32 replies to this topic

[chookrunner]

 Shoes_etc_004.jpg   1.06MB   64 downloads

I had noticed that the lining around the heel on my recent Asics Kayanos was scuffing and wearing away to holes. Admittedly, these are Kayano 13's, and they're now up to model 15, but one pair is lightly used and still going to holes.

I was about to throw out an old pair of Kayano 11's that I had run to death and then worn to work for ages (I'm a builder), when I noticed the same lining was unmarked and looked "as new". Believe me, the difference between the two materials is remarkable.

How can companies go backward like this in their quality ? I know the answer is dollars, but if you are selling something as a premium product, surely you do the "Ikea" scuff test before you introduce it.
 Shoes_etc_005.jpg   1.15MB   34 downloads

[kiwirunner]

I think there has been a definite shift for most manufacturers in recent times to change their product slightly and this has probably affected the quality of shoes to a certain degree. Never had any trouble with the heel counter of my Asics but found the midsole tended to flatten out super quick. Have changed to Mizuno and have never looked back. It's amazing how many people I see running around in Asics, mainly Kayano's and wonder how many of them actually believe it's the best value for money shoe out there or are just in it because Asics have a really good marketing team and they think that's the shoe they should be seen in?

[DontStop]

As part of my work, I was involved in a fairly big attitudinal study of Australian runners a couple of years ago. About 500 runners in Sydney and Melbourne, in 90 minute focus groups.

In just about every group, there was a large number of what I'll call Asics fanatics, mostly Kayano.

These people all had the same story: ran in crappy old shoes when they started out... got injured... a friend or a podiatrist put them onto Asics... and they've never looked back.

They were completely closed to the thought of trying another brand, wouldn't even consider it. For them, Asics are the best shoe on the market, and that's that.

When you have that degree of illogical loyalty, it's great for a brand. But it also brings with it the seeds of your own demise, if you're not careful. Because it's easy for you to start charging a little more all the time... maybe let quality slip a little... or get lazy about product development.

Anyways... what I'm saying is that Asics are far more dominant in the Australian market than they are anywhere else, and in my opinion, their shoes aren't reflective of this. At best, they're on a par with everyone else.

My carefully thought-out, considered opinion is that asics is a parity product with a premium pricetag.

My emotive opinion is that they've gotten self-satisfied and lazy, have fallen behind in their R&D, and overcharge for their shoes with no basis for doing so, other than the fact that they've got a hugely loyal fanbase here in Australia.

[Janery]

I think it may actually just be the 13s. I had a couple of pairs which I am sure were 13s and the lining in the heel wore out very quickly but the ones I bought after those had hardly any wear at all in the heel lining.

[FatboyCsaba]

chookrunner, on Nov 20 2009, 08:46 AM, said:

Shoes_etc_004.jpg Shoes_etc_006.jpg

I had noticed that the lining around the heel on my recent Asics Kayanos

[rant].......[/rant]

If you spend a bit more you can get quality shoes like NIKE pegasus .

Edited by FatboyCsaba, 20 November 2009 - 01:09 PM.

[hampsta]

I have worn Asics for at least 15 yrs -- everything from the 2000 series to kayanos to Cumullus -- as my feet's need change -- so do the shoes -- just the style, never the brand

i have very narrow feet and i like Asics for their fit --however -- i too get the "heel rub hole" on my right foot -- and find that lately -- a pair doesn't last as long as they used too (of course marathon training -- long runs-- do take their toll)

but i like these shoes sooo much -- i put duck tape in them -- and that usually resolves it for a couple of months --

finding shoes that fit and keep you pain free and running is tough -- it is hard to let go to a brand you like and trust

[birdy]

Being new to running and after a black toenail in some cheapies I stepped into the Asics range with a pair of 1140s. I was a very happy beginning runner, working my way through the k's with no injuries to speak of. After six months I ran my first 10km race and decided to treat myself to an extra pair of the same brand, same model. The only thing different then was the colour.

The old pair were relegated as standbys only and the new pair seemed fine. After two weeks though (running every second or third day) I was getting some serious pain in both ankles. I put this down to a couple of orienteering days with uneven terrain, gave myself a week off and duly recovered. Back on the roads, quietly to begin with, but the pain returned, impingement-like. I repeated the rest process, all was good, then began again. Same deal.

After almost limping home, it struck me it might be the shoes (duh) but but but they were the same brand! same make! same model! So, to satisfy my suspicions, took them off, donned the oldies and trotted up the road. The difference was staggering. Sure, a small amount of discomfort existed, but minor compared to what I had just come home with.

So that did it for me. Although loyal for a short time, loyal no more. Adidas Supernova Sequence are my current choice of weaponry and are perfect for me right now. Ankles repaired very quickly - within days. All good. End of story.

birdy

[orlando]

DontStop, on Nov 20 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

These people all had the same story: ran in crappy old shoes when they started out... got injured... a friend or a podiatrist put them onto Asics... and they've never looked back.

They were completely closed to the thought of trying another brand, wouldn't even consider it. For them, Asics are the best shoe on the market, and that's that.

When you have that degree of illogical loyalty, it's great for a brand.

This is probably me, but I take issue with being called illogical.

I wasn't actually running in crappy shoes when I started out. I was running in Brooks adrenalines, and had no problems at all with my first couple of pairs. Then I started upping my mileage, trained for a couple of HMs and started getting problems with shin splints. I also got pretty bad blisters from a new model of adrenalines, whereas previously I'd been able to do long runs with them right out of the box.

I saw a physio and pod, and my pod recommended a few pairs to try, among them Kayanos. They seemed the most comfortable pair in the shop so that's what I went with. I'm onto my 4th or 5th pair and honestly, I haven't looked back. I don't necessarily think they're the best shoes on the market, but they're certainly a great pair of shoes for me right now, so why should I consider trying something else? Possibly I'd be just as happy if I'd gone with Mizunos or whatever, but at the moment it would seem more illogical to me to try another brand just for the sake of change. If I run into problems or the model seems to change too much, then I'll explore other options, for now, I'm sticking with, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Edited by orlando, 20 November 2009 - 02:00 PM.

[TrackRunner]

The Kayano 13's were the worst kayano range ever bought out. My first pair were 12's which were fine but i nearly gave up on asics after my Kayano 13's fell apart, even the sole wore out ahead of time. I have had 14's and now 15's ( these two are basicly the same anyways) and i love them but i would never pay the $250 asics expect us aussies to pay at footlocker, athletes foot etc.

I always order direct from USA at half the price so then they are well worth the money. But i would NEVER pay $250, they are a good shoe don't get me wrong but when you start doing 50klm's a week you wear them out pretty fast. I have recently bought a pair of the Asics Nimbus and i have found them to be equally comfotable if not more so ($90 US).

I am still an asics fan for training shoes and racing flats but Nike make better track spikes thats for sure.
The trick is to keep your eyes and mind open and wallet full.

[chookrunner]

DontStop, on Nov 19 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

They were completely closed to the thought of trying another brand, wouldn't even consider it. For them, Asics are the best shoe on the market, and that's that.

I hear what you're saying DontStop, and I believe runners can fall into the same mindset as "petrolheads" i.e. "I'm a Ford man" or "I'm a Holden man". It's like supporting a footy team - you stick with them no matter what.
But I also believe a lot of us don't want the next innovation or the next technological breakthrough, we have found a shoe we like and we are happy with it. So please don't fiddle with it.
In my case, I put on a pair of Kayanos mainly because of the number of devotees on this Forum and I was able to take the shoes out of the box and go out and run 10km feeling like they were made for me. And FatboyCsaba, I had had a couple of pairs of Pegasus and liked them but I'd had to break them in.

I think if I was a shoe marketer I'd try a campaign of "Good Old Kayanos, we will take this shoe to market for the next 10 years, no changes except an annual color upgrade so you can buy it, know you can pick up the next shoe and not have a nasty surprise. You support us - we'll support you"

That shoe company, need not get left behind in the market because they can run their innovation in other models and market them as well. Just learn the lesson from Coca Cola who tampered with a successful product with almost disastrous consequences. Now they run their parallel versions Diet, Vanilla and whatever but you can always but a Coke, like I do.

[chookrunner]

Janery, on Nov 19 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

I think it may actually just be the 13s. I had a couple of pairs which I am sure were 13s and the lining in the heel wore out very quickly but the ones I bought after those had hardly any wear at all in the heel lining.

I hope so, Janery. I've also got some DS Trainers that I use for racing and while the quality of the lining doesn't look the same as in the K11, it hasn't yet started scuffing.

[Bellthorpe]

chookrunner, on Nov 20 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

But I also believe a lot of us don't want the next innovation or the next technological breakthrough, we have found a shoe we like and we are happy with it. So please don't fiddle with it.

Couldn't agree more. I have running shoes. They work, in so far as they keep a thin layer of rubbery stuff between me and the ground. I buy the same brand/model every time. I do not want them to change. I don't want any 'technical advances'. I don't care if they mess with the colour (although I doubt that I could handle pink), or add a stripe or take one away. But can't they realise that the damn shoes work and that's why I buy them?

[Louise]

bring back the ASICS Nimbus 6 please! I'll even wear pink. :-)

I'm too scared to buy ASICS now because I can't be assured that what I'm buying will perform like the last pair. Not sure what I'm going to do when the current 9s bite the dust (yeah, I'm already 2 years behind the times), not that they're perfect either.

[Bowlesy333]

I loved my Kayano's but was given a pair of Nike - Equalon's and they have been amazing - have trained over 1000 k's in them - on road and trail - run a marathon in them and a half a dozen halves.

They are durable - lighter and cheaper than the asics - highly recommend - although I was very skeptical until I tried them and am now a convert

cheers

[flyingdutchman]

chookrunner, on Nov 20 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

and they're now up to model 15

The back of the Dec. Runners World has an ad for the new 16's.

I alternate my 15's with a pair of nimbus 8's.
I love the 15's, and now that the 16's are out, over the next 6 months or so, the 15's will become cheaper, so i'll be looking out for some.

[RUN 422]

I went thru a few different brands before settling on Asics Kayanos a long while ago. Experienced all those wear issues mentioned previously but stuck with the brand as it can be a very expensive experiment trying other brands. I finally gave up on them because they just didn't suit my feet any longer. Size and fit seemed to be the problem. I'm now in a pair of New Balance wide fit which also has a larger toe box than the Asics and they are the best shoes I have run in for a long time. Can't see myself going back to Asics.

[kb]

I have run in Nimbus for years and hubby loves his DS trainers.

Well that was until recently.

Both have made changes in their new models and now neither of us are happy.

We are looking elsewhere.

[McKnickers]

I have 1140s which I've run well in - what's the diff between these and Kayano's?

[shark]

I still favour ASICS. I have run in Nike, Brooks and recently some Adidas supernova but I prefer ASICS. Currently have Nimbus, Cumulus, and Speedstar and for each there is a purpose. I like changing shoes to both share the load and to give my feet a change. I try new types (like the Supernova) each year and if they work I'll give them another try. It is hard to change shoes because you don't know how they'll go until you have done a few runs then it's yours to keep.

I hear lot's of complaints on ASICS but I have tried many brands and keep coming back. I get at least three new pairs a year.

I did try the NB 1063 recently and they have a major change in style to have a flatter toe box so I might even give them a try in 2010. The old high box was a shocker for my feet.

Each to his/her own - I'm not blind to problems, I like ASICS

s

[yeti]

DontStop, on Nov 19 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Anyways... what I'm saying is that Asics are far more dominant in the Australian market than they are anywhere else, and in my opinion, their shoes aren't reflective of this. At best, they're on a par with everyone else.

Not sure about that. I don't have any hard numbers at the moment but from perception (i.e. looking around while standing at the start of races) I'd say its as bad over here in Europe as it is in Australia. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say Asics seems to have about 50-60% of the visible market share here.

DontStop, on Nov 19 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

My carefully thought-out, considered opinion is that asics is a parity product with a premium pricetag.

I don't think the dropping quality, in particular the reduced durability, of running shoes in recent (10+) years is specific to Asics. I've got the usage data for my running shoes since at least 2000 sitting around somewhere and without having the exact numbers in my head I think the drop in average lifetime of a pair of runners has been essentially independent of the brand. IIRC I used to get ~1200km out of a pair on average 10 years ago whereas I now barely get 800km.
What makes the issue more annying with Asics is that their prices seem to have increased faster that the competition (DSTrainer ~115€ in 2000, 160€ now - and this while the Euro has strengthened agains most major currencies).

Yeti

[halifax]

When I first started running and looking around for a good shoe, I saw so many runners wore Asics and thought to myself "hey they must be the best since so many people wear them'. So just like a sheep I bought some Nimbus.....was happy with them except the narrowness (I have rather wide feet). Ran my first half marathon in them and got horrid blisters and lost a toe nail because of the narrow fit and all Asics seem to be so narrow. Why would a shoe company want to exclude a whole group of runners (wide feet runners) by not making shoes that fit them? Don't get it.

Onto Mizuno now.....they are fantastic.....and cheaper.

[TrackRunner]

halifax, on Nov 20 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

When I first started running and looking around for a good shoe, I saw so many runners wore Asics and thought to myself "hey they must be the best since so many people wear them'. So just like a sheep I bought some Nimbus.....was happy with them except the narrowness (I have rather wide feet). Ran my first half marathon in them and got horrid blisters and lost a toe nail because of the narrow fit and all Asics seem to be so narrow. Why would a shoe company want to exclude a whole group of runners (wide feet runners) by not making shoes that fit them? Don't get it.

Onto Mizuno now.....they are fantastic.....and cheaper.

asics make wide sizes in all models you just have to ask for them

[halifax]

TrackRunner, on Nov 20 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

asics make wide sizes in all models you just have to ask for them

Someone else told me about this mysterious wide size Asics....I've asked at several shoe stores (Athlete's foot, Reblesport, footlocker and a local running shop) and all said they don't carry that "range".

[Muzman]

I have always used Asics, and they have always done me proud until recently.

I don't think it's so much the quality that has dipped, but they have definitely tinkered with the Kayanos as my latest (15s) are causing rubbing, hotspots and sore soles. It seems to me that the toe box is definitely narrower than in previous models.

I bought a pair of Newtons and have had no such problems.

Talk about screwing the unscrewable pooch!

M

[FreeDickland]

Used Asics since they were called Tigers & then Onitsuka (mid 60's) no problems until they produced "padded"heel cups (early models had no cups at all) started with 2000 series at beginning, always had holes in the inside heel cup padding since 2001within a couple of hundred Kms.
Never been a problem. Just keep running (I am non or very thin sock wearer so there is little between hoof and heel cup. This war is not really a problem, just something that happens.

Many correspondents report reduced wear - this is contrary to my experience - they wear as well or better than other brands - I use 3 or 4 shoes in rotation - Asics 200 series being a constant part of this process - Adrenalines which feel great in shop but not good running rarely last more than a couple of hundred k before they die on my feet (other Brooks shoes are great on my feet- eg., Cascadia).

Find out what suits you best and use them - be prepared to change if necessary, shoe rotation helps - do not get hooked into the debates over which shoes "cause injury" a lot of rubbish in my mind. Running causes injury - as does being alive, enjoy.

[Goughy]

DontStop, on Nov 20 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

In just about every group, there was a large number of what I'll call Asics fanatics, mostly Kayano.

These people all had the same story: ran in crappy old shoes when they started out... got injured... a friend or a podiatrist put them onto Asics... and they've never looked back.

They were completely closed to the thought of trying another brand, wouldn't even consider it. For them, Asics are the best shoe on the market, and that's that.

I probably fall to a degree in this basket. Never ran because of my knee pain and usually wore kt26's or something. My only 'decent' shoes were a pair of saucony's that were cheapies sold at amart for a song in one of their sales. They were too small too.

Went to the running shop, had my feet and run checked and asics were one of the options suggested to me, along with mizuno's and another. The asics felt the most comfortable so I chose them. Will be hard for me to change from them as I don't know wnything about other brands and which shoe I should try that would be comparable. And even then I might hate them and have blown money I can ill afford. So I'll probably stick with the devil you know!

[chookrunner]

Goughy, on Nov 22 2009, 12:39 AM, said:

So I'll probably stick with the devil you know!

There you go Goughy, that could be the marketing campaign -

"The Devil you know - Stick with it !!!
We wont change if you don't"

[birdy]

halifax, on Nov 21 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

Someone else told me about this mysterious wide size Asics....I've asked at several shoe stores (Athlete's foot, Reblesport, footlocker and a local running shop) and all said they don't carry that "range".

Possibly it's the 'D Width' (look for a blue sticker on the box where the size details are). Apparently not available in all Asics models.


birdy

[jenny the orienteer]

birdy, on Nov 24 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

Possibly it's the 'D Width' (look for a blue sticker on the box where the size details are). Apparently not available in all Asics models.
birdy

Kayanos don't have a D fitting but they used to be fairly wide anyway and pretty stable underfoot. I used to rogaine in them but the newer models seem narrower, at least in the heel, so are less stable for my ankles. The cushioning is good both front and back, but I'm not convinced it's better than the 2100 series.

The Asics 2100 series, which I use for orienteering and trail running, has an A(narrow) and D(wide) fitting and they're still the best I can find for my short wide feet plus orthotics, and have cushioning front and back, but I don't think the recent models - 2120,30,40 are as stable underfoot, and they either roll outward or inwards more than they did in the past. They go flat much quicker too, and are less flexible.

Mizunos are nice and light but not much good for trail running. Brooks hurt my shins. New Balance make a good wide stable shoe; I was satisfied with the 1223 though it had les cushioning than my usual Asics. Possibly the top of the range NB is equivalent to the Kayano?

[Greg_Waite]

Yes, it is slipping. I'd suspect its a plan though - planned obsolescence.

Maybe 3-4 years ago they had clear quality problems, no doubt due to outsourcing to China etc. There were groups of us standing round after runs and noticing we all had toes wearing through the mesh. They fixed that - took 2 years - not a good record.

More recently its been obvious that the cushioning in the lower end shoes feels soft to start, but goes rapidly downhill from 2 weeks to 2 months. This is easy for them to test - its no accident. I would suggest its a product differentiation strategy, to push runners to high end shoes. I doubt this is unique to ASICS but being a long time user that is where I noticed it.

Whether high end, over-cushioned, over-controlled shoes help or hurt is a whole other forum, elsewhere on CR, most recently under "Born to Run". My preference now is to find a shoe with a not-so-cushioned sole, but with a firm base level of rubberiness that stays as it ages. Teva trail shoes were an example. Of course this is a quality you can only identify by buying and testing and sharing knowledge with other runners.

Edited by Greg_Waite, 25 November 2009 - 07:03 AM.

[moby]

birdy, on Nov 24 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Possibly it's the 'D Width' (look for a blue sticker on the box where the size details are). Apparently not available in all Asics models.

‘D’ is the standard width for mens shoes. The wider width is designated as 2E and some manufacturers also make shoes in an extra wide 4E.

All ASICS models come in a D – this is standard for mens shoes. Information on the ASICS website indicates that the Kayano for example is also available in 4E for all sizes from 8 up. The 2140 is available in both 2E and 4E as well as D. The DS-Trainer however seems to be only available in a standard D.

Shoe width chart

[chookrunner]

moby, on Nov 24 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

Shoe width chart

Are we allowed to look at the Roadrunner website or will Asics forbid that too !

[DistanceRunner]

I've stopped using ASICS the last couple of years because they seem to be wearing out very quickly these days. Others I know also have experienced this problem. It's been said that the shoes are designed to feel good in the shop rather than last. I don't know whether this is true at all, but yes, I believe the quality has deteriorated.