Ultraspire: OMEGA race pack review

ULTRASPIRE: OMEGA RACE VEST STATISTICS PACK- Ultraspire OMEGA Weight- 350g (self measure: manufacture says 337g) Fit/comfort- 8/10 Accessibility- 10/10 Durability- 8/10 Storage- 9/10 Miles Run- 181miles Longest Run- 34.5miles (5:53 hours) Initial impressions: I knew the Omega was Ultraspire’s ‘version’ of Salomon 12L S-LAB pack (I test this in July ’12 and own one in September ’12) and I knew it was Krissy Moehl’s UTMB race pack so my expectation (and excitement) was high. I actually tried to buy one of these about 5 months ago but it seems that if your outside the US than you were out of luck. That's until ULTRAmarathonrunning come up trumps with there new online store which distributes worldwide. Straight out the packaging I was immediately impressed by the lightness and softness of the materials. For Packs that carry 15L of gear it will definitely not be beaten on weight and construction. It also looks so compact that I seriously doubted I would ever fit all my kit required for UTMB. I also had to work my way through the plethora of pockets and gizmo’s stored around the pack and like most Ultra Distance runners it felt like Christmas every time I saw something new. I have tried so many race packs that I never truly believe I will find something brand new in a pack but I was proved wrong by Ultraspire here, goes to show that if all your Research and Development is in racing hydration then you’re going to have one heck of a product. Construction and storage: The pack is essentially designed with 3 large storage units and loads of little satellites of storage orbiting the bag. The first large storage pocket is for the internal bladder and, as expected, is at the back and it comes with a 2litle Hydrapak (this is the same brand that Salomon have just switched to for 2012 and now use with the S-Lab Vest). These bladders are always effective and simple to use- fold the flap down to conceal then slide the top unit over the bladder to secure. The bladder also has a thin blue divider that runs down the middle and this is not just for aesthetics it actually stops water from pooling and prevents the irritating water bulge on your lower back when the bladder is half full, if you have run with Camalbak products you will know what I mean here. The main pocket initial looks very small but once you open it out and start stuffing it you can fit quite a lot in. The flexible materials of the bag means you can just keep stuffing it and once full, to my delight, I found it did not bulge in any uncomfortable places during running. The third big pocket is a big flexible mesh at the front which I managed to squeeze in all my nutrition products, camera, headtorch, hat and gloves. The top of the pocket has a plastic rim which helps maintain structure and by keeping it away from the main compartment it means that storage capacity isn’t affected by stuffing the pack full. Both side of this large mesh pocket are two smaller mesh pockets which are both deep and flexible for maximum storage (maximising storage and having no space waste is a common theme here and a well thought out process by Ultraspire). Once the race vest is on you then start to notice the useful gizmo’s on the shoulder straps that run down the front of the body. You guessed it- more pockets and a lovely addition of a magnetised pouch for something small to be stored. The only thing that is not immediately obvious and I found to be a small issue is which strap to feed the bladder nozzle down. You can strap it through the magnetised pocket but this neutralises the use of the pocket and the other side just doesn’t have anything to truly secure it- I will have to make an adjustment here. Possibly by buying a small Velcro strap and attach to the bag to keep the nozzle down without costing me storage space. I must add that I have made adjustments to every pack I have ever owned- with the Omega I only needed two, RESULT! Fit: The second adjustment I made was to slightly cut (I always need the Swiss army knife!) the long fastening straps so they did not flap around so much when running. This is a common problem for me being a 6foot 3inch skinny man. My back length means I need a large pack to sit right but then as it’s a large pack it presumes everything else is large- I had to full the fasteners to maximum tension to get the optimum ride. Other than this minor flaw the Omega is the most comfortable bag I have ever used by an extremely long margin. It feels like an extension of your tension and I am genuinely shocked at how comfortable it is. No back bulging and nothing moves within the pack when you run, everything seems secure. I also cannot work out how a full Omega pack seems vastly lighter than my OMM and Inov8 when they have exactly the same gear and water amount in? Engineering brilliance. Usability: Accessibility during a run is a huge deal for any ultra runner. I believe refilling the bladder could certainly be made easier as the shoulder straps can get in the way a bit but I have no complaints anywhere else. The two side pockets to the main compartment are easy to get into on the move and considering my shoulders lack a decent range of motion I still managed to get my arm into the big front pocket whilst on the move, this was massively helped by the plastic ridged rim on the pocket which helps to ease the pocket open when you need to. The main compartment does not open out massively so if you are the type of runner that packs a bag without a thought process as to where and when you will need things then you may struggle rooting around. With so much care and attention that goes into the bag it is always going to be case of finding how best to use the space for yourself but be rest assured you will have the space. Verdict: Best pack I own and will be used at UTLD 100 and CCC this year, no question. Plenty of storage with an amazing fit. Yes I have one or two things I would change, fasteners are ridiculously long and the where to put the bladder nozzle conundrum needs addressing. This pack was trialled and testing courtesy of Keith at the Ultramarathonrunning store who are the first in the UK to stock the ULTRASPIRE range. The SPRY pack is the baby brother/sister of the OMEGA so if you don’t need the UTMB type storage space then it’s a great option. You also have the KINETIC which brings back old school bottle hydration in a pack (review of this from me to come). Check out the web store for the rest of the range too, it’s certainly money well invested and to be frank you will not know how you ever coped without this pack after just one run! All images are with a loaded pack.

w

Scott: T2 Comp

STATISTICS

Shoe- Scott T2 Comp
Weight- 261g
Heel Height- 27mm (self measure)
Toe Height- 17mm (self measure
Stability- 7/10
Cushioning- 8/10
Durability- 9/10
Comfort- 9/10
Miles Run- 188miles
Longest Run- 45.7miles
Terrains- Hard-Pack Trail, Soft Mud, Canal Path, bridleway, chalk, clay, Road

Style and Type:
Yes Scott do running shoes and this is their flagship trainer racer
The Scott T2 is advised as a shoe that is cushioned enough for training and light enough for racing which I totally agree with! It has a low profile and lightweight features so I found it easily doubles as a long distance road race shoe (half marathon and up for serious runners). It has also been built with Stability in mind so recreational runners can use it for training and racing in all distances.

Fit and Feel:

The first of several real deal sealers for Scott is the fit of the T2. The width hugs my foot in the right spots with enough flexibility to allow natural foot movement and toe splay. Scott uses their Ergologic Ride to help the transitional feel from hell strike to toe off. The fit has a hard to achieve combination of flexibility and strong foot hold. The supple overlays allow the foot to be fastened but flexible (important for fitting different foot shapes) and the foot liners wrap the foot seamlessly to ensure good foot stability and increased forefoot flex. Only thing I would change in respect to fit is the depth of the toe-box, my big toe has a little top down pressure which was completely alleviated by removing the footbed. The shoe fits half a size small compared to most brands to so this could just be a result of that.

Outsole:

A carbon grip is used in all the high wear areas of the outsole and Scott have ensured that the durability of the outsole and materials used are the same at the lateral front of the shoe as they are at the heel of the shoe. This is something I talk about regularly in reviews as it seems to be a common area of fault from a lot of other lightweight shoes. By using the same materials the shoe becomes ideal for forefoot strikers as well as rearfoot and midfoot strikers.


Midsole:

Scott has used a rockered platform which is slightly different to the Hoka and Tecnica platforms. Simply put a bar is placed across the midsole of the foot right at the beginning of the medial arch. Now this placement is crucial as it is at this point the foot begins to rotate and twist which pronates the foot (not necessarily overpronates, two different things). At this point the midsole raises up ‘hump’ like and protects the foot right under the navicular (the navicular bone drop has had a lot of interest lately from BROOKS and they have put navicular pods on both the Adrenaline models and Ravenna from Brooks). This support stops the foot from excessively rotating and increases propulsion as you transition off this ‘hump’. I love this feature as it allows for support and stability of the foot and gait without having to include heavy and dense EVA midsoles to the mid/rearfoot. The hump runs straight across to the other side of the foot which is perhaps my only issue with it. To increase the stability further if this hump was slightly graded off (higher medially and lower laterally) then it creates a varus wedge type effect with repositioning the foot. For example Brooks with the Defyance and Asics with the Nimbus create this varus wedge by making the medial side of the rearfoot EVA thicker than the lateral side. This does help prevent overpronation even in Neutral/cushioned shoes but it does mean the foot sits unnaturally high on one side. Another option for the hump/rocker is to put it diagonally across the shoe. This would stop the lateral hump sitting on and aggravating the cuboid bone in some people (not a problem for me) and then act as a guidance system to increase population. (See Tecnica Diablo Max shoe review for more on rockers)
Another great feature is the carbon shank used in the midfoot. I have also loved this feature in other shoes and feel it does a great job of returning energy into the foot whilst keeping it stable. Asics new 33 line have just elaborated on this idea to be shaped like the Plantar Fascia which I see as nothing more than marketing. The placement and stiffness of this by Scott is already spot on. It’s not too hard that you feel it but it is defiantly a contributing factor to why my foot feels so damn comfortable and efficient in the T2

Upper:

The upper has a great wrap around the foot and is extremely lightweight for a traditional shoe. Drainage is very good which helps keep the shoe breathable. Lacing is very secure although I had to change the thinner lace for a thicker one (Scott are changing this in newer models) and supremely comfortable. The tongue is exactly how I would design it for any shoe, no excessive use of foam where not needed. The tongue only has some soft foam across the top of the midfoot where you tie the laces off. This stops the laces digging into the foot and helps the rest of the tongue just be light, flexible and comfortable.


Grip:

The carbon rubber grip is very sticky on roads which is handy considering it’s a road shoe! Not had a single issue on roads/pavements in the rain either which is a real bonus. The mild winter means I have not tested this in harder conditions but the Grip is the same type that is used in the Adidas Adios which I have a lot of experience with and never an issue. So far this grip has been extremely durable too. Almost 200miles in and no signs of excessive breakdown.

Conclusion:

Light, protected, innovative and durable makes this shoe a MUST try for everyone. It really is game changer to be as light as a racing flat without having to needlessly drop the heel down to a smaller height. I think this is the shoe a lot of people who can’t handle 0mm-8mm drop shoes but like the lightweight feel have been waiting for. This will definitely stay in my shoe rotation and I genuinely look forward to running in it when I put it on. If I’m changing anything then I am looking at improving the rocker/hump to better accommodate every runner but I imagine this is not easily done. I would also have that toebox with a couple mm’s more depth to allow the natural plantar flexion of the 1st met heads. You won’t be disappointed in this shoe if you need a new road runner.

Please email at ra_felton@yahoo.co.uk for more questions or feedback or leave a comment.

QUICK SHOE REVIEWS: TECNICA DIABLO MAX

STATISTICS

Shoe- Tecnica Diablo Max
Weight- 360g
Heel Height- 37.2mm (self measure)
Toe Height- 15.8mm (self measure
Stability- 6/10
Cushioning- 10/10
Durability- 10/10
Comfort- 7/10
Miles Run- 231
Longest Run- 44.3miles
Terrains- Hard-Pack Trail, Soft Mud, Canal Path, bridleway, forestry, clay

Style and Type:
An anti-minimalist shoe in the mould of the Hoka series, they even have the same designer! True benefits of this shoe are firstly for extreme hill running with big ascents/descents by incorporating the rockered platform (described later). Other major benefits are for better performance over technical surfaces and for pure shock absorption indulgence! It is clear this shoe is for the long distance grinder as opposed to fleet footed track star.

Fit and Feel:
Fits true to size. The wrap around the upper foot and lacing system is an absolute delight. I work with running shoes in all shapes and forms and the upper must be the best fitted I have ever tried (Merrell Trailglove a super close second). The feel out of the box takes some getting used to as it is a huge platform designed for increased surface area on very technical trails. The depth of the shoe is a fraction shallow for my high-arch but definitely a better and more natural fit than the Hoka. Only real fit negative is the toebox. It is wide enough but is very stiff, does not allow the greatest flexion. I also noticed at plus 20mile runs that the stitching on the lateral edge of the toebox is way too aggressive and disappointingly poor. I managed to salvage these longer runs and prevent my 4th and 5th toe from damage by removing the ortholite footbed. This dropped my foot into the shoe just enough to stop my toes scratching on the stitching.

Outsole:
The EVA material is packed and 30% bigger than your normal road shoe. For a lot of runners this may seem like a feature design for the heavier runner however the long term comfort when spending hours at a time in this shoe is the real benefit.
Another real positive is the multidirectional lugs on the bottom. I’ve always preferred the multidirectional route because it seems to provide the greatest traction on a wide variety of surfaces.

Midsole:
So let’s discuss this rockered feature that runs through the shoe. First experienced in the Hoka, this design is intended to increase propulsion and actually rocker you up hill whilst helping spring you forward downhill. In theory, its genius....but it will not be genius for everybody. The rocker almost sends you speeding down a ramp through the midfoot and then send you over a hump (speed bump esque) as you approach the forefoot before finally dropping down and levelling out as you hit toe off. If you heel strike on flat surfaces you physically feel like your whole gait cycle is faster yet still stable- good job. My concern starts with the midfoot striker. I’ve had the benefit of using Profeet’s dynamic RS footcan to confirm my own personal running tests and it seems as though a midfoot striker will land halfway up the speed bump, your hamstrings then have to over engage to prevent the extreme braking force and to propel you forward harder to get over the bump. Forefoot striking is actually great again because you land just after the apex of this bump so you get a nice rocking motion as you capture your weight and then propel yourself forward again.
Ultimately, I believe this is a shoe for running up and down hills/mountains. Every hill I hit regardless of terrain and/or footstrike pattern I felt supreme confidence and I felt very fast. I will absolutely be using this for mountainous ultra’s. Likely to be my 2012 Ultra Trail du mont blanc shoe (lottery dependant) and most likely Tor des Geants shoe in 2013.

Upper:
As mentioned great wrap around upper foot. Lacing is very secure and supremely comfortable. Wrap around tongue fits like a dream flexible. As with most good shoes light and breathable uppers are a feature.

Grip:
Shoe performs the best on very uneven and technical ground, you just have to build the confidence to trust the shoe. Since the arrival of minimalist shoes we have exclusively been told that being closer to the ground and ‘feeling’ the ground is the best way to run- this does not ring true for sharp technical rocky grounds (except maybe for elites) and it does not help the runner with chronic injury problems or weak stabilisers. Once you have the confidence in this shoe you can absolutely crush some real technical paths that would normally be slow going and problematic. I tend to find with trail shoes that wet rock is always the biggest problem but the big surface area on the sole seemed to help a fair amount. The multi-directional lugs on the sole dug themselves into the mud quite well and preventing a lot of the usual slip you find on muddy downhills.

Conclusion:
This is not a shoe jumping on the Hoka attention and it is not a shoe that will come and go as a fad. For the vast majority the rockered platform is extremely useful and very performance friendly and I look forward to the lighter shoes they will be rolling this into (pun intended). The grip performs well and the fit of the upper is very close to perfection. If im being picky then i would prefer the shoe to have slightly more depth and the rough stitching around the toebox HAS to be improved for the 2nd edition.
Ultimately the shoe easily fits into my shoe rotation and im keen to punish the shoe further to see exactly which races i want to use it for.....long and steep is most likely. The Diabo also tempts me to look at the rest of the range. If you liked HOKA then you must give this a try. If you shock absorption issues, like comfort, want a bit of free foot gait efficiency and/or your running mountains just give it a go, you’ll be pleased.

QUICK SHOE REVIEWS: ADIDAS AdiZero XT

STATISTICS

Shoe- Adidas AdiZero XT
Weight- 295g
Heel Height- 33mm
Toe Height- 22mm
Stability- 7/10
Cushioning- 8/10
Durability- 7/10
Comfort- 4/10
Miles Run- 74
Longest Run- 30miles
Terrains- Road, Hard-Pack Trail, Soft Mud, Canal Path, Grass, Forrests
Style and Type:
A ligtweight trail shoe that provides tons of cushioning. Wide spaced outsole lugs ae designed to shed mud easily as well as dig into any sort of terrain whilst keeping you stable. Adidas generally fits a bit narrow although this comes up as a D width.

Fit and Feel:
Fits true to size. My big toe felt a little cramped in the toe-box and was the source of some irritation. This was down to the narrow toe-box as opposed to the length. Midsole height is also quite shallow so perhaps not ideal for runners with a high-arch. Gusseted tongue does provide a snug fit and the heel is very comfortable.

Outsole:
Outsole is brilliantly durable, especially at the heel for those heavy heel strikers. The sticky rubber in the forefoot I was particularly impressed by as it was great for grip on wet surfaces. The mud releasing properties (which is a key feature of the shoe) was pretty good but to be honest their is much better. I found that going through very sticky and muddy areas really clogged up the bottom of the shoe, however once I hit some harder surfaces I was impressed by how quickly the mud fell off. Outsole really suits runs that will vary in terrains greatly as opposed to runs that are purely through bogs and messy fells.

Behold the worlds first camouflaged shoe!

Midsole:
Industry standard EVA midsole (CMEVA), works well to provide durable cushioning (as always). I found the midsole to be pretty stable even towards the end of long runs when my technique was deteriorating. The thermoplastic unit through the midsole is designed to allow the forefoot and heel to move independently which must contribute to the good stability.

Upper:
Traditional last ,which I like and would be a great fit if a little deeper and wider. The gusseted tongue keeps a lot of dbris out while the open mesh throughout keeps it very breathable. The adidas logo is also strategically placed to provide better wrap around the foot. Again, just a little shallow for me but I can see how it would be very comfortable for a lot of people.

Grip:
Their is a lot of attention at the moment on the Salomon Crossmax and its ability as the perfect "door to trail" shoe. I believe that Adidas (knowingly or not) have provided a serious competitor. In the little tarmac I was on I had absolutely no issues. The response through tricky trails and forestry was good and the downhill response was particularly impressive even when wet. The grip was good to great and pretty much every surface.
Conclusion:
Well done adidas! Something has always been missing when it comes to their trail shoes, I wasnt a huge fan of the Kanadia, Response Trail or Raven. The key thing here is the lugs and traction. The traction is very responsive and grippy on most surfaces. Having extremely high cushioning whilst keeping the shoe under 300g is a real coup and will be extremely popular. I think a lot of people will struggle with the fit, its just to shallow through the midfoot and the toe-box is too narrow. Those two things aside, the XT is a good shoe and has definitely won a place in my current trail shoe rotation. When I need a mix terrain shoe with high cushioning (the days those legs are just darn tired)I will pull these out. Fit issues will just keep it as a below 30km choice.

QUICK SHOE REVIEWS: SAUCONY KINVARA

STATISTICS

Shoe- Saucony Kinvara
Weight- 216g
Heel Height- 16mm
Toe Height- 12mm
Stability- 3/10
Cushioning- 7/10
Durability- 4/10
Comfort- 9/10
Miles Run- 142
Longest Run- 45.7miles
Terrains- Road, Hard-Pack Trail, Soft Mud, Canal Path
Style and Type:
Billed as a minimalist shoe with lots of cushioning. For me true minimalism would be a racing flat, the Kinvara has too much sole to be a racing shoe. However it is extremely light weight and built purely for neutral runners to encourage a mid-forefoot landing.

Fit and Feel:
Fits true to size. Feels comfortable on the sole straight out of the box. Soft upper means a flexible wrap around the top of your foot. Wide toe box that allows for a comfortable fit.

Outsole:
The EVA material (red foam) provides the cushioning and the Black triangle patches provide the grip and durability (see picture below). Presumably to keep weight down Saucony went minimal with the durable and grippy black rubber.....a mistake! The lateral heel is ok but considering this shoe is designed to encourage a mid to forefoot landing these areas are seriously lacking durability. Any forefoot runner will land on the lateral border, the current design has no lateral border durability due to this lack of black foam. On a positive note the whole outsole is nearly flat (4mm drop between heel and toe) this provides a fast transition between heel and toe which allows a more ‘natural gait’.


Midsole:
The cushioning (red portion of the sole) in the Kinvara is left a lot thicker than most minimalist shoes which makes me feel like it is more of a transition into minimalism running than an actual bonafide minimalist shoe. This thick midsole also means you ‘ride’ a bit higher from the ground although it keeps it super comfy and smooth.

Upper:
Soft, flexible, breathable and light. Perfect.

Grip:
Being the road shoe that it is, it provided excellent grip on tarmac, pavements and towpaths even when wet. I could not help myself and test a little off-road running, although not made for this it held up remarkably well! It was great at shedding mud but breathe caution when on real soft and slick mud as they will slip. The red cushion foam can also be pierced easily by thorns....this is not too much of a problem due to the thick midsole but it does mean you will have to stop every 6miles or so to pull a thorny branch out!

Conclusion:
The Saucony Kinvara has too much cushioning to be truly minimalist but is definitely the perfect transition shoe. I used this shoe in a 45mile race and it held up perfectly. My only complaint would be the webbed stitching that sometimes irritates the little toe (seems to be a common problem when I read some other reviews), although for me it only started after 40miles! I think my feet might have swollen a bit by then! Despite that, this is my go to shoe for all road runs and speedwork, highly recommended. I predict this shoe will only last solidly for 350-400 miles but that’s pretty damn good for a lightweight.

If anyone is considering purchasing these and want to know anything specific then please leave a comment.