Running Shoes That Can Get Wet
View Full Version : Running Shoes That Can Get Wet
I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when the get even the least
bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
--
If sj. appears in my email address remove it to respond. It is a spam jammer.
Stop judicial corruption: http://www.Jail4Judges.org (http://www.jail4judges.org/)
well i run in rain / sleet / snow / 106 degree F in my asics and they hold together well plodzilla i
run in kayano
Artist wrote:
>
> I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when the get even the
> least bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
>
> --
> If sj. appears in my email address remove it to respond. It is a spam jammer.
>
> Stop judicial corruption: http://www.Jail4Judges.org (http://www.jail4judges.org/)
Artist wrote:
> I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when the get even the
> least bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
I would say that all decent running shoes handle water without any problem. What brand/model are you
suggesting melt when they get wet?
To ask about racing flats getting crushed on a rocky trail is one question but just getting wet is
very odd. More questions than answers come to mind.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <400B93D2.F9E19E77@boeing.com>, gentolm <gentolm@boeing.com>
wrote:
> well i run in rain / sleet / snow / 106 degree F in my asics and they hold together well plodzilla
> i run in kayano
It snows there at 106 F? :-)
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson
Artist wrote:
> I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when the get even the
> least bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
I'm with Doug. My running shoes are getting soaked with snow and road-salted slush on a daily basis,
and come April, they'll get rained on, too. Seems to make no difference. I've never had a running
shoe which didn't do fine in rain/snow. Not that I've had a lot of shoes. In the early 90's I used
Asics gel 120-123, then switched to Brooks Radius. That's my experience.
-- Josh in Syracuse
I'm with Doug. My running shoes are getting soaked with snow and road-salted slush on a daily basis,
and come April, they'll get rained on, too. _
ok, i'll stir it up a bit and disagree with both of you. NB 1210/1220 is a great shoe, a high end
$100 shoe, my personal alltime favorite, it's a stabilty shoe however it's not great for a daily
rain/snow/slush shoe. why? it's the materials and harnessing of the "upper" portion of the
shoe...the type of synthetic and mesh, they all vary. i'm hard on shoes and like to ball strike.
that means i am placing a great deal of pressure/force at the forefront of the shoe and it's
sidewalls.
if find that once soaked, coupled with constant applying of pressure stressing the shoe....the
forefoot area of the shoe, the synthetic upper becomes slightly stretched from its natural/original
shaping. no, it does not fall apart....but over time in these repeated conditions the shoe becomes
deformed in the upper portion of the forefront of the shoe.
To keep the shoe light, harnessing designs for the forefront are/were minimalized...the downside to
some of these synthetic fabrics and meshings is they're sometimes "pliable", but unlike some
materials, once stretched, don't return to form.
There are some shoes I would stay away from if they were constantly getting soaking wet. I would
base that decision on the type of synthetics and sidewall supporting design of the upper forefront
are of the shoe.
The other thing I don't think you guys are appreciating is the added weight you take on in your shoe
when it gets soaking wet. Nike has some published studies in this area and in connection w/their
design of their Kukini shoe I think it is...on how that shoe drains water from itself. I would not
wear a shoe that carries a lot of water weight and many do.
I bet people have no idea how much extra water weight their shoes can carry. I read on a site the
following, "1) Water and Heat Management- Runners frequently dump cups of water on themselves to
stay cool during races. Water can pool in a runner's shoes, adding almost an extra pound of weight.
Regarding the Kukini shoe itself, holes were placed in the shoe's outsole to let water escape easily
and allow air to circulate through. In product testing, the shoes gained less than 1oz. after
sitting in a bucket of water for an hour. A simple, supportive upper with newly engineered woven
mesh wicks moisture away and lets air cool the foot". _
Now the Kukini is not what you want for Winter running...but the principle/point applies about
accruing water weight. All I am saying is IMO it's a valid point of consideration when looking for a
shoe that can get wet (if not getting weighed down is a factor for you).
So in sum, imo some shoes cannot get wet for construction reasons (if you want to retain the
integrity of the design/function), and others simply are sponges.
Many makers of shoes design them with water drainage in mind....like Brooks and their Hydro-Flo
technology. '99 Trance was another shoe I loved. No, I don't think you need to go crazy and get a
pair of Montrail or Salomon or Merrell and the like. But ya know....Adidas makes a "Winter Trail
Running Shoe". You'll see it on their site.
Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<0MOOb.227942$0P1.106506@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> Artist wrote:
> > I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when the get even the
> > least bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
>
> I would say that all decent running shoes handle water without any problem.
Nike being the exception. Nike are C-R-A-P.
In article <20040119102504.21785.00000253@mb-m14.aol.com>, Globaldisc wrote:
> The other thing I don't think you guys are appreciating is the added weight you take on in your
> shoe when it gets soaking wet. Nike has some published
I think this is a non-issue during base training. For this, my number one priority is safety, second
priority is durability. I don't care whole lot about anything else. In particular, it doesn't really
matter to me if I run a little slower because my feet get heavy (or because there's snow on the
ground or whatever).
Since base training makes up most of my training volume (and nearly all of my "bad roads" training
volume since I try to find some clear pavement or track for speed work), the "heavy wet shoes" issue
isn't a problem. So my choice of durable shoe (Asics Nimbus) works quite well for this.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
The brand that this is happening to now is Reebok. But this has happened to every running show I
have had. The water undoes the adhesive and the sole starts separating from the rest of the show. I
have tried to reglue with ShoeGoo but ShoeGoo does not last very long even when kept dry.
Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> Artist wrote:
>
>> I am looking for running shoes that don't become unglued and fall apart when they get even the
>> least bit wet. If you can recomend a make and model pleae do so.
>
>
> I would say that all decent running shoes handle water without any problem. What brand/model are
> you suggesting melt when they get wet?
>
> To ask about racing flats getting crushed on a rocky trail is one question but just getting wet is
> very odd. More questions than answers come to mind.
>
>
--
If sj. appears in my email address remove it to respond. It is a spam jammer.
Fight the mark of the beast: http://www.house.gov/paul/privacy Stop judicial corruption:
http://www.Jail4Judges.org (http://www.jail4judges.org/) Support antispam legislation: http://www.cauce.org (http://www.cauce.org/)
Hulk Hogan for President!
In article <3uydnYCQmrjHvJHdRVn-jA@speakeasy.net>, Artist wrote:
> The brand that this is happening to now is Reebok.
Well, that would explain it
> But this has happened to every running show I have had.
Yeah, I think this is probably true -- because you're never had a running shoe.
A more detailed answer: you don't just walk into your local Foot Locker store and ask the sales
people for a "running shoe", and then buy "New Balance" or "Nike" or whatever. If you're really
lucky, they might hand you a low end running shoe. It probably won't be appropriate for your running
surface and gait. You're unlikely to have much success with this approach.
You need to have some idea of what the right type of shoe is, and which models correspond. Then get
such a shoe from any good brand. For example, if you need cushioning shoes, you could try Asics
Nimbus, Saucony Trigon, Mizuno Wave Creation/Rider, ... If you need stability shoes, you could try
Asics 2080, Asics Kayano, NB 12xx, Saucony Grid Omni, etc.
I think the bottom line is that you're not making well informed purchases, and you're ending up with
substandard shoes as a result.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Artist wrote:
> The brand that this is happening to now is Reebok.
What model and what did you pay? Reebok makes a boat load shoes and some of them are real crap and
others are fine. Many brands make a garbage line of shoe to sell to discount stores like Wallmart.
A few have have replied to the question and none so far have complained about peeling from
getting wet.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
Globaldisc wrote:
> if find that once soaked, coupled with constant applying of pressure stressing the shoe....the
> forefoot area of the shoe, the synthetic upper becomes slightly stretched from its
> natural/original shaping. no, it does not fall apart....but over time in these repeated
conditions the
> shoe becomes deformed in the upper portion of the forefront of
the shoe.
I've never worn NB but I would feed that back to them. I have taken Saucony, Adidas, and Asics and
run through mud, streams, rocks roots and stuffed them in a washing machine after and never had any
problem with shape.
>
> To keep the shoe light, harnessing designs for the forefront are/were minimalized...the downside
> to some of these synthetic fabrics and meshings is they're sometimes "pliable", but unlike some
> materials, once stretched, don't return to form.
What is your definition of light? The chart says 12.8 Oz for the default men's size 9. You call
that light?
> There are some shoes I would stay away from if they were constantly getting soaking wet. I would
> base that decision on the type of synthetics and sidewall supporting design of the upper forefront
> are of the shoe.
An issue that some people have is whether they drain. I know people have taken a great shoe and
drilled a few holes to allow the water to run out.
>
> The other thing I don't think you guys are appreciating is the added weight you take on in your
> shoe when it gets soaking wet.
You're right I don't care much about the added weight. For my needs I want support.
> I bet people have no idea how much extra water weight their shoes can carry.
If I'm doing a 5 or 10k I might. Then again I would be wearing a racing flat bored and stroked to
allow perspiration to escape. In my next life when I'm olympic quality I'll worry about weight,
until then, nah, don't care much. ;)
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
Globaldisc wrote:
> ever place your standard shoe in a bucket of water
Nope but they sure do get submerged in streams. Hell in my last race I begged for a stream to wash
away thick heavy mud.
> Not distance doug (as you've placed it the context of)...it's all about strikes, strides,
> actual...step counts....you know that doug........the number of strikes over the course of a race
> is where the ounces make the difference.
In a road race maybe. On trails short of drilling a hole to allow those to drain that don't drain
well, we expect the extra weight and there is very little we can do. If the shoes have good
ventilation as most do they dry out fairly rapidly. Understand, it the structure of the shoe that
matters!!! If we rotate a shoe it not for weight but to match the terrain. We often go for a heavier
shoe to counteract sharp rocks and when wet weigh even more.
> the longer the race (your field), the more significant the added weight (water). If you're lifting
> your knee and striding/striking out 15,000 times in a race....methinks you'd prefer to do that
> with a shoe that weighs 12 oz. as opposed to a shoe that weighs 20 oz. are you really unconcerned
> about lifting 8 oz. more 15,000 times per race (for example?).
You're thinking of running fast and not safely. Sorry but the additional weight is the price we pay
when we are on our feet for 6
- 24 hours. Sure we may run a little slower with the extra weight but we live injury free to run
another day.
Let's carry the weight notion a step further, why don't you run bare foot or in extra thick socks. I
can draw a mathematical model to show you how much lighter and faster you can run.
> that's why your friends drill holes in their shoes.
That's a small subset to show they will not change shoes to a lighter model and risk injury. They
would rather not slosh, not necessarily because of the weight but the tendency for blisters. You may
not believe it, but shoe weight is damn near trivial compared to all the other variables like food,
drink, terrain, etc. etc. To stroke the calculator and go for a lighter shoe is a dry leaf in
nor'easter.
> and running in the rain and through puddles and soaked conditions @ distance? imo it matters more
> than at 5K and 10K distances. again, you're talking about lifting your foot (weight) by a multiple
> of 3 or 4 or 5 more....
I love math and math models( I is/was one) but there are times where it's application in real life
doesn't hold water(pun intended). You're thinking with a single variable mind(less weight run
faster) which may hold for short road races but not necessarily distance and variable terrain.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <XI%Ob.130993$4F2.15403829@twister.nyc.rr.com>, Doug Freese wrote:
> Globaldisc wrote:
> You're thinking of running fast and not safely. Sorry but the additional weight is the price we
> pay when we are on our feet for 6
> - 24 hours. Sure we may run a little slower with the extra weight but we live injury free to run
> another day.
I'm not sure if he's paying attention to just how slowly one needs to run in an ultra. Being able to
hit your 5k pace isn't really a consideration.
> necessarily because of the weight but the tendency for blisters. You may not believe it, but shoe
> weight is damn near trivial compared to all the other variables like food, drink, terrain, etc.
> etc. To stroke the calculator and go for a lighter shoe is a dry leaf in nor'easter.
The issue here is that *running economy* is actually much more important than the weight of the
shoe. A shoe that is slightly heavy is not nearly as problematic as a shoe that hurts your
running economy.
Even assuming that no injury or blisters occur, most people will NOT run economically barefoot (or
in racing flats) over ultra distances, especially over nasty terrain.
Global has considerable racing experience and is familiar with this principle. I think he was
thinking of shorter distances, where a light trainer (or spiked XC racing shoe if you like) is
actually a realistic option.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
globaldisc@aol.com (Globaldisc) wrote in message news:<20040119102504.21785.00000253@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> i find that once soaked, coupled with constant applying of pressure stressing the shoe....the
> forefoot area of the shoe, the synthetic upper becomes slightly stretched from its
> natural/original shaping. no, it does not fall apart....but over time in these repeated conditions
> the shoe becomes deformed > in the upper portion of the forefront of the shoe.
At first this sounds like what someone who insists on running in unnecessarily snugly-fitting shoes
should end up complaining about - but if the same shoe in the same model in the same socks etc
stands the same kind and amount of stress and wear in dry conditions, maybe I have no reason to quip
about your odd preferences here.
Indeed, I`m sure NB would appreciate your feedback on this.
OTOH now that I think about it a frequent cycle of getting wet and drying up will do something to a
shoe and age it faster than normally. Therefore I let the shoes dry in room temperature with stuffed-
in newspaper as using heat to quicken up the process is harmful; this may be just old runnersī
tales, but it seems to be true in my experience as well.
> There are some shoes I would stay away from if they were constantly getting soaking wet. I would
> base that decision on the type of synthetics and sidewall supporting design of the upper forefront
> are of the shoe.
Yes, one would look for an uppper fabric that wouldnīt let the wet, melting snow in so easily.
> The other thing I don't think you guys are appreciating is the added weight you take on in your
> shoe when it gets soaking wet.
If the added weight doesnīt 1) lead to increased show wear in itself or 2) foul up my biomechanisms,
I donīt care - and IMHO it doesnīt do either.
> I bet people have no idea how much extra water weight their shoes can carry.
I have the idea that it is less than the weight incurred by soaking the shoe for an hour, though.
Iīll try to remember to weigh my shoes "before" and "after" my next run in wet slush!
> " Runners frequently dump cups of water on themselves to stay cool during races. Water can pool in
> a runner's shoes, adding almost an extra pound of weight.
How many cups of water is a pound of water? What percentageĻ of those single cupfuls can be assumed
to end up in oneīs shoes?
I may be right, I may be wrong, but Iīd suspect that the amount of cup water weighing down a
runnerīs shoes during a marathon is quite insignificant compared to the weight of the water from his
own sweat - even in the best-aired shoes.
Anders
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc0o9r0.2j0.abuse@panix2.panix.com>...
> > The brand that this is happening to now is Reebok.
> Well, that would explain it
> > But this has happened to every running show I have had.
> Yeah, I think this is probably true -- because you're never had a running shoe.
I never fail to be amazed - and delighted:-) - by the way otherwise reasonable people can have quite
unreasonable attitudes about one shoe brand or another!
Or am I missing something that is obvious to you and thus getting it all wrong?
Should I really start worrying about whatīll happen to my Premier Road Lites any day now or to warn
other guys of the soon impending fate of their Premier Roads?:-)
Anders
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I'm not sure if he's paying attention to just how slowly one needs to run in an ultra.
Yes and no - it's race dependent. Sure you look at the clock at the end of the race and calculate
pace and it looks very pedestrian. Then you take into consideration, rocks, roots, snow, mud and
some 8-10k of elevation gain and loss over say 50 miles, pace has a different meaning. Strap on a
HRM as one hikes up a significant hill and see the ticker crank 150-180. How fast can you propel
yourself up a 2,500 mountain over 3 miles and then assuming a symmetric mountain, back down the
equally steep. The throw one of those SOB's at mile 85 or even worse 95 to 100.
> A shoe that is slightly heavy is not nearly as problematic as a shoe that hurts your running
> economy.
Amen and a point Andrew is having a problem understanding.
>
> Even assuming that no injury or blisters occur, most people will NOT run economically barefoot (or
> in racing flats) over ultra distances, especially over nasty terrain.
We have some copper Canyon folks that will disagree but they grew up without shoes. How about
the Kenyans?
Actually I think we WOULD run the most efficiently barefoot and there is a significant number of
people that believe running shoes with all there bells and whistles do more harm than good. We put
our kids in shoes while they are still breast feeding albeit for some sane reason. On paper I will
not agree but the reality of barefoot is moot.
> Global has considerable racing experience and is familiar with this principle.
Donovan, this principle as you call it is old stuff. I spent my first 10 years running my ass off in
the speed column. Over the years I found working for N months to shave a few seconds off a 5k or a
minute or two for a marathon got damn old. As much as we would like to think we all have Olympic
abilities or can improve every year - it's not realistic.
I moved to longer distances for a different flavor of masochism.
> I think he was thinking of shorter distances, where a light trainer (or spiked XC racing shoe if
> you like) is actually a realistic option.
I agreed with him for shorter distances but only the shorter distances and specifically on the
roads. I'm trying to explain to him that the weight over longer distances looks cute in a math model
but is not even close to being realistic over distance and time when all the other variables are
factored in.
A case in point for a local race called the Escarpment Trail Race up here by me.
http://escarpmenttrail.com/ It's a 30k but one of the hardest mile for mile races for bad footing
and elevation gain on the East coast. Almost every year we get one or more speed demons that show up
in racing flats that are going to attack the "soft" record(about 2:50). They bring their speed and
efficiency model and turn to dust at mile 12, Unfortunately there is a 10k to go. Since I work the
finish line I get to personally see the reality check and hear the dialog.
I've been on both sides of this fence. ;)
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
cross country shoes .seems good in below zero and cold snow. outside too
some. most stay inside. in last 20 miles found 40 cents toal. I bike
ride .wear exter socks.
maybe not last for running. least toes not turning black and , white/
and purple. that one was half and half in 2002 combat boots. itch real
bad butt bath warm hot water brought back to life. black not move,
purple did. rest of around toes. itch like poisen ivy at worst. and you
just got to grin like ernice do. no what I mean. Low. thanks for
nothing.:>)
Anders Lustig wrote:
> I never fail to be amazed - and delighted:-) - by the way otherwise reasonable people can have
> quite unreasonable attitudes about one shoe brand or another!
And I thought all the shoe dislike was reserved for Nike. And some men think that blondes are better
lovers. Or was that all women that are between 5'2,654545'-5'3.789567" tall. Maybe it was breast
size inversely proportionite to (shoe size * arm length)/ length length. :)
I have a few friends that wear Reebok and love them. Like many shoes companies they do make some
bottom feeder crap but once you get into the real running models they are just another shoe to
love or hate.
> Should I really start worrying about whatīll happen to my Premier Road Lites any day now or to
> warn other guys of the soon impending fate of their Premier Roads?:-)
Dip them in a bucket of sulfuric acid and see if they dissolve. ;)
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <e621e2ab.0401200410.57f04a44@posting.google.com>, Anders Lustig wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc0o9r0.2j0.abuse@panix2.panix.com>...
>
>> > The brand that this is happening to now is Reebok.
>> Well, that would explain it
>
>> > But this has happened to every running show I have had.
>> Yeah, I think this is probably true -- because you're never had a running shoe.
>
> I never fail to be amazed - and delighted:-) - by the way otherwise reasonable people can have
> quite unreasonable attitudes about one shoe brand or another!
I haven't tried using Reeboks running shoes, and I don't know of anyone who has -- so I can't
comment on their quality.
However, I doubt that this poster has one of their running models. When people say "I am using New
Balance" or "I have Asics", it suggests that they only recall the brand name and not the model
number, and if you don't pay attention to the particular model, but instead, pick up any shoe from a
given brand, your chance of acquiring a running shoe diminishes rapidly.
This is especially true of brands such as Reebok that make very few running shoes, and numerous
shoes that are not running shoes.
> Or am I missing something that is obvious to you and thus getting it all wrong?
(-;
> Should I really start worrying about whatīll happen to my Premier Road Lites any day now or to
> warn other guys of the soon impending fate of their Premier Roads?:-)
See, you stated the model name instead of the brand.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
