Cielo X1 3.0

Most recent fulls Arizona I ran in Cielo X1 2.0 and I had maybe 20’miles before I did. Ottawa I ran in Rocket X2 and I had 75 miles on them Texas I ran in Rocket X2 and I had 10 miles on them Placid I ran in Rocket X1 and I had 25 miles on them I never out more than about 150-200 miles on a pair of carbon plated shoes. I’m also over 200 pounds, so my shoes are taking more of a beating than most. For Roth I’m thinking about Deviate 4 Elite since I don’t like my Rocket X3 and I’m not sure I like the Cielo x1 3.0 (although I’ve only done one 10 mile run in them so far). The why, is because I’m faster in them, which is why almost everyone should run in plated shoes. Which plated shoe is the challenge for most people. I’ve got about 6-8 plated shoes right now which is more money than most people want to spend trying things. I’ve got 15 pair of running shoes than are open and being tried/used. I like shoes though. A lot.

Newest additions: -ASICS Superblast 3. They really broke in at 15 miles or so and it’s a great max distance trainer. I’m really liking it -Hoka Cielo X1 3.0. Very aggressive and squeaky. I loved both the 1.0 and the 2.0 but I’m thinking this one isn’t for me. I’ve only done one 7 mile tempo run in them so I need to try them again. -Mizuno Neo Vista. I keep going back to this shoe. Of the 15 pair I currently have, this is the one that I love for long runs with even a little bit of tempo work

Workout/Race: - Asics Magicspeed 5 - Adidas Adios Pro 4 - Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 4 - Hoka Cielo X1 3.0

These are great shoes for me feel best at HM pace (7.00 min/mile) or faster. Personally wouldn't take for marathon. They feel good at marathon pace as well but if your form breaks down they feel pretty unstable.

So, it seems I have quite different opinion. Just finished my first run with 3.0 and... it feels a completely different shoe vs the previous versions. Main differences vs 1.0: 3.0 is really narrow. Because of this 3.0 is really unstable. 3.0 is softer. And this adds additional unstability. 3.0 is more "untamed". 1.0 was quite similar to Alphafly 2 with its "on rails" feeling. 1.0 was good for long runs, 3.0 feels too unstable for those. Some of that unstable feeling is lost when running faster. Closest comparison for me is Sky Tokyo. I didn't find 2.0 that different from the 1.0. Ok, the cut added some unstability but otherwise it felt similar. 3.0 is the least stable. Too early to say if I like the shoe or not.

Did you try the shoe on a long run with target pace blocks? How did it work for you. For me the fairy tale of the early miles became nightmare after mile 13 or so. Completely a me problem, not a shoe problem. When my form broke down, heart rate, cadence, and stride all stayed stable, but I started fighting the shoe and pace became a lot harder to maintain. Opposite story for the early miles, my pace was a lot faster than my heart rate and perceived effort suggested. Fastest shoe I’ve tried, which feels sad it didn’t match my form. Still, I can appreciate it’s a phenomenal shoe.

I tried this shoe a few weeks ago at the Mesa marathon expo and loved the ride, bounce, and stability. I would use it for long run workouts or to race a marathon. Definitely top of my list for my next marathon training block.

If the Novablast 5 works for you then keep rolling it with it. It’s soft and bouncy so keep that in mind when looking at other shoes. If you wanted to try something else here I’d recommend trying the Megablast. A bit firmer but still bouncy and could do speed work/ long runs/ recovery. I’d also recommend a carbon racer to run the marathon in, and that you can use for progression or race-pace long run efforts also. Since you like soft + bouncy, Adidas Adios Pro 4, Hoka Cielo x1 3.0, New balance SC elite v5, or Li-Ning Feidian elite 6.