Shoe advice: switching from Saucony to NB

1447 Views 8 Replies 4 Participants Last post by bhearn, Jan 15, 2008

bhearn

Discussion Starter · Jan 10, 2008

I've been running in Sauconys for 4 years, starting with the Trigon 1 and up through the Trigon 5 for trainers, FastTwitch 2 for racing flats. (Though recently I switched to Asics Magic Racer for flats.) 
Well, I recently had some orthotics made, to correct my rather inefficient splay-footed running style. Hoping my race times will drop! 
Problem: the orthotics take up more volume (as well as weight) than the standard liners. The Trigon 5s puts painful pressure on my forefoot at the bottom of the laces. So, my pedorthist recommended switching to shoes with a deeper toe box, such as New Balance. 
Question: what's a good NB neutral lightweight trainer? I see that the 882 specifically has "a generous toe box", but it's not the lightest of the current offering on the NB website. That would be, I guess, the 893, which is a new shoe, available 1/15. So, I guess nobody can give me feedback on that shoe. But does it replace a lightweight trainer? NB doesn't specifically describe any of their shoes as a lightweight trainer... 
On the racing side, I haven't tried the Magic Racers with the orthotics yet, but if I were to switch to NB there too, it looks like the 1001 is the basic neutral flat? The 152 is too lightweight for marathons, I take it? (Although I wonder about that, with the extra cushioning and support the orthotics provide...) The Magic Racers are not as light as I would like, so I might be looking to make a switch here anyway. I've got an extra 2 oz./shoe penalty now because of the orthotic. My pedorthist assures me that the improved biomechanics will much more than make up for this... well, we shall see! 
Thanks, 
Bob

Save

1 - 4 of 9 Posts

bhearn

Discussion Starter · #3 · Jan 10, 2008

Thanks for the suggestions. I've already removed the entire liner; the orthotics are full-length. 
Re the 873, that does look interesting... the NB page even calls it a lightweight trainer. Still, I can't see how it couldn't be a few ounces heavier than the non-trail shoes, and I really want to reduce weight. They don't list the weight. Maybe I'll carry a scale into the running store. 
Re changing lacing, yeah, that's my temporary solution. Loosening the laces is not enough; I've moved the laces so that I start lacing a couple of rows up from the bottom. That's good enough to let me run without pain, but I'd rather have shoes that fit correctly. Ah... I see, that's what "segmented lacing" does as well, then adds another lace! Interesting. Never seen that before.

Save

bhearn

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jan 15, 2008

Thanks. THe NB site doesn't list the weight, but RRS does, and somehow they are lighter than most of the non-trail shoes! I can't quite understand that. However, they are listed as having an SL-1 last, which by that chart has a standard toe-box depth? 
I went out looking for all the shoes mentioned here this weekend, but the pathetic excuses for running stores I have near Hanover had not a one of them. 
Re Saucony, yeah, I wondered what was up with their website. I went back to check on shoe weights, and everything was gone.

Save

bhearn

Discussion Starter · #9 · Jan 15, 2008

OK, cool. I'll have to track these down somewhere to try them out. Thanks!

Save

1 - 4 of 9 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month