Footwear

Arc’teryx Konseal AR vs LT vs FL 2 vs FL 2 GTX

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR (see image) that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

In the Arc’teryx shoe lineup, the Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX fill the niche of tackling the approach. Durable, lightweight, fast, and waterproof, all four of these models have their own perks. What they don’t offer is extra ankle support like the Acrux LT GTX.

In summary, the stiff sole and abrasion-resistant uppers of the Arc’teryx Konseal AR offer rugged durability. What these shoes lack in comfort, the Konseal LT makes up for with every stride. Meanwhile, the biting grip of the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX beckon your feet to the crag.

Let’s get a closer look at how these options pit against one another.

Comfort

Although the Konseal AR is one attractive-looking shoe, it’s stiff as a board. Same with the Konseal FL 2 and Konseal FL 2 GTX. While this is ideal for lengthy scrambles, it’s a problem when the going gets mellow.

The comfort level will leave you wishing you opted for a wider toe box and more cushioning on flat trails. For comfortable day hiking shoes, you’ll want to use the Arc’teryx shoe finder.

The Konseal LT is precisely the opposite. The breathability and flex of the mesh uppers in combo with the lighter weight provide ample comfort on mellow and rocky terrain.

Arc’teryx even thoughtfully added in a collapsible heel, turning these into slip-ons for lounging around base camp. Of these four options, the Konseal LT is the one I would slap on for a full day of ascending the approach.

Traction

When scrambling around boulders, you need reassurance at your feet. All four of these Arc’teryx approach shoes offer a solid degree of traction. Which, of course, varies with conditions and terrain.

As for the Konseal LT (see image), this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes.

For instance, the sticky tread of the Konseal FL 2 clings well to rocks and hard-packed trails, as does the Konseal FL 2 GTX. The biggest difference with this shoe is the Gore-Tex waterproofing adds better traction in wet conditions.

This will likely improve your approach as mother nature releases her furry but to a degree. The design of the shoe leads me to suspect some water may seep in around the tongue, causing some slippage inside.

Meanwhile, what the Konseal AR lacks in comfort, it makes up for in traction. This shoe provides a solid grip on smooth slabs and jagged surfaces. The shallow lugs provide full foot contact allowing you to grab surfaces like a chameleon.

As for the Konseal LT, this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes. Just don’t test these when it starts to pour.

Stability

Stiff soles may not be ideal for comfort, but they help with stability. The rigid sole of the Konseal AR does well when the terrain resembles anything but flat.

The Konseal FL 2 hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. Its waterproof counterpart, the Konseal FL 2 GTX, does this and more as it meets the challenge of sloshy conditions with sure-footedness.

And our lightweight friend, the Konseal LT? Even these add stability when precision counts most.

Needless to say, all offer good stability. Yet, if I’m slogging through muddy terrain with a loaded pack, I would go with the Konseal FL 2 GTX.

Durability

For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX (see image) is a better choice.

Slap the Arc’teryx label on anything, and you expect durability. Or so you would think.

Don’t get me wrong; any approach shoes will take a beating. But the Konseal LT may wear out faster than the others. This is mostly due to design.

The collapsible heel leads me to suspect durability issues down the road. Same with the toe cap.

On the other hand, the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX offer better durability. But like the Konseal LT, I fear the toe cap may eventually separate from the synthetic mesh of both pairs.

Then there’s the Konseal AR. These shoes are built to take some serious abuse. From the abrasion-resistant upper suede to the sole, this is the best option for durability out of the four.

Versatility

The Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all work for scrambles and climbs. Yet, it’s their technical features that limit their use for varying activities.

The Konseal FL 2 (see image) hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver.

The Konseal AR may claim “all-around” use, but the comfort level is less than desirable for the mellow section of a hike. Although, they do look good being sported around town.

The Konseal is the opposite. The comfortable fit and lighter weight can take you from flat hiking to jagged scrambling with minimal compromise. It will let you hop around with agility while you're at it too.

What the Konseal LT doesn’t excel at is scrambling up super slick boulders. For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX is a better choice. Meanwhile, the Konseal FL 2 balances weight with traction to keep you light on the approach.

Conclusion

Approach shoes are best when you need precision at your feet. The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX vs LT GTX vs AR

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The Acrux TR GTX (see image) is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time.

Climbing technical terrain? The Arc'teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR feature an earth-biting grip. What these boots don’t offer is agility. For that, you’re much better off with the Arc’teryx Aerios FL MID GTX.

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR are built for technical climbs. The Acrux TR GTX can handle varying terrains on multi-day hikes. For jagged rocky peaks, the Acrux LT GTX is a great match. Meanwhile, the Acrux AR has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Comfort

Finding a technical boot that is functional and comfortable is challenging. The Acrux TR GTX solidifies that point.

The comfort of the Acrux TR GTX is about subpar. The cushion on the midsole is not as thick as I’d like considering these are designed for rocky terrain. The fit is also tighter than I typically go for. Which, in my experience, means blisters.

What I do like about the Acrux TR GTX is the rubber toe cap. This means you’re much less likely to be cursing the trail when you stub your toe on a rocky ascent.

The Acrux LT GTX is pretty brand spanking new to the Arc’teryx lineup. From first impressions, these boots are stiff where you need it and flexible where you want it.

They do offer a degree of breathability, which is always appreciated. Unfortunately, just like the Acrux TR GTX, the Acrux LT GTX has a narrow fit. So wide feet need not apply.

As for the Acrux AR, these boots are surprisingly comfy. Don’t get me wrong; they’re not like slipping into a pair of Crocs.

But, the combo of the flexible inner bootie, warmth, and lighter weight makes them more comfortable than other options.

Break them in over a season, and they’ll grow more comfortable over time. Of course, like my prior complaint, I do wish they offered a wide version.

Stability

Aside from comfort, stability is one of the most important features of a technical boot. The Acrux LT GTX offers some excellent heel-to-toe stability. Just try it out on a talus slope.

The Acrux TR GTX and AR also offer stellar stability. However, some minor improvements could be made.

For instance, the Acrux LT GTX could use a wider outsole to better avoid ankle rolling.

As for the Acrux AR, it could take a lesson from the Acrux LT GTX and incorporate some eyelets and lacing that go higher up the tongue.

All that said, I’d still take any of these options on technical climbs and maintain confidence in stability.

As for the Acrux LT GTX (see image), this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical.

Traction

Let’s get one thing straight. The Arc’teryx Acrux AR is made for ice climbing.

A good portion of the time, you’ll be heavily relying on crampons. For the times you’re not using crampons, the anti-slip tread provides reliable traction.

Unlike the Acrux AR, the Acrux TR GTX is not made for ice. What it is made for is more mixed terrain that varies from dry to wet conditions.

The Acrux TR GTX has a grippy sole that does well on talus slopes and stream crossings. I’m also digging the deep lugs, which provide sure footing.

As for the Acrux LT GTX, this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical.

If you’re trekking in varying terrains, I’d go with the Acrux TR GTX.

Use

Arc’teryx claims all three of these boots are built for alpine environments and rock climbing. Which they are, but to a different degree.

The Acrux AR is purely for mountaineering. Find yourself in sub-zero temps with an ice axe in hand, and you’ll want these on your feet.

The Acrux TR GTX is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time.

For those who really like to scramble up the ascent, the Acrux LT GTX would be a better bet.

Due to the technicality, I wouldn’t recommend any of these for an average, all-around hiking boot. But out of the three, the Acrux TR GTX does have the most versatility.

The Arc’teryx boot finder is a useful tool if you need help deciding.

Value

The Acrux AR (see image) has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Your feet are your biggest tool when doing any sort of trekking. I would personally pay top dollar to keep mine in working condition, blister-free.

All three of these technical trekking boots come at a high price. This is precisely what you should expect from anything sporting the Arc’teryx label.

So bottom line, the Acrux AR boots are much harder to slip on than the TR GTX or LT GTX. They also may have some durability issues with the toe. However, they provide exceptional warmth and reassurance when you’re mountaineering.

The TR GTX will offer the most versatility. However, the technical features may be overkill for those who aren’t looking to do multi-day backpacking.

The new LT GTX is a very stylish boot. But, these puppies are too new to see how they’ll withstand some serious trail abuse throughout a season.

Although, if you’re looking to start doing some rocky peak bagging, this could be a good investment for you.

One thing to keep in mind is all these shoes have a narrow fit. If you have wider feet, all the drool-worthy specs will be useless to you.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR all have some promising features. Where they fall short is on the narrow fit.

For those who don’t need a wide fit, these technical climbing and trekking boots could be a good choice.

For more versatility, the TR GTX is a solid option. For scrambling, the lugs on the Acrux LT GTX provide great bite. And anyone looking to brave mountaineering can appreciate the warmth of the Acrux AR.

Need a warm jacket to go with your technical climbs? Check out my review for Best Arc’teryx Jackets.

Adidas NMD vs Ultraboost

Last updated: July 14, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

If you're aiming for comfort and/or versatility, Ultraboost is your pick.

NMD and Ultraboost are two of the best selling Adidas products.

I'd say the first thing you should know about them is that UB's are superior to NMD's in all cases except cold/damp weather use.

In summary, if you'll be running with your new shoes even just for a few times, absolutely get the Ultraboost and NOT THE NMD.

For every purpose other than running I'd still recommend the Ultraboost - but unlike running, NMD's can be a good alternative this time. For cold/damp weather use, NMD's can even be superior to UB's.

Don't forget to check out Adidas' very own Shoe Finder tool as well.

Information given in this article is only applicable to UB 16, 17, 18, 19 20, DNA & PB and NMD R1 & R1 V2.

Let me tell you this first:

Ultraboost beats NMD in almost all departments: Comfort, versatility, breathability and (to most people) looks.
Weather resistance is the only thing where the NMD's perform superior to the UB's.
As for durability, I'd say they score about the same - both are robust.

UB (Ultraboost) has born as a technical running shoe originally back in 2014.

However, it has now morphed into a fashion favorite modern icon and even started to offer other alternative line: DNA and PB.

Comfort

Ultraboost would probably be the single most comfortable shoe you'll ever own.

In Adidas' entire running footwear line, the UB's come with the softest sole and highest traction.

In order for you to be able to make a healthy comparison around the comfort levels of NMD vs Ultraboost, you need to understand what is it that drives total comfort in shoes first.

The answer is pretty straightforward: It's all in the cushion.

Generally speaking, the amount of cushioning (a.k.a stack height) determines the balance between comfort and energy return.

The more the cushioning, the more the comfort but the less the energy return.

So it's a trade-off. You can't have both.

This is why long distance running shoes come with abundant cushioning. It proves more potential last without flattening out for hours. Fewer cushioning on the other hand wouldn't have enough time to recover back to its original stack height.

Whereas for sprints, the runners take more advantage of minimalist shoes. Because in shorter distances, energy return starts becoming a higher priority than long-term comfort.

To my knowledge, here are the two main reasons for losing energy return significantly with a more cushioned shoe:

Physiological reason: Higher number of total area inviting more energy leakage when running.
Psychological reason: The more the feedback your mind receives from beneath your feet, the more efficient the mind-feet connection gets.

This trade-off is more aggressive for shoes with soles made of standard EVA foam. Meaning that it's more difficult to benefits from both worlds at the same time.

And what about Adidas UB and NMD?

Enter "boost" technology.

Based on a new chemical process developed in partnership with BASF, the chemical company, solid granular material (TPU) is turned into thousands of energy capsules which make up the footwear's distinctive midsole - as you can see in the image.

With their unique cell structure, these energy capsules store and unleash energy more efficiently in each stride.

Versatility of Ultraboost 20. Just as good for the streets.

It's still impossible for boost technology (or any other technology for that matter) to excel in both comfort and energy return departments at the same.

But it manages to deliver both of them at an impressive level. A level that's impossible for shoes with soles made of standard EVA foam.

Now...

Although both NMD and Ultraboost are equipped with this cutting edge sole, Ultraboost is equipped with more boost particles than the NMD.

In Adidas' entire running footwear line...

...the UB's come with the softest sole and the highest traction.

In the end, Ultraboost provides more comfort AND more energy return than the NMD.

This is why Dennis Kimetto, who professionally runs with Ultraboost's, set a new world record in 2014 Berlin Marathon with them.

I'm not planning to make this a scientific article, so I'll stop here.

NMD R1. Translucent overlays on top of the soft and supportive knit upper help keep rain out.

Breathability

Ultraboost is more breathable than the NMD.

If you've never worn any shoes with a breathable upper before, then I think this will be one of the most surprising aspects of UB for you.

Keeping you less sweaty and more ventilated, I find breathable upper fabric add to the shoe's comfort as well.

The only time this becomes a problem is when it's cold out - which, in my opinion, is the only scenario where the NMD's can be a superior alternative to Ultraboost.

Durability & Versatility

I've used one Ultraboost 16 and one 17 until now. They're still almost just as new.

I ran, lifted and hiked in them but mostly used them for casual purposes.

Having quit my white collar job 6 months ago, now I wear them even more and I don't even look for other shoes.

Lifting in UB 20's.

It has been 2 years since I bought both of them and the technical aspect is just as new.

I expected the cushioning to wear out by time - especially I squat relatively heavy with them {(up to 300 lbs (135 kg)} but from what I can tell that did not happen.

The foam sole of both my shoes are white, so the looks obviously started to suffer but I didn't clean them by any means. Never treated them gently either. I still like how they look though.

Conclusion

Does it worth paying the extra for Ultraboost?

As long as you care about the comfort, looks and breathability (you do); I'd say yes.

adidas Men's Ultraboost 20 Sneaker

adidas Women's Ultraboost 20 Running Shoe

(3)

Can I get NMD's and be just fine?

NMD's are still more comfortable than some other shoes out in the market - but absolutely nowhere near the UB's.

adidas Originals Men's NMD_R1 Boost Shoes

(14096)

adidas Originals Women's NMD_R1 Boost Shoes

(2)

What if I'll be traveling?

If you think it'll be raining for quite a bit, then NMD's can probably be a better choice. Otherwise I'd recommend the UB's as always.

Altra Olympus vs Lone Peak

Last updated: July 19, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

#Note: I'll compare both the Olympus 3.5's and 4.0's to the Lone Peak 4.5's in this post. However, I also laid out the differences between Olympus 3.5 and 4.0 as well as the differences between Lone Peak 4.0 and 4.5, so check them out if you're interested.

Lone Peak 4.5's in action.

The most important difference between Olympus and Lone Peak is in their cushioning (as it's the case with almost all Altra trail running shoes).

In summary, with everything else being average; if you're mostly going to be backpacking, trail running, walking and/or standing uninterruptedly, for long periods of time; then you're highly likely to benefit a lot from the extra cushion Olympus has over the Lone Peak's.

In Altra's trail running line, Lone Peak's are the closest you get to a typical trail running shoe and hence a safer choice than the Olympus and is probably a better option for beginner folks.

Additionally, Lone Peak 4.5 looks quite pretty (this Gray/Orange color of Lone Peak 4.5 is really liked by many - including me).

If you think you're in somewhere between these two points, then checking out my Timp 2.0 review as well as my comparison of Timp's to Lone Peak's can be a good idea.

In fact, comparing one of these trail running shoes to Timp's, rather than to each other, would make more sense, but never mind...

Cushion

While it's true that more cushion generally results in more comfort as either the distance to cover gets longer, or the individual gets heavier, or the trail gets rockier etc...

It's a myth that more cushion generally results in less damaging to our joints.

I wanted to make this clear before we get to compare these two products because cushioning would be my single most important criteria when deciding between them - although joint health shouldn't be counted as a criteria.

So, with everything else being average; if you're mostly going to be backpacking, trail running, walking and/or standing uninterruptedly, for long periods of time; then you're highly likely to benefit a lot from the extra cushion the Olympus possesses over the Lone Peak's.

Olympus 4.0. On the shelves around summer 2020.

If you're to be participating ultramarathons with these shoes, then generally speaking, I'd probably draw the maximum event distance line for Lone Peak's at 50 miles (80 km's). Anything longer and you're likely to wish having more cushioned kicks such as the Timp or Olympus.

This is NOT to say that Lone Peak's are an objectively better choice when you're below that limit. Because, if you're a relatively heavy person, more than, say, 200 lbs (90 kg); or the trails you'll cover will mostly be fairly rockier than average; or you're fond of having more underfoot protection for any reason etc...

...then a more cushioned alternative such as the Timp or Olympus can still be a reasonable choice.

BUT...

One strong downside of ample cushion is weaker toe-off when running - which is kind of important when running longer distances, and definitely important when running shorter distances.

Olympus 3.5's.

If you're unaware, here's what toe-off means: Pushing the ground farther from yourself not only using your entire forefoot but also your toe strength. Yes, this results in minuscule differences, but it adds up when you're competing with milliseconds (hint: Shorter distances).

This is the biggest downside of extra cushion.

After reading the entire thing until here, if you think you're somewhere between these two pairs, then I'd probably recommend you to check out the Timp 2.0's. It's probably what you're looking for.

This is it for the cushion part.

Now...

I'd even go that far and recommend you to downright IGNORE EVERYTHING else such as traction, fit, breathability, durability etc...

Not because they aren't important (they are), but because they don't differ much in our case - especially when compared to how cushioning differs.

Men's Lone Peak 4.5 & Olympus 3.5:

No products found.

Women's Lone Peak 4.5 & Olympus 3.5:

ALTRA Women's AL0A4QTX Lone Peak 4.5 Trail Running...

(1500)

ALTRA Women's ALW1959F Olympus 3.5 Trail Running...

(236)

That said, I'll try to hit the most important points there.

Traction

Olympus 4.0 equips the most recent, so-called "Vibra Mega" grip technology of Altra. Compared to the outdated "DuraTrac" of Olympus 3.5's, this is a HUGE step forward. Going from 3.5 to 4.0, the lugs also seem to have increased especially through the mid-foot.

"MaxTrac" outsole of Lone Peak 4.5's is undoubtedly better than Olympus 3.5's "DuraTrac".

However, "Vibra Mega" of Olympus 4.0 still shines thorough even when it's compared to the "MaxTrac" of Lone Peak 4.5's - owing to its extra capability that somehow "sticks" to the ground.

But... that's the case when things are kept technically.

In practice, with everything else being equal, higher stack height usually also means lesser traction in many cases. Extra cushion that the Olympus 4.0 has over the Lone Peak 4.5's evens out its advantage, resulting in more or less equal traction capabilities in practice.

So, in traction department, it's safe to say Olympus 4.0 = Lone Peak 4.5 > Olympus 3.5 for most of the cases.

Conclusion

I'd highly recommend you to base your decision primarily off the cushion differences.

If you're going to be participating to an ultra-marathon, absolutely check out the event distance & the chart in the introduction and pick accordingly.

In summary, with everything else being equal and average, if the event distance is more than, say, 75 miles (120 km); then the Olympus is likely to be a better choice over the Lone Peak's because of its extra cushion.

If you won't be participating to ultramarathons...

In Altra's trail running line, Lone Peak's are the closest you get to a typical trail running shoe and hence a safer choice than the Olympus and is probably a better option for beginner folks.

Men's Lone Peak 4.5 & Olympus 3.5:

No products found.

Women's Lone Peak 4.5 & Olympus 3.5:

ALTRA Women's AL0A4QTX Lone Peak 4.5 Trail Running...

(1500)

ALTRA Women's ALW1959F Olympus 3.5 Trail Running...

(236)

Altra Olympus 3.5 vs 4.0

Last updated: July 19, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

#Note: Olympus 4.0's are going to be released on Summer 2020. There are going to be major improvements especially on the outsole.

Olympus 4.0 updates deserve its own post as it's a total makeover. It's arguably the best Olympus they've built so far.

Although this Green/Orange color of Olympus 3.5 is really liked by many (including me) the design game also seem to have picked up a lot with the 4.0:

Olympus 4.0. Looks much prettier than the 3.5's if you ask me. Here's how the 3.5's look like: https://www.rei.com/product/156271/altra-olympus-35-trail-running-shoes-mens

For folks who are unaware, Olympus is Altra's most cushioned trail running shoe. It's initially designed for 100+ mile (160 km) ultra marathons, but ample cushioning is equally beneficial when you're either actively walking, standing or hiking for long periods of time.

Traction

In these cases, you're likely to wish a lot of cushion and underfoot protection beneath your feet - which Olympus had always filled the bill for that matter.

But the really high cushioning isn't the best for your joints in many cases, and what's more you're inevitably forced to sacrifice some traction capabilities and weight as well.

Olympus 4.0 seem to zero in on these weak points brought by extra cushioning. Its Vibra Mega outsole offers much better traction capabilities now compared to the previous revision:

This is the most important update that took place.

With Vibra Mega outsole, the lugs now are much more aggressive compared to the previous revisions, promising more security on slippery terrain.

Vibra Mega holds on to the terrain more securely than the previous MaxTrac technology of Altra. In a way it "sticks" to the ground and provides great grip.

Another thing that might have caught your attention on the outsole is the vertical channel starting from the heel and reaching out to the midfoot.

This split in half adds to Olympus' flexibility, allowing it to move more freely in lateral axis and hence providing extra independent lateral suspension. This means that;

On slippery surfaces, you're now much less likely to slip sideways,
Any sort of collision on one side isn't going to be able to affect the other side anymore.

Other minor improvements

Weight, foot protection around the toe-box and breathability seem to be other improvements.

Here's a good video of Golden Harper (founder of Altra) introducing the new Olympus 4.0:

Transcript:

"How's it going guys I'm Connor from running warehouse today I'm here with Golden Harper founder of Altra and we've got the latest update to the Olympus series this is the Olympus 4.0 now just looking at this shoe this is a beast of a trail shoe a lot of cushioning great traction what is this shoe all about who's this gonna who's the type of runner using the shoe so if you understand the way cushioning works it's not great for your joints but it's very protective for your feet so anybody who's gonna beat their feet up long hours on your feet we we originally intended this shoe when it was first built for ultramarathons 100-mile races etc and that's still really the you know purist intent of this shoe but anybody who wants a lot of cushioning for whatever reason trying to protect their feet this is gonna be a great option for them great now looking at this shoe it's all new from top to bottom can you tell us about some of the updates yeah so total makeover on the Olympus far and away in my opinion the best Olympus we've ever built it's you know it's 33 millimeters thick it's 11 ounces it's got a Vibra Mega grip outsole so it's going to have an incredible traction to it we have you know split the the shoe in half basically to give it independent suspension so if you hit a rock on one side it's not affecting the other side of the foot as much less likely to roll an ankle nice and wide and stable at heel and forefoot independent suspension lugs in the front so when you hit a rock it can deflect into the shoe without you know throwing you or or messing up your ride as much engineered mesh upper is really breathable lightweight drains quick it's got a nice protective toe cap on it with drain holes built in so that every time you take a step any any water that's coming to the shoe can find its way out and then of course our gaiter trap that we put on all of our trail shoes as well to be able to attach our gaiters to and those are the biggies right so this shoe is going to be a beast when you're going long and far on the trails you're looking at this on your feet when can you have it so this is going to be a Summer 2020."