The last two versions weren’t bad running shoes, but they lacked the neutral and balanced do-everything character that the Pegasus was supposed to have. Which is a pity, because we had to endure the mediocre Pegasus 37 and 38. It’s like the Pegasus 34 reincarnated, but with contemporary materials and construction. The Pegasus 35 and 36 were also nice, but their firm ride lacked the mass appeal of the 34.Īnd what’s funny is that the Pegasus 39 is very similar to the Pegasus 34. But Nike’s return to form took nearly four years, because the last time the Pegasus was this good was the version 34. The Nike Pegasus 39 is an excellent running shoe, and one of the best in the series. While this isn’t to say that improvements don’t happen – the new cushioning foams are a great example – but a lot of what you wear on your foot is the result of a primitive design process. The absence of a structured data collection process means that the design of a running shoe is based on anecdotal feedback and subjectivity. Time permitting, we’ll write a detailed article on why that is, and why brands should ditch the annual update tradition for most of their shoes. We know, that makes no sense at all, but it’s true.
A lot has to do with the development lead time that does not allow the market feedback from the current model to be incorporated into the next shoe. On the other hand, the design of an incoming running shoe model is like a roll of a dice. Is the processor quicker? Has the battery life improved? Is the device lighter or stronger? Things of that nature. Unlike consumer products like smartphones, cameras, and cars, the running shoe design doesn’t progress linearly.įor example, the improvements on a new phone or camera can be easily measured by comparing it with the previous model. The Nike Pegasus 39 is excellent, but it took a while to get to this point.
0 kommentar(er)
