erik Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 why do they wear out so fast? i got a pait of asics about 6 months ago and they are ruined...flat out trashed. pisses me off that a shoe hyped to withstand the rigors of trail running cannot last a year. wtf? going to go buy some new ones today...and fuck asics, they dont last. i am going back to phil knight after 10 years away. sucky shoes that dont last: asicis addidas saucony brooks Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 choade, you want light weight and sticky rubber, then that's what you get...no longevity. Buy Danner's low tops. slightly more weight but that'll help put some meat on your calves. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I've been pretty happy with my Salomons (I know they're owned by Adidas, but the stuff seems to be different enough.) They've lasted for well over a year, and I expect to get at least 1/2 year if not a full year more out of them. Quote
minx Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 erik running shoes are designed to last about 400-500 miles. if you've exceeded that, it is time for new shoes. all the brands you've mentioned are reputable. i've put many miles on adidas. you might try mizunos. that is the shoe i get the most mileage out of. minx Quote
Rodchester Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Regular (street) running shoes would wear out that fast too. Most serious runners go through three to four pair of shoes in a regular year. The lightweight materials and construction simply cannot withstand the pounding. Put them on a trail and they'll wear out just as fast. Nikes are no, better. I have found that Nike's are worse. Quote
erik Posted October 1, 2003 Author Posted October 1, 2003 i um realize that people!!!! or course they wear out...but the sole does not need to come off in less then 6 months.... and i am going with nike cuz i havent tried a pair in a while..and the ones i got fit my feet quite nicely and the price was very kind too. Quote
cj001f Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 minx said: running shoes are designed to last about 400-500 miles. if you've exceeded that, it is time for new shoes Minx speaks the truth. I've never gotten more than 6 months useful lifetime out of a pair of running shoes. Such is the state of the art. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 or perhaps a conspiracy theorist would claim this is planned obsolencence.... Quote
minx Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 the sole shouldn't come off that quickly. good luck w/the nikes iceguy, do you run in your merrells or just use them as an approach shoe? i've always found them so stiff that i couldn't run in them comfortably. nice approach shoes for me but lousy for running. Quote
erik Posted October 1, 2003 Author Posted October 1, 2003 the nikes sole is one piece and not 8 like some of the others ones....seperated and raised soles fall off much quicker, they seem to be more susceptible falling apart. i think it has to do with the fact that they are small pieces and not larger ones. either way, i will crush you all!!! barefoot or in my chacos!!! Quote
Bronco Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I've had very good experience with the 3 pairs of New Balance trail runners I've had. I don't run trails a lot, but, have put 500 miles of running on each pair with no problems. Quote
scot'teryx Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Salomon Functions are the goods I also heard the new Montrail D7's (?) are pretty sweet Quote
kklimber Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Montrails are HIGHLY recommended by the folks at the shoe store by the old REI (name escapes me - used to be Foot Zone). If you want to buy your shoes from people that actually do a lot of trail running, go there. They also recommend the Mizuno, saying after several successive approximations, they've got it right. I believe the model is "Red Hawk". Of course, it's got to fit your foot. . . Quote
mbcracken Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I was in a pair of Salomon's last year, but I really didn't like the laceup strap. I could'nt get it snug for my whole foot. My foot doc recommend'd Asics Eagle Trail II to me last time I was in. I picked up a pair a couple months ago and am pretty happy with them for trail running. They are a little wide for my narrow foot, but I like the tread. I'll let you know if the tread falls off in another 4 months. Quote
erik Posted October 1, 2003 Author Posted October 1, 2003 mbcracken said: IAsics Eagle Trail II thats the ones i have!!!!! grrrrrrrrrr and watch out for the cloth strap thingy getting caught on roots and the such!!! it will get abraided quick i found! Quote
cj001f Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 mbcracken said: I was in a pair of Salomon's last year, but I really didn't like the laceup strap. Is that the Salomon quick lace strap? I found it garbage. In general I find the cushioning & support destruct far before the rest of the shoe with Salomon's. Guess I should lose weight. Quote
Alpinfox Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 erik said: mbcracken said: IAsics Eagle Trail II thats the ones i have!!!!! grrrrrrrrrr and watch out for the cloth strap thingy getting caught on roots and the such!!! it will get abraided quick i found! Bummer. I just bought a pair of those. I had a pair of Asics Gel Trabuco that I ran/hiked/approached/climbed in for two years including 200 miles on the PCT last summer. They held up very well I thought. That's why I went with Asics again. Fortunately my sister got me a sweet bro-deal (sis-deal?) on them... Quote
Alpinfox Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Oh yeah, my asics didn't stink too bad either which is pretty unusual for me. My rock shoes are another story. : PinchingNoseGremlin: Quote
Bronco Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Why dont you just lose some weight? I hear those shoes are just not made for 200 pounders. Quote
timo Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I am close to 200. My fat butt has been using and abusing Merrells ventilator lows. They seem to be holding up alot better than my NB 805s. Thicker stiffer sole less rock bruising also. Quote
Pro Mountain Sports Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 (edited) Anyone with comments, good or bad experience with the LaSportiva's? Exum Ridge, Colorado Trail, or Monarch Crest? Edited October 1, 2003 by Gearhead Quote
scot'teryx Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I hear that the superfly's really suck, fall apart darn quick. 2nd hand account though. Ask Adrien at cascade crags Quote
cj001f Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Gearhead said: Anyone with comments, good or bad experience with the LaSportiva's? Exum Ridge I have a pair of Exum Ridge's. I bought them slightly small for better climbing, so they don't fit well for running. I like 'em. For walking(long distance) approaches I have a pair of La Sportiva Hyper's that I love. Quote
PONCHO&LEFTY Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 Salomon lasted long for me, but they would untie themselves all day. Used mostly at work and stepped on many nails with 0 penetrations of skin whilst the guy I worked with had Nikes and had 2 nails get him good. However I have to give a vote for Nike because all the pairs I have owned have lasted forever. Quote
AmberBuxom Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 erik said: why do they wear out so fast? i got a pait of asics about 6 months ago and they are ruined...flat out trashed. pisses me off that a shoe hyped to withstand the rigors of trail running cannot last a year. ive been using asics running shoes for over 20 years. theyre no better or worse than other top brands like saucony brooks nike adidas et al. but they do have notoriously thin forefoot soles. what model did you trash in 6 months and what mileage did you put in? and can you lay off the foul language already? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.