Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Brooks Ghost Shoe Review

In six years of running I’ve gone through eighteen pairs of Brooks Burn running shoes, using them both for training and for racing all distances up to and including 29 marathons. The Burn was marketed as a lightweight, neutral trainer for the biomechanically efficient runner who needs cushioning but little more. Then Brooks stopped making them. The brand new Ghost appears to be marketed to the same neutral, biomechanically efficient runners, but that information comes only from the web sites that are selling the shoe.

I can’t find the Ghost on Brooks’ own web site - why on earth wouldn’t Brooks want to give a new product a good kickoff with solid information about it on their own site? That’s very lame. Brooks Ghost size 11 1/2

I bought my new Brooks Ghost shoes from RnJ Sports, where I’ve bought most of my pairs of Burn, Burn 2, and Burn 3 shoes. They are just getting stocked up on the Ghost - I had to phone them to order. Their price is good, and shipment is immediate and free. Their return policy is draconian, however: "All returned merchandise must be 100% new and unused," plus there are restocking fees. They really seem to want you to buy your first pair from someone else with a better return policy. I did check the fit on these carefully before running anywhere in them.

Brooks Ghost Shoe Review

I’ve run in the new Ghost twice now, 6.6 miles on pavement and about 14 miles on a mix of pavement, gravel, sand, and grass. The shoes performed well in both runs. Specifics:
  • Weight: I had read on a running magazine site that the Ghost would be heavier than the Burn, but in my size, 11 ½, they weight exactly the same, 25 ounces for the pair.
  • Size: I had also read that it might be necessary to order a half-size larger than the Burn size, but these seem to have the right amount of toe space.
  • Fit: This is why I stick with Brooks - the Burns fit so well, with almost no blister problems, and there is nothing more important than fit. The fit of the Ghost seems as good as the fit of the Burn, so far.
  • Shape:
    • Toe Box: Recent incarnations of the Burn have had a narrowed toe box. The new Ghost appears to have a wider toe box, but I think that’s an optical effect created by the upper shoe trim, and the toe box is actually about the same as the Burn 3.
    • Sole: The bottom of the Ghost is flatter than the bottom of the Burn, which curves more from the ball of the foot to the heel, and the Ghost lacks the "lateral arch pod." Because of this, the Ghost tends to "slap" a little more on the pavement when I run. I don’t like that but I can deal with it; maybe it will get better as the shoe wears.
    • Toe: The toe curves up more than the Burn. No problem so far.
    • Width: Both are D width and they feel about the same.
  • Tread: Appears to be a little more aggressive than the Burn 3. Nevertheless, when I ran the Ghost on gravel roads and sandy trails the tread did not pick up many rocks. The Burn shoes would occasionally pick up a small pebble and drop it into the other shoe, which has not happened with the Ghost.
  • Color: Blue and white, who cares?
  • Cushioning: I don’t sense much difference between the Burn 3 and the Ghost. I’ve read that the Ghost is supposed to be more responsive (does that mean bouncy?), but it might take a more sophisticated runner to detect that. I still had to do the work. Maybe I’ll try Burn on one foot and Ghost on the other.
  • Manufacture: Both are made in China.


Today’s run: About 14 miles on a mix of trails and roads, mostly in a lovely park not too far from home. Part of the run was with friend Cal - it’s nice to run and chat. I walked up some hills because the right hip flexors were sending signals. Part of the run was on wooded, grass trails - I liked that the best on such a warm and humid morning. I carried water and munched on Clif Shot Bloks.


Monday, July 28:

The idea today was to run six fairly flat miles in the new Brooks Ghost shoes, to try them out. No problems to speak of. 6.6 miles in 1:04:07, pace 9:43. Compared with my old Brooks Burns, the new shoes slap a little more on blacktop surfaces when I run, but that’s about the only significant difference. They’re the same weight and seem to have about the same cushioning. I’m not sophisticated enough to rate them on "ride" but I don’t notice a difference. Soon I’ll try them on a longer run.

13 comments:

  1. Hi the Ghost is "under the radar" atm because Brooks hasn't produced enough yet for more publicity. Brooks has had a 90 day neutral shoe try-and-like-or-return promo running with Brooks dealers so there should be little risk for you trying them out. Note though that the Ghost is NOT the Burn replacement - check out more comments incl some from Brooks rep in the Runners' World forums

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am totally underwhelmed by Brooks' marketing:

    (1) The Ghost should be on Brooks' web site if only to inform those of use who ARE buying it. It's about the runners, the customers. And for that matter, why not create a demand? They're sort of trying to do it anyway, through comments on forums.

    (2) Runners keep running, and shoes wear out and have to be replaced. If the official Burn replacement is not available, then we buy something else, quite likely from a different company. Anyone with a brain would make the replacement available FIRST, then stop making the old model. Voila - you get to keep your customers!

    The shoes are OK, the marketing stinks. Are all the running shoe companies this lame?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fair enough though IMHO it's better not to have them displayed if Brooks doesn't have the stock yet to satisfy demand. That said, I'm setting personal best times in my new Ghosts so in a way I'm happy they have a low profile as that likely gives me a competitive advantage :-)

    The Ghosts are, however, profiled on some Brooks web sites such as Brooks Australia

    I think the problem with the Burn is it doesn't have the MoGo midsole hence Brooks may have felt the need to retire it early so they can progress to the position of saying their entire trainer range has MoGo and not use production resources on an outmoded shoe.

    BTW have you ever tried the Brooks T5 Racer - it wouldn't really be a marathon shoe for non-elite runners but should be OK for shorter distances. I couldn't see skimming through your profile how fast you really are but I'd be interested in your comments if you do try the T5's.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yikes - "progress to the position of saying their entire trainer range has MoGo." Another market-centric attitude. If Brooks ever learned how to become customer-centric I think they could do much better in the shoe business.

    I do have a pair of T4 Racers which I've used for very short races from 220 meters to 5k. I like the weight, of course, feel like I can fly in them, but they're not cushioned well enough for this old gentleman to run very far. I don't know how different the T5 might be.

    Glad to hear that the Ghost is doing well for you. I'm encouraged that they may help my times a tiny bit too.

    Don

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL indeed though "MoGo" sounds cool in an Austin Powers sense and if it works as a marketing ploy so Brooks stays profitable and can continue to produce shoes that fit/work really well for runners like me then I'm for it :-)

    Thanks for your comments about the T4s - I'm hesitant about the T5s for the same reason having 40yr old bones myself :-(

    I hope the Ghost works for you time wise - I've never run in the Burn so I don't know how they compare time wise for me. I did find your 2007 PR times and your earlier Ghost distance pace time - you're a little bit slower than me so while I'm sure you would benefit from the lightness of the Ghost, I'm less sure about its "toe-i-ness" as I find that rewards times when I can set a fast pace (for me).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don,

    Excellent info about the Brooks Ghost. Just wondering whether you have any furhter comments on them over the last month or so? Have you taken them on any more long runs? I have been a Brooks wearer for several years now and have been very pleased. I have run many miles in the Adrenalines and the new Defyance. I have really enjoyed the Defyance and recently purchased a pair of Brooks Burn 3s. They performed wonderfully, but when I took them on a 17 miler, I lost my left big toenail. Since they are discontinued anyway, I am thinking about picking up a pair of the new Ghosts. I am delighted to hear that you have worn the Burns in the marathon distance as I would like to get the Ghosts with the intention on doing the same. So, if you have any more thoughts on them, I'd love to hear. Thanks much.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since writing this post, I've used the Ghost for an 18-miler and yesterday in a half marathon race. They performed fine, no blisters or sore toenails. But I still don't like the foot-slapping sound when I run, and I honestly can't tell whether or not "MOGO" makes a difference.

    I've pretty much decided that the Ghost is not MY replacement for the Burn. My sweetie found some more Burns on the internet and I'm set up now for two or three months. Then we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just bought a pair of Ghosts yesterday. I have had trouble running on the outside of my feet. As a result, I have some knee and IT Band problems.

    After trying on about 9 pairs of shoes and testing them on the store treadmill, the Ghosts were the only ones that allowed me to run correctly, without running on the outside of my feet.

    I am hopeful they will be the shoe for me. Cushy and flexible describe the shoe. With 3 marathons planned this year, I will let you know how they work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a couple of hundred miles on mine now, and they've been fine except for the slapping sound that they make. Because of that noise, I probably won't be buying any more.

    I'm still hunting for Brooks Burns size 11.5 on the internet, but not finding much.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is more about the Brooks Ghost on my later review of the newer Brooks Summon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've had my ghosts since January and have put almost 100 miles on them, my only complaint is that I find them to be terribly ventilated. My feet get very hot and this is running in Midwest winter weather, it has given me blisters for the first time from it. I don't think i'll be able to use them once we get into the 70's and 80's.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Quote...

    [
    Anonymous said...
    Hi the Ghost is "under the radar" atm because Brooks hasn't produced enough yet for more publicity. Brooks has had a 90 day neutral shoe try-and-like-or-return promo running with Brooks dealers so there should be little risk for you trying them out. Note though that the Ghost is NOT the Burn replacement - check out more comments incl some from Brooks rep in the Runners' World forums
    ]
    Please show us the URL.
    And what would the Burn replacement be then? I'm still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I tried the Ghosts and they were OK but not fabulous. I may have bought them too small - you really do have to buy them a half size larger than you buy other Brooks shoes.

    There is supposed to be a true Burn replacement coming out this summer. Meantime I like the Summon a little better than the Ghost.

    Here's the URL for all of Brooks' neutral shoes, if that's what you're looking for: Brooks Neutral ShoesDon

    ReplyDelete