I enjoy how bouncy and smooth it feels, even just walking around. The first thing I noticed when I put this shoe on was the familiarity in comfort with the Peregrine 10, which I tested last year. John : I have the pleasure of testing the ST this round. That said, I thought the ISO and 10 were both top notch trail shoes with massive traction and enough cushioning, and right out of the box(es), the 11 and variants seem like they didn’t fix anything that wasn’t broken. And I saw the Peregrine completely differently than Renee, I avoided the shoe because it didn’t have enough cushioning/heft. Jeff B : My Peregrine history splits the difference between Jeff and Renee - I reviewed and enjoyed the ISO (9) and the 10. Does that mean runners who dislike heavy shoes should now consider the Peregrine line? Maybe. However, for quality trail shoes, overall weight can be misleading. V., I have no history with the Peregrine line of shoes, and I likely avoided buying and running them because of the weight. In addition to the Peregrine 11, we’ll be adding to this review the Gore Tex version, as well as the ST version with its deeper lugs for softer terrain. The Peregrine 11 carries over the same midsole and outsole as the 10, though with a newly refined upper. The Peregrine 10, where, despite being similar weight and with 2mm more stack, felt more streamlined, to the point where the Peregrine had returned to its more speedy performance roots with vast improvements throughout. Versions 8 and ISO (technically the 9 I guess?) were in my opinion, completely different shoes and only really shared a name and perhaps tread with its predecessors, as they seemed to gain weight/bulk and cushion, making them good all terrain cruisers, but not no longer really an all mountain racer. ![]() Version 7 was more padded in the heel and slightly more flexible/forgiving, but the upper was a little less secure. Version 6 was much better, but still required about 50 miles of break in to manage the heel rub issues. However, I did not like that versions 4 and 5 were stiff as a 2x4 underfoot and caused me extensive heel blistering that I just could not manage or mitigate. I liked that they were light, low and stable, with a minimal, yet secure upper and had excellent traction. Jeff V: I have a long history with the Peregrine dating back to version 4. Both of these are beneficial for heel strikers.Article by Jeff Valliere, Renee Krusemark, John Tribbia, and Jeff Beck We also appreciated softer landings and smoother roll-throughs in the Peregrine 13. Hats off to Saucony, as our measurements came out to be 27.5/23.6 mm which implies an incredibly close heel-to-toe drop of 3.9 mm-only 0.1 mm away. We meticulously measured the stack of the Peregrine 13 to confirm the brand's official claims of a 28/24 mm stack, resulting in a 4 mm drop. What the v13’s taller stack lost in agility and ground feel, it made up for in underfoot comfort and responsiveness.ĭisclaimer: We always include insoles in our stack measurements. The taller Peregrine 13 hasn’t lost its edge On the other hand, how does the Saucony fare in terms of flexibility? Once again, it surpasses the average shoe by becoming only 36.7% firmer, compared to the typical 43.5% increase in firmness that we measured. ![]() For comparison, the EVA-based Salomon Ultra Glide 2 does it by 81.9% and becomes an absolute brick. The PWRRUN foam in this shoe only hardens up by 16.3% after being in the freezer. ![]() Thankfully, the TPU-based foam in the Saucony Peregrine 13 is one of those that performs admirably during winter conditions. This difference is real!Ī common drawback of many trail running shoes is that they become quite firm in cold temperatures-please refer to our guide for more details. In comparison, its race-oriented sibling, the Saucony Endorphin Edge, is 47.3% softer. The shoe is 6% firmer than trail shoes on average. We measured the shoe's TPU-based midsole at 29.1 HA, which confirms our initial impressions. However, the Peregrine 13 is still pretty far from being a cushy goodness. That's good news!ĭisclaimer: We calculate the average of four durometer measurements, disregarding any outliers. The extra 1.5 mm of foam helps the shoe drift away from the more technical-oriented Peregrine 12 and turns it into a more comfortable daily trainer. While it’s still a firm experience overall, the shoe got noticeably cushier underfoot-with the harshness of the previous version now substantially diminished. The big story in the Peregrine 13 is the added 1.5 mm of PWRRUN midsole foam. Your browser does not support the video tag.Īfter examining the upper under our microscope, we can also claim that this Peregrine iteration carries over the durability and toughness we've come to anticipate from this trail shoe series.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |