Biggest Mistake By Running Shoe Manufacturers

RE: You're picky. +1

Unless you're physically deformed or disabled, I can't see how anyone could struggle so much to find a shoe that works. They're just freaking shoes. They're not all that different from each other.

If wanting a shoe that doesn't cause discomfort when running or even just walking around the house is being picky then, yes, I guesss I am. If other people are willing to endure a less-than-perfect fit just to have something on their feet, more power to them. There are a few current models that fit comfortably on my foot but, as stated before, they have anti-pronation support that makes the shoe uncomfortable to run in.

It hasn't always been such a struggle. Back in the 80s I loved the Tiger Excalibur and went through many pairs before Tiger (or was it Asics by then?) decided to tweak the shoe by adding a medial post. Then I wore the Saucony Jazz and Shadow until, again, the shoe company "improved" them beyond recognition.

I'll also admit this: I have not looked at any of the minimalist shoes, but I'm too dang heavy to go without a reasonable about of cushioning.

themanontherun wrote:

Shoe Misery wrote:

Not true. I have written to Saucony on more than one occasion addressing this very issue. Rather than answer my question directly, they always try to steer me to another shoe within their line that fits NOTHING like the Omni I referenced in my example.

I'm guessing you're wrong; the Echelon is literally an unposted Omni. It has the same last, same midsole, and almost the same upper (only overlays and color are different).

Also, feet that do and don't pronate tend to have different shapes, so the last of the shoe needs to be different to reflect that. That are exceptions, but they are just that; exceptions.

No, I'm not wrong. As stated in another post, the Echelon is not one of the shoes recommended by Saucony when I presented my plight. They suggested the Ride and the Guide (despite the fact I said I wanted no extra medial support).

Thanks for the extra info, though. I do intend to give the Echelon a shot, as well as the Brooks and Asics models suggested by another poster.

It is not just the posting that determines how stable a shoe is. The upper matters as well.

The uppers of more controlling shoes are built up more than less controlling shoes -- more/bigger overlays, etc. So to build a shoe suited for a more neutral runner, you tend to simplify the upper -- which alters the fit.

Not sure if this is an option you're comfortable with, but I've "unposted" a shoe before. Had a pair of Adidas that I got for cheap with a post, figured it wouldn't be a big deal. Hated the post, so I took a power drill and drilled 6-8 staggered holes straight into the post. After a run or two, I couldn't even tell it was there. Basically it allowed the foam to collapse as much as the less dense foam, making the feel almost identical. Not for the faint of heart, but maybe worth a try on an old pair?

Streaker wrote:

Not sure if this is an option you're comfortable with, but I've "unposted" a shoe before. Had a pair of Adidas that I got for cheap with a post, figured it wouldn't be a big deal. Hated the post, so I took a power drill and drilled 6-8 staggered holes straight into the post. After a run or two, I couldn't even tell it was there. Basically it allowed the foam to collapse as much as the less dense foam, making the feel almost identical. Not for the faint of heart, but maybe worth a try on an old pair?

Interesting. Worth a shot on an old pair, for sure. Thanks for the tip.

SMJO wrote:

There's your trouble. Running shoe shops. You need to look at the stores that don't cater to just running. Most of the shoe companies have lower priced models of much simpler construction that aren't considered complex enough for the "real" running shoe market.

Those are the shoes that fit like a glove and don't have any of the ridiculous motion control attachments.

I agree. Why do runners think they need special shoes? I 'overpronate' on my left foot, but so what? That's my natural running style, trying to 'correct it' would just slow me down and cause injuries.

Ohio Bowling wrote:

Saucony was made with women in mind.

they are the first running shoe brand that made a shoe just for women. You will need to be a woman, or have feet like a woman to use these shoes and feel comfortable.

I believe it. Saucony makes the worst, the absolute worst, running shoes. I've gotten a couple pairs, thought they felt alright after a jog in the store only to realize they were pure hell on my feet within a mile or two. Breaking them did not help. I'd rather wear reebok and I'm not sure they even make running shoes any more. Steer clear of Saucony, unless maybe you are a woman with oddly shaped feet.

Why don't you wear neutral shoes if you don't like pronation control?

Taco Truck wrote:

Why don't you wear neutral shoes if you don't like pronation control?

That's the point. The only shoes I can find that are a comfortable FIT are uncomfortable TO RUN IN because of the pronation control. My suggestion was that shoe companies make two versions of the same shoe, allowing the same FIT for both but providing the option of whether or not the runner wants added pronation control.

I have since learned that there are other variables that create a certain fit, but still...

I think part of the issue that you may be missing is that the shoe companies have a limited number of models that they can manufacturer. Each model has its own startup and fixed costs associated with it and to economically justify selling a shoe they need to sell X pairs (i.e the break even #).

There will be certain pronation / fit combinations that don't have a large enough potential market, will likely not hit the break even mark, therefore, they won't sell that model. Managing shoe supply to match demand is a non-trivial task and becomes complicated the more product lines being sold.

This is then even further complicated by limited manufacturing resources. I am not deeply knowledgeable about the running shoe manufacturing process, but it's safe to assume that they only have so many manufacturing lines available so their is also a hard cap on how many shoes they can make, in addition to the economic and financial constraints.

Lastly, the entire line of shoes sold by saucony or nike is managed like a portfolio. It's designed in a way to maximize the overall return of the portfolio. Practically this means that shoe X with the right fit and pronation control could be sold at economically feasible levels if it were the only shoe being sold, but when considering it relative to both other shoes sold by that company and shoes sold by other companies it may still end up being "shelved" because of a variety of reasons, such as cannibalization, lower ROI relative to other shoes, corporate political reasons.

i think the biggest mistake is changing the stack height of shoes (to to heel drop) to < 10mm on many of the high performance shoes.

if you are new to running and new to buying running shoes, then the lower stack heights aren't going to matter.

But if you have been running for 20+ years in shoes with a stack height of 10+mm and switch to a

I wish nike would bring back the waffle racer. It's hard finding a simple racing flat. The only flat shoes are the goofy 'minimalist' shoes not real running shoes.

Asleep at the wheel wrote:

i think the biggest mistake is changing the stack height of shoes (to to heel drop) to < 10mm on many of the high performance shoes.

so we need more stack on the high performance shoes even though the faster we run the less we even need a heel in a shoe.

Chris05959 wrote:

I hate how Asics is slowly turning every model into a $200 shoe. I have to scour the internet to find last year's Nimbus model to afford it.

yes, and the last two pair I had ripped completely were the mesh meets the sole. I have worn holes in the last three Asics I owned - and not a tone of mileage - the soles were still good.

Their quality has steadily decreased even in the higher end shoes.

I buy Sacaony now even though they dont feel as good I can't have my sneakers falling apart.

please clarify wrote:

Asleep at the wheel wrote:

i think the biggest mistake is changing the stack height of shoes (to to heel drop) to < 10mm on many of the high performance shoes.

so we need more stack on the high performance shoes even though the faster we run the less we even need a heel in a shoe.

if you just started running and you are used to low stack height shoes, no problem. but if you have been running in a 10mm stack height for 20 years, the switch to a lower stack height it can be detrimental to your ankles and achilles.