I have a pair of the Hyperion 4s from the trials giveaway. The shoes are bad and not pebax. We know that supershoes make 2+ minutes of a difference for elite men. I’d feel pretty bummed if I’d missed the team in those shoes…I hope they’re at least paid well.
You children might not know this, but people used to run pretty fast without all this here fancy carbon fibers and pebaxes. Back in my day, quite a few people ran faster than 2:08 without those newfangled materials. We used to run over one hundred miles a week on roads with shoes that weren't even as cushy as your track spikes! People didn't get as many stress fractures back then either. Maybe because we drank milk and ate vegetables? I don't know.
Now go put your $275 super shoes on and do your triple thresholds or whatever y'all call running fast these days.
I have a pair of the Hyperion 4s from the trials giveaway. The shoes are bad and not pebax. We know that supershoes make 2+ minutes of a difference for elite men. I’d feel pretty bummed if I’d missed the team in those shoes…I hope they’re at least paid well.
Scott Fauble has run nowhere near what he ran in Hoka 's which he deemed not super enough in Nike's.
Washed. He is done.
He talks himself up before the race and then underperforms with a BS excuse. If he was super fit in Berlin but just had a stomach issue that caused him to drop out mid race, why not find another race a couple weeks later to show that fitness?
Because he is washed.
He only ran 10 miles this weekend and only 3 miles under 5 minute pace. That is not even a good workout for someone who claims that he was ready for a 2:08 marathon.
So with very little fatigue on his legs and such great current fitness, where is he going to race in the next couple weeks?
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
No there isn't. PEBA (X is Nike branding) is not the be all end all foam. It's a very high performing foam that consumers seem to like because of its soft yet bouncy properties. There are other bouncy foams and not everyone prefers super soft racing shoes. Shoe companies adopting PEBA are doing so because of market trends and not performance.
The material with the most energy return ever created is a metallic glass. Obviously a hard heavy metal plate wouldn't be great for a running shoe midsole, but thats not the point. The point is having a material that transfers some energy back, but is also cushioned enough for each individual. Individually, preference and familiarization matter most, not softness or bounciness.
Anonymous posters (shilling for Nike) don't really have the depth of knowledge to begin a logical discussion.
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
No there isn't. PEBA (X is Nike branding) is not the be all end all foam. It's a very high performing foam that consumers seem to like because of its soft yet bouncy properties. There are other bouncy foams and not everyone prefers super soft racing shoes. Shoe companies adopting PEBA are doing so because of market trends and not performance.
The material with the most energy return ever created is a metallic glass. Obviously a hard heavy metal plate wouldn't be great for a running shoe midsole, but thats not the point. The point is having a material that transfers some energy back, but is also cushioned enough for each individual. Individually, preference and familiarization matter most, not softness or bounciness.
Anonymous posters (shilling for Nike) don't really have the depth of knowledge to begin a logical discussion.
I'm not a Nike shill. The Asics Metaspeed are good, the new Adidas shoe is just as good.
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
No there isn't. PEBA (X is Nike branding) is not the be all end all foam. It's a very high performing foam that consumers seem to like because of its soft yet bouncy properties. There are other bouncy foams and not everyone prefers super soft racing shoes. Shoe companies adopting PEBA are doing so because of market trends and not performance.
The material with the most energy return ever created is a metallic glass. Obviously a hard heavy metal plate wouldn't be great for a running shoe midsole, but thats not the point. The point is having a material that transfers some energy back, but is also cushioned enough for each individual. Individually, preference and familiarization matter most, not softness or bounciness.
Anonymous posters (shilling for Nike) don't really have the depth of knowledge to begin a logical discussion.
I don't disagree with your broader point that there are other non-PEBA foams that can be "super," but you get a lot wrong. First, PEBAX is not Nike branding. ZoomX is Nike branding. PEBAX is a trade name of Arkema, the huge chemicals company. Second, PEBA foams can be firmer or softer depending on formulation. And the firmness of the shoe will also tie into the carbon plate, etc, not just the foam. Third, are there other high-performing foams? Of course, but a lot of what have been labeled "super" haven't been so it's fair to be skeptical while PEBA foams are proven performers at this point. That said, to say companies are turning to PEBA foams driven by market trends and not performance strikes me as absurd. The average supershoe buyer doesn't have a clue what is PEBA vs another foam (again, almost every company puts their own name on the midsole foams). The real point is the Brooks has had cr-p foams and their supershoes have not been "super." Maybe that has changed with the most recent Hyperion Elite 4 but I haven't seen any testing on it and Brooks' track record in this space is subpar.
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
Pebax is horrible from a sustainability standpoint...
The material with the most energy return ever created is a metallic glass. Obviously a hard heavy metal plate wouldn't be great for a running shoe midsole, but thats not the point. The point is having a material that transfers some energy back, but is also cushioned enough for each individual. Individually, preference and familiarization matter most, not softness or bounciness.
Just requoting this in case anyone else reading the thread is under the illusion that this poster has even a rudimentary understanding of shoes... or basic physics...
FWIW, there are a few key features to consider in a midsole foam. Weight is the most obvious - metallic glass, needless to say, doesn't score well on that, while PEBA scores very well. "Softness and bounciness" also matter. Metallic glass may have high energy return, but no runner is heavy enough or strikes the ground hard enough to meaningfully deform it. That means it can only store a tiny amount of energy, so it's irrelevant how much you get back. The midsole has to be soft enough to get squished and then spring back.
Are there other foams that can be as good as PEBA? It's possible that some versions of TPU might be, though we don't have head-to-head comparisons of all the different variations. Even PEBA isn't as good as PEBA, if you don't have the right formulation and right properties. Ultimately, the test is how the shoe performs, because the truth is that even shoe companies don't have a full grasp of how or why all the parts of the supershoe work together.
I have a pair of the Hyperion 4s from the trials giveaway. The shoes are bad and not pebax. We know that supershoes make 2+ minutes of a difference for elite men. I’d feel pretty bummed if I’d missed the team in those shoes…I hope they’re at least paid well.
I have a pair of the Hyperion 4s from the trials giveaway. The shoes are bad and not pebax. We know that supershoes make 2+ minutes of a difference for elite men. I’d feel pretty bummed if I’d missed the team in those shoes…I hope they’re at least paid well.
Wait until you hear about the Puma shoes that made 2 Olympians in the women’s…
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
Brooks is claiming that in their labs, the nitro EVA they're using performed better than pebax, but I can tell you that's 100% a lie. They're just telling that to their reps for marketing purposes.