fall shoe review 2010:Spring Shoe Review 09 8/5/10 10:29 PM Page 1
Shoe ReviewS: Performance—iii • Neutral—iv • Motion Stabilizing—v
E
ach season, the overall direction of the footwear industry is revealed in trends. For more than four years, we’ve reported that companies have been lightening up many of their shoes and this continues. The growing influence of minimalism and “barefoot” running, in conjunction with improved technologies and formulations of components and refined design, has resulted in more shoes with less structure, lighter weight, and fewer motion-controlling features. Our racing shoe reviews have always looked at shoes that feature the least amount of support, weight, or inhibiting features, but this trend extends deeper than ever into the training shoe category. A number of high-mileage shoes have also benefitted from this trend, slimming down without compromising their protective cushioning. And there is a shrinking but significant offering of heavier models that cater to runners who need extra cushioning or even more significant structure to counteract overpronation.
Geometry is another significant trend in the design of running shoes. Attention is being focused on more critical midsole shaping, the flare (depth and shape) of flex grooves, the size and positioning of crashpads, and the ratio between heel and forefoot heights. Along with these considerations, designers and development teams are carefully considering the material of each of these elements, appraising their rebound and dampening effects, in addition to their durability and comfort. The results of this focus on geometry can be seen in two types of offerings: highly engineered models and spare, simplified designs. These two trends are refining the way that running shoes perform when you take them out on a run, making it easier than ever to find a shoe perfectly suited to your biomechanical and situational needs. —Cregg Weinmann, Running Network Footwear Reviewer