View Single Post
Old 02-23-2013, 05:20 PM   #85
BreakPoint's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 43,002

Originally Posted by mxmx View Post
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 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.
OK, you are obviously not an engineer. Durability has to do with the density and thickness of the materials used. Denser and thicker materials weigh more than more porous and thinner materials do.

And no, Nike does not have a monopoly on tennis shoes. Heck, TW alone sells 15 different brands of tennis shoes. Nobody needs to buy Nike tennis shoes. If Nike were a monopoly, the ONLY choice in tennis shoes would be Nike.
"You CANNOT be serious!!"
BreakPoint is offline   Reply With Quote