1st of all, both are butt ugly. The computer chip idea is interesting, but does it really work? And $250? No thanks.
As for Nike’s* disposable* shoes, I find it interesting that even at 4.8 oz, Nike claims that they will only save a 3:20 marathoner 2 minutes and will save a few seconds over 5 or 10k. Which means they probably only save 1/2 of that time. Not nearly enough for shoes that ugly. So much for the racing flats saving the most time per $ spent theory.
I had a look at the Nike Mayfly and was interested in giving it a go - but not interested enough to buy it right then!
It’s not the weight that is the selling point here, it’s the price and the short lifespan. I looked at two other shoes in the shoe at the same time which were similar weight but looked like a bit stronger construction. The price was higher and there was no indication of the maximum milage on them.
I’ll probably give them a go over summer in a 1/2 marathon sometime.
the adidas computerized ride optimizing shoe is a great idea making one shoe fit a wider range of people. But hey, come see my and I’ll do you the same thing by getting you the right shoe for your build and where you will be running. Hell, if you are running on the road one day and the track the next I’ll sell you two shoes, one for each, you can give me a fat tip and you’ll have usable shoes for twice as long, just remember which shoe to wear on which day. But then again, if adidas offers some kind of employee purchases incentive, I may try a pair…
The nike mayfly is actually pretty cool being essentially the same midsole as their top end streap vapor shoe (although I don’t think the mayfly has the zoom air heel). Plus I know a lot of guys who replace thier flats around the 100k mark anyways (why they do it so soon I have no idea). I still think the best shoes are often the simplist shoes though. Tech is cool but often old school is the way to go.