For clarification it was called the hyperfly then.
There are waaay too many names to keep track of
For clarification it was called the hyperfly then.
There are waaay too many names to keep track of
deisell wrote:
Thank you I had the same question pretty much. I have tried the Vaporfly original version and the flyknit, and personally liked the original much better. I have the next% brand new, but haven't had an occasion to wear them yet. The Tempo Next % I enjoy a lot for tempo runs. But yeah losing track of the alphafly, next% 2 etc.
Thanks Seb Coe, thanks for the strong leadership.
I tried the Next% in an outlet and found the same issue (no problems with the 4%). So very tempted by these -- it's also nice that the price has dropped!
I wish Nike would bring back the Turbo in some fashion. A Peg 38 Turbo would be great, even if it were 'just' the 38 with the ZoomX/React combination. Nike could release such a shoe with every release of the Pegasus for very little effort.
Instead they seem obsessed with recreating the HOKA Bondi (React Infinity, Miler, Invincible).
This! I love my 4% flyknit for 5k and 10k. I would love a zoom x streak for roadk mile and 5k.
JoggyHobber wrote:
Very confused wrote:
I knid of just want to get these beasts to see what they're like. The heel is SO RIDICULOUS! Walking on a cloud would be nice though, all of the squishy foam.
Does anyone use these for walking or do you think that they're really designed for the mechanics of running?
Yes, they're designed for running they feel ridiculously unstable when walking around or slowly jogging. Once you get running quick (sub 6 pace) in them they start to feel incredible
OK, thank you. I won't get them then. Was a bit of a silly idea but I just want to walk on superfoam. Maybe nike will bring out a walking version.
NikeSlow wrote:
PestFly wrote:
?
More interested in that zoom x version of the Streak.
Yes, the shoe that they no doubt could have easily come out with years ago. And yet didn't. Strange, at least to a consumer. But hey, at least there's the Peg Turbo. Oh, right........
I had a crazy thought that other day on a run about Nike's running shoes. There are no doubt a lot of money and marketing calculations that go into what a company does and doesn't do with respect to new and old products. "Games," a consumer might call them. Wouldn't it be cool if Nike, acknowledging that they were founded on running - and that none of their executives will fail to be able to buy their new Ferrari next year regardless of EXACTLY how they market their RUNNING shoes - actually made kinda-sorta "runner-centric" decisions on at least some of their "serious running shoes"?
That was a long and perhaps bad sentence. Maybe better with an example: "Hey the marketing guys and/or bean counters are telling us that we're not optimizing revenue (and/or whatever other metrics) by still having a Peg Turbo. But....we don't have a replacement. Crazy idea: Our serious runner customers love it and will continue to buy it (and it ain't cheap). Until we have a clear replacement, why don't we keep it around? Will this MASSIVE company still be OK if we do that with ONE of our products? Yes? OK, then let's FREAKIN' do that." (!!!!!!!!!)
Example 2: Name your favorite Nike running shoe that appeared to have a good following.
And yes, I know that this also applies to most/all other running shoe companies. But perhaps Nike is the worst about it? Not sure.
Anyway, STILL annoying that a Zoom X Streak is about a half-decade overdue !
Total agreed. I don't understand their marketing strategy.
Look at the Epic React - crazy cheap shoe (it's basically a block of foam) and they had built an entire range around it and then "poof!". It's gone and the react foam is now present in everything. Miler, Infinity and even the Pegasus.
The Turbo had such a neat marketing trick as well, pretending to be an upgrade of the Pegasus. Maybe that's what did it in. It was thought to be cannibalizing sales of the Pegasus.
Not Paulo wrote:
NikeSlow wrote:
Yes, the shoe that they no doubt could have easily come out with years ago. And yet didn't. Strange, at least to a consumer. But hey, at least there's the Peg Turbo. Oh, right........
I had a crazy thought that other day on a run about Nike's running shoes. There are no doubt a lot of money and marketing calculations that go into what a company does and doesn't do with respect to new and old products. "Games," a consumer might call them. Wouldn't it be cool if Nike, acknowledging that they were founded on running - and that none of their executives will fail to be able to buy their new Ferrari next year regardless of EXACTLY how they market their RUNNING shoes - actually made kinda-sorta "runner-centric" decisions on at least some of their "serious running shoes"?
That was a long and perhaps bad sentence. Maybe better with an example: "Hey the marketing guys and/or bean counters are telling us that we're not optimizing revenue (and/or whatever other metrics) by still having a Peg Turbo. But....we don't have a replacement. Crazy idea: Our serious runner customers love it and will continue to buy it (and it ain't cheap). Until we have a clear replacement, why don't we keep it around? Will this MASSIVE company still be OK if we do that with ONE of our products? Yes? OK, then let's FREAKIN' do that." (!!!!!!!!!)
Example 2: Name your favorite Nike running shoe that appeared to have a good following.
And yes, I know that this also applies to most/all other running shoe companies. But perhaps Nike is the worst about it? Not sure.
Anyway, STILL annoying that a Zoom X Streak is about a half-decade overdue !
Total agreed. I don't understand their marketing strategy.
Look at the Epic React - crazy cheap shoe (it's basically a block of foam) and they had built an entire range around it and then "poof!". It's gone and the react foam is now present in everything. Miler, Infinity and even the Pegasus.
The Turbo had such a neat marketing trick as well, pretending to be an upgrade of the Pegasus. Maybe that's what did it in. It was thought to be cannibalizing sales of the Pegasus.
Of course, I don't know. But two thoughts: I wouldn't think that a Peg Turbo, costing much more than a Pegasus, would be cannibalizing all that much business from the bazillions of non-runners and "less serious" runners wearing Pegs (and able to buy them pretty much everywhere, unlike the Turbo). Second, if that was the concern, they could have simply changed the name. You know, as alluded to above, like they do with the clown shoe every few months.
It is very interesting for a layman to ponder Nike's thinking about marketing things, and such. On the one hand, they stay "loyal" to a shoe name (Pegasus) for almost 40 freakin' years (and I'm not complaining about that), but they CONSTANTLY add silly and confusing prefixes and/or suffixes to the names of so many of their shoes (or get rid of them altogether).
And if a customer is willing to shell out $250+ for running shoe, would it be too much to ask to NOT also confuse them about which freakin' model they're buying ?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!