Alright....So what can WE do for Nike to stop with the little Air Max bubbles.

[typecast3]

stop complaining about small air bubbles...... its simple science and the smaller air bubble is actually better anyway.

you need to be glad they dont update the shoe price too. i.e. a pair of shoes that were 100.00 in 1992 should be about 160.00 today

those old air bubbles popped all the time and trust me you dont want that

 

[you go boy]

its really not that serious

 

[redrum sb]

boycott all nike shoes that have air bubbles.
That would work.

 

[typecast3]

and for those who think the material is cheapened....i challenge you to tell me why. because its lighter? because its smaller? i'm not sure what scienceyou have used or logic except that 'it looks different.'

the truth is these are sneakers, not a car. i look at it like the 90s sneakers were like heavy Chevy's but now they are given us Hondas with lightertechnology and more reliable.

the thing is also the shoe is the SAME PRICE. do you know anything from 15 years ago you can get at the SAME PRICE.

you telling me you dont think a 2008 Dunk with zoom air in it is cheaper quality then a 1988 dunk? gimme a break

even the air max...... i had 90s originally and the airpad was trash. that big thing busted after 3 or 4 months. now its light and comfy for actually USING....

2008 > 1988

 

[ogfiend]

Anyone who's saying "stop complaining" must not own a single pair with the old school air units. The difference is NOT minimal, it's veryvisible and it bugs me to the point where I'm passing on nice colorways just 'cuz of the air unit size.

Air Bursts and Air Max 95s suffered the most. The new retros look absolutely horrendous thanks to tiny bubbles, like totally different shoes. Small air unitsmake models which were considered top of the line in the 90s look like some cheap and disposable junk.

 

[never wear them]

well we do have nike 360s now....

good thing JB never came out with gigantic Air Units.

 

[jfeezy]

Originally Posted by Cameron Nelson

If you've got a link, or the actual article about it "affecting the ozone layer", then post it or PM it to me...I'll check it out. Hell, I'll give anything a review at least once. I tried to google it, and found absolutely nothing. I asked NIKE employees and "EKINs" why it happened when I worked for Foot Locker...one couldnt answer, and the other mentioned about the whole ozone-friendly thing, but had no information to support it.

DunkeyKong already postedthe relevant links at the very beginning of this thread, but apparently you haven't read them. Fine. Since you're a moderator, I'll take theextra time to make sure you see the light, because you--if anyone--should know the real story. If you (mistakenly) think it's not an environmental issueand say so, others on NT are more likely to (mistakenly) believe you. Sorry if I sound frustrated and bitter here, but I'm getting tired of having torepeat it... maybe as much as some people are getting tired of hearing me say it.

Start by reading the Business Week articlefrom 2006. Then--if you can handle reading my long message--read my more detailed post from earlier this year.

And if you don't have time for those, here's a super brief summary:
- the original Airsole technology was based on the idea of using a gas with very large molecules (sulfur hexafluoride, or "SF6") which wouldn'tleak out during ordinary use
- in 1992, Nike discovered that SF6 was a potent "greenhouse gas"... if released into the atmosphere, it doesn't affect the ozone layer, but hasa similar effect of trapping heat inside the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. As the Business Week article says: "At the peak of SF6production in 1997, Nike Air footwear carried a greenhouse effect equivalent to an astonishing 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide -- about as muchas the tailpipes of 1 million cars."
- it took a huge team of Nike's scientists and engineers 14 years to finally find ways to make Airsoles without having to use SF6. This was largely amaterials challenge... even though today's Max airsoles look like a single clear layer of plastic, it's actually 65 different layers of materialssandwiched together. You'll have to read my post above for more detailed info.
- besides the new material, new manufacturing methods were needed as well. Despite several years of trying, the original "blow-molding"machinery could not, NOT, NOT be made to work with the multilayer materials. A different, "thermoforming" techniquedoes work, and this is how all Max-style Airsoles have been made for the past several years.

So let me be abundantly clear on a couple of points:
- Nike's Airsole changes absolutely have been made for environmental reasons. Not to be cheaper or easier (they aren't), and not topiss off sneakerheads like you and me.
- it's not a question of "man, if they just tried harder, they could do it." As I said, teams of Ph.Ds spent over a decade, and millions ofdollars, getting the SF6 problem fixed. I know because I was there, and part of it. And what ended up working was a different way of manufacturing. Think ofit this way... imagine you were an expert carpenter, and your only tool was a circular saw. You could probably figure out how to build a pretty goodbookshelf. Now imagine your only tool was a power drill... you could still probably figure out a way to fudge together a similar bookshelf, but it would be alot harder job, and not end up looking quite the same... making bookshelves is not the best job for a drill. Drills are great at making other things, though,and there are some really cool things you can make with a drill that you could never do with a circular saw.

I don't know if this is a perfect analogy or not, but hopefully you see where I'm going here. Trying to "remake" the original style airbagsusing a totally different method of manufacturing means the shapes can't match exactly. Honestly--99% of the world doesn't noticethe difference, but sneakerheads like us do. As you've said, the thermoformed Max airbags are often worse than the original in one respect (less of theairbag can be safely exposed) but are better in others (there's no big ugly visible seam down the middle any more, they seem to be lasting longer, and theyno longer contain SF6 that can F up the planet.) And think of it this way... the Max 360 was really the very first Airsole designed new, from-the-ground-upfor the thermoforming process. Now, you may say that wasn't such a great shoe (I won't argue) but you've got to admit that you can't get anybigger or more visible than that... and that's something that never could have been tried with the original blow-molding technology. And remember that ittook years even before Air Max products got bigger, multiple pressures, wilder shapes, etc... thermoforming will probably take some time as well. The photos(which I saw on NT for the first time) of the new cageless 360 look pretty f'in cool, I think, and bigger than any old-school full-length air.

Now, while the idea of marching to Nike Headquarters to demand that they "bring back the old Airsoles" might sound tempting or noble... it would, inall likelihood, get you absolutely nowhere. Not because Nike doesn't care, but for two reasons:
1) they would never knowingly take a huge environmental step backwards this way--but if you're too cynical to believe me on this, know that:
2) many countries/regions (like Europe, for example) no longer allow products containing greenhouse gases like SF6 to be imported and sold... there isno way that Nike would waste time and effort designing and building shoes that would then be illegal to sell in large areas of theworld!

Finally, as I said in my first post on this subject:
- Yes, if you can't read between the lines, obviously I've been closely involved in this whole effort. For seven of my ten years at Nike, asa matter of fact.
- I'm speaking for myself, not as any sort of official spokesperson.
- I post about it because I care about it, and worked my #%% off about it.
- I love my job. Love my job. The thought of ever losing my dream job makes me physically ill. Having said that, anyone involvedwith Nike footwear creation could probably figure out who I am in about five minutes, for those who didn't know already. And if I was out here spreadingsecrets or misinformation, well, that would probably get me canned. So I would never, ever stick my neck out on NT with anything other thansolid truth. Or spilling secrets on future stuff, so don't even try.

 

[modzzilla]

Something to do.

Lok at the airbag on 08 AM90 Infras Vs 08 AM 90 Infra Premiums.

Premiums bag is bigger.

Solution, use the premiums air unit on all 90s.

Solved.

I'll take a job there now please.

 

[lazy b]

Not a damn thing. Stop complaining because it is not that serious. If a smaller air bag is going to influence your decision then you are picky as hell.

 

[briannnnn]

jfeezy, great post.

Although I think I am in a minority-I didn't mind the large seam in the older air units.

 

[ogfiend]

Jfeezy...good info. This makes more sense now.

But I'm honestly still not sure what the SIZE of the unit has to do with the sf6. I mean they had to change the composition of the air unit, that'sunderstandable. But whats with the size change? Make it using new types of gases and new layering methods or whatnot, just mold a bigger shape. Am I missingsomething here?

 

[briannnnn]

I think the air units are more compact so that it can contain the new gas (Nitrogen?) better. I remember reading a thread here that mentioned that the Nitrogenis much lighter in density than SF6 and that a smaller air unit can keep the molecules together...

 

[lurkin2long]

Originally Posted by blco02

I'm right there with you man. Let me know when the march is organized to the Nike campus. There are so many retros that I've passed on due to this issue.

 

[jamil309]

 

[kickfiend9]

Originally Posted by CIDMAN911

I know the whole reason behind the smaller bubbles. That's cool. But it's such a damn shame for Air Max bubbles to be that small.

i second this

 

[bigty23]

I remember reading a few years back that there was a big increase of fraudulent practices to deflate the airbags and return them back to Nike. So, Nike wasgoing to revise or fix the "problem" by making a seamless airbag. With the airbag being seamless they can only be so big, hence the problem we havenow. So all and all, we can only blame ourselves (the consumer).

I've only heard about the environment issue until recently...

 

[coolxigrey]

my grails would be the bubble in the GRIFFYs fresh and walking in MID AIR son!!

 

[briannnnn]

Here's proof the new air units have nitrogen inside them instead of SF6:

US Patent 5042176

An enhancement of the Nike AIR design described in US Patent 4936029. According to inventor Marion Frank Rudy, this allows creating an AIR capsule that can beinflated with nitrogen.

Details here. I doubt they will go back and change the unitsagain, considering the amount of time and money they had already invested in modifying the technology.

 

[illwill8710]

Originally Posted by Redrum SB

Originally Posted by CIDMAN911

bought back memories

 

[concrete sole]

^^^^

 

[jfeezy]

Originally Posted by briannnnn

I think the air units are more compact so that it can contain the new gas (Nitrogen?) better. I remember reading a thread here that mentioned that the Nitrogen is much lighter in density than SF6 and that a smaller air unit can keep the molecules together...

Hey, Briannnnn... appreciate the kind words earlier in the thread. Sorry to say that your science here, though, is way off... let's see...try thinking of it this way. Imagine a bunch of gorillas inside a cage at the zoo (the old-school kind with iron bars, not the open-air free-range type). Gorillas can never escape from that type of cage, because they're too big to fit through the bars.

Now imagine a swarm of bees inside that same iron cage. They're tiny, they move fast and they can easily find their way out through the bars. The size or shape of the gorillas' cage is irrelevant, because the bees will just find a way out no matter if the cage isbig/small, round/square, whatever.

That's basically what I've tried to describe before... the original Airsoles are like the metal cages for gorillas (SF6 molecules). Switching tonitrogen gas (swarm of bees!) means that the whole type of cage doesn't work any more... now the cage would have to be made out of glass(for example), which means you've got to change your building techniques, and so on. Hopefully this analogy helps everyone understand where I'm comingfrom.

To OGfiend's point of why thenew Airsoles are smaller: actually, they're not smaller. I doubt anyone here would expect to hear that! Sometimes the size of the"window" in the midsole foam may make the Airsole inside appear smaller, but all of the new-school Airsoles which replacedold-school varieties are engineered to be as closely-matched as possible... that includes the height, length, width, pressures, etc. The most importantthing--I would argue--is that they perform the same. And I don't think anyone here has ever said that the newer airsoles provide worse cushioning than theoriginals.

So if you looked at both new- and old-school Airsoles from a top-down view, you wouldn't really be able to tell them apart. Same thing if you measuredtheir heights. The one thing that is a little different is the cross-sectional view. The sidewalls of the old-school Airsoles aregenerally rounded and symmetric, which makes them appear more "bulge-y". Newer Airsoles are less rounded, so the sidewalls are more up-and-down. This affects how the "windows" through the midsole foam can be sized and shaped, and sometimes they just can't be made to look as big as theoriginals, even though the airbag inside is the same size, with the same amount of cushioning.

The best real-world example that occurs to me is Apple's first vs. second-generation Nanos. Looking at them head-on, you really can't tell thedifference... they're the same length and width. When you look at them endwise, though, you can see that while they're the same thickness, they dohave different shapes... one is more rounded while the other is more boxy. And because of that small difference, some accessories that fit with one won'twork with the other. The overall size is the same, but the shape's just a tiny bit different. (Obviously I'm not getting into the internaldifferences between the two iPods... not the point of this analogy.)

(sorry,screwed up the image upload on my original post)

Hope this helps clarify further. The nitrogen change definitely wasn't made to prevent people from defrauding Nike by popping their Airsoles, as BigTy23 implied. It's not like thenew Airsoles are puncture-proof. But if and when they do puncture and deflate, they now no longer can contribute to global warming. (By the way, it'seasy to dissect a shoe and find out whether it was popped deliberately...)

 

[modzzilla]

I'll say this again, check the difference between the airbag window on the AM90 Infra Premium and the Infra Classic,premium is bigger. Simple.

http://www.individualsole...90-infrared-premium-1.jpg

http://www.soleredemption...cs/2006/05/jd_am_infa.jpg

 

[coolxigrey]

isnt that the truth

 

[diddydadagger]

the patent on the original airbag expired last year, and they also want to "go green" as far as the units are concerned. so when you see the linenear the bottom as opposed to the middle of the airbag, its because the patent expired and they are attempting to restore things to the way they were in aeco-friendly manner.