These are the hiking shoes of the gods. I always used to hike in hoka, and Nikes but the steep and aggressive mountain trails destroyed them real quick. I did some heavy research and ended up buying my first Salomon Speedcross and all I can say is wow. I liken them to having trekking poles on your feet. The more aggressive, steep and outright awful the terrain you are running/hiking in the better they perform. The grip, traction and security they provide is off the charts. Highly recommend these.
Similar experiences. Tried most brands--trail running in Southeast Asia (very aggressive wet/dry/hot terrain)--and nothing has performed like Speedcross. Good soles a given, but tough uppers and strong toes are essential in the terrain I do. You may pay more initially but save in the long run. Have had shoes that lasted mere months (and not cheap), where the Salomon's have gone a couple years.
These are ideal for fast hikes in wet /muddy terrain. I used to live in the Seattle area and wore versions of this shoe in the super steep rain forests of the Cascades. I wouldn’t want to run in them.
always like the speedcross for inclement weather on the trails or nasty conditions but am now a convert to the wildcross…. lower drop feels a bit more natural, bit wider, equally super great big-lug grip
I would be interested to hear how the insole sits when the shoe is soaking. Previous versions I've experienced the insole bunches up terribly when wet and I know this has been an ongoing issue for salomon. Shame really as they're a good shoe other than that. Keep it up guys 👍
Před 2 lety
Ortholite sponge insoles really suck. They might feel comfortable when you first wear the shoes but don't actually offer much cushioning in long run. Regular more dense insoles offer a lot more cushioning and do not absorb water. I actually prefer s/lab shoes without removable insoles.
Hey Ben have you tried changing the insole? I have to change the Ortholite insoles in most of the shoes they put them in. The Inov-8 Boomerang insole is pretty cool.
True for me. I have same issue. The wet insole slip and being pushed forward, it’s annoying until i have to remove during run. Now i superglued it. I own many salomon shoes but this is the first issue i encountered. Apart from stability during downhill especially in rocky mixed with dirt
Most comments put speedcross as a good hiking shoes & no so good as a trail running shoes .I can agree with that . I feel the speedcross is having an identity crisis . The grip is great. Thanks to the deep lugs . It is unstable if you want to run fast . The salomon quick laces system is easy to use but i don’t get a good lock down .
I have a number of versions of the speed cross and you can't fault the outsole in the mud. Excellent lace system but where I have a problem, is with the upper and its narrow. The uppers on all my speed crosses have always failed. If they sorted out those two problems in this shoe, it would be number one for trails in the mud. I will wait for a longer mileage review for this version.
The speed cross have always been fantastic shoe's for anyone competing in OCR's, Nordrace , Spartan's etc. I do not see the new model being any different.
trying to decide between speedcross 6 and agility 5, will be used for both fast short hikes and running, mainly over UK chase, which can be muddy in Autumn, but some pavements between sections. i do have fairly flat feet as well. anyone got any input, that would be great
I want something that has the bounce of my Endorphin Speeds but provides grip on wet fields and wet, muddy trails. Does this have a midsole as bouncy as the Endorphin Speeds? Anything else coming soon that may do this?
I mean, youre objectively wrong, but go ahead and be negative. First impressions ARE important, because if there’s a major issue, it should be documented.
There are 3 lever of run shoes reviews: 1 - first run review = means nothing, completely useless 2 - 200km review = it says a lot about the performance of the shoe 3 - 500km+ review = it says a lot about the performance of the shoe and also the durability of the shoe. Please try to follow this review pattern for all the shoes you review, so you can be trust-worthy. Otherwise you are just a marketing/promotion channel....
I agree with this comment. I always look for the 100km reviews when weighing up a new running shoe purchase. When shoe reviewers talk highly about a shoe in the initial review but don't actually take that shoe to 70-100km it tells me that they don't actually like it but are saying nice things for the kickback some get when purchasing through their links. Using the shoe for 100-200km speaks more about how good it is than words alone. That's not to say that I think the RunTesters fall into this category. On the whole I think they give fair reviews.
Given how many shoes there are to test it is unreasonable to expect more than a few 200/500 km reviews (and there have been such reviews in the past). Also, i don't think you need to put in 200 km to properly assess the performance. 60-80 km at a mix of paces should be enough. We should be past the point of shoes needing 100 km to 'break in'. That is not to say that i would not like the system you suggest. But a small group of people can only run so much.
Cheers Mohamed. We do first runs as an overview of the shoe while we continue to test out over multiple runs. Sometimes it can take us a while to cover many shoes due to the number we have to test. I should also point out we don't add affiliate links to the shoes as we receive no money if viewers decide to buy them.
This is very true PFG666. We'd be very limited in terms of what we could cover based on high mileage testing and would have to stick to the big releases instead of having a wide range of shoes. Which would bring with it plenty of objections.
@@PFG666 There are 3-4 runners in this channel. If each one runs 50km per week in one pair of shoes, that is 200km per month. So they could have a good review for 3-4 shoes per month. In one year, this is 36-48 pairs per year. This is of course if their objective was to actually review a shoe and not just promote/get hits for their content. And it is not just affiliate links that they can make money....
These are the hiking shoes of the gods. I always used to hike in hoka, and Nikes but the steep and aggressive mountain trails destroyed them real quick. I did some heavy research and ended up buying my first Salomon Speedcross and all I can say is wow. I liken them to having trekking poles on your feet. The more aggressive, steep and outright awful the terrain you are running/hiking in the better they perform. The grip, traction and security they provide is off the charts. Highly recommend these.
Similar experiences. Tried most brands--trail running in Southeast Asia (very aggressive wet/dry/hot terrain)--and nothing has performed like Speedcross. Good soles a given, but tough uppers and strong toes are essential in the terrain I do. You may pay more initially but save in the long run. Have had shoes that lasted mere months (and not cheap), where the Salomon's have gone a couple years.
These are ideal for fast hikes in wet /muddy terrain. I used to live in the Seattle area and wore versions of this shoe in the super steep rain forests of the Cascades. I wouldn’t want to run in them.
always like the speedcross for inclement weather on the trails or nasty conditions but am now a convert to the wildcross…. lower drop feels a bit more natural, bit wider, equally super great big-lug grip
I would be interested to hear how the insole sits when the shoe is soaking. Previous versions I've experienced the insole bunches up terribly when wet and I know this has been an ongoing issue for salomon. Shame really as they're a good shoe other than that. Keep it up guys 👍
Ortholite sponge insoles really suck. They might feel comfortable when you first wear the shoes but don't actually offer much cushioning in long run. Regular more dense insoles offer a lot more cushioning and do not absorb water. I actually prefer s/lab shoes without removable insoles.
Hey Ben have you tried changing the insole? I have to change the Ortholite insoles in most of the shoes they put them in. The Inov-8 Boomerang insole is pretty cool.
True for me. I have same issue. The wet insole slip and being pushed forward, it’s annoying until i have to remove during run. Now i superglued it. I own many salomon shoes but this is the first issue i encountered. Apart from stability during downhill especially in rocky mixed with dirt
About to take these to the Peaks for a proper muddy test! Thanks guys!
Most comments put speedcross as a good hiking shoes & no so good as a trail running shoes .I can agree with that .
I feel the speedcross is having an identity crisis .
The grip is great. Thanks to the deep lugs . It is unstable if you want to run fast . The salomon quick laces system is easy to use but i don’t get a good lock down .
I have a number of versions of the speed cross and you can't fault the outsole in the mud. Excellent lace system but where I have a problem, is with the upper and its narrow. The uppers on all my speed crosses have always failed. If they sorted out those two problems in this shoe, it would be number one for trails in the mud. I will wait for a longer mileage review for this version.
How do you rate it in gore-tex vs not ?
The speed cross have always been fantastic shoe's for anyone competing in OCR's, Nordrace , Spartan's etc. I do not see the new model being any different.
trying to decide between speedcross 6 and agility 5, will be used for both fast short hikes and running, mainly over UK chase, which can be muddy in Autumn, but some pavements between sections. i do have fairly flat feet as well. anyone got any input, that would be great
What shoe did you use for the November race and was it good? If you did it again would you choose differently?
Thanks. Very good review, not not sure why this shoe has a 10mm drop?
I want something that has the bounce of my Endorphin Speeds but provides grip on wet fields and wet, muddy trails. Does this have a midsole as bouncy as the Endorphin Speeds? Anything else coming soon that may do this?
I mean, youre objectively wrong, but go ahead and be negative.
First impressions ARE important, because if there’s a major issue, it should be documented.
"Ooh assassins!"
Homer Simpson.
So basically exactly the same as a Speedcross 5 but in different colours.
Different lug shape.
👍👍👍👍❤️
There are 3 lever of run shoes reviews:
1 - first run review = means nothing, completely useless
2 - 200km review = it says a lot about the performance of the shoe
3 - 500km+ review = it says a lot about the performance of the shoe and also the durability of the shoe.
Please try to follow this review pattern for all the shoes you review, so you can be trust-worthy. Otherwise you are just a marketing/promotion channel....
I agree with this comment. I always look for the 100km reviews when weighing up a new running shoe purchase. When shoe reviewers talk highly about a shoe in the initial review but don't actually take that shoe to 70-100km it tells me that they don't actually like it but are saying nice things for the kickback some get when purchasing through their links. Using the shoe for 100-200km speaks more about how good it is than words alone. That's not to say that I think the RunTesters fall into this category. On the whole I think they give fair reviews.
Given how many shoes there are to test it is unreasonable to expect more than a few 200/500 km reviews (and there have been such reviews in the past). Also, i don't think you need to put in 200 km to properly assess the performance. 60-80 km at a mix of paces should be enough. We should be past the point of shoes needing 100 km to 'break in'.
That is not to say that i would not like the system you suggest. But a small group of people can only run so much.
Cheers Mohamed. We do first runs as an overview of the shoe while we continue to test out over multiple runs. Sometimes it can take us a while to cover many shoes due to the number we have to test. I should also point out we don't add affiliate links to the shoes as we receive no money if viewers decide to buy them.
This is very true PFG666. We'd be very limited in terms of what we could cover based on high mileage testing and would have to stick to the big releases instead of having a wide range of shoes. Which would bring with it plenty of objections.
@@PFG666 There are 3-4 runners in this channel. If each one runs 50km per week in one pair of shoes, that is 200km per month. So they could have a good review for 3-4 shoes per month. In one year, this is 36-48 pairs per year. This is of course if their objective was to actually review a shoe and not just promote/get hits for their content. And it is not just affiliate links that they can make money....
Nice, yet another pointy shoe for crooked toes :(
I’ve seen plenty of ugly trail shoes before but this is by far the ugliest!
not good shoes. pulsar trail is another world
Pulsar trail pro must be heaven then 😁
@ S-Lab Pulsar must be heaven within that heaven then 😁
@@finproductions i just can't justify spending that much money
Very different kind of shoes