NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/running/3273

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!studsys.mscs.mu.edu!lawrence
From: [e-mail] (peter r lawrence    )
Newsgroups: rec.running
Subject: Re: Anyone use Brooks Hydroflow
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:37:51 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Bond) writes:
>pairs have utilized the Hydroflow system. One of the shoes in the
>first pair blew a Hydroflow sac after no more than 100km. However,
>Brooks replaced them with the next year's model free of charge. I've
>put upwards of 700km on the new pair now and no sac blowout is
>apparent. I find them to be a really sturdy, comfortable training
>shoe. I'm beginning to get the impression that they've lost enough of
>their cushioning at this point to warrant purchasing a new pair of
>shoes. Does anyone have any feelings about whether 700km is a
>reasonable distance for replacement? It seems a little soon to me but
>perhaps this is the norm...
>
>--
Generally, shoes are supposed to last about 500-700 miles (800 - 1100? km).
I usually use mine for about 700 miles -- anything over that and I always
start to get nagging injuries.  It depends on the runner and the shoe tho.
Some need to get new shoes early and some keep them much longer than myself.
As far as the shoe goes, if you have a "lite" shoe of some sort, they
usually break down quicker.   Likewise if you run in mud/rain alot.
    Hope this helps a little.
            pete