Does anyone here run in On brand shoes?

Interesting that people really do run in these. I’ve only seen them on middle-aged people in airports who don’t appear to run much at all

I run in them on trails (trail version, doesn't have cloud pads in middle). I love them, great traction especially sketchy terrain. Just a bit pricey though :(

bump

This is accurate. Over priced gimmick. I will say, cosmetically, they are some off the cooler looking shoes to wear casually. Theyre also very popular with the affluent soccer moms, so they have that market segment covered.

America's fury wrote:

Don't they collect rocks and sticks in those soles?

Yes they do during their initial miles. Once you have run in them a few times the flexibility increases and they seem to drop the rocks rather than retaining them.

I just bought my third pair of cloud flows. They are pricy, but I get 2-3 times the miles out of them than I do other shoes. They do not have good support so I would not recommend them to heavy runners who are not neutral in foot strike.

I like them. They are light and responsive, but I can certainly see where people would not take to them.

America's fury wrote:

Don't they collect rocks and sticks in those soles?

Like a vacuum.

Great casual shoes. Terrible running shoes.

800 dude wrote:

Disko Eric wrote:

On gives the shoe stores and the employees nice incentives to sell them . I also think the stores only pay for what they sell and they don’t pay up front. I forget what that’s called. So if you have the space, it’s a no brainer.

Yeah, running specialty gets the highest realization (average percentage of MSRP that the gear is sold at) from On out of all running companies. You'd be shocked at what a low percentage of MSRP most stores get from most products (especially apparel).

The strategy works to give the retailer / salesperson an incentive to move YOUR brand. For years (maybe still true today) if you went to a race in Jacksonville, even with casual observation, you'd see a higher ratio of Adidas running shoes than in other cities. Why? Adidas is a major sponsor of the River Run put on by First Place Sports, who also operates a chain of running specialty stores around town. They push Adidas because of the big sponsorship for their premiere race.

YEARS ago I worked at Athletic Attic and we got $2 spiff on each pair of Saucony shoes. Why? Marty Liquori was part owner and Saucony sponsored his TV Show on ESPN.

However, Adidas and Saucony make good products. On is barely average or below average. This strategy will only work for a while until people realize they were sold on an inferior product.

ON is very popular in Aspen, mostly because they are expensive, but also because the only brands available in the stores here are ON, Hoka and Salomon.

ON are super comfortable for lounging and walking, and look good, but they are crappy for running. They are deadly slippery on snow, ice and wet. Rocks get caught so easy in the grooves. They just don't feel good for running. Probably OK for joggers and tris.

Disagree on slippery on snow. Perfect for me (once again I note - trail version). They were great when I went to Utah for mountain running in January

I'd rather go through a few pair of Atreyus.

I got a kick out of reading the whole thread. The title sucked me in and I was dying to see if anyone really had ever run them more than once. My starting point was: the holes will catch rocks and there's not any middle foam. That's what I thought at a glance.

Then, they sponsors runners with, I'm guessing (these contracts being all secret and all) a deal that they have to wear something else. Maybe the contract says, 'must wear Nike' or maybe it says 'wear any brand, just not On'. Not sure which since I don't think any On runners wear Saucony or asics, just Nike. But maybe none of that is the case; perhaps they just make it appear as though that deal is in place. So that REALLY made me question the product. They pay people NOT to wear them!

But it seems to me, why pay anyone since those runners already don't wear On. If no one does, you don't really have to pay Ritz to make sure they don't. They already didn't wear them. Nobody does. Don't pay Ritz, don't pay anybody; just let all those that wore Nike in high school and college continue doing so. Seems that doing nothing would have the same effect.

kirkandorules wrote:

The target market for On shoes is Todd & Margo from Christmas Vacation

https://www.retro-daze.org/images/postImages/1426894196natlamppoos.jpg

Now This Is funny!! 😂

I had a pair of Cloudflows at one time. Actually liked them, thought they were very smooth running shoes and I didn’t miss the relative lack of cushion. I tend to do well in firmer shoes though. I find the NB Rebel to be a great do anything shoe and have trouble doing much more than easy 6 mile jaunts in “easy day/long run” shoes like the Altra Torin Plush. Don’t even get me started in the atrocity known as the Hoka Clifton.

Overall they’re heavy for what you get though. They need to lighten them up. They’re a fine alternative to an Adios, but they’re now heavy compared to other similar performance trainers/traditional marathon flats like the Rebel, Razor, Kinvara, etc...

They sponsor Tennis legend Chrissy Evert . She says she doesn't run , and uses them for gym and walking around . She has the greatest 60 year old legs in the world.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1jWtAOX0AIWiVb?format=jpg&name=large

I have the cloudbooms. Probably one of the worst carbon shoes I've had. An expensive casual shoe for me.

They are apparently doing a new marathon shoe dropping next month. Interested to see what it is. Also interested to see what their subscription shoe ends up looking like. The early models have a normal midsole, no bounce pod things.