Time for New Shoes

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Keith, Dec 23, 2004.

  1. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected]#duh?att.net of
    26 Dec 2004:


    >>>>I haven't worn the ASRs yet. They're still sitting under the
    >>>>Christmas tree ;-). I compared the specs from www.brooksrunning.com.
    >>>>Almost every spec is identical, so I don't know why they fit
    >>>>differently for you.
    >>>
    >>>Toe box width isn't in the specs.

    >>
    >>
    >> They are both made on a combination last and the "Universal
    >> Platform."

    >
    > Hmmm, I was assuming the "universal" (printed on insole) was the last.


    It is the last. It's also a combination last rather than a curved or
    straight last.

    > It is the same between the Trespass orig and II, and they fit *very*
    > differently for a number of people. I'm not sure about whether it was
    > combination or not between the two (doubt that the specs of original
    > is on web page anymore), and I'm not sure I trust myself to determine
    > what last it's on just by looking.
    >
    >
    >> They don't say the shoes are made on the exact same last number, but
    >> if they were, that would mean they "should" fit the same, toebox
    >> included.

    >
    > Keep in mind GTS come in widths, neither the Trespass nor the ASR (I
    > think) come in widths. I use a wide, if available.


    Well, no wonder the ASRs were snug on you.

    >>>I'm guessing, but I think what made them feel a little narrower was
    >>>the weather resistant mesh - that is my feet were feeling warmer and
    >>>hence felt snugger.

    >>
    >>
    >> Another good point. I wore my ASRs yesterday for a 4-mile run on
    >> mostly asphalt. They felt a little warm, but I also had on my new
    >> SmartWool socks. Normally I wear Wigwam Ultimax. At any rate, they
    >> did seem a little snug.

    >
    > If you get up in the mountains in the snow, and you may find them
    > about right, I'll bet. That's what I was considering them for - winter
    > use.


    > For curiosity, do you use standard or wide in the GTS? I know men's
    > shoes are different, but even many men complained about the TII
    > toebox.


    I use standard width (M).

    > Sounds like Santa was good to you :)


    Oh yes. I made *sure* that he was good to me. My family knows that I'm
    particular about my running gear, so they would never take a chance and
    buy the wrong thing. Instead, I bought what I wanted. I gave them to my
    family to give back to me, gift wrapped and under the tree. It kind of
    took the fun out of Christmas shopping, according to my wife.

    >>Today I plan on a 15-miler at the Kennesaw Mountain National
    >> Battlefiled Park. http://www.nps.gov/kemo. If the ASRs had been
    >> perfect, I would be wearing them today, but the GTS5s will have to do
    >> until I get used to the ASRs.

    >
    > Good move :)


    The GTS worked fine today. Check out my training week report. I probably
    could have used hiking boots at one point. ;-)

    >> Not that I trust Brooks' weights anymore, but I noticed that the
    >> weight of the Cascadia is 12.2 oz in men's 9M. That's less than the
    >> GTS5. I'm not sure how that could be with all the bells and whistles
    >> attached to this shoe.

    >
    > I agree.


    Maybe since Scott Jurek helped design it, he made sure they made it light
    weight, at least for a trail shoe. At 6' 2" and 165 lbs a minimalist
    trail shoe might suit him.

    Phil M.
     


  2. Tom Phillips

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Dot wrote:
    >
    > Tom Phillips wrote:
    > >
    > > Dot wrote:
    > >
    > >>Phil M. wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>On the ultra list there was some discussion about trail shoes versus road
    > >>>shoes. Many of the listers felt that road shoes were fine on trails. I
    > >>>think Doug F feels the same way.
    > >>
    > >>Right. But the critical factors are (1) which road shoes, (2) which
    > >>trail shoes, (3) what kinds of running surfaces, (4) runners' biomechanics.

    > >
    > >
    > > I say the critical factor is which trail. Some
    > > trails are like groomed highways (dirt but well
    > > maintained.) Some are nothing but rocks and
    > > slippery scree.

    >
    > I would agree, but since the comment was in comparing shoe types, I
    > started with that. One of the annoying things I find in many groups (and
    > some books, for that matter), including this one, is people state a
    > generalization like what's true in their corner of the universe is true
    > elsewhere - frequently because they don't recognize the specifics of
    > their running environment. That's why the generalization "road shoes
    > were fine on trails" (I know Phil is pulling this from elsewhere - *he*
    > would never make such an unqualified comment ;) is so misleading. Or
    > they work in "snow" or "mud". Jeez, how many kinds of snow and mud are
    > there - 30 or more?


    As many kinds as shoe marketers can dream up?

    > Some shoes work under more kinds of conditions than
    > others, and no shoes work under others ;)
    > >
    > >
    > >>snip...It just happened I started running with a lug sole in Colorado

    >
    > talk about overlooking critical data: this was around athletic fields at
    > CSU ;) It just happened that the shoe recommended in a running shoe
    > store was a Brooks with triangular lugs. I was also suffering from the
    > delusions created by a jr hi coach that 20 min was a long run (and on a
    > basketball half court, it was painful.)
    > >
    > >
    > > In the rockies anything I could stick crampons on
    > > would be my preference. I've seen very experienced
    > > runners try to run snow encrusted passes without..
    > > ...slip...crash...call for med evac... :)

    >
    > I was just reading a report on multi-day run up here. One day was over a
    > glacier. The folks with ice axes did the loop. One guy also had crampons
    > besides his ice axe. The others did an out/back. No snow over the
    > glacier like it usually had because of the heat - so was really
    > slippery.


    I witnessed a couple of trail runners some time ago
    on Dinwoody Pass in WY. 1800 ft of snow/ice. No
    crampons, insteps, or even ice axe. One lost traction
    and shot to the bottom, breaking both tibias. He was
    airborne a good 60 yds.

    > I guess a rock also got loose and just missed the group. This
    > isn't the kinda thing that I want to run. I'm far less adventurous.


    last rock fall I witnessed was a cadillac-sized
    boulder (1970's Cadillac, not today's). Broke
    off an ice fall and tobogganed at 70mph right
    across my intended path. Slippery bugger...

    > Dot


    >
    > --
    > "Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
    > who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19
     
  3. On 2004-12-27, Phil M. <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected] of 26
    > Dec 2004:
    >
    >> (-; thicker uppers, thicker/more durable outsole, thicker (and
    >> possibly more durable midsole) -- this is a heavy shoe. Most
    >> manufacturers don't do a very good job at accurately representing the
    >> weight of their lineup.

    >
    > Yep. I'm finding that out. Surely they must have a scale that is at least
    > as accurate as mine. Or maybe they just forgot to weigh it and figured
    > nobody would notice if they just slapped 12.8 oz on the spec sheet.


    Yeah, I know. It is surprising, and some of these errors seem rather
    egregious. For example, the Asics Gel Magic is "rated" at 6.5oz. It's almost
    exactly the same weight as the Tiger Paw (label claim 8.0oz) I think if
    someone jumped on them for this, they'd clean up their act, but at present,
    they really don't have much incentive to get it right.

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

    Phil M. Guest

    Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected] of 26
    Dec 2004:

    > On 2004-12-27, Phil M. <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected] of
    >> 26 Dec 2004:
    >>
    >>> (-; thicker uppers, thicker/more durable outsole, thicker (and
    >>> possibly more durable midsole) -- this is a heavy shoe. Most
    >>> manufacturers don't do a very good job at accurately representing
    >>> the weight of their lineup.

    >>
    >> Yep. I'm finding that out. Surely they must have a scale that is at
    >> least as accurate as mine. Or maybe they just forgot to weigh it and
    >> figured nobody would notice if they just slapped 12.8 oz on the spec
    >> sheet.

    >
    > Yeah, I know. It is surprising, and some of these errors seem rather
    > egregious. For example, the Asics Gel Magic is "rated" at 6.5oz. It's
    > almost exactly the same weight as the Tiger Paw (label claim 8.0oz) I
    > think if someone jumped on them for this, they'd clean up their act,
    > but at present, they really don't have much incentive to get it right.


    And of all things, on a minimalist shoe such as the Gel Magic. You'd think
    that Asics would realize that the kind of guy buying a shoe that light will
    be concerned with the actual weight. Here I am weighing a shoe that's 13 oz
    or more and I'm complaining. I think you've got a *real* reason to
    complain.

    Phil M.
     
  5. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected] of 26
    > Dec 2004:
    >
    >> (-; thicker uppers, thicker/more durable outsole, thicker (and
    >> possibly more durable midsole) -- this is a heavy shoe. Most
    >> manufacturers don't do a very good job at accurately representing the
    >> weight of their lineup.

    >
    > Yep. I'm finding that out. Surely they must have a scale that is at
    > least
    > as accurate as mine. Or maybe they just forgot to weigh it and figured
    > nobody would notice if they just slapped 12.8 oz on the spec sheet.


    It's more like the five year old can't see the numbers on the scale
    without a booster seat.

    -Doug
     
  6. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > It is the last. It's also a combination last rather than a curved or
    > straight last.


    Phil, not to be picky but combination vs cussionioned vs board(I don't
    think there are any board lasted shoes made any more) is a reference to
    the stability of the last while curved vs semi curved vs straight is the
    shape. You can buy a combination curved AND a combination straight.


    -Doug
     
  7. Did you ever think you'd see a day where a grown man would be compelled
    to ask the world if they think he's had a shoe breakdown?
     
  8. >Did you ever think you'd see a day where a grown man would be compelled
    >to ask the world if they think he's had a shoe breakdown?


    No, I gotta admit it's a new low, even for RR.
     
Loading...
Loading...