In this unique comparative series, we’ll be delving into the distinctions between the Nike Zoom Fly and Pegasus Turbo versions.
Today, it’s my pleasure to present you with a comprehensive analysis of the design and performance aspects of the Nike Zoom Fly 3 versus the Pegasus Turbo 2.
I’m here to provide you with my comprehensive assessment of these trainers as a whole.
Nike Zoom Fly vs Pegasus Turbo
Before we proceed, let me mention that the Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2 has been worn for 43 miles, while the Zoom Fly 3 has covered around 120 miles.
The Pegasus Turbo is a recent addition to my running shoe rotation, and I’m still in the process of fully integrating it into my routine in terms of mileage.
However, I can confidently confirm that I’ve used the Pegasus for easy runs, workouts, and even a long run, which is promising.
I’ve experienced a wide range of running scenarios in this shoe, giving me a solid understanding of its performance and what to expect going forward.
Now, without any further delay, let’s delve into the details.
We’ll kick off with a technical comparison. There are notable similarities and significant differences between these two running shoes, which we’ll explore comprehensively before delving into their performance aspects.
Our analysis will follow the usual path, starting from the heel, moving down to the laces, examining the upper, and progressing to the midsole and outsole.
Heel
The heel area of both the Nike Zoom Fly 3 and the Pegasus Turbo 2 is notably slim. I’ve encountered a slight degree of heel slippage in both these shoes.
I understand that some of you might not relate to this concern, while others might resonate with it. It’s evident that Nike has aimed to reduce weight by making this area very thin.
Internally, both shoes share a similar design. They incorporate what I refer to as bumper padding sections, positioned just below the ankle bone.
This feature adds a significant level of comfort, and I haven’t encountered any problems with it. I assume it’s designed to provide a touch of protection in that area, rather than having an entirely thin material surrounding it.
Apart from the aforementioned heel slippage, I haven’t experienced any blisters, Achilles issues, or any other problems. In that aspect, everything seems to be perfect.
Tongue
The Zoom Fly 3 provides a sock-like slip-on sensation due to its wetsuit-like material. It’s constructed as a single piece without a distinct tongue. In contrast, the Pegasus Turbo 2 features a slim material tongue, creating a separate component in that area.
Interestingly, both shoes employ this thin material, whether as a connected or separate element. This design choice appears to be driven by the intention to reduce weight.
Laces
Transitioning to the laces, both the Pegasus and the Zoom Fly utilize nearly identical laces in terms of their composition and the lacing system used for securing them.
The Zoom Fly 3 employs tabs for securing the laces, while the Turbo 2 opts for a more traditional hole design along the sides. Despite this distinction, both models offer a secure fit without any discomfort, providing an excellent locked-down feel.
Upper
The Nike Zoom Fly 3 introduces an innovative technology known as VaporWeave, which you might have heard about in the Next% series where it was a prominent feature. This material is slightly more water-resistant than the previous Flyknit fabric they used.
From my personal experience, I haven’t encountered significant issues with this material. There’s a bit of wrinkling around the toe box region, but to be completely candid, it doesn’t make a huge difference to me.
Given that my feet are quite wide and tend to extend to the edges of the material, I don’t experience excessive wrinkling. However, individuals with narrower feet may notice this effect more.
Comparatively, the Turbo 2 employs a machine-knitted upper that encompasses the shoe. This means that we have both the VaporWeave material and the knitted material on this model. As for its performance in terms of water absorption and becoming heavier in rainy conditions, I can’t provide an assessment as I haven’t tested it in heavy downpours yet. Nonetheless, the Nike Pegasus Turbo 2 has held up well so far.
Midsole
Transitioning to the midsole, a substantial distinction becomes evident between the two models.
The Zoom Fly 3 employs the Nike React midsole, while the Pegasus Turbo 2 incorporates the Zoom X midsole.
I can affirm that the Zoom X midsole is truly impressive and offers a high level of comfort. Upon comparing the two, I must admit that I particularly appreciate the Zoom X midsole present in the Pegasus Turbo 2.
Though the Zoom Fly encounters certain issues, I must emphasize that the midsole itself remains faultless.
Outsole
Transitioning to the outsole of the Zoom Fly, we encounter a strategic application of durable rubber in the areas subjected to higher wear, reminiscent of the design seen in the Nike Next%. On the other hand, the Turbo 2 boasts a more comprehensive outsole rubber composition.
The incorporation of high-wearing rubber and a minor portion of exposed midsole constitute the primary outsole features.
As we conclude the technical analysis, it’s worth highlighting that both these shoes exhibit exceptional craftsmanship. Personally, I haven’t faced any fitting issues as they adhere well to their true sizes. Furthermore, both models stand out as remarkably lightweight footwear options.
Performance
What are the pros and cons?
Nike Zoom Fly 3
Let’s commence with the Nike Zoom Fly 3. Having had the Nike Zoom Fly OG, a shoe that revolutionized my running experience, I held high expectations for its successor.
Regrettably, the Nike Zoom Fly 3 didn’t surpass its predecessor for me. It appears to be burdened with a somewhat clunky design, particularly in its forefoot where the carbon plate contributes to an awkwardly front-heavy sensation. The outcome is an odd feeling that your foot is propelling you forward in an almost dragging manner.
In contrast to the initial version, the VaporWeave upper material itself posed no issues; however, the overall upper comfort was slightly diminished.
To be clear, the Zoom Fly posed no problems like blisters or discomfort during usage. Its performance met expectations. It handled various scenarios – races, training, long runs – adeptly and seamlessly, supporting my pace and endurance without a hitch.
This shoe, despite my mixed feelings, remains a part of my running regimen due to the substantial investment made. Yet, it doesn’t motivate me as its predecessor did. It doesn’t evoke that exhilarating feeling of improvement.
In terms of pros and cons, the most glaring con lies in its weight distribution, which feels suboptimal. The upper is a tad less comfortable compared to the original model. However, the key pro remains its consistent delivery of performance.
Nike Pegasus Turbo 2
Moving on to the Pegasus Turbo 2, Unlike the Zoom Fly, this one is less inclined towards racing and is better suited as a versatile daily trainer.
From my observations, the Pegasus Turbo 2 offers flexibility across various terrains, including trails and roads. However, I must be candid in saying that I wouldn’t consider it a racing shoe.
Comparatively, the Turbo is lighter than the Zoom Fly. Yet, it lacks the snappy responsiveness that I usually seek in a racer. It almost presents itself as a racing flat but misses the mark somehow – an odd sensation, to say the least.
Interestingly, the Zoom X foam in the Pegasus Turbo 2 is commendable. When pitted against the React foam, the Zoom X feels superior, more durable, and comfortable, providing a sense of longevity.
The upper design, particularly the knitted upper, outshines that of the Zoom Fly. It offers a snug fit that’s more appealing than the plasticky VaporWeave material used in the Zoom Fly.
Although the lacing systems exhibit similarity, I personally find the lockdown sensation in the Pegasus Turbo 2 to be more satisfactory, a sentiment that developed over time.
My primary concern centers around the substantial investment made in acquiring the Pegasus Turbo 2. Regrettably, I don’t feel I’m extracting equivalent value from the shoe.
To sum up:
- The midsole is impressive.
- The upper design is commendable.
- Lockdown sensation is satisfactory.
- The shoe is lighter.
- The materials used are superior to those in the Zoom Fly.
- The lacing system is efficient.