|
Jun 2012
5:57pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,205 posts
|
hellen
I have never had racing flats before but bought some saucony fast twitches for £20 at a race at the weekend as I thought I ought to have some!
I have been running for a while now in Kswiss blade light which are quite lightweight - 250g compared to my heavyweight shoes 350g. I have done ultras in the lightweight ones no probs (fast twitches are 210g on my scales)
Are Fast Twitches proper racing flats and do I need to wear them in very gradually as I am not used to them? Can I go out for my 5 mile run in them tonight? And should I reserve them for speed work or can they be my every day shoe if I like them?
|
|
Jun 2012
6:20pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,170 posts
|
JohnnyO
Old Fastwitches (anything before 5's) were soft and comfy and like wearing racing slippers. You could run a marathon in them straight out of the box.
Then they changed. The 5s are tighter/smaller, but also they seem to have made the midsole harder, mostly in the wrong places.
As you can guess, I didnt like them.
If you like the K-Swiss though, then I can recommend the Kwicky Blade Light. Very similar feel to the old fastwitch. Softer than the Blade light, and lighter too I think. (I know this is no good to you now you have bought the fastwitch, but it may be useful next time!)
|
|
Jun 2012
6:21pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,171 posts
|
JohnnyO
I wore my old fastwitches for everything on road.
Watch out for the puddles though!
|
|
Jun 2012
6:25pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,206 posts
|
hellen
the kwicky and blade light are similar weight and heavier than the FT, Gobi said the K-ona (which I also got recently) are nicer than the kiwcky
Not sure what number they are but they are mens and bright green, will have to check on the box!
|
|
Jun 2012
6:29pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,172 posts
|
JohnnyO
They'll be the five.
I dont think they are bad, but just didn't suit me.
Kwickys definitely heavier than Fastwitches, I think they just suit me though. Never tried the K-Ona, Gobi would know much more than me though.
I have my Mizuno Mushas for speed work, but I can get a fair clip up in the Kwickys anyway.
|
|
Jun 2012
7:06pm, 13 Jun 2012
7,526 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
Musha = Shoes of legend. I don't think there can be a better shoe and the 1st version was - in terms of looks - a work of art that will never be equalled. FACT.
K-Ona's also fine (if you mean K-Ona C's, I went through 3 pairs) but I'd say they're a medium-weight trainer in the mould of Adidas Tempo/Boston, or Asics DS/Speedstar, but not a minimal racing shoe like the Musha. K-Ona C's are pretty darn sturdy/cushioned and have a substantial amount of heel.
|
|
Jun 2012
7:09pm, 13 Jun 2012
19,865 posts
|
Dave A
Agree about the 1st lot of Mushas, bright yellow was an awesome colour 
I think the fast twitches are support shoes, not neutral. But, if they are the pair for you, ie they immediatley feel good and comfortable, then no need to worry about breaking them in. Just g out for a few short runs to maybe see that they do suit then do all your running in them
|
|
Jun 2012
7:11pm, 13 Jun 2012
13,174 posts
|
JohnnyO
They do have a 'medial post'.
|
|
Jun 2012
7:15pm, 13 Jun 2012
7,527 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
The whole shoe thing does get confusing the more minimal the shoe.
I wore Mushas for years (and still do) as a neutral runner but then saw them described as a "guidance" shoe, which apparently means a very, very slight amount of stability.
I always assumed the Adidas Adios were neutral but there were labelled as a support shoe in Sweatshop today.
|
|
Jun 2012
7:17pm, 13 Jun 2012
7,528 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
I wear anything with no noticeable issues. Chunky, lightweight, minimal, neutral, stablity. Makes no difference so go lightweight or minimal where I can as it's usually cheaper. Used to be anyway - I think the shoe manufacturers have cottoned on to that.
|
