Axel MR2900CE is slightly lighter and cheaper than its Free 5.0 clone

Axel (www.axelsportswear.com) moves away from copying the Nike Free's grooved sole in its latest minimalist model, MR2900CE. Axel's previous minimalist models either replicate the Free 5.0 (5.0 clone link) or Free 3.0 (3.0 clone link). The new sole has fewer and shallower grooves than the Free. For those who run mainly on roads, this is a blessing because the grooves are a magnet for gravel. The stack heights are: heel 3 cm. ball 2 cm.

Available in black/yellow and gray/red colour schemes. At RM60 (~USD20) from the Giant supermarket chain (www.giant.com.my/stores?q=penang), it is slightly cheaper than Axel's Nike Free 5.0 clone. One distinguishing feature is the metal eyelets - these are seldom seen in running shoes - their smoother surfaces allow the lace tension to be distributed equally.

 The grooves are shallower and fewer than Axel's Free 5.0 clone. Impact areas below the heel and the ball have hardier material (black outsole). The combination of shallower grooves and hard outsole makes the shoe less flexible than the Free 5.0 clone. However, the outsole patches under the ball may be superfluous because these are not the areas of the greatest wear - IMHO, the toe area will usually wear out quicker due to toe-off forces.

At ~8 oz. per shoe (a pair is shown to weigh 16 oz.), it is roughly 1 oz. lighter than the Free 5.0 clone, but slightly heavier than the now obsoleted Free 3.0 clone. The weight saving is probably achieved by eliminating the showy plastic heel counter and overlays used in the Free 5.0 clone.

Pros: cheap (RM60/USD20), light (8 oz), relatively flexible.
Cons: unnecessary outsole patches under the ball reduces flexiblity and increases weight.

Cheapest ultra-light (6 oz.) shoe

At 6oz, this shoe falls in the same weight category as the Nike Mayfly or Saucony Virrata but costs RM30 (~USD10) only at Giant Hypermarket (www.giant.com.my/stores?q=penang).

This model is available in 3 design variants - the left two variants are unbranded, the red one on the extreme right is branded as 'Rocklander'.

A pair weighs 12oz (or ~6 oz. per shoe)

Despite the absence of an outsole, the wear is surprising good. Morever, the shallow and gently sloping grooves do not pick up gravel.

The uppers consist of a mesh outer layer and a rubber-like inner layer. The uppers' poor durability leads to the eyelets elongating under the lace tension. The elongated eyelets are particularly visible at the medial side. The fear of the eyelets breaking mid-race made me retire the shoe prematurely. Additionally, the original black laces quickly frayed and had to be replaced with the white ones above.

 

An elongated eyelet viewed from the inside.

Pros: flexible. Possibly the lowest cost 6 oz minimalist/racing shoe. Highly flexible. Sole does not pick up gravel.
Cons: Shoe is very wide, thus requiring the laces to be tightened to the maximum. To compound the problem, the uppers are stretchy, leading to foot sliding. Upper material is not durable and this cause the eyelets to elongate under the laces' tension. Laces quickly frayed.

Axel updates its Nike Free clone

Axel's (www.axelsportswear.com) first iteration of the Free 3.0 sets a benchmark for affordable minimalist shoe but won't win any prize for looks. In fact, the 1st gen.'s colour scheme looks 'cheap'. The 2nd iteration MR2393CE costs RM20 more but has greatly improved aesthetics besides other improvements.

High abrasion rubber (black area) added to heel and toe. Wider grooves, hopefully less likely to pick up rocks. Note the "5.0" embossed on the side of the midsole implying it is equivalent to Free 5.0.

The grooves are significantly wider than both the previous clone and the original Free 5.0

Wider grooves make a more flexible shoe

Size US9 weighs 9oz - light enough for speedwork and racing

The 30mm stack height under the heel is close to a regular shoe

Price: RM70 (~USD24) or roughly 1/5 of the original. Available at Giant hypermarket, Bayan Baru (www.giant.com.my/stores?q=penang) and Jusco QB, Penang (www.jusco.com.my/). 

IMPROVEMENTS over its predecessor:

• Better colour scheme.
• Wider grooves than previous iteration - prevent sand sticking in grooves.
• Adds high abrasion rubber to heel impact and toe-off zones.

CONS

• Non removable insole - can be forcefully removed as the glue is minimal.
• Costs RM20 more than its predecessor.

A very affordable Vibram clone

Not content with its very affordable Nike Free clones (here and here), Axel takes a stab at the Zero Drop Shoe segment with model MC2348-BOG.

The shoe displayed on Giant BB’s rack with its price tag (in RM).

The mesh openings are so big that the orange insole is partially visible

 

The orange-coloured 4mm thick insole can be removed for an even closer-to-the-ground feel

So flexible, it can be rolled up like a Chee Cheong Fun ler!

Price: RM30 (<USD10) at Giant, Penang - this price is comparable to the cheapest Zero Drop shoe surveyed by Gnolls.

Advantages:

• Grippy silicone outsole. 
• Lightweight, US size 8 weighs 5.5oz - this places it the same weigh ballpark as the Vibram and the Nike Mayfly/Flyknit.
• Low 2mm heel to ball differential. 
• Stack height: ball 8mm, heel 10mm - according to G. Kolata "Myths of barefoot running," NYT, Oct. 2012, this is the optimum cushion thickness for efficiency. 
• Mesh panels give good ventilation.

 Disadvantage: Silicone outsole probably wouldn't last very long.

Minimize any running shoe

Recently, Fellrnr pared away the midsoles from a pair of Nike Free to enhance their minimalism (http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Modified_Nike_Free). He opined that the Nike Free's absent outsole makes it more suitable for this modification than conventional shoes. Because such modification will be more useful if it works all shoes, we propose an alternative method that circumvents the outsole reattachment problem foreseen by Fellrnr. The shoe model used in this experiment is the Asics Patriot 4, US size8.5 - this is a low end model without gel pads.

The modification entails drilling a series of holes into the midsole from the side. The holes run across the width of the midsole to exit on the opposite side. The midsole thickness determines the right drill size. For the aforementioned shoe model & size, either 6 & 8 mm drill sizes are suitable. A larger drill size has the advantage of removing more material, however, it is accompanied by a higher risk of rupturing the midsole (rupturing 'inside' the shoe is not a problem as it is hidden by the insole). The number of holes and the spacing between them allow the shoe stiffness to be manipulated. For this experiment, we used three and five holes under the heel and the ball, respectively.

The modified shoe feels decidedly softer and more flexible.

Asics Gel Galaxy 5's outsole wear

Asics Gel Galaxy 5's outsole wear

Asics trainers have a reputation for durability and so, the outsole wear of my 4-month's old Gel Galaxy 5 surprised me. This low-end model (RM160, ~USD50) has regular solid rubber outsole unlike the higher priced models' proprietary AHAR material. The heel impact zone on the right shoe totally stripped away after 3 months to expose the midsole. The left shoe is beginning to wear down to the midsole. The assymmetrical wear is because of me and NOT the shoe.

Continuing use of the shoe after the outsole impact zone has worn off resulted in ~5mm loss in midsole thickness at the worst point. At some point, the shoe will be thicker under the arch than the heel - like a Skechers!  

A chance for scrooges to experiment with minimalist shoes?

I have been reading about minimalist shoes in the running literature, but things really ratchet up a notch for me when the skin doc showed up at March's Malakoff 17km in a pair of Vibrams and proceeded to mow down the competition in her category. Although advocates of minimalist shoes/barefoot running emphasize injury prevention, it is the possibility of improved running economy that attracts me most - :-) who doesn't need an advantage? To add a twist to this story, a recent study (also commented in NY Times) observed that it was more economical to run in the lightweight (150g/5.3oz) Nike Mayfly than barefoot.

How many of us would have taken the minimalist plunge if not for the steep price? Since there is no guarantee that minimalism will suit me, I am just not prepared to fork out RM100 more than the price of my mainstays - the plain vanilla, Asics Galaxy & Patriot. Two months ago, while shopping at Giant Bayan Baru, I stumbled on this Axel model that bears an uncanny resemblance to the iconic Nike Free - deep grooves in the midsole and no outersole. Since a pair costs RM50, I thought there is not much to lose if they turned out to be duds.

The shoes have removable foam rubber insoles. The insoles are unusually thick at 5mm and so were soon discarded to prevent their detracting from, ahem, pure minimalism! Minus the insoles, the weight reduces from 8oz to ~7.5oz (may not be accurate as I was using a kitchen scale). The shoe is at least one size larger than regular running shoes - I usually wear size 8.5 or 9, but the size 8 Axel fits too loosely without the insoles. I measured the shoe thickness at 15mm (without insoles) under the heel - I did not measure the thickness under the ball because it is a bother to get the tongue out of the way. The heel counter is feeble or non-existent, but I think this is the norm for minimalist shoes. The shoe is highly flexible because of the deep grooves. A minor bother is that the tongue has no provision for attaching to the laces.

I have tried the NikeFree clone for two months already, starting timidly with short runs, and then progressing to longer sessions. So far, there is no problem with the glue failing. The impact areas wear out faster than normal shoes - but this is expected due to the absence of a durable outersole. Will I go back for a 2nd pair? Yes, because even if minimalism turns out to be a hoax, these clones are light enough to be re-purposed as racing shoes.

(Update 27 June) Competing interests: none. I receive no support from any organization for the above work and have no financial relationships with Axel or Giant.

Postscript: After a year of use (several 21k races), the toe areas have completely worn through. Time to retire the shoe!

A common problem with American-brand running shoes - uppers separating from the midsole

Glue failure at the upper to midsole interface affects all the American brands that I have used (NB, Nike & Saucony, etc). The New Balance 827 which I bought in Apr '09 is showing this problem after 3 months of use (worn alternately with another two pairs of shoes). Remarkably, the Japanese (Asics) & the Korean (Prospecs) don't seem to have this problem with their running shoes. This leads me to conclude that the Americans used inferior glue!

Return to main

My experiment with minimalist running shoes - part 2

I began using the Prospec Marathon 4 in Feb '09 (alternating with two other pairs of running shoes). Within a couple of weeks of use, I noticed that the outsole durability is just "so-so" (see related post below) when compared to the gold standard - Asics's carbon rubber outsole, AHAR (Asics High Abrasion Resistance?). Six months later, the Marathon 4's heel contact area has worn through and part of the midsole has been gouged out. The sight of the exposed midsole is enough to scare me into retiring the shoe.....
What I like: price (sub RM150), weighs 8 oz. (US size 10) & no upper-midsole glue failure that generally plague all American brands.
What I dislike: poor abrasion resistance at heel-strike area.
Will I buy it again? No, the no-frill Asics Maverick 2 has better outsole durability and costs only RM10 more (also sub RM150), but at 11 oz (US size 10) it cannot be considered a true minimalist shoe :-(.

Related post: My experiment with minimalist running shoes - part 1

Return to main

Cheapest heel cushion?

Adding 7 to 15 mm lift under the heel could be beneficial in achilles tendinosis (T.D. Noakes, "Staying Injury Free" in Lore of Running, 4th Ed., Chap. 14, pp 827). Unfortunately branded (e.g Spenco, & Tuli, etc) heel cushion (aka heel cup) can be expensive - especially when considering that the raw material is just silicone rubber. I stumbled upon this made-in-China version which costs a fraction (RM13.70) of the branded one at the Young Ones's branch in Bayan Baru, Penang. The thickness increases from 1.5 mm at the mid-foot edge to a maximum thickness of 8 mm at rearmost edge.

My experiment with minimalist running shoes - part 1

No gel. No air. No dual-density mid-sole to reduce pronation. The absence of extraneous devices is probably why it is light (US size 10 = 8 oz). The price is amazingly light on the pocket too - at RM130, it's a timely answer to the current economic troubles.

What motivated this experiment? A fellow runner posted a provocative article about poor Kenyans training in hand-me-downs with dead mid-sole [1] to the Waterfall Weekend Warriors mail list and a study finding cheap and expensive shoes having equal shock absorption [2]. I bought the first pair (Prospec Marathon 5) in Oct '08 and wore it in SIM 21k (and several shorter races). What running in it is like? Like rock & roll, lah! At least that's what it felt initially. But after several weeks, my feet adapted to the hyper-mobile/unstable platform and they felt fine. Out-sole durability around the area of maximum wear (lateral edge of heel) is so-so.

Satisfied with the first pair, I bought a 2nd pair (Marathon 4) in early '09. They are essentially the same shoes (similar mid/out soles) with cosmetic differences in the uppers to distinguish them.

[1] Guan Choon's post to the Waterfall Weekend Warriors mail list, 15th Oct '08.
[2] "Cheap Trainers Are As Good As Expensive Ones, And Sometimes Better", (online). Available: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85210.php.

My experiment with minimalist running shoes - part 2

Return to main