adidas shoes: is everyone brainwashed?

I'd be more interested to know about what their feet are doing and not so much the shoes.

John Clendon wrote:

I think the IAAF rule is getting at "shoes that return more energy than was put into them".

Picking arbitrary numbers here, if the foot pushes against and compresses the shoe with 50N, and the shoe returns 55N. That is the unfair advantage.

Nike and Adidas with Lunar and Boost are trying to return the same amount of energy as the initial push.

Is it even possible to return more energy than what is put into it? Wouldn't that be the premise of Flubber?

At $140.00 a pop.

I wonder why?

Eocl wrote:

Why isn't the adidas Boost selling well at Run Specialty? My store just got an RA on a few dozen pair, as it's not turning as well as they'd like.

And isn't Boost foam the same Brooks uses in MoGo?

PRICE POINT

How are Boost and MoGo totally different?

Honestly, the price made me cringe also. But they are the most durable shoes I've ever run in, sole wise.

My wear history is generally that I get about 200-250 out of a pair of shoes and then they're toast. Upper still looks OK, but I'm getting aches and pains and the soles are showing a lot of wear (this has been my experience with Kinvaras, Pureflows, Pureconnects, and Hitogamis).

I'm now over 400 miles with my first pair of Adios Boosts, and they feel awesome. The upper is starting to go - I sense that will be the eventual reason for me retiring this pair, rather than the soles.

400+ miles, as compared to 250 miles in a $90 shoe - that $140 looks like a very good deal.

So, do some of you actually think that if you wear a certain pair of shoes, you will go faster than wearing a normal pair of flats for a road race?

Really?

Hey listen, I'm tired of owning this bridge in Brooklyn, I'll sell it to you, cheap.

to the skeptics - how many other new shoe technologies have had, oh, 12 threads dedicated to them, with passionate defenders? How many new technologies have set new WRs? how many have caused the company to change its ENTIRE serious running line to incorporate the technology?

I've completely switched to boost - I think it is just better than EVA.

agip wrote:

to the skeptics - how many other new shoe technologies have had, oh, 12 threads dedicated to them, with passionate defenders? How many new technologies have set new WRs? how many have caused the company to change its ENTIRE serious running line to incorporate the technology?

I've completely switched to boost - I think it is just better than EVA.

/thread

Thanks for playing!

shoeskeptic wrote:

Are adidas adios actually decent shoes, or does everyone just think they are because the Kenyans are paid to wear them?

They are expensive as sh!t.

I wore them for tempos all through college and for some longer workouts on dirt/gravel. Also in road races. Love those flats. Not super minimal which is why I like them. I wear the mizuno wave riders to train it and these offer a nice light alternative to train quicker with a stiffer less minimal shoe

not a physics major wrote:

John Clendon wrote:

I think the IAAF rule is getting at "shoes that return more energy than was put into them".

Picking arbitrary numbers here, if the foot pushes against and compresses the shoe with 50N, and the shoe returns 55N. That is the unfair advantage.

Nike and Adidas with Lunar and Boost are trying to return the same amount of energy as the initial push.

Is it even possible to return more energy than what is put into it? Wouldn't that be the premise of Flubber?

It's not a question of returning MORE energy than what is put into it like Flubber, but rather returning more energy than other materials do under the same pressure. But think about this: a spring can be compressed easily under your weight alone without an effort on your part to compress it. If your weight alone can compress it, then it will stay compressed. However, once you begin to lift your foot and reduce that weight until the spring begins to decompress, THAT'S where the energy return takes place. Prior to that it is simply stored energy in the compressed spring. As far as I know, actual springs are illegal in any running or jumping sport as an unfair advantage. But EVA, Boost and other midsole materials, as well as rubberized running tracks, are more subtle in their energy return. In a totally "fair" world, all athletic records would be set at sea level on identical surfaces, weather conditions (no wind), and with identical equipment, but that's simply not practical. As for the Boost "advantage," it IS my own non-scientific perception while running that Boost provides a perceptible increase in energy return--especially on hard surfaces--over the energy return provided by any typical EVA midsole shoes I've ever worn. For doubters, I say, try it and I think you'll feel it. Is it an unfair advantage? No more than EVA was when it was first introduced. And not when it is easily accessible by all runners. Of course, price point does become a possible issue, but not excessively when there are other shoes besides Adidas Boost out there that cost as much or more. If you want to argue the price point issue, we could discuss cycling, as well. To get the best racing bicycle, you have to pay for it, and it ain't cheap.

Straight from the sites:http://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us/06-27-2006.htmlMoGo, a new polymer-based substance, is a complete update to the industry standard EVA foam midsole Brooks pioneered 30 years ago. According to an independent research firm, MoGo provides runners with more cushioning (33 percent), more rebound or energy return (22 percent) and a decrease in fatigue (33 percent).In conjunction with the midsole performance overhaul, Brooks evolved the midsole production process to minimize waste. Derived from a Compression Molded Preform process, MoGo is an efficient, environmentally friendly production method that reduces waste by 50 percent and increases material consistency by 200 percent.http://www.adidas.com/com/goallin/news-articles/2013/02/p-running-boost-unveil-cushioningtechnology-gai-news/BOOST is a groundbreaking innovation in cushioning. It provides more energy return than any other foam cushioning material in the running industry, combining soft comfort with responsive energy for the ultimate running experience. In the heat, in the cold and after countless kilometers, it performs more consistently and doesn’t lose its cushioning properties like standard EVA

Eocl wrote:

How are Boost and MoGo totally different?

Looks like they are sourced from the same vendor, so wouldn't they be the same? Our MoGo test in-store is the same as the Boost test (dropping a ball-bearing on foam).

oijjerer wrote:

Le Chapeau wrote:

That's totally irrelevant to whether the shoes help or not.

The shoes turn regular Joe Jogger into a world record smashing, marathon winning, running machine.

There, happy?

My, aren't we a little dramatic.

Have you ever seen a Nike zoom unit? Far more responsive then Boost material. On that note, so is New Balance's N2 foam(nitrogen infused, very similar to Nike zoom). Brooks DNA and Saucony Powergrid are more about shock absorption than energy return. Energy return only makes sense if you have very minimal ground contact time(fast/elite runners) so the impact on their performance would be huge when using zoom air/boost material. So yes, it makes them faster. The average Joe or Jane- no.

No way in hell the IAAF or USATF goes against Adidas or Nike on this- too much at stake.

steeplehero wrote:

No way in hell the IAAF or USATF goes against Adidas or Nike on this- too much at stake.

You mean, those companies own too much of a stake in IAAF and USATF.

And I never said I thought energy-returning shoes worked. But if they did, how would it be different from spring-loaded shoes? The rule is clear: shoes are for protection, stability and grip. EVA's purpose is obviously shock absorption, not elastic energy return, and that's protection. A bouncier material would be ok if its use were limited to a context of protection, as long as it were still the best material for that purpose. But marketing it as energy-returning and calling it the "boost" introduces elements outside that context.

You seem to think they don't work. So your problem is evidently the way they are marketed? The rulebook says nothing about marketing.