No Heel Cushioning Unit in recent Nike shoes? KD's, Hyperfuse, Zoom Go Low? What's the deal...

[keonclark7]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


This "tech" thing, is simply a bunch of hype to make it seem as if you are buying something special. I know of a few important figures in the footwear industry that hate the term "tech", especially when it is used to decribe the cushioning setup in sneakers. Alden Shoes does not call their foot balance system "tech", Allen Edmonds doesn't call what they do "tech" either. "Tech" in sneakers is just a juvenile term suggeested by Nike, to hint that their product is actually doing something special for you, in which we all know that it isn't. In fact most of what they've produced has failed to do what it is claimed to do.

Monkey Paw? Failed.

Tuned Air? Failed.

Zoom Max, especially in LeBrons shoes? Failed.

Foamposite as a viable performance option? Failed.

Now studies showing how Air cells contribute to injury...I smell a big fail coming on that one.

Tech? Just make a high quality shoe, one using organic materials then detailed stitching with a sound foundation, durablility, and no gimmicks.

Nat Turner, you're kind of sounding like a hippie. "Technology" is defined as the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area. You'd be barefoot without any "tech".

Shoes in itself is a technology and they are not a gimmick. They came as a way to protect our feet from the environment. You may not think of it as a technology, because it's a very common and old technology, but it's from the basic application of knowing that' by placing something beneath our foot, it will protect it from stuff.'

The rubber sole is a technology. It's a practical material that's durable, form-able, and able to provide traction.

The foam midsole is a technology. It comes from the knowledge that activities such as running hurt our feet and joints. We should add a layer called a 'midsole' to absorb that shock to provide more comfort.

Now, different materials and cushioning elements are the next progressive step in midsole technology. They come from the knowledge that foams can only absorb so much impact (i.e. lack of cushioning). Or foams have a property called 'compression set' which stops them from returning to its original structure over time and as a result, can't absorb impact anymore (i.e. lack of durability). Air, Zoom Air, Shox, IPS, Lunar, adiprene, Gel, Abosrbz, DMX, Hexalite, Zigtech, Harmonix, etc, etc are all different approaches to solving this problem. Granted, some work better than others and there are definitely some that are gimmicky, but I wouldn't say that using any sort of cushioning element (aka cushioning technology) is a gimmick. Simple mechanics and/or materials engineering can show how some of these methods provide better performance. So when you ask for 'durability' in a shoe, if you're referring to midsole durability, the application of knowledge (i.e. "technology") is what's used to provide that.

I personally liked shoes with monkey paws. They definitely did what they were designed to do in many occasions while playing ball. But, one factor as to why we don't see them is probably cost. Why include them when we can sell just as many shoes without them and thus save on manufacturing costs? Another possible reason is because it can result in worse injuries. Yes, it solves the original problem of ankle inversion by literally stopping the foot from freely inverting, but that's not always good. On harsh sprains, its better to let your ankle get sprained instead of keeping it rigid and letting the forces transfer to your knee, where a sprain or tear would be much worse (think of trying to roll an ankle in a ski boot). I think a better design would be one that slows down the rate of inversion, but does not completely prevent it.

I also liked Tuned Air. It was more firm and stable than Max Air. The reason I think we don't see it is again money. If I'm not mistaken, Tuned Air was a joint "technology" between Nike and Eastbay. So using Tuned Air would result in a cut going to Eastbay.

I gotta say I like Foamposite shoes too. As a way of providing a support for lateral cuts and preventing the upper from rolling with your foot, it did exactly that and is still the one of the best at solving that problem alone. But, there are also downside to Foamposite as a solution to that - weight, break-in time, and once again... cost. Average cost: $750, 000 per mold means less profit. Also, with the progressive need for 'lightweight containment' and 'out-of-the-box comfort' and advancements in technology, Foamposite is no longer the state-of-the-art technology that it once was. It not being the ideal solution for today's needs does not mean it's a gimmick or a fail.

Techflex? Now that's a gimmick! Or at least an idea that was very poorly implemented.

I agree with everyone who has said that Nike simply puts profit before performance now.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

But Nat Turner, many of Nike's upper echelon priced shoes have forefoot and heel zoom air. It's just that every place else, it is phased out. If its working for vomeros, structure triaxs, and the equalons at $100+ price points, it would make sense that if it was simply bad technology that they would take it out completely. Are those just the extremely gullible people who buy those running shoes at those prices with air?

On the basketball front, you basically only have the Kobes and zoom solider IVs as the dual zoom shoes. Again, a top priced shoe among its category and a lower $100 range shoe.

Aside from those select shoes, everything aside from Lunar/hyper based shoes, are priced at a lower point.

As weird as this sounds, Nike shoes have become cheaper on a MSRP level. The only stuff that's relatively higher are "new" cushioning setups like lunar/hyper. But aside from lunar/hyper, everything else is cheaper.. There isn't one cross trainer priced above $100. That pretty much goes hand in hand with zero nike dual zoom. Is it an economic choice to have shoes that are cheaper to buy, but also a shoe that's cheaper cushioning wise? Is Nike becoming less performance based? Then again, the phasing out of zoom may have to do with their lunar technological. They want that shoe to stand above the rest on a marketing standpoint. They are in the business of selling shoes year after year. They likely already have that ideal shoe made consisting of all sorts of stuff, but that "end all" shoe or technology would not sell units.

I just think we're seeing a combination of things at play.
-Nike pushing lunar soo hard that they phase out "superior" cushioning setups, just to make that sell. ie Have one technology appear better than the other. Most people here on NT can see right through that. The zoom air love is deep.
-Nike just flat out being cheap with their products. Every catalog description I read about shoe with no forefoot air states "increased flexibility", "flexible ride", "lightweight phylon for improved flexibility"..Don't get me wrong, it may very well be more flexible, but the longevity is hampered ,and you pay for it eventually when you have to buy a second or third pair of $80 dollar Nikes. (I had a old pair of Nikes from 1991. Guess what the only thing that still remains intact? The airsole. The foam just crumbled into pieces. So maybe Nike doesn't want shoes that last 15 years anymore)
-Nike may be following trends that say Nike consumers will take anything they get and that includes inferior cushioning. Maybe the price point is just right for them. Are people in demand of high performance shoes anymore?

Retros are on a whole other level though. $90 dollar KDIIIs triumph over many $110 dollar retros that feature no advancements. So if we're here today talking down on current Nikes, the retros deserve almost ten times that criticism as people are truly getting less for more $$$

I respect your opinion and points, and perhaps you are correct about Nike cutting corners, but,  

- this "tech" thing has been played out a long time ago, especially for Nike.
- outside of their marketing, Nike cushioning setups have never been proven to be any better than what any other company is, has been, or was doing.
- after they changed their formula for air, the jig was up! 
- the only reason that people think that Nike performance was superior, was because nike told everyone that they were superior. 
- niketalk is a small demo, so how they feel about "zoom air" really doesn't matter in the bigger picture. Nike is smart if they don't pander to such a small clique, over what the gen public thinks, but that is what Kobe Bryant is for anyway. They know that these guys on NIKETALK/ISS will buy whatever he wears, then defend it to the hilt. They also have built in success with Jordan, and his shoe sales can carry the whole company, as it did when they first signed MJ. 
-As I've said before, they've have painted themselves in a corner with this Air thing. It is so obvious that they do not know how to get out of that corner without ticking off messages boards such as this, then also making their own tech look as if it simply sucked anyways, with everyone falling for nothing but hot "air". 

I am happy with the other company footwear choices these days, but I still have 3 new pairs of Nike shoes left, all from 12 years ago. I may sell them, but after they are gone, I will no longer have any Nike shoes in my hoops rotation. It seems that the other companies are hell bent on providing quality product over hype, and I applaud their efforts, then will be supporting them.  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

But Nat Turner, many of Nike's upper echelon priced shoes have forefoot and heel zoom air. It's just that every place else, it is phased out. If its working for vomeros, structure triaxs, and the equalons at $100+ price points, it would make sense that if it was simply bad technology that they would take it out completely. Are those just the extremely gullible people who buy those running shoes at those prices with air?

On the basketball front, you basically only have the Kobes and zoom solider IVs as the dual zoom shoes. Again, a top priced shoe among its category and a lower $100 range shoe.

Aside from those select shoes, everything aside from Lunar/hyper based shoes, are priced at a lower point.

As weird as this sounds, Nike shoes have become cheaper on a MSRP level. The only stuff that's relatively higher are "new" cushioning setups like lunar/hyper. But aside from lunar/hyper, everything else is cheaper.. There isn't one cross trainer priced above $100. That pretty much goes hand in hand with zero nike dual zoom. Is it an economic choice to have shoes that are cheaper to buy, but also a shoe that's cheaper cushioning wise? Is Nike becoming less performance based? Then again, the phasing out of zoom may have to do with their lunar technological. They want that shoe to stand above the rest on a marketing standpoint. They are in the business of selling shoes year after year. They likely already have that ideal shoe made consisting of all sorts of stuff, but that "end all" shoe or technology would not sell units.

I just think we're seeing a combination of things at play.
-Nike pushing lunar soo hard that they phase out "superior" cushioning setups, just to make that sell. ie Have one technology appear better than the other. Most people here on NT can see right through that. The zoom air love is deep.
-Nike just flat out being cheap with their products. Every catalog description I read about shoe with no forefoot air states "increased flexibility", "flexible ride", "lightweight phylon for improved flexibility"..Don't get me wrong, it may very well be more flexible, but the longevity is hampered ,and you pay for it eventually when you have to buy a second or third pair of $80 dollar Nikes. (I had a old pair of Nikes from 1991. Guess what the only thing that still remains intact? The airsole. The foam just crumbled into pieces. So maybe Nike doesn't want shoes that last 15 years anymore)
-Nike may be following trends that say Nike consumers will take anything they get and that includes inferior cushioning. Maybe the price point is just right for them. Are people in demand of high performance shoes anymore?

Retros are on a whole other level though. $90 dollar KDIIIs triumph over many $110 dollar retros that feature no advancements. So if we're here today talking down on current Nikes, the retros deserve almost ten times that criticism as people are truly getting less for more $$$

I respect your opinion and points, and perhaps you are correct about Nike cutting corners, but,  

- this "tech" thing has been played out a long time ago, especially for Nike.
- outside of their marketing, Nike cushioning setups have never been proven to be any better than what any other company is, has been, or was doing.
- after they changed their formula for air, the jig was up! 
- the only reason that people think that Nike performance was superior, was because nike told everyone that they were superior. 
- niketalk is a small demo, so how they feel about "zoom air" really doesn't matter in the bigger picture. Nike is smart if they don't pander to such a small clique, over what the gen public thinks, but that is what Kobe Bryant is for anyway. They know that these guys on NIKETALK/ISS will buy whatever he wears, then defend it to the hilt. They also have built in success with Jordan, and his shoe sales can carry the whole company, as it did when they first signed MJ. 
-As I've said before, they've have painted themselves in a corner with this Air thing. It is so obvious that they do not know how to get out of that corner without ticking off messages boards such as this, then also making their own tech look as if it simply sucked anyways, with everyone falling for nothing but hot "air". 

I am happy with the other company footwear choices these days, but I still have 3 new pairs of Nike shoes left, all from 12 years ago. I may sell them, but after they are gone, I will no longer have any Nike shoes in my hoops rotation. It seems that the other companies are hell bent on providing quality product over hype, and I applaud their efforts, then will be supporting them.  

 

[duke4005]

Dang, Keon, I thought I was the only one who liked the Monkey Paw!!!! I still have my GP's and Viz Zooms and i like the feel of it. And like you, I never understood why they quit Tuned either. Seems like it would help solve the problem mentioned in Nat's study of instability in an Air cell unit used for cushioning, allthough And1 kind of took up the mantle with the L2G a few years back.

 

[duke4005]

Dang, Keon, I thought I was the only one who liked the Monkey Paw!!!! I still have my GP's and Viz Zooms and i like the feel of it. And like you, I never understood why they quit Tuned either. Seems like it would help solve the problem mentioned in Nat's study of instability in an Air cell unit used for cushioning, allthough And1 kind of took up the mantle with the L2G a few years back.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by KeonClark7

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


This "tech" thing, is simply a bunch of hype to make it seem as if you are buying something special. I know of a few important figures in the footwear industry that hate the term "tech", especially when it is used to decribe the cushioning setup in sneakers. Alden Shoes does not call their foot balance system "tech", Allen Edmonds doesn't call what they do "tech" either. "Tech" in sneakers is just a juvenile term suggeested by Nike, to hint that their product is actually doing something special for you, in which we all know that it isn't. In fact most of what they've produced has failed to do what it is claimed to do.

Monkey Paw? Failed.

Tuned Air? Failed.

Zoom Max, especially in LeBrons shoes? Failed.

Foamposite as a viable performance option? Failed.

Now studies showing how Air cells contribute to injury...I smell a big fail coming on that one.

Tech? Just make a high quality shoe, one using organic materials then detailed stitching with a sound foundation, durablility, and no gimmicks.

Nat Turner, you're kind of sounding like a hippie. "Technology" is defined as the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area. You'd be barefoot without any "tech".

Shoes in itself is a technology and they are not a gimmick. They came as a way to protect our feet from the environment. You may not think of it as a technology, because it's a very common and old technology, but it's from the basic application of knowing that' by placing something beneath our foot, it will protect it from stuff.'

The rubber sole is a technology. It's a practical material that's durable, form-able, and able to provide traction.

The foam midsole is a technology. It comes from the knowledge that activities such as running hurt our feet and joints. We should add a layer called a 'midsole' to absorb that shock to provide more comfort.

Now, different materials and cushioning elements are the next progressive step in midsole technology. They come from the knowledge that foams can only absorb so much impact (i.e. lack of cushioning). Or foams have a property called 'compression set' which stops them from returning to its original structure over time and as a result, can't absorb impact anymore (i.e. lack of durability). Air, Zoom Air, Shox, IPS, Lunar, adiprene, Gel, Abosrbz, DMX, Hexalite, Zigtech, Harmonix, etc, etc are all different approaches to solving this problem. Granted, some work better than others and there are definitely some that are gimmicky, but I wouldn't say that using any sort of cushioning element (aka cushioning technology) is a gimmick. Simple mechanics and/or materials engineering can show how some of these methods provide better performance. So when you ask for 'durability' in a shoe, if you're referring to midsole durability, the application of knowledge (i.e. "technology") is what's used to provide that.

I personally liked shoes with monkey paws. They definitely did what they were designed to do in many occasions while playing ball. But, one factor as to why we don't see them is probably cost. Why include them when we can sell just as many shoes without them and thus save on manufacturing costs? Another possible reason is because it can result in worse injuries. Yes, it solves the original problem of ankle inversion by literally stopping the foot from freely inverting, but that's not always good. On harsh sprains, its better to let your ankle get sprained instead of keeping it rigid and letting the forces transfer to your knee, where a sprain or tear would be much worse (think of trying to roll an ankle in a ski boot). I think a better design would be one that slows down the rate of inversion, but does not completely prevent it.

I also liked Tuned Air. It was more firm and stable than Max Air. The reason I think we don't see it is again money. If I'm not mistaken, Tuned Air was a joint "technology" between Nike and Eastbay. So using Tuned Air would result in a cut going to Eastbay.

I gotta say I like Foamposite shoes too. As a way of providing a support for lateral cuts and preventing the upper from rolling with your foot, it did exactly that and is still the one of the best at solving that problem alone. But, there are also downside to Foamposite as a solution to that - weight, break-in time, and once again... cost. Average cost: $750, 000 per mold means less profit. Also, with the progressive need for 'lightweight containment' and 'out-of-the-box comfort' and advancements in technology, Foamposite is no longer the state-of-the-art technology that it once was. It not being the ideal solution for today's needs does not mean it's a gimmick or a fail.

Techflex? Now that's a gimmick! Or at least an idea that was very poorly implemented.

I agree with everyone who has said that Nike simply puts profit before performance now.

Hippie?

  That was funny!

You did an excellent job at supporting Nike and their product. However, in reality, none of what you've stated is actually the truth. I am not calling you a liar by no means, so please accept my apologies! But...

...If the "tech" that was mentioned actually did what it was supposed to do, nike would continue to use it, then developing and improving it, to render all other companies obsolete. This is what a company with a proven, truly superior "tech", does to other companies with inferior "tech". There'd be no worry about costs, as the public would come running to that company which is truly superior.

You look across the business scape, and you can see proof of this everywhere. 



 

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by KeonClark7

Originally Posted by Nat Turner


This "tech" thing, is simply a bunch of hype to make it seem as if you are buying something special. I know of a few important figures in the footwear industry that hate the term "tech", especially when it is used to decribe the cushioning setup in sneakers. Alden Shoes does not call their foot balance system "tech", Allen Edmonds doesn't call what they do "tech" either. "Tech" in sneakers is just a juvenile term suggeested by Nike, to hint that their product is actually doing something special for you, in which we all know that it isn't. In fact most of what they've produced has failed to do what it is claimed to do.

Monkey Paw? Failed.

Tuned Air? Failed.

Zoom Max, especially in LeBrons shoes? Failed.

Foamposite as a viable performance option? Failed.

Now studies showing how Air cells contribute to injury...I smell a big fail coming on that one.

Tech? Just make a high quality shoe, one using organic materials then detailed stitching with a sound foundation, durablility, and no gimmicks.

Nat Turner, you're kind of sounding like a hippie. "Technology" is defined as the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area. You'd be barefoot without any "tech".

Shoes in itself is a technology and they are not a gimmick. They came as a way to protect our feet from the environment. You may not think of it as a technology, because it's a very common and old technology, but it's from the basic application of knowing that' by placing something beneath our foot, it will protect it from stuff.'

The rubber sole is a technology. It's a practical material that's durable, form-able, and able to provide traction.

The foam midsole is a technology. It comes from the knowledge that activities such as running hurt our feet and joints. We should add a layer called a 'midsole' to absorb that shock to provide more comfort.

Now, different materials and cushioning elements are the next progressive step in midsole technology. They come from the knowledge that foams can only absorb so much impact (i.e. lack of cushioning). Or foams have a property called 'compression set' which stops them from returning to its original structure over time and as a result, can't absorb impact anymore (i.e. lack of durability). Air, Zoom Air, Shox, IPS, Lunar, adiprene, Gel, Abosrbz, DMX, Hexalite, Zigtech, Harmonix, etc, etc are all different approaches to solving this problem. Granted, some work better than others and there are definitely some that are gimmicky, but I wouldn't say that using any sort of cushioning element (aka cushioning technology) is a gimmick. Simple mechanics and/or materials engineering can show how some of these methods provide better performance. So when you ask for 'durability' in a shoe, if you're referring to midsole durability, the application of knowledge (i.e. "technology") is what's used to provide that.

I personally liked shoes with monkey paws. They definitely did what they were designed to do in many occasions while playing ball. But, one factor as to why we don't see them is probably cost. Why include them when we can sell just as many shoes without them and thus save on manufacturing costs? Another possible reason is because it can result in worse injuries. Yes, it solves the original problem of ankle inversion by literally stopping the foot from freely inverting, but that's not always good. On harsh sprains, its better to let your ankle get sprained instead of keeping it rigid and letting the forces transfer to your knee, where a sprain or tear would be much worse (think of trying to roll an ankle in a ski boot). I think a better design would be one that slows down the rate of inversion, but does not completely prevent it.

I also liked Tuned Air. It was more firm and stable than Max Air. The reason I think we don't see it is again money. If I'm not mistaken, Tuned Air was a joint "technology" between Nike and Eastbay. So using Tuned Air would result in a cut going to Eastbay.

I gotta say I like Foamposite shoes too. As a way of providing a support for lateral cuts and preventing the upper from rolling with your foot, it did exactly that and is still the one of the best at solving that problem alone. But, there are also downside to Foamposite as a solution to that - weight, break-in time, and once again... cost. Average cost: $750, 000 per mold means less profit. Also, with the progressive need for 'lightweight containment' and 'out-of-the-box comfort' and advancements in technology, Foamposite is no longer the state-of-the-art technology that it once was. It not being the ideal solution for today's needs does not mean it's a gimmick or a fail.

Techflex? Now that's a gimmick! Or at least an idea that was very poorly implemented.

I agree with everyone who has said that Nike simply puts profit before performance now.

Hippie?

  That was funny!

You did an excellent job at supporting Nike and their product. However, in reality, none of what you've stated is actually the truth. I am not calling you a liar by no means, so please accept my apologies! But...

...If the "tech" that was mentioned actually did what it was supposed to do, nike would continue to use it, then developing and improving it, to render all other companies obsolete. This is what a company with a proven, truly superior "tech", does to other companies with inferior "tech". There'd be no worry about costs, as the public would come running to that company which is truly superior.

You look across the business scape, and you can see proof of this everywhere. 



 

 

[wallyhopp]

All I will say Nat Turner, to finish this conversation, is that the proof is right in the very shoes I wear. It's not even about words and theories. It's in the very shoes I have owned for years, and are still holding up, thanks to gimmick "air".

Let me ask you this Nat Turner, if you are applauding Nikes efforts to get rid of Air and go with how other companies are creating shoes, Why not try out Nikes again? Nike is becoming more and more like how others are, and you are going away from it? I'm not understanding that mindset.

Nike pushed themselves in a corner where technology was so great that shoes could be bought on a tri annual basis. It's a unique position to create something so good that you actually lose sales. Think about that on a business scape. Nike gave us too much back then as they grew and now expectations just stay at that level in my opinion.

I will admit, most every other footwear company out there is all strictly foam based. From $150 dollar asics, to brooks, and adidas. Maybe there is something to air that people dont like. Maybe Nike perfected it to make sense in a cost perspective? maybe its a gimmick? All I know is, zoom air and full length encapsulated air has worked for me. It;s valid proof that air works for my large body frame

 

[wallyhopp]

All I will say Nat Turner, to finish this conversation, is that the proof is right in the very shoes I wear. It's not even about words and theories. It's in the very shoes I have owned for years, and are still holding up, thanks to gimmick "air".

Let me ask you this Nat Turner, if you are applauding Nikes efforts to get rid of Air and go with how other companies are creating shoes, Why not try out Nikes again? Nike is becoming more and more like how others are, and you are going away from it? I'm not understanding that mindset.

Nike pushed themselves in a corner where technology was so great that shoes could be bought on a tri annual basis. It's a unique position to create something so good that you actually lose sales. Think about that on a business scape. Nike gave us too much back then as they grew and now expectations just stay at that level in my opinion.

I will admit, most every other footwear company out there is all strictly foam based. From $150 dollar asics, to brooks, and adidas. Maybe there is something to air that people dont like. Maybe Nike perfected it to make sense in a cost perspective? maybe its a gimmick? All I know is, zoom air and full length encapsulated air has worked for me. It;s valid proof that air works for my large body frame

 

[scshift]

KeonClark7, earlier you stated that just because people didn't know about the cushioning setups didn't mean that Nike should take advantage of that. You're absolutely right, I agree with you, but you have to look at it from Nike's point of view. Now they probably know full well that there's people like us who know they're being stingy. But they also know that a huge percent of their customers don't know a single thing about the shoes they buy. Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there. The thing is that they can get away with that not only because the huge percent of their customers don't know/care, but also we, who do know, won't do anything about it. Myself, I have no problem with their cushioning systems. Many of the people on NT might, but it's not stopping them from buying Nike gear and pumping Nike more money. Nike can get away with it because the consumers, both educated and uneducated, allow it.

 

[scshift]

KeonClark7, earlier you stated that just because people didn't know about the cushioning setups didn't mean that Nike should take advantage of that. You're absolutely right, I agree with you, but you have to look at it from Nike's point of view. Now they probably know full well that there's people like us who know they're being stingy. But they also know that a huge percent of their customers don't know a single thing about the shoes they buy. Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there. The thing is that they can get away with that not only because the huge percent of their customers don't know/care, but also we, who do know, won't do anything about it. Myself, I have no problem with their cushioning systems. Many of the people on NT might, but it's not stopping them from buying Nike gear and pumping Nike more money. Nike can get away with it because the consumers, both educated and uneducated, allow it.

 

[detox2k2]

I agree most people don't even know the specifics of a Nike shoe. Just recently when I purchased my hyperfuses at footlocker, the associate who was letting me try them on, told me "these hyperfuses are made from one upper and they have flywire to make them stronger!" Needless to say many consumers are clueless as to what makes a Nike shoe have a certain pricepoint..they just buy buy buy.

 

[detox2k2]

I agree most people don't even know the specifics of a Nike shoe. Just recently when I purchased my hyperfuses at footlocker, the associate who was letting me try them on, told me "these hyperfuses are made from one upper and they have flywire to make them stronger!" Needless to say many consumers are clueless as to what makes a Nike shoe have a certain pricepoint..they just buy buy buy.

 

[nat turner]

WallyHopp wrote:

All I will say Nat Turner, to finish this conversation, is that the proof is right in the very shoes I wear. It's not even about words and theories. It's in the very shoes I have owned for years, and are still holding up, thanks to gimmick "air".


I am sure that you understand that this is subjective, right? I have shoes that are not Nike shoes, that have held up just as well.

WallyHopp wrote:

Let me ask you this Nat Turner, if you are applauding Nikes efforts to get rid of Air and go with how other companies are creating shoes, Why not try out Nikes again? Nike is becoming more and more like how others are, and you are going away from it? I'm not understanding that mindset.



I am not applauding Nike's effort in moving away from air, but I will applaud their efforts in moving away from hype, then truly making a superior high quality product. Right now Nike is into making high priced plastic shoes. They aren't getting my money for that crap. Other companies are doing it better, then for less money.

WallyHopp wrote:

Nike pushed themselves in a corner where technology was so great that shoes could be bought on a tri annual basis.
I disagree. The greatness of that so called "tech", was never proven. The running community, those who are really serious about product, rejected this notion a long time ago. If the hoops community weren't so gullible about "running faster", then "jumping higher", or simply "being like Mike", Nike basketball should have taken that hit a long time ago, when the formula for air was changed. 

WallyHopp wrote:

It's a unique position to create something so good that you actually lose sales. Think about that on a business scape. Nike gave us too much back then as they grew and now expectations just stay at that level in my opinion.


I guess you've never heard of something simply being "played out", then 'eh? Again, anything that Nike has ever done, has never been proven to be any better than what anyone else was doing, outside of their marketing.

WallyHopp wrote:

I will admit, most every other footwear company out there is all strictly foam based. From $150 dollar asics, to brooks, and adidas. Maybe there is something to air that people dont like. Maybe Nike perfected it to make sense in a cost perspective? maybe its a gimmick? All I know is, zoom air and full length encapsulated air has worked for me. It;s valid proof that air works for my large body frame
They all may be using the same thing, but it is in HOW it is used. Perhaps some find a better fit, which is more important than anything, with the other companies. However, I am glad that you've found what works for you! Bravo!

 

[nat turner]

WallyHopp wrote:

All I will say Nat Turner, to finish this conversation, is that the proof is right in the very shoes I wear. It's not even about words and theories. It's in the very shoes I have owned for years, and are still holding up, thanks to gimmick "air".


I am sure that you understand that this is subjective, right? I have shoes that are not Nike shoes, that have held up just as well.

WallyHopp wrote:

Let me ask you this Nat Turner, if you are applauding Nikes efforts to get rid of Air and go with how other companies are creating shoes, Why not try out Nikes again? Nike is becoming more and more like how others are, and you are going away from it? I'm not understanding that mindset.



I am not applauding Nike's effort in moving away from air, but I will applaud their efforts in moving away from hype, then truly making a superior high quality product. Right now Nike is into making high priced plastic shoes. They aren't getting my money for that crap. Other companies are doing it better, then for less money.

WallyHopp wrote:

Nike pushed themselves in a corner where technology was so great that shoes could be bought on a tri annual basis.
I disagree. The greatness of that so called "tech", was never proven. The running community, those who are really serious about product, rejected this notion a long time ago. If the hoops community weren't so gullible about "running faster", then "jumping higher", or simply "being like Mike", Nike basketball should have taken that hit a long time ago, when the formula for air was changed. 

WallyHopp wrote:

It's a unique position to create something so good that you actually lose sales. Think about that on a business scape. Nike gave us too much back then as they grew and now expectations just stay at that level in my opinion.


I guess you've never heard of something simply being "played out", then 'eh? Again, anything that Nike has ever done, has never been proven to be any better than what anyone else was doing, outside of their marketing.

WallyHopp wrote:

I will admit, most every other footwear company out there is all strictly foam based. From $150 dollar asics, to brooks, and adidas. Maybe there is something to air that people dont like. Maybe Nike perfected it to make sense in a cost perspective? maybe its a gimmick? All I know is, zoom air and full length encapsulated air has worked for me. It;s valid proof that air works for my large body frame
They all may be using the same thing, but it is in HOW it is used. Perhaps some find a better fit, which is more important than anything, with the other companies. However, I am glad that you've found what works for you! Bravo!

 

[noblekane]

this is my last response to you, bc i know discussions with you usually go nowhere
 

 

[noblekane]

this is my last response to you, bc i know discussions with you usually go nowhere
 

 

[vanillafreak13]

This is where consumers have to educate themselves. For instance the zoom air insole thread?

Easy fix is to grab some insoles from a pair with just heel zoom air. Should be easy to find, since they've been doing this for the past 5 years and we've been complaining. I'll take forefoot and cheaper anytime. Slip an insole in and I'm super good.

 

[vanillafreak13]

This is where consumers have to educate themselves. For instance the zoom air insole thread?

Easy fix is to grab some insoles from a pair with just heel zoom air. Should be easy to find, since they've been doing this for the past 5 years and we've been complaining. I'll take forefoot and cheaper anytime. Slip an insole in and I'm super good.

 

[keonclark7]

Originally Posted by scshift

Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there.

This is precisely the problem. It seems like in the past, they had a more performance-first business mentality but now it's clearly money-first.

 

[keonclark7]

Originally Posted by scshift

Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there.

This is precisely the problem. It seems like in the past, they had a more performance-first business mentality but now it's clearly money-first.

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by KeonClark7

Originally Posted by scshift

Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there.

This is precisely the problem. It seems like in the past, they had a more performance-first business mentality but now it's clearly money-first.

Theres no competition for Nike anymore

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by KeonClark7

Originally Posted by scshift

Now they're a business and they're trying to bring in maximum money which means they will try to be cheap here and there.

This is precisely the problem. It seems like in the past, they had a more performance-first business mentality but now it's clearly money-first.

Theres no competition for Nike anymore

 

[bigloki]

Glad I read this cause I surely didn't know this. And I need heel cushioning. I was really considering a pair of hyperfuses or kds to work in.

 

[bigloki]

Glad I read this cause I surely didn't know this. And I need heel cushioning. I was really considering a pair of hyperfuses or kds to work in.