ALPHAFLY 2 FIRST RUN IMPRESSIONS
Did a 4 mile run in the Alphafly 2's this morning and wanted to give my first impressions. Obviously not a real comprehensive review but I wanted to post them because like the Zoom Fly 5, thoughts on the Alphafly 2 are kinda mixed. Hopefully this will clear things up a little.
I've run in the original Alphafly and the Alphafly Next Nature. I haven't run in the original Alphafly in a while so my comparisons won't be as exact. I've been using the Next Nature version as a training option because I haven't been racing that much recently. I'll say that I did really like the Next Nature version. I think it's around 80% of the original Alphafly, which is pretty good. I wouldn't recommend it though - I literally just checked today and the flyprint ripped lol - unless you're willing to do the returns with Nike which is also cool.
FIT - I was kind of rolling my eyes when I saw every reviewer talk about how hard it is to get the Alphafly 2's on because the first one was also hard to get on but holy sh this is waaaay harder to put on. I tried it on yesterday for the first time and when I put it on today it did feel a bit looser and easier but the first time feels like you're trying to force your way into a shoe 2 sizes too small. Once it's on, it's on. In fact, taking it off was harder to take them off than taking off the original Alphafly. The AF2 is a pretty exact, tight, racer fit upper. The AF1 had a bit of bubbling in the toebox that sometimes felt (to me) on long runs that was too much space that I was sliding. I definitely slide in the AF1 Next Nature. But in the AF1 because upper was so exact on all sides, sizing down wasn't really an option. The AF2 imo fixes the toebox issue (if you had one). As a result, the toebox height is much more shallow. I need to check on a longer run if it would cause issues but it seems fine for now. The first thing I noticed when I put the AF2's on was the really noticable arch support. I never noticed it in the AF1 Next Nature or the AF1. Maybe it was present in the AF1 but I didn't really feel it at all in the Next Nature. If there is one, it wasn't really noticable to me. I have somewhat high arches. For comparison sake, the arch support on the Nike React Infinity series (1,2,3) has never bothered me.
MIDSOLE - The midsole has been changed significantly. The heel of the shoe used to be a massive slab that felt like you were sinking in if you were standing. The AF2 makes the heel firmer and a shoe that's way easier to just stand in. Now, compared to the Tempo Next%, the heel of the AF2 is soft but it's firmer than the AF1 heel. This is one of the things that makes the shoe "more accommodating" to more people. Personally, I haven't had enough time to see whether I hate it or not so I'm neutral on it. My thinking right now is that it makes it more versatile. Thre forefoot has ZoomX under the Zoom Air units but I don't really see it as significant contributor to the changes in the ride of the shoe. The overal change in geometry of the midsole is a bigger factor. Which brings us to...
RIDE - The AF1's were always a crazy shoe to run in for me, a shoe that felt simultaneously fast but massive. It's a special shoe like everyone else has said it is. But, it's a shoe that was niche because of it's properties. Like I mentioned in the midsole, the shoe's heel was so soft it felt like the shoe's drop was negative (so that you are falling backwards) and that you had to engage the forefoot in order to feel like you were stable. The AF1 is a shoe that felt like you need to be moving forward constantly which is why it was so special. IMO the AF1's have the unique ability of really locking you in a pace so that it feels effortless. The AF2's do a good job (from my first run) in keeping that but making the shoe overall more versatile in a variety of situations. The run I ran today is on a non-linear bike path so it has a lot of twists and turns which is what I wanted to test the shoe for. I did a lot of stopping and accelerating from either a complete stop, walking, or running at a slow pace in order to see how it handled it in comparison to the OGs. IMO, the AF2 is a better shoe at handling turns and at accelerating from slower paces or from standing. The increased drop is felt here imo. I never usually feel that stuff but in comparing the AF1 and AF2 I do. What made the AF different from the Vaporflys was that the Vaporfly seemed like it could handle acceleration (speeding up, increasing pace) better than the Alphafly. It always felt to me that when I tried to pick up the pace it was harder to do. The AF1 just wants you to finda a pace and cruise - which is fine. The AF2 for me brings it closer to being a more versatile shoe in that it can do the things that people chose the Vaporfly over the Alphafly a little better (acceleration, turning, stability). This isn't to say that it does those things better than the Vaporfly - I don't have enough time in the shoe to say that and my instinct is that it doesn't - but it gets closer to be a better shoe in those categories.
RECOMMENDATIONS, or WHO SHOULD PICK IT UP?
These are based on limited impressions so bear that in mind but:
If you liked the AF1 and the VF line but leaned more towards the VF beacuse of stability and because accelerating and turning was harder, then check the AF2 out. I think it does a better job than the AF1 in those respects and is a more versatile shoe that can do more things if asked.
If you hated the AF1 because it felt too crazy, you can maybe give the AF2 a shot. It tries to solve most of the issues than the AF1 had and I think it does a reasonably good job.
If you loved the AF1 and you leaned more towards the AF overall instead of the VF, then maybe stock up on the first one at discounted prices. I think a lot of the big AF1 fans loved the shoe so much that the quirks of it are a part of the specialness of the ride. I think the AF2 still captures that feeling but if I were to nitpick it's like maybe 90% of the experience of the AF1 which is reasonable enough to be a big deal.