Shoe designs have been straying away from simple for quite a while now, so I was pleasantly surprised when I found the Nike Free 5.0 V4 on Zappos. Ignore the name of the shoe for a moment (5.0 V4 ??).
Here’s the outside profile shot:
Not much fuss, nice and straightforward. I had a Nike Free shoe before and I really liked it. Ready to buy. Then I switch to the inside profile shot:
Dammit. Same colors and materials, but the design language feels different. 25 dot cutouts, saddle-shoe like styling, capped toe, wedged-in Nike logo. I recognize some of this design is functional, but it still hit me as a two-face shoe design. One side’s great, the other not so much.
Thought I had one.
Diego Scataglini
on 23 Mar 10Jason, I looked at the other views of those shoes. They are hideous. Look at view #2 and #7.
If you look at them from the sides, yes, you’re correct it looks like a two-face shoe. Viewed from the front the problem is much worse.
Anybody wearing them will look like they’re pigeon toed. I dare anybody that is already pigeon toed to wear them and to not look slightly mentally challenged.
Even the laces look like they’re way off to the side. It’s just a horribly designed shoe.
Macattack
on 23 Mar 10These are indeed great shoes.
1 They are similar to The OSU Buckeye colors. 2 Nike free are very comfortable 3 I think you may have a context issue here. Was the inside of this shoe designed to be photographed and zoomed? It’s reductionist to determine the aesthetic value of it from only these points of view. If you care how they look to you, wouldn’t a side profile with socks or pant edge or a bird’s eye view be a determining factor?I’m just sayin’
GO BUCKS!
Mike
on 23 Mar 10Ode to the bowling shoe?
Jon Buda
on 23 Mar 10You should still try out a pair. Most comfortable shoes I’ve ever worn.
Cameron Smith
on 23 Mar 10Gah I find the same thing when looking for shoes, most of them are way over-designed.
That’s why I love Macbeth.
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&resnum=0&q=macbeth%20shoes&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Paul Simpson
on 23 Mar 10Jason – I agree the naming convention is confusing. The reason for the multiple numbers is not readily apparent and is not anything I’ve ever read anywhere, but having spoken to sales staff at a bonafide running store, the 5.0 is for the level of cushioning in the shoe. The v4.0 is actually the version number. You can have a v4.0 with less cushioning (providing more of a bare-foot feeling), which would have a lower number – I think 3.0 etc.
They ought to do a better job explaining this to the average consumer though.
Cheers, Paul
Adam
on 23 Mar 10I did exactly the same thing. Try Pumas or Onitsukas. Nike also does an old school line.
FredS
on 23 Mar 10New Balance 993. Classic.
Also, die in a fire, Buckeye fan. Go Blue!
Narain
on 23 Mar 10Hi Jason,
I’ve got these in the Dark Grey on Black color combo that sort of suppresses their schizophrenic nature.
Aesthetics aside (they DO look good from certain angles) they’re great shoes: super-comfortable (the Free, segmented sole, performs as advertised) and the mesh upper means they’re breathable so air circulates nicely inside.
In fact, thanks for highlighting that they’re still available on Zappos as I’ve been considering picking up another pair.
Narain.
Q
on 23 Mar 10Saucony Jazz Original
I’ve been wearing that style of shoe (in various color combos) for maybe 9 or 10 years now? They’re the most comfortable sneakers I’ve ever owned, and relatively cheap at $40 or so.
Josh
on 23 Mar 10My favorite running shoes, though I have the same opinion of the goofy inner styling. Saving grace: get the black ones with the red swoosh, and all that gray is black on black and makes more sense.
Unfortunately my son bought those ones first, so I ended up with the saddleshoes. Sigh.
Rogier
on 23 Mar 10Don’t buy running shoes based on how they look. Buy running shoes you feel comfortable running in.
Things like pronation and supination should be taken into account.
Unless off course you plan to use them as your everyday regular shoes ;)
Kevin
on 23 Mar 10Who cares…
Morley
on 23 Mar 10The past five years, I’ve been buying Gola casual shoes in different colors because I love the design and don’t want to deal with another shoe company’s sizing.
ShoeGuru, previously featured on this site, carries primarily Golas.
The shoes don’t have great arch support, and they shouldn’t be compared to sneaker if that’s what you’re looking for, but they’re damn good-looking shoes, and few people have them the way everyone has Chuck Taylors.
Jason Long
on 23 Mar 10I’m with you on the horrendous design of running shoe design, but the 5.0 Free is still a great running shoe if you use it for what it was meant for – that is strengthening your feet on shorter to medium distance runs. They have a 3.0 that’s even more minimal (ie. barefoot-ish) and a 7.0 that’s closer to a traditional running shoe.
Geoff
on 23 Mar 10Try this for a truly simple everyday shoe. Or try these for barefoot running.
royler
on 23 Mar 10puma has better designers anyway, and the craziest of those designers made tsubo.
Roy Waterhouse
on 23 Mar 10You should try the online design your own shoe from Nike or Converse. My daughter just designed her own shoe and it was clean.
Macattack
on 23 Mar 10@FredS Gladly as long as the blaze is Ann Arbor!
@Mike
on 23 Mar 10My bowling shoes look way better than this pair of Nikes.
Ricardo
on 23 Mar 10@Jason, Are you serious… these are just shoes! if you like how they feel and look when they are on, just buy them. Most of the comments here and your own overview of these shows are nothing but simple ;-)
Just my own opinion.
David Hall
on 23 Mar 10You couldn’t have chosen a pair of shoes more designed for running and less designed for any other use, hence the naming.
The Free series is supposed to be between barefoot and your regular running shoe, designed to attract people who want to get into the barefoot running movement without getting Vibram Five Fingers.
The shoes are ranked from 0 (barefoot) to 10 (regular cushioned running shoe). So, Free 5.0 is halfway between. They also have Free 3.0 and Free 7.0 to fill in the other spots.
Of course, the extra decimal is way too specific, but for runners looking to move down the barefoot path, it’s semi-informative what type of shoe they are getting.
The customer base for this shoe cares about a lot of others things more than how the shoe looks.
Ben
on 24 Mar 10All of the extra crap on that shoe isn’t adding anything, to be sure. But it isn’t hurting anything. If the shoe is comfortable and serves your purposes, then who cares?
I understand the value of simplicity in design, and I do believe good design is a path to greater efficiency, productivity, etc.
But what’s not terribly efficient or productive or intelligent is not buying a shoe that is perfect save 25 pointless dots the manufacturer decided to add to the design. I feel like if you got real, you’d probably just buy a shoe based upon the fit and feel of it rather than the look.
(and while there are certainly times when the look of a shoe is more important than it’s comfort – i.e. high heels – but I don’t think tennis shoes would fit in that category)
Also, go Bucks!
peter
on 24 Mar 10check out the vivo barefoot evo.
haven’t received my pair yet.. but I’m currently running in the normal vivo barefoot shoes, with great success..
Josiah Kiehl
on 24 Mar 10I agree with Peter: if you’re focusing on comfort, the Evos are a great option. They’re a bit flashier than the Nikes, but I like the aesthetic more myself:
http://www.terraplana.com/the-evo
matt
on 25 Mar 10ugly yes, great running shoe: YES!
i have had my lime green free’s for about a year, and ran several marathons in them. Hands down the best shoe i have ever worn.
Function over design is okay for this one. Actually in person they look better on your feet. I think the harsh profile shots dont work for many products. Gap jeans do it well, with a video of each jean to show fit and shape, rather than a flat pic.
Ernest Kim
on 25 Mar 10Jason brought this thread to my attention and I thought it might be worth chiming in.
First, some background. I was one of the original 37s-ers back in the day, but have since moved into an eNormicom phase by joining Nike, where I’m a product manager on the running footwear team.
I didn’t work on the version of Nike Free being discussed here, but I did manage the creation of its soon-to-be-released successor, so I feel I can comment at least somewhat competently on the 5.0 v4.
With regard to the design, I’ve had the good fortune to work with some incredibly talented designers in my time here. They’ve all been quite different, but the thing they all share is a passion for problem solving. I think there is a place in this world for decorators, but when you’re designing products that must be manufacturable and functional on a mass scale, you have to be a problem solver, and that’s the approach that was taken by the designer of the Nike Free 5.0 v4.
The “problem” in the case of Nike Free is particularly challenging, in that the goal of the shoe is to provide an experience that delivers the benefits of both unshod and shod running, namely minimal weight, extreme flexibility, and an almost-not-there fit-and-feel, balanced with the protection of a shoe (both around and under-foot) and good multi-surface traction.
In this case we created a new upper on an existing midsole platform, so I won’t go into any of the under-foot details. As far as the upper goes, the thinking was pretty simple: Create a shoe that feels like a sock, but delivers just enough support to be runnable (though many, like matt above, have run marathons in Nike Free, it’s really meant as a training/foot strengthening tool rather than a daily distance trainer, so the level of support built into the shoes is lower than that which we deliver in our more traditional, distance running models). So overlays were placed only where absolutely necessary to keep your foot on the footbed and stitching was kept to an absolute minimum to make the interior of the shoe extraordinarily comfortable.
The reason the arch side of the shoe features more of the overlay material is that that’s where most runners need at least some added support. I should note that the overlay material, while strong, is much softer and more supple than the plastic-y overlays you see on most running shoes. And the perforations in that arch panel keep it from becoming too static, while also allowing for breathability. The circular shape of the perfs echoes the circular eyelet punches directly above, a trait that might be more obvious when viewing the shoe in person. As for the cap at the toe, that provides some protection for the big toe while also enhancing durability (you’d wear a hole through the mesh above your big toe pretty quickly if that cap weren’t there).
So everything there is there for a purpose. To some eyes, those features may make the shoe less aesthetically pleasing, but they make it a better product, which is our ultimate concern. Which brings to mind a Web design analogy—judging this shoe based on a handful of retailer photos is rather like judging a Web site based on screen shots printed in a magazine; that is to say, you lose a lot in translation. I’m not at liberty to provide sales figures, but I can say that the Nike Free 5.0 v4 has been an enormous success in all of our major markets, so it seems that people who’ve had an opportunity to experience the shoe are finding value in it. It’s also worth noting that it’s available in a wide range of colors, so you’re not limited to just this one look.
With regard to the naming, I definitely agree that it’s confusing. There are a few markets in which we’ve been able to get across the whole Nike Free 3.0/5.0/7.0 spectrum concept, but, on the whole, people find the numbering confusing, particularly when it’s paired with a version number. So, for our next Nike Free model (due out in just a few weeks), we’ve moved to a new, I believe simpler name: Nike Free Run+.
This tells you that it’s a Nike Free model and that it’s intended for running (important because we also offer versions of Nike Free for cross-training). We’ll continue to offer the Nike Free 3.0 and Nike Free 7.0 in select channels, but the Nike Free Run+ will be our primary, running-focused Nike Free offering. And the next version will simply be called the Nike Free Run+ 2, so you won’t have to deal with multiple numbers in the model name. The “+” indicates that the shoe is compatible with our Nike+ platform (as this post is already too long, I won’t go into detail on what that is here).
Take this with a grain of salt as, having lived with the shoe for nearly a year-and-a-half, I’m far from objective, but I’ve been running in and just generally wearing the Nike Free Run+ for a few weeks now and absolutely love it. We updated both the midsole and the upper and our design and development teams both did just a stellar job bringing to life a very challenging design. I know that’s the sort of thing you’d expect a person who worked on the product to say, but, of the shoes I’ve had the opportunity to work on, it’s my favorite to date.
Hope this helps provide some added context.
JF
on 25 Mar 10Thanks for posting Ernest.
I battled with this post. I kinda wish I hadn’t posted it. It’s unfair of me to judge a design purely on aesthetics and pictures. Like you said, it’s about solving a problem. I should know better.
Your explanation makes sense, as usual.
I ended up buying the black version to hide the design elements that bothered me. I’m looking forward to receiving them tomorrow.
Nate Otto
on 25 Mar 10I find this thread fascinating. As someone who has known Jason for years, and knowing that Nike - their design and their business history- holds a special interest for him, and also knowing Ernest and the fact that he left 37signals to pursue his passion for shoes; this is something of a debate over the existence of god. Perhaps I’m overstating it, and that previous sentence was probably overrun, but this I do know: shoe design is design in its purest form. Cars are sexier, and fonts are more fundamental, but shoes are universal.
Rudiger
on 28 Mar 10This simple post about a sneaker’s design is now essential reading. The power of comments as “continuing the conversation”.
Signal vs. Noise at its best.
This discussion is closed.