Adidas Springblade review

The Adidas Springblade is a bit of a footwear anachronism, to say the least. There was a time, between 2001-2007 to be precise, when shoes with bulky spring-like cushioning systems were supposed to be the next big thing.

Generally termed as shoes with ‘mechanical cushioning’, technologies such as Adidas A3, Megabounce, Shox, and New Balance Zip claimed to mimic the shock absorbing and energy return properties of a metal coil spring. The underlying logic was that the pillars or chambers beneath the shoe released potential energy with each stride, propelling the wearer of the shoe forward.

But despite the millions spent on marketing these engineering marvels, the mechanical cushioning phenomena faded into the sunset. The world evolved quickly; the new formula for commercial success became one that combined aesthetic minimalism with a new-found favor for low heel-to-toe drop. And all of this had to be delivered in a lightweight package, a middle ground between minimalist purity and traditional running shoes.

Considering the context, the launch of the Springblade in August 2013 was certainly unexpected. Especially just six months after the launch of the Boost midsole platform, which got rave reviews everywhere. That said, any innovation in the crowded footwear industry is a welcome change, regardless of the commercial success (or not).

Footwear projects like the Springblade usually have a relative carte blanche on development where designers and developers have a higher degree of freedom on the time and money they can spend. For all you know, such a project can turn out to be a damp squib commercially, but newly discovered features and construction techniques can be applied to future products in some form or other.

But that’s the larger and feel-good picture; how does the Adidas Springblade perform as a running shoe?

Adidas used marketing buzzwords and phrases like ‘Explosive Energy’ and ‘Propel runners forward’ at the Springblade launch last year. That piqued our curiosity, so we decided to buy a pair and put the claims to the test.

At this point, we assume that you already know about the Springblade concept, its sixteen blades, and all that comes with them, so we won’t repeat any of that catalog stuff here. Our job here is to find out whether the shoes actually up to the marketing claims – the good and bad of it, the whole nine yards.

We’ve got quite a few runs on the Springblade, and to be honest, the experience has been underwhelming. The shoe looks amazing, and unlike anything else on the shelves right now. The unique design of the Springblade is a conversation starter, and you’ll get a sideways glance more than once. But looks are one thing, running in them another. Particularly when it comes with the crushing pressure of marketing hyperboles.

Even at a leisurely 8-minute mile pace, there is no ‘explosive’ springback at all. Sure, the shoe feels cushioned as the blades bend, but that’s pretty much all there is to it. From the looks of the Springblade, it would seem as if the blades would flatten themselves completely out against the underside of the shoe, ready to snap back from its fully compressed state.

But in reality, what happens is this: During each foot strike, the blades compress under the body weight, but only travel around a centimeter, its tip resting on the blade behind it.

If we had to offer an analogy, it is the equivalent of a car suspension ‘bottoming out’. Besides the low suspension travel, they are also too soft to achieve anything impactful. Heel and rear-foot strikers put in many times their body weight during impact and the blades simply do not have enough tensile strength to push the body upwards.

The blade might feel firm when pressed down with fingers, but that’s a poor way to assess how they perform during running.

In short, there is no ‘explosive energy’ or ‘forward propelling’ from the Springblade. During walking speeds, there is a distinct sensation of the blade compressing, and it might result in the illusion of mild ‘propulsion’. But during runs, there is no sensation of propulsion nor does the Springblade make you go faster. On the contrary, we felt that the Adidas Energy Boost 2 did a better job at making faster runs conducive.

This also applies to sprinting speeds, the firmer forefoot blades lend the illusion of propulsion, but you’re better off in a proper track shoe when it comes to shaving seconds off.

Big blades, but limited range of motion.

Forefoot blades are slightly stiffer due to shortened length.

The Adipower insole is massive, and doubles up as a midsole. Sort of.

The underside of the sockliner looks like the underside of a boat.

Chunky foam insole made specifically for Springblade.

Strip away the marketing exaggeration, and the bladed wonder turns out to be a very well-cushioned neutral running shoe. The blades cushion in a way that feels very unique, unlike any other foam-based running shoe.

As the length and design of the blades differ from rear to forefoot, compression is felt more in the rearfoot than in the front, where it is much stiffer.

Since there isn’t any foam midsole to speak of, the drop-in ‘Adipower’ sockliner fills in for midsole duties. It is this massive, molded piece of contoured foam that sits right above the transparent Springblade unit. It serves as a nice cushioned layer between the radical Springblade unit and foot, and also cups the underside of the sole with its flared edges.

We felt that the tip of the outsole impeded toe-off.

They look amazing, but with only a small contact surface, the grip is terrible.

Under-heel pod sees accelerated rubber wear. Also kicks water back on damp roads.

The heel-to-toe transition is average; there isn’t much of the outsole beneath so weight transfer progressively happens from blade to blade, and the movement comes across as disconnected. The forefoot roll-off is impeded by the flat blade at the tip of the shoe; feels like you’re going over a small lump during push-offs.

But that pales in comparison to the biggest negative of the Springblade – its grip. The rubber pods on the bladed tips are all that one gets as contact surfaces, so the traction is terrible in less-than-perfect conditions.

During one of the test runs, we ran on damp roads just after the rains had stopped. While the road grip was ok during the run, the Springblade was downright slippery when walking back on a cement sidewalk after the run.

The blades also have this tendency to kick up water on your Achilles if the road is wet, so clearly this shoe is meant only for 100% dry conditions. The back of the blade is prone to accumulating dust, but the material is easy to wipe clean.

And if you wanted to know, the Springblade makes a soft ‘whoff’ sound when walking. It isn’t loud, but it is audible when walking on hard indoor surfaces, when there’s less ambient noise.

The outsole pods come in contact with the ground at an angle, so wear and tear is fast.

Minimal outsole coverage leads to poor grip on less-than-perfect surfaces.

Outsole durability is a problem. We saw accelerated rubber wear on the wide heel center blade, and the two rubber pods on lateral rear-foot blades. The blades are positioned ‘corner-up’ and have their edges as the first point of contact with the ground, so expect to see rubber wear there.

Because of the way blades are distributed, rear-foot rubber will wear out faster than forefoot – considering the runner will heel or rear-foot strike.

The ‘techfit’ upper shines on the Springblade. Superb snugness.

Stretchable forefoot mesh with high-density printing.

The tongue is gusseted (attached to sides) and with generous foam padding between layers.

The Springblade’s upper is excellent. For the most part, the ‘Techfit’ upper uses a stretchable mesh with printed hexagons, and the multi-directional stretch fabric fits the foot snugly without much pressure. The mesh is very comfortable too, as the reverse side is an air mesh lining with a lot of bounce.

The tongue is made of an open spacer mesh, with foam padding running down its center and top. This eases the pressure once the laces are tightened across the midfoot – the laces look flat, but are tubular (hollow) type which are resistant to coming undone. The tongue forms the part of a sleeve and is attached to the sides, so no tongue slide happens during motion.

The forefoot fit is snug, but there’s some space upfront ahead of the toes – the shoe runs half a size larger than what you might be normally used to.

On a related note, Adidas sizing is a source of some confusion for runners since their US sizing is not the same as Nike, Brooks, or Saucony. A US 10 in Adidas is US 9.5 in American footwear brands, so as a thumb rule you should always buy half a US or UK size bigger in Adidas when switching from US-based brands.

To avoid messing up, always refer to the CM (centimeter) or JP (millimeter) sizing on the tongue label. CM or JP sizing is the only true measure of actual foot length, so if you have a 28.5 cm (285 mm) shoe in Nike, buy the same size in Adidas and you should be all set.

Collar heights are usually low on Adidas shoes, but not on this one. The collar walls are higher than, say an Energy Boost or a Supernova Glide 6, and do a good job of gripping the ankles without any dig.

There’s a lot of foam padding topped off with a comfortable lining, and the outside is a band of soft spacer mesh which is also used on the tongue. There’s a floating, plastic heel clip that is fused over the heel area and reinforces that area.

The rear foot section looks very clean and sleek, owing to how the Springblade sole is attached to the upper.

In the forefoot, the upper is folded under and then glued to the base, but in the rearfoot, a thin wall rises from the sole and integrates (not visible in the picture) with the upper. That’s why, when you remove the Adipower sockliner, all you see is the transparent base and no upper.

A thick, fused synthetic overlay forms the toe bumper and upper periphery.

The synthetic band also extends upwards to form the midfoot panel.

The midfoot panel is free of the upper, so there’s a greater freedom of lacing adjustment.

The overlays on the Springblade upper are fused, with a thick band all around the edge of the upper. The toe bumper is protected with a strip of fused synthetic, and the thick material at the upper edge extends up at the midfoot to form the Adidas three stripes, which also act as functional support.

Since the midfoot panel is relatively free of the upper, there is a greater level of custom fit depending on lacing pressure.

The weight is not bad at all for a shoe with a full-length TPU sole. It comes in at 396 grams for a US 10.5, which is not exactly featherweight, but acceptable. And once in motion, the weight isn’t a bother.

The Adidas Springblade is a novel idea that we had high expectations of, so we were disappointed that the shoe failed to stand up to the brand’s marketing claims.

While the shoe does have its merits, but possessing a magical ‘explosive’ or ‘forward propelling’ power isn’t one of them. The Springblade has distinct aesthetics with unique and responsive cushioning, but that makes you wonder whether those attributes alone are worth buying the shoe for. At a wallet-busting price tag of $180, it does make you rethink your career choice.

We’re also eager to see what the future of Springblade is – trickling it down to other shoes is a challenge, looking at the history of mechanical cushioning.

Unless you’re selling to the Brazilians, in which case you can get away with selling something like the Springblade FF, a strange-looking beast with a bladed forefoot and a foam rear-foot. We have a feeling it won’t cut it in other parts of the world. Here’s a picture, just in case you don’t believe us.

(Disclaimer: Solereview paid full US retail price for the shoe reviewed)