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

[The_Isomotion31]

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

 

[The_Isomotion31]

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

 

[ussjme]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

and this is the problem right here. this dude whines an dmoans for 6 minutes before saying "im not saying im not going to buy the products anymore but blahblabh" if an excutive from Nike was watching this he's stop the video right there and walk away laughing. people should complain if they continue to buy the products. buying a @%!@!% quality product is basically telling the producers that everything is ok, which is seems to be for nike because their profits keep rising and while most of you complain, your collection of piss poor nike shoes continues to accumulate in your closet.

 

[ussjme]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

and this is the problem right here. this dude whines an dmoans for 6 minutes before saying "im not saying im not going to buy the products anymore but blahblabh" if an excutive from Nike was watching this he's stop the video right there and walk away laughing. people should complain if they continue to buy the products. buying a @%!@!% quality product is basically telling the producers that everything is ok, which is seems to be for nike because their profits keep rising and while most of you complain, your collection of piss poor nike shoes continues to accumulate in your closet.

 

[ny giants 11]

Originally Posted by MONTEMEX3

It's ******ed how NIKE advertises "Zoom Air" on the Hyperfuse model when it's not even there lol,

Ummmmm forefoot??

 

[ny giants 11]

Originally Posted by MONTEMEX3

It's ******ed how NIKE advertises "Zoom Air" on the Hyperfuse model when it's not even there lol,

Ummmmm forefoot??

 

[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 $$$

 

[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 $$$

 

[dr damon]

Originally Posted by TheWindScar31

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

please let us know how the cushioning holds up after playing in them for 3-6 months, if the heel goes flat or not.

the video posted by dark chocolate is actually on point.  most recent jordan retro quailty is wack. (with exception of the aj1 alpha)  OG jordan 11s cost like 125 back in the day, but now the quality is inferior and they cost 150??? my powder blue retro 9s seem so cheap.   how much did people pay for the recent space jam re-retros???  i hope the quality of those was on point but i doubt it, which is why i passed.  (already have the 2001s)

its obvious i like zoom, but zoom may not be the answer for all people.  i can't do air max heel units for basketball, hurts my knees, but other people love it.  i doubt nike is removing air in their shoes and replacing it with foam that will eventually bottom out due to concerns about possible sprained ankles. nike is decreasing the longevity of their products and increasing profits bottom line.

 

[dr damon]

Originally Posted by TheWindScar31

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

please let us know how the cushioning holds up after playing in them for 3-6 months, if the heel goes flat or not.

the video posted by dark chocolate is actually on point.  most recent jordan retro quailty is wack. (with exception of the aj1 alpha)  OG jordan 11s cost like 125 back in the day, but now the quality is inferior and they cost 150??? my powder blue retro 9s seem so cheap.   how much did people pay for the recent space jam re-retros???  i hope the quality of those was on point but i doubt it, which is why i passed.  (already have the 2001s)

its obvious i like zoom, but zoom may not be the answer for all people.  i can't do air max heel units for basketball, hurts my knees, but other people love it.  i doubt nike is removing air in their shoes and replacing it with foam that will eventually bottom out due to concerns about possible sprained ankles. nike is decreasing the longevity of their products and increasing profits bottom line.

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by joejoebob2099

[color= rgb(0, 0, 0)][/color]nat turner - things other than air are still 'tech'. adiprene, gels, higher density foams, even perofmance insoles are tech. i think we r wondering why there is no additional element, not necessarily air, in the heel for extra cushion. it could even be a cartridge of polyurethane... but for MOST ppl on niketalk, we don't feel air is a gimmick. we feel it does have benefits in cushioning and longevity... your study may be right but its off topic. maybe air shoes are more unstable but we know thats not why nike didnt include it in these shoes or they wouldnt still use it in lebrons and kobes or all the other shoes..

You may not feel it is a gimmick, but it has never been proven to provide protection better than what was already being used. Also, the study IS on topic, then suggests why Nike may have lost faith in their own product, knowing that it may lead to injury, thus not using it so much in their shoes anymore.

Edit:

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.

Nike seems to not to be able to do that.  I mean, just look at what kind of Jordans retro's NIKE is producing, thus  the vid I posted.
    

what is zoom max?

i actually happened to really like tuned air i thought the reason they phased that out was the cost of implementing it
and i wished they kept up with the monkey paw, it was on the right track but was not improving in its usage

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by joejoebob2099

[color= rgb(0, 0, 0)][/color]nat turner - things other than air are still 'tech'. adiprene, gels, higher density foams, even perofmance insoles are tech. i think we r wondering why there is no additional element, not necessarily air, in the heel for extra cushion. it could even be a cartridge of polyurethane... but for MOST ppl on niketalk, we don't feel air is a gimmick. we feel it does have benefits in cushioning and longevity... your study may be right but its off topic. maybe air shoes are more unstable but we know thats not why nike didnt include it in these shoes or they wouldnt still use it in lebrons and kobes or all the other shoes..

You may not feel it is a gimmick, but it has never been proven to provide protection better than what was already being used. Also, the study IS on topic, then suggests why Nike may have lost faith in their own product, knowing that it may lead to injury, thus not using it so much in their shoes anymore.

Edit:

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.

Nike seems to not to be able to do that.  I mean, just look at what kind of Jordans retro's NIKE is producing, thus  the vid I posted.
    

what is zoom max?

i actually happened to really like tuned air i thought the reason they phased that out was the cost of implementing it
and i wished they kept up with the monkey paw, it was on the right track but was not improving in its usage

 

[mt3130]

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.

the kobes have a tiny zoom unit in the forefoot, so that barely counts, and the soldier 4s have air max in the heel...

 

[mt3130]

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.

the kobes have a tiny zoom unit in the forefoot, so that barely counts, and the soldier 4s have air max in the heel...

 

[duke4005]

^^^ Zoom Max was the caged Zoom in the Lebron II and III. Promoted as a thicker Zoom for players of Lebron's ilk, because he liked Zoom but it just would not hold up to his demands, and he did notlike the increased height of Air Max at the time. Why that changed, who knows. I have worn every brand over my 20+ years of playing ball, and honestly, if Zoom is done right (BB, Paytons, Pippens) it is greatness on a platter to me. However, when done wrong (mushy, too thin) it causes my feet numbness or pain from impact. I think Nike has slowly started phasing out the Air in shoes because of a combination of all these mentioned as well as the fact of the change in Air make-up we have all chronicled so well here. Maybe, just maybe, on top of all the monetary gains and drop in production values, they realized that the "new Air" absolutely SUCKS compared to the older generations. Instead of coming right oua nd saying such, they phase in "Lunar Technology" starting in the basketball category where they know players are looking for the next thing to make them JOrdan. Runners are notoriously loyal to shoes and cushioning, so it would be a harder sell until established. Now, almost all new shoes in Nike's running category feature Lunar, effectively phasing out Air without coming out and saying "we dropped the ball, here, buy this, let go of 30+ years of our flagship tech".Personally, I like cushioning elements of all different sorts, including Zoom, Max, DMX, adiprene, Gel, Absorbz (WAY underrated for b-ball). Jsut depends on how the shoe itself feels overall, and I can not get with the plastic generation presented lately.

 

[duke4005]

^^^ Zoom Max was the caged Zoom in the Lebron II and III. Promoted as a thicker Zoom for players of Lebron's ilk, because he liked Zoom but it just would not hold up to his demands, and he did notlike the increased height of Air Max at the time. Why that changed, who knows. I have worn every brand over my 20+ years of playing ball, and honestly, if Zoom is done right (BB, Paytons, Pippens) it is greatness on a platter to me. However, when done wrong (mushy, too thin) it causes my feet numbness or pain from impact. I think Nike has slowly started phasing out the Air in shoes because of a combination of all these mentioned as well as the fact of the change in Air make-up we have all chronicled so well here. Maybe, just maybe, on top of all the monetary gains and drop in production values, they realized that the "new Air" absolutely SUCKS compared to the older generations. Instead of coming right oua nd saying such, they phase in "Lunar Technology" starting in the basketball category where they know players are looking for the next thing to make them JOrdan. Runners are notoriously loyal to shoes and cushioning, so it would be a harder sell until established. Now, almost all new shoes in Nike's running category feature Lunar, effectively phasing out Air without coming out and saying "we dropped the ball, here, buy this, let go of 30+ years of our flagship tech".Personally, I like cushioning elements of all different sorts, including Zoom, Max, DMX, adiprene, Gel, Absorbz (WAY underrated for b-ball). Jsut depends on how the shoe itself feels overall, and I can not get with the plastic generation presented lately.

 

[duke4005]

I hate yuku

 

[duke4005]

I hate yuku

 

[The_Isomotion31]

Originally Posted by DR DAMON

Originally Posted by TheWindScar31

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

please let us know how the cushioning holds up after playing in them for 3-6 months, if the heel goes flat or not.

the video posted by dark chocolate is actually on point.  most recent jordan retro quailty is wack. (with exception of the aj1 alpha)  OG jordan 11s cost like 125 back in the day, but now the quality is inferior and they cost 150??? my powder blue retro 9s seem so cheap.   how much did people pay for the recent space jam re-retros???  i hope the quality of those was on point but i doubt it, which is why i passed.  (already have the 2001s)

its obvious i like zoom, but zoom may not be the answer for all people.  i can't do air max heel units for basketball, hurts my knees, but other people love it.  i doubt nike is removing air in their shoes and replacing it with foam that will eventually bottom out due to concerns about possible sprained ankles. nike is decreasing the longevity of their products and increasing profits bottom line.

While this was my main concern, I feel that after 6 mos. of 3x a week of hoop for $70 and some change the shoe would have been well worth it. Especially since I find myself getting a new pair of hoop shoes roughly 6-7 months no matter what the cushioning set up is.

However, if I were say on a school team that had practice and games everyday. I can honestly say I'd be weary of using just these one pair the whole season.

 

[The_Isomotion31]

Originally Posted by DR DAMON

Originally Posted by TheWindScar31

I honestly was on board with the whole no full zoom or zoom zoom then no me. But the hyperfuses are amazing. Then again the other shoes in my rotation don't have any air. I did also pick up a pair of CP3 III just for lounging(I know I know, but I happen to like them.) No air at all but feel very comfortable.

please let us know how the cushioning holds up after playing in them for 3-6 months, if the heel goes flat or not.

the video posted by dark chocolate is actually on point.  most recent jordan retro quailty is wack. (with exception of the aj1 alpha)  OG jordan 11s cost like 125 back in the day, but now the quality is inferior and they cost 150??? my powder blue retro 9s seem so cheap.   how much did people pay for the recent space jam re-retros???  i hope the quality of those was on point but i doubt it, which is why i passed.  (already have the 2001s)

its obvious i like zoom, but zoom may not be the answer for all people.  i can't do air max heel units for basketball, hurts my knees, but other people love it.  i doubt nike is removing air in their shoes and replacing it with foam that will eventually bottom out due to concerns about possible sprained ankles. nike is decreasing the longevity of their products and increasing profits bottom line.

While this was my main concern, I feel that after 6 mos. of 3x a week of hoop for $70 and some change the shoe would have been well worth it. Especially since I find myself getting a new pair of hoop shoes roughly 6-7 months no matter what the cushioning set up is.

However, if I were say on a school team that had practice and games everyday. I can honestly say I'd be weary of using just these one pair the whole season.

 

[l knicks fresh knick l]

am i the only one that see's that huge avy?

 

[l knicks fresh knick l]

am i the only one that see's that huge avy?

 

[nkwu11]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by joejoebob2099

nat turner - things other than air are still 'tech'. adiprene, gels, higher density foams, even perofmance insoles are tech. i think we r wondering why there is no additional element, not necessarily air, in the heel for extra cushion. it could even be a cartridge of polyurethane... but for MOST ppl on niketalk, we don't feel air is a gimmick. we feel it does have benefits in cushioning and longevity... your study may be right but its off topic. maybe air shoes are more unstable but we know thats not why nike didnt include it in these shoes or they wouldnt still use it in lebrons and kobes or all the other shoes..

You may not feel it is a gimmick, but it has never been proven to provide protection better than what was already being used. Also, the study IS on topic, then suggests why Nike may have lost faith in their own product, knowing that it may lead to injury, thus not using it so much in their shoes anymore.

Edit:

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.

    

I agree, but disagree. I think Nike does want to seek some creative solutions to improve our performance. Those "innovations" are in turn marketed by Nike marketing to make it feel like we're buying something special.
There are costs associated with new manufacturing methods required to create things like Monkey Paws and Zoom Max and I think it's in Nike's DNA (and I'm being realistic - it's equal parts marketing) to explore these "overt" technologies and bring them to market -- let's face it, Nike has been defined by their well marketed technologies. All the other companies have their own shoe technologies, but no company has come quite as close to reach the visibility of Nike's. 

None of Nike's technologies have existed for long enough or widely adopted (except for maybe Air) for the long term effects of the footwear to be evaluated conclusively. Not to mention the relatively short shelf life a footwear product has. The Study that Nat Turner quoted is very interesting, but I personally think Nike is cutting tech implementation to cut costs. 

That and maybe because we really don't need much. I mean, in Nike Basketball's "hey day" (when I got into into sneakers), it seemed like there was technical innovation. Shox, Zoom Air, Monkey Paw etc.,  All of these technical applications were very sport specific and had their downfalls. The high standing Shox made ankle rolls dangerous, Monkey Paw proved mostly useless (I say mostly because I've seen it used in Nike's ankle braces). It's funny how Nike Free began as a technology to promote barefoot running; it's oxymoronic. Now Nike Free largely seems to be a marketing tool. When Nat Turner wrote: Just make a high quality shoe, one using organic materials then detailed stitching with a sound foundation, durablility, and no gimmicks, he was on the right track. Barefoot running is receiving a significant boost for a reason - and foot technology may prove to be worse for us in the long run.

I sort of veered off topic, but I don't think it's a big loss if the technology is lost, but the value of Nike's products does diminish. IMO it's clearly for marketing. Basketball itself is a special case, and I think a heel air unit should be included. 

 

[nkwu11]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by joejoebob2099

nat turner - things other than air are still 'tech'. adiprene, gels, higher density foams, even perofmance insoles are tech. i think we r wondering why there is no additional element, not necessarily air, in the heel for extra cushion. it could even be a cartridge of polyurethane... but for MOST ppl on niketalk, we don't feel air is a gimmick. we feel it does have benefits in cushioning and longevity... your study may be right but its off topic. maybe air shoes are more unstable but we know thats not why nike didnt include it in these shoes or they wouldnt still use it in lebrons and kobes or all the other shoes..

You may not feel it is a gimmick, but it has never been proven to provide protection better than what was already being used. Also, the study IS on topic, then suggests why Nike may have lost faith in their own product, knowing that it may lead to injury, thus not using it so much in their shoes anymore.

Edit:

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.

    

I agree, but disagree. I think Nike does want to seek some creative solutions to improve our performance. Those "innovations" are in turn marketed by Nike marketing to make it feel like we're buying something special.
There are costs associated with new manufacturing methods required to create things like Monkey Paws and Zoom Max and I think it's in Nike's DNA (and I'm being realistic - it's equal parts marketing) to explore these "overt" technologies and bring them to market -- let's face it, Nike has been defined by their well marketed technologies. All the other companies have their own shoe technologies, but no company has come quite as close to reach the visibility of Nike's. 

None of Nike's technologies have existed for long enough or widely adopted (except for maybe Air) for the long term effects of the footwear to be evaluated conclusively. Not to mention the relatively short shelf life a footwear product has. The Study that Nat Turner quoted is very interesting, but I personally think Nike is cutting tech implementation to cut costs. 

That and maybe because we really don't need much. I mean, in Nike Basketball's "hey day" (when I got into into sneakers), it seemed like there was technical innovation. Shox, Zoom Air, Monkey Paw etc.,  All of these technical applications were very sport specific and had their downfalls. The high standing Shox made ankle rolls dangerous, Monkey Paw proved mostly useless (I say mostly because I've seen it used in Nike's ankle braces). It's funny how Nike Free began as a technology to promote barefoot running; it's oxymoronic. Now Nike Free largely seems to be a marketing tool. When Nat Turner wrote: Just make a high quality shoe, one using organic materials then detailed stitching with a sound foundation, durablility, and no gimmicks, he was on the right track. Barefoot running is receiving a significant boost for a reason - and foot technology may prove to be worse for us in the long run.

I sort of veered off topic, but I don't think it's a big loss if the technology is lost, but the value of Nike's products does diminish. IMO it's clearly for marketing. Basketball itself is a special case, and I think a heel air unit should be included. 

 

[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.