Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Post by Bill » Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:58:59


Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185 lbs, ht. 6'3", longer
runs often on groomed trails.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!

Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".

Mfr.:  Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm"
Mfr.:  Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1 Cushion Shoe
RRS:  RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is competitively soft
All:   Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe and too little
cushioning to compete

What I find from running in all three models:

Nike Tailwind is so much more cushy than the other two, both to the touch,
on the floor, on the treadmill, on a firmer treadmill.  The heel compresses
more easily and further than the heels of the other two, for example.

In my size 11, the Rider and Burn have the same weight.  The Tailwind in
size 11 or 11.5 is about 16 oz. vs. 13 oz. for the other two.  That is, the
Rider has the same weight as the Burn!

Both the Rider and Burn feel lighter on the feet, they both have a better
fit, and they both feel like much less shoe.  The Burn has a softer "ride"
than than Rider.  Rider seems to be more supportive than the Burn.  Burn has
a little more toe room than the Rider.

Compared to other Nike models and other brand models except Adidas, the
Tailwind runs small.  I need size 11.5D instead of 11D.

WHY?

Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate.  Mizuno trying to hype
"cushioning" for its overly firm shoes, Nike trying to hype firm for its
overly soft shoe.  Just like politics.  Pick your spin.

 
 
 

Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:54:14

Quote:

> Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185 lbs, ht. 6'3", longer
> runs often on groomed trails.

> DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!

> Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".

> Mfr.:  Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm"

Probably a reference to some kind of cusioning metric (like durometer).

Quote:
> Mfr.:  Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1 Cushion Shoe

Well, it is the most succesful cushion shoe in the Mizuno line. But it's close
to lightweight. It does feel a little like a lightweight trainer.

Quote:
> RRS:  RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is competitively soft

Subjective, but it is, IMO.

Quote:
> All:   Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe and too little
> cushioning to compete

They're probably saying this because Burn is marketed as a lightweight trainer.

It doesn't compete toe-to-toe with the other two because it's marketted against
shoes like the Wave Precision and the Nike Spiridon/Skylon.

Quote:
> WHY?

> Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate.  Mizuno trying to hype

Maybe choice of technology is part of it too. For example, an airbag is an
airbag whether you put it in a "stability" last or not. Same is true for Asics,
who consistently use Gel padding.

Or maybe it's actually hard to explain it clearly, and you just have to
experience the shoes for yourself, to learn what a "lightweight trainer" feels
like, etc. Part of the problem is that different people will have different
experiences of the same shoe (for example, stiff *** will feel softer to
a heavier runner than it does to a light runner.)

My impression based on what I'd heard about flats, and my actual experience of
them were two completely different things. BTW, I find the Rider adequately
cushioned.

FWIW, in this category of shoe, I'm personally happy with the Asics Verdict.
Compared to the Wave Rider, it's a more flexible shoe. Runs a little small,
as I mentioned in the review I posted.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://SportToday.org/~elflord/

 
 
 

Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Post by Bill » Mon, 15 Mar 2004 04:56:08


Quote:

> > Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185 lbs, ht. 6'3",
longer
> > runs often on groomed trails.

> > DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!

> > Or, the retail salesmen whom they "train".

> > Mfr.:  Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as "Firm"

> Probably a reference to some kind of cusioning metric (like durometer).

> > Mfr.:  Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1 Cushion Shoe

> Well, it is the most succesful cushion shoe in the Mizuno line. But it's
close
> to lightweight. It does feel a little like a lightweight trainer.

> > RRS:  RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is competitively soft

> Subjective, but it is, IMO.

Notwithstanding, your preference for the Rider, have you run in the '04
Tailwind?  I was the same weight when I stood, walked and ran on both side
by side.  Even compressing the material in your hands it is obvious.
Nothing subjective about it.  I can understand why someone might want the
Rider, and could even understand why one runner might run with less impact
in a firmer shoe, but the shoes are unequally soft.
Quote:

> > All:   Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe and too
little
> > cushioning to compete

> They're probably saying this because Burn is marketed as a lightweight

trainer.

Yes, because they base their advice on the literature, on the mfr. spin,
rather than giving the shoe an honest trial.

Quote:

> It doesn't compete toe-to-toe with the other two because it's marketted
against
> shoes like the Wave Precision and the Nike Spiridon/Skylon.

Have to try the Skylon, I guess.

Quote:

> > WHY?

> > Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate.  Mizuno trying to hype

> Maybe choice of technology is part of it too. For example, an airbag is an
> airbag whether you put it in a "stability" last or not. Same is true for
Asics,
> who consistently use Gel padding.

If the pneumatic approach did not have an advantage, we would have seen
uninflatable tires long ago.

Quote:

> Or maybe it's actually hard to explain it clearly, and you just have to
> experience the shoes for yourself, to learn what a "lightweight trainer"
feels
> like, etc. Part of the problem is that different people will have
different
> experiences of the same shoe (for example, stiff *** will feel softer
to
> a heavier runner than it does to a light runner.)

> My impression based on what I'd heard about flats, and my actual
experience of
> them were two completely different things. BTW, I find the Rider
adequately
> cushioned.

I did too.  Though, after an hour or so, I tried the Rider again and the
difference was enormous.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> FWIW, in this category of shoe, I'm personally happy with the Asics
Verdict.
> Compared to the Wave Rider, it's a more flexible shoe. Runs a little
small,
> as I mentioned in the review I posted.

> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://SportToday.org/~elflord/


 
 
 

Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:28:31

Quote:

>> Subjective, but it is, IMO.

> Notwithstanding, your preference for the Rider, have you run in the '04
> Tailwind?  I was the same weight when I stood, walked and ran on both side
> by side.  Even compressing the material in your hands it is obvious.
> Nothing subjective about it.  I can understand why someone might want the
> Rider, and could even understand why one runner might run with less impact
> in a firmer shoe, but the shoes are unequally soft.

The TailWind is heavier, so it's going to be "cushier". The only
way you can make a lighter shoe "soft" is to have low durometer *** (reduces
durability, and will feel inadequate for heavy runners). The Rider is a light
high milage trainer which means carbon *** outsoles. It's as light as
possible without compromising durability. It's flexible, but it not really all
that soft.

The category names are IMO confusing: "cushioning" is actually a misnomer for
that category. The point of the "cushioning" category is that the shoe is
supposed to be more flexible as opposed to stability shoes which have medial
posts etc.

"Cushioning" shoes are not always soft in their feel.

Quote:
> Yes, because they base their advice on the literature, on the mfr. spin,
> rather than giving the shoe an honest trial.

One needs to read a review (and not sales pitches) in order to get info about
honest trials. Even then, reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt. For
example, I simply don't agree with the common criticisms of the Asics Verdict's
design.

I wouldn't trust a salesperson to accurately describe a shoe from first hand
experience. Even if the salesperson runs, they probably don't run in your shoe.

I think at the end of the day, you're stuck just *** your money on the
shoe, and hopefully buying from a place with a good return policy.
footlocker.com is good for this btw (you can return to their retail outlets).
I suppose the first time one discovers this, it comes as a rude shock.

My recommendation would be to look for chances to pick up shoes that interest
you at heavy discounts, or from places with a good return policy, so that you
minimise the risk. For example, I recently picked up three different pairs of
shoes from Footlocker.com (Tiger Paw, DS Racer, Verdict). I wasn't sure how
they'd fit, especially since I took a gamble by going up half a size on the
verdict. But they were so cheap that I was prepared to risk it (besides, the
return policy is pretty good).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://SportToday.org/~elflord/

 
 
 

Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Post by Bill » Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:53:23

Quote:

> The TailWind is heavier, so it's going to be "cushier". The only
> way you can make a lighter shoe "soft" is to have low durometer ***
(reduces
> durability, and will feel inadequate for heavy runners). The Rider is a
light
> high milage trainer which means carbon *** outsoles. It's as light as
> possible without compromising durability. It's flexible, but it not really
all
> that soft.

Mizuno Wave is as much structure as material, with the wave bearing subtle
resemblance to a spring.  Nike Air cuts out material, but has to take a back
seat to mfrs of road bicycle tires, e.g.  Someone will leave both companies
in the dust.  Nike Air has not improved much in three or  more years.
Though one has to give them credit for trying the Shox approach.

Quote:

> The point of the "cushioning" category is that the shoe is
> supposed to be more flexible as opposed to stability shoes which have
medial
> posts etc.

Yes, cushioning vs. support or control.  They could use the word "neutral"
and make a separate "cushioning" category.  Will try and make this
distinction when discussing shoes.

Also, will assume each salesman is a brand bigot and qualify them carefully.

Quote:
> I think at the end of the day, you're stuck just *** your money on
the
> shoe, and hopefully buying from a place with a good return policy.
> footlocker.com is good for this btw (you can return to their retail
outlets).
> I suppose the first time one discovers this, it comes as a rude shock.

Well, it can't hurt to keep trying to find an informed member of the
industry.  Call it optimism.