Why Can't Nike Just Make the Air Units Bigger?

[nycz illest]

Ok, we all know why air units on Air Maxes are smaller now, since the copyright left. But why is it that Nike can't just make the air units they make now,bigger. What restrictions on how big they can make it are there, if any? As long as they use the units they use now, I would think that they can make it anysize they want, so why not the original sizes?

 

[iiceman83]

Maybe just maybe they make them smaller for function and not for the "look" just to please ppl like you.

 

[fenixconnexion]

IMO, the air unit doesnt even help, so why have an even bigger one when a smaller one is more comfy possibly?

 

[God]

Originally Posted by fenixconnexion

IMO, the air unit doesnt even help, so why have an even bigger one when a smaller one is more comfy possibly?

when i wear my older nikes like air bursts with the large unit, i can completley tell the difference between that air unit and the air unit in newerretroes. another problem with the newer retroes besides the air units is that the soloes are very stiff. so i say larger units for function along with moresponge like soles.

 

[size twelve]

because they don't want to.


judging from what a certain employee in nike forum posts, they're all about the bottom line, and it'd be a few dollars less profit per pair.


plus i guess they got tired of people returning their maxes for squeaky or popped bubbles.

 

[fenixconnexion]

Originally Posted by Patrik1tha1

Originally Posted by fenixconnexion

IMO, the air unit doesnt even help, so why have an even bigger one when a smaller one is more comfy possibly?

when i wear my older nikes like air bursts with the large unit, i can completley tell the difference between that air unit and the air unit in newer retroes. another problem with the newer retroes besides the air units is that the soloes are very stiff. so i say larger units for function along with more sponge like soles.

it's definetely the sponge like soles that are making the OGs comfier, take example the jordan IIIs - Vs, the air units from the OGs to retros are samesize, but the OGs and older retros are much comfier compared to the newer retros

 

[swingshot]

fenixconnexion wrote:
it's definetely the sponge like soles that are making the OGs comfier, take example the jordan IIIs - Vs, the air units from the OGs to retros are same size, but the OGs and older retros are much comfier compared to the newer retros

Is that do with a swtich from Polyurethene midsoles to Phylon midsoles? I'm a bit lacking on knowledge in that area.

 

[memphisboi55]

yea, i loved the larger air bubble

F these bite size ones

and yes you can feel a difference. like my OG pennys...compared to the new retros... a big difference

 

[og_Rodney]

I've heard that the older, bigger air units are more susceptible to popping and leaking. I guess Nike's trying to cut down on defects or something.

 

[mrkrispy1183]

Originally Posted by AiRodney23

...the older, bigger air units are more susceptible to popping and leaking.

Right there. Nike switched up the build on the air units and the amount of air necessary in them (along with some "environmental" issues), hencethe newer, smaller units.

 

[holler mcdollar]

$$$.

 

[blessed1stylez]

im sure the bigger air bubble is more likely to pop or something...besides they probably updated their equipment and it makes smaller bubbles, trust they aintgoing to go backwards just to appease a very small percentage of customers that dont even notice the difference

 

[nycz illest]

Originally Posted by IICEMAN83

Maybe just maybe they make them smaller for function and not for the "look" just to please ppl like you.

A simple question that didn't require a smarmy comment. Not once did I say I was "unpleased". I was just curious for an answer, not a complaint.

Moving on to everyone else who posted...Yes I guess that makes sense that the bigger the unit, the more susceptable it would be to pop. I personally have neverpopped any of my older units and can't see how unless there is heavy pressure on my part.

Someone on here mentioned an environmental issue. What issue did the original units pose to the environment?

 

[mrkrispy1183]

NYCZ ILLEST,

The original Max Air/Vis Air units used [font=arial,helvetica,univers]a super-potent greenhouse gas called sulfur hexafluoride, orSF6, along with air in the units. Greenhouse gases, as you should know, are bad for our already-crappy ozone layer, and Nike spent nearly 14 years finding away to use another gas (nitrogen) in the units instead. Hence the need for smaller, more reliable units for the nitrogen-loaded pockets, whose molecules needto be contained in a smaller environment than the SF6 molecules previously utilized. The article that goes on extensively about this is located here onBusinessWeek.
[/font]

 

[kid lebron]

its pretty stupid, my Fire red 3's have a larger bubble then my Pure$ both 07 retroes, it is idiotic, i like the larger bubble, its comfyer esp. in thestats

 

[wallyhopp]

mrkripsy .. nice article,

its too bad they couldnt find a way to keep them the same size and still get nitrogen in. im no physicist.

im surprised it took 14 years. what happened between that time, were they still using the bad gas?

 

[mrkrispy1183]

^Wally, yeah, they stayed using the SF6 bubbles until these new smaller nitrogen units started phasing in the last couple of years. Since there is no actualregulatory committee to lay the smack down on them for being global warming-compliant, Nike set (and missed) two deadlines to have the new units out in 2000,then in 2003. The whole sweatshop labor dispute overshadowed this whole thing anyhow

We should sticky this or get the article/info archived so people can be aware of the facts and stop *****ing and moaning over the smaller air units.

 

[nycz illest]

Originally Posted by MrKrispy1183

NYCZ ILLEST,

The original Max Air/Vis Air units used [font=arial,helvetica,univers]a super-potent greenhouse gas called sulfur hexafluoride, or SF6, along with air in the units. Greenhouse gases, as you should know, are bad for our already-crappy ozone layer, and Nike spent nearly 14 years finding a way to use another gas (nitrogen) in the units instead. Hence the need for smaller, more reliable units for the nitrogen-loaded pockets, whose molecules need to be contained in a smaller environment than the SF6 molecules previously utilized. The article that goes on extensively about this is located here on BusinessWeek.
[/font]

Hmmm, well I guess it all makes sense now on why they're smaller and why they continue to be made smaller. It all pieces together...from having bad gas, toa need to use a different gass, to needing a smaller unit to contain that new gas. Very interesting article you posted. Cool, so that answers my initialquestion.

Yeah, a sticky would be helpful to those that don't already know. I certainly didn't know these reasonings until you informed me just now.

 

[200nikesdeep]

I am sure nike does it to save money.

 

[ooiron manoo]

I am sure nike does it to save money.
It has to do a little with that, but in the sense that there is a business movement to be "green certified", which Nike is.

They spent money on development to get rid of the SF6 air bubble which had gases that were bad for the environment. I for one, don't really care for thebig air bubbles. I never really found them aesthetically pleasing, furthermore, they were very prone to "popping". A nuisance when your kicks hadto last for 4 months or more, or when people actually wear their shoes.

By spending money on development, Nike saves money and gets good PR, plus the general public doesn't notice the small change and the numbers on thesemessage boards is not enough to push for a change.

 

[page86]

Originally Posted by 200nikesdeep

I am sure nike does it to save money.

i'm sure some people don't read the thread before posting too.

 

[timcity2000]

i read the article twice... and didn't see where it said the use of nitrogen instead of sf6 required the air bags to be smaller. i did see that themolecules themselves are smaller, but i don't understand how that necessarily has to translate into smaller air bags. maybe i'm an idiot, or maybe myreading comprehension is lacking. someone help me out here.

 

[mrkrispy1183]

TimCity,

In a quote from the article:

[font=arial,helvetica,univers]The solution to SF6 finally emerged not in a single breakthrough but in smaller, unconnected victories. Aftermuch experimentation, the team was able to hold in nitrogen by sandwiching together 65 wafer-thin layers of plastic film (illustration). Even that wasn'tenough, since the old blow-molding manufacturing system wouldn't work with so many layers. Instead, the group refined a technique called thermoforming,which melts the plastic into the right shape. "We knew this would be difficult, but we underestimated the challenge," Hartge recalls.

It doesn't state directly here that they had to modify the size of the units (though I will post the statement/article that does statethat), but it does say the newer technique they used to contain the nitrogen particles, and the illustration shows somewhat that a smaller, layered environmentis necessary to contain the nitrogen/air combo. It might also be safe to say that it's easier to shape the film into the form of these newer,smaller unitsas opposed to trying to mimic the bulbous, bulgy ones of the cast-plastic seam-line days.
[/font]

 

[briannnnn]

Thanks for posting the article.

 

[blco02]

I thought the thermoforming technique was just used on the 360 and not normal visible air products?

But yea, it does seem that 06 was about the point where air bubbles got so tiny. The article says that was the date they implemented the changes.