Did any of you see the ads for the Adidas 1. This is a shoe with a microprocessor built in that claims to adjust cushioning to the needs of the runner/terrain. Gimme a break !!! The thing looks like it is built on high heels with the back end way higher than the front. The whole marketing scam looks like an injury waiting to happen.
When the hell will the marketing guys in the running shoe companies realize that all they are doing is hurting runners ? I’m sure that you’ll see no shortage of these things floating around your local high priced fitness club, but you won’t find them on the feet of your back of the pack 2:15 Kenyan marathoner (ie back of the pack in Kenya)
Bowerman had it right with the Nike Pegasus back in 1982 when I got my first pair. A shoe with just some basic padding that would let your feet naturally do what they want to do !
I strongly agree! I never have understood the changes made to Pegasus over the years. It seems impossible to me that most of these changes were tested on real runners who were apparently already happy, as it was Nike’s most popular running shoe.
Forget about the Pegasus, the larger question is whether running shoe companies test any product on real runners, or whether they do it from the Ivory Marketing Tower.
I do know for Cross Country Skiing, the ski companies work very closely with athletes, getting them to test stuff for a year before it goes to production. In skiing though, the stuff that works at the world cup level still helps the weekend warrior. For running the shoes that the elite atheltes use, largely do not apply to more than 1% of the most biomechanically efficient competitive citizen racer. The question then arises, “Who do the Running Shoe companies test all their other models on, and how many miles are the testers logging ?”
Yep. Same issues here. I’ve been running for 25 years. Never had a knee, hammy, hip or joint problem until the last year. I’ve had a nagging calf/achieles problem for about a year. I just can’t seem to shake it and at times have to take months off for it to get better. Maybe it’s da shoes??
I’m going to give the Virtuvians a try and maybe try training in some running flats or light trainers.
For what it’s worth, a friend of mine is on the team developing the shoe and my wife was a tester for a few months. My wife is like Mikey when it comes to sneaks, she hates everything. She actually liked the Adi 1. She is marginally a “real runner”, she’s just a pretty good triathlete. They do test the shoe on real runners, plenty of them here in Portland. I agree the mechanism deserves skepticism. I can tell you it functions, but may or may not have a ton of value. You have to understand, Nike and Adi are constantly trying to push the envelope on technology, let the customer decide what’s good. Can’t blame them for trying.
On a similar note, I am going back for a second round of testing on an Adi suit this afternoon. The concept is that it will make the runner faster at the same effort versus what he or she runs in currently. Last week we did baseline threshhold testing and today I’ll run at a certain effort in my regular shorts and shirt, then do the same interval in the suit and compare numbers. It may be meaningless, we’ll see what the numbers say. From there, let the consumer or racer decide.
IMO, if consumers of running shoes $poke in the majority with the statement that “function is everything”, then design, testing and marketing of shoes would not be what it is today. However, consumers often value form over function. Ridiculous misapplication of technology and sexy gimmicks are rewarded with consumer dollars. The marketers are doing their thing, but we, as consumers, encourage it.
Since you brought up XC skiing, I have to ask, are world cup skiers actually using the skatecut technology? I bought a pair and hate ‘em. Tried friends’ skis thinking maybe I got a pair of dogs, but theirs feel as dead as mine. They are very stable but have no life. Fortunately, I have a couple pair still in good shape that pre-date this “improvement”.
$10,000 per month, a new bike, free gatorade and a monthly supply of Vituvians is all that is required. Either that or a sticker for my helmet. I’ll take on or the other.
That’s pretty strong vitriol for a product you haven’t tried.
I’ve been a tester with Adi for the past 5 years and I can tell you that they have spent THOUSANDS of hours developing and testing this product.
To address some of your specific concerns, the heel to toe drop is the same as in all other Adi running shoes (it’s a physiological requirement or you risk achilles problems). The cushioning is adjustable, but appropriate. It has not displayed problems with ankle roll in testing (both on the road and trail).
You may ask why they developed the product. The reason is simple. Adi is continuously striving to create higher-performing (and marketable of course) shoes, apparel, and components. I see the development teams regularly and I can tell you that Adi leads with function and then let’s the form fall out after they know something works. This shoe started as an idea in their Innovation Team which is a group of biomechanics and engineering experts notably devoid of marketing influence. They create the technology and then marketing decides if the technology can have broad acceptance.
With that said, I can understand one’s apprehension to drop $250 on a pair of running shoes. It’s simply outside most athlete’s paradigm. That’s okay too. Personally, I think the technology is interesting and displays the technology leadership and creativity one likes to see in a company (whether it’s a broad retail success may be another story). I’d love to see this technology “trickle down” to other less-expensive models in the future.
I wonder to what extent the marketing driven running shoe biz is really focussing on runners? I mean in reality what percentage of their customers are even runners? Seems like I see lots of non runners wearing running shoes. If you accept that assumption, then marketing likely is one of the key drivers since most of these folks simply care more about looks than function.
I think the trick is to find an “uncool” brand of shoes where they still care about running. I think Nike lost that bias years ago.
To address some of your specific concerns, the heel to toe drop is the same as in all other Adi running shoes (it’s a physiological requirement or you risk achilles problems).
Wait a gosh darned minute!!! The human foot is the product of millions of years of trial and error, survival of the fittest evolution…are you telling us that without a heel to toe drop we’re all going to develop achilles problems???
Its amazing that the human species has managed to survive this long without Adidas and Nike…we all should have starved to death in a cave or been eaten by Sabre Tooth Tigers cuz we couldn’t run away with our bum achilles tendons.
All a shoe needs to be is an outsole for grip, a midsole to absorb the impact from running on hard modern surfaces and an upper to attach our foot to it. We don’t need posts, bubbles, gels, and we certainly don’t need chips. If you can show me a computer chip than can make a human brain and body a more efficient running combo, I’ll buy the shoes…not until then.
Funny you should mention “are the World Cup Skiers using Skate Cut Technology”. The quick answer based on a talk with a friend who races World Cup on the biathlon national team is NO. The real racers hated it and forced Fischer to make a regular “straight ski”. I actually bought a pair off my buddy, this weekend, straight from the Fischer factory in Austria. It has the 2004/2005 “skate cut graphics” including the word “skate cut”, but lo and behold, the lines are totally parallel. It makes for a much better ride and better control, especially on one skate and two skate ! Next year, there will be no more RCS “Skate Cut” from Fischer.