Jun 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm #1237308
Companion forum thread to:Jun 24, 2009 at 10:17 am #1510179
@beepLocale: Land of 11, 842 lakes
Roger, I really like your thorough reviewing style! The unsewed gap you found in the shoes seems like something that Superglue or similar adhesive could seal without compromising weight, function or durability. Of course, you'd need to know to look for the unsewn gap, but your review does a great job in identifying this manufacturing shortcoming.
Good job!Jun 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm #1510208
@tarasbulbaLocale: Rocky Mountains
Another great review Roger! I'm partial to New Balance shoes for the very reason you point out: they come in widths, and very few shoe manufacturers make widths any one more. Another one that comes to mind is Asics (they make wide, 2E and 4E), and I've been looking at their Kahuna Trail Runner as a possible future purchase. Maybe you'll review it?
In the spotlight review you mention two things that I'm not clear about. One is your mention that low-cut shoes are preferable because mids rub and absorb energy. I can understand how a spongy sole can absorb energy, but the higher cuff? The other is about the shoe arch being detrimental to the point of being injurious. Now, I have absolutely flat feet and wear Superfeet insoles, which provide great comfort. Without them my dogs become fatigued way before the end of the day. Anyway, if you would be so kind as to elaborate it would be greatly appreciated. Happy trails!Jun 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm #1510246
I will have a look at the Asics – thank you. But I could not find the Kahuna Trail Runner on their web site.
> mids rub and absorb energy
That's MY experience. But I am referring to the bit around the ankle, not to the sole. I find that a significant ankle cuff rubs my ankle and I can feel that it is resisting my ankle bending. This goes to an extreme with the high boots of course. They are a left-over of the old leather army boots era.
> shoe arch being detrimental to the point of being injurious.
OK, this is one of those delightfully vague areas. The term 'arch support' itself derives entirely from Nike marketing of a couple of decades ago – an inspired bit of unjustified foot-destruction which has caused huge problems for athletes around the world. It is now recognised as being actively dangerous to your foot health.
Originally leather shoes had virtually no side-incut at the arch at all, partly because it was hard to do. And the inner sole was dead flat. All moulded soles now have some side-incut at the arch region to help retain the foot in the 'right' position for the shoe. Some manufacturers refer to this side-incut as the 'arch support', but the term is misused. We just don't have an alternative!
My venom towards 'arch supports' is directed at the idea that the sole should rise up UNDER the foot to 'support' the arch. This is a criminal concept. Nike's justification for this when they introduced it was the idea that your foot was not strong enough to support itself. There was no medical research behind this and no bio-medical justification for it. It was just a marketing idea, but they fooled the world for some years.
The effect of something under the arch of your foot is to cause compression on the tendons under your foot, while they are working hard. You should think of them as the string on a tensioned bow, with the bones of your foot being the bow itself. This compression on hard-working tendons causes bruising and can cause the sheath around the tendon to be abraded away and start leaking. Your tendons then lose their lubrication and can rub raw. This leads to Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), and can be crippling. As I said, it is a criminal concept.
> I have absolutely flat feet
This is another stupid marketing concept. Your feet have a certain structure from your genetics. There is NOTHING wrong with your feet! Do NOT believe any marketing ******* which implies otherwise!
(Before anyone pitches in with a foot problem which has been diagnosed by a qualified podiatrist, let me state that I am not talking about such genuine problems. I am talking about ordinary healthy feet.)
However, it may be that the construction of the sole of the shoes you are wearing is mismatched to the shape of your feet. Fair enough: feet do vary widely in shape. If wearing Superfeet insoles improves the match then you have the perfect justification for wearing them (COMFORT!).
cheersJun 24, 2009 at 4:08 pm #1510255
I have just had a look at the ASICs web site for Wide fittings. It seems they all have gel in the sole for cushioning.
Now this may be a personal thing, but my wife and I have found that gel soles are bad for walking. The gel has the effect of removing the feel you have for the ground, and this leads to more twisted ankles and other injuries.
This is also the opinion of many sports doctors. There is a strong evidence-based move back towards thin-soled 'flats' in fact.
CheersJun 24, 2009 at 5:03 pm #1510266
@biointegraLocale: Puget Sound
What do you think about using an elastomeric adhesive rather than sewing for the suggested surgery?Jun 24, 2009 at 5:56 pm #1510277
@darren5576Locale: Down Under
Was that careys peak hut? Thats about 20k's from home as the crow flies.
DarrenJun 24, 2009 at 10:47 pm #1510320
> an elastomeric adhesive rather than sewing for the suggested surgery?
Oh, adhesives are wonderful stuff … but I would always sew. The trouble with adhesives is that the edge of the bond can slowly creep, dirt can get into the edge of the bond, and, well, they are not reliable under a continuously flexing load like this. Where the surfaces are rigid, they can be good. Here – sewing is better imho.
CheersJun 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm #1510321
Yep, Careys Peak Hut on Barrington Tops. It was meant to fine … :-)
CheersJun 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm #1510464
@tarasbulbaLocale: Rocky Mountains
Thanks for your insight on this matter Roger. As a matter of fact, as a child I was diagnosed as having flat feet by a Podiatrist and wore custom orthotics for quite a few years. Then it became too expensive and I resorted to OTC insoles. But a curious thing happened when I got my Innov8 390s. I was so thrilled with their arrival that the first time out I forgot to swap in the Superfeet, and I was amazed at how comfortable they were. Even with the Superfeet they remind me of wearing moccasins. Next week I'll be going for a several day outing, and I think I'll do it "barefoot" (sans Superfeet) just to see. Keeping an open mind as it were. Happy trails.Jun 27, 2009 at 7:28 am #1510747
@drongobirdLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
Roger writes fantastic reviews. Thanks.
My husband and I have had the same problem with hard lumps forming along the purple lines of other models. I'll mention them here to help people shopping for shoes suitable for sandy conditions.
Keen Shellrock and Keen Voyageurs have the same problem. We called them sand-worms – linear dense-packed sand wedged between the inner and outer liner, shaped like earthworms. The worms formed within a few days of walking in sandy conditions (Oregon Coast Trail, Escalante River). We didn't do the analysis to figure out where the sand entered.
Given that two Keen models had the problem, I'm not planning to buy that brand again.
AmyJul 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm #1511563
With the photo of the tongue defect from Roger's review in hand I visited a New Balance store to try out the 1110 and MO 1520 models. In each shoe, in the corners where Roger shows the screwdriver slipping thru, where the tongue should be attached to the upper, there is a gap in which a finger passes right thru. With gentle pressure the gap widened. The store manager was quite upset (not with me).
In comparison to my old Merrell Chameleons, these NB shoes are poorly constructed in the tongue/upper interface.Jul 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm #1511592
To be fair to New Balance, I don't think this was their doing: it was a Chinese factory stuff-up.
And the shoe has been withdrawn from production, which is a pity as otherwise it is a good shoe.
CheersJul 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm #1517056
@vladimir_ekLocale: New York
Had these two seasons ago. Sent them back to NB for this problem as well as durability issues. Basically these shoes fell apart after < 100 miles. The outer shell of the shoe is far too delicate for heavy use.Jul 15, 2012 at 5:39 pm #1894992
@mountainwalkerLocale: SF Bay Area & New England
Know this is an old thread, pulled it up because NB resurrected this shoe in a non-Gore Tex trail model.
Roger have you had a chance to try the new NB 1110?
I'm having trouble getting accurate information from NB on the heel to toe drop. One NB rep said the 1110 has a 4mm drop, while another NB rep claimed 12mm. Wish they'd list that info. Would be great if you had a knowledgeable insider to ask.
By contrast the first rep said the NB810 has an 8mm drop and the second said it also has a 12mm drop.
I was hoping New Balance would have a shoe similar to the Saucony Xodus 3.0 (good cushioning, protective rock plate, quick drying mesh, 4 mm heel to toe drop) or Altra Lone Peak (same as above except zero drop) for the nice NB selection of wider sizes. I don't have wide feet, but find the toe box on many trail shoes not generous enough for hiking and backpacking.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.