Latest revision as of 09:48, 23 January 2018

The exciting thing about Reebok Floatride Run is that it uses the same type of foam as the amazing (if flawed) Nike Vaporfly 4%. If the Floatride has a fraction of the benefits of the Vaporfly, it could be an awesome shoe. The vapor fly is incredibly light yet massively cushioned and incredibly bouncy. On the other hand, the Floatride is a reasonably good, but relatively ordinary running shoe. It's unclear how much of the new "Pebax" foam is used in the Floatride, but I believe it's all of the white colored foam in the pictures below. The blue foam above, and through the zigzag pattern seems to be a harder, EVA foam. Under foot, the Floatride is reasonably well cushioned, and has a little bit of spring, but nothing that sets it apart from the crowd. The upper is a bit of a mixed bag, and the designers clearly didn't follow the Bauhaus "form follows function" approach. I have some reservations over the way the lacing concentrates forces on a relatively small part of the top of the foot that caused me some troubling pain on prolonged downhill running. If the Floatride had a traditional upper, I would be torn between a quote highly recommended" and a simple "recommended", but the problems with the upper make me downgraded to a "worth considering" grade. (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.)

• 

  Reebok Floatride Run top

• 

  Reebok Floatride Run outside

• 

  Reebok Floatride Run bottom

• 

  Reebok Floatride Run inside

1 Characteristics

• Cushioning . The Floatride is a comfortably cushioned, and has a reasonable cushioning-to-weight ratio. There is the same kind of spring that you'd get from a well-constructed shoe that uses traditional EVA foam, rather than some think exceptional that you might expect from the new Pebax foam. I was a little concerned that the zigzag pattern would be in some way uneven, but I never noticed any effects. The heel is not only thicker than the forefoot, but feels noticeably softer, a combination which has its pros and cons. If you tend to land more heavily on your heel, then this softness is a little more cushioning, without sacrificing toe off responsiveness. On the other hand, it exacerbates the drop, and actively encourages greater forces in the heel. I think that the Floatride managed to capture more of the advantages than the disadvantages, though it took me a while to adapt to this much of drop.
• Drop. The Floatride 6mm of drop, which is more than I'd like, but this increase is all the way to 10 mm when loaded. This again suggests that the heel is quite a bit softer than the forefoot. While this is far more drop than I would like, I didn't find my heel catching the way that I would expect.
• Structure. The Floatride has a fairly complex structure. There is the softer white foam at the bottom which has a zigzag of blue triangles from the midfoot forward of firmer foam, then a ream of firmer foam around the outside edge. The firmer foam towards the front of the shoe produces a differential firmness, and the rim of firmer foam keeps the foot centered in the shoe. I generally find that's a fairly unobtrusive way of stabilizing the foot without intrusively interfering with natural pronation. That's certainly the case with the Floatride, which felt both stable and neutral.
• Flexibility. The Floatride has moderate flexibility, which I suspect is limited by the fairly extensive hard rubber outsole. I was concerned that the zigzag of different phones would make the Floatride want to bend only in certain positions, but that's not the case. The Floatride bends reasonably naturally.
• Outsole. The Floatride has extensive, fairly thick hard rubber outsole over the entire sole of the shoe. This outsole is perforated with many gaps as you can see from the photos above, but it's still a lot of rubber, which increases weight and reduces flexibility. It uses where, but I typically find that the life of the shoe is limited by the collapse of the foam midsole, not the abrasion of the contact patches.
• Shape. The Floatride is not designed to fit a human foot, so I cut open the toe box so my toes would not get crushed and so my foot could move naturally. (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.)
• Upper. The upper is in 2 distinct parts; the black midfoot and forefoot, and the blue via in the photos above. The black material is thick and heavy, but far more stretchable than most running shoes. To offset this there's a rigid plastic exoskeleton that goes from the midsole to the lacing points. I found this combination to be extremely problematic. In a typical running shoe, the sole is attached to your foot by the entire upper, spreading the forces across the top of your foot. But in the Floatride, the attachment is really limited to this hard plastic exoskeleton, which concentrates the forces in a fairly narrow area. I found that after downhill running for a protracted time, I had some disturbing "top of the foot pain", an injury which is gradually subsiding. This type of pain is typically problematic to resolve, so I urge caution. The back of the shoe (colored blue the photos above) feels like it's made of some type of foam, and is reasonably comfortable.
• Tongue. The Floatride is a single piece construction over the midfoot and forefoot, so there's no tongue. The flexibility of the upper means it's still easy to put on, but as noted above this results in increased pressure on the top of your foot. Perhaps exacerbating this problem is a complete absence of any padding over the top of the foot.
• Lacing. The Floatride has flat laces that stay tied without a problem. While the laces are unusually wide, there are only 3 eyeholes, again concentrating the forces on the top of your foot.
• Heel Counter. The Floatride has a fairly innocuous foam reader that acts as a stand-in for a heel counter.

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 Reebok Floatride Ride at Zappos Buy Reebok Floatride Ride at Road Runner Sports Buy Reebok Floatride Ride at Kelly's Running Warehouse Buy Reebok Floatride Ride at Charlotte Ultra Running Company

2 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.