Latest revision as of 14:19, 14 August 2017

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. The other problem with the Clayton is that many runners are finding it irritates the arch of the foot, sometimes causing blisters. This problem, combined with the toe box issue, and the rise of competitors like the Altra Escalante mean I've dropped the rating of the Clayton "Highly Recommended." (I use The Science of Running Shoes as the basis of how I test running shoes and what you should look for in a running shoe.)

• 

  Hoka Clayton 2 top view.

• 

  Hoka Clayton 2 outside view. The yellow RMAT outsole is hard to distinguish from the EVA midsole that's colored yellow at the front. If you look carefully you'll see the line from the rear of the shoe forward, demarking the two types of foam.

• 

  Hoka Clayton 2 bottom view, where it's easier to see the yellow RMAT against the white EVA foam.

• 

  Hoka Clayton 2 inside view. This view makes the foam midsole look massive, but most of the foam is just wrapping around the foot, creating a fairly innocuous cradle.

Please support this site This review was made possible by readers like you buying products via my links. I buy all the products I review through normal retail channels, which allows me to create unbiased reviews free from the influence of reciprocity, or the need to keep vendors happy. It also ensures I don't get "reviewer specials" that are better than the retail versions. Buy Hoka Clayton 2 at Zappos Buy Hoka Clayton 2 at Road Runner Sports Buy Hoka Clayton 2 at Kelly's Running Warehouse Buy Hoka Clayton 2 at Charlotte Ultra Running Company

1 Characteristics

• Cushioning . The Clayton 2 has the massive cushioning that made Hoka famous, and in a shoe that is remarkably light. The cushioning-to-weight ratio is almost identical to the Hoka Clifton 3, which is about the best of the Maximalist shoes. You can get better cushioning-to-weight ratios, but only in much lighter shoes like the Nike Zoom Streak LT, New Balance RC5000, or the amazing New Balance RC5000v2. The Hyper Speed has similar levels of overall cushioning to the Clayton, though the Hyper Speed has more cushioning in the heel and less in the forefoot. Surprisingly (to me at least), is the Saucony Kinvara 8, which has better cushioning than the Clayton for slightly less weight.
• Drop. The Clayton has about a 1mm drop when loaded, down from 5mm when measured without the weight of a runner.
• Structure. The Clayton has two types of foam, a traditional EVA foam used as the midsole, and a much tougher RMAT foam used as the outsole. The combination of these two foams does not interfere with your biomechanics in the way that would occur with a medial post. In the midsole cups the heel of the foot, which tends to create a little unobtrusive stability. The midsole does arise up under the arch, but I didn't find this will cause enough to cause any planter fasciitis issues. I found the taper at the front of the Clayton when the midsole thins between the ball of the foot and the toes to be quite smooth and natural (Hoka refers to this as the "rocker ".) One improvement over the first version is that the midsole no longer extends out from the outside edge of the forefoot so much.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 cut open the toe box of any Hokas. (I recommend cutting open the toe box of virtually all running shoes, with the exception of a few shoes like some Altra shoes. When you have some worn out shoes, you should try cutting open the toe box. I've found that it's a big improvement, allowing my toes to move naturally and engage for toe off, as well as reducing the possibility of blisters.). 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.

• 

  Like most Hokas, the Clayton 2 has a midsole that rise up around the arch of the foot.

• 

  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.

• 

  By comparison, in other Hoka shoes the insole comes much higher and covers the midsole.

• 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.

• 

  A photo of the Clayton 2, backlit to show breathability.

• 

  Here you can see the much thinner padding on the Clayton on the left, compared with the far thicker, and softer padding of the Clifton on the right.

• 

  This is not really a seam, just a bit of thread that is sown in, and while it didn't cause me any issues, it's a little uncomfortable.

• Tongue. The Clayton 2 has a normal tongue rather than a tongue-less sock style of upper, and the tongue is slightly padded. With the flat laces which are closely spaced, I don't think runners will have an issue with pressure from the laces on the top of the foot.
• 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.)
• Heel Counter. 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.

2 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.

• 

  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.

• 

  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.

• 

  Looking at the insole, you'll notice there is no noticeable compression of the midsole foam, reflecting a surprisingly resilient shoe.

• 

  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.

3 A Comparison with other Recommended Shoes

If you're looking for "the best of the best" running shoe, here are my top picks. Of course, the answer will depend a little on what you're looking for, so I have recommendations for various categories. Best All Round Shoe. The Altra Escalante is my current all-round favorite. It has plenty of cushioning for its weight, it has a very springy midsole, it lasts well, and it has a shape that's closer to the shape of a human foot than most shoes. It's a great shoe for any runner, including those Starting to run. It's also a fairly easy shoe to find due to its popularity. Best Maximalist Shoe: If you want something massively cushioned, then I'd recommend the Saucony Kinvara 8. It's remarkably light and remarkably cushioned, beating Hoka at their own game. Best Optimal Shoe: For those looking to trade cushioning for speed, the Nike Zoom Streak LT 3 was my top pick, but the latest version (LT 4) falls short of it's predecessor. There are lots of great optimal running shoes, which provide just enough cushioning with light weight and minimal frills, but all have their weak spots. Probably the best option at the moment is the Altra Vanish-R, which offers great cushioning for just over 5oz/150g. Fastest Shoe: If you really want speed, then check out the Nike Vaporfly 4%. It's light, massively cushioned, and has a carbon fiber plate. Nothing comes close, not even the now defunct New Balance RC5000‏‎ or New Balance RC5000v2‏‎. There are a number of caveats; it's really expensive, it's really hard to find, and there's a significant injury risk. Best Minimalist Shoe: Merrell Trail Glove. I recommend the trail glove for road running in spite of the 'trail' moniker. It's not a fast shoe by any means, but it's comfortable and will last well. All Terrain Shoe. For trail running, I've become a fan of Altra, and I think their best shoe is the the Altra Timp, though the Altra Lone Peak is really close. Honorable Mention: It's not really a running shoe, but the Vivobarefoot Ra is comfortable, minimalist and can more or less pass as a dress shoe. I've worn mine to weddings with a suit and they've not looked out of place. You can run in the Ra, but the leather means it doesn't breathe well.

For a more detailed on running shoes see the Recommendations for Best Running Shoes. This table lists the key attributes of What to Look for in Running Shoes. For more detailed information, on the shoes see detailed shoe comparison.

It's not a running shoe, but I love the Hoka Tor Ultra hiking boot and I've tested the Altra Lone Peak Boot, the Hoka Tor Speed 2, and the Inov-8 Roclite 325 hiking boots
Older shoe reviews: Saucony Hattori Review, Mizuno Cursoris Review, Skechers GO Bionic 2 Review, Hoka Clifton Review, Saucony Virrata 2 Review, Brooks PureCadence 3 Review, Brooks PureConnect 3 Review, Brooks PureFlow 3 Review, Skechers GO Bionic 2 Review, New Balance 980 Review, Brooks Transcend 2 Review, Hoka Huaka Review, Patagonia EVERlong Review, Asics 33-DFA Review, Hoka Conquest Review, Saucony Cortana Review, Puma Faas 100 R Review, Saucony Fastwitch Review, Nike Free Review, Asics Gel Lyte 33 Review, Skechers GOmeb Speed Review, Skechers GOrun Ultra Road Review, Nike LunaRacer Review, Altra Paradigm Review.