Every pro runner wears Peg 30's, structure 17's, etc. why would they do that when there is a new model out every year?
Every pro runner wears Peg 30's, structure 17's, etc. why would they do that when there is a new model out every year?
That's the privilege of being an elite runner. We mortals have to take whatever they offer us.
Many elites are like baseball players ... a little superstitious... uneasy about changing something that's already working well.
Lelisa Desisa just won the Boston Marathon in Nike Zoomstreak 3, which is a shoe that is no longer sold and originally came out in 2011!
Check out the photo evidence here:
Lelisa Desisa with not declare his 2011's desista.
just wonderin wrote:
Every pro runner wears Peg 30's, structure 17's, etc. why would they do that when there is a new model out every year?
Because Peg 30 is superior to 31 if you want what Peg always was meant to be: a highly cushioned training shoe.
New models have different colors and stylings. They are not better shoes. They still use the same materials that have been around for years.
not a faddist wrote:
New models have different colors and stylings. They are not better shoes. They still use the same materials that have been around for years.
False. Quite often the new model has updated materials... i.e. Brooks Beast, Ariel, Transcends, Glycerins, Adrenalins (same size last, but because of the NEW materials, they run smaller).
Pearl Izumi N3s.
Asics M series (especially the 33 is new material all together from Asics), DS Racers.
Saucony Omni, Guide.
New Balance 1980 (which is just the old 980). Most of the New Balance line getting released later this year have updated materials.
Most of these shoes receiving updated materials are better than previous years. The Transcends are so much better than the Trances that they replaced. The GT 2000s now suck compared to what they use to be. Shoes don't just stay the same from year to year.
BS. New models use the same eva foam that has been around for decades and the uppers don't have better material than was around in the 90's.
You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.
not a faddist wrote:
ShoeStore wrote:False. Quite often the new model has updated materials... i.e. Brooks Beast, Ariel, Transcends, Glycerins, Adrenalins (same size last, but because of the NEW materials, they run smaller).
Pearl Izumi N3s.
Asics M series (especially the 33 is new material all together from Asics), DS Racers.
Saucony Omni, Guide.
New Balance 1980 (which is just the old 980). Most of the New Balance line getting released later this year have updated materials.
Most of these shoes receiving updated materials are better than previous years. The Transcends are so much better than the Trances that they replaced. The GT 2000s now suck compared to what they use to be. Shoes don't just stay the same from year to year.
BS. New models use the same eva foam that has been around for decades and the uppers don't have better material than was around in the 90's.
You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.
A lot of how the shoes are engineered is that they take the existing design and try to find some mild improvements in not only the way that the outsole/upper and even midsole pattern can be, but even how they try to re-structure the very same material that was used. Just because the exact same quantity of materials were used doesn't mean the shoe will be a similar shoe and perform similarly.
ALSO, "shoe store" referenced New Balance. Before they actually were making good shoes, they were some of the most motion-resisting on the market. If there is any one company I will disagree with you about "marketing hype" in which "their shoes today are no better than they were 10 years ago", it is New Balance.
I do agree that there are some shoes out there in which there is definitely a marketing hype around it and they are only considered good because its been a common shoe for the last 20-30 years (e.g., some models of the Pegasus have been AWFUL whereas others have actually been good). Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 10-20 years ago.
just wonderin wrote:
Every pro runner wears Peg 30's, structure 17's, etc. why would they do that when there is a new model out every year?
If you were a pro runner you wouldn't need to get the latest and greatest to impress your friends. You wear shoes for their proven utility. You wear what you know works for you.
not a faddist wrote:
BS. New models use the same eva foam that has been around for decades and the uppers don't have better material than was around in the 90's.
You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.
Ohhhh smartest guy in the room here^
But thermoplastic polyurethane
a lot of elites wear the original Nike Zoom Victories rather then the new ones
RunWild wrote:
not a faddist wrote:BS. New models use the same eva foam that has been around for decades and the uppers don't have better material than was around in the 90's.
You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.
A lot of how the shoes are engineered is that they take the existing design and try to find some mild improvements in not only the way that the outsole/upper and even midsole pattern can be, but even how they try to re-structure the very same material that was used. Just because the exact same quantity of materials were used doesn't mean the shoe will be a similar shoe and perform similarly.
ALSO, "shoe store" referenced New Balance. Before they actually were making good shoes, they were some of the most motion-resisting on the market. If there is any one company I will disagree with you about "marketing hype" in which "their shoes today are no better than they were 10 years ago", it is New Balance.
I do agree that there are some shoes out there in which there is definitely a marketing hype around it and they are only considered good because its been a common shoe for the last 20-30 years (e.g., some models of the Pegasus have been AWFUL whereas others have actually been good). Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 10-20 years ago.
That shoes fall apart earlier today is because of the lightweight craze today. It wasn´t many years ago that a shoe lighter than 300 gram was considered lightweight. Today you can hear people say "230 gram? That´s heavy", and then they complain that their shoe fall apart.
well,. wrote:
That shoes fall apart earlier today is because of the lightweight craze today. It wasn´t many years ago that a shoe lighter than 300 gram was considered lightweight. Today you can hear people say "230 gram? That´s heavy", and then they complain that their shoe fall apart.
It's the old engineering yarn. You can have two out of three in running shoes:
1. Light
2. Durable
3. Cheap
[quote]ShoeStore wrote:
[quote]not a faddist wrote:
NB 1980 and 980 are totally different. 1980 is the new Zante. 980 (much more shoe) became the Boracay.
RunWild wrote:
Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 10-20 years ago.
Is it possible that something else has has changed since 20 years ago? Maybe your weight, your mechanics, where you run, how accurate your ability to track mileage is, etc.?
I don't say that as a challenge, but I do think a lot of people romanticize the past, and undervalue change in themselves over time.
Go to ebay and stock up on your old shoes then! I've been wearing the LunarGlide 2 and Vomero 6 for the last couple of years because they afforded me two years without any significant injuries.
I'm not an Elite runner, but there is some comfort in knowing what to expect every time to you head out for a long run. I remember trying a pair of Structure Triax's after a recommendation from a running store clerk based on my pronation - and ended up with a really bad case of Posterior Tib because of it.
I think the elites think the same way....COMFORT in knowing what works.
RunWild wrote:
A lot of how the shoes are engineered is that they take the existing design and try to find some mild improvements in not only the way that the outsole/upper and even midsole pattern can be, but even how they try to re-structure the very same material that was used. Just because the exact same quantity of materials were used doesn't mean the shoe will be a similar shoe and perform similarly.
ALSO, "shoe store" referenced New Balance. Before they actually were making good shoes, they were some of the most motion-resisting on the market. If there is any one company I will disagree with you about "marketing hype" in which "their shoes today are no better than they were 10 years ago", it is New Balance.
I do agree that there are some shoes out there in which there is definitely a marketing hype around it and they are only considered good because its been a common shoe for the last 20-30 years (e.g., some models of the Pegasus have been AWFUL whereas others have actually been good). Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 10-20 years ago.
Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 40 lbs ago.
Have you considered maybe when they find a shoe they like, they buy about 50 pairs, or their sponsor gives them 50 pairs, which they can use for several years
They were older shoes because they can get access to them. The average person on the street has no choice but to try a new shoe.
A huge problem for serious runners is that they find a shoe they like and the shoe companies decide to replace them a year later.
If your livelihood depends on not getting injured do you want to keep running in what is working or do you want to try a new shoe that has a slightly different drop or a slightly different last? You want to keep running in what is working.
The most popular shoes in our LRC shoe surveys are no longer made. Thousands of LRCers have to go find a shoe they hope is as good as their current shoe.
The whole scenario above is why we're trying to create a better way for people to find running shoes. If you could find which shoes shoe switchers liked best it would be a huge help.
The LRC better shoe site will be beta released very soon.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.
I think Letesenbet Gidey might be trying to break 14 this Saturday
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing