In my on going battle with shin splints I have left the Pose camp and find myself on the road to attemt pain free running. While trying Pose I realized two things
I am more comfortable with shorter strides and faster leg turn over.
Modern shoes are overbuilt jokes.
In searching for a new pair of running shoes I happened upon a pair of Vitruvians. The first thing I love about this shoe is it’s lack of bullshit. No plastic or carbon parts that delaminate and crack. No tons synthetic leather where it is not needed causing my feet too heat up. The beauty of this shoe is it’s lack of everything. It has an upper with tons of air mesh and only synthetic leather where it is needed. It breathes beautifully.
The midsole is wonderful do to it’s lack of foam. It has foam and a medail post of firmer eva but it has less of it. Unlike modren day shoes with their 2 to 3 feet of eva, something I am convinced is dangerous, they have enough to provide a nice road feel. Not too hard not too soft. Just right. Because I am very low arched I got the Symmetry because of it’s straight last. This is my only complaint about the shoe. It ain’t straight enough. I would like a shoe with eva under every part of my foot not allowing any of it to kinda hang out there in the air.
The sole is carbon rubber with lugs. Again basic and right.
Put all this, or lack of this, together and you have something rare. A light and flexible trainer. This shoe feels like it is part of your foot. It bends with you and doesn’t weigh you down. I can continue to refine my form and not have to worry about what is on my feet.
At $60 you get a great fit, high quality materails and construction and nothing else. Why would you want more?
Tibbs, I totally agree. Actually I can’t talk about the Symmetry. Just this morning I did a “road test” on the treadmill with 5 min each on Brooks T3 races, Saucony Grid Static Racers, Adidas Boston and finally the Vitruvian Harmony. The Vitruvians were the heaviest shoe by far, but due to the way they naturally roll with your own gait, instead on incumbering your progress with all that carbon and plastic you get with all the modern crap, they just work with your body. By far, they “ran the fastest”. For each shoe I did a few 1 min surges at 9.6 mph to get a feel for how the “performed”. One thing to note is that the Vitruvians are pretty “flat” and ride low to the ground. This is a good thing as our feet work better when they are close to the ground as our brains are hardwired to be as close to barefoot as possible. Of course, we do need padding on concrete, pavement and rocks
Thanks for this post. No wonder people were running faster in the early to mid 80’s during the running boom. This is the only type of shoe that existed when guys like Chuck were working at Nike.
Now, as I have pleaded for in the past…bring on the Vitruvian racing flat.
In my on going battle with shin splints I have left the Pose camp and find myself on the road to attemt pain free running. While trying Pose I realized two things
I am more comfortable with shorter strides and faster leg turn over.
Modern shoes are overbuilt jokes.
In searching for a new pair of running shoes I happened upon a pair of Vitruvians. The first thing I love about this shoe is it’s lack of bullshit. No plastic or carbon parts that delaminate and crack. No tons synthetic leather where it is not needed causing my feet too heat up. The beauty of this shoe is it’s lack of everything. It has an upper with tons of air mesh and only synthetic leather where it is needed. It breathes beautifully.
The midsole is wonderful do to it’s lack of foam. It has foam and a medail post of firmer eva but it has less of it. Unlike modren day shoes with their 2 to 3 feet of eva, something I am convinced is dangerous, they have enough to provide a nice road feel. Not too hard not too soft. Just right. Because I am very low arched I got the Symmetry because of it’s straight last. This is my only complaint about the shoe. It ain’t straight enough. I would like a shoe with eva under every part of my foot not allowing any of it to kinda hang out there in the air.
The sole is carbon rubber with lugs. Again basic and right.
Put all this, or lack of this, together and you have something rare. A light and flexible trainer. This shoe feels like it is part of your foot. It bends with you and doesn’t weigh you down. I can continue to refine my form and not have to worry about what is on my feet.
At $60 you get a great fit, high quality materails and construction and nothing else. Why would you want more?
Buy lots of them.
Hmmmph. Report back w/ your review after some 30 mile weeks and 500 total miles. I never judge a shoe in the first month.
I’m a recent convert to Vitruvians as well. They seem great, I have had a set of proportion II’s since october last year and love em.
My background is…quite a lot of injuries (stress fractures, compartment syndrome, various stability issues). I was also a real shoe killer a couple of years back in one year I blew about $1600 in shoes of which about $1200 were replaced by the shop for no charge as they blew out so quick. I blew one pair in less than two weeks total distance 20km and they were expensive high millage training shoes …from one of the big companies.
Now back to the good stuff…my proportions have a fair bit of distance in them now (about 300 km to 500 km) and still look and feel as good as new …they just don’t seem to age like other shoes.
As for the feel of running in them the closest I can compare them to is to the Asics 2010 (from a number of years ago one of the best shoes they ever made) or my old DS trainers (again a model from a few years back, about the 99 model a personal favourite).
They have a sought of firm but cushioned feel, they feel light and flow well they really feel like they work with me rather than trying to control me.
Just a couple of weeks back I picked up two pairs of discount proportions (the original model) and once again chuck was fantastic to deal with. On that note I must remember to email him and give him some feedback on his shoes.
If anyone has questions about my experiences with Vitruvian or the company just ask happy to share.
PS: For all those guys like me form out of the US Chuck shipped the shoes to me really cheap and they arrived in 8 days all the way to New Zealand.
Tibbs, you are loosing me here. You say you just came from a Pose clinic but you are running on these things?
How can you run in proper Pose form with a heel like that? These shoes are pretty overbuilt, if I were you I would look for something with a smaller heel and overall less foam. Having a big heel will make it very hard to get proper Pose technique down.
I think he’s “left the Pose camp” as in abandoned it - or at least taken what he felt was appropriate for him (high turnover, etc) and is seeking out his own deal. I don’t get the impression that he (or anyone) runs Pose in these things…
I read forum posts all over the 'net where runners see a picture of a shoe and draw conclusions to its midsole thickness. Most midsoles “climb” or wrap up the side of the upper. The Symmetry II (and Proportion II and Harmony models) wrap 10mm in heel to add support to the counter. The rest of the midsole wraps 2mm up onto the upper for cement bonding purposes. These features can’t be seen by just looking at a shoe. The best way to accurately find these measurements is by cutting the shoe in half. My method of choice is a bandsaw. Another, less fun method, is to use an outside caliper with shoe’s socklining removed. It has to be deep enough to reach around the side of the shoe and you have to work the tongue out of the way to get a forefoot measurement.
The midsole thicknesses of the Symmetry II (and Proportion II and Harmony models) are 11mm in the forefoot and 20mm in the heel for an overall heel lift of 9mm. The industry norm for these are 12, 24 and 12mm respectively. I have a racing flat here from a previous employer that measures 8mm in the forefoot, 18mm in the heel yielding a 10mm lift. I also have probably their best selling training shoe that measures 13mm and 25mm for a lift of 12mm. However, from the outside, one can measure 22mm in the forefoot and 40mm in the heel.
Lots of our customers say that they’re trying to run more on their mid to forefoot. Whether using Pose or Chi or just focusing more on how they’re running. They say they want less of a shoe without going the “minimalistic” route.
As you’all are tired of hearing, I love my P IIs. The nice flexible forefoot just rolls off. They are not really heavy, and they feel positively light on the road.
When Chuck comes out with a racing flat, I’ll be one of the first in line.
I can testify to the fact the heel sits well down in the sole and the forefoot, somewhat less. They are much less overbuilt (actaully NOT overbuilt) and have a more responsive sole, than the other ‘training shoes’ I have tried or seen elsewhere.
I agree with Chuck that his shoes ride pretty flat. In fact my Vitruvian Harmony’s feel like they run closer to the ground than the Saucony Grid Static racer, and I prefer their feel to the Brooks T3. The Harmony is also a great trail running shoe as it really works with your body and prevents you from rolling over on your ankle. An excellent all round shoe.
If you have not run in Vitruvians you cannot go wrong by giving them a go
Dev
Disclaimer: I have no commecial interest in this company, nor am I sponsored by them. I just think they make a great product and it takes me back to the first “real running shoes” that I ran in when I did High School track from 1980-83. It seems since then the entire running shoe industry has gone somewhat backwards, where the marketing guys have taken over from solid biomechanics and good simple non complex engineering.
Hmmmph. Report back w/ your review after some 30 mile weeks and 500 total miles. I never judge a shoe in the first month.
I got my first pair of Proportion IIs last March. Currently, I have logged over 1200 miles on two pairs to date. I love them to death. My feet/ankles were a mess last winter, in part from a lot of miles in the wrong shoes and in part to my seat being too high. No! Really! My seat was too high. But I digress. The Proportion IIs removed the constrictive foot positioning deathgrip other running shoes have built into them. My ankles got stronger, my aching ankles stopped aching, and my average weekly running times dropped from 11+ min/mile to 9:15 by August. (Okay, I lost a few pounds along the way too, and 9:15s is not an unreasonable pace for me when I am healthy as well.) 3:53 marathon in April at the Jersey Shore marathon, and a 3:35 finish at the Philly marathon in November. THe shoes didn’t do it alone, but they certainly helped.
The curious thing about the Vitruvians is that they are heavier than my Addidas Bostons and Asics Gel 2010 and 1090(?) models, but they feel much lighter as they don’t bootstrap your feet with overbuilt uppers.
Chuck, I assume you have something to do with Vitruvian as in ownership or employment? If so, first of all thanks for explaining that better. You are correct they do look bigger in the picture than what they really are, although I have never seen one in person. However if like you say htey are 20 in heel and 11 in forefoot that gives you a 1.8 heel to forefoot ratio which is what I think really counts. If you take a shoe like the Nike Free which has a 1.7 radio or my Mizuno Wave Phantom which is 1.5 I still believe that the Vitruvian is overbuilt in the heel at least when compare to it’s forefoot.
So my question is this why does then your shoe follow the premise (which almost all other shoe manufacturers do also) that the heel has to be so much thicker than the forefoot when I am not even a heel striker? Even if I chose not to go with a “minimalistic” shoe I would like to run in a light, comfortable shoe that doesn’t make me feel like I am running in high heels and allows the proper range of motion in my achilles and calves by not placing a thick piece of foam under them.
I’m not Chuck, who IS Vitruvian, and I have no interest in Vitruvian other than I love the shoes.
It ain’t the ratio. It is the difference (delta) in thickness between the heel and toe. Some shoes have hige high heels and a 12+mm difference. I wouldn’t be surprised if the RATIO is less than 20/11, but the delta is greater.
Vitruvians don’t have a high heel
Try a pair. Chuck has a generous return policy, or did when I got my last pari. (I need a new pair.)
I have had a pair of Symmetrys for a couple of months. They’re comfortable and they fit well. I don’t think about them while I am running, or when I am done running, and I think that’s about the best thing you can say about a pair of shoes (unless they give you the ability to walk on water or fly). For the poster who asked where to get them…
Shoot Chuck an e-mail or phone call, and he’ll help ya figger out what shoe and what size to get, based on what you wear right now.
FWIW, I use 9.5 Adidas Bostons, and a size 10 (Proportions) in Vitruvian-land. Whatever, they fit the same.
Look at the bottom of the page, and they have the old closeout models on sale for $30. C’mon, we’ve all spent $30 on all kinds of crap we wish we hadn’t; but in this case, and with his guarantee, it could be some of the best $ you ever spent.
I’ll definitely pick up another pair when the current ones give up the ghost. If nothing else, it’s nice to have another pair of kicks on hand, so you can keep 'em in the rotation if another pair gets wet or played out or whatnot. My wife just got a pair of $120 ASICSs (they are quite nice, I must admit), and you can bet yer bippy that if/when she wants more running shoes, that I’m getting her a pair of Vitruvians, so I can save some serious coinage.
First, thanks to all our supporters who continue to spread the Vitruvian name around. Second, BEWARE, this is a long post.
KingK, to clarify my position, yes, I am the owner of Performance Footwear Solutions, Inc, the company behind the Vitruvian Running brand. I am also the designer, engineer, IT technician, shipper, receiver and janitor.
The following is not meant to offend or embarrass, but to educate. I’ve been in the athletic shoe industry for over 25 years. The first time I heard of a heel to forefoot ratio or heel to toe ratio was about 2 years ago when I discovered that people discuss running shoes on the internet. I’m not sure where the term originated. I assure you that used or referred to in the design, engineering or construction of athletic footwear. Here’s why; (I hope I have my math correct) I have four shoes on my desk. They have heel to forefoot ratios as follows; 2.5, 2.3, 2 and 1.3. A very popular branded running shoe with 4 shock absorber-like columns in the heel measures 30mm in the heel and 12 in the forefoot giving it a heel lift of 18mm and a ratio of 2.5. A twenty-something year old running model by the same company was manufactured in the US with a heel of 7/8"(22mm) and a forefoot of 3/8"(9.5mm) for a heel lift of 1/2"(12.5mm) and a ratio of 2.3. A distance spike by the same company has a heel thickness of 6mm in the heel and 3mm in the forefoot giving it a heel lift of only 3mm but a ratio of 2. Our most attractive heel to forefoot ratio of 1.3 belongs to a pair of my daughter’s fashion sandals that have a heel thickness of 74mm and a forefoot of 56mm yielding a heel lift of 18mm. That’s why we refer to heel height or heel lift with specific measurements.
Why are heels so thick? One reason is because we need someplace to park our little cushioning gadgets. These can take up a bit of room. Plus, we’ll want to add some EVA foam in there(so you don’t feel the gadget). But I think the biggest reason for thick heels is history/tradition. Over my 25 years I’ve discovered that many things are done in this industry because they’ve always been done this way. While I’ve tried to break this mold where I’ve seen fit over the years, I’m guilty of this too. I designed our Classics midsoles using measurements I have used forever. It was only after talking and experimenting with some of our customers, that I decided to reduce the heel lift of our new models by 3mm. I know it doesn’t sound like much but I wanted to take baby steps. When we’re ready to produce a racing flat, I plan to take it even lower.
Thanks for everybody’s interest (if you managed to read this far).
Chuck, how about going “flatter yet” not by reducing heel lift in the rear, but by actually adding 3 mm of additional padding in the forefoot. My 40 year old body loves your shoes, but I could use a tad more in the front. To reduce overall “stack height” of the shoe, and also reduce weight, how about shaving down the black rubber outsole by a mm or so. Sure, the shoes will last a bit less time, but like most runners, I suspect having the outsole wearing out is not the reason why we have to replace our shoes.
