. Sort of the opposite of minimal. But not super heavy, either. I haven't tried them myself, though I am slightly tempted.
Self anointed title
Interestingly, despite the frankenstein-ian looks, one thing Hoka has taken from the minimal movement is a lower drop. Bondi Bs and Stinsons have a 6mm drop. Not flat, but not the 10-12 of some trail shoes either.
They aren't super heavy, but they aren't light either.
I've been doing many long road and trail runs with the Hoka Bondi B. I also use the Cascadia and other shoes. There is no question in my mind that the cushioning in the Hokas preserve my legs during long runs. They are definitely my "go to" shoe for any long run/race. I've used the same Hokas in a 50 mile road race, a marathon road race, and Hellgate 100k with nasty technical areas. I'm sure I've put over 1000 miles on my present pair.
It might be that my advanced age (53) requires more cushioning than you young guys, I don't know.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy the shoes, just to give my impression of them.
Joe