Hoka Rinco 4
Hoka as a brand is probably the best for beginner runners. In general, all their models are super comfortable yet protective, and this one is no different. This model has its specific advantages and disadvantages, but I still believe it could fit any runner wardrobe. This is the Hoka Rincon 4, a model designed to be a bit faster.
The biggest advantage of these shoes is that they are light and stable. Every detail in these shoes is designed to reduce weight. For example, the absence of rubber on the outsole, the lack of big lockdown elements, and the reduced stack height compared to the Clifton model - all contribute to their lightweight design. As a result, it’s easier to run faster in these shoes due to their lower weight.
Typically, when you see such a model, they are less appropriate for beginners because stability elements are often removed. But not in this case. The Rincon 4 features a wider base, which provides better stability. Additionally, the shoes have large sidewalls that help keep the foot in place. Finally, the overall stiffness of the midsole also contributes to this stability. I don’t understand why Hoka suggests these shoes lack stability; that’s simply not true—they offer stability at the highest level.
And this is why I say these shoes are great for beginners. They are light and stable, allowing new runners to set personal records without risking injury. More advanced runners can also train daily in them, knowing there is no risk, even during long runs.
Do they have any disadvantages? Not really—though some characteristics are less developed. The most noticeable are the average bounce and rather average transition. The foam is stiff, and while it is bouncy, it doesn’t compare to modern, soft, and resilient foams. You still get some fun out of these shoes, and if you’ve never tried really bouncy shoes before, you might think you’re getting a push. However, after trying truly bouncy models, you’ll realize that this one is pretty dull.
The transition is very balanced and stable but doesn’t create any additional running efficiency. It’s as simple as it gets—you land, and then you push. This is good for beginners who don’t yet know how to utilize shoes with plates or rolling geometry.
So, their biggest disadvantage is that they won’t provide a significant speed boost. There’s no special material or geometry for that. But is it really a disadvantage? If these shoes are used by beginners for races—no. If they are used by advanced runners for daily training—also no.
The upper is solid but not the best. For example, in terms of breathability, these shoes feature a double-layer engineered mesh that tends to be more durable and comfortable but provides less ventilation. This can be an issue in extreme hot weather but is beneficial in colder conditions.
Comfort is somewhat compromised, as these shoes have average padding in the heel collar and the same amount of volume on the tongue. It’s also worth noting that the mesh feels a bit stiff, which could cause small blisters, so the comfort rating is slightly reduced. However, this is not a major issue for lightweight shoes, as beginners don’t need extreme comfort for races, and experienced runners have legs that are well-prepared for stiffness.
Cushioning in these shoes is substantial, especially for the lightweight category. I believe they could easily handle heavier runners and are more than sufficient for any experienced runner. I would even highly recommend them for daily wear since the combination of high cushioning and high stability is essential for that use case.
Lockdown in these shoes is somewhat debatable. For instance, I experienced heel slippage and had to use a runner's knot to secure my foot. It seems that the heel collar and heel counter are not quite sufficient. The midfoot area is also debatable. While it has some reinforcements, they’re not as strong as in some other shoes on the market. That’s why I rate the lockdown as average. It’s sufficient, but you may need to take extra measures like using a runner's knot to make it work.
The outsole lacks any rubber, which means the grip and durability are somewhat compromised. However, since the foam used on the outsole is a bit stiffer, the impact is not significant. Additionally, the wider base helps compensate for some of the lacking characteristics.
Here’s my final evaluation of the Hoka Rincon 4: As I mentioned, it’s insanely well-balanced for particular use cases. Beginners will find it ideal for race day, with enough stability and cushioning while still being lightweight. Advanced runners will find it very attractive for daily training since it has all the necessary characteristics. Neither of these use cases requires increased bounce, running efficiency, or extreme comfort. Kudos to Hoka, and I’m excited to see more runners in these shoes.
The biggest advantage of these shoes is that they are light and stable. Every detail in these shoes is designed to reduce weight. For example, the absence of rubber on the outsole, the lack of big lockdown elements, and the reduced stack height compared to the Clifton model - all contribute to their lightweight design. As a result, it’s easier to run faster in these shoes due to their lower weight.
Typically, when you see such a model, they are less appropriate for beginners because stability elements are often removed. But not in this case. The Rincon 4 features a wider base, which provides better stability. Additionally, the shoes have large sidewalls that help keep the foot in place. Finally, the overall stiffness of the midsole also contributes to this stability. I don’t understand why Hoka suggests these shoes lack stability; that’s simply not true—they offer stability at the highest level.
And this is why I say these shoes are great for beginners. They are light and stable, allowing new runners to set personal records without risking injury. More advanced runners can also train daily in them, knowing there is no risk, even during long runs.
Do they have any disadvantages? Not really—though some characteristics are less developed. The most noticeable are the average bounce and rather average transition. The foam is stiff, and while it is bouncy, it doesn’t compare to modern, soft, and resilient foams. You still get some fun out of these shoes, and if you’ve never tried really bouncy shoes before, you might think you’re getting a push. However, after trying truly bouncy models, you’ll realize that this one is pretty dull.
The transition is very balanced and stable but doesn’t create any additional running efficiency. It’s as simple as it gets—you land, and then you push. This is good for beginners who don’t yet know how to utilize shoes with plates or rolling geometry.
So, their biggest disadvantage is that they won’t provide a significant speed boost. There’s no special material or geometry for that. But is it really a disadvantage? If these shoes are used by beginners for races—no. If they are used by advanced runners for daily training—also no.
The upper is solid but not the best. For example, in terms of breathability, these shoes feature a double-layer engineered mesh that tends to be more durable and comfortable but provides less ventilation. This can be an issue in extreme hot weather but is beneficial in colder conditions.
Comfort is somewhat compromised, as these shoes have average padding in the heel collar and the same amount of volume on the tongue. It’s also worth noting that the mesh feels a bit stiff, which could cause small blisters, so the comfort rating is slightly reduced. However, this is not a major issue for lightweight shoes, as beginners don’t need extreme comfort for races, and experienced runners have legs that are well-prepared for stiffness.
Cushioning in these shoes is substantial, especially for the lightweight category. I believe they could easily handle heavier runners and are more than sufficient for any experienced runner. I would even highly recommend them for daily wear since the combination of high cushioning and high stability is essential for that use case.
Lockdown in these shoes is somewhat debatable. For instance, I experienced heel slippage and had to use a runner's knot to secure my foot. It seems that the heel collar and heel counter are not quite sufficient. The midfoot area is also debatable. While it has some reinforcements, they’re not as strong as in some other shoes on the market. That’s why I rate the lockdown as average. It’s sufficient, but you may need to take extra measures like using a runner's knot to make it work.
The outsole lacks any rubber, which means the grip and durability are somewhat compromised. However, since the foam used on the outsole is a bit stiffer, the impact is not significant. Additionally, the wider base helps compensate for some of the lacking characteristics.
Here’s my final evaluation of the Hoka Rincon 4: As I mentioned, it’s insanely well-balanced for particular use cases. Beginners will find it ideal for race day, with enough stability and cushioning while still being lightweight. Advanced runners will find it very attractive for daily training since it has all the necessary characteristics. Neither of these use cases requires increased bounce, running efficiency, or extreme comfort. Kudos to Hoka, and I’m excited to see more runners in these shoes.
