Reebok Black Athletic Tank Top | Reebok Nano 2.0 review

If you aren't a fan of the OG Nano 2.0 already, we believe that this throwback Reebok trainer will make you fall in love with it if:

• you need a pair of highly versatile cross-trainers
• you prefer very low-profile shoes (both stack and drop)
• you want Crossfit shoes that are lighter than average

This shoe is great for a little bit of everything but it is not geared toward any specific training regimen. So, if you do lots of heavy lifting, we recommend getting the dedicated Reebok Legacy Lifter instead. Or a Кросівки для тренувань reebok nano x1 adventure h67962 оригінал, Reebok ACTIVCHILL DREAMBLEND T-Shirt male.

The Nano 2.0 also falls short of cushioning for high-impact workouts with lots of jumping and running. The Reebok Nano X3 Reebok Instapump Fury Og.

The Reebok Nano 2.0 is exceptionally airy.

We used a machine that pumps smoke to Classic the shoe's ventilation capacity. As you can see from the video below, the smoke flies right through the material in a matter of seconds. On a 1-5 scale, where 5 is the most breathable, we rated the shoe's breathability as 5.

The shoe's got that old-fashioned type of mesh with huge ventilation pores. From the light Classic below, it is clear to see how it gets to be so breathable.

We also used a microscope to have a look at these gigantic pores up close. Even though you don't even need a microscope to see them.

To our great disappointment, that same airy mesh fails miserably in the durability department. A touch of Dremel destroyed the fabric in just a couple of seconds, bringing the toebox durability rating to the lowest possible (1 out of 5).

At least there is a Duragrip layer around the toes that offers some protection.

In the comparison photo below, we can see how far the Nano has since in its durability over the years.

We applied the Dremel with the exact same force (3.2N) and speed (10K RPM) for 12 seconds to both shoes.

Reebok Energen Lite Core Black Rose Gold Cloud White.

After a mere 4 seconds, the heel padding got torn completely. Yet again, the shoe gets the lowest durability score of 1.

The outsole appears to be more promising than the upper but it does not surpass the average of our lab-tested trainers.

Its rubber is of average hardness, showing 82.4 HA on our durometer.

It only takes 22 seconds of our Dremel Classic to reveal how durable the shoe's outsole is.

To assess the damage caused by the tool, we use a tread gauge. It nike the depth of the dent created. In the Reebok Nano 2.0, it is 1.3 mm deep. This is a tiny bit deeper than the average.

The good news is that the rubber is pretty thick on the Nano 2.0. Our calliper shows 5.1 mm, which is about a millimetre thicker than average.

Having extra rubber helps to compensate for the lack of hardness as it will take longer to wear it out.

Working out in the Nano 2.0 is such a delight! Being used to the fact that high-end cross-trainers nowadays weigh around 12-12.5 oz, the 10.1-ounce Nano 2.0 feels like a break for the feet.

Weighing the shoe is a men's US size 9, we found that it is a whole ounce lighter than cross-training shoes on average.

The Reebok Nano 2.0 is one of the most grounded trainers in our catalogue. It is only a little taller than minimalist shoes.

Using a calliper, we measured the shoe's heel stack at 18.1 mm, which is a whole 6.5 mm thinner than the average!

If you are willing to skip cushioning in favour of that direct contact with the ground, the Nano 2.0 is an excellent option.

It is no surprise that the shoe gets even lower in the forefoot. With a calliper measurement of 15.3 mm, it is 3 mm lower than the average.

This is perfect for fast-paced movements and whenever you need to be precise with your footwork.

As a result of its low stack height, the heel-to-toe drop of the shoe is also pretty low.

Contrary to the officially claimed 4 mm, we actually found it to be 2.8 mm! This is weird because we normally find the drop to be higher than stated.

But this is still good news for those who seek a more natural foot placement inside a shoe. It is a very different experience from the well-cushioned Nano X3, with a drop of 7.6 mm and a stack height of 27 mm/19.4 mm.

Reebok x Victoria Beckham performance cycling shorts.

Our durometer returned 31 HA which is 15% firmer than training shoes on average.

This definitely helped us feel more planted in the trainer. No squish whatsoever!

The Nano 2.0 uses a pretty standard insole. We measured its thickness at 3.1 mm, which is a little thinner than the average.

From what we've seen in the cushioning section, it is pretty evident how the Reebok Nano 2.0 gets to be so stable. A firm platform that puts your feet very close to the ground simply couldn't be any other way.

Even the fact that the Nano 2.0 is incredibly flexible doesn't detract from its stability. We rated its torsional rigidity as the most flexible (1 out of 5) but we can still recommend it to people with pronation issues because of its firm and minimal sole.

The heel counter is not very stiff either. On a 1 to 5 scale, where 5 is the stiffest, we rated it as 2.

The collar wraps around the ankle softly, allowing it to control the movement and not the other way around.

The Reebok Nano 2.0 has a nice and wide forefoot. Measuring the widest part of the sole, our calliper returned 110 mm. This is pretty standard for a cross-training shoe.

It was surprising to find that the shoe's heel is only 79.8 mm in its widest part. It is significantly narrower than the average 87 mm!

It does help to keep the shoe light and manoeuvrable though.

The Reebok Nano 2.0 is a very pliable trainer.

Шкіряні кросівки 39-40 reebok оригінал 25 утеплені.

It only takes 11.3N of force to bend the shoe to a 90-degree angle as opposed to the average 22.5N (as of the moment of writing).

Some may find the shoe's traction pattern a little funny and dated, but it does its job wonderfully. We experienced a very reliable grip on the floor, on the machines, and even on the rope.

Wide footers are sure to love all the toebox space provided by the Reebok Nano 2.0.

In the widest part, the forefoot has a fairly average width of 100.8 mm, but when it comes to the toes...

...it looks like a shoe from Altra!

Measuring the width at the big-toe mark, we get a whopping 87.5 mm! This is mind-blowingly wide, even for a cross-training shoe.

But for our average-width feet, this was not a problem and we enjoyed the extra space. Narrow-footed folks, on the other hand, should probably get half-a-size smaller or consider a more traditionally-fitting shoe.

Apparently, a gusseted tongue wasn't a thing back in 2012 as the Nano 2.0 features a standard, non-attached one.

We must admit that there is a little bit of tongue sliding in this shoe.

The Reebok Nano 2.0 has a well-padded interior that doesn't go over the board.

Based on our calliper measurement, the tongue is 5.4 mm thick.

There is no heel tab in the Nano 2.0.

Even though it might seem at first that the insole is attached in the Nano 2.0, it is actually removable.

Reebok Classics Club C 85 x U.