| |
Main
Date: 04 Oct 2006 21:29:03
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: random shoe weight data
|
So my NYCM-bound Corsa Sette arrived today. I was getting ready to
head out on my 4:30 PM "evening" run, a Hansons' "strength" workout (6
miles split into whatever size segments [I like 2 miles] at supposedly
MP-10" [I prefer -20"] with half distance recoveries [what kind of wuss
do they think I am; 3 minutes is plenty]), and was hoping to wear them
for this run. Peeked out my door just in case the UPS truck was in
sight, and whaddya know, there he was illegally parked just down the
block. Saved him the trip to my door.
I'm happy to report they look pretty terrific in red (my other pair is
the blue on orange) and that the size 8 fits just right, like most
running shoes do in a size 8.5. My other Corsa Sette are 8.5 and
bigger than ideal (but it's not really much of a problem, just a
slightly clownish amount of room up front), and my size 8.5 Fila Flow
Redemption trainers are oversized by an even greater margin.
Took the opportunity to weigh them along with others in my current
rotation. Normally I wouldn't think anyone else in the world would be
interested in the results, but hey, I know what a bunch of nutjobs
reads this forum and a few of you haven't yet bailed on this message.
So here goes. Everything size 8.5 except the new Corsa Sette, and all
weights are ounces per shoe (half the pair weight). The Miele kitchen
scale rounds ounce readings to .2; no idea how accurate.
wt claim shoe
5.6 5.6 Nike Zoom Streak XC
6.8 6.9 Fila Corsa Sette
7.9 8.4 Nike Free 5.0 (with the 4.5 inserts - hate the 5.0 ones)
8.8 8.5 Loco Bandito
9.8 9.9 Nike Air Hayward
9.8 10.5 Fila Flow Redemption
10.5 ???? Nike Air Span (relegated to bad weather duty but going
strong at 500+ miles)
Hmm, unlike Asics' true weights vs. claims, these are all pretty close.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 09:46:32
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
>The others I listed are all 0 to 300 miles and the soles look, aside
from dirt, minty fresh or darn close to it.
_
wow. i exploded the air bladder on a pair of Nike Katana Cage shoes at
about 275 miles. i'm not very fleet-o-foot, in fact i'm pretty rough
on a pair of shoes.
that fila shoe looks interesting. committed to it even if the day
turns out to be a gully-washer? traction looks sparse to none, very
NB RC 550-like.....but i assume you're familiar with how the shoe
handles the rain?
Fila is one shoe I've never even tried. I read this morning Fila
superstar Martin Lel just bailed out of the NYCM due to a leg injury.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 09:20:46
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Al Bundy wrote:
> How about the wear level on the shoes? The sole material is relatively
> heavier than other parts of the shoe. You need to buy all new shoes
> and weigh them for accuracy.
Even if you jest, Al, I'll address your point. As it happens I'm
extremely easy on soles. The 500+ mile Air Spans show a little wear -
some dulling of the once-sharp "duralon" and/or "BRS 1000" (whatever
the hell those are) waffles and other edges in the sole. So add .1 or
.2 ounces to what was already the heaviest of the bunch if you like.
The others I listed are all 0 to 300 miles and the soles look, aside
from dirt, minty fresh or darn close to it. If they've lost a few mg
of rubber, they've gained those same few mg back in dirt and dried
sweat.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 06:27:14
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> So my NYCM-bound Corsa Sette arrived today. I was getting ready to
> head out on my 4:30 PM "evening" run, a Hansons' "strength" workout (6
> miles split into whatever size segments [I like 2 miles] at supposedly
> MP-10" [I prefer -20"] with half distance recoveries [what kind of wuss
> do they think I am; 3 minutes is plenty]), and was hoping to wear them
> for this run. Peeked out my door just in case the UPS truck was in
> sight, and whaddya know, there he was illegally parked just down the
> block. Saved him the trip to my door.
>
> I'm happy to report they look pretty terrific in red (my other pair is
> the blue on orange) and that the size 8 fits just right, like most
> running shoes do in a size 8.5. My other Corsa Sette are 8.5 and
> bigger than ideal (but it's not really much of a problem, just a
> slightly clownish amount of room up front), and my size 8.5 Fila Flow
> Redemption trainers are oversized by an even greater margin.
>
> Took the opportunity to weigh them along with others in my current
> rotation. Normally I wouldn't think anyone else in the world would be
> interested in the results, but hey, I know what a bunch of nutjobs
> reads this forum and a few of you haven't yet bailed on this message.
> So here goes. Everything size 8.5 except the new Corsa Sette, and all
> weights are ounces per shoe (half the pair weight). The Miele kitchen
> scale rounds ounce readings to .2; no idea how accurate.
>
> wt claim shoe
> 5.6 5.6 Nike Zoom Streak XC
> 6.8 6.9 Fila Corsa Sette
> 7.9 8.4 Nike Free 5.0 (with the 4.5 inserts - hate the 5.0 ones)
> 8.8 8.5 Loco Bandito
> 9.8 9.9 Nike Air Hayward
> 9.8 10.5 Fila Flow Redemption
> 10.5 ???? Nike Air Span (relegated to bad weather duty but going
> strong at 500+ miles)
>
> Hmm, unlike Asics' true weights vs. claims, these are all pretty close.
How about the wear level on the shoes? The sole material is relatively
heavier than other parts of the shoe. You need to buy all new shoes and
weigh them for accuracy.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:11:13
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
On 2006-10-05, Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com > wrote:
>
> How about the wear level on the shoes? The sole material is relatively
I just tested an old vs new pair in the same model. No difference.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 14:44:33
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Elflord wrote:
> On 2006-10-05, Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How about the wear level on the shoes? The sole material is relatively
>
> I just tested an old vs new pair in the same model. No difference.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
Let me guess Elflord, you are in real estate or an accountant or
something. You are not an engineer.
Testing an old and new pair means NOTHING. You would have to test the
SAME shoe while new and then when it was badly worn. And you would have
to clean the dirt off before weighing.
By the way, right and left hand shoes are not necessarily made on the
same assembly line or the same plant!!! They can be different.
You miss the point entirely. Slight differences in shoes don't mean
much. A shoe that weighs in heavier on the scale can run raster because
of the rebound. A flat, hard landing, and light shoe can cost your in
injuries and time.
PS. I resole shoes and I know dam well that a newly soled pair weighs
more than a worn out pair. How silly.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 22:24:41
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
On 2006-10-05, Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com > wrote:
>
> Elflord wrote:
>> On 2006-10-05, Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > How about the wear level on the shoes? The sole material is relatively
>>
>> I just tested an old vs new pair in the same model. No difference.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Elflord
>
> Let me guess Elflord, you are in real estate or an accountant or
> something. You are not an engineer.
Ph.D in maths, several years experience working with data analysis.
> Testing an old and new pair means NOTHING.
Wrong again.
If there were a substantial difference in weight, this would probably show up
even with one weigh-in.
> You would have to test the
> SAME shoe while new and then when it was badly worn. And you would have
Still wrong. If you randomly sample several new pairs, and several old pairs,
you can get estimates of the average weight, and the variability. You don't
need to weigh the same shoe.
Of course I don't have exact estimates of any of the numbers, but if a randomly
selected old shoe and a randomly selected new shoe are almost exactly the same
weight, then the chances are that old shoes and new shoes aren't terribly different
in weight.
> to clean the dirt off before weighing.
> By the way, right and left hand shoes are not necessarily made on the
> same assembly line or the same plant!!! They can be different.
Yes, thanks for telling me that new shoe weights have non-zero variance. It never
would have occurred to me.
> You miss the point entirely.
No, it's you who is missing the point. The point is that old-new shoe difference in
weight is dwarfed by the variability in weigh in new shoes.
> Slight differences in shoes don't mean much.
Differences are sometimes more than slight. Asics for example used to claim about
6.5oz for an 8.5 oz shoe (the magic racer). The literature on shoe weights and
running economy suggests that such a difference is more than "slight" in terms
of its impact on performance.
> PS. I resole shoes and I know dam well that a newly soled pair weighs
> more than a worn out pair. How silly.
Of course it will weigh more on average, but how much different is it really ? The
midsole of a running shoe is usually toast long before the outsole is worn out, so
in practice I doubt it's worth more than about 0.1-0.2oz.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 13:27:44
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
lance wrote:
> i'm pretty rough on a pair of shoes.
I guess that, like Stumpus and unlike me, you actually have some power,
and use some of it to crush your shoes into submission. Me, I float
like a butterfly.
> that fila shoe looks interesting. committed to it even if the day
> turns out to be a gully-washer? traction looks sparse to none, very
> NB RC 550-like.....but i assume you're familiar with how the shoe
> handles the rain?
Intimately, at 6:50 pace even. Got 13.1 miles of exactly that at
Grete's in this shoe, plus warmup. In my experience the traction on
pavement is quite good, wet or dry. Maybe it's the composition of the
rubber on the sole, rather than the tread pattern, which gives it good
grip in the wet.
It's a terrific flat, lotta cushion for the weight, and the cushion is
also surprisingly durable both in terms of 20 miles into a run and 250
miles into the shoe's lifespan. Comfy upper, very flexible, and with
Italian good looks that even you aren't gonna call "fugly".
The low heel might spell trouble for someone with a touchy Achilles
though, I would guess.
LSmith wrote:
> >The others I listed are all 0 to 300 miles and the soles look, aside
> from dirt, minty fresh or darn close to it.
> _
>
> wow. i exploded the air bladder on a pair of Nike Katana Cage shoes at
> about 275 miles. i'm not very fleet-o-foot, in fact i'm pretty rough
> on a pair of shoes.
>
> that fila shoe looks interesting. committed to it even if the day
> turns out to be a gully-washer? traction looks sparse to none, very
> NB RC 550-like.....but i assume you're familiar with how the shoe
> handles the rain?
>
> Fila is one shoe I've never even tried. I read this morning Fila
> superstar Martin Lel just bailed out of the NYCM due to a leg injury.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 11:50:05
From: Frank Boettcher
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
On 4 2006 21:29:03 -0700, "Charlie Pendejo"
<Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
<snipped a bunch of stuff >
Hey that is actually fairly interesting. Be nice to have full a
database on claimed weight vs. actual weight.
I'd weigh my three pairs of Mizuno wave creations, all with
approximately the same mileage, but I'd have to clean all the trail
dirt off of them, plus they may be too heavy to lift to the scale :~)
Frank
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 17:25:52
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
steve common wrote:
> what the fook are you staring at on the tarmac about two paces in
> front of your toe ends, in all photos except the finish mat ones?
>
> Put Ozzie's sky hook on overtime for NYCM and get that head up
> and look at the horizon man :-P
Oh I will. Or at least I intend to. Been keeping the sky hook in mind
in training runs lately. Thanks for the reminder, it *is* good to bear
in mind.
[a] 'twas raining pretty good the entire time, and
[b] I felt fairly wretched from the moment I awoke until well after my
post-run nap, as was hopefully conveyed in my little "Training Week"
writeup
Between the two, I was supremely unmotivated to do much lookin' up that
morning. Probably saved all my lookin' up energy for when there were
nice looking women in front of me.
Plus I had the brim of my hat pulled way down against the rain, which
probably exaggerates the head-downedness in the photos.
What bothers me more in this series is the degree of foot splay in some
of the frames. Thought I was doing a bit less of that lately.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 16:15:38
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Pendejo wrote:
> lance wrote:
>> i assume you're familiar with how the shoe handles the rain?
>
> Intimately, at 6:50 pace even.
http://www.brightroom.com/go.asp?13966109
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2006 02:05:58
From: steve common
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
>http://www.brightroom.com/go.asp?13966109
Handsome bastard.
But what the fook are you staring at on the tarmac about two paces in
front of your toe ends, in all photos except the finish mat ones?
Put Ozzie's sky hook on overtime for NYCM and get that head up and look at
the horizon man :-P
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 16:15:33
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Elflord wrote:
> On 2006-10-05, Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Elflord wrote:
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
Well, that explains it, too many cheers.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 13:54:42
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: random shoe weight data
|
Pendejo wrote:
> Maybe it's the composition of the rubber on the (Corsa Sette's)
> sole, rather than the tread pattern, which gives it good grip
> in the wet.
But not in shallow slick mud, as I found out a couple hours ago doing
10 @ MP. For that you'd need some assist from tread/spikes/waffles,
and you get none from this shoe.
|
|
