Running shoe: crivit PRO Spring 2017

Recent running shoe test – crivit PRO Spring 2017

In our recent running shoe test we included three running shoes of the category dampening shoes. The crivit PRO Spring 2017 (SRP 27,99€) was compared to two brand benchmark model. As brand benchmarks, the Asics Nimbus 18 (SRP 180.00€) and the Nike Pegasus 33 (SRP 120.00€) were also included.

crivit PRO, males

crivit PRO, females

Ascis Nimbus 18, males

Ascis Nimbus 18, females

Nike Pegasus 33, males

Nike Pegasus 33, females





















Results biomechanics

The tested running shoe crivit PRO showed similar biomechanical values in comparison to the brand benchmark shoes Asics Nimbus 18 and Nike Pegasus 33 as no difference were observed in the dampening, pronation control, and spatio-temporal parameters. Ground reaction force values (strong indicator of shoe dampening) were considerably low indication a very good impact dampening. Low pronation values indicate good rearfoot stability and demonstrate the good motion control qualities of the crivit PRO shoe.

Das getestete Schuhmodell Crivit Pro 2 zeigten in keinem der biomechanischen Tests signifikante Unterschiede zu den hochpreisigen Markenschuhen. Die beiden Markenschuhmodelle wurden in vielen Vormodellen weiterentwickelt und werden als Benchmark mit hervorragenden biomechanischen Eigenschaften eingeschätzt.

Dampening / cushioning

Dampening is one of the key features of running shoes which can determined validly using the biomechanical variable force loading rate (the rate at which force is build up during initial ground contact -> high loading rate = low dampening).

The crivit PRO and the Asics Nimbus 18 showed the lowerst loading rates – to that effect the highest dampening. No differences were observed between the Asics and the crivit PRO, thus, their dampening properties can be considered similar. In contrast, we observed significantly higher force loading rates in the Nike Pegasus 33 compared to the Asics Nimbus (-27%, p<0,001) and the crivit PRO (-20%, p<0,01). The dampening properties of the Nike Pegasus are therefore considered to be the lowest in the test group.

Fig 1: Dampening measured as force loading rate [BW/s]. Mean values and 95% confidence intervals.


To evaluate the stability property of the shoes two biomechanical parameters were determined: maximum pronation and maximum pronation velocity. Especially pronation velocity is often discussed in the scientific literature as a potential factor in the development of overuse injuries. Generally, the lower the pronation velocity the higher the stabilizing / motion control properties of the shoe. Norm values (highly dependent on the measurement method) for maximum pronation are around 10°, for maximum pronation velocity between 400-700°/s.

Fig 2: Maximum pronation. Lower values represent higher stabilizing / motion control properties of the shoe and are often considered positive. No differences were observed between shoe models.

In our test no difference in maximum pronation or maximum pronation velocity were observed between the shoe models. Despite not being classified as motion control shoes, all shoes demonstrated low pronation values at the lower end of the norm ranges, thus, providing a good stabilization.

Abbildung 3: Maximum pronation velocity. Lower values represent higher stabilizing / motion control properties of the shoe and are often considered positive. No differences were observed between shoe models.


Foot inclination angle at inital touch down is an indicator of running style, more specifically, whether runners use a fore-, middle- or rearfoot foot strike. About 70% of all runners use a rearfoot strike pattern as their regular running style. However, running shoes with very low dampening often force runners to adapt their running pattern towards a more forefoot foot strike and compensate thereby the low dampening of the shoes with body own dampening mechanisms. This might be problematic because these adapations can cause overloading of structures in the ankle complex, the shank musculature or the knee.

Foot inclination angle of the three tested shoe models were not significantly different. Runners demonstrate in all shoe models a rearfoot striking angle with an inclination angle of 7-9°. These values are considered to be within the norm range of regular rearfoot running.

Fig 4: Foot inclination angle at inital ground contact. Positive anlges indicate rearfoot striking. Foot inclination angles did not differ between the tested shoe models.

Ground contact time

Ground contact time is the time in ms where the foot is on the ground. Norm values for the tested running speed are within 200-300ms. Changes in these values indicate an adaptation of the running pattern towards a forefoot running stlye.

The observed values were within the norm range and did not differ between the tested shoe models.

Fig 5: Ground contact time [ms]. No difference were observed between the tested shoe models.

Results – perception test

The positive biomechanical test results were confirmed by our tester perception ratings. The runners rated the crivit PRO in all tested categories with 4 or 5 out of 5 starts, only fitting of the forefoot and the lacing was given 3/5 stars.

Perception of dampening / cushioning

The Asics Nimbus 18 was rated 44% softer than the other two shoe models (p=0,05). The crivit PRO was rated medium soft with 56 points (0=very soft, 100=very hard).  THe liking of all shoes ws rated good with 4 out of 5 starts; it is mentionably that the crivit PRO received only very few negative ratings of 1 or 2 stars.

Perception of pronation & stabilization

The stabilizing qualities of the crivit PRO were perceived as medium stable (51/100). This values did not differ statistically to the values of the benchmark shoe models, despite a 35% more stable perception of the Asics Nimbus 18. However, this difference was not significant due to the wide variability.

How did the runners like the stabilization quality? crivit PRO and Asics Nimbus were rated with 4 out of 5 stars. The Nike Pegasus 33 was given 3/5 stars. The differences were not statistically significant, however, the stabilization of the Nike Pegasus was relatively often rated negatively with only two stars.


The potential danger of slippage was perceived relatively low (40/100 points), consequently, the traction properties of all shoes ware rated positively (4/5 stars). and rated positively. The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in traction perception or liking from the brand benchmarks.

Flexibility / ride

Flexibilty of all shoes was perceived to be average (55-60/100) and rated positively with 4/5 stars. The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in flexibility perception or liking from the brand benchmarks.

Fitting – general, forefoot and rearfoot

The fitting of all shoes were perceived as average to positive with values between 60-80 out of 100 (100=fits very well). The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in general fitting perception compared to the brand benchmarks.

The rearfoot was rated average with a tendency towards tight, which was rate positively with 4/5 stars. The forefoot fitting of all shoe models were rated average, not too tight or too wide. Hereby, the crivit PRO received only three out of five stars compared to the brand benchmarks with 4/5. However, the observed differences were not statistically signifiantly different.


In the crivit PRO, the fixation of the foot through the lacing was perceived and rated significantly lower compared to the brand benchmark models.

In-shoe climate

Perception of the in shoe climate was significantly lower in the Nike Pegasus 33 (3/5) compared to the crivit PRO and the Ascis Nimbus 18 which were both rated positively with 4 out of 5 stats. An explanation could be that the runners perceived the Nike Pegasus to be colder.



Shoe parameter (mean ± standard deviation)
Brand Lidl Ascis Nike
Model crivit PRO, spring 2017 Nimbus 18 Pegasus 33
UVP 27.99€ 180.00€ 120.00€
Shoe size [EU] 39 ♀, 44 ♂ 39,5 ♀, 44,5 ♂ 39 ♀, 44 ♂
Weight [g] 266 ♀ / 352 ♂ 283 ♀/ 360 ♂ 235 ♀/ 292 ♂
Length lateral side [cm] 27,7 ♀/ 31 ♂ 27,2 ♀/ 30,5 ♂ 26.6 ♀/ 30 ♂
Height: Rearfoot / Forefoot / Pitch [cm] ♀: 2.6 / 1.6 / 1.0

♂: 3.4 / 2.8 / 2.2

♀: 3.0 / 2.0 / 1.0

♂: 2.9 / 2.2 / 0.7

♀: 2.7 / 2.2 / 0.5

♂: 2.9 / 2.1 / 0.8

Biomechanical parameter
Loading rate of ground reaction force [BW/s] 96.0 ± 35.4 * 87.6 ± 26.5 * 120.0 ± 39.4
Max. pronation velocity [°/s] 379  ± 138 396  ± 161 403  ± 168
Max. pronation excursion [°] 7.2  ± 3.1 8.0  ± 3.2 7.8  ± 4.1
Subjective perception / rating
Dampening [stars 1-5; 5 best rating] 3.8 ± 1.0 3.7 ± 1.4 3.8 ± 1.0
Pronation [stars 1-5; 5 best rating] 3.7 ± 0.9 3.8 ± 1.0 3.2 ± 1,1
Traction [stars 1-5; 5 best rating] 4.0 ± 0.9 4.3 ± 0.6 3.8 ± 0.8
Flexibility [stars 1-5; 5 best rating] 3.6 ± 1.0 4.0 ± 1.0 3.8 ± 0.9
* significantly lower than Nike Pegasus 33


On the basis of your investigation we consider the crivit PRO to be a dampening shoe with excellent dampening qualities. The observed dampening qualtities are at the same level of the also tested high quality benchmark shoe Asics Nimbus 18 (SRP 180,-€) and showed more dampening than the Nike Pegasus 33 (SRP 120,-€). Furthermore, the crivit PRO showed qualities of a stability shoe with good pronation control.

The participants rated the critvit PRO with 4 to 5 stars out of 5 in most categrories, similar to the brand benchmark models.