What frustrates me about this is that the shoe
Enviado por edrfik1168
|
What frustrates me about this is that the shoe 16-May-2016 10:04 |
Back in 
March I wrote a very positive review of the Nike Wildhorse 2. I’d put a bunch of miles on them over the winter, and was impressed by the combination of a lightweight, minimally structured upper and a well-cushioned, but reasonably thin sole. They also provided solid traction on the crusty ice and snow I deal with for 3-4 months per year up here in New Hampshire.The only major problem I could see with the Wildhorse was that it was very similar to another shoe that has gotten rave reviews: the Nike Terra Kiger. I haven’t tried the Kiger myself, but the upper is supposedly softer and more comfortable, and the added zoom air unit in the forefoot should provide a softer ride up front. The extensive overlap between the two shoes was a bit puzzling, and apparently Nike agreed since version 3 of the Kiger and Wildhorse sees them start to diverge more significantly.
I’ll finish with my favorite aspect of the Wildhorse 3. The shoe fits me incredibly well, and fit is Chaussures Nike Air Max Femmes much improved over v2. I found the forefoot of the v2 to be a bit shallow, and v3 adds a bit of volume up front. It’s hard to say, but it also feels like the forefoot might be a tad wider, and viewing them side-by-side from the top it appears that v3 is a tad longer and slightly more tapered at the toe, but his doesn’t make it constrictive up front. The great fit has made me choose the Wildhorse 3 for several long hikes (I prefer to hike in trail running shoes – haven’t worn a hiking boot in years) and they provide great all-day comfort.
My guess is that people with narrow feet, or those who have a relatively low-volume forefoot will not have a problem and the Free 5.0 2014 will work fine. My feet are average width (I can fit fine into most racing flats, which tend to be narrow), but may be slightly higher volume than average (i.e., taller top to bottom). Thus, the circumference of my foot in this area exceeds the circumference of the tunnel created by this restrictive overlay, and thus it’s a no-go for me. So my rec would be that if you have a wide foot, or a thick foot from top to bottom, these shoes may not work out for you either (and if you had a problem with the forefoot band on the NB MT10, stay away for sure!). Narrow or low volume, you’re probably goo Pas Cher Nike Air Max 1 d to go.
What frustrates me about this is that the shoe otherwise looks and feels great. I love the new sole, and the forefoot is roomy and has a nice stretchy feel to it. What’s more, the problem could be so easily fixed by just adding a gap of stretchy material into the overlay strap (maybe at the base of the lace row) to allow expansion for a higher volume foot. Seems like something that should have been caught and fixed in the development process. I’m hopeful that the Flyknit uppe Nike Air Max 1 Essential France r on the new Free 4.0 will perform better. We’ll see!
March I wrote a very positive review of the Nike Wildhorse 2. I’d put a bunch of miles on them over the winter, and was impressed by the combination of a lightweight, minimally structured upper and a well-cushioned, but reasonably thin sole. They also provided solid traction on the crusty ice and snow I deal with for 3-4 months per year up here in New Hampshire.The only major problem I could see with the Wildhorse was that it was very similar to another shoe that has gotten rave reviews: the Nike Terra Kiger. I haven’t tried the Kiger myself, but the upper is supposedly softer and more comfortable, and the added zoom air unit in the forefoot should provide a softer ride up front. The extensive overlap between the two shoes was a bit puzzling, and apparently Nike agreed since version 3 of the Kiger and Wildhorse sees them start to diverge more significantly.
I’ll finish with my favorite aspect of the Wildhorse 3. The shoe fits me incredibly well, and fit is Chaussures Nike Air Max Femmes much improved over v2. I found the forefoot of the v2 to be a bit shallow, and v3 adds a bit of volume up front. It’s hard to say, but it also feels like the forefoot might be a tad wider, and viewing them side-by-side from the top it appears that v3 is a tad longer and slightly more tapered at the toe, but his doesn’t make it constrictive up front. The great fit has made me choose the Wildhorse 3 for several long hikes (I prefer to hike in trail running shoes – haven’t worn a hiking boot in years) and they provide great all-day comfort.
My guess is that people with narrow feet, or those who have a relatively low-volume forefoot will not have a problem and the Free 5.0 2014 will work fine. My feet are average width (I can fit fine into most racing flats, which tend to be narrow), but may be slightly higher volume than average (i.e., taller top to bottom). Thus, the circumference of my foot in this area exceeds the circumference of the tunnel created by this restrictive overlay, and thus it’s a no-go for me. So my rec would be that if you have a wide foot, or a thick foot from top to bottom, these shoes may not work out for you either (and if you had a problem with the forefoot band on the NB MT10, stay away for sure!). Narrow or low volume, you’re probably goo Pas Cher Nike Air Max 1 d to go.
What frustrates me about this is that the shoe otherwise looks and feels great. I love the new sole, and the forefoot is roomy and has a nice stretchy feel to it. What’s more, the problem could be so easily fixed by just adding a gap of stretchy material into the overlay strap (maybe at the base of the lace row) to allow expansion for a higher volume foot. Seems like something that should have been caught and fixed in the development process. I’m hopeful that the Flyknit uppe Nike Air Max 1 Essential France r on the new Free 4.0 will perform better. We’ll see!