Does anyone actually run/train in On shoes?

I ran in the original ones they came out with around 5 years ago and didn't like them. Now I have some that are great for the grocery store and the zoo with my kids.

I have had good luck with the outsoles. No premature breakdowm. My only experience is with the Cloudflyer model. Normal wear on the upper. The upper on mine will breakdown, and cause a relegation of the shoes, before the outsole.

On discounts last years models, no crazy discounts, but maybe $40 discount, if the new model has a significant upgrade. I believe you can but leftover Coudflyers for $99. 99. That is a decent price. The new Cloudflyer is $159.99. That is WAY, WAY too much in my opinion. I have had good look with On shoes for training. The speedboard provides a good stable ride, and I was able to come back from PF with a combo of an insert, and the Cloudflyer. So, I am fond of the shoe, but.....more $99 fond, than $159 fond.

Rocks-- If you have a gravel driveway, or a 'rock' garden then On is the shoe for you. I live in a rural area, complete with gravel everywhere. I would say I 'dig' rocks out on 20-25% of the time wearing when not running, and near 100% of the time when running that involves a gravel/dirt road.

The real question for me is, when will On move on from the CloudTec? Or at least begin offering models without it. It has been a excellent 'gimmick' to gain customers and PR (Not saying it doesn't work well, just that it is limiting), but the brand is getting more well known, and if they want to continue to grow, will they start to produce more conventional shoes, or will they continue and expand the comfort/casual market. On already offers a conventional Tennis shoe, with the clouds closed on the outside. It looks like a conventional shoe, unless you look at the bottom of the outsole.

Even though I like them, for the price they wear out very fast. Top off road triathlete Lesley Patterson races in them

I have trained quite a bit in On shoes over the past few years and like them quite a bit. Most recently I've worn the Cloudventure Peak on the trails and the Cloudboom on the roads. The trail shoes haven't picked up any rocks or debris at any higher rate than other trail shoes with lugs that I've worn in the past. As for the Cloudboom, I only wore them for workouts on the roads and never had a problem with any rocks whatsoever. I never had any issues with traction due to wet pavement.

I generally don't wear On shoes on gravel, but that's okay as I have other shoes that work better for those conditions. Likewise, I have some Brooks Hyperion Tempos which I find slip on wet pavement, so I wear other shoes in those conditions. That's how it goes. To completely dismiss an entire brand of shoes because they have a reputation for picking up rocks seems a little overboard. Try them out and use them in the conditions for which they're best designed and you might really like them...

Uncle P wrote:

Are they any less of a shoe than the Nike Free everyone here was raving about a decade ago?

FWIW the Free Flyknit 3.0 is my all-time favorite running shoe. For me, no shoe has come even close to being as good.

Disappointed they've discontinued it as I'd be a lifetime customer of this model.

Yeah they work as a lifestyle shoe or an all-purpose gym shoe. They actually sell really well because of that fact, even at "specialty running stores" - because most people shopping at those stores aren't actually looking for something they plan on using primarily for running. As dedicated running shoes I think they're about as bad as you can get . I would pick any other major brand over On.

Shout out to On apparel though. It is supreme, as good as the shoes are bad.

this and this wrote:

Uncle P wrote:

Are they any less of a shoe than the Nike Free everyone here was raving about a decade ago?

They are a little better, because you were guaranteed to always get rocks, sticks, dirt etc. stuck in the sole cuts on the Free shoes.

imo the Frees had a better feel

I got scammed by some cute girl at a running store for $220 after buying a pair of On's saying they were 'fitted'. Shoes were clunky as hell and the heel padding wore out in 2 weeks and gave me a blister before I had to throw them out. Tried Nike afterwards and never looked back.

They suck…. On sucks… poor quality and longevity….. they are worse than biden

Joe Klecker

I ran in them for like six years (starting in 2013 or so). They worked I guess, but I was constantly injured. I switched shoes and my IT band issues were pretty quickly resolved.

I think I've seen the Cloudflow discounted quite a bit at a Nordstrom Rack.

I work run specialty and we sell them mostly to people who aren't running (as in using them for the gym, walking around town, etc.). We do sell a few to people who are focused on running, but not that much. They appear to sell just as well as brands like New Balance and Asics at my store though, at least from what I've seen.

Running_Shoe_Collector wrote:

I think I've seen the Cloudflow discounted quite a bit at a Nordstrom Rack.

I work run specialty and we sell them mostly to people who aren't running (as in using them for the gym, walking around town, etc.). We do sell a few to people who are focused on running, but not that much. They appear to sell just as well as brands like New Balance and Asics at my store though, at least from what I've seen.

I seem to be the only one around here who likes to run in Cloudflow. They are light, non-maximalist with modest cushioning and a 6mm drop, and feel as comfortable as my ASICS or Nike or Adidas running shoes. I used to run in Cloudflow exclusively for a while and was getting injured, but I was getting injured before Cloudflow as well as after I added more shoe rotation diversity, so I have little reason to think that Cloudflows are injury-prone.