On Spray-On shoes

I love this.
As a runner and running shoe designer, this is exciting.

https://www.on.com/en-us/lightspray

Here’s why-

  1. “Innovation” is all often a buzz word. This is not only actually new and novel, but is real innovation that solves a problem (material production, weight, etc.), not just different for the sake of being different.

  2. This is performance driven. The videos for this talk about a focus on winning and real world in-race testing and benchmarking. This is what running is all about and helps On overcome past criticism about useless cloudtech or too much emphasis in lifestyle. This reinforces the brand as a real leader in running.

  3. This is athlete specific. This isn’t for the everyday casual runner. But for a high performance athlete fit and weight are critical and this innovation could help. I’m curious how this feels on the feet without adjustment but I’ve been a big fan of sock fit footwear for forever. 170g is also quite svelte.

  4. This is a great story. There’s a video online about a student who created this tech before it was discovered and “developed” by On’s innovation team. It’s great to see the real inventor get credit among the team of people involved. On could have easily claimed to invent it and just paid the guy lots of money to be never heard from again.

  5. The sustainability factor here seems genuine. All too often there’s an icky greenwashing layer of marketing applied to performance innovations like this, but the reduction of materials, processes and recyclability feels real to me. This won’t be making millions of pairs and make a huge difference to total footwear production but I appreciate it’s not all BS.

Great job On. This might be the first On product I’m excited to try!

2 Likes

It’s not mentioned anywhere, but I also find it very interesting that there’s a lot of parallels to the production process and story of the George Nelson Bubble Lamp by Herman Miller.

"Nelson was inspired by a set of silk-covered Swedish hanging lamps that he wanted to acquire for his office, but he found the price to be prohibitive. An ingenious and resourceful designer, he went on to create the first set of Nelson Bubble Lamps using a translucent white plastic spray, a technique developed by the U.S. military at the time.

A seemingly unrelated reference soon led to an intuitive idea. He recalled, “It was a picture in the New York Times some weeks before which showed Liberty ships being mothballed by having the decks covered with netting and then being sprayed with a self webbing plastic.” Nelson located the manufacturer of this resinous plastic and used it in the making of the bubble lamps."

IMG_2147

Got a link to the student’s tech?

First thing that came to my mind was the Coperni spray dress from 2023:

Obviously On’s application requires much more durability. It would be interesting to hear more detailed information on the technical characteristics of the material.

2 Likes

Awesome idea; no notes. Great work On.

We developed a cycling shoe a few years ago that weighed in at a comparatively hefty 125g, and picking it up the first time your brain just couldn’t comprehend that object being that light. But a 30g upper which makes for what, a ~50g shoe?! Amazing.

You made a 125g cycling shoe? Really? Wow. I just googled lightest shoe and saw a Shimano EXOS at 150g.

I think I saw that this On shoe is 170g. Which is crazy light for a running shoe.

The benchmark for a lightweight racing shoe is 200g. There’s not many commercial ones lighter.

The super light $500 Adidas EVO Pro 1 is 138g. I’ve seen some crazy advanced brands from China with shoes as light as 87g.

Word. Our production model ended up coming in at 150g after we added some extra carbon fiber reinforcement to the plate for durability, but our final prototypes and pro team rider shoes clocked in at 125g.

1 Like

So are these for sale? How much?

They are. Limited drop now. Larger release in fall I think.

330 EUR.

Are these shoes reusable? If you are one and done (or anything under 100), there is nothing sustainable about it. Sure, it uses less footprint than other disposable shoes that seem to be all the rage, but none of it is sustainable, it is the worst of consumption.

Also, their green “calculation” have noting in it about the capital equipment, that is a glaring omission.

And finally, 3 minutes is a long cycle time. Wouldn’t be more efficient to mold a rubber top with a cycle time of seconds and bond it, again with a cycle time of seconds?

Seems entirely like a gimmick. As we say in the fishing world, new lures are intended to hook the person fishing, not the fish.

1 Like

How you gonna get them off, NERD?

Sorry, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about, iab.

The shoes probably last 2-300km. They haven’t said but from what I’ve heard the upper is quite resilient and the midsole is usually the failure point.

Every shoe is disposable, it just depends after how long.

This is obviously a top performance shoe, sustainability isn’t the driver, though I think the idea is to eventually use this process in more mainstream products.

3 min cycle time to complete an upper, 6 min for a shoe assembly isn’t long. A shoe upper made of stitched or heat welded material may have a production time of hours. The lasting process and assembly of typical footwear is slow. A typical production line can make ~1200 pairs a day with lots of labor. And lots of different machines. And lots of materials produced in huge runs coming from a lot of different places. A running shoe may have 50 parts in it. This has 3…

Molding a rubber upper? Why would you want a rubber shoe? How breathable is that? How lightweight?

Again, this is performance driven. Every 100g of weight can add 1% of time in a marathon. That’s a lot. It needs to fit well, be breathable, light, have good bonding.

This tech does have precedent and potential technical issues. I haven’t had it on foot or in hand. But to me, the fact that they even commercialized this to not only win Boston with a pair but have it sold to the public is pretty impressive!

2 Likes

The material being sprayed on the upper is essentially a rubber, correct? 4-way stretch to put it on? If you are upset about the word rubber, I can use marketing gibberish too. Why not bond a molded breathable lightweight elastomer? The spray-on seems like a gimmick. And please stop with the apples to oranges comparison to cut & sew. Again, why not mold and bond instead of a 3-minute spray-on?

When you write “sustainability isn’t the driver”, I think you really proved my point on the green washing bit. Thank you.

And while I never brought it up and since you did, let’s talk performance. Unless you are putting food on the table for your family by performance, it is an entirely imaginary construct. You getting a PR to write in your performance spreadsheet is at best Stuart Smalley, and at worst a sad commentary about society.

So am I getting excited about another green-washing 1%er trophy product? Not in the least.

Thanks for proving my point. It’s pretty clear you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about how shoes are made.

Rubber is not the same as TPU. I’d think a first year ID student knows this.

The spray on material is sprayed to create filaments that can be adjusted in “weave” and profile so some parts are more stretchy and some less. Some thicker, some less so to have reinforcement where needed. You can’t mold that.

A solid molded material is heavy. A solid molded material isn’t breathable.

You want to make a mold for every 1/2 size left and right foot? That’s a lot of molds. Change the design. New molds. Doesn’t sound very efficient vs. one machine.

Molded how? Molded like a Crocs? Like a sheet of material?

Or maybe you mean a woven material that is cut then “molded” around a foot shape… Oh wait, that’s cut and sew and how shoes have been made for a long time. Like I said. This isn’t that and is better in so many ways.

How is it magically bonded? Like glued on. You can’t just glue an upper on the side of midsole, you need the bond of the bottom of the strobel board to adhere under the foot to hold it on. There’s too much lateral forces between differing materials.

The spray TPU bonds to the aTPU midsole.

This was designed for elite athletes that are winning to make a living. It will trickle down for weekend warriors but innovation usually happens at the peak of performance. Isn’t that the point of advancing innovation, or should we all be wearing leather shoes and churning our own butter?

You don’t have to be excited, but it’s a lot more exciting if you understand what you are talking about.

I’m glad though you wrote what you wrote.

I can use your comment as a great example of showing how professional knowledge is needed for innovation and good design and how to a lay person the impossible is easy.

1 Like

Ahem…

New technology is cool, new ideas are cool. Even as a non-runner, ideas like this open doors.

Nice to see the positive energy of people expanding of the envelopes of manufacturing techniques.

Thanks for sharing this bit of inspiration.

Your complete lack of imagination is staggering. Hard to believe you are in NPD.

The process they are using is essentially a spun bound directly applied to a form. What exactly is stopping anyone from using that process in making a 60" wide web? If you haven’t figured it out yet, nothing. Run the roll through a thermo or pressure former, with a 12-up form (or larger) and mold the uppers. Ultrasound bond to the lower. Cycle time is seconds, not minutes.

And really, mincing the terms rubber and elastomer? Get over yourself.

I’m just going to leave your comment up for a few days to see if you realize how stupid it is.

Then I will reply.

1 Like

To iab and rkuchinsky – I think we all (well, at least me) love to see the animus and incessant quest to prove each of you is smarter and more knowledgeable than the other.

My head is about to explode.

1 Like

@Dan_Lewis Knowledge is based on experience and specificity in understanding. I’d like to think 23 years in footwear brings that.

@iab your understanding of the technology is akin to someone looking at EV cars and saying-

“Electric? That’s stupid. Why don’t you just get a couple of horses and attach a wagon with a few wheels…”

Not only have you suggested a process that’s existing/worse, but your confidence in thinking you know better than On and footwear innovation teams is delightful. :slight_smile:

You suggest:

Material is die cut, then formed on a last, then attached to a midsole?

Not only do you then have non-continuous fibers, but this means you have a seam at the heel (or elsewhere), and have to transform a flat panel into a complex 3D shape. Materials don’t do that so well taking into account not only the static 3D shape of the last/foot, but also how the shape changes when the foot flexes.

You need cutting dies or lasers cut to parts for each half size.

You waste a ton of materials in between the parts that are cut out as you can only gang them up so efficiently.

You need lasts or forms to mold 3D parts for each half size. Times two (one for R and one for L).

You need additional molds or forms to hold everything together when you attach them. Times two (one for R and one for L).

BTW - Ultrasonic welding won’t work.

Every time you change patterns/sizes/design you need a whole new set of molds/machines and you need the space to not only fit all these machines but now space to layout a large 60" roll of material while making it, moving it to the next step, etc.

How this multi-step process is somehow faster/easier than a single step of spraying on a last escapes me.

I’ve passed your comment to innovation people at On and adidas (they also have a patent for a similar process). We all had a good laugh! Thanks, David.

2 Likes

I personally love the reduction of the dynamic to “both sides”.