Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

[Bill]

Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185 lbs,
ht. 6'3", longer runs often on groomed trails.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!

Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".

Mfr.: Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm" Mfr.:
Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1 Cushion Shoe
RRS: RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is competitively
soft All: Brooks Burn has too little support, too little
shoe and too little cushioning to compete

What I find from running in all three models:

Nike Tailwind is so much more cushy than the other two, both
to the touch, on the floor, on the treadmill, on a firmer
treadmill. The heel compresses more easily and further than
the heels of the other two, for example.

In my size 11, the Rider and Burn have the same weight.
The Tailwind in size 11 or 11.5 is about 16 oz. vs. 13 oz.
for the other two. That is, the Rider has the same weight
as the Burn!

Both the Rider and Burn feel lighter on the feet, they both
have a better fit, and they both feel like much less shoe.
The Burn has a softer "ride" than than Rider. Rider seems to
be more supportive than the Burn. Burn has a little more toe
room than the Rider.

Compared to other Nike models and other brand models
except Adidas, the Tailwind runs small. I need size 11.5D
instead of 11D.

WHY?

Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate. Mizuno trying to
hype "cushioning" for its overly firm shoes, Nike trying to
hype firm for its overly soft shoe. Just like politics. Pick
your spin.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <c2u1cp$226edt$1@ID-127845.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill wrote:
> Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185
> lbs, ht. 6'3", longer runs often on groomed trails.
>
> DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!
>
> Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".
>
> Mfr.: Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm"

Probably a reference to some kind of cusioning metric (like
durometer).

> Mfr.: Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1
> Cushion Shoe

Well, it is the most succesful cushion shoe in the Mizuno
line. But it's close to lightweight. It does feel a little
like a lightweight trainer.

> RRS: RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is
> competitively soft

Subjective, but it is, IMO.

> All: Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe
> and too little cushioning to compete

They're probably saying this because Burn is marketed as a
lightweight trainer.

It doesn't compete toe-to-toe with the other two because
it's marketted against shoes like the Wave Precision and the
Nike Spiridon/Skylon.

> WHY?
>
> Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate. Mizuno
> trying to hype

Maybe choice of technology is part of it too. For example,
an airbag is an airbag whether you put it in a "stability"
last or not. Same is true for Asics, who consistently use
Gel padding.

Or maybe it's actually hard to explain it clearly, and you
just have to experience the shoes for yourself, to learn
what a "lightweight trainer" feels like, etc. Part of the
problem is that different people will have different
experiences of the same shoe (for example, stiff rubber
will feel softer to a heavier runner than it does to a
light runner.)

My impression based on what I'd heard about flats, and my
actual experience of them were two completely different
things. BTW, I find the Rider adequately cushioned.

FWIW, in this category of shoe, I'm personally happy with
the Asics Verdict. Compared to the Wave Rider, it's a more
flexible shoe. Runs a little small, as I mentioned in the
review I posted.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Bill]

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc558g5.cju.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <c2u1cp$226edt$1@ID-127845.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Bill wrote:
> > Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185
> > lbs, ht. 6'3",
longer
> > runs often on groomed trails.
> >
> > DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!
> >
> > Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".
> >
> > Mfr.: Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm"
>
> Probably a reference to some kind of cusioning metric
> (like durometer).
>
> > Mfr.: Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1
> > Cushion Shoe
>
> Well, it is the most succesful cushion shoe in the Mizuno
> line. But it's
close
> to lightweight. It does feel a little like a lightweight
> trainer.
>
> > RRS: RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is
> > competitively soft
>
> Subjective, but it is, IMO.

Notwithstanding, your preference for the Rider, have you run
in the '04 Tailwind? I was the same weight when I stood,
walked and ran on both side by side. Even compressing the
material in your hands it is obvious. Nothing subjective
about it. I can understand why someone might want the Rider,
and could even understand why one runner might run with less
impact in a firmer shoe, but the shoes are unequally soft.
>
> > All: Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe
> > and too
little
> > cushioning to compete
>
> They're probably saying this because Burn is marketed as a
> lightweight
trainer.

Yes, because they base their advice on the literature, on
the mfr. spin, rather than giving the shoe an honest trial.
>
> It doesn't compete toe-to-toe with the other two because
> it's marketted
against
> shoes like the Wave Precision and the Nike
> Spiridon/Skylon.

Have to try the Skylon, I guess.
>
> > WHY?
> >
> > Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate. Mizuno
> > trying to hype
>
> Maybe choice of technology is part of it too. For example,
> an airbag is an airbag whether you put it in a "stability"
> last or not. Same is true for
Asics,
> who consistently use Gel padding.

If the pneumatic approach did not have an advantage, we
would have seen uninflatable tires long ago.
>
> Or maybe it's actually hard to explain it clearly, and you
> just have to experience the shoes for yourself, to learn
> what a "lightweight trainer"
feels
> like, etc. Part of the problem is that different people
> will have
different
> experiences of the same shoe (for example, stiff rubber
> will feel softer
to
> a heavier runner than it does to a light runner.)
>
> My impression based on what I'd heard about flats, and
> my actual
experience of
> them were two completely different things. BTW, I find
> the Rider
adequately
> cushioned.

I did too. Though, after an hour or so, I tried the Rider
again and the difference was enormous.
>
> FWIW, in this category of shoe, I'm personally happy with
> the Asics
Verdict.
> Compared to the Wave Rider, it's a more flexible shoe.
> Runs a little
small,
> as I mentioned in the review I posted.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <c2vpjh$22al4o$1@ID-127845.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill wrote:

>> Subjective, but it is, IMO.
>
> Notwithstanding, your preference for the Rider, have you
> run in the '04 Tailwind? I was the same weight when I
> stood, walked and ran on both side by side. Even
> compressing the material in your hands it is obvious.
> Nothing subjective about it. I can understand why someone
> might want the Rider, and could even understand why one
> runner might run with less impact in a firmer shoe, but
> the shoes are unequally soft.

The TailWind is heavier, so it's going to be "cushier". The
only way you can make a lighter shoe "soft" is to have low
durometer rubber (reduces durability, and will feel
inadequate for heavy runners). The Rider is a light high
milage trainer which means carbon rubber outsoles. It's as
light as possible without compromising durability. It's
flexible, but it not really all that soft.

The category names are IMO confusing: "cushioning" is
actually a misnomer for that category. The point of the
"cushioning" category is that the shoe is supposed to be
more flexible as opposed to stability shoes which have
medial posts etc.

"Cushioning" shoes are not always soft in their feel.

> Yes, because they base their advice on the literature,
> on the mfr. spin, rather than giving the shoe an
> honest trial.

One needs to read a review (and not sales pitches) in
order to get info about honest trials. Even then, reviews
need to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, I
simply don't agree with the common criticisms of the Asics
Verdict's design.

I wouldn't trust a salesperson to accurately describe a shoe
from first hand experience. Even if the salesperson runs,
they probably don't run in your shoe.

I think at the end of the day, you're stuck just gambling
your money on the shoe, and hopefully buying from a place
with a good return policy. footlocker.com is good for this
btw (you can return to their retail outlets). I suppose the
first time one discovers this, it comes as a rude shock.

My recommendation would be to look for chances to pick up
shoes that interest you at heavy discounts, or from places
with a good return policy, so that you minimise the risk.
For example, I recently picked up three different pairs of
shoes from Footlocker.com (Tiger Paw, DS Racer, Verdict). I
wasn't sure how they'd fit, especially since I took a gamble
by going up half a size on the verdict. But they were so
cheap that I was prepared to risk it (besides, the return
policy is pretty good).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Bill]

> The TailWind is heavier, so it's going to be "cushier".
> The only way you can make a lighter shoe "soft" is to have
> low durometer rubber
(reduces
> durability, and will feel inadequate for heavy runners).
> The Rider is a
light
> high milage trainer which means carbon rubber outsoles.
> It's as light as possible without compromising durability.
> It's flexible, but it not really
all
> that soft.

Mizuno Wave is as much structure as material, with the wave
bearing subtle resemblance to a spring. Nike Air cuts out
material, but has to take a back seat to mfrs of road
bicycle tires, e.g. Someone will leave both companies in
the dust. Nike Air has not improved much in three or more
years. Though one has to give them credit for trying the
Shox approach.
>
> The point of the "cushioning" category is that the shoe is
> supposed to be more flexible as opposed to stability shoes
> which have
medial
> posts etc.

Yes, cushioning vs. support or control. They could use the
word "neutral" and make a separate "cushioning" category.
Will try and make this distinction when discussing shoes.

Also, will assume each salesman is a brand bigot and qualify
them carefully.

> I think at the end of the day, you're stuck just gambling
> your money on
the
> shoe, and hopefully buying from a place with a good return
> policy. footlocker.com is good for this btw (you can
> return to their retail
outlets).
> I suppose the first time one discovers this, it comes as a
> rude shock.

Well, it can't hurt to keep trying to find an informed
member of the industry. Call it optimism.