Biggest Mistake By Running Shoe Manufacturers

Shoe Misery wrote:

Why don't running shoe manufacturers make multiple shoes within a line that fit identically but have different levels of pronation control?

For example, as I've gotten older I find it increasingly difficult to find comfortable running shoes, and the Saucony Progrid Omni is the only one I can find that fits like a glove. But the problem is that I hate the posting/anti-pronation control. It may be considered moderate posting, but it's still uncomfortable (and becomes even more so as the softer midsole material breaks in and/or breaks down). In this example, why can't Saucony make the exact same shoe with no posting?

They can't because you are complaining about it on the message boards instead of giving them that feedback directly.

abubenjamin wrote: They can't because you are complaining about it on the message boards instead of giving them that feedback directly.

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.

Saucony builds the Echelon. It's esentially the Omni 11 with a mono-density midsole.

Shoe Misery wrote:

Why don't running shoe manufacturers make multiple shoes within a line that fit identically but have different levels of pronation control?

For example, as I've gotten older I find it increasingly difficult to find comfortable running shoes, and the Saucony Progrid Omni is the only one I can find that fits like a glove. But the problem is that I hate the posting/anti-pronation control. It may be considered moderate posting, but it's still uncomfortable (and becomes even more so as the softer midsole material breaks in and/or breaks down). In this example, why can't Saucony make the exact same shoe with no posting?

Saucony had tried this, and it didn't work great. They used to have something called CRM (I think it was custom ride management, but don't quote me). The Trigon (three different shoes) and Omni (two different shoes) both featured different levels of support within the styles. Each of the three Trigions and two Omnis had the same fit.

When Saucony first brought out the Ride/Guide series of shoes, it was exactly what you asked for. The Ride was a Guide without the posting. But over time they moved away from the similarities because of customer feedback.

Currently both Asics and Brooks have shoes that are unposted versions of stability shoes. The Landereth is a GT-2XXX series without a post and the Defyance is an Adrenaline without the post. I can tell you from experience that both neutral versions sell poorly.

The Brooks adrenaline and defyance are supposedly the same shoe with and without posting.

In Saucony, I believe that the ride and guide used to be the same shoe with and without the posting. Not sure if this is true anymore, but they have a similar fit.

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.

You're welcome wrote:

Saucony builds the Echelon. It's esentially the Omni 11 with a mono-density midsole.

Thanks. I'll check it out. Incidentally, this is not one of the shoes Saucony recommended - They kept trying to steer me toward the Ride.

Switch the company you shop from. There is a shoe out there for you if you would stop expecting a company that caters to your every whim.

old shoe guy wrote: When Saucony first brought out the Ride/Guide series of shoes, it was exactly what you asked for. The Ride was a Guide without the posting. But over time they moved away from the similarities because of customer feedback.

Currently both Asics and Brooks have shoes that are unposted versions of stability shoes. The Landereth is a GT-2XXX series without a post and the Defyance is an Adrenaline without the post. I can tell you from experience that both neutral versions sell poorly.

I recall the Trigon and Omni series you describe, although I never tried the former. If memory serves, the Omni versions offered "moderate and ultimate" anti-pronation support, but neutral was not a choice.

Aside from the posting I liked the Asics and Brooks shoes you mention (albeit a dozen years ago), so perhaps I'll give the Defyance and Landereth a shot.

SMJO wrote:

Switch the company you shop from. There is a shoe out there for you if you would stop expecting a company that caters to your every whim.

First of all, I used Saucony only as an example. Having worked in a running shop for several years, I've tried damn near everything. Either a shoe fits well or it doesn't, and the only shoes I've found in the past dozen years that fit well also have medial posting that makes the shoe uncomfortable for me when running.

Actually, that's not entirely true. I loved the fit of the Brooks Cascadia 3 trail running shoe, but Brooks made adjustments to subsequent models that completely changed the fit of the shoe.

Anyway, the guy who mentioned the Saucony Trigon series illustrated that my idea had been tried before but met with little success. I guess that answers my "why" question.

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.

Shoe Misery wrote:

SMJO wrote:

Switch the company you shop from. There is a shoe out there for you if you would stop expecting a company that caters to your every whim.

First of all, I used Saucony only as an example. Having worked in a running shop for several years, I've tried damn near everything. Either a shoe fits well or it doesn't, and the only shoes I've found in the past dozen years that fit well also have medial posting that makes the shoe uncomfortable for me when running.

You're picky. Through the years I've bought shoes generally based on one thing: Price. I've gotten neutral shoes and stability shoes. What I've found is honestly... a shoe is a shoe. If the size is right, they don't feel that different.

I mean sure, my lunarracers feel different than my Pegasus's, but between my pegasuses and the Brooks Defyance I also have, I don't notice much in the upper.

To tell you the truth, I don't notice any differences between the gel based shoes (Asics, Brooks, Saucony etc). Only Mizuno and Nike stand out with their different systems.

The fact that more people don't just buy a shoe that fights and replace the insole's more is beyond me

O.o wrote:

The fact that more people don't just buy a shoe that fights and replace the insole's more is beyond me

I don't mind my shoes fighting in the closet, but it is upsetting when they start fighting while I'm on a run.

Why don't more runners shit in compression socks because they're too expensive?

Have you tried altering the shoes, such as removing the posting?

illinoisphotographer wrote:

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.

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.

Note the NYC '83 Marathon ad on the page.

The Saucony Dixon's were all the shoe anyone who RUN (which I mean at least 8-minute-miles or faster) needed or needs today.

If someone truly requires as much protection as shoes are loaded with today, they might be better served just walking for 5-10K daily.

I'm no snob and certainly not elite, but I see many MANY people in my region Trying to run. Usually they don't have 'runners' physiques if you get my meaning (and usually running ~ 12-minute miles or even slower...pounding instead of running); and I am certainly NOT dissuading them from exercising (at least they're out there doing something), but fast walking until one reaches a safer bodyweight from which to run from makes more sense.

I wish Saucony would bring back the Dixon.