Related to shoe mileage discussion...brand longevity? (Read 679 times)

Seeing as how it appears that I may be one of those runners who wears out shoes a little prematurely, I was wondering if there are certain brands that seem to last longer than others. I have been wearing New Balance, mostly because I need wide shoes and won't ever run into issues finding a shoe that fits my need and is wide enough as long as I stay with NBs (and I have been very happy with the 2 pair I have had, though both seem to have led to increasing achey knees, shins, and calves by ~250 miles. I recall that when I replaced my last pair of shoes that my various aches and pains were eliminated almost immediately). Would I likely have shoes last longer (in terms of cushioning and support) with a different manufacturer, or is my running style/mechanics the biggest determining factor here? I'd be open to try other brands in the future, but am not eager to have my selection so limited by available widths. I also really love my current shoes (aside from the price tag, ouch!), so I'm not sure I am eager to experiment unless there's a strong chance that I can stay in a shoe for at least another 100 miles before needing to replace them. k

The Nikes I used to wear last about 300 miles. I almost made it to 500 miles with my Saucony. The Nikes were much lighter because they were made of foam, which would explain why they didn't last as long.

I've found more variation between models than between makes. In my experience, really simple, neutral shoes (like the Nike Pegasus, Asics Landreth, New Balance 755) last forever. The more stability and structure built into the shoe, the quicker they will break down.

I've found more variation between models than between makes. In my experience, really simple, neutral shoes (like the Nike Pegasus, Asics Landreth, New Balance 755) last forever. The more stability and structure built into the shoe, the quicker they will break down.

That is indeed the smartest thing I've heard in the discussion. I don't see any reason the basic shoes can't last a helluva lot longer than most people suggest; but I'd guess that the more complex the shoes, the quicker something can break down. I'd guess that this is actually a very different conversation for people with pretty normal feet versus people with "special needs" feet. And yes, I just coined a new phrase. "Special needs" feet. They take a short yellow bus to the shoe store.

Interesting...I was just reading the reviews on RRS for my current shoes and one of the few criticisms was that they lose their cushioning relatively fast. The model that one reviewer highly recommended as an alternative just happens to be the same one that was my second choice (857) when I was fitted at the Grand Rapids NB store back in early Sept. He claimed that the stability of those is as good and the cushioning more durable, for whatever reason...and they are at least $30 cheaper, which is a bonus. I know that's a heavier weight shoe, too. I'm guessing part of why the 1222 is more expensive is that it's a lighter-weight shoe and it has a few other features that are missing on the 857 (things I don't think I would miss too much, like the N-lock feature which helps in getting the laces snugger around the middle of the foot, but my feet are so shapeless and duck-like that I doubt that feature does much on my tootsies). Another question...how many shoe models does the average runner try before finding the "perfect" shoe? I think I'm getting close, but a perfect shoe for me shouldn't require forking over $100+ every 3 months. Just wait...I will finally find that elusive ideal shoe and the bastards will discontinue it in favor of some new-fangled model that will suck ass. k