On Aug 22, 5:15 pm, Elflord <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree, but I don't quite understand what your argument is -- are you arguing
> that Nikes are an otherwise great shoe with a durability problem ?
>
No arguement at all.
My point is that I can't argue short life if it's a racing flat,
because life expectancy isn't an issue with racing flats as much as
trainers. Obviously you only use racing flats at races, which is a
very small percentage of the total miles run in training.
As far as durability goes, I'd say yes, but I don't think I'd call
them an otherwise great shoe, more of an overpriced mediocre shoe with
durability problems. I've simply never worn or tried on a good pair of
nikes. Maybe they are just designed for lighter people, and my 185lbs
is too much for them, but they just don't work for me, and the pairs I
have had just didn't last half as long as other brands. I also came up
injured within a few weeks with every pair of nikes I've worn.
The price of nikes is another issue I have. Too much spent on
advertising instead of making a good shoe.
> Well OK, but some shoe companies have trouble making a true flat (without
> "rollbars", medial posts, etc)
>
Agreed. BTW the last time I strapped on racing flats was my last
marathon back in the early 80's, so I am defeniately no expert on
racing flats.
> They could bolster almost any argument, depending on which rating one
> cited.
>
True, and the site I was looking at didn't say what the stars
represented. It could've easily been the most popular selling model,
but I do believe it was a customer rating by how satisfied they were
with that shoe.
> The Piranha doesn't have Gel.
>
On this site
http://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/products/ASC1275/ it's called
the "gel piranha SP" so I assumed it did have gel.
> Sometimes less is more
>
And sometimes less is just cheaper, so it's used instead of gel. I
noticed nike is big on "air" while most other brands use gel, or
another equivelent.
