Shoes similiar to the New Balance 766

You look like the monkeyman who invaded my village as a young child.

I used to wear the NB 766's. I like the Brooks Adrenaline and Ravenna. I think either would be similar to the 766's.

I still have the Ravenna 1's, stocked up when they were clearing out of them.

I really liked the 765 and 768. You can still find some 768 on ebay. I'm still wearing a pair of them. After the 768 NB greatly changed the series for the worse. As the other poster mentioned, try the Brooks Adrenaline or NB 1260v3.

They are not that different. Try the NB 860, Brooks Adrenaline, Ravenna, Asics 2000, 1000, Saucony Guide 7.

Why are people recommending the Ravenna and Adrenaline? Those are stability shoes with medial posts - what he specifically said he didn't want.

Check out the Brooks Launch, and New Balance 890. Both are great neutral trainers.

He actually said he didn't want a stiff post. The Ravenna is quite flexible for a stability shoe. Brooks actually calls it guidance. Additionally, the 760 had a relatively stiff post, so the Adrenaline is actually the most similar in the Brooks assortment.

*stipe wrote:

He actually said he didn't want a stiff post. The Ravenna is quite flexible for a stability shoe. Brooks actually calls it guidance. Additionally, the 760 had a relatively stiff post, so the Adrenaline is actually the most similar in the Brooks assortment.

Guess I wouldn't know. I've held and flexed it, but never run in it.

If we're going lightweight stability, I'd say Mizuno Precision would be a good choice. I actually think the Peg 31 has some solid inherent stability too, if the OP is willing to give Nike a shot.

lfk wrote:

*stipe wrote:

He actually said he didn't want a stiff post. The Ravenna is quite flexible for a stability shoe. Brooks actually calls it guidance. Additionally, the 760 had a relatively stiff post, so the Adrenaline is actually the most similar in the Brooks assortment.

Guess I wouldn't know. I've held and flexed it, but never run in it.

If we're going lightweight stability, I'd say Mizuno Precision would be a good choice. I actually think the Peg 31 has some solid inherent stability too, if the OP is willing to give Nike a shot.

I actually owned a pair of Nike Cesium's back in the day. It was an experimental stability shoe without a medial post. I used it for walking. Those shoes lasted a long time. I don't think Nike's shoe are very inferior to their competitors, its just their lines have little consistency. They're constantly tinkering with new technologies from year to year. How many times has the Pegasus been overhauled? I think this is why Nike isn't as seen as reliable among a lot of veteran runners. Asics on the other hand makes only minimal adjustments every year. However, Nike's flyknit uppers look intriguing.

And when did shoes become so expensive? I think even when you adjust for inflation, shoes are more expensive.

lfk wrote:

Why are people recommending the Ravenna and Adrenaline? Those are stability shoes with medial posts - what he specifically said he didn't want.

Check out the Brooks Launch, and New Balance 890. Both are great neutral trainers.

Is the Launch basically the Brooks Radius?

My team used to wear everything Brooks. I tried everything from the Dyad, Radius, Beast, and one of their stability shoes. I never got injured even though those are different shoe types. I guess I never tried Nike or Adidas because their shoes are so damn narrow. They do make great spikes though.

No. The Launch has no stability elements at all. It's basically a soft, uniform piece of foam. And it's amazing. But if you're looking for something with midfoot stability from Brooks, that would be the Pure Cadence, and as mentioned before me, the Ravenna.