←back to thread

689 points taubek | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
1. ctrlp ◴[] No.43645023[source]
I regularly pay in excess of $100 for my shoes and would be a bit suspect of the longevity shoes that didn't cost significantly more than that. I wonder how these costs break out when thinking more about "being shod" than "buying shoes." I have ~$200 shoes that last me over 2500 miles (about a year of walking for me). I doubt a pair of Nikes could manage that but I haven't tried. On long trails, sneakers are usually worn out and trashed after 500 miles. Yes, different terrain but it's not just the soles that give out. Eventually, all soles wear out but the uppers are still good. I've had a cobbler repair some shoes and it's felt very worth the cost.
replies(1): >>43645697 #
2. nicbou ◴[] No.43645697[source]
I upgraded to Red Wings and Adidas Sambas. I'm astounded by the durability of both. Shoes used to be something I changed every season. It was indeed worth the cost.
replies(1): >>43646527 #
3. ctrlp ◴[] No.43646527[source]
Sambas for walking or running or sports? I've had good luck with Ecco shoes with Vibram soles for walking but my favorites were discontinued. Luckily, I bought a bunch of extras. As I've gotten older I've learned that if you find some shoe or clothing you really like, buy backups. So many great products are discontinued at some point.
replies(1): >>43648235 #
4. nicbou ◴[] No.43648235{3}[source]
As everyday shoes. I like how they look, they're decently comfortable, and they lasted through the summer plus a hike or two without issues.

Agreed about backups. I already miss that Uniqlo shirt that apparently isn't sold in Europe.