Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit Review
The Free line by Nike was originally designed to be a minimalist shoe that gives the feeling of running on grass. However, anyone familiar with the Free series or have read other Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit review knows that it stands in the almost-there case. The sole offers a lot of support compared to other zero drop shoes on the market. We would consider this more of running shoes with ample support. When the Nike Free Flyknit arrived last 2013, it was considered the first shoe to feature the compression version of the Flyknit upper. With the Free 3.0 the compression band is a little more relaxed and the overall weight is a bit lighter than previous version.
So let’s get on with the pros and cons in this Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit review.
Since the series was released, Nike has made several improvements to the 3.0 Flyknit running shoes model. One of the common complaints before was the compression band being too tight, giving those with broad feet a hard time enjoying the barefoot feel. With the Flyknit upper in the new 3.0 pair, there is more flexibility to the areas that need to stretch and breathe. The sole features a hexagon flex groove pattern that enables versatility to move in any direction. Despite having the thinnest sole among the Free line, the Free 3.0 Flyknit still provides ample cushion support to make it comfortable. It also has high flexibility and a great outsole grip. The designs are also noteworthy as Nike gave it the model splashes of bright colors. Some are attracted to these simply because of the design.
But this Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit Review is not all positive. There are some cons to this pair as with any other running shoes, and one of this is the price. We just think that $160 is a lot to ask for a pair. Also not every foot is built for it; broader feet might feel stuffy and less comfortable than narrower ones. So be mindful of the size when buying yours. Also, many Nike Free 3.0 Flyknit Review will agree that upgraded from the 2013 release to the 3.0 Flyknit is not an economical choice as there is no groundbreaking difference between the two.