The Puma Faas Design Team Answers Your Questions (Jan. 10-12)

I recently purchased a new trainer. I was hoping to get a lightweight neutral trainer and was curious about the Faas line. I had not yet done a ton of research when I ended up at a Puma outlet. They had the 500 and 250 (or 300) there in my size or at least close enough for me to try them. The 250 was a better feel than the 500 but I needed more info. Lacking a smartphone and as there was no display info in the store on the products and their most appropriate use, I thought I might be able to get info on the product from an actual salesperson. Just then a worker walked by and said to me "Those are cute shoes where did you find them." At that point, I realized that I was doomed not to get much info but thought I would ask. Needless to say, I didn't risk ending up with a shoe which would not work for me. I purchased a shoe online from a competitor.

I realize this isn't a question but thought this would be a decent spot to pass this along in hopes you could do a similar q and a for your store workers. Good luck with the product, it does look promising.

I run my easy/long runs in Mizuno Wave Riders, and I use Adidas adiZERO flats for workouts and road races. If I wanted to get a pair of Puma lightweight trainers which ones would be the best for me?

It seems like a lot running shoes on the market today are a compromise between what serious runners actually want and what will sell well to a wider audience. To what extent have you all had to compromise your vision for the shoe in order to make it profitable?

First off, I would like to thank you and the Puma crew (plus LetsRun) for allowing this type of discussion. Seriously, how many of you had the chance to speak/give "in put" on a shoe brand??? Let's show some respect here...

Joanna, thank you very much for your input and suggestions. Sometimes, I just need to "hear" if I am doing the right thing or not. The reason I was contemplating whether to wear the Puma Faas 300s versus the Nike Frees, every time I would wear the Pumas, it felt so natural. Can't explain it. Maybe b/c of the overlays? I find with new the Nike Free Run+2, parts of the overlay bug the crap out of me, otherwise I think they feel very similar except the Pumas do feel lower and lighter to the ground then the Frees.

Also, I agree with the poster who asked about "why so much variation of the different Faas line", especially the width of the forefoot. I have fairly small to normal high arch foot (female here, if I didn't mention before..) and part of reason I can't wear the other Faas line i.e." 400 and higher

Btw, thanks for clarifying that Faas 400 is an everyday trainer b/c the guy @my local Puma store told me it was a "cross trainer shoe???"

Again, THANK YOU all for this discussion. I will book mark this...

What are the heel to toe drop on the shoes in the Faas line? Having a low drop is one of the most important things I look for in a shoe, and on the Puma website I couldn't find that information. I wanted to try out one of the more light weight models, but I couldn't find out if the drop was to my liking. I am sure many other serious runners are wondering the same thing and it would help a lot if you could share this information. Thanks!

Beyond marketing, is there any reason that shoe companies constantly tinker with an existing (established) model that seems to work? Why not leave a shoe alone if it works for existing customer? Inevitably, once changed, a population of runners are alienated b/c the fit is not what they expected, causing resentment.

minimal wrote:

are faas shoes minimal?

Hi 'minimal',

Yes and No. The idea behind the Faas shoes was to build a line of shoes that provided just what you need in a shoe and nothing more. It started by someone asking, "What do you really need in a shoe?" and continued through us constantly asking each other, "do we really need that?" Many commonly called "minimal" shoes are differentiated through low heel-to-toe ratios or zero drops.The Faas shoes were designed to be as simple as possible while still providing some support underfoot. By providing multiple variations of heel-to-toe ratios and different levels of cushioning we could offer a line that provided racing flats as well as training shoes. I personally would call the shoes "simple" (rather than minimal), but either way, there's not a lot to them...except what you need in a shoe.

While you seem to be doing a good job at marketing the FAAS line and are trying to getting people excited about it. With that being said do you plan on trying to have a bigger presence by sponsoring more American distance runners or college teams? I notice you sponsor a few college teams (Columbia, La Salle, Adams State) and only 2 American distance runners (Delilah and Sean Quigley)

rillbodgers wrote:

It seems like a lot running shoes on the market today are a compromise between what serious runners actually want and what will sell well to a wider audience. To what extent have you all had to compromise your vision for the shoe in order to make it profitable?

This is a great question. There are a lot of compromises made just to make a shoe - turning a design into a functional construction can be challenging - for example, you may realize during the process that the material you originally wanted doesn't bond the way you want it to, so you either pick a different material or stitch it on (neither are exactly what you want). The whole process of creating the shoe, getting it approved internally and actually getting it to market requires endless adjustments and compromises. I don't know how it is for you, but this sure as hell parallels my own running career - endless adjustments and compromises in an attempt to pursue a bigger vision for myself. Creating a line of shoes has to support corporate strategy as well as our own ideals. If the shoes don’t sell then nobody wins. And at the end of the day there’s always room to evolve. You can always make a shoe better (let’s be real – it’d be boring if it were otherwise). But the way I see it, you have to embrace the process. In my perfect world I’d be able to run full time and get paid. Unfortunately, I’m not fast enough. But I’m lucky that I can have a job that allows me to work in the same field that I’m so passionate about. Running is a process – you have to embrace the journey.

qwertqwertqwerty wrote:

I run my easy/long runs in Mizuno Wave Riders, and I use Adidas adiZERO flats for workouts and road races. If I wanted to get a pair of Puma lightweight trainers which ones would be the best for me?

Hi qwertqwertqwerty,

I would recommend the Faas 500s - they are a lightweight neutral trainer and would be a good place to start for some easy runs. The Faas 300 and 250 are racing flats ideal for faster workouts and races. They are on the same tooling, but the 250 has a more minimal upper where the 300 has a little bit more around the forefoot. I personally like the 300 better (I feel like it wraps your foot a bit more) but I know lots of runners who prefer the 250 for faster stuff. Try both on and see which you like best. Hope this helps!

Hi brogan1,

When it comes to the Faas line we definitely push the envelope with some of the colors. However we do also offer some core colors as well that you can wear whether while running or otherwise. We try our best to follow a portfolio color approach within a style so we can meet the needs of various consumers and channels of distribution. It's definitely challenging keeping everyone (globally) happy when you only can offer 2-4 colors in a style, but we are constantly working on it.

The Faas cushioning scale from 0 to 1000 speaks to more cushioning the higher you go and more speed and a more natural ride the lower you go. The degree of support/stability depends more on the engineering of that specific style versus the scale.

We have a new shoe launching shortly - the Faas 800 - which is a lightweight stability running shoe. It could be a good option to try out. It has a traditional heel to toe drop of 12mm. In the fall we have a new lightweight lower profile option called the Faas 350 that will launch. It has a 4mm heel to toe drop and is definitely an option for someone who has already transitioned to the lower drop or is looking to start making that transition. Both shoes have engineered stability versus a medial post and/or TPU pieces.

Thanks for the questions

MM in RIC wrote:

Beyond marketing, is there any reason that shoe companies constantly tinker with an existing (established) model that seems to work? Why not leave a shoe alone if it works for existing customer? Inevitably, once changed, a population of runners are alienated b/c the fit is not what they expected, causing resentment.

Hi MM in RIC,

Great question. It's a fine line especially today with the running market changing faster than it has in the past. Yes brands could avoid changing a model if it's been successful and leave it inline for years (that still happens with certain models), but if you don't update a style you run the risk of not keeping up with what the consumer needs/wants and the latest technologies available. The key while updating a model is to retain what has been successful and improve the areas you can - all the while keeping the end consumer in mind.

Fortunately or unfortunately shoe making is not a complete science and so even a tweak to an existing design could change certain aspects of fit or feel. The end objective for all the brands is to gain more consumers with every update knowing full well that they might/will lose a few. I don't think brands mess with the fit/last of a shoe if it's been a huge success unless they see a greater consumer benefit.

Hope that answers your questions.

Nicholas L. wrote:

What are the heel to toe drop on the shoes in the Faas line? Having a low drop is one of the most important things I look for in a shoe, and on the Puma website I couldn't find that information. I wanted to try out one of the more light weight models, but I couldn't find out if the drop was to my liking. I am sure many other serious runners are wondering the same thing and it would help a lot if you could share this information. Thanks!

Hi Nicholas L,

Very good question. The Heel-to-toe drops in the Faas line are below. Going forward, the Faas line will evolve to include both shoes with lower heel-to-toe drops (4-6mm) as well as more traditional drops (10-12mm).

Faas 250 and Faas 300: 6mm

Faas 400: 10mm

Faas 500: 12mm

Faas 800 (soon to be out): 12mm

scottie p wrote:

My question is, how can I meet Joanna?

1. I'm not sure if you want to find love on the LetsRun.com mboard. The couple that met on LetsRun.com and then got married which we publicized to great fanfare in 2006 has gotten divorced (and I think we deleted the article about them as a result but you can see what I'm talking about here -

).

2. I actually laughed when I saw this as it keeps the thread light.

3. Ignoring #2, Joanna is at work so be on the lookout for a letter from the Puma lawyers for sexual harassment (that's a joke).

4. On an unrelated but random note, this thread is no longer locked at the top of the forum page. It was driving me nuts how the # of posts wasn't updating so I had to make it free floating. I may change it back later. Maybe I'm OCD.

Please dont respond to this post as I want to keep this thread on topic.

What about the drop on the 350 (since you mentioned the soon-to-be-out 800)? This is a nice training shoe.

Joanna Murphy wrote:

Faas 250 and Faas 300: 6mm

Running Warehouse lists the 250 at 8mm. I believe they measure each shoe individually:

Yes please! I would love to see a lower heel drop. When can we expect to see this?

What is the heel/toe drop and height of the 200s? And how much do they weigh?

Shoebacca wrote:

Prior to this big push of the Faas line, Puma had at least one traditional type of shoe in each category.

The Faas line seems to consist of flat-bottomed shoes with a less-firm rubber outsole than both traditional training and racing shoes.

Why does the Faas product line use this flat-bottomed design for its outsole? I can't see anything anatomical about the outsole, so is something happening in the midsole that I should know about?

Why is the Faas using a relatively flat outsole?

This is a good question and I'm wondering why Puma guys did not answered this.

I use FAAS500 and like them, although my many years ago ankle rotates and I feel better in some shoes with some kind of "dynamic support" like Nike Free Run for example (it'sinteresting, that Nike Free Run is a supportive shoe).

But getting back to Puma.

I'ms sorry I got late for this talk.

Anyway - I will comment few things Puma does.

Faas - is a good concept - it's easy, simple.

But Puma is very inconsistent with theirs shoes.

Few years ago they had a shoe I liked very much - Trail 100 or Trail Fox (both, very similar, agresive, narrow, for trail racing or training rather short distances, for its narrownest)

Now - they aggain have a shoe that is called Trail Fox. But it's like a bulky, fat and heavy truck comparing to old Trail Fox which was more like a light and fast racing car.

What's the point of giving the same name for a shoe that is so opposite ? It's not the first time the do it.

Anyway - thank's that you were open enough to a discussion on these areas. Three years ago whab I wanted to interview some of your people responsible for running line I received a funny response from your headquaters, that it's not possible.

I asked why?

They said: Because of two reason. Firts - is that they would be easier to take over by some competition brand if everyone know who they are. Second - because I have a habit to take a picture of people I'm interviewing - if they tur out to be not so fit as they should be working in such a brand this could result in some bad PR. :)

So - now - that's good that finally Puma shows their people and that they seem to be fit. :)