Biggest Running Shoe technology flubs of all time

Adidas Bounce? Reebok Hexalite? Puma now seems to have finally abandoned their Cell crap for which they sued Reebok.

Adidas' Torsion Bar doesn't exist in its original form any more but every manufacturer has at some point adopted the principle. Nike's Footbridge, Asucks' Trusstic System, any shoe with a carved/decoupled arch area is a result of what Adidas started with the original Torsion Bar.

The Adidas' outsole pods "technology" was called P.O.D.S. - Point Of Deflection System and made it on only one iteration of their Equipment line. I rather liked the ride of the cushioned model even though it was ugly as hell.

The DMX10 was complete crap but the DMX6 was actually a decent running shoe.

Also keep in mind the Sock Racer, Air Flow, Air Hurrache and Footscape were all precursors to the Free, one of Nike's more popular running shoes these days.

New Balance Transport System almost torpedoed the brand.

Nuts.

loved the bright green wrote:

I don't know about the technology but I tried a pair of Brooks in the early 80s and they were the worst shoe ever. They fell apart within the first couple weeks. Didn't try another pair for 30 years.

They were probably the Nighthawk. Super soft blown rubber sole with a really hard red heel plug. I wore a pair out in a week.

if you bought shoes to run in looking like those you deserved it

The Brooks Vantage with the varus wedge and the Nike LD1000. The shoe companies were using us as lab rats. I did like the LDV.

The asics Gel Lyte I & II (similar in style to model III pictured.)

The nylon upper near the toes literally wore holes in less than 75 miles. asics must have had at least 50% of these shoes returned-I returned a pair 3 times until the store gave me a different shoe.

ashley madison wrote:

Nike LDV 1000

Nike waffle racers (I know, started the craze, but the little waffle nubs fell-off/didn't last).

Nike Cortez (Made hamburger out of the big toe).

Addias SL 72s and SL 76s (rock hard).

You youngsters don't know truly bad shoes . . .

That LDV 1000 was like running on a cement platform.

The SL 72s weren't bad considering what the alternatives were. Kids today are spoiled. The shoe technology is so good that there should be no trouble finding a shoe that works. The choices are endless. But, everyone's an expert, especially with the footstrike, barefoot running, etc. Just buy a pair that fit & are comfortable and forget all the b.s.

[quote]old school steve wrote:

PUMA "

NIKE "Tailwind" 1st generation AIR shoe that would go flat if punctured and make squishing sounds

ADIDAS "WEB", and a shoe that you could customize the degree of cushion with "cassettes" inserted in midsole of different durometers

I left a pair of Tailwinds in a hot car and the midsole shrank to half it's size. I returned them to "The Athletic Dept." (the orig. Nike store) in Beaverton but they would not take them back because "they had never seen this problem before.)!

I got a replacement pair from Nike Running.

The web was supposed to be like a "safety-net" cushion, endorsed by Bill Dellinger (several of the Oregon guys trained in those crappy shoes.)

J.R. wrote:

1) air in the soles

2) eva foam

3) soft soles

4) soles too thick

5) rigid heel backs

6) high heel backs

7) heel lifts

8) hard material around toes

9) narrow forefeet

10) rigid uppers

11) flares

12) arch supports

13) excess material

14) excess weight

It sounds like shoe companies should have come out with the best shoe possible without any attempt at trying any of the above. How do we know something will not work unless we try it?

EVA is still used extensively.

Nike Air has worked for me.

Some trail shoes need hard material around toes.

Just because these features don't work for you doesn't mean they won't work for everyone.

Nike Sock Trainer. Midsole was polyurethane & hard as a rock. Ugly, too.

aloha warrior wrote:

[quote]old school steve wrote:

PUMA "

NIKE "Tailwind" 1st generation AIR shoe that would go flat if punctured and make squishing sounds

ADIDAS "WEB", and a shoe that you could customize the degree of cushion with "cassettes" inserted in midsole of different durometers

I left a pair of Tailwinds in a hot car and the midsole shrank to half it's size. I returned them to "The Athletic Dept." (the orig. Nike store) in Beaverton but they would not take them back because "they had never seen this problem before.)!

I got a replacement pair from Nike Running.

The web was supposed to be like a "safety-net" cushion, endorsed by Bill Dellinger (several of the Oregon guys trained in those crappy shoes.)

At my running store, I saw a few melted shoes as you described. Usually happened when the shoes with the new PU midsoles were put in a car's back window shelf, often wet, and left there, exposed to direct sunlight and the heat of the day. Some looked pretty comical/ugly with the midsole shrunk considerably and the outersole unglued and flapping, and still original size! We sent a few back to Nike and got partial credit for customer.

I think the problem really started though w/ Nike when they started the "visible air" (bubble)look. No reason to see the air, imo, and invited creative types to puncture the bladder. We could often see the ink left by pens used to puncture bladder (usually by HS runners!) who brought them back to us for a new pair. Nike came out with a marketing plan that "guaranteed the shoes forever", from going flat. When customers got wind of this guarantee, some really abused it. I overheard one guy bragging that he hadn't bought a new pair of Nikes for several years; just kept returning the old ones for a new pair. (One trick was to put shoe(s) in a microwave to get the bladder to pop!)

Tiger Pintos

aloha warrior wrote:

The web was supposed to be like a "safety-net" cushion, endorsed by Bill Dellinger (several of the Oregon guys trained in those crappy shoes.)

The theory behind the Dellinger Web was not that it was a safety net but rather when pressure was applied at one point on top of the midsole the web would pull the other threads, thus compressing the midsole more uniformly to improve cushioning and improve shoe life. That from Dellinger's mouth itself.

Yup. My bad. It was the LD1000 with the wide flare. I guess another bad design was the early New Balance shoes that had the arch support that would disintegrate within a week of workouts.

mwwwin wrote:

These may have been mentioned: What were the Adidas with the removable rods in the mid-sole of the heel? You could change them out to supposedly get a firmer or softer feel?

adidas L.A. Trainer

Lydiard (Brutting) running shoes. Suede uppers didn't breath, the sole wore out in 100 miles and that heel collar chafed terribly.

adidas L.A Trainer

Ditto for me. I absolutely loved my Waffle Racers and I must have been the only person to own a good pair of Tailwinds. They did eventually go flat but that was well after 1,000 plus miles. The relief I felt from relentlessly pounding the pavement was a paradigm shift for cushioning.

Does anyone remember the Brooks Drakes(?). The heel wore out around 200 miles and then we would slather them with shoe goo. We'd always add a little more than necessary with the theory that they'd eventually wear down over time and save us from a reapplication. Must have been great for running mechanics.

I remember most of the shoes of the 70's had serious wear issues. I think it was the LDV that finally put "lugs" onto the heel to extend the wear life while everything around it fell apart. Couldn't goo an upper, ok, well I take that back, we would attempt to goo the upper to nasty effects.

I had a pair of these things. They were horrid. They were stiff, they slipped off every rock you might encounter along the side of the road, and did I mention they were stiff?