Hacker News Reader

Comment by cadamsdotcom | Hacker News Reader

Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet..

Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone.

Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund.

Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.

View on HN

That is exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are marketed as racing shoes for a couple of marathons, tops. Everything on those shoes is designed to be as thin and as light as possible.

In principle I agree; after all they're softer and lighter than most.

But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.

So I'm a brand loyalist for now..

It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)

Glad you’re happy with the Saucony Pro. I think the equivalent to the Vaporfly would be the Saucony Endorphin Elite though, which probably lasts no more than a couple of big races either.

If you ever want to try team Nike again, the Zoom Fly is the carbon-plated trainer I use, and it lasts a lot longer than the race shoes. I’m definitely not getting thousands of km though!

But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired.

All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.

This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.

> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events.

Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.

There are usually training versions of the race shoe, which are heavier due in part to thicker rubber soles and more durable foam. So you train in those, and then switch to the ultra-light, ultra-bouncy race version on race day.

You did the footwear equivalent of putting racing slicks on a daily driver.

I did, but it was because I'd had my expectations raised by Saucony's products (see my peer comment for more info)

That's been my impression with all running shoes over the last few years. They fall apart. I bought myself some nice Reebok shoes and they disintegrated. The sole is gone holes develop in the sides etc. I guess they make them lighter and thinner. I would prefer something that's a bit more durable but that doesn't seem to be an option.

Sure that happens. But in this case the quality was there - the uppers and attachment to the soles was top notch.

They look and feel awesome.

But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.

There are still plenty of shoes that will last for a while. You just need to avoid the super-light ones. Those are designed to go fast, not to be durable.

180km is pretty bad but you also trained in a race shoe that deliberately makes material tradeoffs to increase running efficiency.

Too much money and too little sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com