Hi - thanks for your question. The 'Proto' edition are exactly the same as main colourway that's due to launch in March. The 'Prototype' colourway is a nod to Nike's development process of testing with athletes. The number (20820-4) on the lateral side of the midsole is an athlete wear-test number. While the 'V62' on the upper signifies the number of upper iterations. There are no technical differences. However, we do think the 'Proto' colourway is particularly cool. Hope you enjoy running in them.
I ordered a UK 9, they fit great but feel like there's tension around the toe box, luckily I'm awaiting for 9.5 to arrive but my question is - how many mis room should you have from toes to shoe? I’ve always been a UK9 in Nike 😕
Have you tried different styles of socks? The reason for asking is that I find they fit best on my feet with thinner running socks. I could still wear thicker socks with them, but the toe box feels noticeable tighter with thicker ones. Probably similar to what you're describing as tension around the toe box. You should ideally have around half a thumb to a thumb width of space from the end of your big toe to the end of the shoe. The width should actually change more than the length with the half size up though. Likewise, I'm the same size across all Nike running shoes. Hopefully trying the 9.5 confirms it one way or another. If it helps, I have just under thumb width of space from the end of my big toe to the end of the shoe.
Thanks for your question. Yes they fit true to size. I would definitely recommend going for your normal running shoes size. The upper feels exceptionally comfortable. I didn’t mention it in the video, but the upper also feels more comfortable around the arch area. This is because it feels slightly more spacious than the previous versions. At the same time, the midfoot area feels really supportive. While the upper has a lot of support, the flexibility in the AtomKnit 3.0 should adapt very well to a lot of foot shapes too.
@@run4it Thanks for the in depth response! I got true to size and was worried they wouldn't fit. I have nike's and I did a half size up and they feel too loose even when I tie them tightly.
Thanks for your question. I’ve not experienced any issues at all in the arch area and find them extremely comfortable. Even though the first two editions didn’t cause me any problems in the arch area, I was always quite aware of it. The AF3 are definitely more comfortable than the first two, probably as a result of the wider midfoot section on the FlyPlate. I obviously can’t say for certain as to why some runners are getting problems here. However, I’d expect it may be a result of a mismatch between the shape of the shoes and their foot shapes. If someone has a particularly broad midfoot shape, I can definitely see how the AF3 might not suit them. Additionally, if someone is very unstable in the AF3, that could mean there’s a lot of excessive pressure and friction on the arch area - which could also cause problems. Given the amount of wear testing Nike did with the AF3, I’d be very surprised if a lot of people experience problems here. It’s probably the case that some prominent reviews are making this matter seem like a much bigger thing than it is. Finally, from a personal perspective, I’m lucky enough to test a a lot of running shoes. The AF3 are easily one of the most comfortable running shoes that I’ve tried. I’m not sure the high level of criticism the arch area is getting from some reviews is justified.
I have always wanted to wear the Alphafly. But both version 1 and 2 arches are poking up and hurt my midfoot arches. There is no way I can wear them without getting injured.Is this the same with Version 3?? Some reviewers said it's no more and then Fordy Run showed his arches were all blistered. Would like to hear your experience and advice.
Thanks for the great question. The first two editions didn't ever cause me problems. However, I was always pretty aware of the arch area - particularly when running at slower speeds. This is considerably different in the AF3. I found the arch area much more comfortable, and more accommodating. As mentioned in the video, the actual base-net (width of the midsole) isn't any wider, but the carbon fibre FlyPlate is wider in the midfoot area. This is undoubtedly improving the experience and reducing the chances of friction/rubbing - as there's a broader platform for the feet to sit on. As also mentioned in the video, I ran 27km in total on my first run in them, with a hard half marathon. I didn't have any signs of friction on any part of my feet. The midfoot are also felt very comfortable during my warm-up and cool-down at the slower speeds. I've never run in another pair of running shoes that have performed as well as this from a fit perspective. However, in saying all this, I have a relatively high arch shape - so my midfoot isn't very broad. If you have a broader midfoot shape (due to lower arches), there's a chance the midfoot will still be too narrow - therefore, causing rubbing. This is probably why you're seeing conflicting advice on how the new AF3 feel. They are likely to suit a great proportion of foot shapes, but they won't work for everyone. This is not a fault of the shoes, it's more down to a mismatch in terms of foot and shoe shape. It's really important the geometry and shape of a midsole compliments your feet as best as possible. This is the challenge when it comes to designing running shoes, and it's impossible to make running shoes that suit everyone. What works for one person, won't necessarily be the same for another. This is understandably frustrating though, given what the AF3 offer from a performance perspective. You've potentially already tried them, but I find the Vaporfly 3 feel very different to the AF3 in the midfoot area - and are more forgiving. We hope the AF3 suit your feet better than the first two versions - but if not, hopefully the VF3 are an option. Hope this reply helps. Good luck with your running.
@run4it hey, thanks for the comprehensive reply. I have ran in all the versions of the Vaporflies, no issue. In fact never had any issues with any shoes (and that's a lot) except the Alphafly. Really wanted to race in them but had to return the 1 and tried the 2 at the shop and no-go. The 3 I will have to wait when it's available at the shop so that I can try them
Thanks for your question. Most people are likely to find the Alphafly 3 feel more responsive than the Alphafly 2, and closer to how the first edition felt. This means they feel more propulsive and energetic. As a result, they should feel faster than the last version. We can completely understand why some people are saying they feel firmer. However, the AF3 feels smoother and more cushioned underfoot as a result of the continuous midsole design. So yes, the midsole might not feel as 'soft'. But if you're wondering about comfort, the AF3 are actually likely to feel more comfortable over a greater ranges of paces. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the Alphafly 3 feel incredibly cushioned and protective when you're running in them. When you're running at race pace, the level of impact reduction is quite astounding. Hope this helps.
@@fsmmsms2211 no problem. If you’ve seen the slow mo in the review, you can see I land prominently on my heel too. I find the geometry of the AF3 works very well for this. There’s a lot of protection when you land.
Thanks for your question. The Alphafly 2 are great. It’s worth noting some runners might prefer the second edition. This is also down to the fact that some runners may ‘respond’ better to the geometry of the AF2. Having said this, I would expect the majority of runners will find the Alphafly 3 feel better than the 2. This is down to the fact that the midsole feels more propulsive, stable, and much lighter. As a result, the AF3 are likely to help improve running performance even more than the 2. As mentioned in the video, the AF3 are by far the fastest and most comfortable running shoes I’ve ever tried.
@@Noosphere26 no, the AF3 should have benefits for a wide range of paces and abilities. Nike worked with more than 300 elite Nike athletes and everyday runners to test and provide feedback on how to develop the next version. The key is that ‘everyday’ runners were part of the process. While the AF3 feels even more propulsive when you run faster in them, they feel very comfortable and energetic across a wide range of speeds. So, even if you’re running at slower speeds, the midsole is providing a lot of help. Keep in mind that pace is all relative too. If you’re pushing yourself in a race, the midsole will perform in a similar way to that of someone who is running faster.
@@run4it Thank you for the response. I bought them on a spur of the moment, but then started thinking if I had wasted my money on shoes im not fast enough for, and stockx had a new entry😭
Thanks for your question. The AF3 feel more comparable to the first AF, as the first AF feels more responsive than the AF2. The AF3 feels like a lighter version of the first edition. From a propulsion point of view, the 3 feels better, but delivers a similar experience to the first AF. I’d say the AF3 feel more comfortable than the first AF too. This is down to the continuous midsole geometry and wider plate construction. If it makes sense, each foot strike just feels more fluid. As a result, you’re almost less aware of the cushioning. I found the first AF felt amazing when you were running at race pace, but a bit awkward under the feet if you slowed down. This is not the case with the AF3. They should therefore work better for a wider range of runners than the first edition too. Hope that helps.
They would feel quite awkward to walk in for prolonged periods of time. The carbon plate and thick ZoomX midsole would feel quite unstable and very different from traditional shoes.
@@run4it the thing is I wanted to get them to jog to work and back home and because I have a job where I have to stand all day for around 8 hours. I wanted a shoe that after the jog to and from work home, wouldnt have my feet in a state that I couldnt stand at work the same or next day. If you know what I mean. These look like they would really spare my feet from a ton of impact and soreness.
@@TheRealGGGio we understand exactly what you mean. However, while the midsole feels amazing to run in (and helps take a lot of stress off the legs), this is likely to not be the case for walking or standing. In fact, the carbon fibre plate is likely to feel quite firm, and not necessarily comfortable to stand on for long periods of time. This is why in the video we suggest using these if you’re running a marathon from start to finish. If someone was walking sections of a marathon, it’s likely softer feeling running shoes would feel more comfortable. We would suggest checking out the Nike Invincible 3 running shoes. These actually feature the same ZoomX foam as the AF3, but don’t have a carbon fibre plate. As a result, they feel much softer and are likely to feel much more comfortable for walking/standing. The Invincible 3 are also brilliant running shoes for long distance runs. There’s a good chance these would be a great choice for what you’re looking for.
The slow motion very cool!
Great review
are proto’s worth purchasing? or is waiting for release date better? will there be any changes to them on release day?
Hi - thanks for your question. The 'Proto' edition are exactly the same as main colourway that's due to launch in March. The 'Prototype' colourway is a nod to Nike's development process of testing with athletes. The number (20820-4) on the lateral side of the midsole is an athlete wear-test number. While the 'V62' on the upper signifies the number of upper iterations.
There are no technical differences. However, we do think the 'Proto' colourway is particularly cool. Hope you enjoy running in them.
😉 let's keep it a secret till I get a pair please! 😂
I ordered a UK 9, they fit great but feel like there's tension around the toe box, luckily I'm awaiting for 9.5 to arrive but my question is - how many mis room should you have from toes to shoe? I’ve always been a UK9 in Nike 😕
Have you tried different styles of socks? The reason for asking is that I find they fit best on my feet with thinner running socks. I could still wear thicker socks with them, but the toe box feels noticeable tighter with thicker ones. Probably similar to what you're describing as tension around the toe box.
You should ideally have around half a thumb to a thumb width of space from the end of your big toe to the end of the shoe. The width should actually change more than the length with the half size up though.
Likewise, I'm the same size across all Nike running shoes. Hopefully trying the 9.5 confirms it one way or another. If it helps, I have just under thumb width of space from the end of my big toe to the end of the shoe.
@@run4it thank you so much for the reply, taking note from what you say then the UK9 are going to be the right ones
Would you say a true to size fit would be good? I know you mentioned that the shoe can deal with swelling for longer runs.
Thanks for your question. Yes they fit true to size. I would definitely recommend going for your normal running shoes size.
The upper feels exceptionally comfortable. I didn’t mention it in the video, but the upper also feels more comfortable around the arch area. This is because it feels slightly more spacious than the previous versions. At the same time, the midfoot area feels really supportive.
While the upper has a lot of support, the flexibility in the AtomKnit 3.0 should adapt very well to a lot of foot shapes too.
@@run4it Thanks for the in depth response! I got true to size and was worried they wouldn't fit. I have nike's and I did a half size up and they feel too loose even when I tie them tightly.
No mention of the arch issues that a lot of people are having with them?
Thanks for your question. I’ve not experienced any issues at all in the arch area and find them extremely comfortable. Even though the first two editions didn’t cause me any problems in the arch area, I was always quite aware of it. The AF3 are definitely more comfortable than the first two, probably as a result of the wider midfoot section on the FlyPlate.
I obviously can’t say for certain as to why some runners are getting problems here. However, I’d expect it may be a result of a mismatch between the shape of the shoes and their foot shapes. If someone has a particularly broad midfoot shape, I can definitely see how the AF3 might not suit them. Additionally, if someone is very unstable in the AF3, that could mean there’s a lot of excessive pressure and friction on the arch area - which could also cause problems.
Given the amount of wear testing Nike did with the AF3, I’d be very surprised if a lot of people experience problems here. It’s probably the case that some prominent reviews are making this matter seem like a much bigger thing than it is.
Finally, from a personal perspective, I’m lucky enough to test a a lot of running shoes. The AF3 are easily one of the most comfortable running shoes that I’ve tried. I’m not sure the high level of criticism the arch area is getting from some reviews is justified.
I have always wanted to wear the Alphafly. But both version 1 and 2 arches are poking up and hurt my midfoot arches. There is no way I can wear them without getting injured.Is this the same with Version 3?? Some reviewers said it's no more and then Fordy Run showed his arches were all blistered. Would like to hear your experience and advice.
Thanks for the great question.
The first two editions didn't ever cause me problems. However, I was always pretty aware of the arch area - particularly when running at slower speeds.
This is considerably different in the AF3. I found the arch area much more comfortable, and more accommodating. As mentioned in the video, the actual base-net (width of the midsole) isn't any wider, but the carbon fibre FlyPlate is wider in the midfoot area. This is undoubtedly improving the experience and reducing the chances of friction/rubbing - as there's a broader platform for the feet to sit on.
As also mentioned in the video, I ran 27km in total on my first run in them, with a hard half marathon. I didn't have any signs of friction on any part of my feet. The midfoot are also felt very comfortable during my warm-up and cool-down at the slower speeds. I've never run in another pair of running shoes that have performed as well as this from a fit perspective.
However, in saying all this, I have a relatively high arch shape - so my midfoot isn't very broad. If you have a broader midfoot shape (due to lower arches), there's a chance the midfoot will still be too narrow - therefore, causing rubbing. This is probably why you're seeing conflicting advice on how the new AF3 feel. They are likely to suit a great proportion of foot shapes, but they won't work for everyone.
This is not a fault of the shoes, it's more down to a mismatch in terms of foot and shoe shape. It's really important the geometry and shape of a midsole compliments your feet as best as possible. This is the challenge when it comes to designing running shoes, and it's impossible to make running shoes that suit everyone. What works for one person, won't necessarily be the same for another. This is understandably frustrating though, given what the AF3 offer from a performance perspective.
You've potentially already tried them, but I find the Vaporfly 3 feel very different to the AF3 in the midfoot area - and are more forgiving. We hope the AF3 suit your feet better than the first two versions - but if not, hopefully the VF3 are an option.
Hope this reply helps. Good luck with your running.
@run4it hey, thanks for the comprehensive reply. I have ran in all the versions of the Vaporflies, no issue. In fact never had any issues with any shoes (and that's a lot) except the Alphafly. Really wanted to race in them but had to return the 1 and tried the 2 at the shop and no-go. The 3 I will have to wait when it's available at the shop so that I can try them
Is the alphafly 3 softer than the model 2? Many people are saying that the Model 3 is much firmer than the previous ones
Thanks for your question.
Most people are likely to find the Alphafly 3 feel more responsive than the Alphafly 2, and closer to how the first edition felt. This means they feel more propulsive and energetic. As a result, they should feel faster than the last version.
We can completely understand why some people are saying they feel firmer. However, the AF3 feels smoother and more cushioned underfoot as a result of the continuous midsole design. So yes, the midsole might not feel as 'soft'. But if you're wondering about comfort, the AF3 are actually likely to feel more comfortable over a greater ranges of paces.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the Alphafly 3 feel incredibly cushioned and protective when you're running in them. When you're running at race pace, the level of impact reduction is quite astounding. Hope this helps.
@@run4it Thank you very much, as my pace is 5 minutes per km. I land with my heel, that's why I like soft tennis shoes.
@@fsmmsms2211 no problem. If you’ve seen the slow mo in the review, you can see I land prominently on my heel too. I find the geometry of the AF3 works very well for this. There’s a lot of protection when you land.
worth upgrading from the alphafly next 2?
Thanks for your question. The Alphafly 2 are great. It’s worth noting some runners might prefer the second edition. This is also down to the fact that some runners may ‘respond’ better to the geometry of the AF2.
Having said this, I would expect the majority of runners will find the Alphafly 3 feel better than the 2. This is down to the fact that the midsole feels more propulsive, stable, and much lighter. As a result, the AF3 are likely to help improve running performance even more than the 2.
As mentioned in the video, the AF3 are by far the fastest and most comfortable running shoes I’ve ever tried.
Do you have to be really fast to benefit?
@@Noosphere26 no, the AF3 should have benefits for a wide range of paces and abilities. Nike worked with more than 300 elite Nike athletes and everyday runners to test and provide feedback on how to develop the next version. The key is that ‘everyday’ runners were part of the process.
While the AF3 feels even more propulsive when you run faster in them, they feel very comfortable and energetic across a wide range of speeds. So, even if you’re running at slower speeds, the midsole is providing a lot of help. Keep in mind that pace is all relative too. If you’re pushing yourself in a race, the midsole will perform in a similar way to that of someone who is running faster.
@@run4it Thank you for the response. I bought them on a spur of the moment, but then started thinking if I had wasted my money on shoes im not fast enough for, and stockx had a new entry😭
@@Noosphere26 no problem. They’re incredible running shoes - hope you enjoy them and good luck with your running.
Can you compare it to the V1?
Thanks for your question. The AF3 feel more comparable to the first AF, as the first AF feels more responsive than the AF2.
The AF3 feels like a lighter version of the first edition. From a propulsion point of view, the 3 feels better, but delivers a similar experience to the first AF.
I’d say the AF3 feel more comfortable than the first AF too. This is down to the continuous midsole geometry and wider plate construction. If it makes sense, each foot strike just feels more fluid. As a result, you’re almost less aware of the cushioning.
I found the first AF felt amazing when you were running at race pace, but a bit awkward under the feet if you slowed down. This is not the case with the AF3. They should therefore work better for a wider range of runners than the first edition too.
Hope that helps.
@@run4it Thank you so much for the detailed answer!
I wonder how these feel if worn casually ?
They would feel quite awkward to walk in for prolonged periods of time. The carbon plate and thick ZoomX midsole would feel quite unstable and very different from traditional shoes.
@@run4it the thing is I wanted to get them to jog to work and back home and because I have a job where I have to stand all day for around 8 hours. I wanted a shoe that after the jog to and from work home, wouldnt have my feet in a state that I couldnt stand at work the same or next day. If you know what I mean. These look like they would really spare my feet from a ton of impact and soreness.
@@TheRealGGGio we understand exactly what you mean. However, while the midsole feels amazing to run in (and helps take a lot of stress off the legs), this is likely to not be the case for walking or standing. In fact, the carbon fibre plate is likely to feel quite firm, and not necessarily comfortable to stand on for long periods of time.
This is why in the video we suggest using these if you’re running a marathon from start to finish. If someone was walking sections of a marathon, it’s likely softer feeling running shoes would feel more comfortable.
We would suggest checking out the Nike Invincible 3 running shoes. These actually feature the same ZoomX foam as the AF3, but don’t have a carbon fibre plate. As a result, they feel much softer and are likely to feel much more comfortable for walking/standing. The Invincible 3 are also brilliant running shoes for long distance runs. There’s a good chance these would be a great choice for what you’re looking for.
@@run4it Thank you very much for responding. I appreciate the suggestions as well as the exact advice I was looking for 🙏🏽🫡