Extremely puzzled by Hoka Shoes?

Have you ever worn them? They are the cat's meow!

Over-expanded wrote:

How can Hoka charge that much more money for essentially a little more foam? Brooks Launch 2 put me back $106 with tax. Seriously, is it a gimmick that they are that thick and why THAT much more money?

Don't over pay. Stick with what you know works.

Brooks ghost $120. 350 miles

Hoka Clifton $130. 750 miles

I've gotten 3 pair for ~ $70 online. Worth everything they charge, relatively.

Because people will pay for it. Also a smaller company will obviously have much higher production costs than Nike or Brooks or Adidas. If you don't like the price, don't buy them. If enough people do that, the price will come down.

I've got 550 miles on a pair of Bondi 3's and they're probably good for another 500+

Get used to Hoka being around and being a major player. I think 80,000 people finished an ultra last year, up from 69,000 the year before. I don't think marathons are growing at that rate.

I'd say a huge percentage (more than 50%) of folks running ultras are wearing Hokas.

so when you say get 500+ miles on hokas, you're talking about the upper and the outsole eventually breaking down? Cause EVA loses its cushioning characteristics after 300+ miles so what good are they 500+ miles??? just a thick midsole w/ hardly any cushioning properties.

That's my thinking too. When the EVA is gone, what's so good about them?

dsfsdfdsfdfdf wrote:

so when you say get 500+ miles on hokas, you're talking about the upper and the outsole eventually breaking down? Cause EVA loses its cushioning characteristics after 300+ miles so what good are they 500+ miles??? just a thick midsole w/ hardly any cushioning properties.

If I don't like the price, don't buy them. Wow, thanks for telling me what I already know:)

asdfdsfxdscdfcdfg wrote:

Because people will pay for it. Also a smaller company will obviously have much higher production costs than Nike or Brooks or Adidas. If you don't like the price, don't buy them. If enough people do that, the price will come down.

Me toooooo2 wrote:

That's my thinking too. When the EVA is gone, what's so good about them?

dsfsdfdsfdfdf wrote:

so when you say get 500+ miles on hokas, you're talking about the upper and the outsole eventually breaking down? Cause EVA loses its cushioning characteristics after 300+ miles so what good are they 500+ miles??? just a thick midsole w/ hardly any cushioning properties.

I go by when my legs start aching. Takes twice as many miles on the Hokas.

Even after I quit running in them, they feel better than my other shoes when I wear them to work.

Not surprising the other shoe companies are copying the idea when they saw how successful Hoka has been.

dsfsdfdsfdfdf wrote:

so when you say get 500+ miles on hokas, you're talking about the upper and the outsole eventually breaking down? Cause EVA loses its cushioning characteristics after 300+ miles so what good are they 500+ miles??? just a thick midsole w/ hardly any cushioning properties.

The uppers on the Hokas are more or less similar in durability to other modern running shoes... not that great for the lighter weight models

Different EVA midsole materials lose their cushioning at the different rates, probably depending on the formulation and how exactly it was manufactured (time, temperature, pressure,?). I've had crappy shoes where the EVA was breaking down noticeably at the end of the first run.

More important that in this discussion though, the EVA thickness does matter for longevity of the cushioning. For a given footstrike to toe off, the average stress on the individual cells comprising the EVA midsole is less if the volume of EVA is greater. The less stress there is on the individual cells where breakdown (burst cell walls) occurs, the longer they last.

Not all the EVA within a midsole will see the same stress. The stress is probably highest at the top surface of the midsole under the highest pressure points. If you pull out the (EVA) sockliners from your shoes, you can see and feel the indents in the EVA from your toes and the ball of your foot. A similar thing is happening in the midsole. Less stressed and therefore longer lived EVA is probably in the bottom half of the midsole where the stress has spread out over more width and the individual high pressure points that can be seen on the sockliners have become indistinct, lesser broken down areas. The thickness of the Hokas gives you more EVA distant from your feet that is less stressed and will last longer.

A real world comparison between two lightweight trail shoes of the same weight: Nike Wildhorse and Hoka Challenger ATR:

I retired my Nike Wildhorses at 500 miles. At that point uppers were shredded (they had begun breaking down at less than 100 miles), and the midsoles were so flat under the ball of the feet that I couldn't feel any give at all pressing them with my fingers. They probably last felt good at about 300 miles, but I wanted to get my money's worth ($110), and I'm not injury prone that way, so I can get away with it.

The Hoka's uppers at 650 miles are also shredded. They still hold my feet well enough though, and are high enough off the ground that snow and debris doesn't come in the holes in the uppers. The midsole still feel great, with cushioning that is still better than the Nike was when it was new. Since I paid $130 for them, I'll likely run them to 1,000 miles and call it done then.

not puzzled.... wrote:

Brooks ghost $120. 350 miles

Hoka Clifton $130. 750 miles

Skechers GoRuns $100. 1000 miles.

Moon boots.

You can walk on the moon in them.

Hokas aren't that bad value for money. Salomon sense ultras are the worst. $170 and since they have such low stack heights and are designed to be racing shoes, only last 200 or so miles!!!

Hoka's have some depth to their production, are not the heaviest of shoes, and unless you hate the meta rocker the only downfall is the price. I can't imagine a better shoe for long run days, or as someone else has mentioned winter running.

Bondi & Clifton rock!

Rundork wrote:

Hoka's have some depth to their production, are not the heaviest of shoes, and unless you hate the meta rocker the only downfall is the price. I can't imagine a better shoe for long run days, or as someone else has mentioned winter running.

Bondi & Clifton rock!

Are you kidding? Except for the Cliftons (which are still heavy as a "racing flat" IMHO), all their shoes are over 10 ounces.

The problem with these off-shoot smaller companies like Hoka is they use inferior materials and thus make heavier shoes (with less quality control of production too) as compared to the major companies. I've weighed so many brands over the years, and Hoka's are some of the heaviest.

Who the hell runs in that crap!

bricks on the feet wrote:

Rundork wrote:

Hoka's have some depth to their production, are not the heaviest of shoes, and unless you hate the meta rocker the only downfall is the price. I can't imagine a better shoe for long run days, or as someone else has mentioned winter running.

Bondi & Clifton rock!

Are you kidding? Except for the Cliftons (which are still heavy as a "racing flat" IMHO), all their shoes are over 10 ounces.

The problem with these off-shoot smaller companies like Hoka is they use inferior materials and thus make heavier shoes (with less quality control of production too) as compared to the major companies. I've weighed so many brands over the years, and Hoka's are some of the heaviest.

Huaka, Challenger and Valor are sub-10 ounces

Can a moderate pronator wear Hokas? It seems like all of their shoe offerings are of the neutral variety.