- 600
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
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.