Nike 4% - how long do they really last?

If these things need to replaced after 45 miles then they're quite possibly the worst shoe ever invented.

That's what, $5.50 a mile?

If you're a full or half-marathoner you probably only have 2 or 3 A races a year. You're going to spend hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours on each one. Even if it's psychosomatic, buy a new pair for each A race, it's not a big incremental investment. I care about durability in training shoes, not racing shoes.

I just did Grandma's with 100 miles on mine. They were still great. In a way even better than at 0, not quite so squishy.

im not sure but i bett they last right around 2 hrs

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

They’re good for 300 miles.

Peak is up to 150 miles. After that good for long runs and stuff

Ditch those weak shoes and get the %Next or Next% or whatever they're called.

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

If these things need to replaced after 45 miles then they're quite possibly the worst shoe ever invented.

That's what, $5.50 a mile?

Why would that make it bad? You get what you pay for. A ferrari 360 Modena is about $3.21 per mile.

It will depend on your weight, your running form, and the running surfaces over which you use them. I think the best strategy is to train in Nike Zoom Flyknits and race in Vaporflys. I have 135 kms on my Vaporflys and that includes a couple of (treadmill) long runs, a marathon, and a handful of mile time trials. Mine have lots of life left in them - I fully expect to run one or two more marathons in them.

Relax, dude. wrote:

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

If these things need to replaced after 45 miles then they're quite possibly the worst shoe ever invented.

That's what, $5.50 a mile?

Why would that make it bad? You get what you pay for. A ferrari 360 Modena is about $3.21 per mile.

So you admit these sneakers are almost 2x the cost of a ferrari then. I think we're on the same page.

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

So you admit these sneakers are almost 2x the cost of a ferrari then. I think we're on the same page.

They are indeed ridiculously expensive but they are an amazingly good marathon shoe - if not the best. If they indeed are the best marathon shoes out there and I can afford them, why would I not buy them?

I have 170 miles on my first pair and they are still good. I've run a marathon, 2 half marathons, 3 10ks and a handful of 5ks as well as a couple LRs to get a feel for them when I first got them. Best shoe I've ever worn.

I used mine for 5 marathons and they started falling apart.

I bought my first pair late last summer and used them in a few road races up to about 100 miles, I think they're still good for racing in, although for my A race at London Marathon I was keen to have a fresh pair just to make sure. I'd put 1,000 miles + into the training, so why would I not want to make sure the shoes I wore were in great condition.

I now circulate between the two pairs, the older ones for B races and a couple of track sessions when my legs have felt mashed. The newer ones for more important races.

I'll probably buy a new pair for my A race half marathon in October.

Relax, dude. wrote:

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

If these things need to replaced after 45 miles then they're quite possibly the worst shoe ever invented.

That's what, $5.50 a mile?

Why would that make it bad? You get what you pay for. A ferrari 360 Modena is about $3.21 per mile.

Right.... and the value of a second hand VF is......

Cest ridicule! wrote:

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

So you admit these sneakers are almost 2x the cost of a ferrari then. I think we're on the same page.

They are indeed ridiculously expensive but they are an amazingly good marathon shoe - if not the best. If they indeed are the best marathon shoes out there and I can afford them, why would I not buy them?

What is your upper limit? Would you spend $500 on them? $1000? I'm guessing if you could afford $250 sneakers you could also afford $500 sneakers or maybe even $1000. What are you willing to pay for running shoes?

jsadlkfjasdkfjsdlkf wrote:

If these things need to replaced after 45 miles then they're quite possibly the worst shoe ever invented.

That's what, $5.50 a mile?

some of you have never had to pay $2000 for a disc wheel and it shows

running shoes are pathetically cheap.... buy as many 4%s as you can afford

For marathons, VF is best. But for shorter races, I think the ZF SP is superior. More firm, tons of pop, lasts longer, and can be had new for $60 a pair on eb** any day of the week.

adfasfsdfds wrote:

What is your upper limit? Would you spend $500 on them? $1000? I'm guessing if you could afford $250 sneakers you could also afford $500 sneakers or maybe even $1000. What are you willing to pay for running shoes?

I would even pay up to $2,500 for a pair if that was the case. Best shoes ever made.

I'm surprised by the number of people saying they ran a 5K in the VF.