Saucony Kinvara 3, Kinvara TR, and Peregrine 2: More Details and Photos

Running Warehouse just posted a blog with some additional photos and more details about both the Saucony Kinvara 3 and the Saucony Peregrine 2.

Let’s start with the Saucony Kinvara 3. It’s a nice looking shoe with what appear to be some pretty significant changes from the previous two versions. Here are photos of the some of the first-wave color options for the men’s and women’s Kinvara 3:

Men’s Saucony Kinvara 3

Women’s Saucony Kinvara 3

In addition to photos, RW posted a list of the updates found in the new Kinvara:

• More Durable Sole: Saucony heard the feedback about the durability of prior Kinvara models and responded by adding XT-900 rubber where it counts. Added rubber on the lateral midfoot and forefoot means you can expect more mileage out of your Kinvara 3′s compared to previous pairs.
• Same Heel-to-Toe Drop: Though many other Saucony models are lowering their offsets, 4mm is still the name of the game for the Kinvara. You know it, you love it, and Saucony didn’t mess with it.
• Smoother Transition: Already known for its flexible, light, and comfortable midsole, the Kinvara series is now designed to move with your foot even better thanks to a de-coupled and beveled heel, along with added flex grooves in the heel. While the Kinvara remains geared toward a midfoot strike, these updates make the shoe a little more welcoming for heel strikers as well.
• Still Lightweight: Official weights from Saucony are 7.7 oz (Men’s size 9) and 6.7 oz (Women’s size 8). That’s a few tenths of an ounce heavier than our measurements for the Kinvara 2, but identical to the official weights for the Kinvara 2, so we’ll have to wait to see whether or not the shoe has really bulked up at all.
• Redesigned Upper: Look for a streamlined upper with improved fit thanks to the use of FlexFilm™, a thin material bonded to the upper to secure your foot to the sole a little better throughout your gait.
• Widths Now Available: For those of you with a wider foot, Saucony is producing 2E widths in the Men’s version and D widths in the Women’s version.
• Pricing Uptick: All these innovations come at a price, specifically: ten bucks. MSRP on the Kinvara 3 rises to $100.00. We still think that the Kinvara is a tremendous value, especially since we expect increased durability in the latest iteration.

News about the availability of widths and a more durable sole should make a lot of folks happy as these are the two complaints I hear most about the previous versions of the Kinvara. Regarding durability, I’m still a bit skeptical that the new sole design will solve the lateral forefoot wear issue that some runners experience with the shoe. I personally have not had a problem with this, but I know plenty of folks who eat through the sole of the lateral forefoot really quickly – I suspect that true forefoot strikers are most likely to have an issue here. Thomas over at Believe in the Run posted a photo of the sole of the Kinvara 3 (see below), and though there appears to be added rubber under the lateral midfoot and extending forward onto the back of the forefoot, there does not appear to be any under the anterior two thirds of the outer forefoot. Not sure if any of these are final versions though, so time will tell.

The Saucony Peregrine 2 is the first update to Saucony’s first lightweight, 4mm drop trail shoe. I did a lot of running in the Peregrine last winter, and found it to be a very serviceable option as a lightweight trail shoe that could also be used on roads if needed. Sounds like the update mainly targets the upper, which Running Warehouse reports as being “more minimal” in the Peregrine 2. Here’s a photo:

One last teaser – Sam Winebaum recently attended the Outdoor Retailer’s Show and posted some photos of the Saucony Kinvara TR, a new trail version of the Kinvara set to be released at the end of the summer (July, to be exact). Sam has this to say about the Kinvara TR:

This new trail member of the Kinvara family shares the use of FlexFilm technology in the upper with the Kinvara 3 as well as the 4mm heel to toe drop. It weighs 8.5 oz men's size 9 and has forefoot stack (midsole and outer sole) height of 12.5mm and heel of 16.5mm. It has a rock plate running from the forefoot almost to the mid foot.  I imagine this shoe will have a quite firm stable ride over varied terrain. Kinvara TR is a strong new contender in the light (<10 oz), low drop, yet protective trail runner category.

And here are Sam’s photos – looks like it might be another great multi-surface shoe:

---

---

---

Merrell Barefoot Road Glove Running Shoe Review and Giveaway

If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time you’ll know that I’m a big fan of Merrell. I like their shoes, I like the company, and I’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the people who work there. Over the past year I’ve done quite a bit of running in the Merrell Trail Glove (read my Merrell Trail Glove review here), and it has also seen quite a bit of causal use. While the Trail Glove is a great all-around shoe, my one complaint about it has to do with the design of the heel. Because the sole under the heel is slightly rounded, it tends to put pressure on my heel in an odd way when I stand or walk around in them, and sometimes it bugs me if running on a hard surface (not much of a problem on trails, which as the name implies are the intended terrain).

I’ve been in regular contact with the folks from Merrell for quite awhile now, and when asked about what I’d look for in a road version of the shoe, my immediate response was a flatter sole under the heel. That’s all that would really be needed to convert the Trail Glove into a solid, barefoot-style road shoe.

Back in September, I was invited to participate in a roundtable discussion in NYC with reps from Merrell, as well as a bunch of fellow bloggers, writers, and running experts. While at the meeting, Merrell gave each of us with a pair of the much anticipated Road Glove. I was pleased to see that they had indeed altered the sole construction, and it was significantly wider and flatter than that of the Trail Glove (see comparison below). They also filled in the area under the lateral midfoot a bit, which allows the entire outside length of the foot to easily contact the ground when standing. These two changes have resulted in a very solid minimalist road shoe.

Soles of the Merrell Road Glove (left) and Merrell Trail Glove (right). Note the wider, flatter heel of the Road Glove.

The Merrell Road Glove retains pretty much all that I liked about the Trail Glove. It’s lightweight (7.3 oz in my size 10), has a very roomy toebox, is extremely flexible, and provides excellent ground feel. The sole thickness is officially listed as 11mm in both the heel and forefoot, making it a zero drop, low-to-the-ground shoe (the Trail Glove is listed at 10mm, so maybe just a tad more cushion in the RG). A number of people I know have commented on the fact that the Road Glove seems to have a bit more contour under the arch than the Trail Glove – I would agree. Arch support doesn’t bother me, and I’d hesitate to call this true “support” as the area under the arch is cut out (i.e., the sole under the arch does not contact the ground – this is the gray region in the photo above). Rather, Merrell has gone with the phrase “Glove” to describe their barefoot shoes, and the midsole material curves up and hugs the arch closely to give a glove-like fit. Again, it does not bother me, and it’s possible that the midsole will develop some additional flex in this area as the shoes break in. But, if you are highly sensitive to material under your arch, this could be an issue.

Internally, the integrated sockliner of the Road Glove is nicely constructed and is designed for sockless running. I still tend to get heel blisters when I attempt to run sockless in Merrell Barefoot shoes, and I would love to seem a version with a bit of softer cushioning ringing the inside of the ankle collar, particularly in the region behind the Achilles tendon. The somewhat stiff lip behind my Achilles tends to rub my skin and dig in a bit, though it seems to be a bit less of a problem in this shoe than it is in the Trail and Sonic Gloves.

As far as performance goes, the Road Glove is an excellent choice if you are looking for a barefoot-style minimalist shoe to use on hard surfaces. The thin sole allows for ground feel similar to what you would find in some of the more built up versions of the Vibram Fivefingers (e.g., Bikila, Trek, Komodo Sport), but it does so without having little pockets for each toe (which can be a plus or minus depending on your personal preferences). The tread on the Road Glove is also sufficient enough to make this shoe usable for many trail situations. There is no rock plate (it is a road shoe after all!), but the outsole is fairly rugged and it should handle rocks and debris fairly well (I have not done any serious trail running in them, just going based on a comparison with the Trail Glove sole).

I also find the Road Glove to be an excellent choice as a casual, zero drop shoe. If running in a thin-soled, zero drop shoe is something you want attempt, getting used to wearing such a shoe around and about is a good way to start. Some are a bit hesitant to do this with a shoe like the Fivefingers, but the Road Glove looks like a pretty normal, albeit very flat, low-profile shoe. I used them as my recovery shoe between legs of the Ragnar relay I ran a few weeks back, and they felt great on my fatigued feet.

I would offer one comment about aesthetics. The Trail Glove is a great looking shoe, but when I look at the Road Glove I can’t help but feel like something is missing. I think it might be that the sides of the shoe are just too plain. I almost feel like Merrell should be a bit more willing to splash their logo around -  the Merrell “M” placed on the outer middle panel might do the trick and also help them to gain a bit more brand recognition (my feeble design attempt below…).

Conclusion

The Merrell Road Glove takes the successful design of its sibling, the Trail Glove, and adapts it for the roads. The result is an excellent minimalist road shoe, and a great option if all you are looking for is a zero drop shoe to use for casual wear. I’m quite impressed with the sole of this shoe, and actually wish that this sole was the base for some of the other Merrell Barefoot shoes that I have worn rather than that of the Trail Glove – it’s a much more comfortable sole for standing and walking on hard surfaces. While I don’t have plans of running a marathon in a barefoot-style shoe anytime soon, the Road Glove will get lots of use as the weather warms up and the snow clears off the roads and sidewalks. This one has earned a place in my regular rotation.

The Merrell Road Glove is available at Running Warehouse.

Giveaway

Merrell offered up two pairs of Road Gloves as a giveaway in conjunction with this review. To enter the giveaway, simply fill out the form below. I’ll leave the form up until next Friday, and then choose and contact the two winners via email. Good luck!

One entry per person please – multiple entries will be deleted!

---

---

---

Podcast: On Shoes, Form, Injuries and More with the Geeks in Running Shoes

Quick post to direct you to a podcast interview that I did last night with my friends Jason and Ray over at Geeks in Running Shoes. We cover a lot of ground, from why Kenyan’s are dominating distance running to why runners will always get injured, and I talk a bit about the book that I’ve been working on for the past year.

If you’re interested in listening, you can visit the Geeks in Running Shoes page to download the audio file.

Alternatively, you can download the podcast episode on iTunes.

---

---

Soleus GPS 1.0 Watch Review: A Minimalist GPS Watch at a Minimalist Price

Although I tend toward minimalism in my footwear, I’m a major tech geek and stats junkie, and a GPS watch is a constant companion on my runs. I’ve flirted with the thought of running “naked” more often as espoused by my friends Mossy and Robbo of the Naked Runners Podcast, but I can’t seem to bring myself to the point of actually ditching the little data collector on my wrist.

For the past 3 or so years I’ve been running with my reliable old Garmin Forerunner 205 or a Garmin 305 that I bought for use by students in my Exercise Physiology class (the Garmin Forerunner 205 was actually one of the first pieces of running gear that I reviewed on this blog). Both are incredible little watches – though rather large, they give me a ton of information and they have far exceeded my expectations in terms of durability and battery life. Both watches have been rock solid and still have plenty of life left in them.

My one complaint about the Garmin 205/305 is that their large size makes them a poor choice for wearing around as an everyday watch when not in use for running. This necessitates popping the watch on and off prior to and after runs, and also requires that I remember to bring the watch with me if I plan to run at work. This is not a big deal, but I’ve long coveted a GPS watch that could also serve as a full time wristwatch.

Back in early December, I received an offer from Soleus to try out their first ever GPS watch (disclosure: the Soleus GPS 1.0 reviewed here is a media sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Soleus has been around for a bit, and they specialize in affordable, colorful stopwatches for active people. I was intrigued by the watch for two reasons: 1) it looked slim enough to use as an everyday watch, and 2) it was priced at under $100, which is quite affordable for a GPS watch, thus making the technology accessible to a larger user base.

Here’s how Soleus describes the GPS 1.0:

Our brand new Soleus GPS 1.0 has everything you need, nothing you don’t.  Simple, easy to use digital watch that will accurately track your speed and distance.  Auto lap splits at every mile and night light mode helps for your late night runs. Our GPS 1.0 knows exactly where to find the same global positioning satellites orbiting miles above the Earth that are going to help you navigate your run, walk, or hike.

You can even Personalize your Soleus GPS 1.0 by inputting your personal data to track calories burned during that rough exercise routine.

Best feature is its compact design. One of the smallest GPS watches on the market today for your wrist.

I’ll start by saying that the Soleus GPS 1.0 works pretty much as advertised. It’s a simple watch with a fairly low-profile form factor, which means that it’s plenty suitable for all-day wear. When you’re ready to run, the GPS is easily turned on by pressing the yellow “GPS” button on the left hand side of the watch (see photo above). Syncing takes about the same amount of time as the Garmin 205/305, so I have no major complaints about that. Once you’re ready to go the watch will use the GPS to calculate and display your current speed or pace (min/mile), and distance traveled. That’s pretty much it – no frills with this watch. However, for the vast majority of my runs, this is really all the data that I need. At the end of the run you can get your total distance and average pace for the entire run, as well as for each lap (you can set the watch to auto-lap every 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 miles).

Given that the Soleus GPS 1.0 only really provides two metrics (current speed/pace and distance), the big question is how accurately they are reported. I’ve now run with the Soleus on one wrist and the Garmin 305 on the other on several occasions – I’ve been extremely happy with the accuracy of my Garmin after several years of constant use so I find it a useful benchmark on which to base a comparison. I’ve found that current pace on the Soleus seems to not track closely with what is shown on the Garmin (or with my self-perceived effort), possibly due to the Garmin recording waypoints more frequently or the Soleus using some sort of smoothing algorithm. The Soleus doesn’t seem to jump around as much, but it also therefore doesn’t seem to as closely track sudden changes in pace. For real-time pace measurement I’d give the edge to the Garmin 305.

In terms of recording average pace and distance, the Soleus is spot-on. Comparing the results between the Garmin and the Soleus at the end of a run demonstrates a strong congruence between the two watches. As such, although the Soleus does not seem as good at moment-to-moment pace reporting, the average pace reported for the run matches very closely what is reported by my Garmin. Thus, I’m wondering if a firmware update might allow for alternate ways to report current pace on the Soleus watch.

Perhaps the biggest limitation of the Soleus GPS 1.0 is that it currently has no mechanism for uploading data to a computer. This is the main deal-breaker for me as I upload all of my workouts to Sporttracks – doing this manually gets old quick. However, in his recent (excellent!) review of the Soleus watch, DC Rainmaker reports that uploading support should be coming soon (unfortunately at additional cost for a peripheral connector, but should still probably cost less combined than other GPS watches on the market).

Battery life has so far been excellent. I can use the watch for well over a week without need for a recharge as long as I shut the GPS off in between uses (very easy to do). Charging is accomplished via a USB clip cable, and the watch recharges quite quickly – no complaints.

Conclusion

All in all, this is a very nice little GPS watch at a very reasonable price (currently $89 at Amazon, similar pricing at Running Warehouse). Pluses are the low price, low profile form factor, long battery life, and accurate recording of average pace and run distance. Minuses are somewhat iffy current pace reporting, inability to upload data to a computer, and limited data field options on the watch face (most of these could probably be improved via firmware updates and the planned addition of a peripheral uploading device).

If all you need in a GPS watch is a measure of how far you ran and what your average pace was, then this watch is a fine choice. If you’d like a bit more data and the ability to upload to a computer, then springing for a more expensive watch might make sense. I still love my Garmin 205 and 305, and these can be purchased quite cheap nowadays, with the only real downside in my opinion being their large size. If you want a watch that does it all and more (but at a higher price), stay tuned for my review of the Motorola Motoactv, which has pretty much become my full-time watch these days. 

---

---

Usain Bolt Running Form While Sprinting and Jogging

The below videos provide some great footage of Usain Bolt’s sprinting and jogging gaits. In the first, you’ll notice that Bolt has the characteristic ball-of-of foot touchdown seen in sprinters, and it appears that most of the time his heel does not touch down at all (note – distance runners should not attempt to emulate Bolt’s sprinting form!). It’s amazing to watch how he reaches out with his lower leg, but then pulls it back so that he lands close to his body with a nearly vertical shin (I apologize for the ads that show up on the video, it’s not my video and I have no control over their ads):

The second clip shows Bolt jogging along a track during what appears to be a post-sprint cool-down. Gait is quite different, and he appears to now bring the heel down after landing on his forefoot, and in some cases he may be landing flat. However, he’s clearly not overstriding and mashing his heels into the ground just because he’s running slowly!

---

---