nimbus v cumulus

been running in nimbus 10's for a while now and im finding them a little too soft and cushioned and want something a little more responsive and less cushioned. ive seen some cumulus in sports direct for less than £40 and am tempted by them.

so question for anyone that ahs them or has worn them, are cumulus basically one model down from the nimbus ? do they have slightly less cushioning but the same fit and feel ? they are approx 5g lighter than nimbus and they look and feel very similar but they just seem to have less visible gel sections, im hoping they are exactly what im looking for and might be able to grab myself a bargain !!!!!

thanks for any advice

«1

Comments

  • sj - in my experience stick with Nimbus. I've used both and would say that the wear rate on the Nimbus is better than later models of Cumulus. I stopped wearing Cumulus after version 9 as they changed the sole construction and I didn't like the new version on a test run. The Nimbus sole is much more like the old Cumulus one.

    I also think you might find Cumulus marginally softer underfoot than Nimbus but as I say above I've not tried the more recent incarnations so things may have changed.

    I'm somewhat tempted by the Nike Lunarglide as an alternative to Nimbus - maybe take a look at them as well??
  • cheers for the advice buddha.

    ice tried lunarglides and have to say they are the most comfortable trainers ive ever worn but just couldnt get on with them when running, after about a mile my knee started to ache and gave up wearing them after about 10 miles in them !

  • im pretty injury prone d2d and in the past ive run in saucony, adidas, mizuno and nike and since switching to asics ive had no injury probs and i've convinced myself to stick with them as they're my lucky charm !!!

    i know what you mean about the nimbus, i also run in asics speedstar for racing halfs and they are so much lighter and responsive but im not convinced they could take the regular pounding of long runs and training on the track and beach and hills etc....

  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    nothing constructive to say....

    but as Harry Hill might say, "there's only one way to find out......FIGHT!"

    (although it is an odd image two clouds brawling)

    image ......Whats that?

    They're running shoes?

  • i have an original pair of 1974 nike mach runners, super lightweight nylon trainers with a waffle style pattern on the sole, always wear them in the summer and they are so lightweight, wouldnt fancy running in them mind !!!

    imageimage only occured to me recently that asics named their trainers after clouds imageimage 

  • they were sold as a running shoe back in the 70's, mine are original 1974 and still in amazing condition so i suppose strictly speaking i could run in them if i wanted to, thinking about it they're actually very similar in terms of weight and cushioning to my asics hyperspeeds
  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭
    Oh dear d2d will you never learn?!
  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    Tell me, what do YOU think they are?

  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    I would say that they are neither track nor road shoes.

    In my opinion they are a fashion trainer, the style of which was a running shoe in the 1970s.

  • D2D............they get a great write up below.....

     running shoes

    I stick with asics as well Mr sj but no experience of those............

    I hadn't notivced the cloud connection beforeimage

  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    I dont know and I dont care about why theyre sold/pitched as running shoes.

    To me and probably most people one look would tell you that theyre a fashion item. Vast majority of stuff sports direct sell is fashion. Why you persist in buying stuff from there is beyond me.

    Your ignorance really does astound me!!

  • Do they have the "Bowerman" logo in them d2d?.

    I think the rule of thumb with Nike shoes is, if they don't they aren't "proper" running shoes.

  • D2D they are both nike sprint sister shoes.......same shoe basically just different decorations to suit which ever fashion you are intoimage

  • I wasn't taking the piss, just trying to help out here, had no idea you run in Nikes at the moment anyway.

    Was ready up on Nike running shoes a while back, and from what I could gather it seemed the logo was the sign of a "proper" running shoe, and anything without was more of fashion shoe.

    BTW, nice unneccesary weight jibe.

  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    As it happens Dan wasnt taking the piss.

    Bowerman was one of the chappies who designed the 'proper' running shoes of Nike, back in the 70s??? His face is on the proper running shoes of Nike.....and his comment is on the mark! Show your true colours eh Katy!?

  • I was just going to say that Danowat was being helpful..the nike shoes fron the bowerman range which includes the pegasus are considered proper running shoes....all the rest of the nike shoes are considered fashion.. 2 mins of the web can confirm thatimage

    I won't expect you will apologise to danowat for accusing him when he was supplying you with the info you needed

  • Nick LNick L ✭✭✭

    ...I guess this thread has somewhat gotten hijacked away from the original topic. The only reason I posted on it was I had a Harry Hill image of two clouds fighting!

    I hope that the comments given have given the original poster some help.

Sign In or Register to comment.