Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra Trail Running Shoes

Gear is very race dependent for me. If I know I won't be going more than 2 hours between water stops and aid stations, I'll take a belt and handhelds. If its longer or there is required gear, I would bring a pack. I use the classic Naked running belt and the Solomon Advanced skin 8 liter, I love both and they are worth every penny. The same goes for shoes. One, it is very individual dependent, so I would go to a local running shoe store and trying on a few types of shoes to see what feels best. For a race shoe it depends on the terrain. The shoe I am bringing on a flatter 100k is very different than what I would bring to a technical 100 miler. I love the Agravic Speed Ultra 1s (RIP) for almost everything, but so many people hate them and their ankle rolling tendencies. Try shoes if you can, and err on the side of what is comfortable and known. Try gels, carb mixes, and real food on training runs. Figure out what works best for you and practice eating a lot. The running theme is that everything is personal. I love gels for my carbs (I use PF30 gels), and plain water and PF1500s for my sodium. I also sweat a lot and my sweat is salty, so I need a lot of water and a lot of sodium. Find what works for you and practice eating on long runs. The biggest mistake I made when starting out was doing what I saw others doing, having it not work, and trying to force it to work rather than doing something else.

If it's bone dry you can get around the loop in road shoes, though getting up Three Sisters and the final climb at the start/finish won't be pleasant. There will be a handful of wackos in road shoes but most participants will be in trail shoes. The shorter distances for those at the top of the field, it won't be uncommon to see them in plated shoes (hoka tectons, Adidas Terrex Ultras etc) but for the regular folks, any comfortable trail shoes you can stand being in for hours is fine. Personally, I'm bringing a few pairs with me. Fast racing shoes, comfortable shoes for if I blow up and just need to swap to something comfortable, then a third pair in case it rains leading up to and during the race that can handle mud. good luck! It's a fun race

I really like mine but I wouldn't be wearing them for anything muddy. I've done several 20k test runs and was planning on wearing them on my 60k ultra but just had to cancel. Dry, or a route with some sections of tarmac, I would recommend. Very breathable too. I've worn them on some very steep ascents and descents too, comfortable at 5k pace through to walking pace. Though for a race under half marathon I would probably prefer something a bit lighter. For very muddy or slippy I would go with something else.

I think they're 10/10 for comfort, and feel very stable for me. 7/10 for speed, there are better options but with their own downsides. But I've run fast in them downhill on dry paths through woods no issues, comfortabl and stable. And also power hiked very steep technical terrain and they're perfect. Aggrevec terrex ultra more responsive, but I couldn't wear those for over a half, too uncomfortable. And they were awful for power hiking up very steep technical terrain.

I bought these hoping to wear them for my 63km. Aiming for 5:30-6 hours so similar pace. I think I won't wear them for a few reasons: 1.They feel great when running fast, but walking up steep ascents was absolutely brutal on my calves. 2. The inside sole is a very high arch. This has given me some blisters in spots I've not had before. 3. Now that I've run a little bit, they are maybe starting to break in? But I will be wearing them for everything up to half marathon, maybe a marathon, but I'm not risking it for the ultra. I am almost certainly going to wear the NNormal Cadi instead. They're not plated but they're so light they feel like a race shoe.

Really enjoy version 1.. 3 biggest issues I’d say. Sizing, Heel slippage, tongue.. every single I person I know has had to go down at least a 1/2 size from their normal shoes as they run large. Even with sizing down heel slippage is noticeable especially on uphills. Also the world smallest tongue length. I know they’re trying to save as much weight as possible but come on. An extra mm or 2 in length isn’t going to make or break a shoes weight. Hopefully these are all addressed which imo would make a fantastic shoe a GREAT shoe.

Edit: Thanks to u/nausarus who apparently listened better than I did at the demo and picked up that they're apparently actually called the Agravic SL. I also found an [active listing on Backcountry ](https://www.backcountry.com/adidas-terrex-terrex-agravic-sl-trail-running-shoe-mens)with that name with specs. You can apparently even buy them right now? Pricing is $159 in case it disappears. I got a chance to demo the new EVO SL Trail this morning and I thought I'd give some initial impressions since I imagine some folks are curious about fit, feel, etc. in advance of the launch (The rep quoted June 1st). I only ended up running about three miles in these, which normally wouldn't consider enough to make a post on, but I felt like I had enough varied enough trail conditions to render some judgement. **Fit** My impression was that these run a bit large. I normally wear M11.5 in almost everything including the original Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed (not Ultra). I started out with an M11.5, but I felt like they were too big and went down to an M11 and those felt perfect. For what it's worth, I own a pair of Boston 12's in M11.5 and they're too long as well, so maybe these fit closer to those. I unfortunately have only briefly tried on the original Evo SL's so I cannot compare fit to those. Width seemed fine and much better than the M11 Speed Ultra 2's I tried on right after. (FWIW, I don't think I have wide feet since I fit in M11.5 Puma shoes without width issues, but the Ultra 2's gave me width and stability issues). **Upper** I have a real dislike for Adidas's minimal uppers on my Agravic Speed's and Boston 12's. Both feel too hard to get on and then too tough to get lockdown on once you actually do get them on. I'm happy to report that the EVO SL Trail upper is *way* better. It feels like a normal trainer upper in all the best ways. Given my limited time in the shoe I can't promise there aren't issues that might arise after longer runs or how durability might fare, but my initial impressions were very good. Even pushing the downhills the shoe stayed put and that's with minimal time spent dialing in the lace tightness. Laces were the lightweight, but not troublesome at all. Much better than the Boston 12 laces which I hated and replaced and arguably better than my Agravic Speed 1's. **Midsole** I will be the first to admit I was beyond skeptical when the EVO SL Trail leaked late in 2025. I honestly spent a few minutes trying to debunk the video as a hoax since it seemed weird that only one random Instagram account had video of a shoe that was apparently in a booth at TRE. It's no secret that the EVO SL was a huge success and Adidas seemed like they were willing to release every possible variant they could to exploit that. Since everyone who ran in the SLs complained about their stability and existing Terrex shoes like the Agravic Speed Ultra also had stability issues, I was very concerned about how the SL Trail would be. Thankfully it appears Adidas actually did a full redesign of the shape of the mid-sole and from what I could tell there were no stability issues. My route took me over chunky gravel, up a steep technical climb, down a slightly technical (rooty, muddy) descent and on short portions of flat dirt and pavement. The midsole handled everything really well. The bounce definitely made the descent more challenging then most of the trail shoes I have, but I never felt out of control. Hiking up a steep climb also felt completely fine. Absolutely no issues with stability. The bounce of the mid-sole was fantastic on the runable sections of trail. I've never run in a trail shoe that felt like this. My closest comparison is probably the Nike Zegama 2 (which I just did 24mi in a on Sunday), but even that's way more subdued. The rocker is also really evident here. I did a long stride on flat, compact dirt near the end of my run and was able to get below 5:00/mi pace which is similar to what I'd get on roads in decent trainers with similar effort. **Outsole** The outsole is a full-coverage Continental outsole similar to many other Terrex shoes. In my experience this is roughly as good as Vibram and I'd have no issues taking it on all but the most technical of trails (where the mid-sole would probably be more of a disqualifier). Lug depth appeared to be 3-4mm, but I don't see official specs yet. **Conclusion** As mentioned already, I took these on a 3mi loop with a group. For those local to Seattle, the loop left from High Point Trailhead, ascended the powerline road (chunky gravel), climbed Cable Line for about 350ft, and then descended the TMT trail to West Tiger trail before returning to the lot. This is a really perfect loop for shoe testing as you get a bit of everything the PNW has to offer other than maybe the loose rocks of something like the West Tiger Trail. The shoe handled it all really well. I was especially impressed at how in control I felt descending the narrow, rooty, switchback-filled trail. Although I think it can obviously handle reasonably technical trails, I think this shoe will really shine on trails that are extremely runnable, but need a little more grip and stability than a road shoe could offer. One nice thing about the big chunk of bouncy foam is that it made the lugs almost imperceptible on pavement. I usually find trail shoes uncomfortable on pavement, but didn't see an issue in my short stints on pavement. I wouldn't call these a true road-to-trail shoe because of the larger lugs, but I think they could work well in that context. All in all, I loved these shoes. After three miles I would've been willing to trade any trail shoe in my collection for them (and probably any road shoe). I went for a short run in the Agravic Speed Ultra 2's right afterward and liked the EVO SL trail much, much better (I probably needed a M11.5 in the Ultra 2's though). I'll be curious to hear thoughts from people once they start getting miles on them, but if I didn't already have so many trail shoes and wasn't such a stickler for waiting for sale prices I'd probably pick up a pair on release day.

Edit: Thanks to u/nausarus who apparently listened better than I did at the demo and picked up that they're apparently actually called the Agravic SL. I also found an [active listing on Backcountry ](https://www.backcountry.com/adidas-terrex-terrex-agravic-sl-trail-running-shoe-mens)with that name with specs. You can apparently even buy them right now? Pricing is $159 in case it disappears. I got a chance to demo the new EVO SL Trail this morning and I thought I'd give some initial impressions since I imagine some folks are curious about fit, feel, etc. in advance of the launch (The rep quoted June 1st). I only ended up running about three miles in these, which normally wouldn't consider enough to make a post on, but I felt like I had enough varied enough trail conditions to render some judgement. **Fit** My impression was that these run a bit large. I normally wear M11.5 in almost everything including the original Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed (not Ultra). I started out with an M11.5, but I felt like they were too big and went down to an M11 and those felt perfect. For what it's worth, I own a pair of Boston 12's in M11.5 and they're too long as well, so maybe these fit closer to those. I unfortunately have only briefly tried on the original Evo SL's so I cannot compare fit to those. Width seemed fine and much better than the M11 Speed Ultra 2's I tried on right after. (FWIW, I don't think I have wide feet since I fit in M11.5 Puma shoes without width issues, but the Ultra 2's gave me width and stability issues). **Upper** I have a real dislike for Adidas's minimal uppers on my Agravic Speed's and Boston 12's. Both feel too hard to get on and then too tough to get lockdown on once you actually do get them on. I'm happy to report that the EVO SL Trail upper is *way* better. It feels like a normal trainer upper in all the best ways. Given my limited time in the shoe I can't promise there aren't issues that might arise after longer runs or how durability might fare, but my initial impressions were very good. Even pushing the downhills the shoe stayed put and that's with minimal time spent dialing in the lace tightness. Laces were the lightweight, but not troublesome at all. Much better than the Boston 12 laces which I hated and replaced and arguably better than my Agravic Speed 1's. **Midsole** I will be the first to admit I was beyond skeptical when the EVO SL Trail leaked late in 2025. I honestly spent a few minutes trying to debunk the video as a hoax since it seemed weird that only one random Instagram account had video of a shoe that was apparently in a booth at TRE. It's no secret that the EVO SL was a huge success and Adidas seemed like they were willing to release every possible variant they could to exploit that. Since everyone who ran in the SLs complained about their stability and existing Terrex shoes like the Agravic Speed Ultra also had stability issues, I was very concerned about how the SL Trail would be. Thankfully it appears Adidas actually did a full redesign of the shape of the mid-sole and from what I could tell there were no stability issues. My route took me over chunky gravel, up a steep technical climb, down a slightly technical (rooty, muddy) descent and on short portions of flat dirt and pavement. The midsole handled everything really well. The bounce definitely made the descent more challenging then most of the trail shoes I have, but I never felt out of control. Hiking up a steep climb also felt completely fine. Absolutely no issues with stability. The bounce of the mid-sole was fantastic on the runable sections of trail. I've never run in a trail shoe that felt like this. My closest comparison is probably the Nike Zegama 2 (which I just did 24mi in a on Sunday), but even that's way more subdued. The rocker is also really evident here. I did a long stride on flat, compact dirt near the end of my run and was able to get below 5:00/mi pace which is similar to what I'd get on roads in decent trainers with similar effort. **Outsole** The outsole is a full-coverage Continental outsole similar to many other Terrex shoes. In my experience this is roughly as good as Vibram and I'd have no issues taking it on all but the most technical of trails (where the mid-sole would probably be more of a disqualifier). Lug depth appeared to be 3-4mm, but I don't see official specs yet. **Conclusion** As mentioned already, I took these on a 3mi loop with a group. For those local to Seattle, the loop left from High Point Trailhead, ascended the powerline road (chunky gravel), climbed Cable Line for about 350ft, and then descended the TMT trail to West Tiger trail before returning to the lot. This is a really perfect loop for shoe testing as you get a bit of everything the PNW has to offer other than maybe the loose rocks of something like the West Tiger Trail. The shoe handled it all really well. I was especially impressed at how in control I felt descending the narrow, rooty, switchback-filled trail. Although I think it can obviously handle reasonably technical trails, I think this shoe will really shine on trails that are extremely runnable, but need a little more grip and stability than a road shoe could offer. One nice thing about the big chunk of bouncy foam is that it made the lugs almost imperceptible on pavement. I usually find trail shoes uncomfortable on pavement, but didn't see an issue in my short stints on pavement. I wouldn't call these a true road-to-trail shoe because of the larger lugs, but I think they could work well in that context. All in all, I loved these shoes. After three miles I would've been willing to trade any trail shoe in my collection for them (and probably any road shoe). I went for a short run in the Agravic Speed Ultra 2's right afterward and liked the EVO SL trail much, much better (I probably needed a M11.5 in the Ultra 2's though). I'll be curious to hear thoughts from people once they start getting miles on them, but if I didn't already have so many trail shoes and wasn't such a stickler for waiting for sale prices I'd probably pick up a pair on release day.

I don't think I've seen pricing, but I'm assuming it will be sub-$200 and likely more like $170. Yes, this competes with their Terrex line-up and based on my limited experience as the owner of Agravic Speed and trying on the Ultra 1 and Ultra 2 it bests them. That said, Adidas seems smart enough to not worry too much about competing with themselves. The Evo SL at $150 is better than many of their more expensive road shoes and yet they're still making a ton of money with them. Other than the Agravic Speed Ultra's (and arguably only the first version), Adidas has really struggled to make much of an impact in the trail space IMO. I have two pairs of the original Agravic Speed's, but only because I got both for less than $50. I suspect these will fare better (as much as I'd love to buy them for $90 in 6mos) and maybe even bring in some buyers who wouldn't generally be as comfortable with trail shoes but are familiar with the EVO SL line.

I'm US M11.5 in both the Xodus Ultra 1 and Triumph 20 (That flair is so old and yet somehow still have pairs of both those in active rotation). I also have pairs of the Xodus Ultra 1's in M11 that fit me, but I don't love them for longer runs and need to be careful about sock thickness. Other trail shoes I run in where I feel the M11.5 is comparable to the Agravic SL in M11 would be Zegama 2 and Agility Peak 5.

They did not have the Speed 2 present for demo and I haven't seen them in person so I can't completely say. That said, I own two pairs of the Speed 1, and demo's the Speed Ultra 2's (which have a similar upper, I think)? From what I can see, the SL has a much more plush upper. The upper of the Speed and Speed Ultras has been an issue for me as the trade comfort for weight. The SL has a much more traditional upper which I like a lot more. The foam of the Speed 1's and Speed Ultra 2's is *much* firmer than the SL foam which feels softer and bouncier. Like night and day different.

Tough to say based on my brief wear. I would say it depends a little bit on the terrain you're hiking in. I did do a section of more technical hiking during the demo and the shoe was fine, but I still don't think it'd be my preferred option. I think the benefits of the shoe don't lend themselves to hiking and the durability is still a question mark.

Upper is very different from the ASU2 as well, but in a good way IMO.