DS-Trainer
View Full Version : DS-Trainer
From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.
If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure that
its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have told me
that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable and fits
like a slipper.
>If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
>ASICS GEL-Landreth.
As soon as this shoe appeared in my local running specialty
shop, they already had only sizes below 8 and above 13 !!! I
do hope that ASICS opts to make this shoe a part of their
general line, as it seems very popular and has gotten only
glowing reviews.
On 10 Mar 2004 16:52:17 -0800, ayalowic@tampabay.rr.com (sotampacane)
wrote:
>If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
>ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
>that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
>told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
>and fits like a slipper.
I've worn it for track workouts, long runs, a 10K and a
marathon. The shoe rocks. At close to 200 miles it still
feels like it did when it was new. I hope it lasts a long
time. Barring that, I hope Asics keeps it around for a while
so I can stock up.
Karen
In article <cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com>, sotampacane wrote:
> From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
> shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
> quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
> after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.
It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as durable
as other shoes, right ?
BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work. Haven't
got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"sotampacane" <ayalowic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com...
> From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
> shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
> quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
> after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.
>
> If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
> ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
> that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
> told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
> and fits like a slipper.
It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
lightweight shoe. It's got the midsole from one of the
old 20xx series shoes without the dual density. Put it on
a scale and I think you'll find it's the same weight as
the Cumulus.
Jim Johnson
Jim Johnson wrote:
> "sotampacane" <ayalowic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com...
>
>>From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
>>shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
>>quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
>>after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.
>>
>>If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
>>ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
>>that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
>>told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
>>and fits like a slipper.
>
>
> It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
> lightweight shoe. It's got the midsole from one of the old
> 20xx series shoes without the dual density. Put it on a
> scale and I think you'll find it's the same weight as the
> Cumulus.
Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5,
Gel Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what I
call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly less
miles out of pair.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc4vk63.bgl.abuse@panix2.panix.com>...
> In article
> <cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com>,
> sotampacane wrote:
> > From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
> > short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
> > flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
> > these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
> > construction.
>
> It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as
> durable as other shoes, right ?
>
> BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work. Haven't
> got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.
>
> Cheers,
I've tracked my shoe miles for about ten years, and the
difference in miles between lightweight trainers and a
regular training shoe might be 5-7%. If I get 350 on a
GEL2080 (for example), a Gel lyte might be 325-330. With the
DS Trainer, I threw these away after 250 miles. They were
dead. ASICS has had some problems over the past 3 years with
shoe wear, and while they deny it, there isn't much doubt
that a few of there models just have not lasted as long as
they used to. It's forced me to look at alternatives, like
the Brooks Illusion or the Burn. But lately, I've had good
luck with alternating between the 2080 (now the 2090) and
the Landreth.
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sKZ3c.42291$Wo2.5413@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
> Cumulus V
> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
> expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
> As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what
> I call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly
> less miles out of pair.
Put them on a scale and weigh them. We weighed a size 9
Landreth and Cumulus V and they were spot on the same
weight. But, no two shoes will weigh the same even in exact
sizes and models so this whole shoe weight thing is pretty
pointless.
Jim Johnson
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message >
>
> Jim Johnson wrote:
>
> > "sotampacane" <ayalowic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
> >>short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
> >>flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
> >>these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
> >>construction.
> >>
> >>If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the
> >>new ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to
> >>insure that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but
> >>others have told me that it definitely holds up. And its
> >>comfortable and fits like a slipper.
> >
> >
> > It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
> > lightweight shoe.
It's
> > got the midsole from one of the old 20xx series shoes
> > without the dual density. Put it on a scale and I think
> > you'll find it's the same weight
as
> > the Cumulus.
>
> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
> Cumulus V
> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
> expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
> As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what
> I call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly
> less miles out of pair.
I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such as
NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these models
you point out here are trainers. Plain and simple. They are
lighter than other shoes, yes.
Shoe companies are starting to realize people want lighter
shoes, so the companies make their trainers a little lighter
(but with all the "trainer shoe" properties still there...
high heels, medial post, etc), and then call them
"lightweight trainers" to make to buyer feel like they are
buying a "fast" shoe.
If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example -
10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."
In article <cef6451d.0403110608.7e15707b@posting.google.com>, sotampacane wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc4vk63.bgl.abuse@panix2.panix.com>...
>> In article
>> <cef6451d.0403101652.38a33f1f@posting.google.com>,
>> sotampacane wrote:
>> > From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
>> > short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
>> > flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
>> > these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
>> > construction.
>>
>> It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as
>> durable as other shoes, right ?
>>
>> BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work.
>> Haven't got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> I've tracked my shoe miles for about ten years, and the
> difference in miles between lightweight trainers and a
> regular training shoe might be 5-7%. If I get 350 on a
> GEL2080 (for example), a Gel lyte might be 325-330. With
> the DS Trainer, I threw these away after 250 miles. They
> were dead. ASICS has had some problems over the past 3
> years with shoe wear, and while they deny it, there isn't
> much doubt that a few of there models just have not lasted
> as long as they used to.
It does seem at least that the DS Trainer line has been
causing them some grief. I avoided it in favour of the
verdict at least partly because of unfavourable reviews.
As far as durability is concerned though -- I think a lot of
manufacturers simply have to cut corners on this to keep the
shoe lightweight and properly cushioned.
Probably worth looking for durability features, e.g. carbon
rubber outsole as opposed to blown rubber. Most Mizuno shoes
seem to use carbon rubber outsoles btw.
> It's forced me to look at alternatives, like the Brooks
> Illusion or the Burn. But lately, I've had good luck with
> alternating between the 2080 (now the 2090) and the
> Landreth.
The Landreth is barely "lightweight", but then, if you're
using it as a general training shoe, that's fine.
I'll keep you posted on how the verdict goes. It's hard to
tell at this stage, but I'll have a pretty good idea how
it's doing at about 200 miles or so (I get about 500 out of
a midweight-heavyweight cushioned trainer like the Nimbus).
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
In article <BJ_3c.6279$n37.498417@read2.cgocable.net>, SwStudio wrote:
>> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
>> Cumulus V
>> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
>> would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
>> Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
>> lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
>> you get significantly less miles out of pair.
>
>
> I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
> shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such as
> NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these models
> you point out here are trainers. Plain and simple. They
> are lighter than other shoes, yes.
"Racing shoe" means different things to different people (-;
They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
similar, only the quantity of material and the stiffness of
the material are substantially different. Like you say, the
shape is much the same, and despite the name, they aren't
even "flat".
But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high milage like trainers are. They are built to
be used infrequently either for speed training, racing or
both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might be
able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most people will
find that they break down too quickly.
BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not the rc240
? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ? What else ?
> Shoe companies are starting to realize people want lighter
> shoes, so the companies make their trainers a little
> lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe" properties still
> there... high heels, medial post, etc), and then call them
> "lightweight trainers" to make to buyer feel like they are
> buying a "fast" shoe.
>
> If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
> trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example
> - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!
Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
that it's a flat ? I took a look at their webpage, and they
do indeed make racing flats, but the burn is not one of
them. It's listed as a cushioned trainer (without much in
the way of advertising about the weight).
It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
these shoes though. I was appalled to find RunnersWorld
listing the Asics Verdict as a racing flat. I'm perfectly
happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell isn't even close
to being a flat.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
In article <Bj_3c.6163$Gm5.16261@attbi_s04>, Jim Johnson wrote:
>
> "Doug Freese" <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:sKZ3c.42291$Wo2.5413@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
>> Cumulus V
>> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
>> would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
>> Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
>> lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
>> you get significantly less miles out of pair.
>
> Put them on a scale and weigh them. We weighed a size 9
> Landreth and Cumulus V and they were spot on the same
> weight. But, no two shoes will weigh the same even in
> exact sizes and models so this whole shoe weight thing is
> pretty pointless.
I'm curious as to what that weight is ... ? was the Landreth
over or the Cumulus under ?
BTW, the lightweight shoes don't just weigh differently,
they also feel different. The lower durometer rubber
contributes at least as much to the difference in feel
(usually more flexibility) as the actual weight does IMO.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> In article <BJ_3c.6279$n37.498417@read2.cgocable.net>,
> SwStudio wrote:
>
> >> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
> >> Cumulus V
> >> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
> >> would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
> >> Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
> >> lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
> >> you get significantly less miles out of pair.
> >
> >
> > I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
> > shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
> > as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
> > models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
> > simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.
>
> "Racing shoe" means different things to different
> people (-;
>
So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they are
'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that? Where
does one draw the line between truth and fiction?
> They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
> similar, only
the
> quantity of material and the stiffness of the material are
> substantially different. Like you say, the shape is much
> the same, and despite the name, they aren't even "flat".
>
> But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
> built for high
milage
> like trainers are. They are built to be used infrequently
> either for speed training, racing or both. Very light,
> biomechanically gifted runners might be able to wear them
> as everyday trainers, but most people will find that they
> break down too quickly.
I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.
A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly. If that was the case, I
have a pair of Converse Chuck Taylors for you to run your
next 5k in.
> BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
> the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
> What else ?
Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.
> > Shoe companies are starting to realize people want
> > lighter shoes, so the companies make their trainers a
> > little lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe"
> > properties still there... high heels, medial post, etc),
> > and then call them "lightweight trainers" to make to
> > buyer feel like they are buying a "fast" shoe.
> >
> > If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
> > trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
> > example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
> > trainer!
>
> Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
> that it's a flat
? I
> took a look at their webpage, and they do indeed make
> racing flats, but
the
> burn is not one of them. It's listed as a cushioned
> trainer (without much
in
> the way of advertising about the weight).
Lots of websites that sell shoes list it as a racer -
admittedly, many more list it as a lightweight trainer, a
little closer to the truth, although still stretching it.
> It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
> these shoes
though. I
> was appalled to find RunnersWorld listing the Asics
> Verdict as a racing
flat.
> I'm perfectly happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell
> isn't even close
to
> being a flat.
I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were the
flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
running shoe should be was a lot better.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."
In article <Qd04c.6287$n37.500564@read2.cgocable.net>, SwStudio wrote:
>> > I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
>> > shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
>> > as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
>> > models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
>> > simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.
>>
>> "Racing shoe" means different things to different
>> people (-;
>>
>
> So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they
> are 'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that?
> Where does one draw the line between truth and fiction?
If your trainers are a pair of 10-hole Doc Martens, then a
normal pair of trainers could well be called "racing shoes".
>> But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
>> built for high milage like trainers are. They are built
>> to be used infrequently either for speed training, racing
>> or both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might
>> be able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most
>> people will find that they break down too quickly.
>
> I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
> flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
> didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
> flats, not that they last a long time.
>
> A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
> than most and falls apart quickly.
The tiger paw (for example) is also considerably more
flexible than any of the regular trainers. I regularly run
in heavier, stiffer shoes and the tiger paws really are
substantially different in their feel.
>> BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
>> the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
>> What else ?
>
> Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
> Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.
These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
which point you draw the line, what your threshold is.
For someone used to training in fairly stiff, firm 13oz
shoes though, something like the tiger paw or even the DS
racer feels like a substantial change. Since you don't
run in such heavy shoes, you don't have any reference
points that would lead you to judge the 8oz "flat" as a
flat and not a trainer.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> In article <BJ_3c.6279$n37.498417@read2.cgocable.net>,
> SwStudio wrote:
>
> >> Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
> >> Cumulus V
> >> 11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
> >> would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
> >> Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
> >> lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
> >> you get significantly less miles out of pair.
> >
> >
> > I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
> > shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
> > as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
> > models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
> > simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.
>
> "Racing shoe" means different things to different
> people (-;
>
So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they are
'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that? Where
does one draw the line between truth and fiction?
> They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
> similar, only
the
> quantity of material and the stiffness of the material are
> substantially different. Like you say, the shape is much
> the same, and despite the name, they aren't even "flat".
>
> But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
> built for high
milage
> like trainers are. They are built to be used infrequently
> either for speed training, racing or both. Very light,
> biomechanically gifted runners might be able to wear them
> as everyday trainers, but most people will find that they
> break down too quickly.
I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.
A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly. If that was the case, I
have a pair of Converse Chuck Taylors for you to run your
next 5k in.
> BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
> the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
> What else ?
Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.
> > Shoe companies are starting to realize people want
> > lighter shoes, so the companies make their trainers a
> > little lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe"
> > properties still there... high heels, medial post, etc),
> > and then call them "lightweight trainers" to make to
> > buyer feel like they are buying a "fast" shoe.
> >
> > If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
> > trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
> > example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
> > trainer!
>
> Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
> that it's a flat
? I
> took a look at their webpage, and they do indeed make
> racing flats, but
the
> burn is not one of them. It's listed as a cushioned
> trainer (without much
in
> the way of advertising about the weight).
Lots of websites that sell shoes list it as a racer -
admittedly, many more list it as a lightweight trainer, a
little closer to the truth, although still stretching it.
> It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
> these shoes
though. I
> was appalled to find RunnersWorld listing the Asics
> Verdict as a racing
flat.
> I'm perfectly happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell
> isn't even close
to
> being a flat.
I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were the
flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
running shoe should be was a lot better.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."
In article <Qd04c.6287$n37.500564@read2.cgocable.net>, SwStudio wrote:
>> > I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
>> > shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
>> > as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
>> > models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
>> > simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.
>>
>> "Racing shoe" means different things to different
>> people (-;
>>
>
> So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they
> are 'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that?
> Where does one draw the line between truth and fiction?
If your trainers are a pair of 10-hole Doc Martens, then a
normal pair of trainers could well be called "racing shoes".
>> But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
>> built for high milage like trainers are. They are built
>> to be used infrequently either for speed training, racing
>> or both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might
>> be able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most
>> people will find that they break down too quickly.
>
> I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
> flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
> didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
> flats, not that they last a long time.
>
> A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
> than most and falls apart quickly.
The tiger paw (for example) is also considerably more
flexible than any of the regular trainers. I regularly run
in heavier, stiffer shoes and the tiger paws really are
substantially different in their feel.
>> BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
>> the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
>> What else ?
>
> Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
> Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.
These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
which point you draw the line, what your threshold is.
For someone used to training in fairly stiff, firm 13oz
shoes though, something like the tiger paw or even the DS
racer feels like a substantial change. Since you don't
run in such heavy shoes, you don't have any reference
points that would lead you to judge the 8oz "flat" as a
flat and not a trainer.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
> which point you draw the line, what your threshold is. For
> someone used to training in
fairly
> stiff, firm 13oz shoes though, something like the tiger
> paw or even the DS racer feels like a substantial change.
> Since you don't run in such heavy shoes, you don't have
> any reference points that would lead you to judge
the
> 8oz "flat" as a flat and not a trainer.
I see your point - I've trained and raced in NBrc2xx's for
several years now, with a brief stint in the (similar) Tiger
Paws, so I guess that is my reference point. I look at these
types of shoes as lightweight trainers. To me, a lightweight
trainer has no medial post of any kind (which excudes the
NBrc330) and usually weighs about 8 - 9oz in general. A flat
is a lightweight trainer stripped to absolute bare
essentials, at about 6oz or less, and falls apart very
quickly. I can get 500km out of my NB's before they start
feeling old (a little less with the Tiger Paws, I think the
soles aren't as durable), and real flats are throwaways
after 150 - 200km, tops.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."
"SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BJ_3c.6279$n37.498417@read2.cgocable.net...
> If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
> trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example
> - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!
This is incorrect on a couple of accounts. Brooks markets
the Burn as a lightweight training shoe, not a racing flat
and it has no medial post. Their racing flats are called the
Racer ST and the T3 Racer.
Jim Johnson
"SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qd04c.6287$n37.500564@read2.cgocable.net...
> I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were
> the flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
> midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
> those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
> dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
> running shoe should be was a lot better.
You can still buy these shoes. Just go to any mall store
that caters to teenagers and you'll find old skool
Saucony/Asics/Puma/etc. trainers and racing flats from back
in the glory days of running. They'll only set you back
about 50 bucks too.
Jim Johnson
"Jim Johnson" <ukcatfan00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BJ_3c.6279$n37.498417@read2.cgocable.net...
> > If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
> > trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
> > example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
> > trainer!
>
> This is incorrect on a couple of accounts. Brooks markets
> the Burn as a lightweight training shoe, not a racing flat
> and it has no medial post. Their racing flats are called
> the Racer ST and the T3 Racer.
>
As I type this there is a pair beside me, and trust me,
there's a medial post. I can see it, feel it, and hate it.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
