A Few Months In
Welcome, fellow runners and fitness enthusiasts. I've put about 400 kilometres on the Novablast 6 now, mostly easy runs but with a fair few tempo sessions and one half marathon thrown in. Time to actually write down what I think, rather than just telling people "yeah they're good" at the club on Tuesday nights.
First impressions
The box says 245 grams for a UK men's size 9. Mine came in a touch heavier, closer to 250, but that's within the usual margin of error for these things. Straight out of the box they felt firmer than I expected. ASICS had been talking up the new FF Blast Max foam for months before release, and I'll admit I'd built up an image in my head of something almost trampoline-like. That's not quite what you get.
The shape is unmistakably Novablast. That rocker geometry is still there, the sort of shoe that seems to want to roll you forward whether you're trying to or not. If you've worn the 4 or the 5, you'll recognise the silhouette immediately. ASICS haven't reinvented anything here. They've tweaked it.
The ride
Right, the bit everyone actually cares about. How does it run?
Easy pace, this shoe is lovely. There's a bounce to it that doesn't feel artificial, not in the way some max-cushion shoes can feel like you're running on a bouncy castle and slightly losing control. The stack height is up slightly from the 5 (36mm heel, 28mm forefoot, for what it's worth) but it doesn't feel unstable. I have mild pronation and I never once felt like my ankle was doing anything it shouldn't.
Where things get more interesting is at faster paces. I ran a tempo session at around 4:15 per kilometre and the shoe held up fine, genuinely fine, better than I thought a daily trainer with this much foam would manage. But it's not a racing shoe and it doesn't pretend to be one. There's no carbon plate, and you can feel that absence when you try to really push. The energy return is good but it plateaus. Past a certain effort the shoe just isn't adding much more.
The outsole is where ASICS made one of the bigger changes. They've gone with a more exposed foam approach in places, less rubber coverage than the 5 had. On dry tarmac this is a non-issue. Grip is solid. Take it out on a damp morning though and you'll notice it. Nothing dangerous, just a bit more caution needed on painted road markings and drain covers, the usual suspects.
Fit and upper
The engineered mesh upper breathes well. I ran a stinking hot afternoon in July in these and my feet didn't turn into a swamp, which is more than I can say for a couple of other shoes I own. The toe box has a bit more room than the 5, which some reviewers have flagged as a downside if you like a snug race-day fit, but for me, someone who runs mostly in the 60 to 75 minute range, I preferred it. My feet swell a bit on longer runs and the extra width meant no hot spots by the end.
The heel collar is padded generously without feeling bulky. Lacing is standard, nothing clever, but it doesn't need to be. I did have to re-lace once mid-run on a particularly hilly route because my foot was shifting slightly on the descents, but that's more a function of the terrain than the shoe.
Sizing runs true, for reference. I'm normally a 9 and the 9 fit as expected, no need to size up or down.
Durability
This is where I've got mixed feelings and I want to be honest about it rather than just saying "great shoe, buy it" and moving on.
At around 250 kilometres I started noticing compression in the midfoot foam. Not falling apart, nothing dramatic, but a slight loss of that initial bounce. By 350 kilometres it was noticeable enough that I switched this pair to shorter recovery runs and brought a fresher pair into rotation for anything longer. That's roughly in line with what I'd expect from most max-cushion trainers in this price bracket, so I'm not marking it down heavily for that, but if you were hoping for something that stays lively past 500 kilometres, manage your expectations.
The outsole rubber has worn evenly. No weird angled wear patterns, which suggests the geometry underneath is doing what it's meant to. Small mercy, but a real one. I've had shoes before where uneven wear told me something was off with the gait guidance built into the shoe, and that's not the case here.
Who should actually buy these
If you're after a daily trainer that can handle a range of paces without feeling like a compromise, this is a strong option. I wouldn't recommend it as your only shoe if you're training for anything serious, marathon and above, because the durability question becomes more pressing over higher mileage weeks. But as a shoe for someone running four or five times a week, mixing easy days with the occasional tempo, it does the job well.
Heavier runners might find the foam compresses faster than the numbers above suggest, worth bearing in mind if you're over 85 kilograms or so. Lighter runners in the 55 to 65 kilogram range, on the other hand, might get considerably more life out of the midsole before it starts to feel dead underfoot.
I keep going back and forth on the price. At the current RRP it sits in that awkward middle ground, more expensive than budget trainers but not quite premium enough to justify itself purely on materials. What you're paying for, really, is the ride quality and the ASICS name. Whether that's worth it to you depends on how much you value a smooth, slightly playful daily trainer over something more workmanlike but cheaper.
A few gripes
The exposed foam on the outsole worries me a little for winter running. I haven't tested it in proper wet leaves-and-ice conditions yet because it's only just gone into fully cold weather where I am, but I'll update this if it turns out to be a problem come December.
Colourways this year are fine. Nothing that made me go out of my way to buy a specific one, though the more muted greys and blacks look better in person than in the ASICS product photos, which tend to oversaturate everything.
I'd also say the tongue could do with a bit more padding. It's not uncomfortable exactly, but on longer runs with tighter lacing I noticed it more than I would with, say, the Saucony Ride.
Where it sits against the competition
Compared to the Nike Pegasus 41, the Novablast 6 feels bouncier and lighter underfoot, though the Pegasus edges it slightly on stability for anyone who needs a bit more structure. Against the Brooks Ghost Max, it's a wash really, both are good daily trainers with slightly different personalities, the Ghost Max leaning more cushioned and stable, the Novablast leaning more energetic.
If you've run the Novablast 5 and loved it, you'll probably like this one too, though I wouldn't say the upgrade is dramatic enough to justify replacing a pair that still has life left in it. If you're coming to the line fresh, it's a solid entry point.
The verdict, such as it is
Good shoe. Not a great shoe, not life-changing, but genuinely good, and there's something to be said for that in a market absolutely flooded with trainers all claiming to change how you run. It does what a daily trainer should do. It's comfortable at easy pace, capable at faster pace, and honest about its limits when you try to push it into racing territory.
Would I buy another pair when this one wears out? Probably, yes. Would I tell a mate just starting out to buy them as their first proper running shoe? Also yes, with the caveat that they try them on first, because fit preferences vary more than any review can account for.
That's really the whole thing, isn't it. No shoe is right for everyone. This one's right for a lot of people, most of the time, and that's a fairly good place for a trainer to sit.
Comments
Post a Comment