Jan 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm #1298585
I loved my Brooks PureConnect. When it came time to upgrade, I chose the Brooks PureDrift and returned them five minutes later.
#1: The fit is not great. The upper of the shoe has no tongue. Instead, the side panel wraps around and the asymmetrical lacing pulls it to the side of your foot. Every pair of "classic" shoes I've owned fit better than these. These felt like an awkwardly overlapping ankle brace. I didn't like it at all. The tongue on the Brooks PureConnect was very well designed, with a microfiber material and a set of bungee cords that made for a great fit. These shoes had none of those good qualities.
#2: the materials and craftsmanship looks less than half as good as my Brooks PureConnect. Rather than have a tough synthetic outer like the Connects, they have a soft meshy outer and it just screams cheap material. The sole looks significantly less durable.
#3: The color is awful. The yellow is the cheapest, most highlighter-esque greenish yellow available. Fine for visibility, but I've seen visible shoes that were not this ugly. They look ok online, and very cheesy in real life.
I wanted to like these shoes. At 10-12oz a pair, they were great weight and they looked alright online, but in person, they did not live up to their $100 price tag or their ancestors heritage.
The new shoe hunt continues…Jan 29, 2013 at 1:35 pm #1948498
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
Why not post stuff like this in the "Reader Gear Reviews" forum?Jan 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm #1948502
Because I didn't take them out in the field.Jan 30, 2013 at 12:14 am #1948713
b willi jonesParticipant
@mrjonesLocale: best place in the world !?
you seemed to have enough info to write this negative reportJan 30, 2013 at 5:36 am #1948738
I'm amazed that you even made the purchase. This thread is pretty useless. Hopefully it will be a quick death. Perfect troll habitat.Jan 30, 2013 at 6:01 am #1948748
@scubahhhLocale: White Mountains, mostly.
It sounds like you thought they were pretty good; or were they only good in comparison to the ones you returned within five minutes?
I'm thinking about getting a pair for summer day hikes in new England, BUT… I'm concerned about the durability of the split sole in the front: it just looks like it might fall apart within the first hundred yards or so.
What did/will yu end up with?Jan 30, 2013 at 8:18 am #1948791
My intention was not to do a full review of the shoe. however, I have a good eye for quality and usability, and the fact that this shoe failed that quick to my discretion means it's likely one you want to think hard about before ordering. When a shoe looks THAT flimsy and feels THAT uncomfortable out of the box compared to so many other shoes, it's a big red flag.
If you want, I can just keep quiet and never share my opinion ;) If you don't like what I have to say about the shoe, buy one and review it. Otherwise, relax; I'm just sharing my perspective.
A shoe that gets sent back in 5 minutes is definitely alarming enough to me to warrant mention, since I usually test shoes over weeks before deciding whether I like them or not. This is also a brand new product, one that A) Hasn't got a lot of reviews behind it, period, and B) hasn't had the chance to be edited or re-engineered by Brooks to fix any issues.
No choice made on a replacement yet.Jan 30, 2013 at 8:20 am #1948792
Rick, the Pure Connects were very well made. I do reccomend them and I would get another pair, but I think I want something a little more minimalist.
I did not have any durability issues at all aside from the color on the sole disappearing pretty quick (silver paint).Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 am #1948796
@nickbLocale: Los Padres National Forest
fwiw, all of the new Pure Project shoes (2.0) this year have the new "bootie" design rather than a traditional tongue. I for one, like it, as it fits my feet better and keeps the tongue in place (a chronic problem for me with running shoes, even when they have a tongue strap). The rest of the shoe seems to be in keeping with the previous version more or less.
I wear the Pure Flows for my road running and gym workouts and the Pure Grits for trail running.
Different strokes for different folks.Jan 30, 2013 at 9:18 am #1948818
I'll try one of those. Any thoughts on the PureDrift?Jan 30, 2013 at 9:48 am #1948835
Have you tried inov8's? :)
I live in my f-lite 195s!Jan 30, 2013 at 9:54 am #1948839
I live in my Inov-* Bare-X shoes, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on the trail- no absorption at all for stray rocks and a grip that can only be described as "suicidal." I still love them for around-town use and the durability is fantastic. I might look into Inov-8, but my traction concerns and my wide foot might hold me back from the 195's specifically.Jan 30, 2013 at 9:56 am #1948840
I recently got a pair of the 150's and they're delicious! Ran in them last night and a tiny bit of mud on the pavement send me face first into the ground. Definitely agree they aren't a trail shoe.
You should head to a stockist and try a load of different sizes in everything they've got. It's fun if nothing else. I found that inov8 size a little differently to other trail runner brands such as merrel and salomon.Jan 30, 2013 at 10:00 am #1948842
@idesterLocale: PNWJan 30, 2013 at 10:01 am #1948844
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
As with anything, particularly footwear in this case, the differences of opinion will run the gamut. Proceed cautiously when throwing out general criticisms in regard to gear, especially those not backed by any significant time of use or credibility. People respect the opinion of others here, no question, but delivery and intent can go a long way.
Out of curiosity, what did you intend to do with the shoe? Backpack? Hike? I've seen some harsh reviews on footwear not intended for backpacking, here at BPL. That can be a pointless pursuit.Jan 30, 2013 at 10:09 am #1948848
" The specified forum thread no longer exists or never existed. "
I think some of the negative reviews for trail runners are fair because even though they might not be designed solely for backpacking a lot of people do swear by them so why not be critical of them.Jan 30, 2013 at 10:10 am #1948849
"Proceed cautiously when throwing out general criticisms in regard to gear, especially those not backed by any significant time of use or credibility. People respect the opinion of others here, no question, but delivery and intent can go a long way."
I think this is precisely why people were ruffled with the OP.Jan 30, 2013 at 10:13 am #1948851
I only run once a week or so, but when I hike it's often for several days. I'm trying to find a comfortable shoe I can do non-technical hikes in that will still provide enough support to pound pavement about 10 miles a week.
Because the Brooks pure project shoes have deep recesses, they do okay in mud, and the tough rubber outsoles are grippy enough to handle wet rocks, etc. I knew this coming from the Pure Connects. However, that molded tongue on the PureDrift just didn't work for me. maybe my feet have high tops? I couldn't say, but I was definitely not a fan of the fit. I might try my luck with one other Pure Project 2 shoe just to confirm if it's not going to work for me at all. I was surprised by how poorly the PureDrifts fit, but more so, in the perceived durability. I would be very interested to see how one holds up after extended use; it really did look that flimsy to me. For $60, I might find out for myself. For $100, I want to see the quality, and I find that in almost every other shoe in the line.
Two things I'm learning here:
#1. I am personally always looking for more information on things, even if that information is imperfect. So, I try to "give back" by reviewing a lot of my stuff, especially when it stands out in the gamut of things I try as particularly bad or good. If I can do someone else a favor, I try to.
#2. A shoe that can do both of these things likely does not exist. I will need to compromise on one end of the spectrum between trail traction and road cushioning.
I will say this:
This is the first time I've ever written a review where people actually got upset with me for writing it… A review is personal, by nature. You can't really tell me I'm wrong, since it's personal, and the idea that theres some standard of quality in reviews is a little dubious to me… I've seen a lot worse and I find it easy to disregard what is not useful to me. I suggest you guys adopt a similar filter before you go harassing people who willfully offer their help.Jan 30, 2013 at 10:18 am #1948853
People were ruffled because "brief review" still has the word "review" in it. What I should have said was, my initial opinion is that this shoe is of less quality than other Brooks Pure Project shoes, and I had a difficult time with the new fit. Both of those are potentially very useful observations to people debating on being a guinea pig to a brand new shoe line.
So, bottom line, I guess I'm not wanted here! (sarcasm)Jan 30, 2013 at 11:02 am #1948874
spelt with a tParticipant
@speltLocale: SW/C PA
A phrase I see a lot on the Gear forum is "Initial impressions." Probably a less provocative choice!Jan 30, 2013 at 6:37 pm #1949076
Why did you even buy them in the first place, seems like all your complaints could have been figured out just by reading some product descriptions online (for the record I think that yellow looks cheesy online already, doesn't surprise me in the least that it's even more garish in person). To make a shoe lighter, well the upper has to get lighter and thinner and less durable for comparable materials.
I'm still confused by your post. So you didn't like the shoe, that's fair. But none of your complaints actual "issues" with the shoe, just that it wasn't for you. Not all shoes are the same and not all feet and people have the same needs and desires in foot wear. Not the shoes fault that it wasn't designed for you in mind. Now if you had actually worn them outside and the sole fell apart in the first 5 miles, THEN you could comment on how "cheap" the shoes were constructed, but without that actual testing your impressions and negativity are unwarranted assumptions based on conjecture and bias (you may still be right, but so are broken clock twice a day).
As for inov8 not having enough grip…have you looked at their product line? It's only recently that they started making road shoes, most of their tread patterns have been incredibly aggressive and many shoes have rockplates…especially the line that one product line that has a confusing name of "roclite"…Jan 30, 2013 at 10:00 pm #1949151
First off, I'm sorry. I should not have said review; I should have said Initial Impressions. If I have wasted your time, that's all on my conscience. When I run into useless reviews, several times a day, I try to move past them as best I can with a brief meditation, and some positive thinking. I also try to learn how to be more useful to other forum members, so I will internalize your critiques as if they were whispered in my ear as a dying declaration.
Secondly, what the other forum member and I were noticing about the Inov-8 was misinterpreted by you as a critique of the shoe. I didn't buy the shoe for the trail, and I'm well aware that it's not a trail shoe. I merely wanted to praise a durable minimalist shoe while acquiescing the fact that it won't suit my needs right now. I love the Inov-8 Bare-X 180, it's my town shoe and my bar crawl shoe and my bike touring shoe and my car camping shoe.Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 pm #1950530
I tried on a lot of shoes at my local EMS: Brooks, Salomon, New Balance… Settled on the Vibram 5 Fingers. I don't remember which variation I have, but I know I like them. I was professionally sized by the very helpful employee, so I've got a great fit.
Looking forward to seeing how my feet adjust.Feb 3, 2013 at 7:18 pm #1950531
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
Just be clear, declaring you settled with the Vibram FiveFingers toe gloves throws out any credibility you may have in regard to footwear, or your original first impressions of the Brooks.Feb 3, 2013 at 7:30 pm #1950533
First off, I don't need or want "credibility."
Second off, I don't exactly know how discarding the most minimalist trail running shoe produced by Brooks for something with like 2mm less of padding and the same amount of traction is a disqualifier.
But hey, if the people want a scapegoat… These shoes seem good so far. My only reluctance to going full minimalist was fit, an I seem to have addressed it. Is there something I don't know about five fingers?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.