8,108
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Hoka Clayton 2 Review}}
The Hoka Clayton 2 is an incremental change to the original [[Hoka Clayton 1]] and is quite similar to the equally impressive [[Hoka Clifton]]. The Clifton is one of the best selling shoes, and I feel the Clayton is remarkably close in its function and design. Both the Clifton and Clayton have stunning cushioning for their weight, with the Clayton 2 coming in about 1.5oz lighter than the Clifton 3, but with slightly less cushioning. The Clayton uses [[RMAT]] foam as the outsole material, and the current iteration of RMAT works rather well, showing Hoka's growing maturity with this advanced material. [[RMAT]] has great grip on a wide variety of surfaces, including even slick, wet rock. This is something I love in the [[Hoka Mafate]] and [[Hoka Tor Ultra]] boots, and while the Clayton is less likely to be used on torturous trails, the RMAT will make it more competent than you might expect. All this makes RMAT an outstanding outsole as it combines this grip with better cushioning than a traditional rubber and better wear characteristics than an exposed midsole. When you run in the Clayton 2 it feels a lot like the Clifton (both the first and second versions), though I found the upper to be slightly less comfortable, something that's only slightly improved in the Clayton 2. The Clayton feels rather like running barefoot on a softly cushioned track, without undue interference. The Clayton is not a shoe you notice when you're running in it, which is what you want. My main complaint with the Clayton (and most other running shoes) is in the shape of the toe box, which really needs to be cut open. My feet are a fairly typical width, and the Clayton fits me perfectly, other than my toes. The Clayton is rather pricy, so if you're after something with similar cushioning, for less money and with less weight then check out the [[Nike Zoom Streak LT]]. Overall The other problem with the Clayton is an outstanding shoe, and I've rated that many runners are finding it as "The Best irritates the arch of the Bestfoot, sometimes causing blisters. This problem, combined with the toe box issue," and while it's a tough call, I prefer the Clayton over rise of competitors like the Clifton, as [[Altra Escalante]] mean I feel 've dropped the slight reduction in cushioning is worth it for rating of the slightly lower weight, and the RMAT outsoleClayton "Highly Recommended. " {{H:WhatToLookForInShoes}}
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px class="center">
File:Hoka Clayton 2-top.jpg|Hoka Clayton 2 top view.
* {{H:flexibility}}. The Clayton 2 is reasonably flexible for shoe of this thickness, and the practical flexibility is a little greater than my metrics might suggest. The softness of the midsole allows the ball of your foot to sink in and creates some effective flexibility for your foot.
* {{H:outsole}}. The Clayton uses [[RMAT]] as the outsole material. This is not as hard wearing as a true blown rubber outsole, but because it's a lot more cushioned than rubber, the overall cushioning-to-weight ratio is much better than you might expect in a shoe that has an outsole covering virtually the entire contact patch. The [[RMAT]] material also has remarkably good traction, far better than the traction you'd get in a traditional rubber outsole. For wet asphalt, it's arguably comparable to the hard plastic nubs found in ultralight shoes like the [[New Balance RC5000v2]], though on slicker surface the Clayton's RMAT will win every time.
* {{H:shape}}. The Clayton 2 has the typical Hoka shape, which includes a horribly constricted toe box. A superficial inspection might make you think the Clayton is a little wider, but I think this is an optical illusion created by the wider midsole. I've noticed at Ultras the Hoka toe box causes a distinctive pattern of blisters, so it's critical to [[Shoe Dissection| cut open the toe box of any Hokas]]. {{H:TryCuttingShoes}}. Even with my skin condition, I've had no problems with blisters once the toe box is cut open. However, I've had a number of reports of runners getting blisters on the arch of their foot. The Clayton 2 is very similar to most other Hoka shoes around the arch, but I did notice one significant difference. Virtually all Hokas, including the Clayton 2, have a midsole that rises up to cup the heel and some of the midfoot. When the midsole rises up near the arch, all other Hoka shoes I checked (and I checked quite a few) have an insole that rises up to cover the midsole. On the Clayton 2 however, the insole does not cover the midsole, and I suspect this is the cause of the blisters. <gallery widths=300px heights=300px class="center">File:Hoka Clayton 2 Arch Issues (2).jpg| Like most Hokas, the Clayton 2 has a midsole that rise up around the arch of the foot. File:Hoka Clayton 2 Arch Issues (3).jpg| Here you can see the inside of the shoe, with the upper folded back to show where the midsole comes to. You can see that the midsole rises well above where the insole ends. File:Hoka Clayton 2 Arch Issues (1).jpg|By comparison, in other Hoka shoes the insole comes much higher and covers the midsole. </gallery>
* {{H:upper}}. The upper is largely seamless, with moderate to poor breathability due to the number of overlays. There is a one seam in the midfoot where a small amount of padding is added to the rear of the shoe, and there is an odd bit of sewing at the ankle opening (see image below.) There is far less padding in the Clayton 2 than I'd have expected, and vastly less around the ankle opening than a shoe like the [[Hoka Clifton]]. There ankle opening in the Clayton 2 has a very slight improvement over the original Clayton, but it's enough that I didn't find it uncomfortable.
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px class="center">
* {{H:lacing}}. The Clayton uses thin flat laces which stay tied. The laces have a slight bit of elasticity in them, improving the overall comfort of the shoe. (They appear to be the same lace that Hoka used in the Clifton.)
* {{H:heelcounter}}. I could not detect any [[Heel Counter]] in the Clayton, though the upper has an overlay in that part of the shoe that ensures it maintains its shape when you're putting it on.
=Update after 340 Miles=
I try to write update on running shoes after about 200 miles, but I found I've done over 300 before I'd even written the overall review. Many runners have complained about the arch causing blisters, for which I dropped the rating from its previous "best of the best" to "highly recommended", but I've not had any issues personally. As you can see from the photos below, I had to cut open the toe box immediately due to its horrible shape, but this is a fairly pervasive issue with modern running shoes. I've been surprised just how well this shoe is held up to the miles. You can see a little bit of wear on the outsole, but that's fairly minor in the scale of things. I'd estimate that I've lost about 1 mm of outsole in the heaviest wear areas under the ball of my foot, and it's not overly localized, so this is not causing any unnatural foot movement. There is some compression of the midsole foam under the ball of my foot, but far less than I would've expected, amounting to probably only 1-2 mm, which means that there is a surprising amount of life left in these shoes. This is a little surprising, as the harder wearing [[RMAT]] outsole phone does not appear to make up a huge portion of the overall cushioning. Speaking of RMAT, I've been extremely pleased with the level of grip is outsole material provides, especially in the wet or other slick conditions.
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px class="center">
File:Clayton2_340Miles (4).jpg| This is an overview of the outsole, and you may be able to make out some of the wear pattern, though it's fairly minor.
File:Clayton2_340Miles (3).jpg| A close up of the area under the ball of my foot shows the abrasion a little more clearly. You may need to click to get a bigger image, but you'll see that the bottom right edge of the picture shows the outsole that still has the original embossed pattern, that is worn away from other points. You also get a sense of how much the cross in the center of each pad has disappeared as the outsole has worn.
File:Clayton2_340Miles (1).jpg| Looking at the insole, you'll notice there is no noticeable compression of the midsole foam, reflecting a surprisingly resilient shoe.
File:Clayton2_340Miles (2).jpg| even though I've cut the toe box open, there's no sign of wear or stress on the upper. To be fair, I've only had a couple of shoes that have ever had any issues with their upper after the toe box has been cut open, who's running shoes are made of tough materials.
</gallery>
=A Comparison with other Recommended Shoes=
{{:Shoes-include}}