Check out those 800 spikes, w/ the carbon fiber. They look totally legit. Maybe not as light as victories, but they seem similar to milers. Plus the carbon fiber brings major street cred.
Check out those 800 spikes, w/ the carbon fiber. They look totally legit. Maybe not as light as victories, but they seem similar to milers. Plus the carbon fiber brings major street cred.
shoe geek wrote:
New Balance tries to hard to serve too many. they refuse to give up the old people market by making shoes like the 993, 883, etc and promoting their "made in usa" products.
Instead of focusing on catching up with product development and innovation they try to stay "heritage."
You work for nike right? Everything in your post looks exactly like nike trying to bash Footlocker for having their National cross country meet. What exactly is the old people market haha. You nike people are so stupid.
I got a few pair of NB in the mid to late 70's because their shoes were pretty good then, but they kept changing them, not staying the same. I found a model that I liked, they changed the model completely and they didn't work for me any more. Their shoes were pretty good, but they lacked consistency, they got rid of the things that worked and put in new innovations that did not.
Perhaps they were trying to emulate nike, but to their detriment. I wore one pair of nike racing shoes and the things turned over on their sides. I never again wore another pair of nikes after that. All this nike innovation like soles full of air and other bull crap like that has destroyed the good running shoes that used to exist before they came along. Even Jim Peter's plimsoles would be much better. You've got all your facts bass ackwards and that's probably where they came from. I don't know of any "old people" who like nike running shoes.
NB Flats... wrote:
RC 205 is one:
http://www.newbalance.com/performance/running/products/RC205/
That's a good example of a totally crap pair of shoes.
Look at this, you'd end up running on your arches.
http://www.newbalance.com/images/image.php?quality=90&width=432&height=214&output=png&image=/images/products/profile/RC205WR.pngNB has their heads up their butts, almost as bad as does nike.
Here's my dilemma with NB-
Years ago I wore them. They were shot after about 200-225 miles. I get 350+ out of other shoes and I usually replace them BEFORE they really need it.
As a result I just haven't worn NB in years, figuring why take a chance?
How are the new shoes? Could I get 350 out of them like I do with ASICS and Nike?
Why are all of you shoe geeks so worked up that NB shoes aren't soft enough? The 1080 is hands down a better shoe than that POS marshmallow Cumulus. What is so bad about a firmer shoe? Some people (myself included) like it better than a squishy, mushy horseshit shoe like the Pegasus.
I actually like the 860 quite a bit, although I wish they could have saved a little weight on the outsole.
759 is very solid. Its a BETTER shoe than the Pegasus, which is why they aren't priced the same.
100/101 is a dogshit shoe for posers and wannabes, but the minimus line looks legit. How can you claim the rest of their shoes feel like bricks, and then the only shoe that actually feels like a brick is the one you like? The upper fits like a floppy dick, and the foam heel counter thing is atrocious. At least they're cheap.
850 is a solid shoe for heavy overpronators who don't want to run in a motion control boot.
1080 is an improvement on the 1064, in that it fits much better. Same firmer ride, but again, that is PREFERENCE.
870 had potential, but the outsole is pretty chintzy, same problem with the 905.
My biggest problem with NB is they they are going on 2 years without a legit racing flat. How can you even hope to claim that you're a major running shoe manufacturer if the only shoe you offer to dealers is the RC769 (a dogshit 9 oz fattie flat), and your only decent flat is available on your own website and nowhere else?
NB isn't top of the heap, but I'd say quality of shoes are on par with Nike and Saucony (and unlike Saucony, they can keep their fit relatively consistent from year to year). Not terrible, not great. Can't touch Asics and Brooks, much better than Puma and Pearl Izumi. Adidas makes much better shoes, but they just don't sell.
Would it be better if NB used names instead of numbers for their shoes? I know, it has been that way since the 1970's or so......Anyone else have a hard time remembering all of the numbers? Maybe they would sell more with using names? Just wondering.....The numbers used to correspond to the price of the shoe from what I remember of the 1980's. You really have to be a shoe geek to remember all of the numbers, rather than just a name, ie Grid Omni, Pegasus, Tailwind, Extender, Waffle Racers, Harambees, etc.
The only NB shoes I've ever owned were the RC1 racing flats. Very lightweight with some decent cushioning. I've never seen them get anywhere close to them again! http://www.aperfectdealer.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/scstore/p-RC1M.html?E+scstore
Just wait until you guys see the new RC 1400 flat. Yeah buddy. Only wish it were already available.
What is with the numbers? wrote:
Would it be better if NB used names instead of numbers for their shoes? I know, it has been that way since the 1970's or so......Anyone else have a hard time remembering all of the numbers? Maybe they would sell more with using names? Just wondering.....The numbers used to correspond to the price of the shoe from what I remember of the 1980's. You really have to be a shoe geek to remember all of the numbers, rather than just a name, ie Grid Omni, Pegasus, Tailwind, Extender, Waffle Racers, Harambees, etc.
I second that. I am a NB wear tester, have tested many of their shoes over the years, but if you asked me to remember which ones -- forget it. The nunmbers are totally confusing and forgettable.
nerp wrote:
Why are all of you shoe geeks so worked up that NB shoes aren't soft enough?
I wore a pair of NB in the 1970's for 1600 miles.
Finally the tops were coming apart in the front, but the soles and rest of the uppers were still good. The shoe was not perfect but was much better than anything else that I've worn in the last 30 years.
They changed the model, and it never worked for me again after that. The RW shoe ratings are responsible for destroying shoes, because they were based on companies like nike making cheap shoes and a profit instead of shoes that runners wanted and were durable.
The soft sole crap is a good example of this, a nike innovation, and soles made of air???? How stupid could they get.
I'd like to see firm durable soles like NB used to make in the 1970's, with durable nylon uppers on the top, and get rid of the gimmicks.
I was originally considering nb in the marketing sense, but I guess quality shoes are necessary to keep customers. But I have always considered them to be a solid brand. I think nikes are hands down the best spikes but have tried to do too much with their trainers as of late.
Scottdye wrote:
RC 205 is one:
http://www.newbalance.com/performance/running/products/RC205/
That shoe is 7.8 oz. My training shoe is lighter. Real racing flat should be in the 4 to 5 oz range[/quote]
You're a moron, there are only three flats on the market that weight 4.x ounces--Mizuno Universe, Nike Streak XC 2, and ASICS Piranha, and none of them are built for a marathon. Even Nike's new top-flight marathon flat weighs 6.5 oz.
I bought a bunch of RC150's back in 2002 and then attic'ed them during my couch years. Now that I run again, they make a nice shoe.
How did you get to be a NB wear tester? I do think that the numbers get really confusing!
Starting now NB is going to a new number system that should make things less complicated. The number system is just part of their history. It will take a little time for this new number system to fall into place. I think the numbering of shoes sometimes is better. Some of the shoe names out there are pretty lame.
New Balance is totally going H.A.M. on this running game shit!
What do you mean "built for the marathon"? The Pirahna and Streak XC are both great flats and would be fine for the marathon. I've never worn the Universe but it'd probably be ok.
Yes I own both these shoes and have run fast marathons in them.
I think the 905 is one of the best lighweight trainers on the market right now. Sadly they are discontinuing it in favor of a new model:
http://blog.runningwarehouse.com/uncategorized/new-balance-1190-first-look/
New shoe looks like a posted Launch, might turn out well.
Dick Beardsley kicks ass!!!
