Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra

My sources tell me that there is additional cushioning in the forefoot area…

http://www.argear.com/gear/grsalomonxapro3dultra-shoes.html

>>Can anyone see what is ultra about this as compared to the "old" ones?

They're ten bucks more expensive.

Actually, the eyelets appear to be webbing, like on the XA Comp, rather than molded plastic, as on the original XA Pro. There was less friction in the plastic eyelet system, which meant the laces were less prone to wear and breakage in the Pros than the Comps.

The new Pro weighs 1.5 ounces more *per foot* than the old Comp, which is currently half the price at REI.

Which makes me ask the new question :)

Salomon XA Comp 3 vs the new XA Pro Ultra. What are the main differences there?

Looks like "double density midsole" instead of "triple" and a nylon vs plastic shank?

Any of that matter much?

I can't speak to the Pro 3D Ultra, but the prior Pro 3D model differs (from the Comp 3) primarily as follows:

Carbon-fiber-reinforced heel cup/outsole (Pro 3D only)
Molded plastic eyelets (vs webbing on Comp)
Mesh upper material (cosmetic differences)
Toe box construction (Pro 3D is stouter)
Dual-density (Comp 3) vs triple-density (Pro 3D) midsole

In actual use, the Pro 3D seems to provide more stability and long-term cushioning. The Comp 3 is initially cushier, but it seems to break down more quickly. Both models could use more durable cushioning in the heel, moreso than in the mid-foot as it seems the Pro 3D Ultra is now offering.

In general I've found the Comps to be fine for recreational running and dayhiking, while the Pro 3D is the more capable of the two for extended backpacking.

YMMV. It'll be interesting to hear a report on the 3D Ultra.