- 495
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
if this is true, why would Kobe have it in the shoe he wears? Wouldn't he want the best possible shoe?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by NY GIANTS 11
If Lunar is lighter than phylon, why doesnt nike just encapsulate full zoom into a lunar midsole?
Hmmm...
i agree with that, lunar foam does have its placeOriginally Posted by ZJU
Truth is weight can be a big factor when goes to road running/racing, however not that much to do with balling......
"Used it"? You suppose NASA will let Nike "use it" without paying for something that they undoubtly patented? Furthermore,you think Nike didn't leverage their own material science bandwidth to study the composition and see if they can transplant the material directly and ifnot, made changes to suit Nike's intended applications? I suppose all that is free to Nike, huh?Originally Posted by joejoebob2099
research and development? they didnt even come up with it, nasa did.. they just used it. any r&d should have shown it does not provide 'uncompromised' cushioning as they say.. there is definately some compromise
Away from the pool and out on the track, Nike's latest developments are in sports shoe technology, namely Flywire and Lunar Foam.
Once again, NASA was involved, having already done some research on a super-lightweight bouncy foam. The foam was adapted by Nike for its performance footwear range. A foam core is encased in a carrier made from Phylon or Phylite. Phylon is moulded from EVA foam pellets, while Phylite is a combination of 60% phylon and 40% rubber.
source: Latest Materials Improve Sportswear Performance - ICIS.com
I agree any internal studies should've shown it is hardly an ideal material to use in basketball applications and a lack of interest to replace phylon withlunarfoam may indicate that either some sort of royalty/patent fees to NASA may be involved that will impact the cost matrix for Nike or the fact itstendencies of breaking down prematurely (i.e. short lifespan) IS an issue to the point where Nike isn't willing to replace phylon with it. I mean, if wecan't handle it when it breaks down after 80 hours of ballin' (in some cases, much less), what would runners/joggers, who arguably spend a lot moretime wearing the shoes, think when their shoes break down after 80 hours?
Thanks for some insights as well as an interesting read on the material, Keon.Originally Posted by KeonClark7
A few key things to know:
1. Nike has conducted tests of various lunar foam setups (a core of its own, injected, with a phylon shell, with a phylite shell, etc) against an EVA Phylon foam core (but not against Zoom Air). They do two tests to quantify cushioning performance. They do drop tests to simulate foot impact on the midsole, which is measured in G's. They also do energy loss tests to see whether there is high energy loss (giving a 'dead' feel) or low energy loss (giving a 'live' feel). Results show that when augmented with a Phlyon or Phylite shell, the peak impact force are less than that of regular Phylon and the energy loss is on par with Phylon. This shows lunar foam is on par with Phylon as a midsole material, but with better impact absorption and reduced weight. The first big thing to note is that they didn't test this against Zoom Air, which I would almost guarantee has better impact and energy loss properties. And second, they don't test the longevity or durability.
2. Durability can be seen from physical properties. Nike's patent shows that lunar foam has a compression set % of '60% or less'. (Compression Set - The amount of deformation expressed as a percentage of original dimensions which a material retains after compressive stress is released. ). In comparison, Phylon has a compression set of 50-60%. Polyurethane, less than 30%. Zoom Air? I'd assume practically 0%, it's not a foam. Lunar Foam's compression set looks similar to that of Phylon, which is known as a poor midsole material for long term performance, when used alone. Papers written on athletic midsole materials point out that long term performance of Phylon is a problem (along with the waste produced and inconsistent hardness after remolding.) I'm not surprised by all the complaints of lunar foam bottoming out quickly.
3. Cost. Direct from Nike's website, Zoom Air is "costly to make due to many pieces, and steps." I'm studying Mechanical and Materials Engineering and have taken courses in manufacturing processes and engineering materials. It's fairly safe to say that the cost to make "a chunk of foam" is probably less than that of Zoom Air.
Also, lunar foam is a new foam compound patented by Nike. They wouldn't pay NASA any royalties, even if it was derived or based on something NASA developed.
It doesn't seem like long term performance is something they were going for, as you hardly ever see Phylon used alone as their cushioning material in other products. If Nike's goal was to provide sufficient, lightweight, short-term cushioning, they've achieved it. I'd personally take Zoom Air's performance benefits over lunar foam for sure, the reduction in weight and lack of durability is not worth the trade-off.
Hey, good post, Keon... way to drop some actual data into the thread.Originally Posted by KeonClark7
A few key things to know:
1. Nike has conducted tests of various lunar foam setups (a core of its own, injected, with a phylon shell, with a phylite shell, etc) against an EVA Phylon foam core (but not against Zoom Air). They do two tests to quantify cushioning performance. They do drop tests to simulate foot impact on the midsole, which is measured in G's. They also do energy loss tests to see whether there is high energy loss (giving a 'dead' feel) or low energy loss (giving a 'live' feel). Results show that when augmented with a Phlyon or Phylite shell, the peak impact force are less than that of regular Phylon and the energy loss is on par with Phylon. This shows lunar foam is on par with Phylon as a midsole material, but with better impact absorption and reduced weight. The first big thing to note is that they didn't test this against Zoom Air, which I would almost guarantee has better impact and energy loss properties. And second, they don't test the longevity or durability.
2. Durability can be seen from physical properties. Nike's patent shows that lunar foam has a compression set % of '60% or less'. (Compression Set - The amount of deformation expressed as a percentage of original dimensions which a material retains after compressive stress is released. ). In comparison, Phylon has a compression set of 50-60%. Polyurethane, less than 30%. Zoom Air? I'd assume practically 0%, it's not a foam. Lunar Foam's compression set looks similar to that of Phylon, which is known as a poor midsole material for long term performance, when used alone. Papers written on athletic midsole materials point out that long term performance of Phylon is a problem (along with the waste produced and inconsistent hardness after remolding.) I'm not surprised by all the complaints of lunar foam bottoming out quickly.
3. Cost. Direct from Nike's website, Zoom Air is "costly to make due to many pieces, and steps." I'm studying Mechanical and Materials Engineering and have taken courses in manufacturing processes and engineering materials. It's fairly safe to say that the cost to make "a chunk of foam" is probably less than that of Zoom Air.
Actually Lunar foam will decompose under the sun light. So it must be encapsulated in other materials, i.e. phylon.Originally Posted by NY GIANTS 11
If Lunar is lighter than phylon, why doesnt nike just encapsulate full zoom into a lunar midsole?
Hmmm...
Originally Posted by ZJU
Actually Lunar foam will decompose under the sun light. So it must be encapsulated in other materials, i.e. phylon.Originally Posted by NY GIANTS 11
If Lunar is lighter than phylon, why doesnt nike just encapsulate full zoom into a lunar midsole?
Hmmm...