props asics

very cool construction story - take a look in your local footlocker…not seen it anywhere else yet.

would the parting line on the toe bother anyone? you could move // add another slider to lateral and medial, but then you are adding $$$…

not sure of functional benefits, but is a very nice visual.

im used to seeing the parting line on the toe, all the direct injection PU shoes we do, as well as ecco and most anyone else have the molds set up that way (cannot be changed im assuming?), so wouldnt bother me much i guess.

functionality wise that midsole is probably not ever gonna separate from the upper, and the site says its coming in at 8.7 oz, which is pretty light considering thats not exactly a road flat, i imagine it saves an ounce or 2 from the CM EVA.

ive been waiting for the athletic guys to move on this construction, ecco has done some really dope stuff with it. Quite an expensive process as you can see with the $150 retail.

i was not aware of anyone doing the direct injection with EVA though, YO or R any of you guys have more info on this? I was able to see the more ‘traditional’ injection EVA process when i was in china, and it seems like to do it with direct injection PU style molds (molding it on the last) would help to control the expansion even better.

i might look to use this production process for spring 2011!! :smiley: just need to find the factory willing to buy the machines :frowning:

like dziner82, the parting line does not bother me. with this process the visual you can get from what would normally be undercuts far out weighs the parting lines on the heel and toe. Puma has been doing a running shoe built like this for a while.

On these the sole is still cemented to the upper. The Ecco Biom is direct inject but it uses a PU midsole.

I saw the direct inject process in person, the other week, and it is impressive.

I believe that puma is not the same as the asics construction wise, it is injection EVA but its not bonded to the upper, its stithed on in a seperate process (i believe), whereas the asics i believe has to be done the same as as the DI PU, but using EVA, which is what i haven’t seen before.

Here is a ecco womens shoe that we have here that is a more interesting application of the outsole using the DI PU.

Im assuming the EVA would just be lighter… probably better cushioning, making it better for athletic than PU which is probably better longevity for everyday wear. (??).

The asics appears to be cemented rather than being molded directly to the upper. There is no bite line on the synthetic and i dont think you can direct inject that cleanly onto that open of a mesh.

you are right… boooo!
i never even noticed that it was stitched all the way around :confused:

so ok i wonder if they are still molding it to a last shape to be getting those toe and heel seams? and thats whats making it different from traditional injection, expanded EVA?

There is one huge difference between the Asics and all of the other similarly constructed shoes posted:

the Asics shoe is really good looking. :laughing:

This is not my definition of good looking:
Screen shot 2010-08-13 at 3.21.12 PM.png
I understand the novelty of the construction, but what is the benefit to the wearer? More expensive? Heavier? Less flexible?

I bought a pair of the Puma shoes for the office a couple of years back and we all thought they were really cool. Light, simple, less glues. Pretty nice.

I find it quite nice.
Not necessarily the first thing I’d try on for the money, but the other shoes posted are more fashion than sport.
This new Asics looks like a running shoe, not a compromise.
The dimpled texture on the soleplate matches the upper mesh, nice touch.

On a related note, I counted 45 hooks on the shoe wall at Dick’s were hanging Crocs, about 5 or 6 styles.
Thats a hell of a lot of real estate for the category, about as much as running, cleated, or hiking.