Latest Reviews
 |  | | Posted: 16/01/11 | | 'Worst shoe ever. ' | | Strengths:
Looks OK as a fashion shoe. | | Weaknesses:
Too stiff.
Too firm.
Too heavy.
Non-snug fit.
| | Overall:
A really awful shoe; doesn't feel like a racer at all. |
|  |
| | | | Fit | | 40% | | Responsiveness | | 20% | | Cushioning | | 40% | | Comfort | | 60% | | Breathability | | 60% | | Durability | | 60% | | Value | | 40% |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | Posted: 18/09/07
Updated: 27/03/08 | | 'TOO SOFT' | | Strengths:
I'm on my second pair of Vomero 2s, and have used them for everything - training and racing. They offer a massive amount of impact-absorption from their soft soles. The fit is perfect, as is the comfort. [Update 27/03/08] Great comfort and superb cushioning; kept me injury- and blister-free for well over a year of training and racing. | | Weaknesses:
The compound of the soles is very soft and they do become misshapen quite quickly, although I don't think this means they're worn out. The tread also wears down fairly quickly.[Update 27/03/08] Both pairs of Vomero 2s I owned were completely destroyed by the time I replaced them. Each pair lasted about six months (25ish miles per week), which I guess is OK.
What was worrying was how quickly the ultra-soft soles became deformed. I also think the soles were quite susceptible to cuts and damage when used off-road on rocky ground. | | Overall:
A top-rate shoe that has served me well for nearly two full seasons. Will I buy another pair next year? Quite possibly, although I may go for something slightly less squidgy.[Update 27/03/08] I'm now wearing Saucony Triumph 4s for general training - which seem more hard-wearing, yet almost as comfortable. Do I feel tempted to go back to Vomeros? Not really, but they did serve me very well. |
| |
| | | | Performance | | 60% | | Comfort | | 100% | | Value | | 60% |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
