Asics Is Pushing The Limits Of Foam W/ The Novablast 6

Product reviewed

ASICS Novablast 6 Focus areas include “foam limits,” new midsole chemistry, comfort/bounce, and durability trade-offs.

Key features mentioned

New/updated midsole foam chemistry

• Forefoot: ATPU foam
  • Aliphatic thermoplastic polyurethane
  • Built from chains not rings, aiming for longer-lasting bounce and improved durability.
• Rear/mid-sole carrier: FF Blast OBC foam
  • Described as a blend foam (compared to “diaper elastic”)
  • More “cookie dough” feeling / more shock-absorbing.

Upper construction

• Tight woven, mat-like upper
  • Strong and light, but less breathable than other shoes in the same weight class
  • Breathability test improved but still limited.
• Reinforced lace line
  • Runner’s knot helps with heel slippage (rated as mild).
• Gusseted tongue
  • Noted as breathing exceptionally well.
• Padding and support
  • Padding around collar/heel counter
  • Stronger heel counter than some other lightweight shoes.

Outsole / tread design

• Not full length rubber
  • Uses heel pods with breakpoints intended to support flexibility and reduce weight/rubber use.
• Belt sander durability test
  • After 30 seconds, rubber loss was 0.4 g.

Geometry / fit

• Sizing
  • Runs a bit long: 29.2 cm noted as “hair long.”
• Widths
  • Rear foot: 8.5 cm
  • Midfoot: 10.2 cm
  • Toe box: 10.2 cm
• Heel shaping
  • Heel flange/jut-out on medial & lateral sides
  • In-flare: 7 degrees (appears larger due to rubber layout/optics)
• Drop
  • About 8 cm / described as 8 mm drop
• Taper
  • 38 degrees

Bend/rocking behavior

• Difficult to bend until a threshold, then it creases/breaks easily at a point
• Described as slightly too far back, close to where a forefoot rocker would feel.

Performance and user experience (including pros/cons)

Pros

• Upper durability/lockdown
  • Very light and very strong
  • Excellent tie-down
  • Heel slippage is mild, especially with the recommended runner’s knot.
• Comfort / underfoot feel
  • Midsole foam feels substantial and resilient/full underfoot
  • Energy return/bounce described as incredible, especially for midfoot and forefoot strikers.
• Walk/casual use
  • Reported as no issues for walking due to double-limb support.
• Orthotics compatibility
  • Surprisingly fits many types of orthotics without major issues.

Cons / limitations

• Breathability trade-off
  • Tight woven upper doesn’t breathe as well as more open-pored uppers in the same weight class.
• Heel striker drawback
  • Less stable/less beneficial for heel strikers
  • “Running up a hill” feel due to foam durometer and contact/stance feel
  • “Shimmying” sensation when not striking neutrally/mid/forefoot
  • Possible contribution to plantar fasciitis-type discomfort (explicitly called out)
  • Mentions possible forefoot pain due to how the shoe bends in the forefoot
• Bounciness not class-leading (bench tests)
  • Bench results suggest it’s not the highest-bouncing thermoplastic foam
  • Forefoot bounce spec: ~40 cm (averaged; bench test only)
  • Bench numbers are noted as not the same as human load, but used to temper hype.

Numerical tests / ratings mentioned

• Forefoot bend/threshold behavior
  • Hard to bend, then creases at failure point (qualitative; no single score given)
• Tensiometer
  • 35 Newtons to reach 45° (for stiffness/bending testing)
• Bounce tight test (rubber/ball bearing bench)
  • Rear foot: 30 cm (expected for the OBC blend)
  • Forefoot: 40 cm (average after 10 tests; decent but not top-tier)
• Outsole durability (belt sander)
  • 0.4 g loss after 30 seconds
• Drop
  • 8 mm (also described via ~8 cm figure)

No overall star rating or explicit score out of 10/100 was provided.

Comparisons made

• ATPU vs other foams (including Pebax/ETPU)
  • Reviewer argues ASICS is moving beyond Pebax/“Peba” language
  • ATPU is positioned as durability-focused while keeping bounce
  • Reviewer believes ATPU feels comparably resilient/bouncy, but says long-term testing is still needed.
• Feel compared to EVA/Pebax alternatives
  • Reviewer’s long-term durability preference still leans toward EVA/nylon or “super critical EVA” styles, even if ATPU looks promising.
• Heel rocker / casual vs running
  • Because bending happens slightly back, it may feel different for casual wear vs running, especially for heel strikers.

Overall verdict / recommendation (based on the video)

• Buy/use if you’re a midfoot or forefoot striker (or primarily a walker), since bounce/elastic feel and comfort are the standout benefits.
• Be cautious if you’re a heel striker, because it’s described as less stable and may cause discomfort tied to how it bends and how foam/contact feels under heel striking.
• Foam hype tempered: ATPU is believed to perform similarly to other bounce-focused thermoplastics, but durability evidence over time is still lacking.

Unique points, grouped

1. ATPU forefoot foam with durability/bounce-retention claim (chains vs rings).
2. FF Blast OBC foam carrier described as more shock-absorbing.
3. Tight woven upper: strong, light, but less breathable than peer uppers.
4. Lockdown: reinforced lace line and runner’s knot reduces heel slippage (mild).
5. Tongue gusset: exceptionally breathable; good padding/heel counter strength.
6. Midsole stiffness/bending: hard until a threshold, then creases at a point slightly back.
7. Bench bounce numbers: rear ~30 cm, fore ~40 cm (not the highest).
8. Outsole durability: 0.4 g loss after 30 sec belt sander.
9. Sizing: runs hair long; suggestion to size down by ½ for a tighter fit depending on needs.
10. Striker-dependent performance: heel striking causes “uphill” feel and “shimmy.”
11. Orthotic friendliness: fits many orthotics well.
12. Casual walking comfort is fine (double-limb support).
13. Foam hype tempered by need for long-term studies versus EVA/Pebax comparisons across compounds.

Different speaker/role views

Only one speaker (Zach) appears in the subtitles, providing both teardown/lab tests and on-foot guidance; no separate speakers with different conclusions were mentioned.