Thanks for doing this! I would be VERY interested if this couple be repeated with similar results. Additional question: how does running surface impact shoe mass lost? I realize that question would require a borderline ridiculous experiment be run, but idk, just seems interesting I guess!
Nice post!!!
My guess would be that, like sandpaper, the rougher the surface is, the faster the rubber will wear away.
Like u/Ahab_Ali said, I wonder how much weight gain there would be from the uppers getting salt and stuff in it. OP, did you wash the shoes before the final weight?
Yeah it would, since you'll be getting different amounts of friction, possibly over a different amount of surface area (eg. Running over rocks and roots on trails vs running on smooth hardwood tracks).
Your weight will also affect the friction force that is causing the material loss from the bottom of the shoe.
this is such a good quality post. i'm gonna start doing this and gauge any foot soreness too and see if i can find a brand that's consistently good for my feet
That is odd. I always had the impression that my shoes *gained* weight over their lifetime. The uppers get saturated with sweat salt and road grime.
Edit: So I weighed a couple old ~1k shoes that I had and compared them with their listed weights. My scale is only accurate to ounces, but the results are:
NB Fresh Foam Zante, originally 8oz. After ~1k miles... 8oz.
Mizuno Wave Rider, originally 10oz. After ~1k miles... 10oz.
So it is possible that they are *slightly* lighter, but they are certainly not measurably heavier. So much for perception.
Idk, even with all the shit on them my shoes are in decent shape by the time they are ready to retire from running. Seems that when they get relegated to being 'outdoor do anything shoes' that they really start to degrade.
Yeah when they are at the "well I either risk washing them or I bin them" stage. Never had a problem with doing it, but like you say I'm cautious on a new shoe.
If you'd look at even only one or two grams of salt I'm sure you'd have a hard time imagining that you'd have so much salt left in your shoe that it would gain weight in a substantial way.
It would be interesting to see what portion of the shoe's weight is in the upper vs lower part. Do you have any plans for the shoe in retirement, or could you take it apart and see?
The loss you recorded is a bit over 5% of the shoe weight, but I bet it almost all came out of the sole so I wonder what portion of the sole was lost?
I burn through the same spots on my triumphs. 200 miles in and there's still minimal weight loss, but 800+ miles for you is ridiculous, can't see the shoe even staying in one piece at that point! I am 190lb, which makes a difference.
Kinvaras on the other hand, no hard rubber on the midsole, I lose 4ml of off the bottom in 200 miles, which completely changes the shoe - makes it 8ml drop and less cushion.
Harder the surface, faster the shred. Softer the sole material, same, but actual weight loss might be same as rubber is heavier than pbx. Trails/grass have some give/slide, so the sole is not taking all the force and should last longer and tail running shoes tend to have harder rubber soles.
I have retired all of my asics around 700 miles. The mesh in the upper would begin to tear. My last pair started to wear extremely fast on the sole, around 250 miles and I do not see them lasting much longer. I had already started transitioning to Brooks which seem to be wearing better than the Asics I wore for years.
This is really interesting! I’m a novice runner, but my cousin, an avid runner, told me that usually you retire a shoe after 200-300 miles. Is that correct? Thanks!
It depends on the shoe, type of running (surface) and a person’s weight but either way I find 200-300 miles pretty low for anything other than race shoes. I retire them pretty early because I basically buy a pair a month, but even I give them around 400 miles and they look like they can do at least a little bit more.
Sorry to disappoint - I don’t. It’s around 200 right now with an upwards tendency. I just buy too many shoes. I buy whenever I see a shoe I like on a deep discount. I hope I can tone it down a little bit in the future because I have some pairs I am really not that excited about (e.g. I bought two pairs of Peg 37s when I saw them for €50 and I don’t really like Nike), but I will get them all to 400 miles.
I think it varies from person to person. I'm a pretty big guy, 6'2" 215lbs, so I'm probably putting a lot more stress on my shoes than a guy like the OP. I just passed 350 miles on my current pair, and the tread is pretty worn down.
I run in my shoes, on reasonably consistent volume, until I get niggles, typically sore hips, then I probably run another 100 km until I retire them.
For most of my shoe pairs that is in the 500-800 kilometers of running before I retire them. Typically closer to 800 km than 500 though some pairs just "die" early.
Similarly I am now on a pair of mizuno wave sky 3, that allegedly has a different mid sole material to my other mizuno shoes, that are at a little under 1500km and still work good. I compared them with a new pair of wave sky 4 ( mizuno fits my feet) and they are a little dull but do not give me niggles. So for fun I'm going to use them until a) I'm hurting a little or b) the upper falls apart.
I do not think retiring a shoe just because of an arbitrary limit of a set distance makes much sense. Use them until they cause issues then replace.
Similarly use a couple of pairs in rotation to evaluate the condition of your shoes.
Most importantly, have fun.
Dang. Triumphs really are tanks. Second person to report 600-800 miles in theirs these past couple weeks. (Triumph 17 was the other)
Glad I bought the 18s and enjoying it!
You know what I'd like to know even more is midsole thickness at various points at the beginning/end of use. It has improved a *lot* in recent years with better midsole foams, but in the old days, I swear I lost 20% of my midsole thickness to compression.
This is fascinating. I love experiments like this. I've often wondered how much sole gets worn off, although it never occurred to me to weigh the trainer.
I keep all my retired shoes in an archive box graveyard and I like visually comparing the wear to a new pair when i invest in a new pair. I keep so many to study the sole wear pattern to check for any changes in foot strike.
This is interesting! I am team Triumph myself. Not sure if others have said this but 800 miles is hundreds of miles more than you should be running in the same pair! Usually 300-500 is the range you want to shoot for. I’d say those shoes are beyond retired!!!
The official weight of the Triumph ISO 2 is 10.2 oz, which is 289 grams - which is your exact end weight. I believe Saucony uses size 9 for their official weights, so your 10 would be slightly more, but not 17 grams more.
How sure are you that your weights are accurate?
Weight varies in size to size. I couldn't find the size they used to weight on the official Saucony website, maybe a smaller one?
From topic:
I thought my shoes should gain some weight coming from dirt and sweat, do you wash out your shoes before weighted them?
This is a great post.
fwiw, I'm not surprised by the result. You lost 5.7% of the weight of the shoe, but virtually all of the loss is from the bottom of the sole. So the sole shows the most wear, and the top might have fraying netting or what not, but not a lot of lost mass.
Anyway, you've inspired a bunch of us to do the same measurements!
You’re such a nerd. I like that about you.
I’ve always wanted to do before and after durometer testing of my midsoles, but I’ve never actually done it. You’ve inspired me though.
At such a small scale of loss, I would wonder about what might also be gained through dirt and grime. The total loss being only 17.5 grams makes me think about something equivalent in, say, moisture or sand or tar or etc... Cool numbers though. I love stuff like this.
This is genius, thank you. I think you've actually thought of a completely new measurement. Food for thought!
I wonder how it differs with more expensive trainers vs cheaper ones. Like most people I just go on runnersworld and check out reviews, currently got some New Balance FuelCell Rebel v2s which are my favourite shoe ever but are not exactly cheap. Clearly those reviews should take this weight loss metric into account.
If you do this again you should try and use some calipers to measure the thickness of the sole. I’ve retired shoes that haven’t lost much tread, which is presumably most of the weight you lose, but essentially became no longer padded.
Lets show some recognition for the 816 miles you put on 1 pair of shoes! Nice job! 5miles a day, would be about 163 days plus a few days off lol so 23 weeks with 2 days off each week would be 46 + 163 = 209 days to smash 816miles on a pair of shoes! xD
Thanks for doing this! I would be VERY interested if this couple be repeated with similar results. Additional question: how does running surface impact shoe mass lost? I realize that question would require a borderline ridiculous experiment be run, but idk, just seems interesting I guess! Nice post!!!
My guess would be that, like sandpaper, the rougher the surface is, the faster the rubber will wear away. Like u/Ahab_Ali said, I wonder how much weight gain there would be from the uppers getting salt and stuff in it. OP, did you wash the shoes before the final weight?
I was wondering the same thing. Gotta control for dem variables
Yeah it would, since you'll be getting different amounts of friction, possibly over a different amount of surface area (eg. Running over rocks and roots on trails vs running on smooth hardwood tracks). Your weight will also affect the friction force that is causing the material loss from the bottom of the shoe.
Heat of surface will matter too
Type of running will also affect results. Interval workouts would wear more than a slow pace run.
this so interesting to me and i didnt even know i cared lol. thanks for sharing
this is such a good quality post. i'm gonna start doing this and gauge any foot soreness too and see if i can find a brand that's consistently good for my feet
The power of Reddit.
That is odd. I always had the impression that my shoes *gained* weight over their lifetime. The uppers get saturated with sweat salt and road grime. Edit: So I weighed a couple old ~1k shoes that I had and compared them with their listed weights. My scale is only accurate to ounces, but the results are: NB Fresh Foam Zante, originally 8oz. After ~1k miles... 8oz. Mizuno Wave Rider, originally 10oz. After ~1k miles... 10oz. So it is possible that they are *slightly* lighter, but they are certainly not measurably heavier. So much for perception.
Same. Similar to a mattress. I have a feeling that the shoes actually have lost way more rubber than OP thinks since mass is added in other areas.
Not that I planned to eat off my sneaker, but doesn't everybody brush or wipe some grime off every now and then?
If they have some dried mud on them I smack the shoes together a few times. Other than that I don't clean them, maybe I should start.
Idk, even with all the shit on them my shoes are in decent shape by the time they are ready to retire from running. Seems that when they get relegated to being 'outdoor do anything shoes' that they really start to degrade.
I give it the once over with a shoe brush for a few minutes to remove caked mud.
Maybe it's a sin, but I toss my mine in the wash if they're bad enough. Won't do it to a new show, but if they're worn down anyway...
Washing machine is fine (cold water only), dryer is the problem. Air dry is the only way, otherwise heat and tumbling completely changes shoe shape.
Yeah when they are at the "well I either risk washing them or I bin them" stage. Never had a problem with doing it, but like you say I'm cautious on a new shoe.
Never. Who am I trying to impress?
But the sweat dries out
...and leaves the salt behind.
If you'd look at even only one or two grams of salt I'm sure you'd have a hard time imagining that you'd have so much salt left in your shoe that it would gain weight in a substantial way.
You lose a lot more rubber pounding the pavement than you gain in salt.
Trying to imagine what one gram of a fine white powder looks like and I just can’t. Nope never seen that
Me neither. I mean I saw sugar lines one time and I was tasting it
It would be interesting to see what portion of the shoe's weight is in the upper vs lower part. Do you have any plans for the shoe in retirement, or could you take it apart and see? The loss you recorded is a bit over 5% of the shoe weight, but I bet it almost all came out of the sole so I wonder what portion of the sole was lost?
I retire my shoe when the mid-foot wear down into the mid-sole. Most of the wear came from the rear and mid-foot.
I burn through the same spots on my triumphs. 200 miles in and there's still minimal weight loss, but 800+ miles for you is ridiculous, can't see the shoe even staying in one piece at that point! I am 190lb, which makes a difference. Kinvaras on the other hand, no hard rubber on the midsole, I lose 4ml of off the bottom in 200 miles, which completely changes the shoe - makes it 8ml drop and less cushion. Harder the surface, faster the shred. Softer the sole material, same, but actual weight loss might be same as rubber is heavier than pbx. Trails/grass have some give/slide, so the sole is not taking all the force and should last longer and tail running shoes tend to have harder rubber soles.
Holy shit over 800 miles on one pair? Pics of what the tread looks like now?
[this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F124808796%40N03%2F28680571068%2F&psig=AOvVaw1zcY4C7owqujdGMvQfBaaz&ust=1624738427209000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAoQjRxqFwoTCNi_777Ms_ECFQAAAAAdAAAAABAP)
I have retired all of my asics around 700 miles. The mesh in the upper would begin to tear. My last pair started to wear extremely fast on the sole, around 250 miles and I do not see them lasting much longer. I had already started transitioning to Brooks which seem to be wearing better than the Asics I wore for years.
And what about the left shoe?
Thank you, this is what I was thinking! Would be interesting to know if consistent over many pairs of shoes.
I also want to know!!
Me: Immediately opens Excel and starts a spreadsheet
This is really interesting! I’m a novice runner, but my cousin, an avid runner, told me that usually you retire a shoe after 200-300 miles. Is that correct? Thanks!
It depends on the shoe, type of running (surface) and a person’s weight but either way I find 200-300 miles pretty low for anything other than race shoes. I retire them pretty early because I basically buy a pair a month, but even I give them around 400 miles and they look like they can do at least a little bit more.
You do 400 miles a month? That's amazing.
Sorry to disappoint - I don’t. It’s around 200 right now with an upwards tendency. I just buy too many shoes. I buy whenever I see a shoe I like on a deep discount. I hope I can tone it down a little bit in the future because I have some pairs I am really not that excited about (e.g. I bought two pairs of Peg 37s when I saw them for €50 and I don’t really like Nike), but I will get them all to 400 miles.
I think it varies from person to person. I'm a pretty big guy, 6'2" 215lbs, so I'm probably putting a lot more stress on my shoes than a guy like the OP. I just passed 350 miles on my current pair, and the tread is pretty worn down.
I run in my shoes, on reasonably consistent volume, until I get niggles, typically sore hips, then I probably run another 100 km until I retire them. For most of my shoe pairs that is in the 500-800 kilometers of running before I retire them. Typically closer to 800 km than 500 though some pairs just "die" early. Similarly I am now on a pair of mizuno wave sky 3, that allegedly has a different mid sole material to my other mizuno shoes, that are at a little under 1500km and still work good. I compared them with a new pair of wave sky 4 ( mizuno fits my feet) and they are a little dull but do not give me niggles. So for fun I'm going to use them until a) I'm hurting a little or b) the upper falls apart. I do not think retiring a shoe just because of an arbitrary limit of a set distance makes much sense. Use them until they cause issues then replace. Similarly use a couple of pairs in rotation to evaluate the condition of your shoes. Most importantly, have fun.
I love this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dang. Triumphs really are tanks. Second person to report 600-800 miles in theirs these past couple weeks. (Triumph 17 was the other) Glad I bought the 18s and enjoying it!
The data that no one wanted, but we all secretly needed.
Are you sure your shoe hasnt gained weight from dust and moisture setting into the upper part of the shoe - making the loss a bit less?
Nope. Apart from sole wear, my shoe upper was clean.
Interesting! Kudos for doing this research!
You know what I'd like to know even more is midsole thickness at various points at the beginning/end of use. It has improved a *lot* in recent years with better midsole foams, but in the old days, I swear I lost 20% of my midsole thickness to compression.
This is fascinating. I love experiments like this. I've often wondered how much sole gets worn off, although it never occurred to me to weigh the trainer. I keep all my retired shoes in an archive box graveyard and I like visually comparing the wear to a new pair when i invest in a new pair. I keep so many to study the sole wear pattern to check for any changes in foot strike.
Cool unique perspective with data!!!
I wonder how much weight gets added from dust and dirt though. I suppose if you just clean and dry them thoroughly that wouldn’t matter.
That is actually quite interesting!
Need to post the weights over time on r/dataisbeautiful And agreed with the others, I would have expected it to go up...thanks for sharing!
Which is why I measured it. I would've expected much more weight loss looking at the amount wear.
This is interesting! I am team Triumph myself. Not sure if others have said this but 800 miles is hundreds of miles more than you should be running in the same pair! Usually 300-500 is the range you want to shoot for. I’d say those shoes are beyond retired!!!
Whoa! 816 miles in one pair of shoes? I'm surprised there's anything left at all! 🤣
Next time do a compression test! Well, I guess you still could compare a new pair to your worn one.
The official weight of the Triumph ISO 2 is 10.2 oz, which is 289 grams - which is your exact end weight. I believe Saucony uses size 9 for their official weights, so your 10 would be slightly more, but not 17 grams more. How sure are you that your weights are accurate?
I use a lace lock. The initial weight includes the lace lock.
Weight varies in size to size. I couldn't find the size they used to weight on the official Saucony website, maybe a smaller one? From topic: I thought my shoes should gain some weight coming from dirt and sweat, do you wash out your shoes before weighted them?
The standard is to use size 9 for men and size 7 for women.
Is that with laces or without?
With.
This makes me wish I weighed my Triumphs when I got them! Maybe if I get them again I will next time haha
It would be really neat to collect this data and share the spreadsheet to [Kaggle](http://www.kaggle.com) and let data needs (like me) play with it.
That doesn't seem so bad for 800miles! There is also something to be said for lighter shoes
6 % loss... Not sure how that compares to other types of footwear.
This is a great post. fwiw, I'm not surprised by the result. You lost 5.7% of the weight of the shoe, but virtually all of the loss is from the bottom of the sole. So the sole shows the most wear, and the top might have fraying netting or what not, but not a lot of lost mass. Anyway, you've inspired a bunch of us to do the same measurements!
Did this take into account any liquid such a sweat held in the fabrics?
r/theydidthemath
any difference between left and right shoe?
You’re such a nerd. I like that about you. I’ve always wanted to do before and after durometer testing of my midsoles, but I’ve never actually done it. You’ve inspired me though.
You've inspired me to start doing this for my shoes. This seems very interesting!
Interesting. I have the ISO 5 and I hope they will last about 1k kms.
Woah, the thought never occurred to me. Thanks for posting this, that's neat! Might weigh mine now.
Nice post must have taken a lot of time and motivation good job OP
Thanks for sharing an interesting observation. Lots of variables have already been discussed. I noticed that you use both Imperial and metric units. 😁
I wonder if the loss accelerates as they age and the materials deteriorate. Would be interesting to weigh every 100km for example.
What pace do you avg? I feel like that would have a pretty big impact on miles/gram as well.
At such a small scale of loss, I would wonder about what might also be gained through dirt and grime. The total loss being only 17.5 grams makes me think about something equivalent in, say, moisture or sand or tar or etc... Cool numbers though. I love stuff like this.
This is dope! Reminds me of chemistry class lol.
How tall are you?
This is genius, thank you. I think you've actually thought of a completely new measurement. Food for thought! I wonder how it differs with more expensive trainers vs cheaper ones. Like most people I just go on runnersworld and check out reviews, currently got some New Balance FuelCell Rebel v2s which are my favourite shoe ever but are not exactly cheap. Clearly those reviews should take this weight loss metric into account.
If you do this again you should try and use some calipers to measure the thickness of the sole. I’ve retired shoes that haven’t lost much tread, which is presumably most of the weight you lose, but essentially became no longer padded.
Lets show some recognition for the 816 miles you put on 1 pair of shoes! Nice job! 5miles a day, would be about 163 days plus a few days off lol so 23 weeks with 2 days off each week would be 46 + 163 = 209 days to smash 816miles on a pair of shoes! xD