Next%2 less bouncy than Next%?

I ran in my 2s for the first time yesterday and I said to my buddy "i must be just used to them, but these don't seem as bouncy as the first time I ran in my original next%"

There must be something up.

I think Nike changed the formula for the zoomx foam at some point. I have a pair of streakflys that I got back in March with less than 30 miles in them. I recently tried a friend’s brand new pair of vaporfly 2s, and they were noticeably firmer than my streakflys. They felt fast, but in a different way—it feels like the speed in the streakflys comes from the foam, but it comes from the curve of the plate in the vaporflys. I’m not sure how exactly the foam change worked because the new vaporfly came out before the streakfly, but the streakfly has the older, bouncier foam.

I was in test pairs both of ones and twos and definitely thought the twos were firmer, and lasted longer.

Yes, I hate the next% 2. Have 'ran' 500 miles in the original and they still feel bouncier than my pair of next 2 that have had less than 50 miles on them. The original was great for sprint workouts too. I haven't been able to find a shoe as good as them for sprints (can't wear spikes as I'm 50 and arthritic).

I've seen this lately. Everyone thinks the newer super shoes are less bouncy than before even though nothing has changed. I believe the body is just getting used to the shoes so the effect is less noticeable. Seems to a be a symptom of using super shoes often. Take a month off from using anything with a super foam or carbon plate and I guarantee it will feel bouncy again.

This doesn't explain why I can put on first gen Flyknit VF / Next% and still feel that soft bounce that simply isn't there in gen 2. It's even obvious in the first run of Invincibles vs. later production runs (both late first and then second gen). The foam is changed, the shoe is firmer. I can still race in gen2 and use them for tempo workouts, but they are not nearly as comfortable for long run workouts (hell, the Saucony Speed 2/3 is arguably more comfy!).

I hate shilling for adidas after what they did to my beloved Boston, but if you want the feel of first generation ZoomX, the closest thing to it right now is the Adios Pro 3. Go to the store and at least try it on before just assuming that the Next%2 is still the greatest shoe on earth. After 3+ years on top, it's time for us all to at least start challenging our preconceived notions of Nike shoes being untouchable.

I'm down one last boxed pair each of the OG Next% and OG AF, so I'm thankful that something with a comparable midsole came along just in the nick of time.

I thought the vaporfly flyknit in crimson were terrible, far too soft. Next 2 have a good amount of stiffness and snappy-ness.

This crossed my mind and I wish it was just in my head cos I prefer the colourway of the new ones, but even just walking around with one of each on, i can feel the difference.

That's with 80 miles of compression versus about 10 I ran in the new ones, I thought maybe I needed to break them in a bit or something. But nope.

Interesting, the conspiracy theorist in me says Nike realised the next% was too good of a shoe. So they made the next% worse to make people buy the alphafly.

If you believe in conspiracy theories, I think it's more likely some combination of (a) Nike using a cheaper version of the foam to increase production/profit margin, (b) Nike increasing the foam resilience to make the shoes last longer than 50-100 miles.

I noticed this too. And it’s significant enough that I don’t think it’s just myself getting used to the feeling of carbon plated shoes

Yes, they are much firmer. Felt like the magic was gone. Ended up returning them. Went with the Adios Pro 3 instead.

Yeah, I hear you with that. I loved the Bostons and for years they were my everyday trainer for everything from easy days to speed workouts to long runs.

I recently ran out of my pre-Boston 10 stockpile and am struggling to find a replacement. Any suggestions? Right now I'm doing most of my runs in the adidas adios 7 because that's the closest thing I can find to the Boston. But it isn't the best as a daily trainer and won't be a great option when Northeast winter comes.

Have you tried Saucony Cohesion ? Really great shoe.

I've been buying the original 2019 Next%s off Goat and stockpiling them. The difference is very noticeable to me. The Yellow/Green and Pink ones were the best. They just pop off the ground. I wonder were Nike told to dial it back a bit because if you exclude the elites who I suspect have access to the good stuff, the general sub elite times have not gone back to the madness that was happening just before Covid. The "He/She ran what" hasn't happened since.

I have a question about the Super Shoes:

My friend and I were discussing this- if you wear custom orthotics would you wear them with carbon plated shoes?

My friend (who used to use orthotics) thinks they might "interfere" with the %, so to speak.

I just wondered what others thought.

The Atreyu Base model is has a very similar ground feel to the Boston 6/7, but of course the upper materials and traction (but also price!) are a big step down, not to mention the longevity of the Boston being 2-3x mileage-wise. Hoka Rincon is another, but I get hotspots in it. FWIW, both of these are EVA midsoles on a relatively light platform, which has a lot to do with similar feel, but they are missing that classic 10mm drop. All of that holds pretty much the same for the Kinvara, another decent, although low drop alternative.

I never went past 40-50mpw when I was running in Bostons, which is probably why I liked them so much; more mileage and I would have needed more underfoot. Now, doing 70-80mpw, I tend to rotate between Saucony Speeds for workouts and Nike Invincibles for junk miles. Recently, I've been playing around with the Peg Turbo Next, which might be worth checking out for it's firm, stable ride (and AMAZING outsole). I even forgave adidas a little and picked up a pair of the new Boston 11s in an emergency while on vacation last week--they're not bad (but no 6s).

Good luck with the search!

Just got the pinks and love em.

Probably a couple of things at play

1) Foam supplier consistency. You'd be surprised at how much the same foam from the same supplier can vary - especially across seasons/models. Think of this - Nike forecasts "X" amount of pairs that will use zoom X foam for let's say, a 2 year period (which would cover one model and then an update). They do this because they get a better price on the raw material buying (hypothetically) 1000kg of it vs 2 batches of 500kg. Let's say then the first model uses that 500kg "fresh" while the other 500kg sits in a warehouse in Asia waiting for the update to come out in 24 months time. Over that 2 year period the material doesn't degrade so much it can't be used but it absorbs moisture (through humidity) - maybe is exposed to UV light etc - all these things can make small but noticeable differences. Even when it comes to manufacturing a season later - were all variables the same? Mold temp, humidity in the molding facility - so many factors which again seem inconsequential and don't make "faulty" shoes - but can make midsoles that feel different.

2 Foam "recipe". Like metal used in jewelry, midsoles are never "pure" material - there are always additives to change properties. Think about this - say Nike get 3% returns on the product because of midsole wear/degrading (some people thrash their shoes - even within 30 days) and slightly changing the composition of what goes into that hopper increases durability which cuts that number in half, that's huge. It might make the midsole a little less bouncy/a little heavier but it increases durability which saves them on returns etc.

When you think of a possible combination of both of the above it's easy to see how the first and second versions of what should be the same shoe can be appreciably different.