Shoe Rant

Tony S. said:

slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I would LOVE to
find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough) with enough
cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

Why do you want a lot of cushioning on a trail race ? Is it a rocky surface ?
I took my Nike Waffle XC (cross country flats) out on a 22 mile trail run in
Westchester and they did just fine, but that was mostly softish dirt.

Quoted message said:

The size 13 nike XC flats I got are good for short trail runs,

These shoes run small. If they feel narrow, and your feet are wide anyway,
you should size up. These shoes should go all the way up to size 15. FWIW, I
wear a 10 in most Mizuno and Asics shoes (would be a 10 or 10.5 in pegasus),
and my Nike waffle XC flats are a size 11.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony S. said:

slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I would LOVE
to
find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough) with enough
cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

Why do you want a lot of cushioning on a trail race ? Is it a rocky
surface ?
I took my Nike Waffle XC (cross country flats) out on a 22 mile trail run
in
Westchester and they did just fine, but that was mostly softish dirt.

I'm not used to running in flats for one thing. I can see myself moving over
time to lower profile shoes. I've been doing shorter easy runs in flats
occasionally so that I can wear them in short road races. I seem to need
more forefoot cushioning than I'm getting right now - even with softer
trainers - so it will take time for my feet to toughen up enough to do a
majority of my running in flats, or to use them in longer races.

Mine are Nike Men's Zoom Waffle Racer IV's. Yes they're great for cinder
trails, and softer dirt, but on rocky ground they let sharper rocks poke
through too much. Also because I have a wider foot than the shoe (even in
size 13) rocks get my foot from the side, which is normally just a little
annoying, but on a 3-5 hour run, I would think that your feet would get
seriously beat up.

This being said, I generally like the feel of less shoe on trails. I could
probably adapt over time to running all my trail distances in XC flats, and
may just do that, but I'll have to weigh the tradeoffs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The size 13 nike XC flats I got are good for short trail runs,

These shoes run small. If they feel narrow, and your feet are wide anyway,
you should size up. These shoes should go all the way up to size 15. FWIW,
I
wear a 10 in most Mizuno and Asics shoes (would be a 10 or 10.5 in
pegasus),
and my Nike waffle XC flats are a size 11.

The 13s fit ok and have plenty of room for the toes. I didn't see a size
13.5 listed when I searched. Going all the way up to 14s would probably be
too big. Once you start using much larger sizes to accomodate the width, the
heel area often gets too big, and the foot will slide forward if they're not
clamped down very tight, which leads to either cramping feet early in a
race, or shoes too loose later in a race, and who wants to stop to re-tie
laces.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

... As I thought about it they reminded me more of my old road favorites
of '05 and '06 the nike air pegasus.

Quoted message said:

This leads me to my experience of the air pegasus '06 model. Compared to
the '05s the air peg '06s are bricks. Not only are the totally different
shoes, the old soft ride is gone

The only saving grace to my size 11 17oz '06 pegs is that they were so
ungainly and heavy -- they interfered with sure-footedness on tricky
trails -- that I was driven to try light shoes again. And that was worth
it.

Quoted message said:

...I didn't really try the air peg '06s on hard trails yet. That might be
a solution. But then again they are pretty damn beefy shoes in their
current incarnation...

Beefy and slow and ungainly. I'm wearing them in my recovery phase --
they're like a couple of 2 x 4 s attached to my feet. Safe, but you're not
gonna set any land speed records in them, add 25 sec/mile compared to
air-light shoes.

Since I land on my forefoot and don't put that much weight on the heel, heel
stability isn't that big a deal for me, but forefoot cusioning is. And the
new Pegs have lost their soft ride, as you noted.

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

Requiring a wider shoe makes finding good shoes to race in particularly
difficult. Asics size 13 Ahar road flats (dunno exactly what their
designation is) will do for short road races as they fit OK. For trail
races I'm now stumped since I was relying on those heavy but very runable
asics 2100/2110s. I envisioned cutting some excess rubber off the whole
heel area, and on the inside front part where they seem to have an extra
wedge that slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I
would LOVE to find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough)
with enough cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

The size 13 nike XC flats I got are good for short trail runs, but they're
really too narrow for rocky trails, and remind me of my old orienteering
shoes from 25 years ago that were basically a small-studded rubber pattern
sole with a kind of heavy waterproof nylon/plastic upper. That means
there's great feel, decent rock protection on the bottom, but there's very
little cushion for longer distances.

I'm thinking of ordering some of these la sportivas... but no widths hmmm.
http://tinyurl.com/35kc8c

In any case I wish the manufacturers wouldn't mess with good designs so at
least you know what to expect!

-Tony

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

... As I thought about it they reminded me more of my old road favorites
of '05 and '06 the nike air pegasus.

Quoted message said:

This leads me to my experience of the air pegasus '06 model. Compared to
the '05s the air peg '06s are bricks. Not only are the totally different
shoes, the old soft ride is gone

The only saving grace to my size 11 17oz '06 pegs is that they were so
ungainly and heavy -- they interfered with sure-footedness on tricky
trails -- that I was driven to try light shoes again. And that was worth
it.

And I also tried light shoes for the first time in a while, partly because I
wanted something for shorter races, and partly from the discussions on here.
The Asics gel hyper speed are nice, and I could get used to them for all but
the rocky hiking trails I do my long runs on. Likewise the Nike XC zoom
waffle racers have a great feel on softer stuff, but with virtually no
forefoot cusioning, they offer even less sharp rock protection than the
hyper speeds, not to mention cushioning for longer runs. While Donnie can
get away with those for 20+, I sure as hell can't!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...I didn't really try the air peg '06s on hard trails yet. That might be
a solution. But then again they are pretty damn beefy shoes in their
current incarnation...

Beefy and slow and ungainly. I'm wearing them in my recovery phase --
they're like a couple of 2 x 4 s attached to my feet. Safe, but you're
not gonna set any land speed records in them, add 25 sec/mile compared to
air-light shoes.

I figured that they would never be smooth. The peg '06s are the worst
upgrade I've come across, and have simply lost their runability. They're
more like approach shoes than running shoes.

Quoted message said:

Since I land on my forefoot and don't put that much weight on the heel,
heel stability isn't that big a deal for me, but forefoot cusioning is.
And the new Pegs have lost their soft ride, as you noted.

I'm a mid foot striker, and I don't need much cushioning in the heel, but I
need a bit more forefoot cushioning than flats for the rocky trails I do, or
if I could find XC racers with *some* cushioning that might work.

Oh, by the way Dan, I was wondering if you possibly attribute your current
foot problem to running in flats all (most of) the time recently? I know it
would take my feet a long time to adjust to flats only. As it is both
forefeet have been sore for over a month with a higher sustained volume for
me this year.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

Requiring a wider shoe makes finding good shoes to race in particularly
difficult. Asics size 13 Ahar road flats (dunno exactly what their
designation is) will do for short road races as they fit OK. For trail
races I'm now stumped since I was relying on those heavy but very runable
asics 2100/2110s. I envisioned cutting some excess rubber off the whole
heel area, and on the inside front part where they seem to have an extra
wedge that slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I
would LOVE to find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough)
with enough cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

The size 13 nike XC flats I got are good for short trail runs, but
they're really too narrow for rocky trails, and remind me of my old
orienteering shoes from 25 years ago that were basically a small-studded
rubber pattern sole with a kind of heavy waterproof nylon/plastic upper.
That means there's great feel, decent rock protection on the bottom, but
there's very little cushion for longer distances.

I'm thinking of ordering some of these la sportivas... but no widths
hmmm.
http://tinyurl.com/35kc8c

In any case I wish the manufacturers wouldn't mess with good designs so
at least you know what to expect!

-Tony

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Bv1_h.7624$YQ1.3317@trndny02...

Quoted message said:

Ok, I was quite glad to hear that Asics was upgrading their flagship
21xx line with lighter foam this year, since they were kind of heavy
before that, but in all other respects were a great shoe. They were
even suitable for rugged trails, not to mention trail ultras, and held
up pretty well.

Me too!

Quoted message said:

early this year I got a pair of the new 2120s in my old size 12.5EE.
Funny thing is they seemed a bit big, which was strange because 2100s
and 2110s of that size fit really well if a bit big which I wanted for
ultras. I noted that they did feel different, exchanged for 12EEs that
fit better but still had room, and didn't think much of it, using them
on roads periodically.

I'm wearing the 2120's also and did not see a size difference. There is
a different feel but nothing negative at least yet. My test is long run
to find the flaws. For instance the 2190's were fine for an hour and
then brought pain to balls of my feet.

Quoted message said:

Fast forward to snow melt and getting out on the harder trails again.
These 2120s are a completely different shoe. On rugged trails they
don't hold the foot well unless laced tourniquet tight.

I've only worn them on easy trails. Since Bull Run I have been chillin'
and enjoying some easy slow junk - great for the soul to turn down the
training for a few weeks after a heavy winter load. Rest! 😉

-Doug

Miss Anne Thrope said:

Tony, pull down your pants and show us your [censored].

If you want to see someone's genitalia, try dating.

--

______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Tony S. said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony S. said:

slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I would LOVE
to
find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough) with enough
cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

Why do you want a lot of cushioning on a trail race ? Is it a rocky
surface ?
I took my Nike Waffle XC (cross country flats) out on a 22 mile trail run
in
Westchester and they did just fine, but that was mostly softish dirt.

I'm not used to running in flats for one thing. I can see myself moving over
time to lower profile shoes. I've been doing shorter easy runs in flats
occasionally so that I can wear them in short road races. I seem to need

That's probably a good idea. btw, I hope you wear something more cushy than
the Nike waffles for road races.

Quoted message said:

Mine are Nike Men's Zoom Waffle Racer IV's. Yes they're great for cinder
trails, and softer dirt, but on rocky ground they let sharper rocks poke
through too much. Also because I have a wider foot than the shoe (even in
size 13) rocks get my foot from the side, which is normally just a little
annoying, but on a 3-5 hour run, I would think that your feet would get
seriously beat up.

I think you should seriously consider trying a 14. There's never any guarantee
that it will work, but it's always worth a try and they're not a very expensive
shoe. As you've noted, they don't make half-sizes above 13.

My general rule of thumb for racing spikes (that are likely to be too narrow)
is to size by width. The arch area is very snug because of the "banana last",
so you shouldn't have too much slippage even if it's a bit long.

Quoted message said:

This being said, I generally like the feel of less shoe on trails. I could

I absolutely love running barefoot on grass. The only thing that stops me doing
this is concern that I'll step on some debris and hrut my foot.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Oh, by the way Dan, I was wondering if you possibly attribute your current
foot problem to running in flats all (most of) the time recently? I know
it would take my feet a long time to adjust to flats only. As it is both
forefeet have been sore for over a month with a higher sustained volume
for me this year.

Partly, yes. My left foot has a complex foot "deformity" that causes the
ankle to roll inward. (It looks presentable, but that's the word used in
the foot industry). I corrected it in the Pegs with a custom insole, but
the one I made for the new shoes wasn't as supportive and in retrospect I
should have duplicated it.

I was also running very fast for me (low 6's) on reverse camber (tilts down
to the right) downhills on my tempo runs, and this is what actually caused
the injury. Like most disasters, several things had to come
together...increased speed, new shoes, bad surface, insufficent support in
my insole.

I had a similar injury two years back caused by reverse camber (in the '05
pegs).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony S. said:

Ok, I was quite glad to hear that Asics was upgrading their flagship 21xx
line with lighter foam this year, since they were kind of heavy before that,
but in all other respects were a great shoe. They were even suitable for
rugged trails, not to mention trail ultras, and held up pretty well. So
early this year I got a pair of the new 2120s in my old size 12.5EE. Funny
thing is they seemed a bit big, which was strange because 2100s and 2110s of
that size fit really well if a bit big which I wanted for ultras. I noted
that they did feel different, exchanged for 12EEs that fit better but still
had room, and didn't think much of it, using them on roads periodically.

Fast forward to snow melt and getting out on the harder trails again. These
2120s are a completely different shoe. On rugged trails they don't hold the
foot well unless laced tourniquet tight. The foam is so much softer that the
foot rolls substantially more than in the older models. The edge just
doesn't hold the same. That softer foam also lets the rocks through more. As
I thought about it they reminded me more of my old road favorites of '05 and
'06 the nike air pegasus.

This leads me to my experience of the air pegasus '06 model. Compared to the
'05s the air peg '06s are bricks. Not only are the totally different shoes,
the old soft ride is gone, and they remind me of beefy new balance trail
shoes like the 805s. Since I rarely used the air peg '05s on harder trails
because of their roll (I ran the vermont 50 mile trail run in them in '05
and regretted it) - I didn't really try the air peg '06s on hard trails yet.
That might be a solution. But then again they are pretty damn beefy shoes in
their current incarnation...

Requiring a wider shoe makes finding good shoes to race in particularly
difficult. Asics size 13 Ahar road flats (dunno exactly what their
designation is) will do for short road races as they fit OK. For trail races
I'm now stumped since I was relying on those heavy but very runable asics
2100/2110s. I envisioned cutting some excess rubber off the whole heel area,
and on the inside front part where they seem to have an extra wedge that
slants toward the other foot that is unnecessary. Generally I would LOVE to
find some lower profile trail shoes (that are wide enough) with enough
cushion and flat speed to go for a trail marathon or 50k.

The size 13 nike XC flats I got are good for short trail runs, but they're
really too narrow for rocky trails, and remind me of my old orienteering
shoes from 25 years ago that were basically a small-studded rubber pattern
sole with a kind of heavy waterproof nylon/plastic upper. That means there's
great feel, decent rock protection on the bottom, but there's very little
cushion for longer distances.

I'm thinking of ordering some of these la sportivas... but no widths hmmm.http://tinyurl.com/35kc8c

In any case I wish the manufacturers wouldn't mess with good designs so at
least you know what to expect!

-Tony

Asics suck. Adidas rock.

Quoted message said:

Asics suck. Adidas rock.

well there you have it folks...word from on high...we can all go home now.

*plonk*

nike wrote me;
back of my truck all ready full.
tennis chicken cat [censored].
hikers horsiest [censored].
wearing 3 years ago hikers. smooth as glass........

Hay all.
look at it this way!
my gov just landed a big job. and told that california gov off......she
must like him...
I can't see why. he lives with a great babe.his men-tor is the 2nd best
Kennedy ever. the babe Kennedy is way better looking and was a way
better reporter then sigs father who owns on good a.m. america ever well
be. number 1 by me. second to the my gov babe........
what were we talking about again.........
oh yah what babe was bath water would you drink...........if your were
on a long hot day run.......or something..........

sigs , my Mi govs, number 1 babe Kennedy govs ca wife.or wait a
sec......
clintons daughter in the tub.that it......
this is some kicking cold brew tea all.......

I have to say my ni gov because she sad sheis me...........or was it
shela me........
ether way..want to take a bath?

42°N,83°W
Have a good day!
Lowtuc Zow

I've had good experiences with Puma Alpine Trail Racer recently. Low-
profile, some soft rubber treads for grip over a hard outsole and a
moderately cushioned midsole both in the forefoot and heel,
definitely more than pure XC racers, but not over-bulky. [1] I am not
sure about ultras, but I've been using them for my long hill runs (~1
hour) without problems. Excellent balance, overall. The grip is
adequate, but the tread pattern is not ideal for rock. They weigh
300-350gr each. I guess you cannot be sure about the fit until you
try them out, but they seem wide enough to me.

I would like to try out some Inov-8 shoes, they seem to carry a wide
range of products to suit any trail runner's preferences - most of
them low-profile but with varying amounts of cushioning/waterproofing/
treading/rock protection.

[1] There's also a variant called 'Derby', advertised as having more
cushioning, but I am not sure if it will be toomuch for you.

the_bmac said:

Quoted message said:

Asics suck. Adidas rock.

well there you have it folks...word from on high...we can all go home now.

*plonk*

Hey dickface, you are correct. Everyone should toss their faggy-ass
nikes, Asics 2000 series, [censored]-ass inserts, and every other kinmd of
shoes, and buy adidas. All your ills will be cured.

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

I've had good experiences with Puma Alpine Trail Racer recently. Low-
profile, some soft rubber treads for grip over a hard outsole and a
moderately cushioned midsole both in the forefoot and heel,
definitely more than pure XC racers, but not over-bulky. [1] I am not
sure about ultras, but I've been using them for my long hill runs (~1
hour) without problems. Excellent balance, overall. The grip is
adequate, but the tread pattern is not ideal for rock. They weigh
300-350gr each. I guess you cannot be sure about the fit until you
try them out, but they seem wide enough to me.

I would like to try out some Inov-8 shoes, they seem to carry a wide
range of products to suit any trail runner's preferences - most of
them low-profile but with varying amounts of cushioning/waterproofing/
treading/rock protection.

[1] There's also a variant called 'Derby', advertised as having more
cushioning, but I am not sure if it will be toomuch for you.

Puma sux, get Adidas. The best shoe for every runner, every style.

"Christos Dimitrakakis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had good experiences with Puma Alpine Trail Racer recently. Low-
profile, some soft rubber treads for grip over a hard outsole and a
moderately cushioned midsole both in the forefoot and heel,
definitely more than pure XC racers, but not over-bulky. [1] I am not
sure about ultras, but I've been using them for my long hill runs (~1
hour) without problems. Excellent balance, overall. The grip is
adequate, but the tread pattern is not ideal for rock. They weigh
300-350gr each. I guess you cannot be sure about the fit until you
try them out, but they seem wide enough to me.

These seem to be out of production.

Quoted message said:

I would like to try out some Inov-8 shoes, they seem to carry a wide
range of products to suit any trail runner's preferences - most of
them low-profile but with varying amounts of cushioning/waterproofing/
treading/rock protection.

These look worth trying, thanks for the tip.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

[1] There's also a variant called 'Derby', advertised as having more
cushioning, but I am not sure if it will be toomuch for you.

Tony S. said:

"Christos Dimitrakakis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had good experiences with Puma Alpine Trail Racer recently. Low-

These seem to be out of production.

Really? They still seem to be available in the puma online store.
(But yeah, they may not be producing them any more... hm... maybe it's
time to get another pair)