Asics’s marketing pitch: Looking for speed and versatility?
Upper: Engineered mesh, fused and stitched-on synthetic.
Midsole: Full-length, single density Flytefoam midsole. 8 mm heel to toe offset.
Outsole: Hard carbon rubber throughout.
Weight: 243 gms/ 8.6 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27
Widths available: Single, D – regular (reviewed).
Remember the 33 series, anyone? A few years ago, Asics attempted to make inroads into the lower drop, minimally constructed running shoe market with its 33M, 33-FA, and the 33-DFA.
The aforementioned shoes featured a 4 mm heel drop which was unprecedented for the Japanese brand. The midsole also skipped the whole Gel-and-plastic show in favor for an all-foam one, and the outsole swapped the traditional ‘Guidance line’ layout with the ‘Fluid Axis’ instead.
It was fairly obvious the 33 series was a case of trying to force-fit a square peg into a round hole. At the time, Asics simply did not have what it took to make the 33 series successful. It neither had the lightweight chops of the Kinvara, nor a cushioned midsole platform which could compete with the likes of Hoka One One.
As one would expect, the Asics 33 assortment met with a short and forgettable demise.
In hindsight, the missing link was a suitable midsole platform. For years, Asics has relied on its Gel tech (more form than function, though) to market its running shoes rather a foam compound.
Then Asics hit a relative breakthrough with its new Flytefoam material, an EVA foam variant with fibers molded in. The $250 Metarun was the first to feature Flytefoam, followed by the Dynaflyte and several others.
The new Roadhawk FF is proof that Flytefoam isn’t tier exclusive, but rather price and platform agnostic. Even at an MSRP of $100, the Roadhawk features full-length Flytefoam, something that even more expensive models do not have.
While it is good that Asics has made Flytefoam accessible, they should exercise caution in maintaining price-value across their assortment – else, if all shoes have Flytefoam, why pay more for one shoe over the other?
And by the way, what is the Roadhawk FF?
It is a firm riding shoe which is suitable for faster training runs, and it has a seamless upper which fits well. Instead of comparing it to other Asics shoes, the identically priced Brooks Launch 4 would be a more meaningful benchmark.
Like the Launch 4, the Roadhawk FF is very lightweight with a sub 9-ounce weight and a snug fit. Despite the abundance of Flytefoam, the ride quality is firm bordering on hard, so know that the FF isn’t meant for everyone.
Take a cursory glance at the Roadhawk, and some elements from the 33 series jump at you right away. For example, the heel has a straight-up design, free of the plastic clip or the distinct Achilles lip which are seen on many Asics models.
In the front, the engineered mesh design appears familiar – and that’s because you have seen it before on the 33-FA. The open vented area on the top and the tighter-knitted sides are similar to the FA. There’s an internal bumper propping up the toe-box, and a stiffener gives structure to the heel at the rear.
Even the midfoot treatment is based on the 33 series; fused synthetic forms a box over the midfoot, and the lacing eyelets are punched into them. The laces are regular round types which cross over a thinly padded tongue.
The Asics logo is semi-concealed beneath a see-thru mesh over the lateral midfoot, giving the Roadhawk some nice design depth.
The inner side doesn’t have a logo and simply features a different mesh panel. The removal of the inner side logo is something we’ve seen on Asics a lot lately, including more expensive models like the Kayano.
While the heel and tongue don’t have a lot of foam padding, the lining material is very smooth and plush. That’s one of the reasons why we equated the Roadhawk to the Brooks Launch; both shoes have a comfortable lining material.
As you can see, there isn’t much going on the Roadhawk’s upper. It is a simple upper with a nearly seamless interior; nothing more, nothing less. There’re a few other design elements, like the printing over the outer heel which includes a reflective trim, or the molded Asics logo on the tongue flap.
Breathability is average on the Roadhawk, though no more or less than your average trainer. The upper might look very ventilated from the outside, but the interiors have a separate lining layer in certain areas.
There are no fancy bits and pieces on the midsole – no shank, no Gel, no nothing – except for the Flytefoam compound in a full-length avatar. The midsole is compression molded and is firm to the touch. The foam has the characteristic Flytefoam texture – you can see a wrinkly surface with embedded fibers.
Like any other foam, not all Flytefoam is the same. On some shoes, it can be of a softer density, while shoes like the Roadhawk FF get a firm kind. This is something you should know – the Roadhawk is NOT a soft shoe, no matter how thick the heel looks.
Speaking of thickness, the midsole is rear loaded. The heel stack of 20 mm is nearly double that of the 12 mm forefoot. And if you’re performing mental maths right now, then you must have realized that the Roadhawk has an 8 mm drop. This is slightly lower than the usual Asics gradient of 10 mm.
The only soft components are the removable Ortholite insole and the foam lasting below it. The insole is a soft, blown-foam kind used in other Asics shoes, and is one of the reasons why the Roadhawk is great value – this is a premium component.
The midsole sidewalls have a very balanced design. There are just some fine ridges running over the surface, and no deep groove which can cause a ride bias. The Roadhawk’s midsole also has pronounced edges which flare on both sides of the rearfoot, and this helps produce a cupping base for the foot to rest within.
Unlike many Asics shoes which have a softer blown rubber forefoot, the Roadhawk’s outsole is covered with hard carbon rubber throughout. While there are a few areas of exposed midsole foam, most of the outsole is overlaid with rubber. At the same time, there’s plenty of flex grooving and articulation.
The product page for the shoe might not mention the ‘Guidance line,’ but there is one – it begins under the Roadhawk’s heel and splits the forefoot into two distinct halves.
Regardless of its affordable price tag, the Roadhawk is no slouch when it comes to durability. The entire outsole is made of hard rubber, so sections like the forefoot will last longer than their blown rubber counterparts.
It’s not just the material, but also the design which plays a part in increasing lifespan. Despite the guidance line, the edges of the rubber slabs fare better. The edges along the Guidance line are tapered, and this lessens the potential damage from abrasion. Also, the pieces are better inset (or flush) with the midsole, so that helps too.
The firmer Flytefoam compound will perform better than regular EVA compounds, so that’s one thing less to worry about.
The upper forefoot mesh might be a concern for runners with a wide forefoot. This might lead to the bodyweight rubbing the mesh against the midsole edge, resulting in gradual wear and tear.
As with all blown-foam insoles, the Ortholite will gradually flatten and lose its squishiness over time.
There are no complaints with the Roadhawk’s fit. There are no overlays over the toe-box, but only engineered mesh and the internal bumper in the front. So the toe-box isn’t vertically challenged; the height feels just right.
The interior fit is smooth as expected of an upper which features no stitched overlays. However, the round laces tend to apply top-down pressure over the thinly padded tongue.
There’s a small problem with the upper design. When you lace the Roadhawk tight in the front, the forefoot mesh tends to pucker up – though this is not so much a functional flaw, but rather a visual eyesore.
While there are no hot spots, a slight sense of tightness is felt from the fused bands between the forefoot and the midfoot. The engineered forefoot mesh has enough space; it is only over the forward midfoot where the upper feels a bit snug. There are no optional widths for the Roadhawk, so trying before buying is recommended.
The insides of the heel have a soft lining, so the collar fit has a soft feel. The grip isn’t tenacious like how fully-padded collars are, but it gets the job done, with no slide of any kind.
Don’t let that thick stack of rearfoot Flytefoam fool you – the Roadhawk is a very firm shoe. Sure, the Ortholite insole feels soft underfoot, and the area of exposed foam under the heel also produces a cushioned effect. But once you get past that, the rest of the midsole is firm.
You might have worn other Asics shoes featuring Flytefoam which might have felt softer, but the Roadhawk is not one of those. The compression molded Flytefoam has a higher density, leading to a firm feel from heel to toe. It must be pointed out that the forefoot feels far stiffer than the heel.
The forefoot is rigid due to a few reasons. The front thickness is only a mere 12 mm of Flytefoam, so that’s certainly a contributing factor. The rubber used underneath is a hard variety, and that adds to the firmness too. The forefoot hardness also leads to an undesirable side-effect.
The front outsole makes a slappy noise during runs, and this is going to be more noticeable for forefoot strikers than heel loaders. This might not have a negatively functional impact, but the sound is distracting.
You need to give the Roadhawk’s forefoot at least 50 miles to break in. Initially the midsole has a very stiff feel, but it gains marginal flexibility in the weeks which follow.
There is an upside to the lack of cushioning softness, and that’s the superior stability. The combination of a stiff midsole and a balanced sidewall design make the Roadhawk extremely supportive. There’s no bias on the heel, and the raised sidewalls keep the foot locked in.
Forefoot transitions are great. The midsole might not be very flexible, but this character allows the weight to load quickly and economically all the way to toe-offs. Asics advertises the Roadhawk as a speed trainer, and we must say that’s a fairly accurate marketing description.
Like the firm Brooks Launch 4, the Roadhawk is best used for fast training runs, and even long distances if you’re accustomed to a firm ride. The shoe is very lightweight at a mere 8.6 ounces, so that helps make the Roadhawk feel fast too.
As far as responsiveness or the springback quality is concerned, it is nearly non-existent on the Roadhawk, except for some mild feedback from the rearfoot.
The Roadhawk is excellent value for money, with it’s $100 MSRP offering a lot. There’s a full-length Flytefoam midsole under an engineered mesh upper, and the plentiful rubber coverage makes the shoe durable. There’s little softness to be found on the Roadhawk, but that makes the ride very supportive, and the transitions quick.
There are a few things which we didn’t like about the shoe. The rigid forefoot is noisy, making a slappy sound during runs. The hard rubber also delivers average grip performance on damp surfaces. And then there’s the lack of additional widths. The Roadhawk fits snug, so it would be great to have at least a 2E (wide) available as an option.
The 2017 Asics Roadhawk is what the earlier (and unsuccessful) Asics 33 series aspired to be – a well-mannered and an affordable lightweight trainer with a comfortable, no fuss upper.
All that said, the Roadhawk isn’t for everyone. If you’re expecting the Flytefoam midsole to be an epitome of softness, then you’re likely to be disappointed. Instead, what we have here is a firm trainer which shines during fast-paced workouts.
So what if you wanted a couple of other shoes to rotate alongside the Roadhawk? We’ll cover that in the next section.
|Rotation||Model||Shoe type||Check price|
|Same brand||Asics Roadhawk FF||Lightweight, fast-paced training||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics Cumulus 19||Cushioned, long and easy runs||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics Hyperspeed||Firm, lightweight, race-day||Amazon|
|Multi brand||Asics Roadhawk FF||Lightweight, fast-paced training||Amazon|
|Multi brand||New Balance 1080V7||Cushioned, long and easy runs||Amazon|
|Multi brand||New Balance 1400V5||Lightweight, race-day||Amazon|
For an Asics shoe with a softer ride, the Cumulus 19 fits the part. It is softer than the Roadhawk, though the toe-box fits shallower. For race-days involving 5K and 10K’s, the Hyperspeed 7 is the shoe to rotate.
If you want an all-foam, non-Asics cushioned trainer with the same heel drop, then we recommend the New Balance 1080 V7. The ride isn’t particularly soft or responsive, but there’s plenty of consistent cushioning.
For shorter races, get the New Balance 1400V5.
We can think of a few shoes which compare with the Roadhawk, but the Brooks Launch 4 is the closest – both in terms of the $100 MSRP and the ride quality.
Both the Asics and Brooks models are firm, though the Launch 4 has a better padded forefoot due to the use of blown rubber. The Launch 4 has a more comfortable heel collar too, but happens to be slightly heavier – by 0.4 ounces to be precise.
If we had to choose between the Roadhawk and the Launch 4, our money would be on the Brooks shoe.
The Roadhawk can also be loosely compared to the $15 more expensive and cushioned Hoka Hupana and the 4 mm drop Skechers GoMeb Razor. At some level, even the Nike Elite 9 is comparable, if you just consider the intended use-case.
|Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.|
The post Asics Roadhawk FF Review appeared first on Solereview.
Asics’s marketing pitch: The Cumulus 19 delivers superior comfort and shock dissipation.
Upper: Spacer mesh, fused and stitched-on synthetic.
Midsole: Dual-density EVA foam midsole with plastic shank. Front and rear Gel inserts. 10 mm heel offset.
Outsole: Hard carbon rubber under the heel, softer blown rubber under the forefoot.
Weight: 320 gms/ 11.3 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27
Widths available: D – regular (reviewed), 2E – Wide, 4E – Extra wide
The Cumulus 19 is the Japanese brand’s ‘budget Nimbus.’ Like the latter, it is a cushioned neutral trainer but minus many of the bells and whistles which the more expensive Nimbus comes boxed with.
At an MSRP of $120, the Cumulus 19 competes with the likes of the Brooks Ghost 10, the Nike Pegasus 34, the Saucony Ride 10, and many others – all mid-priced neutrals which occupy a similar price band.
For many years, the Asics Cumulus dutifully delivered what it was supposed to. The midsole packed ample cushioning, making it one of the many shoes suitable for long runs and general workouts of a relaxed nature. The upper, while not super-plush, seldom gave any reason for complaint.
The otherwise good-natured Cumulus changed last year. Misguided by some strange market trend, the Cumulus 18 squashed the toe-box shallow, making the new version a marked departure from the well-proportioned interiors of the Cumulus 16 and 17.
Do things change for 2017? Sadly, no. The Cumulus 19 not only features a shallow toe-box, but also uses a more flimsy looking upper. And in what’s now an emerging trend (for Asics), the Cumulus 19 uses a midsole and outsole stack which is identical to the outgoing version.
In the past, each successive update introduced a brand-new midsole and outsole along with a refreshed upper. But the last couple of Asics we’ve reviewed – namely the Kayano 24 and now the Cumulus 19 – appear to be indicative of Asics’s new (cost-cutting) direction.
There’s nothing wrong with using the same sole design. Nike does this on a regular basis, but then a shoe like the Pegasus undercuts others by $10. If Asics is reusing parts or molds from a previous version, then the cost benefit should be passed to the end-consumer in the form of a lower MSRP.
If the toe-box is still shallow and the sole unit hasn’t changed, does it make sense for an existing Cumulus 18 user to upgrade? Not at all. We’ll save you the trouble of reading the rest of this review and tell you right away that there’s no value in swapping your 18 for the 19. It is a better idea to invest in Cumulus 18 deadstock and save money.
And if you can get your paws on the Cumulus 17, nothing like it.
To say that the Cumulus 19 has reduced the amount of external overlays would be an understatement. Most of the upholstery is now either spacer mesh or knit fabric, with synthetic leather only providing coverage in select areas. The lacing eyestay has synthetic, which is understandable given that this area needs additional reinforcement.
The external toe-bumper seen on the past versions of the Cumulus is absent. Instead, there’s a combination of a micro-bumper near the toe-tip and a band-like strip which runs over the toe-box and forefoot. This doesn’t mean that the front area lacks structure; there is a reinforcement material underneath the mesh.
Most of the synthetic layering is on the lateral/outer side of the midfoot. The inner midfoot is missing both the Asics logo and the synthetic panel seen on the previous Cumulus editions.
Much like the new trend of carrying over the sole design, the removal of inner midfoot layering seems to be the way ahead, if the Kayano 24 and the Cumulus 19 are to be considered as a yardstick.
Let’s be clear – Asics might tout the ‘cleaner’ midfoot as an ‘improvement,’ but it has no benefit on the quality of fit. This change, similar to reusing the sole design, is purely a cost-cutting measure.
In the Cumulus 19’s case, the flimsy midfoot area is more a potential drawback than anything else. We’ll devote more screen space on this topic in the durability section. The silver lining, in this case, is the improved ventilation over the Cumulus 18.
Most of the external heel area is covered with a knit fabric. This visually cleaner design replaces the synthetic strips, the molding, and the reflective details of the Cumulus 18. Reflectivity is a casualty here, as it gets downsized from a couple of strips to a small logo.
The Cumulus 19 gets a new heel collar design. The prominent Achilles dip which was earlier a part of most Asics shoes is replaced by a rounded collar design with a brand new lining fabric. This updates slightly lowers the heel height, but the generously padded collar counters any (potential) negative effect of the lowered height.
The tongue does not have a sleeve, and the flap uses a softer fabric – the same as the heel collar. Tongue slides do happen, so if you’re switching from a sleeved shoe such as the Pegasus, mentally prepare yourself for this mild inconvenience. And by the way, the tongue is a bit shorter than the Cumulus 18.
The interiors have a smooth feel. Like many modern-day running shoes, the Cumulus 19’s upper relies more on fused layers rather than stitched-on ones. While the insides aren’t completely seamless, there aren’t any irritating bumps either.
If you already have the Cumulus 18, you can skip this section because the sole unit hasn’t changed. But many of you might not be familiar with the series, so it’s worth breaking down the finer aspects of the Cumulus 19’s sole unit.
The midsole and outsole are based on the long-continuing Asics design template. This includes a top EVA foam layer, a couple of visible Gel windows, and then finally a larger stack of EVA foam which acts as the main midsole.
It’s worth mentioning that while the men’s and women’s Cumulus have the same 10 mm heel -to-toe drop, the women’s Cumulus has a softer upper midsole for increased softness.
Mind you; there isn’t much Gel inside the midsole. The forefoot windows are merely decorative, and even the rear has a penny sized unit. Hence, most of the Cumulus’s cushioning comes from the thick foam and not the Gel. This also applies to more expensive Asics models such as the Nimbus, Kayano, and even the Quantum 360.
There’s a plastic shank under the midfoot, a feature which is now fast vanishing from the world of athletic footwear. As for the outsole, you get the standard layout of various rubber pieces separated by generous grooves – placed in a sideways and lengthwise orientation.
The groove which runs the length of the shoe is what Asics markets as the ‘Guidance line,’ while the other grooves help with flexibility and ride transitions.
As for the outsole, the Cumulus uses slabs of soft blown rubber under the forefoot, and the rear is shod with a harder variety. This is designed so because the majority of the running population are rearfoot strikers, so the rear needs to be stronger to withstand the abuse from heel strikes.
At the top lies a soft, blown foam insole. There’s another sheet of foam just below it, and both these combine to give you the initial softness which most people experience while trying the shoe at the store.
We’re not sure what the next year will bring for the Cumulus 20. Since this is the second year running for the same midsole and outsole, the sole should get an update in 2018. But will the regular foam be replaced by the new Flytefoam? If that happens, the Cumulus 20’s ride is probably going to turn firmer yet more resilient.
The wide ‘Guidance Line’ causes the edges of the forefoot rubber slabs to be exposed to a higher rate of wear and tear. This is limited to the initial days, so from a long-term durability perspective, this isn’t something to worry about. The midsole is made of regular EVA foam, so a flattening of ride quality after a few hundred miles should be expected.
The changes on the new Cumulus 19 upper are worrying, however. The inner midfoot is missing a lot of protective covering last seen on the Cumulus 18, and the thin mesh is directly in contact with the midsole edge.
Based on experience, this kind of design usually ends poorly for the upper. There’s a lot of weight applied by the foot in this area, and the lack of reinforcement could lead to the mesh tearing.
These are early days for the Cumulus 19, so we haven’t come across examples of the mesh failing – yet. Nonetheless, this is a red flag from a durability viewpoint. We’ll update this review if we come across instances of premature mesh tear.
The toe-box of the Cumulus 19 is shallow and pointy. It is shallow, because a band of synthetic runs over the toe box in a semi-circular path. There’s an internal bumper, so the Cumulus retains its pointy toe-box profile
This construction hems in the big toe; while the sensation isn’t uncomfortable, it makes the limited height of the toe-box noticeable. The Cumulus 19’s toe box design reminds us of the Brooks Ravenna 6 which used a similar band design and produced an identical fit result.
You should buy a half size larger than your regular size (or the same size as the Cumulus 18), else there’s going to be a paucity of interior space.
The tongue has a lot of padding and offers adequate insulation from lacing cinch. But as the Cumulus 19’s tongue is slightly shorter than the 18, using the heel-lock lacing (the last eyelet) will apply top-down pressure over the foot.
Regardless of the updated heel design which appears straighter than the Cumulus 18, there’s no heel slippage. You miss the foam ‘pockets’ of the older heel design, but that’s more of a sensory difference than a functional one.
The Cumulus 19 is offered in multiple widths, ranging from D (regular) to a 4E. So if you’re not happy with the snug forefoot, then get a width upsize.
The removal of external layering makes the C-19 breathable, more so than the C-18.
Nearly all of the Cumulus 19’s cushioning is delivered by the dense foam stack. Asics Gel plays but only a minor role in the ride behavior, as most of the Gel is more show than substance.
The soft feel underfoot is the result of the Ortholite insole, and the remaining foam layers have a medium-soft quality of cushioning. The Cumulus has never been a mushy shoe, and the same applies to the version 19.
Still, running fast in the Cumulus 19 feels somewhat laborious. It’s not just the thick midsole, but the generously articulated outsole which slows down transitions. The outsole lugs mounted on a wide area of exposed foam delivers a cushioning (or ‘piston’) effect, but the trade-off is a somewhat slow quality of transition.
The ‘Guidance Line’ demarcates two sides of the forefoot with a wide chasm, so the rubber edges feel lumpy – the same as Cumulus 18. Though this is less pronounced than some of other Asics shoes we’ve reviewed, the abundance of flex grooves proves to be too much of a good thing.
There’s nothing remarkable about the Cumulus 19’s ride quality, but there aren’t any glaring faults either. It has enough cushioning for runs up to a marathon, happens to be moderately stable, and the outsole grips well.
The midsole works for both heel and forefoot strikers. Even with the 10 mm drop, the forefoot has adequate padding; the blown rubber outsole and the midsole work together to create soft landings or transitions, depending on your footstrike.
It is very likely that the next year’s Cumulus will feature a Flytefoam midsole, but for now, the midsole is made of regular EVA foam. So being responsive or bouncy isn’t one of the C-19’s characteristics; the ride feels padded but flat.
If the shallow toe box of the Cumulus 19 doesn’t bother you, then the rest of the shoe isn’t bad. The midsole has enough padding without being overly soft, and the upper is breathable. The heel and tongue have a plush fit and feel, and the optional widths make it easier to find a Cumulus which fits you best.
Among the list of negatives, there’s the tongue slide, the unresponsive ride quality, the shallow front, and the flimsy upper build – especially over the inner midfoot. Lastly, let’s not forget that the Cumulus 19’s 11.3-ounce weight makes it the heaviest in its class.
The Cumulus 19 reuses the Cumulus 18’s midsole and outsole, so there’s no difference in the ride quality. A few changes take place on the upper, but nothing which makes the C-19 significantly different than the 18.
The toe area remains shallow, with the overall interior proportions staying very similar to the C-18. The heel area feels softer, and so does the shorter tongue – thanks to the updated lining material which feels smoother than the 18. And the loss of outer covering increases the 19’s breathability.
In the rear, the Achilles dip is toned down to a rounded profile, and the outer heel loses the molded details and reflectivity last seen on the C-18. The inner midfoot loses the synthetic panel.
Both versions are matched on weight (the Cumulus 18 was 0.2-ounce lighter) and the retail price.
|Asics Nimbus 19||Flytefoam midsole, dual Gel windows||Amazon|
|Asics Cumulus 19||Regular EVA midsole, dual Gel windows||Amazon|
|Asics Pursue 3||Regular EVA midsole, heel-only Gel window||Amazon|
At a $40 premium is the Nimbus 19, a neutral trainer which is marketed as an upgrade from the Cumulus 19. Till a couple of years ago, the Nimbus had a softer ride and a plusher upper than the Cumulus. Today, while some parts of the upper – say the heel and the tongue for example – feel softer than the Cumulus, the ride isn’t softer.
The Nimbus recently switched to a firmer Flytefoam midsole. The new design makes the N-19 much firmer than the older models, so when compared to the Cumulus, the midsole density feels similar. What is different though, is a more resilient and responsive ride than the Cumulus. This is the result of the Flytefoam layer which the Cumulus 19 does not have – yet.
At the lower end of the assortment is the Pursue 3. It’s a bargain Cumulus of sorts, offering a firmer ride with a trimmed down material package. The Pursue 3 doesn’t appear to be widely available, so consider the Roadhawk FF as an alternative. The Roadhawk is a neutral trainer with a 10 mm heel drop and a full-length Flytefoam midsole.
|Rotation||Model||Shoe type||Check price|
|Same brand||Asics Cumulus 19||Cushioned, long and easy runs||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics Dynaflyte||Lightweight, fast-paced training||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics Hyperspeed||Firm, lightweight, race-day||Amazon|
|Multi brand||Asics Cumulus 19||Cushioned, long and easy runs||Amazon|
|Multi brand||adidas Boston 6||Lightweight, fast-paced training||Amazon|
|Multi brand||New Balance 1400V5||Firm, lightweight, race-day||Amazon|
Recommending a three-shoe rotation for the Cumulus 19 is relatively easy. The cushioned Cumulus 19 is good for the long and easy runs, so pairing that up with a firmer and lighter Dynaflyte makes perfect sense.
The Dynaflyte is great for fast training runs and even races up to a marathon. For shorter races, the Asics Hyperspeed 7 will get the job done.
|Brooks||Ghost 10||Medium soft||Amazon|
|Mizuno||Wave Rider 20||Firm||Amazon|
|New Balance||880 V7||Medium soft||Amazon|
|Saucony||Ride 10||Medium soft||Amazon|
|Underarmour||Gemini 3||Medium soft||Amazon|
There’s plenty of competition in the mid-priced neutral cushioning category, so once you look beyond the Asics assortment, the Cumulus 19 doesn’t seem to offer great value. The problem with the Asics Cumulus 19 is that it stands for nothing, and ends up being an ordinary shoe with mediocrity emanating from its 11.3-ounce weight and its shallow fitting upper.
For example, if you wanted a combination of a plush upper and a supportive yet cushioned ride, then the identically priced Brooks Ghost 10 is the shoe. Need lots of soft cushioning with an ultra-durable outsole? That’ll be the adidas Supernova, sir.
The Nike Pegasus 34 is the lowest priced in this category and offers great value. The ride is cushioned and responsive, and the sleeved upper offers a better fit. The Saucony Ride 10 is also an excellent shoe, its ride offering a touch of Everun responsiveness and smooth transitions.
Don’t need a soft ride? The Mizuno Wave Rider 20 delivers a unique, Wave Plate powered ride under a spacious upper. And if you wanted something ‘traditional,’ the New Balance 880V7 is an under-rated performer.
And now in its third year, the UnderArmour Speedform Gemini 3’s ride is smooth and cushioned, same as the versions before it.
So you see, all other shoes seem to have character in one form or another. And what does the Asics Cumulus 19 have, except that it’s an Asics? Amidst all the running shoe newness, the Cumulus 19 struggles to make a compelling case for itself.
|Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.|
Asics’s marketing pitch: The Kayano 24 has an evolved adaptive fit that it is more true to size.
Upper: Engineered mesh, fused urethane, external plastic heel counter.
Midsole: Triple density midsole with a firmer medial post and Flytefoam. Plastic midfoot shank. 10 mm heel drop for men’s, 13 mm for women’s.
Outsole: Hard carbon rubber under the heel, softer blown rubber under the forefoot.
Weight: 320 gms/ 11.3 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27
Widths available: 2A, B, D – regular (reviewed), 2E -wide, 4E – extra wide.
When you’ve been reviewing shoes for nearly a decade, connecting the dots between design updates becomes an easy task. The Asics Kayano is a good example. It’s had its fair share of updates over the years, turning from a firm riding trainer to a super-soft shoe with a noticeable lateral bias.
And it’s not just the ride quality, but the upper fit too which receives a wide range of updates. Some versions had a wholesome upper fit character, with the heel, midfoot, and the toe-box gripping the foot as they should. On others, the toe-box squashed the foot with an uncomfortable down-force.
All these strange changes can be attributed to the non-existent feedback loop of running shoe design. Unlike other industries where a new product usually translates into an improvement over the older one, the long-lead times involved in designing a running shoe means that it’s impossible to incorporate customer feedback from one model to the next. More so, when brands go through this compulsory new shoe thing every year.
Most of you would agree that the Kayano 21 represented an optimum combination of fit, aesthetics, and ride quality if you consider the Kayano iterations released in the last three years. The Kayano 22 was too soft, and the 23, while better, featured the same shallow toe-box fit.
The Kayano 24 marks a return to the wholesomeness of the Kayano 21, though only in spirit.
The upper uses an evolved visual scheme which is a euphemism for keeping up with the current cost-cutting times, and the midsole makes use of Asics’s newest and brightest tech in its arsenal – the firmer Flytefoam foam.
The Kayano’s positioning as a mild-motion control shoe hasn’t changed, which means that the inner midsole has a firmer wedge for medially-skewed support.
This year also marks a rare occurrence for a Kayano. Asics, like Brooks, tends to refresh the midsole and outsole design with each annual update. For what’s a break from tradition, the Kayano 24 reuses the Kayano 23 sole unit without making any changes.
That means that all the updates take place on the upper and none on the sole. If you own a pair of the Kayano 23, then expect the same ride.
On the other hand, if you’re coming back to the Kayano after a brief hiatus, then fret not. We’ll discuss the Kayano 24’s sole design and ride character at length too.
A lot has changed on the Kayano 24’s upper in just a year, which runs contrary to Asics’s ‘don’t-change-it-ever’ design philosophy. Perhaps there’s a new crew at the helm of things, which could only explain this unexpected newness of the upper and the contrast of the carry-over midsole design.
At a basic level, the Kayano 24 shares a common mix of materials and placement with the 23. The upper has engineered mesh – one which combines tightly knit and vented areas over a single component. The section over the toe-box and the forefoot sides, for example, has larger vents when compared to the rest of the upper.
The molded Asics logo on the side is a familiar fitment, but there’s a change here. Instead of having the logos on both sides, only the outer (lateral) side has the logo. This again is a departure from how Asics usually does it. This one logo treatment (or a variation thereof) is usually seen on budget Nike and Saucony shoes.
That said, we have to remember that the Kayano isn’t a $100 shoe but a $160 one, and the upper needs to look the part, even if it means it’s a matter of form over function. So instead of skipping on the side logo, they should have done something like the Nimbus 19 which has a lightweight logo printed over the inner upper.
The heel features an external counter made of hard, molded plastic with smooth contours. The Kayano 24 features a much larger piece than the last year, and this design is apparently influenced by the much expensive Metarun. The external counter now extends higher and longer on either side, and that’s not all – even the heel collar design is updated.
Instead of having a prominent Achilles dip, the collar is now rounded and has more foam inside. This also means that there’s a reduction in the overall height, and the sides clasp snugger than the Kayano 23.
The Achilles dip also curves inwards, and usually such a thing reduces the sizing width. But it doesn’t, and we’ll explain why in the upper fit section of this review.
The lining material is similar but seems to have a softer feel than the 23. The reflective element also blends in much better with its surroundings thanks to a tonal visual scheme.
Whereas the shiny parts of the previous Kayanos were metallic in color, the reflective elements of the 24 are of the same color as the heel counter. The reflective windows also feature molding details which add to the overall design depth.
The lacing area gets a raised, molded panel this year. There’s also a thin, laminate underneath which also extends to the heel area, thus visually connecting the midfoot and the heel area in the process. The rounded, non-elastic laces pass through a moderately padded, and slightly modified tongue. There’s no sleeve keeping the tongue in place, so you get the expected serving of sideways slide.
The Kayano 24’s heel update changes the upper fit quality, but its extent of influence pales when compared to the toe-box update.
We did say something at the beginning about the 24 resembling the 21, and some of that is based on the new toe-box fit. With a raised toe-box which has both an internal and external stiffener, the toe-box fit quality changes for the better.
There’s another update which affects the fit in the front; the forefoot (sideways fit). The Kayano 23 had this internal tape under the mesh, and this extended from the lacing area to the toe-tip. On the inner side of the forefoot, an external overlay provided structural support.
The Kayano 24 does have internal taping (pictured in fluorescent green in the images above), but it has a different orientation. Instead of bridging the lacing area and the toe area, it spans vertically on both sides of the forefoot. The external layering of the 23 is now replaced with a few strips of internal layering.
Later, we’ll explain how these updates affect the quality of upper fit.
The Flytefoam midsole introduced on the Kayano 23 finds its way into 24 as well. There’s a firmer Flytefoam foam layer at the bottom, while the upper midsole is made of softer EVA foam.
On the medial side, there’s a harder foam wedge. Asics has stopped making the firmer wedge in a different color since the Kayano 23, so it’s difficult to visually distinguish the medial post if it were not for the ‘Dynamic Duomax’ text callout.
The midsole has a couple of Gel pads, but if you’ve been reading reviews on this site, you’d know that these pads only form a small part of the overall midsole volume. The Gel is more effective under the lateral heel where it performs the role of both form and function. The visible forefoot Gel is 100% show and 0% cushioning.
A plastic shank bridges the midfoot, and the outsole is made of multiple pieces of rubber. The forefoot has a softer blown rubber, while the rear has a more durable variety. Asics’s ‘Guidance Line’ longitudinally splits the outsole.
Available over the midsole is the standard stacking of a foam lasting, and a soft, Ortholite insole. It must be mentioned that there’s a difference between the men’s and women’s model when it comes to the sole design.
The men’s Kayano edition has a 10 mm heel to toe drop, while the women’s version has a 13 mm drop. This means that the heel stack is higher, making the women’s Kayano slightly softer than the men’s one.
The Asics Kayano has made gains over earlier versions in this department, particularly when it comes to the durability of midsole foams. Flytefoam has shown a greater resistance to cushioning loss when compared to regular EVA.
However, since only a half of the midsole is made out of the new material, the increased durability does not apply universally. Also, parts of the outsole are prone to early wear and tear. For example, the edges of the soft forefoot rubber lugs (flanking the Guidance Line) has the tendency to wear quickly within the first 30 miles, though the rate of wear tapers soon after.
The upper has plenty of layering and reinforcement, so expect it to outlive the outsole.
The 24 marks a return to the Kayano’s roots. In other words, the new upper fits and feels great, unlike the Kayano 22 and 23’s much disliked toe-box shallowness. The raised toe profile ensure ample toe-box height and also eliminates the pointy-ness of the 23.
While the toe-box height gets a boost, the subject of forefoot fit is noteworthy. The Kayano 24’s forefoot is a mite snugger than the 23 – especially on the medial side. This has to do with the re-positioning of the internal tapes; they might no longer extend over the forefoot, but they are placed vertically on both sides of the forefoot.
This new placement of the tapes tends to limit the inbuilt expansion of the mesh, and hence, the forefoot feels a bit narrower than the 23.
We’ll repeat this so that nobody is confused: The Kayano 23 had a shallower toe box (less vertical room) but more relaxed forefoot (sideways room across the widest part of your feet). On the Kayano 24, that is reversed. Which is more toe-box room (vertical), but a relatively snugger forefoot (sideways fit). The forefoot fit difference isn’t a lot but is bound to be noticed by discerning running shoe geeks.
The midfoot is archetypal Kayano. In plainer words, this implies that the midfoot feels smooth, and the untethered tongue tends to slide. The tongue is padded enough not to let the lacing pressure pass through.
Regardless of the lowered heel height, the Kayano 24’s rear upper grip is excellent. There’re a couple of factors which make the heel fit secure. One happens to be the much taller and longer plastic clip which holds the foot in place. The second is the lower, softer, but inwards curving heel collar.
On a related note, an inwards curving Achilles tends to push the foot forward and make the shoe smaller. But in the Kayano 24’s case, the grippier heel and the enlarged toe-box have a counter-canceling effect, and thus the true-to-size nature of the Kayano stays unchanged.
The new Flytefoam infused midsole’s firmness resembles that of the 21, but with a different ride quality. Most of the Kayano 24’s softness is concentrated in the upper regions of the midsole, thanks to the combination of the insole, foam lasting, and the softer midsole layer molded out of EVA foam. We could have said the same of the Kayano 23, except that the new Kayano makes for a better comparison in the context of the improved upper fit.
Flytefoam as such is a firm compound, and this particular trait will be noticed by runners who are transitioning directly from the Kayano 22 or earlier.
The Flytefoam material isn’t particularly responsiveness or springy, but it has a bit of resilience which was missing on the earlier, pure foam based Kayanos. The newer editions do feel faster, though. This expands the Kayano’s capability from a mere slow-speed road plodder to a versatile trainer.
You can expect the Kayano to perform many roles. Marathon distances are suitable for the Kayano, and so are those short 5K training runs. The Kayano is no speed demon, but it isn’t mushy like the 22. Transitions are smooth and efficient, unlike the overly soft ride of the Kayano 22.
As expected of medially posted running shoes, there’s a slight tilt towards the outer heel. The combination of the soft foams and the visible Gel makes that side softer than the firmer wedge said.
That said, the skew isn’t acute, so the Kayano 24 can be considered even if you’ve historically preferred neutral shoes.
The Kayano 24 has a well-sorted ride quality, one which isn’t overly soft nor firm. Combining the Flytefoam layer with the softer EVA foam parts makes the ride softer in the upper areas, but firmer near the point of contact. This bodes well for the quality of heel-to-toe transitions. The medial post isn’t intrusive, and the midsole is fairly stable for what it is.
We find plenty of good things to say about the upper. The toe-box is spacious (unlike the last two Kayano models), the midfoot interiors are smooth, and the new heel counter grips very well.
There are a few negatives. The sleeve-less tongue slides to one side during runs, and parts of the blown rubber outsole will undergo a small degree of wear and tear in the initial period.
The outsole wear is more a design issue than a material one. The Guidance Line splitting the outsole leaves all the heavy lifting to the edges of the forefoot rubber slabs, and this causes the rubber to wear off faster.
The last issue is subjective. One of our contributors pointed out that the Asics Kayano 24 looks pretty bare for a $160 shoe. There’s no Asics logo on the medial/inner side (all the past Kayanos had one), and this lack of aesthetic detail isn’t fitting given the premium price.
There is no change in the ride quality as the ‘new’ Kayano 24 only changes the upper and not the sole composite. And speaking of the former, the upper has plenty of updates worth highlighting.
The toe-box gets a new-found quality of fit. There’s a lot more vertical space compared to the Kayano 22 and 23; although, the forefoot (sideways fit) feels a bit narrower due to the revised placement of the internal tape.
In the rear, the significantly larger plastic counter grips the foot better than the 23, regardless of the lower heel collar. The Kayano 24 and 23 are near-evenly matched on weight and price, though it has been mentioned in reader reviews that the 24 feels lighter than the 23.
|Asics Kayano 24||Flytefoam, Dual Gel||Amazon|
|Asics GT-2000 5||EVA foam, Dual Gel||Amazon|
|Asics GT-1000 6||Firm EVA foam, Gel||Amazon|
Asics has many running shoes with firmer medial posts, but three models are better known than the rest. Namely, it’s the Kayano, the GT-2000, and the GT-1000.
The GT-2000 5 is a mild motion control shoe with a slightly lower material spec than the Kayano. The GT-2000 is missing a few bells and whistles available with the Kayano, like the large heel clutching system, or the lack of a visible forefoot Gel element. But these minor details have little impact on the GT-2000’s versatile character.
So if you don’t want to spend $160 on the Kayano and can live without the Flytefoam, then the GT-2000 should be your second choice when it comes to a mild motion-control shoe.
The GT-1000 6 is a budget GT-2000 (if you can call $90 ‘budget,’ that is). Made with noticeably lower quality materials, the GT-1000 delivers just the bare minimum required of a support shoe, and little else.
|Rotation||Model||Shoe type||Check price|
|Same brand||Asics Gel Kayano 24||Cushioned, mild-support||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics DS Trainer 22||Lightweight support||Amazon|
|Same brand||Asics DS Racer 11||Lightweight racer||Amazon|
|Multi brand||Asics Gel Kayano 24||Cushioned, mild-support||Amazon|
|Multi brand||Saucony Guide 10||Cushioned, mild-support||Amazon|
|Multi brand||New Balance 1500V3||Lightweight trainer||Amazon|
You’ll notice that this rotation recommendation chart looks different than the one displayed last year. That’s because two things have happened since; the then-larger toe-box of the GT 2005 no longer remains an incentive as the Kayano 24 opens up the front. The second factor is there’s a new DS Trainer with a Flytefoam midsole.
Under the circumstances, the DS Trainer 22 works as a great second shoe for fast runs and the occasional half marathon. For shorter and even faster races, there’s the DS-Racer 11 with its very grippy Duosole forefoot.
If you’re not going the Asics route, then the Saucony Guide 10 works great as a rotational companion. We’d like to clarify that the Guide 10 and DS Trainer aren’t comparable. Rather, the Guide is a firm cushioned shoe with a touch of responsiveness. This makes it a versatile trainer for runs of all kinds.
Few shoes combine the optimal ground feedback, cushioning, the upper fit, and a barely-there medial post like the New Balance 1500V3 does. It’s a great shoe for 5K and 10K races, fast training, or even races up to a half marathon. If seen from an Asics lens, the 1500 is halfway between the DS Trainer and DS Racer, giving you the best of both worlds.
It must be mentioned that all the recommended shoes have a medial post, but of a non-invasive nature.
|adidas||Ultra Boost ST||Very soft||Amazon|
|Brooks||Transcend 4||Medium soft||Amazon|
|Mizuno||Wave Paradox 3||Medium soft||Amazon|
|New Balance||1260 V6||Medium soft||Amazon|
|Saucony||Hurricane ISO 3||Medium soft||Amazon|
The Asics Kayano 23 is a traditional motion-control shoe – it has a firmer midsole wedge with a multi-component midsole. Purely on a contextual basis, the New Balance 1260 V6 and the Saucony Hurricane ISO 3 are comparable. Both these shoes have a cushioned ride but with a medial post, not to mention the closely matched price(s) too.
Some models offer a different interpretation of the cushioned-support category. The adidas Ultra Boost ST, for example, is a super-plush shoe with just a hint of medial side support. The new Supernova ST is a level below the Ultra in the cushioning department, but doesn’t go overboard with the stability thing.
The narrow fitting Brooks Transcend 4 lacks a foam wedge. Instead, it just happens to be a supportive and cushioned shoe, made possible by a very wide midsole. The Mizuno Paradox 3 is the Japanese brand’s premium support shoe. Lots of foam, lots of plastic Wave plate; you get the idea.
Lastly, the GT 2000 5 is also similar to the Kayano 24, which isn’t surprising considering the shared elements like Gel pads, upper last, a multi-density foam midsole, and a similar looking outsole.
|Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.|
The ASICS GEL-Venture 5 running shoe is a trail running shoe that delivers the best support for many who prefer to perform off-road. The fit is fantastic and the correct support in a durable shoe that was created to help the runner changeover through a number of movements. You will discover profound grooves and a plastic single that helps provide advanced traction force, which is well suited for long-distance running with this light-weight shoe. Athletes and people searching for a high-quality ASICS trail shoes may think about this brand by learning more about the ASICS Venture design, technology, and other features. Appears too good to be true, right?
Gel-Venture is suitable for the natural runner. Folks are reported to be neutral joggers when they reach the floor using their heel and then rotate toward the feet. The arch of the legs will be marginally inward to soak up the impact as they run or walk.
The wear structure on the shoes can look like the notice ‘S’. It really is noted these shoes’ design and their progressive gel support are suitable for runners with natural pronation.
The ASICS Gel Venture are created out of artificial overlaid mesh textile that breathes well which is also water-resistant. The women’s shoes come in natural grey trimmed in neon grey as the men’s shoes are grey with red cut.
These ASICS Venture 5 shoes ribbons up for easy fit and comfort. In addition they feature reinforced feet for security and security while running.
The supported again of the trail running shoe moreover helps people remain safe and comfortable while running. These high-quality running shoes also feature a detachable sock liner. The shoes are machine washable as well.
The soles of the shoes are created out of hard plastic. Because the plastic soles are suitable for sturdiness and durability, they aren’t as versatile as other running shoe models on the marketplace.
Individuals who need the overall flexibility for arch support could find that this style of shoe is not suitable for their running needs. However, the hard feet also are mentioned for their capability to wear well and avoid tearing, breaking, and becoming ruined after a couple weeks of wearing.
They are made to tolerate the weight of bulkier athletes such as sports players or weight lifters looking to get back to competitive form. The feet also assess 1.25 in . for both men and women’s model.
The program on the women’s shoes steps one inch as the platform on the men’s shoe measures .75 inches wide. Both models include the ASICS Rearfoot gel padding system. In addition they both include AHAR abrasion mixture in tactical areas throughout the shoe.
These shoes can be purchased in a shoe for women and men in a number of colors and designs with the same common features. The man made mesh allows the feet to breathe the shoe such that it will not become sweaty. The outsole is tough and designed to take a conquering on tough paths. The within of the shoe has detachable foam soles in order to be changed with doctor advised orthotics. The heel of the shoe is 1.25″ and the program is 0.75″.
Serious runners frequently have a variety of running shoes in their arsenal, and these shoes can be viewed as the workhorses of the great deal. They have a defensive bumper located near to the forward of the shoe to protect your feet from any branches or stones which may be protruding onto the tracks you are running. The closed down mesh upper was created to keep out dirt and grime and normal water in moderate volumes. There’s a pocket located near to the the surface of the tongue where shoelace ends can be saved. Equate to ASICS GT-2000.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR ASICS MEN’S ALONG WITH THE ASIC WOMEN’S SHOE
The Venture 5 are produced from synthetic materials.
These shoes include mesh overlay man-made cloth that is water-resistant.
Both kinds (Men’s and Women’s) strategy 12 by eight by four inches wide. The women’s shoe weighs in at two pounds as the men’s shoe weighs in at three pounds.
They range in nominal ways, especially in their system height as well as the colors and designs where they can be found.
Otherwise, both include the same advancement like the Rearfoot gel system that helps joggers stay comfortable and safe while they run and exercise.
COMFORT WITH THE ASICS GEL VENTURE
Cross-training shoes are made for Crossfit workout routines and fitness center or any activity which handles balance and any activity where you having more connection with the ground is recommended over a dense platform sole.
Trail-running shoes are suitable for off-road routes with muds, root base, stones, and other obstructions. It is increased with competitive tread for sturdy traction. Additionally it is fortified to aid and will be offering underfoot protection.
The Gel-Venture 5 shoe offers a great match a reasonable comfortableness. There’s a Rearfoot GEL padding pad that delivers extra support for the heel. The shoe is suitable for extended hours of wear on unlimited paths and helps the wearer to go through the pros and cons of rougher ground.
One of the better top features of the shoe is that this has incredible hold and grip while providing a clean transition through a number of terrains.
That is a natural shoe. It’s best worn by individuals who have high arches , nor need much support in a shoe. A natural shoe helps someone’s feet to steer themselves in a far more natural way through every step so the runner will get the perfect running gait.
The primary factors a person should think about whenever choosing a shoe is arch level, their body structure and their running practices.
The outsoles of the shoe have reversed lugs which provide that perfect traction force for tackling both uphill and downhill ground.
The padding system really helps to reduce the impact a runner encounters through the impact phase. In addition, it permits a much smoother move to midstance.
The ASICS GT-2000 4 is a trainer that is simply perfect for the faster runner requiring a shoe for shakeouts and the runner hoping something light that is employed to the heavier models out there. It provides superb padding and a easy ride.
WHO’S IT FOR
This shoe is suitable for marathon runners, largely on the newbie to intermediate level. Perfect for the faster runner looking a shoe for shakeouts or someone that can be used to using something heavier hoping something lighter
I first began running in these shoes years back when these were the GT 2170. I had been wearing only the heavy workhorse Kayanos and wanted something lighter but wished to stay faithful to ASICS.
I love to consider myself a faster runner, but I am still over 200 pounds therefore i needed something that wouldn’t be too light and eliminate my legs.
When ASICS made a decision to revamp the shoe and rename it to the GT 2000, I found some and was still a supporter.
I was beginning to get faster and less heavy though, therefore i stepped from this line when i needed something that was lighter and wasn’t as hard on my pumps.
Now, returning to the shoe I had fashioned a concept of what things to expect but didn’t have great first impressions. As the shoe gets much lighter and is obviously lighter than the previous time I ran in it, it still sensed very lunky initially.
My natural stride in them was much too gradual and I possessed to really press myself to access where I needed even for a shakeout rate.
It needed about 30-40 mls prior to the shoe really broke set for me. This is not bad, but it generally does not typically take me this long to obtain a full feel for a shoe.
Tempos and fartleks were doable because of the adaptive singular, but I had been working doubly hard. Not worthwhile with these shoes.
What they do the best for me personally were shakeouts after a difficult day before and long works at a leisurely pace. Among my last goes before writing this is an extended 17 miler and it was the best run I had formed in this shoe.
I was in charge and the padding allowed me to recuperate incredibly fast. The very next day, I did so a shakeout which helped me retrieve even fast.
Asics GT-2000 4 Standard Info
This is actually the 4th incarnation of the GT-2000 series which really is a line that increased from the ashes of the 2170. In ASICS’ solid line of balance shoes, this rests right below the expensive flagship kayanos.
My first impression was admittedly not ideal for plastic reasons. The colorway I analyzed was the blue and magic ones plus they just didn’t pop out if you ask me. It appeared as if a shoe from 5 or 6 years back.
This is simply on my own style tastes, so take that as you will. Luckily, ASICS offers several colors because of this shoe.
When I first laced them up, while very comfortable the shoe experienced very heavy and constricted when it came up time to perform. I cherished the lacing system, nevertheless they didn’t feel flexible by any means to me.
I really needed to force myself to keep my tempo to where I needed. After they were cracked in, my view transformed but this required a great deal of time.
Asics GT-2000 4 Sole Unit
Anything that ASICS has been known for will there be in the only real. You may have your gel on the external heel for absorbing surprise.
The FluidRide midsole, which really is a portion of hard clear plastic that is light and increases the overall ride will there be as well. The direction series provides superb control.
I loved the traction force the most. Within my runs in bad weather i never noticed like i used to be getting rid of control. Even toward the finish of my trials, the treading was still superior.
All the tech in the only real unit mixed provided an adaptive drive based on the type of workout I got doing. My long goes and easy shakeouts experienced me stunning on the heel to midfoot and then moving off on your golf ball of my feet.
My tempo operates, without as fast as I hoped, allowed for me personally to punch on the midfoot to ball of my feet.
Asics GT-2000 4 Upper Info
A number of the models that asics have been forcing out lately experienced questionable materials in them. Two good exemplory case of this will be the DS instructors with seamless materials that dropped apart much too quick and the Kayano who’s mesh much too padded.
The materials on top of the part is a heavy layer of fine mesh over an extremely breathable sock liner. It sensed incredibly strong and I never noticed like it would rip.
Be warned that can make it feel amazingly tight initially and make it feel just like it is too small. Following a few works, this will recede.
The heel comes with an external exoskeleton of hard clear plastic that offered me the sensation of locking in to the heel. ASICS has truly perfected this over your competition which is something I usually anticipate in this brand.
The lacing system was the best area of the shoe. ASICS stimulates impartial lacing which allowed me to connect the shoe just how I wanted without the issues.
I generally have an issue with just how I ribbons up my shoes; where they are really either too small and take off circulation or Personally i think like I’m falling out in clumps of the shoe. This is a good touch.
Important thing, if you are a runner that is employed to being in shoes that are faster this isn’t going to be always a rushing shoe for you. The fit was great, but I did so not need full activity which took from my overall experience.
I used to be running in Saucony Mirages and ASICS tri Noosas getting into this so that it was definitely an enormous change for me personally. This may still have a location in my own rotation for shakeouts and restoration runs though.
If you’re on the bigger side that is running in balance+ shoes like Kayanos or Brooks’ flagship Adreinaline GTS this is an excellent shoe that is lighter but nonetheless gives a lot of support. Definitely a terrific way to transition from the mega heavy shoes out there.
If you’re buying good couple of path running shoes search no further, the ASICS Men’s GEL Venture 5 Running Shoe could just be the perfect fit for you. These running shoes supply the best support for folks who prefer to run on abrasive terrain.
The shoes are compact and durable, Top shoe construction is constructed of overlaid synthetic fine mesh cloth that is drinking water amount of resistance and allows air to feed and reduce perspiration. A rear ft . cushioning pad provides extra support for the heel and a reinforced toe box protects the toes from unseen protrusion while running. The backside support offers basic safety and comfort for the runner and withstands weights of heavy joggers.
These shoes are made for extended hours of running through difficult terrain. In addition they help the wearer put up with different feet activity. This is actually the complete ASICS Men’s GEL Venture 5 running shoe review for many who want to make the best purchasing decision.
Top features of the ASICS Men’s GEL Venture 5 Running Shoe
The ASICS Men’s shoe is ideal for folks with high toes arches who do not require much support in a shoe. Hence, the word natural shoe to indicate footwear that leads your feet in an all natural way to help the wearer find his/her ideal running gait.
The shoes’ best feature is the fact that it offers very good grasp and grip and the capability to provide smooth toes movements through different surfaces. Because of the deep silicone grove soles, joggers get improved grip and they may use these shoes for off-road long distance running. The ASICS men’s Gel enterprise 5 running shoes are for sale to women as well. Irrespective of gender, the shoes come in a variety of colors with the same features which include:
Mesh overlay fabricated fabric upper engineering, made to be mud and water-resistant as well as allows air to feed to lessen sweating
Protective bumper near to the forward of the shoe to safeguard the feet from protruding things in the athletes path
Pocket located nearby the the surface of the shoe’s tongue where you can tuck in your laces
Rugged outsole designed to ingest pounding on harsh terrain
Replaceable foam feet for the within of the shoe which can even be fixed with recommended doctor orthotics
Sole manufactured from hard plastic with a heel that actions 1.25 ins and a platform measuring .75 in . for added strength, durability, support, safety and comfort.
May be the ASICS Men’s GEL Venture 5 Running Shoe Well worth Buying?
The ASICS Gel Venture 5 running shoes are incredibly reasonably priced for top level quality footwear of the caliber. Therefore, you should add those to your running products if you are seriously interested in running.
The outsoles have lugs offering perfect traction force for uphill and downhill running
The padding system of the shoe aids in preventing impact during impact that runners experience and smooth ft movement
The shoe offers coverage to the feet and all of those other ft . from protruding objects.
Available in several color selections and sizes
Stylish design makes the shoes ideal to wear with a everyday outfit
The only real of the shoe is constructed of hard rubber materials which is not versatile enough for folks who require adaptable shoes for arch support on certain routines
The shoes are slippery on even, wet stones and can cause comes and damage if you don’t realize this fact.
The ASICS Gel Venture 5 Running Shoes include impressive design designed to keep you safe and comfortable while running in dry out conditions. They accomplish that by offering impressive grip on all type of rough terrain. It’s important to remember these sneakers were suitable for people who have high natural ft . pronation. The wonder about them is that they are incredibly reasonable costed and made out of durable materials. Overall, they make a great choice for athletes on a budget who need quality sneakers.
The Asics Gel-Contend 3 is a superb entree level cushioned running shoe that focuses the needs of lighter-mileage runners, walkers, and cross-trainers.
The ASICS Gel Contend 3 is a budget-friendly shoe that targets running balance and comfort, rendering it a great choice for an entry-level sportsman. It combines contoured insoles and gel cushioning for cushioning.
The shoe also features targeted padding and breathable mesh for ultimate ft . comfort. They are really slightly heavier than other shoes on the marketplace, but this is because of its durable design and focus on cushioning. They can be offers good and sturdy performance from a reliable brand.
– Good only cushioning in comparison with similarly costed running shoes.
– Well-functioning mesh higher to permit airflow and cooling.
– Contoured insole for support.
– Flex grooves in the outside sole for increased shock absorption.
– Decent price for quality.
– Heavier than equivalent shoes.
– Appropriate issues for non-standard sizes.
– Tightness in the heel and overlays.
SIZE AND FIT
They can be purchased in sizes 7-14 for men and 5-11 for females. This is very standard for the ASICS series as it pertains to size and fit. The Contend 3 come in widths D and B that ought to be known as the fit can be just a bit off for wider or narrower foot. The medium-sized heel and feet pack are again standard for ASICS and of respectable quality. If the ft are between sizes or widths you might experience some feet brushing on the uppers, but often the toe package is an excellent size.
Talk about top of the, a set of shoes are incredibly impressive. The mesh layer provides breathability, permitting hot air break free and cool air type in the shoe chamber. This avoids uncomfortable overheating. Viewers the stitched overlays supply the shoe a snug fit and extra durability.
Removable sockliner provides you more overall flexibility for your running style, while reflective materials on the only real add an factor of safety and comfort for night runners.
The foam feet are of very basic engineering; they complete the job but a devoted runner could find them just a little simplistic. The foam and silicone are standard for a budget shoe, but one noteworthy feature of the ASICS GEL-Contend is the trademarked gel put in at the midsole which was created to become a distress absorber.
For inexpensive running shoes, these have a great deal of technology and research stuffed into those to minimise the strain of running on your joints. The external sole also offers grooves in both heel and forefoot for even more shock lowering and traction.
The insole has been observed by many runners for because of its unique curves, which employs the curves of the underfoot for cushioning and support.
That is a great shoe for beginners and everyday runners. As the addition of the gel inserts is a good feature for comfort and steadiness, they just cannot completely contend with the performance offered by higher degrees of the market.
Things aren’t good thought is somewhat heavier and even more simplistic than its more costly competitors. Due to the price draw, you decide to do sacrifice some high quality features; however, they aren’t a bad footwear at all.
For the budget mindful, they actually offer value. Because of the easy sole design, you will discover they may be better attuned for highway running. The flex grooves, gel inserts and sockliner should provide satisfactory comfort and overall flexibility for the common run.
The look focuses more on function over form. While they don’t be being successful beauty contests anytime soon, there are design features you will be very happy to see. The mesh higher, now synonymous with running fashion, is luxurious and sporty.
There’s been a positive reaction to the wide selection of color schemes open to choose from. Your choice to provide extra padding to the tongue and collar, again, is dependant on comfort somewhat than looks. Nonetheless it appears to have worked out very well, providing the shoe with a good stable aesthetic.
As stated above, if you are a nighttime or morning hours runner, you can also benefit from the addition of light reflective materials for increased road visibility.
As a runner with a neutral gait I ‘m generally fortunate enough not to need to fuss in regards to purchasing running shoes as I don’t need any of the additional cushioning, support or other motion control the top makers put into their shoes (or so I believed), and hence normally only pick a pair of Asics shoes off Amazon every 8 months without so much as a second though. Selecting a brand new pair of running shoes this time around nevertheless was a little craftier than anticipated, due to all the new technology accessible the most recent 2010 variety of Asics neutral running shoes, and the fact that I was diagnosed with shin splints after eight years of competitive running (how on earth does that occur!?)
Differences between the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s and The Asics Gel Nimbus 12’s
Narrowing down the brand was the simple bit when it came to picking a brand new pair of running shoes. Before but hand down the best fitting make of shoes that I’ve ever worn has been the Asics Gel Cumulus line that I ‘ve been wearing for the previous three years I’ve run in Brooks and New Balance. The fact which I desired big numbers of cushioning in my shoe to try and keep the shin splints at bay essentially narrowed it down to two pairs of shoes; The Asics Gel Nimbus 12’s (Guide Cost £105) and the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s (Guide Cost £85).
Seeing as there’s such a large cost difference between both lines I did a little research into both lines to see if I could justify spending the additional £20 and went
Without becoming too much into the technical details I shall sum up the likenesses and differences between both pairs of Asics shoes and tell you why I picked the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s around the Nimbus 12’s that is more costly.
So, Biomorphic technology being the only important difference between two Asics shoes I to see if I found any differences between them and attempted both pairs on the treadmill there, went down to my local running shop. In a nutshell, I found almost no difference between the two determined to go for the cheaper of the two and thus in terms of weight, flexibility or functionality; the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s.
Asics Gel Cumulus 12 Fit and Feel
As there was no friction or rigidity that can occasionally be apparent with new shoes before you wear them in correctly the fit of the Asics Gel Cumulus 12 shoes was fantastic right from the carton. Even so I don’t have any doubt once the memory foam in the heel has had an opportunity to do its job and that they’ll loosen up over the the next couple of weeks i don’t have any doubt the Asics Cumulus 12’s will feel as comfortable as my old pair of battered 2008 Asics!
I feel like I ‘m running quicker in the new pair in comparison with the old pair, as is always true for new shoes. Generally this is only a figment of my imagination and can result from springiness and the rigidity of the new shoes making me feel like a routine Usain Bolt. Yet this time, I truly believe the guidance systems that Asics have installed into the Gel Cumulus 12’s make for a shoe that is more rapid. I don’t have any idea why but they undoubtedly believe that they go quicker from heel to toe than my old Asics taking into account the fact they are not old. Good by me!
As far as my shin splints go, the gel cushioning system in the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s has performed flawlessly as I’m now up to running 40miles weekly on routes and roads with no indications of pain or tightness. Amazing!
Asics Gel Cumulus 12 Cost
In summation I ‘m quite happy as the additional gel cushioning in the heel and forefoot was something that set them above other brands and versions of shoe in exactly the same budget the Asics Gel Cumulus 12’s. Their guide cost of £85 places them in line with middle functionality running shoes from other brands, but all the new technologies that Asics have invested along with the additional gel cushioning makes them in my opinion an excellent value for money top end shoe totally satisfied for long distance runner with a neutral gait.
Cumulus 12 Sole Component:
Let’s begin by looking at the shoe from the underside. The outsole is certainly divide in two parts: the forefoot and the heel. The heel is decoupled: it is made up of four individual “pods” in order to absorb the shock right where your heel lands on the earth and increasingly distribute it across the full place. To join and separate heel and forefoot we discover Asics’ logo Trusstic System. This plastic shank, which never touches the earth and the underside of the shoe, add torsional rigidy together, preventing forefoot and the heel to writhe innaturally. A standard option in solidity shoes, where the additional rigidity leads to the total command that the shoe offers to the running pace, it’s a welcome inclusion in a cushioning shoe. This shoe is suggested by Asics to moderate over-pronators.
Leaning the shoe on the side, we can take a look at the midsole. Within the white foam coloured inserts can be definitely seen by you. They’re the Asics Gel pods, the main cushioning technology on the Cumulus (and most Asics running shoes). In the Cumulus 12, the cushioning was enhanced by redesigning the midsole around that region by adding Gel to the heel. On the forefoot, additionally more cushioning was added and it’s distinct in the mens variation in comparison to the girls version.
The result is a soft, luxurious ride on a wide foundation that may help correct some of the running shoes’ pace errors.
Asics Cumulus 12 Upper:
The upper of the Cumulus finds two principal developments as compared to last years variants: the overlays around the toebox have been redesigned with the intention to provide the toes with more comfort while still hugging them snugly. The chief area of development though has been the heel: a new heel collar, united by means of memory foam (foam that takes the contour of your foot and recalls it).
Cumulus 12 View:
The Cumulus 12 competes in the very busy region of 100$ price point. From Mizuno to Brooks and Nike, you can locate excellent cushioning shoes at this cost. What should drive you towards the Cumulus? We consider the Cumulus is a great shoe for beginner runners. It’s a soft cushioning that may please many and at the exact same time has some firmness components (the special Space Trusstic shank, for example) that will help correct the light-overpronation that could happen when the miles accumulate.