>Gears and Wears>Question About Brooks
I bought some Brooks Trance today and was shocked when the guy at the counter said they were $150. I have bought the Adrenaline and Ravenna, each of those were $110. Why are the Trance's so much higher? Is it truly the best shoe Brooks offers in the stability class?
Sometimes, there is no rhyme or reason for the cost of a running shoe. I try to stay under $100 if I can.
I had $45 in gift cards and coupons too, so was expecting to pay $70 ish for the shoes. Someone on another forum said they had more padding. Really? Hmm
Feeling the growl again
No matter the brand, watch for last year's closeouts. Get your shoes for <$70. I have not paid >$70 for a pair of trainers in recent memory. I wait for closeouts to appear (July?) and buy 3-4 pair.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I'm not sure if cushioning alone determines the cost. There may be some older models that are cheaper.
Looking at some of the brooks shoes, you may be right. The Brooks T7 Racer (little cushion) and some of the pure connect are some of the cheaper models. I'd warn you that if you get those shoes and you're not used to the lesser a mount of cushioning, it'll take some time to get used to them.
Squidward Bike Rider
It does seem like the stability shoes run higher than the rest, no matter who the manufacturer is...just my luck that I need the most expensive shoes. I always keep an eye out for liquidation sales, but sometimes the "bargain" price doesn't seem like much of a bargain.
I always try froogle.com when I'm looking for a bargain. Froogle is now incorporated into Google shopping, though. That, and a little patience may help. The clymb also has some deep discounts, but their offers last only a few days (and I don't recall seeing Brooks, but my memory may be failing).
Yea the Trance is Brooks' "premium" stability shoe. Nicer materials, more of the DNA gel stuff. Looks like last year's model retailed for $140...
Here is an article they put out a couple years ago about the differences.
Perry, thanks for the article, that's just the info I needed and was trying to prompt the young lady at the LRS for this type info. I just didn't have time to research before I made the trip.
Spaniel, I always look on runners warehouse and watch for deals and close outs like you suggest. Our LRS is a huge sponsor of the local races, and if you get lucky to place in AG, you get a giftcard to the store for $10, $15, or $20. After several races, I can normally get my $110 shoes for the $70 range you mention. It just shocked the crap out of me for the $150's.
zonykel, I have been thinking about some of the shoes you mentioned, but after some research and friend's experiences, I've decided to stay away from the lower heel drop. With me being a mid pack runner, it's just not worth the risk to me. My times will not improve that much with a lighter shoe (23:36 5k, 1:51:33 HM).
Thanks for the replies, the word "premium", and "Cadillac", in the article spell it out quite clearly.
Now I just hope the shoes are worth the extra cost, if they keep me running without injury, then it's a win.
Yes. This. And if you can find the model from 2 years ago, you'll save even more! I try to buy one pair a year from the LRS but I can't afford more than that (because seriously, 140 EUROS for shoes is just a lot of euros) so I get the oldest model I can find online the rest of the time.
Mitch, last time I went to the LRS, the Millenial shoe expert sold me a $150 pair of running shoes. Then they gave me a hard time when I returned them. Now I just check Runners World reviews and buy them at Running Warehouse.
Coming Up: 8/7 Bridge of the Gods HM
8/13 Oregon Wine Country HM
I really need to be convinced that ANY pair of shoes delivers the kind of value to charge $150 USD and differentiate itself from much cheaper shoes. #1, motion control shoes are over-sold to tons of people who really don't need them....because they are expensive and profitable. #2 even if you need them, within that grouping, what can they really prove is different to justify doubling the price?
Serious question here because this is something I'm contemplating right now (maybe I should start a thread about it).. Who would you say is someone who really needs stability shoes? I've been in them since I've started running but in the last year, I've become lighter and more efficient than at any other point in the years I've been running. LRS has called my overpronation 'mild'. I purchased my first pair of neutral shoes a little over a month ago and have been doing OK in them but am about to start my fall marathon training cycle and am nervous about not having a shoe with at least some stability...
My recollection from reading "Anatomy for Runners" is that the shoe cannot really correct over pronation. The dimensions of the shoe won't allow it.
I hav thought about this recently too. I think we can change the way we run, heel, midfoot, etc, along with changes in weight or even the terrain. I have often thought that I need to be filmed again to verify. I know when I first started running, my pace was a lot slower when i was fitted, than it is now.