When is a pair of runners dead

tunney

I used to subscribe to the 500km of running and then a pair of runners is dead. Then I started to think - well that's bollock.

So I now only call a pair of runners dead when there is no thread on the forefront of the runner.

When do you call yours?

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

I used to subscribe to the 500km of running and then a pair of runners is dead. Then I started to think - well that's bollock.

So I now only call a pair of runners dead when there is no thread on the forefront of the runner.

When do you call yours?

Recently replaced mine as the side was ripping to point where big toe was slightly coming out. Checked back on my log and they lasted approx 1100 miles/ 6 months.

Pretty much only change when there is visible damage.

Waits for the horrified responses

tunney

ecoli wrote: »

Recently replaced mine as the side was ripping to point where big toe was slightly coming out. Checked back on my log and they lasted approx 1100 miles/ 6 months.

Pretty much only change when there is visible damage.

Waits for the horrified responses

Yeah thats what I'm tending to as well. But is the lack of a thread on the forefront *enough* damage?

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

Yeah thats what I'm tending to as well. But is the lack of a thread on the forefront *enough* damage?

It is if I am on my toes driving up a hill and next thing my entire foot is not still in the shoe (I aint no barefoot runner and not gonna start now:D)

Despite my changing I do notice a bit of a difference when I first get a new pair after wearing an old pair down to that extent but to be honest I dont mind that training is not for running fast (expect sessions and I have seperate flats for that) so I have no problem in wearing a pair until they become unwearable. Personally I think the 500k thing is more a marketing ploy than anything else

BTH

tunney wrote: »

I used to subscribe to the 500km of running and then a pair of runners is dead. Then I started to think - well that's bollock.

So I now only call a pair of runners dead when there is no thread on the forefront of the runner.

When do you call yours?

500km? Got 1100 out of my last pair until i started getting a little knee pain. New pair have a little over 500 and theres 2-300 left on them yet, no issues so far.

belcarra

I generally make my purchases when the sales are on to get them at the best price. I won't bother wearing them until I see the physical damage appearing on the old pair at which stage I'll start to overlap the pairs over the course of a few weeks and eventually only wear the new pair for another few months before the cycle starts again...

RacoonQueen

It's different for everyone isn't it. I've a pair of kinvara with about 600 or 700 miles on them and they've very little wear on the soles. Other people are saying kinvaras only last them for 300 or 400.

I have a pair of lunarglides that are more or less completely worn on the sole. No idea why I've not thrown these out yet...

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

I tend to keep a hold of runners until a)threads are worn, b)start picking up niggles more frequently or c)cushiining is gone. C is always a hard one to call though.
Those Hattorris in the log look good, would work well for those early/late runs down dark country roads.

jprender

I've only put just over 450kms on my pair of asics 2150's.

They are now knackered. My toe is poking up through the mesh on one of them :rolleyes:

I'll change them straight after the Dublin HM on Saturday. RIP.

gerard65

jprender wrote: »

I've only put just over 450kms on my pair of asics 2150's.

They are now knackered. My toe is poking up through the mesh on one of them :rolleyes:

I'll change them straight after the Dublin HM on Saturday. RIP.

Major design fault in Asics shoes. The mesh starts wearing at around 300 miles, one reason why I stopped buying asics.
I find 500 - 600 miles are the limit for shoes before they start feeling flat.

BeepBeep67

Usually north of 500 miles longer if I like them or when the physio bill is more than a new pair.

thirstywork2

It really comes down to the user wearing them.I usually test for uneven wear on my left foot as I underpronate on this side and usually the outside gets smashed up.
Most people who are in a support shoe tend to put more pressure on the shoe but then a suppost shoe takes alot more wear in the midsole.

Id say between 600-650 is the average.Shoe companies tend to say 400-500 but this is to sell more shoes :rolleyes:

I change mine nearly as much as RacoonQueen :eek:

sconhome

I was thinking all day how can I reply to this and for people to understand that I'm being objective.

Shoe companies guide 400-600 miles (640-960km) as being an average life expectancy for running shoes.

Big caveats to this include such things as body weight, running form, running surface etc. I too thought 'rubbish' in the same way as tunney until you consider the engineering of the materials in the shoes.

The EVA foam is tested, like a seatbelt or crash helmet or IKEA mattress for durability and it is the amount and force of compressions and recovery periods which dictate the lifespan of the cushioning systems. Whether gel base, wave based, foam based or whatever.

What does this mean in reality?

A 16 stone man with a decided heel strike is putting far more force through any running shoe than a 12 stone mid to forefoot runner in the same shoe. So the second person could get 1000+ km from the shoe while the first could have a dead shoe in 300km

Like any variable in life the shoe companies have to err on the side of caution. If they came out and said all shoes should last 1000+km there'd be a lot of warranty issues.

By selling short they get critism for 'restricting' the life of shoes to boost sales but create 'uber runners' who set out to proof them wrong by eeking the max out of their shoes, like the first 10 posters

A note re the ASICS mesh, it is ususally a sign of a shoe that is slightly too small for you when you burst through the top.

As for me? I alternate 2 pairs of shoes all the time (Mizuno Inspire) and easily get 700-800km out of each and (touching wood!) stay out of trouble with strains. At the same time I've gone from 15+ to 13st and heel to mid foot so I'm lighter on my feet too!

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

I was thinking all day how can I reply to this and for people to understand that I'm being objective.

Shoe companies guide 400-600 miles (640-960km) as being an average life expectancy for running shoes.

Big caveats to this include such things as body weight, running form, running surface etc. I too thought 'rubbish' in the same way as tunney until you consider the engineering of the materials in the shoes.

The EVA foam is tested, like a seatbelt or crash helmet or IKEA mattress for durability and it is the amount and force of compressions and recovery periods which dictate the lifespan of the cushioning systems. Whether gel base, wave based, foam based or whatever.

What does this mean in reality?

A 16 stone man with a decided heel strike is putting far more force through any running shoe than a 12 stone mid to forefoot runner in the same shoe. So the second person could get 1000+ km from the shoe while the first could have a dead shoe in 300km

Like any variable in life the shoe companies have to err on the side of caution. If they came out and said all shoes should last 1000+km there'd be a lot of warranty issues.

By selling short they get critism for 'restricting' the life of shoes to boost sales but create 'uber runners' who set out to proof them wrong by eeking the max out of their shoes, like the first 10 posters

A note re the ASICS mesh, it is ususally a sign of a shoe that is slightly too small for you when you burst through the top.

As for me? I alternate 2 pairs of shoes all the time (Mizuno Inspire) and easily get 700-800km out of each and (touching wood!) stay out of trouble with strains. At the same time I've gone from 15+ to 13st and heel to mid foot so I'm lighter on my feet too!

I take your point on cushioning but for me the eureka moment was : "well if you are going to run in vibrams, hattoris and barefoot David then does the cushioning in your other runners being degraded really matter THAT much".

I have a few pairs of runners that are < 600km. I have some that have over 1000km on them. I had retired these runners. However a year later and after my eureka moment I tried the retired runners again and they still felt as if they had some cushioning and I've gotten another few hundred km out of them.*

I think form is more important than any runner. If you approach running as a skills based form of activity as opposed to "just running" then I think that is what really matters.


*Disclaimer I consider myself to be morbidly obsess at the moment at 12st and I'm normally 10st 7 and an effecient light footed mid foot runner.

dna_leri

For me after 500-600 miles I start to feel the cushioning is breaking down and I consider myself to be easy on shoes - 10st, midfoot strike, low mileage, 2-3 pairs in continuous rotation.

I am sure the EVA foam is tested for durability but I am also sure it's designed to wear out. I don't think shoe companies use the 500 miles as a marketing tool to get you to replace the shoes, I think they select the EVA material so that it wears out or breaks down after about 500 miles.

I suspect they could easily select more durable EVA without significantly increasing the cost of manufacture (and bottom line) but this would reduce the frequency of sales (top line). It would take a newcomer in the market to come up with a product that is designed to last 1000 miles to break the mould.

RayCun

gerard65 wrote: »

Major design fault in Asics shoes. The mesh starts wearing at around 300 miles, one reason why I stopped buying asics.

+1
I have three pairs of Asics, all of which were comfortable to run in, all of which have holes in the same place in the mesh.

I have one newish pair of runners (3 months, 4/500k?), newish racers, and two year old pairs that I wear on grass/recovery runs. Need to pick up another pair soon to work into the rotation...

TFBubendorfer

As it happens, I threw out the oldest pair in rotation just this morning. They had about 850 miles on them.

I always get rid of the oldest pair whenever I get niggles, usually in the shin or ankles.

Abhainn

thirstywork2 wrote: »

It really comes down to the user wearing them.I usually test for uneven wear on my left foot as I underpronate on this side and usually the outside gets smashed up.

Same boat as bucko above.

lately though I run them to the point when my big toe comes through the material. It gardening time for them then

jeffontour

I was running in traditional heavily cushioned road shoes until a couple of months ago. I had about 1700km in a pair of Mizuno Wave Rider.

I now do all my road running in Inov8 Roadx 233, which have shag all rubber to start with but I've about 400km on them with little wear.

The Mizunos, old as they are, are what I go back to if(rarely) I need a little more cushioning. Relative to the Inov8s they are marshmallow soft and uber cushioned.

G-Money

I over-pronate and when I feel like the support on the inside is flattening I tend to retire my runners. I don't chuck them out, I instead use them for walking, but I go and buy another pair shortly after.

Zuppy

Being a very injury prone runner I use mine, usually ascis, for about 600km as which point they become my gym shoe and then my gardening shoes.

I was wondering, if the EVA breaks down, would it not break down in storage, with age also? So if you buy last years shoes on sale in the shop, do they have less milage than this years model because they are older and the EVA breakdown has started?

I do realise most shoes are stored in boxes, dry and dark which would limit exposure.

BeepBeep67

Abhainn wrote: »

Same boat as bucko above.

lately though I run them to the point when my big toe comes through the material. It gardening time for them then

I've started putting about 2" of Duck tape to cover the toe box on one side of my fav Adizero tempos (on the inside) - normally lasts about 10 runs beefore getting replaced - if you can catch it just before the pop through it works a treat.

Marthastew

RayCun wrote: »

+1
I have three pairs of Asics, all of which were comfortable to run in, all of which have holes in the same place in the mesh.

I have one newish pair of runners (3 months, 4/500k?), newish racers, and two year old pairs that I wear on grass/recovery runs. Need to pick up another pair soon to work into the rotation...

Very interesting thread. I was just thinking about this the other day and my gut instinct tells me it boils down to the sports companies making money. Will I risk injury? No! We all dread the thought of injury preventing us from getting out and it's even worse if we could have avoided it.
I have generally used one pair for each of my marathons including all the training. However I've chosen a higher mileage plan for my next marathon. The mesh on my asics does tend to go after approx 500 miles but also inside at the back of the heel the material wears away a lot. I don't feel like they need replacing but I'm petrified I'll injure myself so this time round I've had to invest in a second pair before the marathon.

plodder

tunney wrote: »

I used to subscribe to the 500km of running and then a pair of runners is dead. Then I started to think - well that's bollock.

So I now only call a pair of runners dead when there is no thread on the forefront of the runner.

Couldn't agree more. The recession has me asking the same question. My current shoes are Asics Kayanos and there are toe holes in the mesh and also the material around the heal. The foam looks pretty ok though. So, I think I'll get some more miles out of them. My next pair of shoes will be the kayanos I discarded before I bought the current pair

sconhome

Zuppy wrote: »

I was wondering, if the EVA breaks down, would it not break down in storage, with age also? So if you buy last years shoes on sale in the shop, do they have less milage than this years model because they are older and the EVA breakdown has started?

To answer both questions, no.

The 'breakdown' of the EVA foam is not a visual breakdown like the toe mesh or rubber wear on the sole.

Its molecular breakdown of the elastic properties within the EVA which reduce with aging through use. The EVA is built to withstand force through impact and to then recover by elastic rebound of its structure.

This is why it is important to rest a shoe or rotate it in use. For those who consistently go through 2 or more pairs of shoes in a year, by purchasing them close to each other and swapping for each run, that shoe life will really stretch out to well over the average expected.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

I take your point on cushioning but for me the eureka moment was : "well if you are going to run in vibrams, hattoris and barefoot David then does the cushioning in your other runners being degraded really matter THAT much"

Strangely enough it is not the same.

A shoe which started out cushioned and structured will degrade to a point where the cushioning provides no absorption and recoil. Instead it is 12mm of 'dead' material under your foot which interferes with proprioceptive feedback introducing instability.

The barefoot 'works' by removing the layer of cushioning thus allowing your body to interpret the contact and manage the impact absorption. It is amazing to see someone heel strike in a cushioned shoe yet glide in their barefeet.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

If you approach running as a skills based form of activity as opposed to "just running" then I think that is what really matters.

I agree for runners who are experienced or taking the activity seriously. Not so easy for 1st time or fun runners to manage. But definitely something to encourage.

shotgunmcos

thirstywork2 wrote: »

It really comes down to the user wearing them.I usually test for uneven wear on my left foot as I underpronate on this side and usually the outside gets smashed up.

+1 I tend to underpronte and the outside edge of my shoes wears quickly. I'm rotating 2 pairs of Adidas Sequence Cushion and a pair of Mizumo Wave Rider 14 at present with 400-650km on each. The integrity of the shoe as a whole is good and theay are mostly still cushioned. It would take anothe 200km typically for the big toe to show. Another perspective though is the wear on the outside edge literally tilting the shoe outwards (I'm a heavy midfoot strike). I go over my ankle easily enough as it tilts that way itself but the extra tilt once the rubber is worn on the outside edge increases the possiblility of my ankle going over. As such I retire them earlier than others would

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

Strangely enough it is not the same.

A shoe which started out cushioned and structured will degrade to a point where the cushioning provides no absorption and recoil. Instead it is 12mm of 'dead' material under your foot which interferes with proprioceptive feedback introducing instability.

The barefoot 'works' by removing the layer of cushioning thus allowing your body to interpret the contact and manage the impact absorption. It is amazing to see someone heel strike in a cushioned shoe yet glide in their barefeet.

I agree shod versus barefoot is very different however I doubt the "liveness" of the cushion affects the proprioception.