Brooks Launch & Nike LunarGlide Shoe Review

Three shoe models: (1) Brooks Burn III (discontinued model), (2) Brooks Launch, and Nike LunarGlide. I’ve purchased 21 pairs of Brooks Burn shoes over the years (they really ought to make me a tester and give me shoes), and now I’m looking for a replacement. Brooks says the Launch is their replacement, and I've had very good luck with Brooks, but I’d sort of prefer to find a Nike model instead because my son works at Nike. I don’t really know if the LunarGlide is an appropriate alternative to the Launch, but I was baffled by the overchoice on the Nike web site and finally settled on that one. I am a neutral runner, a midfoot striker with an efficient stride. My feet are average width, size 11 to 12 depending on the shoe. I want a light but cushioned shoe for both training and road racing, up to marathon distances.

Brooks Launch:
Men’s size 12, weight 22 ounces per pair, 11 ounces each. Sole curved upward beginning behind the ball of the foot, toe curved up significantly, heel curved up only slightly. The sole is flat from the arch all the way back through most of the heel. By contrast, the sole of the Burn is curved throughout, and the Burn has a "lateral arch lug" on the outside of the arch, not present in the Launch, though the heel of the Launch does come farther forward than the heel of the Burn. The tread has lots of narrow grooves which will pick up sand and small rocks.

Here is what Brooks says about it: "With an incredibly flexible outsole and seamless transition, this lightweight neutral trainer will get you from start to finish, whether for a tempo run or in a race. Add to that the lower-profile midsole and minimal upper, and it's 3, 2, 1 . . . blast off! Weight: 9.3 oz" Helpful, isn’t it? Marketing hype is so impotent when it replaces actual information.

The Launch is listed on Brooks’ web site under "neutral" and under "competition" shoes. List $90.00. I paid about $80. Made in China.

Nike LunarGlide:
Men’s size 12, weight 26 ounces per pair, 13 ounces each. Sole even flatter than the Launch, toe curved up less than the Launch, heel curved up only slightly. It does seem to have a structure similar to the Burn’s lateral arch lug, though the Nike web site doesn’t mention it. The tread is a bit more aggressive than that of the Launch, but with deep groves to pick up larger rocks and some small grooves to pick up sand.

Here is what Nike says about it: Boasting ultra-light, ultra-strong Flywire and the next generation of LunarLite system technology, the men’s LunarGlide+ combines a soft core within a firmer carrier to achieve a previously unattainable blend of cushioning and response from heel to toe." Equally helpful.

The LunarGlide is listed on Nike’s web site under "cushioned" shoes and under "stability" shoes. List $100.00. I got them at an unusual price of about $60. Brand new, though. Made in Vietnam.

I ran ten laps on an indoor track with my last pair of Burns to get warmed up, then ten with the LunarGlide shoes, then ten with the Launch, then LunarGlide again, then Launch again. Both pairs of shoes were perfectly comfortable and well-cushioned, fitting properly in the heel, arch, and toe box. Both felt smooth, with no hitches between footfall and toe-off. I felt no noticeable knee or hip twinges during any of the runs. The Burns were the quietest, the Launch next, and the LunarGlide last. The LunarGlide shoes were pretty noisy, in fact. Note that the noisiness seems to correspond to the flatness of the sole.

I’ve always assumed that the slap-slap sound indicated an inefficiency of some sort. Doesn’t it take energy to make sound? Truth be told, though, the LunarGlide shoes seemed to be as efficient as the Launch. I was surprised when I laced up the LunarGlide shoes for the first time and slapped through the first two laps nine seconds quicker (total) than I had averaged during the warmup in the Burns.

I tried to run with the same "perceived effort" throughout, resulting in a pace of 9:03 min/mi for the warmup laps (always slower), then an average of about 8:23 for the rest of the test. Perceived effort is iffy, of course. The result does not show a clear advantage in speed versus effort for either the Launch or the LunarGlide, no surprise. I’d be happy to run a race in either.

The LunarGlide shoes did, unaccountably, seem to want to propel me forward. Nike’s web site mentions "men's-specific flex grooves to encourage an efficient stride." I don’t know what that means, but if you already have an efficient stride, does that help make you more efficient, or does it just encourage you to run a little harder? I couldn’t tell in this short test. I'll try both pairs on the road - neither is going back to the seller.

Good stuff:

• Both pairs of shoes fit nicely and felt good.
• Both seemed as efficient as my old beloved Burns.
• The LunarGlide shoes have "Nike+" monitoring technology, if you care. I don’t.

Complaints:

• The LunarGlide shoes are too noisy. I really don’t like that.
• Both shoes have treads that will pick up rocks and sand. We mostly run on roads and trails, not tracks, and these shoes will drop sand & gravel in the house and, what's worse, into each other. Why don’t shoe manufacturers get that?
• The Launch is not quite a direct Burn replacement because (a) It has no lateral arch lug, and (b) The sole is flatter. I don't think it's made for a midfoot striker, as the Burn was.

Despite the drawbacks, I haven’t found anything better yet. I may end up settling on one of these, without a lot of enthusiasm. But road testing is yet to come. Perhaps these will seem better with some road miles on them.

Splits for ten laps (0.74 miles): Burn 6:41, LunarGlide 6:10, Launch 6:20, LunarGlide 6:13, Launch 6:07.