Disclaimer: I'm reviewing the ASICS RoadHawk FF 2 running shoes from a neutral perspective even though the pair is seeded courtesy of ASICS Asia. I will pen down my personal thoughts as a shoe geek-cum-runner as I have a great interest in any lightweight trainers and racing flats.
Introduction:
Browsing the internet I can only find very limited running reviewers discussing on this recently launched trainer or any other models from the famous Japanese company ASICS that has a strong history in making running gears since 1949 founded by Mr. Kihachiro Onitsuka. I reckon it is a good opportunity for me to top up some gap together with Thomas Neuberger of Believintherun for readers who are interested in the RoadHawk FF 2 https://www.believeintherun.com/2018/09/03/asics-roadhawk-ff-2-review/
Being an Asian's sports brand, ASICS has a very strong presence in the Asia and Oceania markets dominating the core performance running segment but a different situation in the European and American markets. Over the years in the running segment, they seem to have fallen behind the major competitors despite they releasing a number of newer models to expand their core collection that did not have significant impact winning the new generation of consumers example the 33-collection. Adding salt to the wound, the company discontinued their popular racing flats like the GEL-Hyperspeed and GEL-DS Racer series that make the brand less appealing to the hardcore runners in the western market. Although ASICS still makes great racing flats like the Sortiemagic series and Tartherzeal these are mainly driven for their domestic market.
Lately, in 2016, ASICS launched their new strategy to win back new consumers with new technologies like the FlyteFoam midsole in 2016 debuted with their very expensive concept shoe Metarun. The unique features of this foam versus a standard EVA foam are that it is 1) lighter in weight yet 2) more resilience in durability and 3) has better rebound characteristics**. ASICS' newly exclusive FlyteFoam was subsequently cascaded down to their key speed models like GEL-DS Trainer and NOOSA FF (previously known as GEL-Noosa Tri) series. New models like DynaFlyte, Dynamis and RoadHawk FF were also added to the list under the "RunFast" category.
**In the past, the characteristic between light-weight and durability has been an inverse relationship but these days technology advanced so rapidly and most shoe developers are able to synergize them.
So let's dive in quickly since this topic is focusing on one of the RunFast model the 2017 RoadHawk FF and its successor version 2 launched recently in Q3 2018.
1) Weight
The V1 of size US7H (25.5cm) on the left picture weighs 214g while V2 of same size weighs approximately 30 gram heavier. The increased in weight is likely due to:
overhaul design
updated midsole foam of FlyteFoam to FlyteFoam Propel
Change of geometry (read under midsole header below)
2) Upper
RoadHawk FF uses a mainly seamless fabric design throughout the upper which is more comfortable and minimizes any irritation from those additional overlay material stitching. However, for the fitting, it does feel snug overall and the toe box is much narrower than its successor. Hence thumb up for the improvement for V2 with a more forgiving toe box room that allows the toes to splay. So far I have yet to use the extra pair of eyelets for my runs when I tied my laces unlike version 1 so the fitting for the rearfoot is sufficient. Examining closer on the fabric the V2 seems to be more breathable although the perforation can be further improved to accommodate a very hot and humid tropical region like South East Asia (as warm as 34++ deg C).
The eyestay for V2 is unfortunately switched from a laminated and seamless construction to a stitched likewise for the heel counter to collar, tongue, and vamp which personally I would like to see some weight saving here even it is minor. Both versions use an internal firm heel counter and their stiffness remains the same for rearfoot stability. Also, they have a removable sock liner (aka insole) that has the same thickness and underneath we can see an additional layer of EVA lasting*** or to be exact "SPEVAFOAM" (which is a more responsive foam that ASICS improvised).
***Lasting material is glued to the midsole and attached to the upper by stitching along the perimeter of the footbed inside the shoe as shown above bottom right picture.
3) Midsole:
ASICS claimed that version 2 has a new updated FlyteFoam Propel which is supposed to facilitate a supreme responsive https://www.asics.com/us/en-us/roadhawk-ff-2/p/0020002032.401#tab2 but I will keep this section blank temporarily until I have clocked at least 100km for a more precise review. As for now, I have managed 3 runs of 30+km and the feel of the ride is still at the infant stage. Given a scale of 1 (soft) to 5 (firm) I would rate it semi-firm of 3.5 to 4 for now until after the break-in**** period. However, for now, I don't have the initial feel of a fast responsive ride and doesn't come close to NOOSA FF which I personally felt it's the most responsive trainer among ASICS RunFast collection. Also compare with its predecessor the toe spring angle is less aggressive and hence less forefoot rocker for faster propulsion as shown above picture. However that may not be a bad change, RoadHawk FF 2 is comfortable for the easier pace between 5ish to 6ish min/km and the drop of 10mm does suit a wide range of runners. Again it's interesting that the previous version had an 8mm (20/12) and now the developers increased the pitch height to 10mm (21/11) to shift the geometry (+1/-1) although the over net thickness is the same for both (information cited from ASICS official site below).
https://www.asics.com/us/en-us/roadhawk-ff/p/0010298552.9001
https://www.asics.com/us/en-us/roadhawk-ff-2/p/0020002032.401
For me I would much appreciate the earlier RoadHawk FF's geometry for my style of foot strike hence V2 score less in this segment for me.
****Break-in is a runner's lingo for seasoning the shoes. A typical brand new out of the box running shoe is usually stiffer and will gradually soften and conform to the shape of the foot hence becoming most comfortable and cushioning at its peak like a bell-curve and then drop down. This is due to accumulating a significant amount of mileage that dense up the tiny air cellular pockets inside the foam. This resulted in more wriggle lines that are visible along the midsole foam and you will feel the ride is less responsive and very 'dead' in firmness. The heavier the user's weight and the usage frequency the faster the rate of wearing out.
4. Outsole:
It is very obvious the additional weight gain comes from the number of extra outsole rubbers for V2 compare with V1. There is a long strip of rubber in the lateral side and the ball of the forefoot has more material. The new setup does improve the durability but compensated by the weight so it's a tradeoff. I have good mileage for V1 so in fact, I don't mind sticking back to the same layout that reinforced strategically only at high wear areas.
5. Conclusion:
V1 and V2 are two completely different RoadHawk FF which I would suggest you to test out the fitting and ride in the ASICS stores. Initial impression is lukewarm especially to know the significant increase in the weight and overall look but after wearing for few runs this pair is still within my acceptable threshold as a lightweight trainer and it does feel comfortable in fitting. I just need to remember to treat RoadHawk FF 2 as different pair of shoe ASICS made and to forget its predecessor. Primarily for me the RoadHawk FF 2 will be useful for my easier slower runs and in my shoe collection of a similar tier I would prefer to use Nike Pegasus 35 Turbo, Zoom Fly and ASICS NOOSA FF as my choices for faster and longer distance runs. However for ASICS fans and if you're Nimbus users then this pair might be a good option as your race day shoes. In this season I'm not too sure how ASICS positions RoadHawk FF 2 in their RunFast category since they have other lightweight options DynaFlyte 3 (neutral), Dynamis (neutral), GEL-DS Trainer 23 (stability) and NOOSA FF 2 (neutral) so do your homework to find out what which model best suits your running style. I owned all of the above (except DynaFlyte is ver 1) so my personal ranking is as follow for ASICS RunFast series.
Fast responsive ranking:
NOOSA (has the thickest stack height and not the lightest but surprising most responsive and versatile) highly recommended.
DST 23 (has a semi-firm ride with extended TPU shank to the forefoot for a springy propulsion. Only model that has a medial post for stability. Loudest pop landing due to the PU forefoot material)
RoadHawk FF 1 (has the most aggressive toe-spring angle for FF rocker and narrowest toe box)
Dynamis (very firm FlyteFoam midsole and has the BOA lacing convenient to tie laces).
RoadHawk FF2 (WIP Still reviewing at this stage wth 30km+)
DynaFlyte 1 (softest ride among all)
All models listed use FlyteFoam midsole except RHFF2 uses FlyteFoam Propel
ASICS RoadHawk FF2 is right now available retail at SGD149 in all ASICS stores https://www.asics.com/sg/en-sg/roadhawk-ff-2/p/0020002032-020