a asics gel nimbus question

they don't have an independent opinion. they're guided by a script
provided by the manufacturer. in sum, they say what the hand that
feeds them, asics, tells them to say.

"dwjones45" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

could someone tell me who determines when it comes to reviewing the
new shoes in various running magazines when they as to what group of
runners a particular shoe is suited for?

proably the manufacturer

Quoted message said:

i bring this up because i read in sept runners world magazine that the
asics gel nimbus vii is suited for lighter weight efficent runners.

Either a misprint or misread. The Nimbus specs say it is a cushioned
shoe for men 180+ and women 150+ aka a cushioned boat

Quoted message said:

much to my surprise i found the nimbus to be quite heavy which would
make shoe more suited for a larger runner(over 180 lbs) rather than a
lighter or in my case a medium weight runner.

12.9 Oz for size 13.

Quoted message said:

could it have been a misprint in the magazine as to what group of
runners this shoe is suited for? or do they truly believe that this
shoe is suited for a lighter weight efficient runner? i simply can not
believe it after trying a pair for myself

The Landreth(11.0 oz) and Cumulus( 12.0) specs seem closer to what you
want in the Asics line albeit subtle differences.

I gave up reading RW pablum years ago.

-DF

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:22:30 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

12.9 Oz for size 13.

6.7 you numbnutz.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:22:30 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

12.9 Oz for size 13.

6.7 you numbnutz.

You are correct I'm wrong with the size. It's not 13 for a man but I
think it's 9. In any case your 6.7 must be your inflated IQ, it sure as
hell has nothing to with weight or size.

-DF

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

i bring this up because i read in sept runners world magazine that the
asics gel nimbus vii is suited for lighter weight efficent runners.

Quoted message said:

Either a misprint or misread. The Nimbus specs say it is a cushioned
shoe for men 180+ and women 150+ aka a cushioned boat

The "efficient" cannot be correct other than in the sense of "not
overpronating", but I don't think "lighter weight" necessarily is,
there are plenty of relatively light runners who heel-strike and/or
have stiff ankles and therefore need or prefer (especially on long
runs) such a "severely" cushioned shoe. It is not a cut-and-dried
weight issue.

Besides, there is a specific cushioned and neutral shoe for the heavier
runner in the Asics product range, the Gel Fortitude. (The cushioning
is too "buttersoft" in the Nimbus - says my shopfloor impression and at
least one German reviewer.)

BTW where did you get those specs?

BTW2 I wonder why a male weighing 150+ could do with a shoe for lighter
runners but a female weighing the same amount should need a shoe for
heavier runners? Is the difference of a few sizes really so crucial -
and if it is, wouldn't a male with a size 8 foot require a different
shoe from the male of similar weight but a size 12 foot?

Anders

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:40:33 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

, it sure as
hell has nothing to with weight or size.

Coming from a "member" of the "2" when erect" club, that's
understandable.

anders said:

BTW2 I wonder why a male weighing 150+ could do with a shoe for lighter
runners but a female weighing the same amount should need a shoe for
heavier runners?

I think women's shoes are built differently than men's - and for an
"average" female runner, assume something closer to 120lb, I think
(can't remember where I saw that number, and it may be off numerically,
but the concept is there). Around 150lb is the boundary they use for
athenas (clydesdales around 200lb), where such categories exist, so they
probably design shoes for lesser weight.

As a side note, seams are generally more durable in men's clothes than
women's so it's not surprising that shoes aren't as strong either. I'm
still waiting for equality in clothing quality 🙂.

Dot

--
"A winner is just a loser who tried one more time." -Captain George M.
Moore, Jr., United States Air Force (retired),
http://www.avdlm.com/press.php?page=stories&storyid=1

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

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

i bring this up because i read in sept runners world magazine that
the
asics gel nimbus vii is suited for lighter weight efficent runners.

Quoted message said:

Either a misprint or misread. The Nimbus specs say it is a cushioned
shoe for men 180+ and women 150+ aka a cushioned boat

The "efficient" cannot be correct other than in the sense of "not
overpronating",

Right or wrong I think that is how they define it.

Quoted message said:

but I don't think "lighter weight" necessarily is,
there are plenty of relatively light runners who heel-strike and/or
have stiff ankles and therefore need or prefer (especially on long
runs) such a "severely" cushioned shoe. It is not a cut-and-dried
weight issue.

I think them aim for mass averages. As I looked through the Landreth,
Nimbus, Fortitude and the differences are very vague.

Quoted message said:

BTW where did you get those specs?

Which specs? Some from
http://www.asicsamerica.com/category.asp?PARENT_CATEGORY_ID=250001173
and others from the RoadRunner catalog. I try to cross reference for
accuracy.

-Doug

Quoted message said:

I think women's shoes are built differently than men's

no true. i buy and wear lots of women's shoes, am very hard on
shoes... and know a bit about capital development & manufacturing. In
fact there are shoes in the racing realm that are built, marketed, and
sold as "unisex" like the ASICS GEL -Magic Racer and the Brooks ST2,
etc...

Quoted message said:

As a side note, seams are generally more durable in men's clothes than women's

__

not true. contact Levi's or any clothinig manufacturer who makes "x"
for men and women and you'll see no distinctions are made in terms of
the seams. it would actually cost more to reconfigure the
assembly/manufacturing process to make manufacturing distinctions...for
men v. women...than to keep them the same and simply revise cut design.

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

The "efficient" cannot be correct other than in the sense of "not
overpronating",

Quoted message said:

Right or wrong I think that is how they define it.

But isn't that the definition of "neutral"? One can be an efficient
overpronating runner (if the overpronating is not too extreme) and one
can be a non-efficient neutral runner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW where did you get those specs?

Quoted message said:

Which specs? Some from
http://www.asicsamerica.com/category.asp?PARENT_CATEGORY_ID=250001173
and others from the RoadRunner catalog. I try to cross reference for
accuracy.

"Which specs?" he asks! The very same specs he referred to in his
previous post - as which I quoted in the post he replies to!

"The Nimbus specs say it is a cushioned shoe for men 180+ and women
150+"; I cannot see any reference to any recommended weight range
anywhere.

(Surely you don't mean that cushioned shoes are suitable only for the
180+/150+ runners?)

Anders

Dot said:

I think women's shoes are built differently than men's - and for an
"average" female runner, assume something closer to 120lb, I think
(can't remember where I saw that number, and it may be off numerically,
but the concept is there). Around 150lb is the boundary they use for
athenas (clydesdales around 200lb), where such categories exist, so they
probably design shoes for lesser weight.

I've always assumed that the differences between the same (French)
sized shoe for male or female runners were only in a more narrow last,
especially the heel.

Quoted message said:

As a side note, seams are generally more durable in men's clothes than
women's so it's not surprising that shoes aren't as strong either. I'm
still waiting for equality in clothing quality 🙂.

This is apparenly so especially in such items as jackets: men's are
much better tailored and sewn - but is that only because men want more
value for their money and women are more willing to part with good
money even when the manufacture is seconf rate?:-)

(OTOH I know many women visit the men's department when they're
shopping for a jacket...)

Anders

Doug Freese said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:22:30 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

12.9 Oz for size 13.

6.7 you numbnutz.

You are correct I'm wrong with the size. It's not 13 for a man but I
think it's 9. In any case your 6.7 must be your inflated IQ, it sure as
hell has nothing to with weight or size.

Might be his age

--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

anders said:

BTW2 I wonder why a male weighing 150+ could do with a shoe for lighter
runners but a female weighing the same amount should need a shoe for
heavier runners?

A 150lb woman is probably heavy compared to other female runners.

But BMI is probably a better measure. Some aggregate of weight and shoe size
would be better still.

Even then, there are substantial differences in injury risk profiles for men and
women. For example, I know very few men who get stress fractures on less than
100 miles a week, but I know a number of women who have run into this problem.

Quoted message said:

Is the difference of a few sizes really so crucial -
and if it is, wouldn't a male with a size 8 foot require a different
shoe from the male of similar weight but a size 12 foot?

If their feet are that different, the mechanics of impact will also be
completely different even if they wear the same shoe. So there's no reason to
believe they should wear the same model of shoe.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

anders said:

BTW2 I wonder why a male weighing 150+ could do with a shoe for lighter
runners but a female weighing the same amount should need a shoe for
heavier runners?

I think women's shoes are built differently than men's - and for an

What I've heard on letsrun is that they are exactly the same but the womens
model has a B width.

Quoted message said:

"average" female runner, assume something closer to 120lb, I think
(can't remember where I saw that number, and it may be off numerically,
but the concept is there). Around 150lb is the boundary they use for
athenas (clydesdales around 200lb), where such categories exist, so they
probably design shoes for lesser weight.

Why would they bother ? They already have several parallel lines at different
weights as it is. Besides, the lighter body weight of women doesn't seem to
remove their need for cushioning.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

The runners world web site lists models of various types.
I had to switch to specialty type (stability) a couple of years
back and I could rarely figure which was which in your average
sport store (Nike now marks grades its boxes in three criteria).
The trouble with most web searches is that a manufacturer
such as ASICS may rename most of its models and the old names
arent on the shelves.

Quoted message said:

The trouble with most web searches is that a manufacturer

such as ASICS
_

imo migrating away from asics is a very good thing. consider it a
blessing in disguise.

I did not read the runners world article, but have been wearing the nimbus
for five years. The running stores in Nashville and in Cincinnati both
agreed that the nimbus is for heavier runners.

"dwjones45" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

could someone tell me who determines when it comes to reviewing the new
shoes in various running magazines when they as to what group of runners a
particular shoe is suited for? i bring this up because i read in sept
runners world magazine that the asics gel nimbus vii is suited for lighter
weight efficent runners. well i happen to a 5' 10," 159 lb runner. so i
went down to my local specialty store the other day to try on a pair of
the gel nimbus. much to my surprise i found the nimbus to be quite heavy
which would make shoe more suited for a larger runner(over 180 lbs) rather
than a lighter or in my case a medium weight runner. could it have been a
misprint in the magazine as to what group of runners this shoe is suited
for? or do they truly believe that this shoe is suited for a lighter
weight efficent runner? i simply can not believe it after trying a pair
for myself

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:41:23 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email hidden]> wrote (in part):

Quoted message said:

. . . Besides, the lighter body weight of women doesn't seem to
remove their need for cushioning.

Cheers,

Right. It's still units-mass per square unit-area, right? A lighter
body weight on a smaller foot would have the same unit-loading as more
weight on larger foot? (until BMI rises significantly.) Even more
loading for fast runners, since the force is as the square of the
velocity, right? I haven't tried to do the math -- I'm just the idea
guy, you're the scientist. :-)
--
Daniel
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think women's shoes are built differently than men's

no true. i buy and wear lots of women's shoes, am very hard on
shoes... and know a bit about capital development & manufacturing. In
fact there are shoes in the racing realm that are built, marketed, and
sold as "unisex" like the ASICS GEL -Magic Racer and the Brooks ST2,
etc...

Quoted message said:

As a side note, seams are generally more durable in men's clothes than women's

__

not true. contact Levi's or any clothinig manufacturer who makes "x"
for men and women and you'll see no distinctions are made in terms of
the seams. it would actually cost more to reconfigure the
assembly/manufacturing process to make manufacturing distinctions...for
men v. women...than to keep them the same and simply revise cut design.

It's interesting that you buy women's shoes. I've had experience
working in retail clothing. It's not unusual to see women buying men's
shoes. Another poster mentioned men's jackets. I've found that to be
true along with women buying men's jeans, dress shirts, sweaters,
whatever, for their personal use. They like the style, quality or fit.