DS Trainer Mileage

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Wayne Conway, Sep 26, 2005.

  1. Wayne Conway

    Wayne Conway Guest

    Going to give the DS trainer a try. What kind of mileage can I expect?
    I'm 145lbs and will use this shoe for cushioned track work and hard
    surface racing at mostly 5K to 15K distances. Maybe as much as a half
    marathon if they work out. Yeah, this shoe would feel like an anchor to
    some of you, but the lightest shoe I've worn to date is the 2xxx series
    ASICS. Thanks.
    --
    Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
    Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
    In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.
     
    Tags:


  2. Wayne Conway wrote:
    > Going to give the DS trainer a try. What kind of mileage can I expect?
    > I'm 145lbs and will use this shoe for cushioned track work and hard
    > surface racing at mostly 5K to 15K distances. Maybe as much as a half
    > marathon if they work out. Yeah, this shoe would feel like an anchor to
    > some of you, but the lightest shoe I've worn to date is the 2xxx series
    > ASICS. Thanks.


    The DS is a pretty decent trainer. I've had about three pairs, and it
    works fine. You should do fine at your weight up to a marathon. I'm
    currently loving the Saucony Fastwitch Endurance - lovely shoe.

    Edward
     
  3. [email protected] wrote:
    > I'm currently loving the Saucony Fastwitch Endurance - lovely shoe.


    Please tell me more, Edward. I'm a couple ticks under 145 lb, prefer a
    light weight and low-ish heel, strike more or less midfoot, and can
    deal with but don't believe I absolutely require just a bit of medial
    posting. And my current 7.x oz Nike flats don't cushion well enough
    beyond 10 or 15 km of road racing, though my prior 7.x oz Nike flats
    did. Debating whether to run NYCM in my year old 325 mile Brooks Racer
    ST, buy a fresh pair of 'em, or try something else.

    (Although if the Fastwitch have exactly the same fit as [some of?]
    Saucony's trainers, their other virtues will be a non-issue for me.)

    Thanks.
     
  4. Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > I'm currently loving the Saucony Fastwitch Endurance - lovely shoe.

    >
    > Please tell me more, Edward. I'm a couple ticks under 145 lb, prefer a
    > light weight and low-ish heel, strike more or less midfoot, and can
    > deal with but don't believe I absolutely require just a bit of medial
    > posting. And my current 7.x oz Nike flats don't cushion well enough
    > beyond 10 or 15 km of road racing, though my prior 7.x oz Nike flats
    > did. Debating whether to run NYCM in my year old 325 mile Brooks Racer
    > ST, buy a fresh pair of 'em, or try something else.


    Actually I do almost all my running these days in flats, except
    off-road and x-country. I rotate the Fastwitch with Reebok Premier
    Competition (absolutely fabulous shoes - really love 'em, but I think
    they're the old style, and may not be available any more. I buy almost
    all my shoes on-line in clearance sales), Nike Ekiden (only for very
    short distances!), Adidas Adistar Competition (again, a lovely shoe,
    very comfortable) and the Fastwitch. I don't know what any of the
    weights of these are, but I'm less concerned with weight than not
    having too much heel. The Saucony have a lovely quick ride, good
    midfoot cushioning and (for me) a very good fit. But I've only owned
    two other Saucony trainers - a Grid Jazz 5000 (?) years ago, that was
    terrific, and one of their racing shoes (Grid Aya? Team Taya? Can't
    remember!) which was also fine.

    Edward
     
  5. Greg Goodson

    Greg Goodson Guest

    I ran the Strolling Jim 40 miler in TN w/ these shoes the whole way, and
    worked great. I have 500+ miles on them and they are still holding up.

    - Greg

    "Wayne Conway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Going to give the DS trainer a try. What kind of mileage can I expect?
    > I'm 145lbs and will use this shoe for cushioned track work and hard
    > surface racing at mostly 5K to 15K distances. Maybe as much as a half
    > marathon if they work out. Yeah, this shoe would feel like an anchor to
    > some of you, but the lightest shoe I've worn to date is the 2xxx series
    > ASICS. Thanks.
    > --
    > Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
    > Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
    > In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.
     
  6. Wayne Conway

    Wayne Conway Guest

    Thanks Greg,
    Good info. Bet I don't get 500 miles (my feet start talking to me), but
    it sounds like the DS is tougher than I thought.

    Greg Goodson wrote:
    > I ran the Strolling Jim 40 miler in TN w/ these shoes the whole way, and
    > worked great. I have 500+ miles on them and they are still holding up.


    --
    Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
    Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
    In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.
     
  7. to counter all the raves....the DS series went down hill after the VII
    and lost lots of followers. the VIII was radically different and a
    real piece of shit. 1) enormous amounts of "felt" or whatever that blue
    crap was on the side of the shoe, 2) elastic banded tongue?..why???.
    The flipped the shoe completely and disappointed lots of people.

    they tried to make a comeback with the IX, reduced significantly the
    felt siding, got ride of the elastic banded tongue...but the shoe imo
    still sucked. Why? "duotech / SPEVA"...call it what you want....it
    doesn't matter...the sole sucks.

    It's overly rigid, brittle, and hard. I don't believe it absorbs a
    damn thing and simply transfer shock/impact to the runner's
    foot/knee/leg. I've owned VII, VIII & IX models and the X seems like
    it's basically a prettier version of the IX.

    IX only felt good for me when I was running 100%, ball striking. I
    feel the new DS series delivers a "jarring" ride. I ran a marathon in
    the VII and loved it. Hence I bought the XIII, hated it...and prayed
    the IX improved....and it did marginally..it's still a piece of shit
    relative to it's cost and the options out there in LW trainer shoes. I
    will say this on a positive note. The shoe grips like a MF'er. You
    can midsole strike on a hill, incline or decline, on a street with rain
    and road oil on the surface...the DS trainer is going to STAB the road
    and grip....ubelievable grip with the shoe/tread.

    Hence I am using the DS T IX as my "rain shoe". I can't speak for the
    X model....but as long as it's centered on DUOTECH/SPEVA...I am sure
    the shoe sucks and is a vibrator transfering every pebble in the road
    to your knees. Durability?...5 STARS....it will last a long time as it
    transfer the impact to your knees....now those things...your knees are
    what won't last too long running in DS Trainers.

    Ya know a shoe will talk to you. A shoe that wears down aggressively
    like my beloved New Balance 900 series?....I go through 1 pair a month.
    But that shoe is taking bullets for me. That shoe is absorbing all the
    shit....and not transfering much to my knees.

    Saucony Fast shoe? LOVE IT. It's similar in profile, but a completely
    different ride than the DS T shoe. It's sole is "butter"....my god is
    it a fantastic & special flat. Why? The profile of a lightweight
    trainer, as built up of a sole, mid and heal as you can expect in a
    flat...yet very much the feel of a flat. The shoe has plenty-o-cush
    appeal....something DUOTECH/SPEVA knows nothing about. If you want
    bounce in a flat in the midsole, you can't ask for more than what the
    SaucFast will give you. The shoe breathes...solid
    ventilation...manages water well...the shoe drains...comfy
    toebox...tolerates/accomodate swelling...etc.

    Most of my flats are thin minimalist shoes....but this
    SaucFast.....it's different. I like the shoe a lot. I've ran 1 1/2M
    and a 5 Miler in mine...and I am not sure if I have the speed or the
    endurance model. They've discontinued the model I have...with the red
    logo....but you can still find them around.

    Back to the Asics shoe. Asics...stability, cushion, motion
    control...OK. But their flats suck, and their light weight trainer
    sucks. It's almost the very opposite of Nike.
     
  8. Wayne Conway

    Wayne Conway Guest

    Funny how we tend to keep going back to things that, maybe once in the
    past, worked for us. I do the same thing with the 2xxx series ASICS. The
    2060 and 2080 worked well for me, but I have had trouble with all others
    in the series (I can still get my beloved 2080's at Roadrunner). But you
    know, I'll probably be in line for the next version that comes along.
    Seems we are always trying to recapture that feeling of "the first
    time". Kept a copy of your impassioned reply-good report Lance.

    [email protected] wrote:
    > to counter all the raves....the DS series went down hill after the VII
    > and lost lots of followers. the VIII was radically different and a
    > real piece of shit. 1) enormous amounts of "felt" or whatever that blue
    > crap was on the side of the shoe, 2) elastic banded tongue?..why???.
    > The flipped the shoe completely and disappointed lots of people.
    >
    > they tried to make a comeback with the IX, reduced significantly the
    > felt siding, got ride of the elastic banded tongue...but the shoe imo
    > still sucked. Why? "duotech / SPEVA"...call it what you want....it
    > doesn't matter...the sole sucks.
    >
    > It's overly rigid, brittle, and hard. I don't believe it absorbs a
    > damn thing and simply transfer shock/impact to the runner's
    > foot/knee/leg. I've owned VII, VIII & IX models and the X seems like
    > it's basically a prettier version of the IX.
    >
    > IX only felt good for me when I was running 100%, ball striking. I
    > feel the new DS series delivers a "jarring" ride. I ran a marathon in
    > the VII and loved it. Hence I bought the XIII, hated it...and prayed
    > the IX improved....and it did marginally..it's still a piece of shit
    > relative to it's cost and the options out there in LW trainer shoes. I
    > will say this on a positive note. The shoe grips like a MF'er. You
    > can midsole strike on a hill, incline or decline, on a street with rain
    > and road oil on the surface...the DS trainer is going to STAB the road
    > and grip....ubelievable grip with the shoe/tread.
    >
    > Hence I am using the DS T IX as my "rain shoe". I can't speak for the
    > X model....but as long as it's centered on DUOTECH/SPEVA...I am sure
    > the shoe sucks and is a vibrator transfering every pebble in the road
    > to your knees. Durability?...5 STARS....it will last a long time as it
    > transfer the impact to your knees....now those things...your knees are
    > what won't last too long running in DS Trainers.
    >
    > Ya know a shoe will talk to you. A shoe that wears down aggressively
    > like my beloved New Balance 900 series?....I go through 1 pair a month.
    > But that shoe is taking bullets for me. That shoe is absorbing all the
    > shit....and not transfering much to my knees.
    >
    > Saucony Fast shoe? LOVE IT. It's similar in profile, but a completely
    > different ride than the DS T shoe. It's sole is "butter"....my god is
    > it a fantastic & special flat. Why? The profile of a lightweight
    > trainer, as built up of a sole, mid and heal as you can expect in a
    > flat...yet very much the feel of a flat. The shoe has plenty-o-cush
    > appeal....something DUOTECH/SPEVA knows nothing about. If you want
    > bounce in a flat in the midsole, you can't ask for more than what the
    > SaucFast will give you. The shoe breathes...solid
    > ventilation...manages water well...the shoe drains...comfy
    > toebox...tolerates/accomodate swelling...etc.
    >
    > Most of my flats are thin minimalist shoes....but this
    > SaucFast.....it's different. I like the shoe a lot. I've ran 1 1/2M
    > and a 5 Miler in mine...and I am not sure if I have the speed or the
    > endurance model. They've discontinued the model I have...with the red
    > logo....but you can still find them around.
    >
    > Back to the Asics shoe. Asics...stability, cushion, motion
    > control...OK. But their flats suck, and their light weight trainer
    > sucks. It's almost the very opposite of Nike.
    >


    --
    Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
    Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
    In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.
     
  9. [email protected] wrote:
    > Back to the Asics shoe. Asics...stability, cushion, motion
    > control...OK. But their flats suck, and their light weight trainer
    > sucks. It's almost the very opposite of Nike.


    I'd think a runner at your level would be well-served by the Shox, no?

    Pendejo, ducking and running
     
  10. On 27 Sep 2005 10:05:36 -0700, "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I'd think a runner at your level would be well-served by the Shox, no?
    >
    >Pendejo, ducking and running


    You think it's a joke, but he was the first poster here to buy and
    wear them.
     
  11. TheBillRogers wrote:
    > Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    >
    >> a runner at your level would be well-served by the Shox, no?

    >
    > You think it's a joke, but he was the first poster here to buy and
    > wear them.


    Your insane anti-Nike bias is a shame, Billy Boi, because AFAICT the
    Shox are actually perfect for someone of your heft and pace.
     
  12. The Bad Guy

    The Bad Guy Guest

    >Your insane anti-Nike bias is a shame, Billy Boi, because AFAICT the
    Shox are actually perfect for someone of your heft and pace.

    So Bill is dead then? Why weren't we told? Dammit, I've been replying
    to all those posts for nothing?
     
  13. funny stuff pendejo...

    http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1103548,00.html

    I give this company a pop on this ng every year about this time They
    make the illegal shoe, the shoe that's banned by USA Track & Field
    Rule 143 (3)(a), which states that "no spring ... may be incorporated
    in the shoes."

    I've seen'em, touched & tried'em on at an expo...never bought or ran
    in'em.
     
Loading...
Loading...