moving "up" from Asics 1160s

Hi there - I run in Asics 1150 and 1160s.
About time to replace the 1150s and thinking of moving "up" to a better performance shoe.
The 1150/1160s are great and I've never had any problems with them (other than running the last pair into the ground) so I want to stick with Asics.

Any guidance on what my options are for same support etc but improved performance eg. 2160, Kayano etc.

I have a couple of half-marathons coming up and am thinking in terms of a good race shoe for these (and VLM 2012).

Thanks <img title="Smile" src="http://www.runnersforum.co.uk/images/smilies/small/smile1.gif" />

Comments

  • I think the 2160s have more support than the 1160s which is not what I want, happy with the support of the 1160 just wanting a  more performant shoe if available!
  • People who run in the 1160 do not do so because they are too poor to by the 2160 or the Kayano.  They run in it because it is the right shoe for them. 

    The 2160 and Kayano are more supportive than the 1160, but are not superior in any practical respect.  If the 1160 is providing you with enough support, then switching to one of these shoes could be a retrograde step and might cause problems that you did not previously have. 

    If it ain't broke don't fix it. 

  • Go to a proper running shop with a treadmill / gait analysis system / knowledgeable staff.

    Take their advice.

    I'm sure I read that the 1160's arent recommended for mileage above 20 miles per week - but there is a good possibiity thats a total figment of my imagination.

  • Kicked-It wrote (see)

    Go to a proper running shop with a treadmill / gait analysis system / knowledgeable staff.

    Take their advice.I'm sure I read that the 1160's arent recommended for mileage above 20 miles per week - but there is a good possibiity thats a total figment of my imagination.
    thanks - doing over 30 at the moment. I am planning to visit Runners Needs-  not too far from my work, problem is with all this running and swimming I never get the time esp as I work from home couple of days a week. Hoping to get some ideas up front.
  • I went from the 1000 series to the 2000 series once I strated training "properly" and found them slightly more comfortable.  However I wouldn't say they were more performant.

    I've since bought ASICS DS Trainers for speed sessions, as they are aimed at Asics 2000 and other support users wanting a lighter shoe for racing/speed sessions (rather than out-and-out racing flats).

    So you may want to consider the DS Trainer - but as others said, you take a risk if you don't try it in a propoer shop first, as what worked for me may not work for you.

  • The 2000 series isn't a step up from the 1000 series.

    They are different shoes for different runners. The fact that the 1000 is a lower number than 2000 doesn't mean the 1000 series is less of a shoe. And the idea that the 1000 series aren't recommended for more than 20 miles a week is just plain wrong.

    The 1000 series give mild support for overpronators. The 2000 gives more support: hence the higher number.

    If the 1000 has worked for you, stick with it or try another make. AFAIK, the 1000 series is the only shoe in Asics range for nuetral/mild overpronator runners

  • Every shoe manufacturer makes a neutral shoe, a mild suport shoe, a medium suport shoe and a heavy support shoe. 

    Asics make:

    Nimbus-neutral

    Cumulus-neutral but with some support due to shape

    1160-very mild support

    2160-medium support

    Kayano-slightly more support with more responsive feel

    Foundation-heavy support

    None of these shoes is any better or worse than any other.  They are all there because they do a different job. 

  • Ben I know you work in a running shop but have you got the Nimbus and Cumulus the wrong way round?

    I overpronate slighty on one leg and I'm running very happily in my second pair of Nimbus,  the staff at  Sweatshop Manchester told me the Nimbus are neutral but with a bit of support.

  • The Cumulus does the same thing Paul. 

    If somebody needs support but the support posts of the support shoes are hurting their feet, then I put them in the Cumulus.  Sometimes it straightens them up more than the 2160!

  • Sorry but the 2000 series IS a step up from the 1000.

    Asics don't market the 1160 as a mild stability shoe or the 2160 as a moderate stability shoe.

    They both sit in their Structured Cushioning category - but because the 2160 is made out of better materials and has more advanced stability features than the 1160, it comes out as being slightly more stable.

    The 2160 has a "gender specific space trusstic system" under the arch - the 1160 has a more basic midfoot support structure.

    The 2160 has I.G.S. and a full length Guidence Line - the 1160 doesn't.

    The 2160 has a memory foam heel collar and a midsole made from the lighter Solyte EVA - the 1160's midsole is made from the heavier SpEVA.

    (this is all from the Asics website)

  • Running shoe manufacturers are very good at making a lot out of a little.  There are about five materials used in the construction of running shoes at the end of the day. 

    The 2000 series is not a step up from the 1000.  If the 1160 has the right amount of support for your needs then the 2160 will pretty much by definition have too much.  It is not more stable because it is made of "better materials".  It is more stable because the support post is longer and made of a denser material.  There isn't a nickels worth of difference between Solyte and Speva.  It is just a slab of Ethyl Vinyl Acetate at the end of the day. 

    The bottom line is that you don't use the 1160 because you cannot afford the 2160.  You use it because it is more suitable for your needs. 

  • Oh I am so glad to see this Forum bc I have the same question! I´ve worn Asics 1100s for abvout three years and they´ve carried me thru 5 half marathons and about 35 miles a week. Lately I feel like I should upgrade but is that just marketing getting the best of me?

    Cons: My arches are sore after runs longer than 15 miles and I do always have black toenails, but I accept those things as pretty normal.

     Facts: I am 5'4" 120-pound woman, slight pronator, narrow heel, wide toes.

     Thanks so much for any thoughts!

  • I am surprised at the fact with todays technology how much misinformation is out there...........I am glad Ben has come on here as he has explained things a lot better than I can................image

    the problem the shoes can't deal with is when foot has a significant difference in pronation than the other.image

    MC have you tried going up a size in the asics........I believe the measure a bit smaller than others and this might help the black toes...........but I am not an expert............as I wear thick socks I always run in the asics womens shoes 2 sizes bigger than my normal size and in the mens I wear 1 1/2 sizes bigger.......

  • I've used the 1000 series mostly, but I have had a pair of 2120s and I can't honestly say I noticed any difference. I run around 30 miles per week in 1150s now (I stock up when they're going cheap).

    For the OP, it'd be worth having a more specific idea about what you want in a 'better' shoe. Some of the more supportive shoes might be overkill for you, and they might be heavier, which probably isn't what you want.

  • It is important to understand that more supportive shoes are inherently more expensive, simply because they have more components.  If you do not need a more supportive shoe, then you are effectively getting something for nothing.  If you need a very supportive shoe, then you pay more for your shoe, and still get less satisfactory results even in the best case scenario. 

    The 1160 has a very similar fee to the 2160, but is significantly more supportive.  If somebody has an arch in the 1160 support category and you put them in the 2160, then usually nothing terrible happens.  There would be a slight risk that you might cause them to come down on the outer side of the foot, or cause blistering under the arches.  Even if it is Bill Gates, you are going to suggest that they buy the 1160 or equivalent from another manufacturer. 

  • Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

    ...There would be a slight risk that you might cause them to come down on the outer side of the foot, or cause blistering under the arches.  ...

    Interesting - I did get blistering under the arches with 2120s, but never with 1100 series.

  • Just to clear up the stability question - have a look a t this chart from Asics' website.  The 2160 is marginally more supportive than the 1160, but both shoes go a fair way down into neutral territory, so I'd be surprised if the 2160 caused the OP issues by being too stable.

     http://www.asicsamerica.com/sports/running/shoeFitChart.aspx

  • So Ben, if I use the Nimbus now with no problems being an over pronator on one leg could I use the Cumulus and save £20 to £30 each time I replace them? if so what is supposed to be the difference between them.

    According to the chart linked by WetWeek above the Cumulus are more suitable for slight over pronation anyway.

  • Interesting to see that chart. 

    I've recently changed from 2150 to 3030 as I needed more support/control as I'm very flat footed and over pronate alot, especially on my right foot.  I thought that the 3000 series gave more stability but according to that chart, they give no more than the 2000s.  Have to say though, that I'm happy with 3030 and I'm not getting any of the problems I was starting to get in the 2150s when my feet got flatter (I'd previously run in the 2000s for about 9 years with no problem).

  • paulj38

    You would probably get on well with the Cumulus, but you might not like the feel of it if you are accustomed to the Nimbus.  The main difference is that the Cumulus has a more responsive less cushioned forefoot. Try a pair on and see what you think. 

    If you have got on well with the Nimbus in the past, and gone through N pairs without problems, then the low risk option would be to stick with it. 

  • Hi Ben,

    Would you mind pointing out what the main difference between the kayano and the 2160 is apart from the price. I have got on well with kayano for a long time but have been thinking about trying some 2160s. Your opinion would be appreciated as you seem to know what you are on about. Cheers.

  • OK Big Footed 1

    The Kayano is more supportive than the 2160, but a person who gets on with the support of one will more often than not be O.K in the other. 

    The feel is very different.  The 2160 is less cushioned than the Kayano on the forefoot area, but it has a squishy pad located under the knuckle at the base of the big toe.  When you try a 2160 on, this will be immediately obvious. 

    Again, the low risk option is probably to stick with the Kayano if you have got on with it previously, but try a 2160 on in a shop and see if you like the feel. 

  • That is really informative and good advice. I will try a pair on now as you suggest. I have been thinking about it for a while but didnt really know what the differences were-  I feel I can now make an informed decision. Cheers for that !
  • just to update- didnt like the 2160s, have opted for brooks gts11 which so far feel very good. cheers
  • I've been a long-time Gel 1000-series runner (over a decade!), in the last few years averaging over 400 miles between changes.

    In Nov-11 I moved from my second pair of 1150s (about 420 miles to each pair - I record all my runs with a Garmin) to a pair of 1160s - it took about 90 miles of running before I got the unmistakable signs of worn-out shoes (Achilles tendon tenderness is the first thing that usually happens for me - I think due to over-stretch once the cushioning in the shoe's heel wears out); ill-advisedly, I completed that particular week's schedule in the shoes (I had trouble believing they had actually worn out) and it's taken 10 days for the symptoms to subside.

    This topic is a few months old now, so I'd be really interested to hear if anyone else has noticed a severe degradation in the lifespan of their Gel 1160 shoes compared to previous models. I've had a couple of pairs of pretty much every 1000-series iteration with no problems except for the (I think) Gel 1110, which I vaguely remember as unsuitable for some reason.

    BACKGROUND: I will typically run an average of 30 miles on-road per week; my weight is essentially stable; I have tried other makes & models (off the back of various gait analysis sessions over the years) for moderate over-pronation, but never been able to get along with them (including Gel 2120s a few years ago, and Mizuno Wave Rider 12 (?) in 2010), typically resulting in shin splints & achey knees in very short order.
  • Just an update to my previous post:  the other trainers I've tried over the years includes the Asics Gel 2120s and the Mizuno Inspire 6 (these were the most recent departure from the 1000-series - a costly mistake at £85!).

    This might be a bit of an amateur's question, but is it possible to buy a good pair of "neutral" shoes and then get the over-pronation benefits of the Asics Gel 1000-series using some sort of inserts/insoles?

  • Indeed it is, Barry.  Superfeet and others make stability inserts.  Many people with mild over-pronation achieve great results with stability insoles in neutral shoes.  An experienced and knowledgable staff member at a specialist running shop can assess your gait and advise appropriate shoe/insole combinations.  However, other shop employees can spout dangerous misinformation. Best ask lots of questions image
Sign In or Register to comment.