The reason I mention the 1,000-mile mark is because I have recently become curious about shoe durability. Kyle, at Revolution Natural Running, mentioned that he thought it would be cool to be able to reference the number of miles that certain shoes last.
Immediately intrigued, I thought to myself, “Why do people replace shoes?” I think the number-one reason is because the midsole cushioning in the shoe wears out. The next thing to go would probably be the tread. And then there are probably some folks who wear a shoe until they literally wear a hole through it.
With the minimalist approach, you can basically scratch the first reason for replacing a shoe, given that the whole point of minimalist footwear is eliminating the cushioning to allow the natural motion of the foot to absorb the impact. Since a thick cushion would destroy this process, minimalist shoes do not have midsole cushioning—meaning there's no midsole to wear out. I guessed that my Inov-8 F-Lite 230s and Inov-8 Road X-Lite 155s would rack up a ton more miles than, say, an average cushioned trainer.
Why does this all really matter? Well, all runners can agree that shoes are not cheap. If you follow the general rule of thumb that many running shoe companies have put out, we should only run 400 to 600 miles on a pair of shoes before replacing them. I believe lots of people think of these numbers and turn away from minimalist shoes, because they can be expensive. However, if we can get double or even triple the miles out of them, the shoe budget decreases.
I don’t want you to have to take my word for it, so I listed the stats and some pictures showing how my minimalist shoes are holding up. Even after hundreds of miles, they're in really good shape. I should be able to easily get another 800 miles out of the 230s, and another 500 from the 155s.
Inov-8 X-Lite 230s: 461 miles (including two races: WS100 and IA50)
.JPG)
Inov-8 Road X-Lite 155: 417 miles
I think you are on to something. I have a pair of NB 101s, which do not have much cushioning (although I don't know if they can truly be called minimal shoes anymore). I have had them for well over a year now and haven't found the need to replace them yet - unlike my cushioned road shoes which I think I have replaced two or threes times in that time period.
ReplyDeleteHi Shannon! I haven't ran in the NB 101s but from what I've seen and heard it would be a pretty nice "minimalist" shoe. I know they took a lot of Anton Krupicka's feedback into account for that shoe. It's funny how long shoe's hold up when you just wait to literally blow a hole through them :)
DeleteI run over 5,400 miles a year on 35$ Nike Mayflys and have never been happier. Shocking to think people shell out 120$ for shoes that are probably half or less than half of retail cost and more bulky as well.
ReplyDelete-Wynn
Hi Wynn! That's awesome! 5,400 is impressive. There is not much to the mayflys. I put over 4,000 on a pair of brooks burn 3s back in the day. I finally had to throw them away when the side of my left foot broke through where the fabric meets the sole. I was very content in the fact that had I followed the 400-600 mile "rule" I would have easily sunk $300-400 dollars more into running shoes.
DeleteZach, I was thrilled to see you ran WS in inov8 minimalist shoes (and rocked the course!). As my distance increases I am glad to knoew I can keep my shoes. I switched to f-lite 230's 4 years ago and have loved them since (1000+ miles). The uppers go after a year though (but are still runnable). I now buy a new pair each spring for trail only, and then save the old pairs for asphalt. 400 miles is silly and expensive.
ReplyDeleteHey Dave! Thanks for posting. That's great to hear that you have had good fortune with your 230s. It is interesting that you mention the upper is what goes first. I have been looking at mine really closely and I don't have any holes, but it does look like the upper by my big toe is starting to weaken a bit. this makes sense as they are about half way to the 1000 mile mark. I'm curious to see how long the 230s I am running in now will last, because I wore them for both IA50 and WS100. Do you think the trail racing at these distances might shorten the lifespan of the shoe a bit?
DeleteZach, as an engineer, I love to overanalyze things, so here goes. I think the following affect shoe life:
ReplyDelete1. Trails - The rocks, roots, sticks, streams, gullies, washouts and face plants do not help.
2. Run/Race Duration - The uppers see a lot of UV, which may be degrading the material. Also, as my runs lengthen, I am a bit clumsier and see more issues from #1 above.
3. Shoe Weight - There is a design spec balance between product life and weight; the life is defined early on, so then the materials are optimized for weight as to only meet that life and no more. I want very light/minimal shoes, and expect the shoes to blow out spectacularly after a realistic life.
4. Running Economy - I think I am using this term correctly: body weight and form must play a role.
I do think asphalt may wear out tread and cushion quicker, but so what?
I agree Dave. That's an interesting thought with the UV. It would make sense. Also, I know at WS the front of my shoes took some abuse from rock kicking :)
DeleteI'll second your analysis of minimalist durability, especially with respect to the Inov8 brand. I ran in a pair of Xtalon 212s for the past few years and went well over 1000 miles in them (the vendor warned that they might not last more than 300 miles; the soft grippy tread on those wore out after about 500-600 miles but I still use them on occasion when not on trails; they're kinda slick though). More recently I am running in F-lite 192. I am around mile 800 and the shoes are amazing. The only problem with them is a small tear that is propagating near the toe in the upper; though I think this is due to my getting a half size larger than I should have and the upper bending in that spot as a result. Otherwise the things seem indestructible. It's nice being able to get through a season of training and racing on only one or two pairs of shoes.
ReplyDelete