No- no serious runner is going to shell out their cash for a crappy, all-birds looking shoe that likely won't stand up to a. daily mileage or b. an already incredibly saturated shoe market.
I don't know what you call "serious," but I've run a couple of 2:28s, and I like them. I have a friend who runs 1:09 and also likes them. I've seen 4 other pairs in the wild so far (all being worn by people who were actually running, albeit not that fast).
I'd say they're among my favorite running shoes of all time. They have plenty of firm cushioning, but they're not squishy. They have a durable outsole, and a great upper with no pressure points. They're a little wider through the arch than a lot of shoes, which is good for me because that's often a pressure point in Adidas and Nike with my feet. And, of course, they look fantastic, though that's just taste. They're my go-to travel shoe now because they're the only pair of running shoes I would ever consider wearing with street clothes.
For people who are skeptical that Tracksmith can make a running shoe, keep in mind that they hired veteran shoe designers with experience at other brands.
They're definitely expensive for trainers, but not outlandish. There are plenty of $160 trainers on the market. (True, you're probably not going to ever find the Tracksmith shoes on sale.) If you look at the price of running shoes over time, they've mostly gone down in real terms. The NB 990 was $100 in 1982. Thats' $317 in today's money!
Anyway, discussions about what a product is "worth," as though there were some platonic value aside from supply and demand curves, are always a bit silly. TO ME it was definitely worth the small premium over other shoes in order to satisfy my curiosity (particularly with the satisfaction guarantee, which I'd only take advantage of if I truly hated the shoes). I will probably continue to keep a pair in rotation.
No- no serious runner is going to shell out their cash for a crappy, all-birds looking shoe that likely won't stand up to a. daily mileage or b. an already incredibly saturated shoe market.
I don't know what you call "serious," but I've run a couple of 2:28s, and I like them. I have a friend who runs 1:09 and also likes them. I've seen 4 other pairs in the wild so far (all being worn by people who were actually running, albeit not that fast).
I'd say they're among my favorite running shoes of all time. They have plenty of firm cushioning, but they're not squishy. They have a durable outsole, and a great upper with no pressure points. They're a little wider through the arch than a lot of shoes, which is good for me because that's often a pressure point in Adidas and Nike with my feet. And, of course, they look fantastic, though that's just taste. They're my go-to travel shoe now because they're the only pair of running shoes I would ever consider wearing with street clothes.
For people who are skeptical that Tracksmith can make a running shoe, keep in mind that they hired veteran shoe designers with experience at other brands.
They're definitely expensive for trainers, but not outlandish. There are plenty of $160 trainers on the market. (True, you're probably not going to ever find the Tracksmith shoes on sale.) If you look at the price of running shoes over time, they've mostly gone down in real terms. The NB 990 was $100 in 1982. Thats' $317 in today's money!
Anyway, discussions about what a product is "worth," as though there were some platonic value aside from supply and demand curves, are always a bit silly. TO ME it was definitely worth the small premium over other shoes in order to satisfy my curiosity (particularly with the satisfaction guarantee, which I'd only take advantage of if I truly hated the shoes). I will probably continue to keep a pair in rotation.
Are we allowed to have well thought out reasonable post on this thread?