Been running with the Conquests now for a while.... NEG- hate the little loop in back-too small to grip/get a finger in. Also the stiffness/height of heal makes it a needed feature. I need a shoe horn to get foot in w/o flipping the top in and having to dig out with a finger sweep etc. NEG- Lases. Ive tried...really to get use to using the slide clip and just doesn't work well. The narrow wire like lases get over tight in spots and loose in others. Would also apreciate a padded tounge.
It took some time to get use to the heavy-pillow like ride but enjoy them on hills in particular. Not ideal for any speed above 8:00 as they seem to inhibit toe off.
I got a pair of "light/support" NB runners as a possible race shoe (I'm not going to futz for 3 minutes putting on shoes and then have to adjust laces during run with the hookas) And I Like having lighter shoe with some motion control still. I’ve noticed that after running in Hookas I tend to heal strike more in my other shoes now as well.
Still "Like them" and will still use for most my general running and definitely for any 'recovery miles'. Oh I think they run a bit narrow for me as my pinkie toe is a bit squished.
Just ordered a pair of Stinson Lites from John's glowing review...plus they match my kit. I have a pair of mens Bondi B that I've been running in a bit lately, and hoping the lighter model works better for me. I still am a horrible heal striker and after only 120 miles I've worn away the edges. A problem in ALL my shoes. I will rotate them with my Brooks pure flows that I've run in for the past couple years. I am going to be watching how the legs feel after the long runs in the new kicks to see if fatigue is a lithe less during the last build to IMMT! Fingers crossed I love um just as much as Mr. Withrow! (who I'm looking forward to meeting in IMMT!)
Note: these definitely run a half-size big. I have now had 2 runs in the hokas (3 mi and 7.75 mi). After the stinsons didn't really work, I went to the bondi 3's (neon yellow) and like them. Hard to say about pacing; it's hot and my goals for these long runs are to just RPE it for the most part; easy for most of it, slightly harder for part, and then push for 10 minutes. In any event, they fit. Makes me realize how shot to s--t the old saucony rides were.
Some soleus soreness/tenderness, but old shoes were 8mm drop; these are 4. There will likely be an adjustment period, but it should not be too bad.
Hey Trish, How do you like the Stinson Lite's? Looking forward to meeting you as well at IMMT!
Sooo...... Since I'm like a big Hoka nerd now (among all of the other nerd titles I already hold)... Hoka just came out with a new "Ultra-lite" running shoe. It appears to be their answer to a "Racing Flat" is the Clifton. The stated weight for a "normal size" Clifton is 7.9oz vs the Stinson (11.9) the Stinson Lite (11.0) Conquest (11.8) and bondi3 (10.8). I just couldn't help myself so I pre-ordered a pair which supposedly ship on July 9th. I'm just curious to see how "soft" they are and if they are soft enough for me now that I've gotten used to the Stinsons. I'll certainly report back with my thoughts when I try them. As of right now, I still rotate through all of my running pairs, but still like the Stinson Lites best.
I preordered the Cliftons about a month ago. I plan to run in them several times with the thought of using them at IMC a couple of weeks later. If they feel at all like the Bondi the acclimation period should be very short.
John, I had to return them as even the 10.5 women's were too big! I am a 10 in street shoes, so I normally wear dude shoes since 11's are to small on long runs and 11.5 aren't stocked at any running shoe store here in MI. I ordered a pair of 10's. I also saw that the bondi 3 comes in an even better kit match green in mens. If I don't love the stinson kites I'll likely get those.
I find myself reaching for the Bondi B's more than my Brooks pure flows nowadays. I'm a tall girl with big feet and the hoka's look so tall and huge, but I think my legs are better for wearing them.
I hope the new kicks arrive before I depart for IMMT training camp!
Keith, for me they seem to run true to size. I always get size 13 in all of my shoes and the 13 in the Hokas seem just right. I know other people who actually buy a half a size bigger in their run shoes (Hokas included).
@John - as the resident Hoka expert do you know if any of the models have a wide toe box? I loved my Hokas and would like to return to them but they were just too narrow for my Fred Flinstone feet!
Keith, for me they seem to run true to size. I always get size 13 in all of my shoes and the 13 in the Hokas seem just right. I know other people who actually buy a half a size bigger in their run shoes (Hokas included).
@John - as the resident Hoka expert do you know if any of the models have a wide toe box? I loved my Hokas and would like to return to them but they were just too narrow for my Fred Flinstone feet!
I have very wide feet as well. I just 1/2 size up the Hokas and all is good.
I have been have some foot problems and I just ordered a pair of Altra's because they are known for the wide toe box.
Altras do have a wide toe box, which is why I loved them when I had them. Be VERY careful though, that zero/0 drop caused Achilles issues for me, even with previously ran with a 4-5mm drop. Zero/0 is a pretty significant change from the norm that most people run with. Do not throw heavy volume or intensity at them right away, work your way into them. Just my $.02.
THIS JUST IN... John Withrow has changed his middle name to Hoka. And while it may be confusing at first, the kids names have been changed to One1 and One 2. Poor Jess... :-)
@John - as the resident Hoka expert do you know if any of the models have a wide toe box? I loved my Hokas and would like to return to them but they were just too narrow for my Fred Flinstone feet!
@David-- I have found that my Mafate3 trail shoes have the biggest toe box, but they are tanks of shoes that I can't even run in . The Conquest are definitely have the smallest toe box. For me the Bondi Speed S2 seems the widest (but I'm not sure they even make this shoe anymore). I don't think the Stinson's are "narrow" or "wide" but just kind of normal. I've never actually tried the Bondi but have heard that they seem to have a wider toe box when compared to a "normal" shoe.
All this recent talk about the HOKA again reminded me that I never gave a review of the pair I tried..... I ended up buying the Rapa Nui ... I found it to fit large.... Ran short easy runs for several weeks alternating with my Newtons for speed work and longruns ....I tried to give myself time to adapt to them... Never liked the way they felt... Slowly developed a couple of little niggling issues in my left knee.... Stopped using them and went back to Newtons and issues were resolved.... I do alternate shoes , couple different Newtons, Zoot, and Kinvera's with no issues ... The HOKA I tried did not agree with me.
But for this year i am now using Rapa Nuis for my long long runs. I am a lot less beat up after these runs and the recovery is quicker. So they are working for me. I got rid of the shoelace gizmo as it cuts off blood/ nerves to top of foot. The Rapa Nuis are the " hardest" of the Hokas? This is the only model i have used. If i were to get another pair i might get a softer model.
Purchased some Bondi 2s to give Hoka a try a while back and have been running in them alternating between my other shoes. Sizing seems fine but for whatever reason my right index toe gets totally beat in them every time I run long or short distances. I've had foot surgery on both feet in the past so my index toe does extend past my big toe but it really gets banged up in the hokas on the right foot. Unless I tape it which I forget like tonight a couple of miles into the run I start to feel the pain of the toe. After the run the toe is sensitive for days. Kind of disappointing because they are nice and cushy so I was hoping to have a comfortable long run shoe but I don't think I'll be continuing with them. If I run in newtons I get no issues whatsoever and the weird part is in the hokas it's just the right toe so I don't thing the shoes are too small.
As one of the EN Hoka Nerds... I present to you my review of the new ultra-lite Hoka Clifton:
I did my first run in my new Clifton's on Saturday. It was a ~7 mi RR run after my 114 mile bike. I LOVE LOVE LOVE these shoes. They are super duper light (even in my mongo size 13). It kind of feels like you are putting your foot down into a velvet slipper that happens to have a Hoka foot bed on the bottom. The foot bed was great, to me they felt just a tad softer than the Conquests. But unlike all of Hoka's other models, it feels like you just happen to be standing on the footbed. Contrast this to their other shoes where it almost feels like your foot is surrounded by the food bet (if that makes any sense). So even though the Clifton's are in the ultra-cushion category like all other Hoka's, it seems like they only put the cushy sole where it is absolutely necessary. They would certainly work for people with wider feet as well as the top is completely soft and flexible. I didn't feel like it was rubbing anywhere because frankly it almost felt like it was just a big sock on my foot. Did I mention they are light. I almost wanted to buy an extra pair to just keep at home and wear as my inside slippers... I will DEFINITELY be racing IMMT in these in 3.5 weeks, but I might only run in them one or 2 more times before then.
Now for the Con, I only found one so far but it might be a big one for some people (not for me). Because these shoes are so light, I cannot imagine that they are durable. I was afraid if I happened to scuff my feet together that they might just rip right off. I was paying for a lightweight, fast racing shoe and got it. But to achieve that with the cushy sole, Hoka had to make all other material super thin and light. I have heard that other brands of "light" racing flats feel a lot different than their training brethren, something you just sucked it up and wore because they were light and fast, even thought they were uncomfortable and you might take a risk with any long distance races (this is second hand knowledge because I have never actually worn racing flats). This is NOT the approach Hoka took with their racing flat. These Cliftons are every bit as comfortable as any of their other shoes (if not more comfortable). But I just can't imagine they will last more than 100 miles or so. Maybe they will prove me wrong, but time will tell. I would personally NEVER wear these on a trail. I might even be afraid to wear them on a gravel road... So expected durability is the only Con.
Summary-- At right around ~$100 (after discounts) this is a great shoe to have to wear for a few short runs and then your races. And once I swap out the ugly green laces, they will almost match my kit...
I got my Cliftons yesterday and did a 3 mile run in them to make sure there are no wacky hot spots because I do plan on wearing them Sunday at IMC. Yes, I'm going to wear a brand new pair of shoes on race day. They felt like a hybrid of the Bondi B3 and Conquest which I have tons of miles in so I know I will be okay.
They're noticeably lighter than either the B3 or Conquest. I think 3.5 to 4 ounces per shoe depending on size (I wear a 12). So a good 30% lighter.
Very similar cushy feel to the B3. Not quite as cushy but cushier than the Conquest.
Fits more like the Conquest than the B3. It's definitely a narrower shoe than the B3.
I agree with JW's comments about the footbed.
Definitely going to be more fragile than Hokas other shoes but I don't think near as bad as JW thinks. About 1/3 of my run was on a gravel trail.
David-- I have no idea. I guess I wear a "normal" width. I think that is a D, but not really sure. I just meant that the upper is so thin and flexible and the foot bed doesn't wrap up around the outsides of your foot so they will likely not feel as narrow if you have Fred Fintsone feet... But agree with Bob that the "cut" is more streamlined like the Conquest, only less material everywhere.
Mine are on pre-order. Hoping to get them in next week for a few trial runs before IMMT. JW and Bob, where did you order (get) yours from? Every place I've looked on line has them on pre-order status .
I also bought them from Hoka's site because I wanted them in time for IMC and IMMT.
I have a second pair on the way from TheTriShop.com that I will probably return. They weren't sure when they were going to ship so I had to hedge my bets. Of course, they shipped yesterday.
Any previous Newton users transition to Hokas and if so what is your experience? Looks like they are about the same weight. I've been drinking the Newton Koolaid for some time now, but Hoka Withrow has me thinking about a trial.
Posted By <a href='http://members.endurancenation.us/ActivityFeed/tabid/61/userid/966/Default.aspx' class='af-profile-link'>John Withrow</a> on 22 Jul 2014 01:57 PM David-- I have no idea. I guess I wear a "normal" width. I think that is a D, but not really sure. I just meant that the upper is so thin and flexible and the foot bed doesn't wrap up around the outsides of your foot so they will likely not feel as narrow if you have Fred Fintsone feet... But agree with Bob that the "cut" is more streamlined like the Conquest, only less material everywhere.
@John - i have a wider foot as well. I don't think it's excessively wide - i probably wear an E width. I have had really good luck with the original Stinson Tarmacs I tried on the new Cliftons last week. They felt really good but the salesperson had concerns that with the more narrow cut, my full foot is not fully supported by the sole. The same thing with the Stinson Lites. He suggested I stick with the Bondi 3s.
Based on this string, I'm thinking I may be OK. What are your thoughts?
I certainly like Hoka's and I LOVE the Clifton's (especially for racing), but I am certainly no expert on everyone's foot. If it were me, I'd sign up for V.I.P. on www.roadrunnersports.com. You'll get 10% off every purchase. And 20% off just about once a month when they do a VIP flash sale. If you buy the Clifton's through them, you can try them for a few weeks and if they work then great. If they don't seem to work for your feet then you can simply send them back and stick with the Stinson's or the Bondi's. I'm sure there are other places that will let you run in shoes for several weeks and still send them back, but I have personally had get at luck with roadrunner.
Comments
NEG- hate the little loop in back-too small to grip/get a finger in. Also the stiffness/height of heal makes it a needed feature. I need a shoe horn to get foot in w/o flipping the top in and having to dig out with a finger sweep etc.
NEG- Lases. Ive tried...really to get use to using the slide clip and just doesn't work well. The narrow wire like lases get over tight in spots and loose in others. Would also apreciate a padded tounge.
It took some time to get use to the heavy-pillow like ride but enjoy them on hills in particular. Not ideal for any speed above 8:00 as they seem to inhibit toe off.
I got a pair of "light/support" NB runners as a possible race shoe (I'm not going to futz for 3 minutes putting on shoes and then have to adjust laces during run with the hookas) And I Like having lighter shoe with some motion control still. I’ve noticed that after running in Hookas I tend to heal strike more in my other shoes now as well.
Still "Like them" and will still use for most my general running and definitely for any 'recovery miles'.
Oh I think they run a bit narrow for me as my pinkie toe is a bit squished.
Some soleus soreness/tenderness, but old shoes were 8mm drop; these are 4. There will likely be an adjustment period, but it should not be too bad.
Sooo...... Since I'm like a big Hoka nerd now (among all of the other nerd titles I already hold)... Hoka just came out with a new "Ultra-lite" running shoe. It appears to be their answer to a "Racing Flat" is the Clifton. The stated weight for a "normal size" Clifton is 7.9oz vs the Stinson (11.9) the Stinson Lite (11.0) Conquest (11.8) and bondi3 (10.8). I just couldn't help myself so I pre-ordered a pair which supposedly ship on July 9th. I'm just curious to see how "soft" they are and if they are soft enough for me now that I've gotten used to the Stinsons. I'll certainly report back with my thoughts when I try them. As of right now, I still rotate through all of my running pairs, but still like the Stinson Lites best.
I find myself reaching for the Bondi B's more than my Brooks pure flows nowadays. I'm a tall girl with big feet and the hoka's look so tall and huge, but I think my legs are better for wearing them.
I hope the new kicks arrive before I depart for IMMT training camp!
The B3 runs bigger than the Conquest.
I have very wide feet as well. I just 1/2 size up the Hokas and all is good.
Poor Jess... :-)
@Woody-- You crack me up!!! One1 and One2... Ha!
@David-- I have found that my Mafate3 trail shoes have the biggest toe box, but they are tanks of shoes that I can't even run in . The Conquest are definitely have the smallest toe box. For me the Bondi Speed S2 seems the widest (but I'm not sure they even make this shoe anymore). I don't think the Stinson's are "narrow" or "wide" but just kind of normal. I've never actually tried the Bondi but have heard that they seem to have a wider toe box when compared to a "normal" shoe.
But for this year i am now using Rapa Nuis for my long long runs. I am a lot less beat up after these runs and the recovery is quicker. So they are working for me. I got rid of the shoelace gizmo as it cuts off blood/ nerves to top of foot. The Rapa Nuis are the " hardest" of the Hokas? This is the only model i have used. If i were to get another pair i might get a softer model.
I did my first run in my new Clifton's on Saturday. It was a ~7 mi RR run after my 114 mile bike. I LOVE LOVE LOVE these shoes. They are super duper light (even in my mongo size 13). It kind of feels like you are putting your foot down into a velvet slipper that happens to have a Hoka foot bed on the bottom. The foot bed was great, to me they felt just a tad softer than the Conquests. But unlike all of Hoka's other models, it feels like you just happen to be standing on the footbed. Contrast this to their other shoes where it almost feels like your foot is surrounded by the food bet (if that makes any sense). So even though the Clifton's are in the ultra-cushion category like all other Hoka's, it seems like they only put the cushy sole where it is absolutely necessary. They would certainly work for people with wider feet as well as the top is completely soft and flexible. I didn't feel like it was rubbing anywhere because frankly it almost felt like it was just a big sock on my foot. Did I mention they are light. I almost wanted to buy an extra pair to just keep at home and wear as my inside slippers... I will DEFINITELY be racing IMMT in these in 3.5 weeks, but I might only run in them one or 2 more times before then.
Now for the Con, I only found one so far but it might be a big one for some people (not for me). Because these shoes are so light, I cannot imagine that they are durable. I was afraid if I happened to scuff my feet together that they might just rip right off. I was paying for a lightweight, fast racing shoe and got it. But to achieve that with the cushy sole, Hoka had to make all other material super thin and light. I have heard that other brands of "light" racing flats feel a lot different than their training brethren, something you just sucked it up and wore because they were light and fast, even thought they were uncomfortable and you might take a risk with any long distance races (this is second hand knowledge because I have never actually worn racing flats). This is NOT the approach Hoka took with their racing flat. These Cliftons are every bit as comfortable as any of their other shoes (if not more comfortable). But I just can't imagine they will last more than 100 miles or so. Maybe they will prove me wrong, but time will tell. I would personally NEVER wear these on a trail. I might even be afraid to wear them on a gravel road... So expected durability is the only Con.
Summary-- At right around ~$100 (after discounts) this is a great shoe to have to wear for a few short runs and then your races. And once I swap out the ugly green laces, they will almost match my kit...
What width do you normally wear? 2E? 4E?
They're noticeably lighter than either the B3 or Conquest. I think 3.5 to 4 ounces per shoe depending on size (I wear a 12). So a good 30% lighter.
Very similar cushy feel to the B3. Not quite as cushy but cushier than the Conquest.
Fits more like the Conquest than the B3. It's definitely a narrower shoe than the B3.
I agree with JW's comments about the footbed.
Definitely going to be more fragile than Hokas other shoes but I don't think near as bad as JW thinks. About 1/3 of my run was on a gravel trail.
Here are the women's ones there: http://www.hokaoneone.com/womens-road/clifton/20609031.html?dwvar_20609031_color=CWY#start=7&cgid=womens-road
You can get them 10% off as VIP (or 20% if you can wait for a VIP coupon) and I "think" they are in stock: http://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/products/HKA125/womens-hoka-one-one-clifton/
I think there are other diwcounts other places as well...
I have a second pair on the way from TheTriShop.com that I will probably return. They weren't sure when they were going to ship so I had to hedge my bets. Of course, they shipped yesterday.
Any previous Newton users transition to Hokas and if so what is your experience? Looks like they are about the same weight. I've been drinking the Newton Koolaid for some time now, but Hoka Withrow has me thinking about a trial.
@John - i have a wider foot as well. I don't think it's excessively wide - i probably wear an E width. I have had really good luck with the original Stinson Tarmacs I tried on the new Cliftons last week. They felt really good but the salesperson had concerns that with the more narrow cut, my full foot is not fully supported by the sole. The same thing with the Stinson Lites. He suggested I stick with the Bondi 3s.
Based on this string, I'm thinking I may be OK. What are your thoughts?