Height: 6'0"
Weight: 158-60lbs
Biomechanics: Mid-foot stiker, moderate cadence, slight supination (outside strike), neutral shoe
Foot type: mod-high arch and narrow foot.
Runs completed: Treadmill and road. Speed work at 5:00 pace and below, easy and moderate paced long runs up to 17.5 miles, hill work, moderate paced running at 6:30 pace, easy runs at 7:30 pace.
Shoe Fit
Blade light run II: Comortable foot bed and plenty of cushion around the heel of the shoe. Incorporates seem free technology so can be worn sockless if that is a preference. Very comfortable upon initial fitting but requires a break in period for running (see notes below). Toe box is much roomier than the kwicky but I didn't experience any shifting since the rest of the shoe hugged my foot quite nicely. Much flatter feel at 8mm drop from heel to toe - very balanced shoe which carried over into run sessions.
Overall, I preferred the fit of the BLR II over the kwicky for an everyday trainer mainly due to the roomier toe box.
Comfort/Ride Quality:
Kwicky Blade Light (neutral): I've heard others make this comment about the kwicky's and I think it holds true for my experience - overall, they provide a soft "spongy" ride and are pretty responsive punchy which I like for faster sessions. Very comfortable for running right out of the box. As a midfoot striker I definitely noticed the beafier heel and the drop to the forefoot. Forefoot padding is a little thin for my strike pattern especially for an everyday trainer but I think this wouldn't be as noticeable for heel strikers. This is really my biggest gripe with the shoe - over long runs it became a noticeable wear area on the front ball of my foot. I'll definitely lean towards these shoes for longer tempo sessions or days wear my legs may be feeling a bit heavy. I'm on the fence between the kwicky and k-ruuz 1.5 over the 70.3 distance.
Blade light run II (neutral shoe): Immediate impression of these shoes were twofold: definitely has a low drop feel similar to the kinvara3 (best comparison I could think of) which is more generous to the midfoot strike crowd and alot firmer ride than the kwicky which I particular notice during hill repeat sessions. The first few runs in these shoes were a little firm but I did notice after a few sessions (25-30 miles) these shoes broke in quite nicely which has been my experience with other shoes as well. K-swiss did a great job with the R&D that went into this shoe adding some additional rubber support in the heavy use areas I mentioned above (forefoot and inner ball of the foot) there is noticeably more support in the forefoot which is a heavy use area for me - bonus!!! It does feel a touch heavier than the kwicky but this may have been due to the weight being more blanced throughout the shoe but definitely not a klunker at under 10oz. I also didn't feel the "springy-ness" of the kwicky in this shoe but I think this shoe holds up much better for long sessions. Not a shoe I would race in at the Olympic or 70.3 distance but I think this would be a good candidate for 140.6 distance racing since the shoe relatively light and holds up well with no "break down" effect over longer runs - 17+ miles.
Overall, I was very happy with this shoes' performance as an every day trainer and will be my staple for training. I'll probably still rotate in the kwicky's for some faster sessions but my strike pattern and biomechanics work much better with the BLR II.
70.3 distance race day choice: Decisions, decisions, decisions...
Note to K-Swiss on the K-Ruuz 1.5: This is a great race flat but would love to see k-swiss incorporate the lower drop profile of the BLR II into the k-ruuz model and add more padding to the forefoot. Fingers crossed that there will be a K-ruuz 2.0 released in the very near future that meets these specs!!!!
