• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The traction is great on the trails
#1
The Trail Rocket is a new racing trail shoe from Scott running. For those of you who don’t know about Scott, they are an outdoor sports company (skiing, mountain biking,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  motorsports) company that has been in the running business since 2006. Their shoes have evolved considerably (in a good way!) over the past few years, and the Trail Rocket looked like a solid entry into the lightweight trail shoe market.
The Trail Rocket is based on their T2 Kinabalu Trail running shoe. It has the same technologies of the Race Rocker and sports a lightweight sole, but it’s a 5 mm drop shoe (19mm heel, 14mm forefoot) versus the 11 mm drop of the Kinabalu. The Trail Rocket also weighs in about 1.3 oz lighter than the Kinabalu (9.8 oz for the Kinabalu and 8.5 oz for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the Trail Rocket in men’s size 9).The Trail Rocket features lightweight AeroFoam midsole cushioning. The sole has a rockered design typical of Scott shoes (somewhat like a Hoka sole). Scott claims that this promotes a more efficient running style by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. “converting impact energy into forward motion.”While I could really feel this rocker effect with the Kinabalu, I felt it less so with the Trail Rocket.
The outsole uses a wet traction rubber which is a lightweight, high abrasion outsole compound that provides very good traction on double and single track trails but I don’t yet know how it will function on wet dirt (no rain lately in California). The Trail Rocket does not have a rock plate.The upper of the Trail Rocket is a closed mesh throughout that keeps debris out and maintains breathability (though I don’t know how well it drains You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. – again the no rain in California issue). The upper has TPU overlays that provide a light seamless upper which one could run in barefoot (though I did not as I am not a big no-sock runner). The sandwich mesh tongue protects the foot well from pressure points.
The Trail Rocket runs true to size. I took an 11.5 in Kinabalu and 11.5 in the Rocket (I take 11.5 in most shoes). The fit is good throughout with ample room in the toebox area. This area is not huge, but enough to know that your toes are not being smashed together. No heel slippage as the fit in the heel is very secure.
With a low drop and light weight the Trail Rocket was a joy to run in. It’s great how it goes from the road to trail with ease. The traction is great on the trails and works well on road workouts. It has adequate cushioning for both the trail and the road.
I You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. really like the Trail Rocket and I have not found the lack of a rock plate to be an issue running on the trails. However, without any rain I can’t yet tell how this shoe will handle in the mud.Elite Ultrarunner Sage Canaday posted a video review of the Scott Trail Rocket. He was formerly sponsored by Scott (now with Hoka).I didn’t write the review Rodger, it was by a guest reviewer, and the line says “Scott claims that…” the shoe does those things, not that the shoe actually does those things (“claims” being the key word there). I think it’s pretty clear that George was just pointing You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. out Scott’s marketing claims about the shoe (hence also why I added the image from their catalog).
Of course it’s typical unsubstantiated shoe company marketing BS. 90% of shoe marketing and technology probably is. I try to keep my own editorializing You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.out of guest reviews.I think we’ve probably run in lots of the same shoes over the years. I started in 1974 with a pair of Nike Finland Blues.
Anyhow, I’m a scientist and we measure running economy in my lab, so I get my hackles up when people make claims like Scott Inc. does in that ad.
As I recall there are now 5 papers showing that rear foot is at least if not more efficient that mid foot landing and none showing midfoot more efficient than rearfoot. Midfoot landing might provide other benefits (and risks) but it does not improve efficiency in the lab.In my opinion, repeating You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. a dubious and unsupported claim tends to promote the idea, even if it is false.
  Reply
#2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Have fun playing online gambling games like roulette slots baccarat ball and much more.
Prepare for the excitement, excitement and pleasure of your favorite game.
or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can download. Store in your cell phone or computer. Open 24 hours.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)