Shoe Review: Salomon SpeedCross 2
I bought a pair of Salomon SpeedCross 2 to wear in the World Rogaining Champs in November 2010. I haven’t trashed them yet, but I’ve decided to review them regardless after reading a Jonathan Wyatt review of the next generation of SpeedCross - with spikes. If Wyatt says they’re good, I’m listening.
24 hours is a long time on your feet, so I was looking for a light shoe with sufficient cushioning and a tread pattern to suit the race terrain. I thought that the SpeedCross2’s looked as if they would fit the bill.
The shoes did their job in the race; I had no blisters and my were feet still in good condition at the finish line. I feel like I should be able to give them thumbs up, but I just can’t do it. The SpeedCross 2 has one flaw so great that I can’t forgive them.
Fit - a comfortable & secure fit on your foot
Once I came to terms with the nifty Salomon lacing system, I’ve managed to get a reasonable fit. Reasonable, but not bombproof like Inov8’s. The SpeedCross2’s are a wider than (most) Inov8’s which probably doesn’t suit my foot. Also, I find the padding in the tongue and round to the heel counter makes the fit seem spongey; not ideal since that is where you want the fit to feel rock solid. But still - no blisters.
Lightweight - no excess weight
I weigh mine at 340grams (12oz), which is lighter than many “trail” shoes, but feels noticeably heavier than more minimal competitors such as Inov8 Roclite 285’s. Holding the SpeedCross 2’s in your hands, you can feel where the weight is - all in the heel.
Non absorbent - will not hold water
The padding through the heel-tongue soaks up the water and it takes a little while to feel like you’ve squeezed it out. Other than that the SpeedCross 2 are non-absorbent.
Grip - tread pattern and rubber compound suited to terrain you’re running in
I thought the tread pattern would be ideal for the fast grassy terrain in Cheviot. Overrall the grip was sound although I did slip a bit on long wet grass, more than my teammate Robb who was wearing Salomon XA Pro 3D.
Durability - strong enough to last more than 5 minutes doing what they’re designed for
Its early days, but I have logged 45 hours in them which is enough to comment, I think. I have to say, my pair are looking sweet, with one notable exception: the tread is wearing down notably. The SpeedCross 2 use a sticky rubber compound in the sole which is intended to grip well, but is less durable. This was advertised when I bought them, so I’m not unhappy.
Low profile - minimal heel cushion
SpeedCross 2 fail here. I just don’t understand what they were thinking; very high heel cushion paired with a very low forefoot? In terrain its like running in high heels! I have to very careful with my ankles whilst teetering on top of these skyscrapers. In my humble opinion, this undermines all the other positive attributes of the shoe. Its a real pity; I’m always just a little reluctant to wear them running off-road, that is, for what they were designed to do. I’d be comfortable using for a 24hr Rogaine, whilst Adventure Racing, or a during pleasant bush walk.
A substantial heel cushion is unnecessary and undesirable off-road. Even if you’re a heel-striker, you’re not landing on concrete and no two footstrikes are the same. You simply don’t require cushioning designed for identical repetitive impact. On uneven ground the higher your heel is from the dirt, the less stable your ankle and the less proprioceptive information your foot can gather. Wobbly ankles and slow reactions are a bad combination. Its just such a pity. Without that huge heel, the SpeedCross2 would be a bad-ass off-road shoe… This is why I was excited to read Jonathon Wyatt explaining about the SpikeCross vs SpeedCross:
“the most noticeable difference is in the rear foot stability that sits closer to the ground and features more of a cradle to hold the foot on the shoe when meeting technical terrain. It works great.”
Further reading suggests that Salomon may have realised the flaw in SpeedCross2. A raft of low profile options in the pipeline?
