3 ms·

I wear sandals as much as possible. When I need something that covers my foot, I've been getting Converse All Star Slim Ox and stripping out the insoles. One as

by grzm 9y ago

I wear sandals as much as possible. When I need something that covers my foot, I've been getting Converse All Star Slim Ox and stripping out the insoles. One aspect of minimalist shoes is that there's not a lot there: they're generally not really built to last. The Slim Ox are pretty cheap (when they're available: they aren't always) and are a good compromise in my experience.

matt_the_bass 9y ago
That is an interesting idea about the converse. Why do you say that “not built to last” is a characteristic of minimalist shoes? To me that is a characteristic of the brand. The soles of my xeros have hardly any wear but they are ungluing from the upper and split at the edge.
- grzm 9y ago
  In the sense that there's generally not very much there to be sturdy. I can't think of any highly durable materials or construction methods that are suitable for shoes that aren't also relatively bulky, which minimalist shoes are often striving to get away from. It's a tradeoff. I don't think it's something they're designing for. There's likely an opportunity here, but I'm not sure how big the market is, particularly at prices that would be competitive.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Got it. Thanks!
jacobolus 9y ago
Instead of the Converse shoes, which have a somewhat rigid rubber bottom outsole, consider buying some plain canvas-bottomed shoes. You will wear through all of the layers of canvas within a few months, but if you get them from China (e.g. on Taobao) they only cost like $5–$10 per pair. Alternately, thin leather moccasins can also often be pretty cheap (or can be made yourself). If you want something a bit more durable, I find that most styles of Vibram’s finger shoes last a fair while, but plenty of people seem to dislike their appearance.
- grzm 9y ago
  Sure, there are alternatives. The Cons run about $45 a pair, last about a year, and don't call undue attention to themselves. I find they strike a pretty good balance. Plus, they're Cons :)

by grzm 9y ago

matt_the_bass 9y ago

That is an interesting idea about the converse. Why do you say that “not built to last” is a characteristic of minimalist shoes? To me that is a characteristic of the brand. The soles of my xeros have hardly any wear but they are ungluing from the upper and split at the edge.

grzm 9y ago
In the sense that there's generally not very much there to be sturdy. I can't think of any highly durable materials or construction methods that are suitable for shoes that aren't also relatively bulky, which minimalist shoes are often striving to get away from. It's a tradeoff. I don't think it's something they're designing for. There's likely an opportunity here, but I'm not sure how big the market is, particularly at prices that would be competitive.
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  Got it. Thanks!

jacobolus 9y ago

Instead of the Converse shoes, which have a somewhat rigid rubber bottom outsole, consider buying some plain canvas-bottomed shoes. You will wear through all of the layers of canvas within a few months, but if you get them from China (e.g. on Taobao) they only cost like $5–$10 per pair. Alternately, thin leather moccasins can also often be pretty cheap (or can be made yourself). If you want something a bit more durable, I find that most styles of Vibram’s finger shoes last a fair while, but plenty of people seem to dislike their appearance.

grzm 9y ago
Sure, there are alternatives. The Cons run about $45 a pair, last about a year, and don't call undue attention to themselves. I find they strike a pretty good balance. Plus, they're Cons :)