Apr 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm #1288205
Lots of talk about minimalist shoes, but ….
How much does a minimalist shoe weigh ?
In other words, what is the heaviest a shoe can weigh and still be called minimal.
What is the upper end of the beginning of minimal ?
Has it ratcheted down over the last couple years as our perceptions of the possible have changed ?
I'm not asking how much drop your shoe has, how many toes it has, or any other construction specifics, just weight.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm #1862628
The typical weight of trailrunners is around 14 oz per shoe. Lightweight shoes might be 10 oz or less. Minimalist shoes would be something less, what do you think?Apr 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm #1862629
I don't think weight is an important factor in whether or not a shoe is minimalist. I think the other factors in construction are what makes it minimal or not.
Heal drop 4mm or less
Lack of Arch Support
Wide Toe Box
Have much more to do with whether or not a shoe is minimlist or not. So in a generic male shoe I would say that anything over 10 ozs would probably be difficult to classify as a minimal shoe but that does not mean any shoe less that 10 oz is minimal. But I am sure there are exceptions on either sideApr 2, 2012 at 1:17 pm #1862630
I'm not disagreeing with you Greg, but you're trying to bring in an entire philosophy. I'm trying to keep it to one element.
so you would say the line is about 10 oz per shoe.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm #1862634
Other problems with putting shoes into categories by only weight is sizing.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm #1862638
@justin_bakerLocale: Santa Rosa, CA
A low rise minimal shoe with a 3-4mm sole will usually weigh around 6-7 oz, maybe bump that up to 10 oz if it's leather. Some of the real minimal, water shoe like minimal shoes probably can get down to 3 oz.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm #1862642
Here are some weights. Size 12 or 13 depending on the brand. Note that the XC Flats do not have rock plates. Weights are for each shoe, not the pair. These were weighed on my scale, not manufacturers' weights. I included the Salomon XA Pro as a comparison, as it is one of the most popular running shoes. One of the problems with XC flats are no rock plate, not real grippy soles, and they wear out quickly. I am doing a lot of hiking now with my Perigrines, as they really grip surfaces well. My favorite for comfort (other than impact and cactus) is easily the Mizunos. The other 3 XC flats did not last even 200 miles, but keep in mind they were on a lot of cross country hikes and nasty volcanic rock.
Mizuno Wave Universe 4 shoes = 4.9 oz
Asics Piranha SP 2 Racing flats = 5.3 oz
Saucony Kinney XC Flasts = 6.5 oz
Saucony Shay XC Flats = 7.2 oz
Saucony Perigrine = 11.5 oz
Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra Trail Running Shoes = 14.70 oz
Vibram Five Fingers KSO = 6.7 ozApr 2, 2012 at 1:36 pm #1862645
I understand you are trying to simplify a definition but I would say that your premise is flawed.
Take for example backpacking. At what weight would you call someone a minimalist?
I don't believe you can answer that question without taking into accound climate, duration of trip, level of isolation, risk tolerance, experience, etc.
Minimalism is about using as little as possible. In reference to shoes providing as little of foot protection and other structures as required to allow the foot to behave in a natural manner. Low Weight is a consequence of a minimalist shoe design I would not say that weight in itself is an end.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:46 pm #1862651
"I understand you are trying to simplify a definition but I would say that your premise is flawed."
Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Ignore this thread.
I'll put my money on Art's ability to read between the lines. He's been at this a while.Apr 2, 2012 at 1:53 pm #1862654
I realize to some of you, minimalism IS rocket science.
So let me put it this way.
IF you feel there are more elements involved, then surely you can use weight as an eliminating factor.
all minimal shoes weigh less than X, but not all shoes that weigh less than X are minimal.
and yes, people have different size feet, solve that by using the standard weight claim size, which is typically size 9 I think. So if you have size 14 feet but your shoe in a 9 qualifies as minimal, then you are minimal.Apr 2, 2012 at 2:10 pm #1862661
Why try to classify something by weight? I know we do it with base weights.
Best to classify it by construction… rock plate, heel-toe drop, etc. Seems most minimalist runners look at these from the standpoint of construction design and how closely they mimic barefoot running.Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm #1862667
@redmonkLocale: Greater California Ecosystem
Id say anything over 6oz is not minimal.
For this thread,I dont assume minimal implies minimal change in form, just the amount of material on the foot.
I am more into the range of footwear with designs that allow and promote natural form, with lots of the features ,other than weight, others have already mentioned.Apr 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm #1862691
once again I am not denying the other elements you mention.
but does a shoe, with all the elements you suggest, that weighs 18 oz per shoe qualify as minimal?
I'm simply trying to use weight as a first qualifying factor, since all the other factors seem to be both subjective and evolving.
and from the direction of this thread so far, perhaps even weight is subjective and evolving.Apr 2, 2012 at 3:54 pm #1862701
To eliminate all non minimal shoes i think you would have to have the weight below 3.9 oz to eliminate the wave universe. To include all minimal shoes you would have to get to 9.5 oz to include the altra instincts. Though that really is more shoe than many people would call minimal. It definately has a lot of minimal features but it is quite padded.
What is the goal of this catagorization exercise?Apr 2, 2012 at 4:28 pm #1862707
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
According to Hoka One One, as much as a pair of their Hoka Bondi Bs.
;-)Apr 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm #1862721
@ikeLocale: Central Michigan
I agree with Greg on this one. Any weight criteria would be fairly arbitrary and of secondary importance to fit, drop, and last. However, because great options (for me at least) exist at 12 oz per pair, it would be hard for me to pick a shoe much heavier than that. There's no real reason for a minimalist shoe to be much heavier than that. Does > 20 oz exclude a pair from being minimalist? No idea. It's just not part of the definition I had in my head.Apr 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm #1862732
Every shoe I have ever worn that I would personally put into the "minimal" category (regardless of varying drop or features), from a NB MT100, MT101, MT110, Minimus MT10, MT00, Minimus road, VFF Sprint, Saucony Kilkenny…
All of them, without exception, have weighed less than 10 ounces per shoe in a size 13. This never even occurred to me until now.
All I know is I like what I like…I know what I know if you know what I mean.
(Though Edie Brickell sings way better)Apr 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm #1862758
Obviously I am an advocate of truly minimalist shoes, the Mizuno Wave Universe 4 and Asics Piranha SP 2 are probably the two lightest one could buy. However, they are not acceptable for all conditions — I wear them in tough conditions and they don't last. Also lacking a rock plate, impact injuries and other injuries do happen… ask Craig Wisner :(
At some point you need a rock plate and protection on the sides from obstacles. If you say minimalist is 10 oz, then my Perigrines don't qualify. And they do have a 4mm heel drop, but the protection is far superior than my favorite Mizunos. But a size 12 is less than 12 oz.Apr 3, 2012 at 9:54 am #1863046
@sbhikesLocale: Santa Barbara (Name: Diane)
If the shoe is light but has a tight toebox, a steep heel rise and arch support, it's just a light shoe, not a minimalist shoe.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.