On one hand, I think the Ra is the most foot-friendly shoe I have EVER worn, even considering athletic and casual styles!
On the other hand, if I wanted to make a favorable impression, I would not wear these...
Background
In 2016, I wrote a comparison review between the original Vivobarefoot Lisbon & our Fer v3. I wrote it for 3 reasons. First, to see what I can learn from my peers. Second, to get the word out there that Hey I'm making some barefoot dress shoes that are worth a look. Third, to place the shoes side-by-side, so that Primal Professionals like you can make an informed purchase decision.
Since that review, the Lisbon has lost some aesthetics with a change in sole design, and the Fer has gained some aesthetics with a change in upper design. Rather than doing that comparison, I thought I'd check out the Ra II. (Fun fact: I started designing barefoot dress shoes 8 years ago because I was unsatisfied with the original Ra.)
This was a strange comparison because the 2 shoes, while both technically "barefoot dress shoes", sit on opposite ends of the "barefoot--dress" spectrum, and it's a no-brainer which shoe is on which end.
So... What is the best zero-drop, minimalist, barefoot, Primal, Paleo, thin, flexible, ergonomic, and wide toebox dress shoe? That you can wear to interviews, work, the office, weddings, funerals, clubs, and other formal events?
The Vivobarefoot Ra II vs the Carets Fer v4. A comparison review.
We'll be covering every little detail, starting from the bottom-up, and inside-out.
Expect a lot of ties in the feature match-ups, as well as "it depends on your preferences."
Outsole (& Midsole)
The Ra has no midsole, and a 3mm TPU outsole that's "Patented, ultra-thin, puncture resistant layer. 5x more puncture resistant than a standard sole of the same thickness" according to their website.
The Fer has no midsole, and a 4mm PU outsole. The outsole utilizes Chronology's patented hollow heel, so you get the look of classic dress shoe, but the health and comfort of a zero-drop shoe.
Both outsoles are synthetic, so they'll have better traction than leather outsoles. The Ra has little lugs with more depth than the lines on the Fer, and combined with the Ra's more flexible sole, the Ra should have more traction. The lugs do detract from formality though, especially since they are visible even from the side.
Outsole (& Midsole) winner: tie. Depends on your preferences.
Insole
The Ra has a thin leather insole. They also have a removable footbed, "3mm of recycled foam with a natural cork deck." I think this is a great idea that allows the wearer more options in customizing their fit.
The next version of our shoes will have a removable footbed as well, but at present our shoes do not. They do have a leather footbed over a thin layer of Poron cushioning. Not only does the Poron make the shoes more comfortable, they also slip around less.
Insole winner: Ra.
Construction Method
Because of the stitching on the inside and outside, I believe the Ra is made with Strobel construction. Most sneakers are made with Strobel construction and it makes sense for the Ra to be made this way. It allows for a very flexible shoe. But because the stitches go from the outside of the shoe to the inside, it's not very water resistant. The stitching on the Ra does not add to formality because each stitch is really long, about 7mm.
The Fer is made with cement construction. The sole is not stitched to the upper, and I've actually had 2 customers return shoes because they consider visible stitching as a necessary indicator of quality. But, the only construction method we can think of to use with our patented hollow heel is cement. Fortunately, foregoing stitches gives us a more water resistant shoe.
Construction Method winner: Fer.
Resoling
I don't believe there is any way to resole the Ra.
The Fer, being Cement construction, can be resoled, given the right equipment in the right hands. We offer a comprehensive resole and restoration service to customers around the world.
Resoling winner: Fer.
Leather
Upon first glance, the Ra leather is uninspiring, but there's actually a lot to it! The Ra is made with "African leather tanned by Pittards®, from the hides of free roaming cows; animals that have lived a little and made love under the sun." I think that's so cool!
The Ra leather is likely vegetable tanned as well. Compared to chrome tanning, veg-tan is more environmentally friendly, both in production and disposal, and has a more varied and organic look. Veg-tan is usually stiffer, but not on the Ra, where it's super soft. Veg-tan is more susceptible to water damage. The Ra leather appears very matte out of the box, but it can take a shine.
The Fer leather is impressive right out of the box. It's made with leather from conventional US cows, tanned in Mexico.
The Fer leather is tanned with chrome. Chrome tanning does use harsh chemicals, unfortunately. The leather is typically softer (but the Ra is softer in this comparison). Chrome-tan is more uniform, dressy, and impressive right out of the box. it resists water damage better, and is just overall more durable.
(For more about vegetable vs chrome tanning, here's a great article from Carryology.)
Leather winner: Ra.
Flexibility
The Ra has ZERO noticeable resistance to any movement of my feet. Amazing.
Flexibility winner: Ra.
Cut and Sew Quality
They're both really good at 9 stitches per inch.
Cut and Sew Quality winner: tie.
Shoelace
The Ra has thick laces. The eyelets on the Ra are pretty small and not reinforced with metal, so the laces have a hard time sliding through. The laces are not waxed or glazed either, so they're fraying from the friction.
The Fer has elastic shoelaces that look normal but turn your lace oxfords into functional slip-ons. Our hidden eyelets are sized so that your laces can slip through them easily.
Shoelace winner: Fer.
Shoe Style
The Ra is an open-lace blucher derby. This is regarded as less dressy, but it's easier to make, and fits a wider range of feet.
The Fer is a closed-lace balmoral oxford. This is regarded as the most formal of styles. They're harder to make, and doesn't fit as wide range of feet. However, I've never had a return because the laces were too tight. And if the laces are too loose, tongue pads will easily fix it.
Shoe Style winner: Fer.
Toe Style
The Lisbon is a plain-toe.
The Fer is a cap-toe.
Toe Style winner: tie. Depends on your preference. Luckily, we offer a plain-toe shoe, the Zetone.
Toe Box
The Ra has the widest toebox I've EVER experienced. I feel my "foot tripod" engage in a way that has only ever happened while barefoot. And there is zero pressure on any of my toes. It's wider than everything I've tried from Lems, Xero, Softstar, etc. They are all very foot-friendly shoes, but nothing compares to the Ra's toe box.
Unfortunately, this also makes them more clownlike than any other shoes. There isn't much vertical height to the toebox either, and the flatness makes them look even wider, like duck feet.
The Fer has a wide toebox, but not as wide as the Ra. It has a sleek taper, although I've even heard some consider these too clownlike as well. There is a tasteful amount of vertical height that makes the shoes appear more narrow and also feel more comfortable (you can wiggle your toes inside).
Toe Box winner: Ra for Barefoot. Fer for Dress.
Weight
I am comparing a EU 40 Ra against a US Men's 7 Fer.
One shoe of the Ra II weighs 8 oz (227 grams) without the removeable footbed, and 8.5 oz (241 grams) with the removeable footbed.
One shoe of the Fer v4 weighs 9.9 oz (281 grams). Some weight was shaved off when we stopped using cork filler in v4.
Weight winner: Ra.
Price
The Ra retails for $140 USD. I read somebody say that he never pays anywhere near full price on Vivobarefoot, because they always go on steep sales eventually.
The Fer is $350 bought new, as low as $300 if you preorder early, and can be had for as low as $175 through our official Outlet Store.
Price winner: Ra.
How do they look with a suit?
Finally, I wanted to answer this question that I see often in comments: How do they look with a suit? I set the camera at an angle similar to how someone else would see your shoes while you're wearing them.
"Suit-ability" winner: I'll let you be the judge of that =)
2 comments
Just want to say that it was so refreshing to see this side by side review. I was expecting a biased position, but commend you on your balanced take and not shying away from the pros and cons of each make. When i am in need of a barefoot shoe for that ‘special occasion’ I will certainly be thinking Carats, you have earned a future customer with this post! Great job
On the measures applied in this review, Ra looks to be a strong winner, tho if you need or like the look of Carets, (and I both need and like it!), Caret’s tradeoffs on other measures still make it a great buy.
I have owned an earlier version of the RA, and loved them for day to day use where the Ra styling suits.
But my experience with Ra (and with two pairs of Carets) showed up another important factor not covered here: Durability. The soles on my Ras blew up after about two years of quite intermittent use (maybe only 10-15% of full-time). My cobbler took one look and shook his head – “can’t help you”. By comparison, more than a year of 4-5 days a week, 6-8 hours a day wear on my first pair of Carets and they’re showing very little wear.
Okay, the Ra is maybe half the money, but it appears to provide far less usage per $.
That said, after grumbling about the economics, I will surely get another pair Ras for use when desire for extreme barefoot feel outweighs preference for more dressy look.
Instead of the one dimensional assessment spectrum Mountain applied here, put Ra, Carets and other choices on a two-way chart – barefoot feel x dressy classic look. You’ll easily see there is nothing out there that comes close to Carets.