The Akasha is fantastic for things like fastpacking and XC traversing miles and miles of scree and sharp rocks, with an occasional scramble and jog mixed in. The rock plate is where this shoe shines. I adore the Bushidos on well-groomed trails but they don't compare on really rocky terrain. I have 400 hard miles on my Akashas and I can see them lasting another 200. There are deals to be had on them right now too.
If I headed up into the mountains, the Akasha is definitely what I'm tieing on my feet. The confidence it gives while running on rocky, technical terrain is hard to beat.
these shoes will last forever! I've had a pair of the first Akasha since 2020 and they're still going strong. Only delicate part was the padding inside the heel, but that was easily fixed with a fake leather adhesive shoe patch you can find for a couple of dollars online.
@@UltraTrailSteven many moons ago (2016). Shoe was ahead of its time. Just placed first on June 8th in the annual Navajo Nation 12-hour ultramarathon, the 12 Hours of Asááyi. The LaSportiva Prodigio served me well! 9,000’ of vertical ascent in 35 miles. Prodigio is marvelous.
I have the Scarpa Ribelle Run and Ribelle Run XT. They are very durable with a rand. I like that, my Hokas wear out quickly even on rather easy terrain. This said, they are not really good for running that requires speed. They are a good alternative to hiking shoes though. The Ultra Raptor is even more hiking shoe than the Akasha. The term mountain running as opposed to trail running is quite accurate. For that the Akasha seems spot on. But if you get an opportunity to test the Scarpas, I liked them more than their La Sportiva equivalents. Because of the Rand and a bit wider fit and nicer looks.
@Blank-Knight interesting observations. Do you find the Scarpa Ribelle Run XT has a wider fit than the Akasha or Akasha II? I was interested in the Ribelle Run XT when it came out than decided to pass it up as I saw reviews or feedback stating it was somewhat on the narrow side. To the Ribelle Run XT looks like an alternative to the Ultra Raptor - the GTX version has the advantage of the Gore-Tex Invisible Fit and is therefore lighter than the Ultra Raptor GTX. The Akasha seems to be more similar to the Scarpa Spin Infinity which I got last month but returned as it felt a bit too narrow in the toebox. The Akasha also feels more comfortable and with a nicer cushioning but I am putting a high mileage in the Akasha and only tried on the Spin Infinity so it's not a fair comparison. I just got the Scarpa Spin Ultra which has a great fit: it feels like a Jackal though siffer and not as responsive. The grip on technical terrain seems to be great though. I finally ordered my first pair of Akasha II: can't wait to test them and see if they feel any different from the first version of the Akasha (I´m currently using my fourth pair).
@@Labrador7 don't have the Akasha II but for running I no longer consider Scarpa or La Sportiva, I prefer their boots and rather run with Brooks, Saucony or Salomon lately.
They're a nice shoe, the build quality is amazing, it is at the cost of a bit of weight but it'll last forever! Definitely a sturdy shoe rather than a light-responsive shoe 👍
Thanks for the video, very interesting. The Akasha are very nice shoes. I own all La Sportiva long-distance running shoes: Ultra Raptor, Ultra Raptor II, Akasha, Akyra, and just purchased the Jackal II. Their quality is top notch. The Akasha is really comfortable, I started using it five years ago for my first 200 miler, together with the Ultra Raptor and the Akyra: the one that worked best for me was the Ultra Raptor which got me addicted. I now own over a dozen pairs in both regular and wide sizes. The Ultra Raptor is not for everybody: it's a heavy shoe, not a very responsive but second to none for protection and comfort for high-mileage training and multi-day races on technical terrain. I still use the Akasha but more for recovery runs on easier trails in the summer. It's true that it can handle technical trails well, at least as far as the midsole and outer sole go. However, I find the upper does not offer much protection. Probably great for those who prioritize breathability, a tad less for those who dig more protection. Can't wait to try the Jackal II.
From the La Sportivas' low cut trail shoes lineup, which would you say is best for backpacking? I hike on compact trails, soft sections and a lot of rocky (wet) trails - from Canadian Rockies. * I have the Bushido II and its nice as it has great grip, but not enough cushion
@@michaelfrymus I’d probably choose the Ultra Raptor II even if the Akyra and Akasha II would be great choices. The Ultra Raptor II is the most structured, stable, and protected shoe of the three. If you are using it on packed trails, it will work well as it has been designed to work in the Italian Dolomites. The only terrain it doesn’t do well, it’s deep mud as the lugs don’t have the appropriate shape or depth. I have seen people complaining it didn’t have grip on wet rock but I disagree and I have used the Ultra Raptor for 90% of the 27,000 kms I recorded running and hiking over the last 7 years. The only wet rocks where I had problems are smooth rocks: on those you want to be extra careful but I guess that would apply to most shoes. The Akyra is somewhat more dynamic but also a little less protected. The upper is pretty snug while the outsole has an excellent grip: It works decently even on deep mud and it probably has the most versitile and grippy outsole out the three I don't think the Akyra is avaible on the North American market anymore, at least not in the US. However, La Sportiva will release the Akyra II in the fall and it's supposed to be available in North America too. The Akasha is the most dynamic of the bunch and, since the Akasha II, also the lightest one at 310 grams in size 42 (against the 350 of the Ultra Raptor). The midsole and front bumper toecap are still well protected, the sides and upper not as much as the other two shoes. It’s very comfortable, probably a tad narrower than the Ultra Raptor II and the Akyra but has a very comfortable midsole. The outsole offers good grip. I have had three pairs of the first version of the Akasha but haven't tried the Akasha II yet: it's supposed to have mainly an updated upper to bring down weight. There is also the Jackal II and I have talked to people who use it for backpacking. It’s the much lighter, very responsive mountain running shoe that still offers a rock plate and protective toecap. It seems to have decent grip but haven’t used it extensively so I don’t have much feedback on how it performs on wet rocky ground. With the exeption of Akasha II, there is a GTX version for all these shoes. The Ultra Raptor II is also available in a Wide version. Hope that helps.
@@Labrador7 Hmm, interesting. I have been leaning more towards the Akasha II, but I was also considering finding a GTX version. Im curious if you tried the Wildcat / wildcat ii gtx and how it would compare to the Ultra Raptor ii - As there is no gtx version
@@michaelfrymus @michaelfrymus no, I never tried the Wildcat because La Sportiva discontinued them on the European market back in 2016. I remember they were on clearance sale when I got my first pair of Ultra Raptor back in 2017. Unfortunately, there is no GTX version of the Akasha: I train in a wet environment with lower temps most of the year so I use mostly the GTX version of the shoes, I'd love to see an Akasha GTX. Keep in mind the GTX versions of the Ultra Raptor and and Akyra have a thinner midsole since they are missing the Endurance Platform (Ultra Raptor) and LaSpEVA (Akyra) EVA inserts. The non GTX version of the Wildcat also has a LaSpEVA insert too. Long story short the GTX versions are slightly less comfortable over long distances. As for the difference between the Ultra Raptor and the Wildcat: I can't say for sure but they look very similar. The midsoles are the same (32A firmness) so I think the main difference is in the upper which is less structured and maybe more breathable for the Wildcat. The Ultra Raptor would also have better forefoot protection over the Wildcat as the Endurance Platform insert is thicker at the forefoot (4 mm) than the LaSpEVA one (2,4 mm). There should be no midsole difference in the GTX versions of these two shoes.
Seems like a good ascent/hiking shoe, but for dedicated trail running, there are simply too many great shoes already out or coming out. Competition is fire right now!
They just feel more technical than other running shoes in the similar vein, like I compared this versus my Saucony xodus in these just feel more secure
Yes, 1,000 times yes. I begged them to overnight me a pair because I NEEDED them for my most recent 50 miler and wasn’t sure my pair were fresh enough 😂. They are the best ever.
How would this be for long distance backpacking - From the La Sportivas' low cut trail shoes lineup. I hike on compact trails, soft sections and a lot of rocky (wet) trails - from Canadian Rockies. * I have the Bushido II and its nice as it has great grip, but not enough cushion
Akasha2 is a model that was released several years ago, but how do you rate it in terms of cushioning, traction, running comfort, etc. compared to HokaMaffateSpeed4, SpeedGoat5, Zinal2, and SalomonThunderCross?
All of those shoes have a more cushioned and responsive ride than the Akasha 2. The Akasha 2 is a mountain running shoe, whereas the others are trail running shoes designed more for running. The rides show that.
The Akasha II is a bit wider than the Jackal 2 BOA. Grip is just as good in my opinion. Cushioning seems about the same. Depends on what you want to use the shoe for. The Jackal 2 is a bit more agile.
