High mileage guy, been somewhat injury prone lately with a knee issue so I need some good cushioning, thinking of trying a pair of the Asics Cumulus or Nimbus. both are bulkier than what im used to but given the knee issue as of now and the fact that i cant run on trails because of the snow im thinking it might be helpful..what do you think?
in the past ive run in the brooks defyance and the brooks ghost and older versions of the landreth, launch for tempo stuff
thanks for any advice you may have
I have no experience in running in the nimbus but I do in the cumulus. They definitly had a good amount of cushioning. I recently went with the Nike Pegasus (because of only being able to get about 300miles per pair of my cumulus)and have found it to be a lot more comfortable with more cushioning as well. They just need a little more time to break in and sort of form to my foot. Hope that helps you a little bit
Nimbus try it
Have you tried the ghost3? I have knee issues as well and I love this shoe. I personally have never had good luck with Asics shoes but everyone is different. IMO you don't want a shoe with too much cushion because alot of energy gets wasted kinda like running in sand. I'd give the ghost3 a try.
ghost3 arent bad but not sure how durable they are
The Cumulus and Nimbus are both awesome cushioned shoes. You can find reviews of them here:
http://www.runpals.com/best-asics-running-shoes.html
However if you want the top of the line cushioning shoe, look no further than the Asics GEL Kinetic.
http://www.runpals.com/asics-gel-kinetic.html
Try those babies out and you will love em.
Transitioned from Ghost to Launch with much success and happiness.
I've run in all 3 the Cumulus, Nimbus, and Ghost.
Nimbus started putting in some more support 18-24 months ago. so if you are a slight pronator, it is not a bad thing. I find the Cumulus are bricks but good for nice easy slow runs. The are comfortable but not my perferance for fast stuff. I really do like the ghosts. I am a supernator and find they fit me well. I run moderate mileage (about 60-70 a week) and find that I don't get nearly as many miles out of them as I do the Cumulus. I get about 300 or so out of the Ghost before I can feel them breaking down.
I like to ulternate between the Cumulus and the Ghost
Good luck!
Midwest runner chick wrote:
I've run in all 3 the Cumulus, Nimbus, and Ghost.
Nimbus started putting in some more support 18-24 months ago. so if you are a slight pronator, it is not a bad thing. I find the Cumulus are bricks but good for nice easy slow runs. The are comfortable but not my perferance for fast stuff. I really do like the ghosts. I am a supernator and find they fit me well. I run moderate mileage (about 60-70 a week) and find that I don't get nearly as many miles out of them as I do the Cumulus. I get about 300 or so out of the Ghost before I can feel them breaking down.
I like to ulternate between the Cumulus and the Ghost
Good luck!
Why did they put support in their neutral cushioned shoes? I started another thread (about the Nimbus15) before seeing this. I had the Cumulus14 and they were total rocks and unflexible. Now I know why.
I wish manufacturers would stop wrecking good shoes. I suppose they can market to a larger audience, but some runners need a true neutral shoe without support.
Even NB is potentially wrecking their 890V3(which work great for me now) by adding more toe spring aka rocker in the 890V4. Too much rocker/toe spring is bad for high arched runners IMO.
the reason why they felt like rocks is because asics have a firmer ride to them. not as flexible as some other shoes. If you want something softer, try the nike vomero. Great neutral shoe and pretty well cushioned.
Are they really dicking around with the 890v4? The changes to the v3 were more than enough. Sheesh. I like the 890 line for its simplicity. Do they have to make good things bad?
shoeguy wrote:
the reason why they felt like rocks is because asics have a firmer ride to them. not as flexible as some other shoes. If you want something softer, try the nike vomero. Great neutral shoe and pretty well cushioned.
I don't mind firm, but they have a medial post/stability elements.
The Cumulus14 must have had a large medial post. If I hold them in my hand and twist them sideways, they barely budge.
Cushioned and firm is ok, but cushioned and not flexible is very bad for a neutral shoe.
redux wrote:
Are they really dicking around with the 890v4? The changes to the v3 were more than enough. Sheesh. I like the 890 line for its simplicity. Do they have to make good things bad?
I believe so. The good is they are making the toe box bigger. The bad is this toe spring thing. They also look uglier. I'm stocking up on the v3 starting now because more toe spring is a deal breaker for me at least.
Agreed with the Cumulus hate. Personally I think Asics hosed up the Cumulus big time. Thanks.
Sheesh. I can't wait to visit the outlet and grab a few pairs of v3 for cheap.
The v3 a half size bigger that the v2. Which is the v4 modeled after?
redux wrote:
Sheesh. I can't wait to visit the outlet and grab a few pairs of v3 for cheap.
The v3 a half size bigger that the v2. Which is the v4 modeled after?
I'm not sure. It seems to be a new design? Also, runningwarehouse has it listed as higher drop (10mm) compared to the V3(8mm). Yikes.
Another former Cumulus user here. I'd run in them for years but have abandoned them. They feel like bricks.
Omg! Freaking terrible! I don't need vibrams but for crying out loud! To go backwards?!?!?!