I just bought two new running shoes, the New Balance 880s and their Fuel Cell Propel model (versions 14 and 4; Propel seems to be on 5 now, and the other is the most recent). I've liked the other New Balance shoes I've been running in, an earlier 880 model, and multiple versions of a now-dated 1080 model.
I tend to buy closing out versions of the old model, to keep cost low, so this won't work as a guide for what to buy of what just released. There probably isn't much of a potential audience at all, since there wouldn't tend to be for shoe models that have been around, and this is a tea blog, and I'm not a running authority, of any kind. Maybe some others will wonder what's up with running shoes now, which could be more relevant if they already run, in which case they'd probably have a pretty good idea.
For awhile I was into watching some channels that do shoe reviews. Which was odd, because I couldn't afford to buy essentially everything they described, so that didn't last. My favorites were Kofuzi's channel (some guy who reviews shoes, who is personable and relatable), and Believe in the Run, a whole channel of different people who are also like that.
It was interesting hearing the theory, what people are looking for in better shoes, and a more diverse range of them than I'll ever experience. It covered foam types, and thickness, and plenty of other design aspects, about the soles, the upper (fabric part), and parts you normally wouldn't think about, like types of laces, the tongue, and the cuff padding, the opening part. If you just happen to own a couple of decent pairs of shoes all of that isn't all that relevant, until you want to replace them, but someone might find it interesting anyway. I did, for a limited time.
How that relates to these shoes
The 880s seem like basic, traditional design running shoes. Maybe I should start further back than that though, about themes related to different companies. I've only owned one other pair of Asics (Novablast), in the last few years of running, and I've only ramped up distance and intensity in the last 2 1/2 years or so. I might run 20 miles a week now, and more typically not quite that; not so much.
It's my impression that New Balance is well-regarded as shoe producers go, making a range of different kinds of versions. That part runs long, how many categories of running shoes there are now. There are racing-oriented models, a range of those, trail shoes, and then a broad range of different training versions, designed for running at different speeds, or for feeling different in different ways. Amount of support is another variable, but that kind of simplifies down to some people needing additional support for a tendency to not run "neutrally," for their foot to roll or to contact more on the outside or inside.
Amount and type of cushion is more of a main factor. Lots of versions are designed with a lot of midsole, quite well-cushioned, a trend Hoka was instrumental in making quite mainstream some years back. Now shoe designers would work around following that theme, or else going against it, in different models. Use of carbon fiber plates has been big for awhile, mostly in racing shoe versions, to return energy in a vaguely spring-like function, but now as a part of expensive training shoes too. By expensive I mean that lots of running shoe range costs $150 to 200 now, with most of the range under $250. Maybe that sounds like a lot, or maybe it doesn't, given that fairly ordinary versions tend to start at $140 anyway (on the New Balance website Black Friday sale the 880 is discounted from $140 to $110).
People cutting corners buying older versions, like me, might try to spend around or under $100, making it a challenge to buy what they actually like most and still spend very little. $110 isn't too bad, but on a clearance sale in Bangkok I paid less.
One might wonder if shoe technology isn't mature now anyway, related to the model-year issue. Running became popular in the late 1970s, and I owned what seemed like well-developed but basic Nike running shoes in the early 80s (an early Pegasus version, a line that's on something like the 41st or 42nd version now). They keep updating foam technology, and the plate thing is new, and beyond that maybe they are just changing things around as much as improving them.
To hear shoe reviewers describe it all the new shoes are always new and different, year after year. They have to use more and more refined, altered language to describe that, and they're working from a shared knowledge base relating to the last 100 popular shoe versions. It gets a little silly, people commenting to online content posts about comparing the half dozen closely related shoes that they own, or sets of shoes that go together well. There's nothing inherently wrong with owning a dozen pair of running shoes, that you currently wear, but it seems to me that at this point it's mostly about owning stuff, not running.
Getting back to it, New Balance makes basic, well-designed, high quality shoes, and plenty of range that's not so basic. Of course Nike didn't disappear, and Asics is another main player, and there are plenty of others. It's funny how the general style of those shoes I'd been using is so different, their older Novablast version (they're two more models along now; maybe they're much better), and the two older New Balance shoes I had used, and these two newer versions. Those Novablast were quite light, made from very light foam and cloth material, with a thick foam sole, designed to emphasize a sort of trampoline-like function.
I guess in a sense the whole theme of the Propel shoe is taking the next step; a plate--a plastic one, not carbon fiber based--uses that plate and other foam to more literally create a spring and lever mechanism. Does it actually propel you, and "return energy?" Maybe a little. Maybe not in the sense of the mechanics emulating a spring, which sort of would occur in those higher end racing shoes, but to a very limited extent it probably does catch and return a very limited amount of that energy. The feel would be the thing though, not a mechanical advantage. If it feels comfortable, and lively, and seems to encourage a smoother or faster running stride then that's great. I suppose it sort of does?
The 880s feel softer; it's as if there is more foam catching your weight, dampening that impact. I'm not sure if it's just my subjective impression but it feels more pronounced in the front of the foot. It's at least possible that there is more foam there. The 1080s I run in--an older version, mind you, so I'm not describing their state of the art newest version--have a much different form construction, with more emphasized "rocker" design, built to emphasize your foot's rolling motion as you catch your weight and roll of the front part.
Is that good? It might be that any one design, which emphasizes any running mechanics, might work well or badly for people depending on how they happen to run, or how their foot is shaped. Permit me another tangent.
Long, long ago when I first ran I competed in cross country, back in the 80s. I wasn't good; this isn't going there. I thought since I wasn't that good I could duplicate my old race times now with sufficient practice, if I ran consistently for years now, but it turns out that I was fast enough that it's hard to do that. I could run 5k trail races in around 19 minutes. Under 18 minutes might place in a race back then, if the field was weak enough, so nowhere near that, but it's hard to run 5k in 20 minutes in your 50s, apparently, unless you train directed towards doing that, and I really don't.
Back to the point, the conventional running stride looks like people normally think of one, a loping sort of affair, and back then that was more or less how people seemed to run. Then as an option people could use more of a shuffling gait, which was known of then, but didn't appeal to many people yet, and didn't have obvious advantages. Later it seemed to turn out that for recreational runners, as I now am, even for those who are much more serious about it than I am, variations of a shuffling form seemed to convey some mechanical advantage, at some paces; it could be quite efficient. Someone could easily bang into the ground a bit hard using a more conventional form, maybe in a formerly conventional heel-strike motion. As you train more, adding volume and intensity, that brings up wear problems for your joints.
It seems like this is heading towards me drawing broad conclusions about ideal running forms, or more ideal patterns, but it's really not. The point here is that people run in completely different ways; mechanics vary a lot. The same person probably runs using very different mechanics at different speeds, typically, but even beyond that there is plenty of variation. So it's back to different shoes working well for different people.
Skipping ahead, to which shoes work well for me, the 880s, which I've described as a supporting, basic, stable, old-school sort of form, or the Propel is designed to try to catch your weight and use some of that energy, if that's even possible. Or at least they pass on a feel that could be interpreted as such, "lively." Generally all running shoes are on the light side now; there are lots of minor differences, but producers have been changing around design features and materials for awhile, with an eye towards that.
They're both fine. I always did like the older 1080s version I used because that odd design form, that really seems to try to work along with your running mechanics, maybe even to alter them, seemed comfortable to me. The older and newer 880s weren't so far off that, they just seem to interact less with how you are running, just catching and supporting your foot. The beat-up older version I use to walk in now work really well for that purpose, for that reason; it's as if the ground itself was well structured for walking. But then the old Asics Novablast always felt like walking on a wrestling mat instead; I suppose that's nice.
It may be that if I ran at different paces, faster, I'd see more of a difference, and preference would shift by varying speed and mechanics patterns. I've not had great luck with that. I change how I run all the time, and how I train, and at one point I was pushing a lot harder for faster one-km sections at the ends of runs, getting down to 5:45 being normal for 1 or 2 (so still not very fast). Now I tend to not do that, and I'm back to running most at 6 1/2 minute kilometer pace.
I just broke 6 minutes for one km on a recent outing, and ran two consecutive one right at that pace. Those are exceptions, but I'm probably due for shift in pacing. My running mechanics still won't change much; shifting from 6 1/2 minutes to 5:45 still isn't bumping the pace enough for that.
It's not much of a testimonial, is it? NB 880s or Fuel Cell Propel are both fine, but their 1080s or a lot of the Asics line probably also are.
Kofuzi or the Believe in the Run reviews would fill in the next 2 or 3 levels of details, and offer 100 different shoe alternatives, including a few that are most comparable. It's interesting that they're all made of different types of foam, designed at different heel and forefoot heights, I just haven't looked that up for these, even though ostensibly this is a shoe review. The NB site listing, that I checked price on, only mentioned "the drop," the difference between heel and forefoot, but one was for Propel v5 (8 and 9 mm; doesn't mean that much to me).
I do love the shoes. The 880s feel that little bit more stable on your foot, but I'm not concerned about turning an ankle in the other ones, the Propel version. They feel like you might be able to run 15 or 20k in them, or walk around in them half a day after a run. The extra foam depth--I think there is more--and minor adjustment to mechanical form might make the updated 1080 version even better for a really long run, but the Propel feel like they could handle picking up the pace a bit.
Probably if spending $200 on shoes isn't an issue the rest of the Asics range might have a slight edge, depending on preference. They're swinging for the fence in terms of evolving design forms and foam development, or at least that seems likely to me. I'd know better if I'd bought a few more pair of their shoes.
If someone reads all this and considers putting it into practice related to using shoes just to walk, or to stand around in, a main consideration is how they feel in terms of fit (or related to running, of course). Width is important, and the style matching your foot. That "rocker" / curved bottom sole could be a huge benefit for someone that it suits, or it could be off-putting. Shoes can break in a bit to feel more comfortable later but how well it feels right away is an important sign. I've went this far without mentioning arch support, or saying anything about heel cuff padding or different tongue designs, but it all works together, and how it seems to feel sweeps in most of all that.
A running friend recently mentioned that per his understanding of conventional wisdom runners would have at least two pair to offset the shoes reinforcing slight differences in running mechanics. That sounds right. Beyond my level of interest and training probably more would be better, but early on just owning a couple would do.
