Doug Freese said:Dot wrote:
< [Yes, Brooks changed the fit of the
Quoted message said:Trespass 2 and narrowed the toebox 🙁 🙁 Glad I still have 1 new and 1 almost new pairs of the
1's left.]
I've always wanted to know someone close to a shoe company to understand what data they use when
they start to make changes like narrowing the toe box. Canceling a model would probably mean
they are not making money. When they leave the name the same yet change one or more
characteristics. I wonder.
In this case, the Trespass 1 was received very favorably, at least as far as anything I heard. The
main drawback was the upper which wasn't very durable, according to some users. My first pair (a
little over 200 miles to date, more than I got from my Grid Stabils) is starting to wear a little on
the outside of upper, but I haven't done a lot (any?) of bushwacking type running in them. That wear
didn't become noticeable until I started snowshoeing a couple weeks ago. They still feel the same as
the pair with about 20 miles on them, which I take as a good sign. The lugs, which I thought would
wear quickly, are still in good shape. I did find the uppers extremely porous / drainable so that I
was running with wet feet many times when I would've normally had damp feet (too porous), cold feet
in the little bit of wet snow we had last year (too porous), and *only* wet feet when I might have
had really squishy feet in the GS (trespass drained well). With this year's dry snow I haven't had
any problems with cold feet, even in temperatures about 20 deg F colder (0-10F vs 20-30F), but I
haven't been *in* the snow as much as *on* the snow this year.
The new shoe addressed most people's complaints about the upper. It's a weather resistant material
that at least one person has found breathable enough for 90F runs.
They also added a nylon (I think) protection plate, that is still reasonably flexible but provides
substantial protection from pointy-side up rocks. (Both this and the previous comment are from
different reviewers on RW trail forum, one of whom also posted on ultra list). I had to manually
bend the toe area to make it flexible enough for me. And I'm still evaluating whether this is good
or bad in terms of my biomechanics issues.
People that liked the original trespass all commented about how nice the toebox was. And I don't
think they changed the men's shoe in the toe box, at least the posters that have commented on the
new version have been extremely favorable to the changes and continue to say that toe box is
adequate - but they've been men. (Men's shoes generally don't fit me right.)
But they didn't have to change the toe box to make those changes.
The original women's Trespass came in "medium" (usually equivalent to B width) which had the same
fit as same size Adrenaline D width. Women's version of new Trespass indicates B width on the box
and even looks narrower in box. The men's new version is labelled "medium" (according to a poster),
which is usually equivalent to a D width. I can make the new ones work "ok" (= about on par with
other models, but not as nice as old ones) by not lacing the bottom 1 or 2 holes. There's other
lacing patterns I may try as well as different insert that might allow more space, but I give up a
lot of shock absorption if I change inserts (at least I did with 1's), but plastic insert may reduce
need for this. Dunno.
Since I bought a pair of Adrenalines D width at same time (for everyday shoes since I knew these fit
and have been frustrated trying to get other shoes of any sort that work for me), I tried on the
Trespass 1 and 2 and the Adrenalines - one right after another with same socks - and the 2's were
definitely narrower. Tried this 2 different times - one at night, once in morning. And the
difference in very real, unfortunately.
Quoted message said:FWIW, I have never seen a shoe survey to collect data. Are the shoe salesman possibly a source?
RW shoe forum and to a lesser extent on trail/ultra - but *not* by RW people. One of the PT's there
was going to be meeting with a Saucony rep and solicited opinions on what people would like to see
in shoes (general statement, not referring to Saucony models). One of the biggest complaints I saw
in posts was toe boxes are too small - but 1st was companies changing models all the time.
FWIW, I did ask the place where I got them (same PT as above) to check if there was a wider
version, and I also e-mailed Brooks asking them if they were going to return to the same width as
the original Trespass in the future versions. I told them to consider this a vote for a wider toe
box - have 2 widths if need be. I told them I'd probably have to look for another shoe in the
future because of the change (but not in a threatening manner). I generally won't write a letter or
make a phone call to complain, but I *will* use those "Contact Us" buttons to provide input
positively or negatively. Whether it all gets filtered to their spam mailbox or not, I don't know,
but Brooks did reply - they'd forward my msg. I would think that non-monopoly businesses would have
to be more responsive to users these days. News - both good and bad - about products spreads *very*
rapidly on internet.
When Montrail designed their glove-fit shoes, I believe they surveyed / measured I don't remember
how many runners (1000 or more?) to get a bunch of key measurements of foot. They then designed the
shoe to fit 80% of those. Yep, guess who's in one of the tails 🙁 Actually, once I could pry my foot
into the shoe, the main part of shoe felt really nice. But I have a high arch / high volume foot so
getting in/out of a proper size was extremely difficult. The suction popped when I pulled my foot
out of one of them.
I'm guessing the more progressive shoe stores / PT's may be able to provide useful input to shoe
companies. They obviously meet with the company reps and hopefully, the owner / PT could provide
feedback from runners coming in for repeat business or even 1st time fittings. They liked (or didn't
like) such and such a model because ... And I suspect other companies just sell shoes rather than
trying to influence product line.
What I'm wondering is why running shoe companies seem to be able to fit people's feet better than
other shoes. They seem to have more lasts and widths. Many people wear running-type shoes all the
time, including professional meetings, because they fit better than other styles. Or maybe it's just
our local stores (including Anchorage).
Somebody needs to develop a custom-molded shoe like they do with ski boots.
Dot yep, you pushed my button 😉
--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
