View Single Post
Old 12-11-2012, 10:16 PM   #80
mxmx
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BreakPoint View Post
Durability requires denser and thicker rubber compounds which are naturally heavier. It also requires thicker and better reinforced materials for uppers which are also heavier. Thus, you can't make a shoe that has maximum durability while having minimum weight at the same time. That would be like making a sports car with a 6.0 liter V-12 engine that has 600HP but still gets better gas mileage than a Prius. You can't have both.
Of course you can. Aluminium and Carbon Fibre is stronger, yet lighter? What I'm speaking of are not large changes, and also not extreme users with odd wear and tear places like the OP.

For example:
The B7's has taken off some of the unneeded protection off the top of the shoe...parts where no protection is needed - a lighter shoe as a result. Still just as durable it seems than the B6.
But nothing prevented them from extending the toe part on the barracade TEAM shoes 5mm higher. It would not have made a weight difference and it would have increased durability A LOT. But if they did this, no one would buy the more expensive barracades.

What I'm speaking of, is that it is easier to sell more shoes if they wear out quicker. Nike's reputation is just good enough for them to get away with it.
Does the CB 4.3 sole have more durability than the B7's? I doubt it...people should ask themselves why.
I have seen the same occur with New Balance.
At my club, they had the best reputation at one time. Very good durability and good value. They probably lasted too long...because the series that followed, was one of the worst shoes I've ever seen. At least three members switched to either nike or adidas since then.

Point is: There are strategic elements in place to fool buyers. Because there is nothing better around, I am forced as well to fall for their tricks. They have a monopoly, and can do as they please.
mxmx is offline   Reply With Quote