22 Jul 24

The Sneaker Tech that Struggled to Find its Footing

ARTICLE BY

In the relentless pursuit for excellence, the sneaker industry has provided us with plenty of whiz-bang moments to ignite our footwear fever dreams. But for every circuit-breaking success story, there’s also numerous instances of ambition gone awry. In this series, we explore the futuristic footwear that, for one reason or another, failed to fire. Whether it was the perplexing tech, precipitous price tag or eye-gouging aesthetics, join us as we unbox the many flops and missteps that litter the path of progress.

Nike Joyride (2019)

Now this was one short-lived Joyride that ended in a plume of smoke. Arriving in 2019, the Nike Joyride was billed as breakthrough cushioning technology. The core system revolved around a series of pods filled with thousands of tiny, candy-coloured beads made of thermoplastic elastomer (TPE). The beads were designed to shift and adapt to the wearer’s foot, ideally creating a custom cushioning experience that purportedly offered superior shock absorption and energy return.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, several speed bumps impacted the Joyride early on. Firstly, there were widespread reports of comfort and fit issues, with beads reportedly nestling unevenly, leading to discomfort. Beads were also prone to clumping and migrating within the pods, compromising the cushioning effects and causing durability concerns. There was also the potentially nightmarish eco fallout as the Joyride banked curbside, spilling its Willy Wonka entrails into waterways. After the initial sales surge driven by curiosity, the Joyride quickly ran out of gas, and retailers were left dumping excess stock in the clearance section. Always wear a seatbelt, kids.

adidas Micropacer (1984)

A brave moon shot by adidas in 1984, the Micropacer was an ambitious affair. Released in time for the Los Angeles Olympic Games, the model attempted to bridge nascent 1980s computer tech with performance running. Equipped with a digital microcomputer embedded in the tongue to track performance metrics (like distance, pace and calories burned), the model was conceptually solid.

But, as is often the case with new innovation, missteps and malfunction soon followed. Several critical issues prevented the Micropacer from achieving mainstream commercial success. First, and most obviously, the model was hefty and rigid. Flexibility became a central issue, especially for those wearing them for extended periods. Then came the inevitable hardware issues. Inaccurate tracking, short battery life, and tiny, hard-to-read LCD screens frustrated early adopters, not to mention the complexity. Finally, the Micropacer hit the hip pocket. Hard. The newfangled tech and accompanying price tag alienated much of the market, leaving the Micropacer to carve out a diminutive niche of eager futurists and pavement pounders.

While not achieving the financial success adidas hoped for, the Micropacer was lightyears ahead of its time and laid fertile groundwork for wearable tech in the industry.

adidas Springblade (2013)

Sneakerheads were catapulted from their seats when the adidas Springblade first arrived. Equipped with 16 futuristic polymer blades designed to compress and release energy with every step, the Springblade certainly had a visual impact, resembling the fins of a high-performance vehicle. The material used for the blades was a high-tech polymer known for durability, and adidas claimed that the technology could offer six per cent more energy return compared to traditional EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) midsoles used in most running shoes at the time.

But early reviews of the shoe lamented the prohibitive weight (nearly 370 grams or 13 oz) and the dubious forefoot stability. The shoe’s main selling point also became its Achilles’ heel. The blade structure, while proficient when running in straight lines, lacked stability during lateral movements. There were even reports that the blades were prone to breaking.

Now let’s also not forget the most egregious issue: the Springblade looked like a set of plastic spatulas glued to a shoe sole. Perhaps suitable for grating the cheeks of your sworn enemies, the adidas Springblade was certainly not the performance tour de force it was touted to be.

Converse Helium (1999)

Nike had Air, so why couldn’t Converse claim Helium? After all, helium is lighter than air…

Launched in the late 1990s, the Converse Helium utilised the buoyant gas to fill chambers that would provide shock absorption and a lightweight feel. Seeking to compete in the increasingly competitive performance footwear market at the turn of the millennium, Converse leveraged several high-profile hoopers, including Latrell Sprewell and Chris Webber. They even manufactured a pair of Helium signature skate shoes for Chany Jeanguenin.

Print advertisements, promotional events and TV commercials all sung the Helium’s praises. Still, the novel tech struggled to find market traction. Designed to go head-to-head with Nike’s all-conquering Air cushioning and Reebok’s Hexalite system, the Helium was hamstrung by durability concerns, inconsistent performance, and a steep price point. No amount of star power or money thrown at the product could make it stick, and the Helium came crashing down to Earth. The ill-fated technology marked a traumatic period for the label. In 2001, Converse filed for bankruptcy, but it was eventually resuscitated by Nike in 2003. As they say, if you can’t beat them…

Reebok ZigTech (2010)

ZigTech was no doubt one of the more historic brain fades from the ‘Bok. Arriving in 2010, the kinetic, zig-zagged shaped soles promised a suite of lofty promises, including a reduction on leg muscle strain by a shocking 20 per cent. Reebok were aggressive in their marketing campaign, lining the pockets of Peyton Manning and John Wall to throw touchdown alley-oops – all thanks to the magical power of ZigTech!