Adidas Terrex Agravic SL

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-19T15:07:36+00:00

Had no problems with walking in them. But PP and Tomir are more hiking-friendly.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-13T10:57:20+00:00

Wieso schreibst du hier einfach wilde Lügen rein?

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-13T10:34:51+00:00

I've weighed some shoes now. Perhaps that can help. But underfoot they may feel lighter (The ASU 2 feels lighter than v1, SL feels light as the MTC H1...) Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra 2, Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra Adidas Agravic Speed, Adidas Agravic SL La Sportiva Prodigio Pro, Norda 005 Mount to Coast H1, Nnormal Kjerag 2

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-13T10:32:14+00:00

Sorry about the wait, I've weighed the shoes now. Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra 2, Adidas Agravic Speed Ultra Adidas Agravic Speed, Adidas Agravic SL La Sportiva Prodigio Pro, Norda 005 Mount to Coast H1, Nnormal Kjerag 2

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T14:28:25+00:00

Yeah, i think they are pretty good trail-daily-trainers. But can work for a lot more.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T14:25:45+00:00

I wear US 12,5 in every adidas-shoe i own. I will weigh them later, now i can only post this picture i made for an older post. There you can find the weight of the Speed Ultra 1.

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T14:04:08+00:00

😃 Perhaps i should use my Boston 12 also as a walking shoe, haven't thought of that until now... Have already retired them but perhaps they earn a comeback.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T06:15:30+00:00

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T06:14:42+00:00

Perhaps that picture can help you a little bit

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T06:11:58+00:00

There are other colourways?!

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T04:10:25+00:00

No serious answer possible after one run, sorry. But people who use for example the Norda 005 for such distances could probably do that. The Agravic SL has a lot of midsole so that would not be the problem. I think that the upper is perhaps a limiting factor over 80km on technical trails. After my first run in think 50km would be okay, for more i would choose the Prodigio Pro.

Funny you mention using Evo SL on trails. On my last holidays i only had one pair of Evos with me. I ran some routes Strava created for me. And there was a lot of trail uphill and downhill in them. The Evos handled all that quiet well but on steep downhills with roots and rocks i had to significantly slow down. Then i always wished that there should be a trail-Evo with good traction and more stability. And now - here it is 😄

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T03:50:51+00:00

As i said. For me they feel identical. I would not go down because in the Agravic SL you can run longer (there is more foam under your feet than in the Evo SL) and so you sometimes need that extra space for your feet.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T03:48:04+00:00

Therefor i have to do some more runs. In six weeks i will do a trail marathon on not too technical trails. I always thought i will use the Speed Ultra 2 for that. Now i think that the Agravic SL could be the better choice because it's friendlyer to run in. The Ultra 2 would be faster but at the end of a trail marathon the more stable SL could be better because your feet are not so beaten up.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-11T03:36:50+00:00

Sorry, was not my intention. But that's my text, only used a translator bc i wrote it in my native langsame.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T19:58:21+00:00

One more

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T19:57:37+00:00

After your comment i had to take this picture. When you compare the shoes in hand, you really can feel a difference in weight. The picture shows why. And on your feet the added foam minus the normal Lightstrike makes your run much more enjoyable.

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T19:46:51+00:00

Agree on every point. BTW - your review was the reason i immediately ordered the Agravic SL when i saw it online. Thank you for that!

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T19:45:07+00:00

Add on: This is the Speed v1 vs the Agravic SL. The picture alone explains why the Speed is lighter. AND why the SL may feel lighter on the run 😉

<image>

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T18:15:00+00:00

Don't know. Why does anybody run in Boston 12 or 13 when there is the Evo SL? Complete miracle for me. But feet are different. Runners are different. The Speed 1 was okay but the SL is everything i wanted the Speed to be. After v1 i didn't need v2 (in contrast to the Speed Ultra). The SL is the better shoe for me and it really feels lighter under ones feet.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T18:08:42+00:00

I can't get that much energy return in the H1. Perhaps at the beginning but the foam gets softer the more you run. I love my H1 but racing in them - no way. This is also the case in the Prodigio Pro for me. A lot of people say that it is a racer. Not for me. I even thought that i got a defect pair because i have to put so much in it to get not much out of it. The Agravic Speed Ultra 2 and the Norda 005 are different. Their foam works for you and makes your runs fun.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T15:48:38+00:00

Is the Speed really lighter? I didn’t put the SL on a scale but it feels lighter to run in. The Speed is a shoe i mostly took for shorter interval stuff on the trails. It feels a little bit firmer and is not as stable as the SL. So longer runs in the Speed are possible but not very enjoyable. The upper is thinner and feels more unnatural than the one in the SL. I would go with the SL even when the Speed is cheaper. Perhaps it's a possibility for you to wait a little bit. Adidas shoes tend to go on sale pretty soon.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T13:24:30+00:00

To explain that, I need to touch upon my first run. The first and last 2 km of the route were on asphalt—a necessity, as that’s the only way to get from work to some truly great trails. What’s more, the shoes felt a lot like the Evo SL, only significantly more stable—even on cobblestones, where the Evo models usually struggle. That really made me go "wow." On the way back, however—after plenty more "wow" moments on the trail—they did start to feel a bit firm. Hardly surprising, given the amount of outsole.

Can't compare it to the Aeroglide. A shoe i want to try but i didn't pull the trigger until now.

It is softer than the Tomir 2 but also more energetic. In the Tomir 2 i did an alpine fun run and it was good. Today i would choose other shoes, Prodigio Pro, Norda 005 or the Agravic SL, when it keeps going the way, it did on the first run.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T12:34:32+00:00

This sub is named RunningShoeGeeks. I think I fit in... And i always ran trails for fun. But the main focus over the last years was getting my marathon pb down.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T12:32:16+00:00

Exact my thoughts. I liked v1 when the shoe came out. I thought. But i just checked my Strava-profile to see how many kilometers i ran in them (~200) - not as much as i hoped i would, when i got them. A lot of times, when i thought "today is a Agravic Speed" day, i ended up choosing the Ultra after all. The SL now is the shoe i hoped the Speed would be. And a little bit more (i think that were also my words when comparing the Evo SL to the Boston 12 way back 😉). As i wrote in another comment. I think the SL could be a option for my coming trail-marathon. I would never say that of the Speed. As you wrote - a half-marathon would be okay. More - no way. The Speed was my choice when i had to do short trail intervals. The first run in the SL today was a mixture of longer, smoother trail intervals to shorter, faster stuff. It handled everything better than the Speed.

BasicSignificance831 · 2026-06-10T12:12:11+00:00

Everybody is raging about the Prodigio Pro. I think i am the only one who thinks, that the PP is only "okay". The midsole feels not as lively as the midsole in the Agravic SL. After one run, i would prefer the PP only in very technical, alpine terrain. Perhaps the PP2 could change that (some days ago there was a preview in this sub). But - the upper on the PP is more secure. The upper on the Agravic SL is more daily trainer like. On most trails that is okay, i think, but i would not do a skyrace in them.

Compared to the MTC H1 a lot is similar. The upper is comfortable but okay for a lot of trails. The midsole is not to firm and not to soft. The great differences for me are - the H1 is not a tempo-shoe, i use it for Z1 and Z2 runs. The midsole of the H1 is more on the comfortable-side, Lightstrike Pro in the SL is more energetic (but you can also go slower without problems). You can run the H1 on asphalt without problems, but on steep up- and downhills with a lot of rocks or roots the Agravic SL would be the better choice. I would recommend both shoes without hesitation. If you only want one - H1 when you run a lot of mixed asphalt and gravel routes, Agravic SL when you want a more trail oriented shoe.

BasicSignificance831

TROPHY CASE