ADIZERO EVO SL EXO Shoes

I have the same discount. One of the rods just broke after 500km. What’s better EVO SL woven or EVO SL exo

I did a 20 piece with the Evo SL v1 yesterday morning. I know it might be the unpopular choice for a run this length but I loved it. Once I swapped out the laces it was good to go. I have 2 pairs but I'm ready to get a pair or 3 of the Woven or Exo versions. I want to stock up.

Adidas. Gazelle sneakers, snowboard boats, SL2 and Evo SL daily trainers, AP3 race day shoes, and I'll probably order a pair of Terrex Agravic Speed for the trails this coming winter. I'm not even a shill or brand snob or anything, Adidas just fits me right. Saucony fits weird on my feet. Asics is kinda pricey, and Hoka and NB don't really have any super trainers that can compete with the Evo SL. Puma doesn't have the best availability where I live.

So a max cushion minimalst shoe? ;p That's kinda whay I like my Mach 6 so mach. Soft and plush for a shoe that light, and way better stability and ground feel than my Evo SL or NB 1080. Whenever I hit the trails and most of it is gravel, hard dirt, nothing technical or rocky/wet/muddy/slippery/steep...the Mach 6 are my weapens of choice.

I'll vouch for the SL2. Ran a 3:25 marathon in mine, a couple marathons ago. Puma VN4 should probably be in the same league, if not a higher one. I'm actually eyring 'em myself, to maybe replace my almost-retired Evo SL.

Evo SL. The complaints about the lack of stability are a bit blown out of proportion imo. The other ones aren't as durable, and/or they're a tad too soft or too heavy/clunky/slow. Also, the Evo SL is/was the cheapest of the bunch, and they don't look too bad either.

I got the Evo SL after I retired my beloved ES3. Great shoes, though not at all the same as the ES3. Different foam, different geometry...better upper and laces too, and less slippery outsole. Love my 1080v13 too, but they're just the same type of shoes. Super comfy and soft, but slugish and heavy compared to the ES3. Mach 7: also great shoes, just not as snappy/bouncy. Different foam, no plate, no "speedroll" magic,... Maybe the Endorphin Azura could be the next best thing? Tyr Maverick V1? Li-Ning Red Hare 9 Pro?

There's no reason why you couldn't run a full marathon in the Evo SL. The midsole is 100% LSP, the weight is roughly the same as that of the AP3, there's nearly 40 mm of bouncy soft cushioning under the heel... If that's not a non-plated long distance training/racing shoe, I don't know what is. I personally prefer a more ‘emmediate’ feel from dedicated 5K shoes, something that's even lighter than the Evo SL, with a bit more ground feel and stability.

* Novablast 5: Not the best longevity, nor the most grippy outsole. * Evo SL: Stabilty isn't great, especially for heel strikers. Great value though, fast, bouncy, soft, light,... * Ultraboost 5: Slow, heavy and clunky... * Mach 6: Lacks a bit of cushion for long distances, it's a fun and somewhat "traditional" feeling ride.

I'm rotating my Evo SL and SL2, the latter being more of the easy run pick. I'm actually liking my NB 1080v13 even more though, soft midsole, comfy plush upper,...excellent easy/long/recovery shoes. Not as versatile as the SL2, but for tempo runs I use the Evo SL anyway.

For your mileage and pace and goals...it'd make sense to focus on comfort, and maybe save your super trainer money for next year, imo :) I guess some examples would be the Asics Gel Nimbus, Nike Vomero, NB 1080, Adidas Supernova Rise, Saucony Triumph.... The SB3 could also be perfect though for all I know, don't have any experience with those. I love my Evo SL, but I'm not sure I'd recommend them for your specific use case.

Imo carbon plated shoes are always about sacrifising some comfort and/or stability for speed/weight/efficientcy. The trade-off isn't nearly as bad when you're running with the sort of form/pace the shoes were designed for. Which is why imo it doesn't make a lot of sense to really consider carbon plated shoes when you're not even remotely close to needing those marginal gains, regardless of how big the risk is of getting sore feet or whatever. In top of that, $200-$250 for a pair of shoes that lose their mojo twice as fast as $100 daily trainers....also seems like something that's only worth it for 3h-ish marathoners. So imo you'd do yourself a favor if you check out some shoes that were made for casual runners and midpack marathoners. There's little or no benefits of wearing super shoes when you're still pretty new to marathon running, and these days there are plenty of options for light weight super trainers that do offer impribved efficientcy and speed, without compromising too much on comfort/support/stability. I'm personally not really impressed with the latest offerings from NB, Saucony, Nike, Hoka, Ascis,... I know they're not for everyone, but the Evo SL still seems to have the best weight/price/durabily ratio of all the currently available daily trainers. So I guess those shoes are the ones I'd recommend :)

Can't decide between your Endorphin Pro 4, Superblast 2 and Evo SL...I wish I had that kind of problem when I ran my first <4h marathon ;p Seriously though, the EP4 might not be the most obvious choice for a full mararthon, let alone for your pace. I think the Evo SL should be better suited for the kind of comfort and support you need when you're on your feet for 4 hours straight. I'd play it safe and not wear the SB2 if they're too small. Trust me, finishing the final 10 km with bloody busted up toes, broken toe nails, and a couple nasty blisters...is no joke.

Doesn't look to small to me, I have no idea why your toe nails are being damaged. Don't suppose you're not laced in tight enough? Your shoes aren't too wide, your heel isn't lifting or sliding or anything? The longest run I've done in my Evo SL is 34 km, I could definitely see myself shotting for a 3:20 marathon in them. Though I agree the upper of the Evo SL is a bit crude compared to that of a Nimbus or something, it's not the first shoe you'd be suggested if you were to walk into a good running shoe store and introduced yourself as a beginner with one 4:09 marathon under your belt. Which actually might make sense in your case. Asking advice online can be helpful, but when you're pretty unexperienced and you're having doubts about all of your 3 pairs of premium running shoes...it might be time to visit a store that has a wide selection of brands and models to try out. If that's not an option, and you're having to choose between busting up your toes in the SB2 or dealing with the stiffness of the EP4...I guess don't know what else to tell you :/

I did all my long runs for my past marathon in my Evo SL. Worked like a charm.

I’ll provide a differing opinion. Most people love it and I’m not denying their experience, but it’s the worst shoe I’ve ever purchased by far Positives: The midsole is absolutely golden, best midsole you’re getting at that price point by far. Moderately unstable, but as long as I stuck to road and track running it wasn’t an issue Negatives: You get a good deal on the midsole because the upper is genuinely the biggest mess I’ve ever seen. The laces and tongue are way too short so you either have to tie them extremely tight or let them come undone mid-run. Now for the worst part - the insole. It feels like slippery cardboard. I have never had blisters as bad as when I ran in this shoe, I swapped them out and things improved - but if I have to swap laces and insoles to enjoy running in a shoe then I can’t call it a good shoe with a straight face

When you try EvoSL, you will know what people meant by instability. If you are not experienced runner with some strong legs, their chaotic squishiness may cause some issues. Also their upper, while being thin and breathable, clearly shows why they cost less than competitors. And speaking about the upper. Look at what runrepeat says about breathability of Saucony Endorphin Speed.

Evo SL is a good value for the price. Looks good too. Not a fan of adidas upper. But the midsole is excellent

It's an awesome shoe, however, it's a pavement shoe and the foam helps decrease fatigue. I am in no way an advanced enthusiast, and but I have them and only do 3-4 miles daily. I don't recommend for trails though, it has very little lateral stiffness (support).

The foam in my mostly 2 shoe rotation (Neo Zen, EVO SL) refuses to die so they've carried me through the year. I bought the Megablast on my birthday because I had an Asics 25% off coupon & was depressed, lol. But I don't really like them. Don't make impulse buys. I'd rank them 1) Zen 2) Adios Pro 3 (carried over from last year as my race shoe) 3) EVO 4)Megablast

Both shoes are fun and great. Evo is nimble and fast but with a terrible upper. NB5 is soft, bouncy, and protective. Both are energetic. Both were durable for me. I got 500 miles out of NB5 and 570 miles out of Evo.

i'm sorry but this is more of a fitness difference rather than shoe. The difference of power you mention is more than 20% and it cannot be a shoe difference I don't intentionally wear the carbon plated shoes for training, specifically because I want that kick during race day, not because i'm afraid of the injuries. Even AP3 is miles ahead of Evo SL for me although the experiments would prove it otherwise. A plate comes in extremely handy when you are hitting that forefoot. It really is a mini trampoline below. The plate is super, super different experience.

I love them, I have a rotation of about 5 pairs but find myself wearing them for every run these days!!