Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Chris

I have the Altra Instincts and they are a solid shoe...I imagine the Lone Peak would be even more durable ad protective. Love the wide forefoot and toebox plus the zero drop nature of the whole Altra line. Unfortunately, they seem a bit too built-up for my tastes. Too thick of a midsole prevents flexing and ground feel. And the extra weight reduces quick stride frequency. Hope they come out with a slightly more minimal Lone Peak (and Instinct)--they would likely be my go-to shoes for long training runs and ultras. For now, I'll stick with the more minimal and lightweight New Balance MT110s.

01/13/12 @ 11:20
Comment from: Rob [Visitor]  
Rob

@Chris: I agree they are a bit more built up than the NB MT110 but not by a whole lot; I bet the stack height isn't too different. The midsole foam of the Lone Peak is fairly firm that there is more ground feel than you might expect. Take it from me, if you're going to run long ultras what is more important ground feel or having ample toe room and a rock plate? The MT110s run quite a bit more narrow in the toe box, something I'd be worried about running a 100 miler in.

I do agree that there are a lot of ways the overall weight of the Lone Peak can be reduced and possibly something could be done with the stack height as well. Hey, it's basically a prototype shoe for Altra! How many iterations did it take for NB to get some decent trails shoes? Give it time.

01/13/12 @ 14:47
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Chris

Rob,

I agree that Altra is doing a GREAT job for their first year! I think they already have new models planned and probably revisions to the current ones. Protection, zero-drop, and a wide forefoot is a tremendous start...especially for ultras. I'd likely select the Lone Peak over the MT110 for a 100 miler, but 100K and below might see me grabbing the MT110s.

I'll be keeping my eye on Altra. I think 2012 will be their year...and the break-out year for minimalist shoes.

01/13/12 @ 21:23
Comment from: lyonel [Visitor]
lyonel

Environmentally friendly, this energy-return compound is made of recycled materials. Offering extra protection, this unique layer sits directly under the foot to return energy back into each stride....

Oh please, comon....?!?

01/14/12 @ 06:45
Comment from: Rob [Visitor]  
Rob

@lyonel: I don't know about the claims, but the midsole is in three layers. A thin more "bouncy" feeling layer right under the foot bed as you described, then the thin plastic rock plate and finally the firm foam before the rubber outsole.

Having 3 layers may be overkill but it's not bad for what amounts to a beta model. I guess they just needed a way to "sandwich" the rock plate between layers so why not use a different material on the top that has a little give to it compared to the foam?

01/14/12 @ 14:37
Comment from: Jimmy Hart [Visitor]  
Jimmy Hart

@ lyonel the A-Bound is for real. Other companies have used similar materials for years but they usually only put it in certain areas where Altra puts a full foot bed directly under foot. The A-Bound actually seems to deflect compressive forces from deforming the EVA underneath it which gives the shoe more life and makes it a high mileage shoe. I've got a pair of Instincts that have around 1,000 miles on them and there is hardly any wear on the sole at all. No cracks or creases in the EVA which is key for not having a shoe cause joint pains as it wears out. It sounds crazy but it's completely legit.

01/17/12 @ 13:47
Comment from: Matt Williams [Visitor]
Matt Williams

Great review! I'm about 300 miles into my Lone Peaks (with over 800 miles between a couple of pairs of Instincts - almost all on trails - since the Lone Peak didn't come out until this fall) and absolutely love them - they still look brand new. For winter runners, they are amazing in the snow (and yes the footprint actually does 'show up'!) they are especially good on hard-packed snow where most shoes would leave you slipping. While they drain water and are very breathable, I've also found them to be about the warmest shoe I've worn in the cold. There is certainly room for improvement, but even with that I still believe they are the best trail shoe out there! While I could talk about them all day, my recommendation is (in "Reading Rainbow" style) is to go try on a pair and see for yourself! :)

01/17/12 @ 16:39
Comment from: Ted_S [Visitor]
Ted_S

Since these don't have an arch support and the outer sole appears to be totally flat under the arch, is there just a lot of empty space under the arch of the foot?

01/17/12 @ 22:47
Comment from: Rob (Reviewer) [Visitor]  
Rob (Reviewer)

From my experience now with approaching 200 tough trail miles in the Lone Peaks I can attest that the A-Bound is for real. Almost 200 miles and the shoes, minus a bit of dirt and mud stains, look almost fresh out of the box! The midsole does not look as if it's broken down at all. Granted this is all trail mileage but I have plenty of other trail shoes that have exhibited the foam compression and folding in even fewer miles. So far so good!

01/18/12 @ 09:10
Comment from: Rob (Reviewer) [Visitor]
Rob (Reviewer)

@Ted_S: The foot bed of all the Altra line (as far as I know, but I've only tested the Instinct and Lone Peak) is totally flat. To get any kind of "fill in" you can use the provided removable foam footbeds that provide a little arch but not really support as it's just simple foam. You can also use your own arch support inserts if you're one who requires them (I do).

01/18/12 @ 12:41
Comment from: nikki [Visitor]
nikki

This shoe just looks like a Saucony Jazz or a pair of KangaROOs....

01/25/12 @ 08:30
Comment from: Rob (Reviewer) [Visitor]  
Rob (Reviewer)

It is definitely a "throw back" to the earlier trail running shoe days (something I mentioned in my review). What it may lack in looks it more than makes up for in the ride! Like I said, this is a first generation product by Altra; it can only improve! One only has to go back and look at some the early Nike, Saucony, Asics, etc... models to see how "ugly" they were as well...

01/25/12 @ 10:47
Comment from: J.Mack [Visitor]
J.Mack

Rob,
Great review! I am very intested in this shoe but I am concerned about the weight.
The listed weight is 9.9 ounces. Running Warehouse list them at over 11 ounces. I emailed them and they said they weigh all the shoes they sell. That is a big difference in weight. Do you know anything about the discrepancy?

Thanks

03/26/12 @ 16:38
Comment from: J.Mack [Visitor]
J.Mack

Great view! I am interested in this shoe for longer distance ultras. I am concerned about the weight. The listed weight is 9.9 ounces. Running Warehouse, who weighs all the shoes they sell, list the Lone Peak at over 11 ounces. That is big difference. Do you know what the actual weight of the Lone Peak is?

Thanks

03/26/12 @ 16:45
Comment from: Jimmy Hart [Visitor]
Jimmy Hart

I just weighed my Size 8.5 Lone Peaks and they were sitting at 10 ounces. Not 9.9 but not 11 either. I know that shoe weights obviously change with size so maybe that is where the difference is?

03/26/12 @ 17:08
Comment from: Tom Triumph [Visitor]
Tom Triumph

As for the heel slippage, the guy who sold me mine said that if it happens use the last (or don't use, I can't remember) those last eyelets. For some reason it's different for walking and running.

07/08/12 @ 10:55