If you’re looking for a Nike trainer that you can do uptempo runs in, the Zoom Fly 6 is worth taking a look at.
If you enjoy the Vaporfly but you want something cheaper and more durable to do speed training in, the Zoom Fly 6 is an option.
If you have really wide feet, the Zoom Fly 6 will be too narrow for you- it’s also not available in a wide version.
If you are looking for a soft, squishy speed trainer, you’ll find the Zoom Fly 6 too firm.
It seems like years since Nike has launched a really exciting, innovative running shoe. Nike used to be a brand that pushed the boundaries of innovation, unafraid of failures; that’s how weird shoes like the Shox, Joyride, VaporMax and Vaporfly were created.
These days, it’s almost as if the Nike developers have design fatigue. Nike doesn’t have a super light hyper-racer or a maximal trainer above 45 mm in stack height yet. Apart from ZoomX, all their other midsole foams (React, ReactX, SR02, Cushlon 3.0) feel firm and flat.
The original Zoom Fly (which was created in 2017) was one of those innovative products and one of the very first training companions: a cheaper, more durable version of the Vaporfly 4%. Since the original Zoom Fly launched, every brand has created their own plated training companion.
The Zoom Fly 5 was a big disappointment. It felt more like a long run cruiser than a fast speed trainer. This was due to its flat midsole foam and its weight. It didn’t feel as propulsive or as engaging as other speed trainers. After testing it, I never ran in it again.
We’ve had to wait two years for the Zoom Fly 6 and it has been redesigned. It weighs 9.3 oz (265 grams), which is 0.8 oz (49 grams) lighter than the Zoom Fly 5. It has a stack height of 42mm in the heel, 34 mm in the forefoot and it costs $170, which is $10 more than its predecessor.
My first run in the Zoom Fly 6 was a 22 kilometre tempo run. It felt comfortable and it was able to do most of the paces relatively easily except when I went down to marathon pace. I felt that it was too flexible and didn’t provide enough speed assistance for my target marathon pace.
It felt a lot faster than the Zoom Fly 5 and the addition of ZoomX in its midsole made a difference. The plate wasn’t as stiff as the one in the previous version and the forefoot rocker also didn’t feel as prominent.
I was surprised how comfortable and stable it felt on that first run. It needed no break in period and the upper was perfect for my feet.
The Zoom Fly 6 has a very comfortable, hybrid racing/training upper – it has a snug fit like a racer but it has the cushioning and comfort of a trainer. It’s made from a smooth, double-layer engineered mesh which doesn’t stretch but provides great lockdown.
Breathability is decent but there could be holes added in the toe box and side panels for better ventilation. It has a flat, semi-gusseted tongue with wide wings that prevent it from sliding around and there is padding in the collar and the heel tab to provide more comfort around the ankle.
It has a narrow fit with slightly more length than the average shoe but I recommend going true to size. This upper is not suitable for wide feet due to its typical Nike, narrow fit. The giant swooshes on the side panels are reflective.
This is the first Zoom Fly version to feature proper ZoomX and not the recycled version. It makes the ride a little bit more energetic and a little bit softer but the ride is still far from how the Alphafly and Vaporly feel. This is because of the firm layer of SR-02 (EVA) that’s on the bottom of the Zoom Fly 6 which makes it more durable but gives it a flatter ride.
I’m craving a little bit more ZoomX and a little bit less SR-02 to make the ride feel bouncier and more exciting. Other training companions like the Hoka Mach X 2 and the Puma Deviate Nitro 3 feel more lively than the Zoom Fly 6 because they have larger portions of PEBA in their midsoles. The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4’s entire midsole is PEBA and even the Nike Vomero 17 has a larger portion of ZoomX in its midsole.
The ride of the Zoom Fly 6 is relatively firm compared to other modern speed trainers. It has a firmer ride than the SC Trainer v3, Mach X 2, and Deviate Nitro 3. Its softness is comparable to the Magic Speed 4 and the Hyperion Max 2.
The Zoom Fly 6 is the training companion for both the Vaporfly 3 and the Alphafly 3 but it feels more similar to the Vaporfly due to the absence of air pods. The Zoom Fly 6 also doesn’t have a prominent forefoot rocker, similar to the Vaporfly 3.
The Zoom Fly 6 is best suited to fast-paced runs between 4 and 5 minutes per kilometre (6:26 – 8:03 per mile). I prefer using it for runs closer to 5 minutes per kilometre pace because of how flexible its plate is. For faster paces closer to my half marathon pace, I feel that the plate needs to be stiffer.
The carbon Flyplate in the midsole is more flexible than in previous versions. This makes transitions feel more natural but also makes it less propulsive. The plate isn’t very noticeable when you’re doing easy paces but it does provide structure and stability.
The Zoom Fly 6 also excels at long runs. The 42 mm of heel stack height provides enough deep cushioning for a full marathon while the carbon plate results in efficient transitions. It has enough stability to not cause the ankles too much distress.
The outsole rubber has a waffle design (similar to the Pegasus) on the forefoot and heel sections. I used it when it was raining heavily during a run, and I had no major traction problems. It felt slippery on wet tile but most running shoes do.
The Zoom Fly 6 is a lot more durable than the Nike super shoes. The SR-02 foam on the bottom layer doesn’t chip or scrape as easily as ZoomX, so you can get a lot more mileage out of it. On my pair, I haven’t seen much wear on the outsole after 80 kilometres.
The Zoom Fly 6 is a solid update and probably the best Zoom Fly version to date. It has a softer ride than its predecessors and it feels faster than the Zoom Fly 5 thanks to the weight reduction and the addition of ZoomX in the midsole.
The Zoom Fly is the fastest Nike trainer and it’s a decent training companion for the Vaporfly than the Alphafly. The ride is more similar to the Vaporfly while the Tempo Next% (discontinued) was a better training companion for the Alphafly.
While the Zoom Fly 6 doesn’t have any flaws, it doesn’t feel as exciting or innovative as the early Zoom Fly versions. It doesn’t feel like a “super trainer” and it’s not compelling enough to make runners switch from the popular shoes in the category, the likes of the Endorphin Speed 4, Magic Speed 4 and Boston 12. I’m not the only one who feels this way; currently all colourways and all sizes of the Zoom Fly 6 are still available on Nike’s website.
It weighs the same as the Hoka Mach X 2 and the Puma Deviate Nitro 3 but both the Hoka and the Puma speed trainers feel faster and more energetic. The Zoom Fly 6 needs a lot more ZoomX and less SR-02 in its midsole because the ZoomX feels muted and watered down. You don’t get a high level of energy return like you do in other speed trainers.
2 months ago
I disagree somewhat with this review after 50km in the Zoom Fly 6. I haven’t ran in any of the previous versions of the Zoom Fly since all I have read about them is that they were heavy. I race in Vaporfly (all distances from 10k to the marathon) and I used to love the Tempo Next% as a tempo trainer when it was available, and I have been looking for something similar ever since it was discontinued, without success.
I agree it’s not as responsive as the Tempo Next% but it’s the closest I’ve found. The shoe performs well across a wide range of paces but can be a little loud at slower paces, but the shoe really comes “alive” at faster paces and you can clearly feel the plate if you don’t overstride and try to hit the ground with some power with the right slightly forward leaning posture, then you get a nice propulsive push forward. To me they’re quite similar to the older Saucony Endorphin Speed 2, although more stable (I haven’t tried later versions of this shoe) but I also have the Puma Deviate Nitro 2, which isn’t as responsive as the Zoom Fly 6 in my opinion, and more of a training shoe. And, I have also had the Adidas Boston 12 and compared to them I think Zoom Fly 6 is superior across all variables. Feels faster and a lot more responsive. Boston 12 to me, is unresponsive and firm and quite dull to run in, I think they are better suited for heavier runners.
All in all, I think this shoe performs very well for its intended use, it’s not a race shoe for faster runners but a good choice for faster training sessions. Fit and lockdown is good although they run just a little bit shorter than other Nikes, but I didn’t find the need to size up.
1 month ago
agree with you !!! i am heavy yet the Boston 12 feels the same for me …as for the previous versions of fly they are well better than most daily trainers promoted here and there simply because the carbon plate is superior to any gimmicks like nylon plate or rocker and dual density foams are almost invariably dull …..i ran in fly3 and 4 and they are nealy indestructible 2000km+ ….feels like shit that we need to relearn every year all the F….. foams and geometries nevermind paying top $$$ for shoes that are 100% not what their name suggest ….personally i no longer care about anyone’s rating !!! my base model is the Vaporfly 2 that somehow suits me to perfection and i use RunRepeat.com tests to determine what will do it through foam density and energy return ….ect (mostly high end foams ) …. i think a change to how shoes are advertized is needed by athlete weight i think
2 months ago
The Zoom Fly 6 looks great, but how would you say the midsole compares to something like the Nike Vaporfly? I’m training for my first marathon and want to make sure the cushioning is good enough for those longer distances, especially after the 20-mile mark. Thanks!
2 months ago
The cushioning of the Zoom Fly 6 is firmer and not as lively as the Vaporfly but it’s suitable for long runs and marathons.
2 months ago
(2nd try comment) This review is spot on. The shoe feels like it looks; like a court shoe or cross trainer albeit a lightweight one. It feels nothing whatsoever like AF3 (it’s supposed training partner) or the Tempo Next %, has almost no roll (no rocker feel), and no bounce. It does have very good protection underfoot for a thick, muted but dull ride, and it’s super comfortable. I put 30 mi on mine because I kept thinking I’d learn to love them, esp with all the positive reviews I’ve seen elsewhere, but they’re still just as dull, and uninspiring as the first run I did. Refreshing to see an honest review, I really wonder about the honesty of many others I’ve seen.