Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: New mudclaw

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    367
    Iím sure youíre right. Iím probably thinking of Tromso Skyrace.
    Quote Originally Posted by lamerunner View Post
    Pretty sure Killian beat Jonathan Albon. Think there was only a few minutes in it though.

  2. #12
    Member JamesWoodman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    17
    "it's not marketing hype, it's scientifically proven". "Get a grip" is the response that should be given to anyone stating that!

    All of this marketing hype got me rather wound up last night. I'd like to attribute it to the fact I'm jet lagged and over-tired like a toddler, but the phrase "50% stronger, 50% more elastic, 50% harder wearing" is particularly annoying me. 50% more than what?! You would assume the rubber used in previous versions of the shoe?

    When I click to "See the science" on inov-8s website, I get a dummies guide to materials testing without actual referral to the ISO or ASTM tests used, any results, or any comparisons. However a media statement from Manchester University back in December states "Our unique formulation makes these outsoles 50% stronger, 50% more stretchy and 50% more resistant to wear than the corresponding industry standard rubber without graphene.Ē This "industry standard rubber" presumably isn't the rubber used in previous versions of the shoes! Interestingly Manchester Uni have also removed this crucial bit of information from their most recent media statement on 20th June, again leaving you wondering exactly what the new shoes are 50% greater than.

    When I have a minute I'm gunna do some searching for the actual science (for my own interest if nothing else). Manchester Uni must be publishing stuff on this given its been partly funded through an EPSRC Impact Acceleration grant and Innovate UK (as in the government research agency not the shoe brand), that's of course unless inov-8 have managed to get some kind of non-disclosure agreement in place pending patents.

    Whether it makes a good pair of shoes or not, the science is quite intriguing. In my material mechanical testing knowledge (albeit most of that in crushing rock, rather than trying to create something that will stick to rock), I'm curious as to how you mix something like graphene, which is reportedly the stiffest material known, (young's modulus of ~1 TPa) with something rubber-esque (young's modulus when behaving linearly elastically at small strains of ~0.1 GPa) to produce a material that is "more stretchy"? I'd have thought at the micro level with increasing strain you just get large amounts of shear occurring at the interface between the rubber and graphene particles.

    I'm sure there is decades worth of interesting research in to applied rubber technology in the tyre manufacturing industry and other sporting industries such as rock climbing that could be applied to make a seriously grippy pair of running shoes, and that could probably all be done without producing a load of media hype full of buzz words, or committing daylight robbery.

  3. #13
    Master ba-ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,424
    I like it when someone with a bit of knowledge drops it.

    The main thing I don't get is how some people can be so excited about a pair of bloody shoes.

  4. #14
    Super Moderator Derby Tup's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Worth
    Posts
    16,315
    Agree ba-ba

  5. #15
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by ba-ba View Post
    I like it when someone with a bit of knowledge drops it.

    The main thing I don't get is how some people can be so excited about a pair of bloody shoes.
    As much as a decent pair of shoes is important (I've spent enough time on the Irock thread below, and spent plenty of time trying to find the correct shoes for day-to-day training), i think the main reason people get so hyped up is they always want a shortcut to "success"...... whether that be a magic shoe, gps, food, etc... anything to avoid the hard fact that you need to get out and put the effort in.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWoodman View Post
    "it's not marketing hype, it's scientifically proven". "Get a grip" is the response that should be given to anyone stating that!

    All of this marketing hype got me rather wound up last night. I'd like to attribute it to the fact I'm jet lagged and over-tired like a toddler, but the phrase "50% stronger, 50% more elastic, 50% harder wearing" is particularly annoying me. 50% more than what?! You would assume the rubber used in previous versions of the shoe?

    When I click to "See the science" on inov-8s website, I get a dummies guide to materials testing without actual referral to the ISO or ASTM tests used, any results, or any comparisons. However a media statement from Manchester University back in December states "Our unique formulation makes these outsoles 50% stronger, 50% more stretchy and 50% more resistant to wear than the corresponding industry standard rubber without graphene.Ē This "industry standard rubber" presumably isn't the rubber used in previous versions of the shoes! Interestingly Manchester Uni have also removed this crucial bit of information from their most recent media statement on 20th June, again leaving you wondering exactly what the new shoes are 50% greater than.

    When I have a minute I'm gunna do some searching for the actual science (for my own interest if nothing else). Manchester Uni must be publishing stuff on this given its been partly funded through an EPSRC Impact Acceleration grant and Innovate UK (as in the government research agency not the shoe brand), that's of course unless inov-8 have managed to get some kind of non-disclosure agreement in place pending patents.

    Whether it makes a good pair of shoes or not, the science is quite intriguing. In my material mechanical testing knowledge (albeit most of that in crushing rock, rather than trying to create something that will stick to rock), I'm curious as to how you mix something like graphene, which is reportedly the stiffest material known, (young's modulus of ~1 TPa) with something rubber-esque (young's modulus when behaving linearly elastically at small strains of ~0.1 GPa) to produce a material that is "more stretchy"? I'd have thought at the micro level with increasing strain you just get large amounts of shear occurring at the interface between the rubber and graphene particles.

    I'm sure there is decades worth of interesting research in to applied rubber technology in the tyre manufacturing industry and other sporting industries such as rock climbing that could be applied to make a seriously grippy pair of running shoes, and that could probably all be done without producing a load of media hype full of buzz words, or committing daylight robbery.
    You would say that though given you are obviously in the pocket of Big Stone. We know you discovered the secret ingredient to perfect rubber ages ago but you've been suppressing it because you want to keep crushing rocks.

    I'm glad you cropped up here because I was going to ask you for your opinion if you made it through epic jet lag to Buttermere on Saturday. I'm glad your suspicions reflect mine, especially with respect to how a non-flexible 2D material is relevant to solving the problem. It seems odd, like using the latest developments in AI as a revolutionary sun screen. Either way, I would be curious to see where their other sole compounds compare to baseline they've tested against.

    By the way, you don't even need a patent application for embargoing these IP things. It's a win-win because industry gains the authenticity of academic research groups and the research groups get perfect case studies for "impact" in the REF. I'd be surprised if any publications come out of it. It's likely a thesis will be unembargoed in a few years after the marketing hype has died down.

    Matthew

  7. #17
    Member JamesWoodman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    17
    Its good to see that if nothing else being a scientist makes you cynical and sceptical of other peoples "science".

    It has also reminded me of the "super friction" adhesives that were created by a student at Stanford a couple of years ago trying to replicate the grip that geckos have.

    https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/...ce-112114.html

    I approached the guys at Stanford back then but unfortunately they were more interested in applying the technology to robotics than breathing new life in to my scatty old trainers, so Ive had to go it alone with my own gecko shoes (Ill probably end up marketing them as "G-Series" I think its a bit catchier). Its taken the last couple of years to genetically modify my pet geckos to have large pyramidal shaped feet, but the good news is Ive just successfully managed to transplant the modified geckos feet directly on to the soles of my walshes. They're no longer vegan, but they are exactly 50% better than before. I'll bring them along for you to try tomorrow night!

  8. #18
    Mmmh. I wonder what Bill Smith makes of all this.

    "...as dry as the Atacama desert".

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWoodman View Post
    Its good to see that if nothing else being a scientist makes you cynical and sceptical of other peoples "science".

    It has also reminded me of the "super friction" adhesives that were created by a student at Stanford a couple of years ago trying to replicate the grip that geckos have.

    https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/...ce-112114.html

    I approached the guys at Stanford back then but unfortunately they were more interested in applying the technology to robotics than breathing new life in to my scatty old trainers, so Ive had to go it alone with my own gecko shoes (Ill probably end up marketing them as "G-Series" I think its a bit catchier). Its taken the last couple of years to genetically modify my pet geckos to have large pyramidal shaped feet, but the good news is Ive just successfully managed to transplant the modified geckos feet directly on to the soles of my walshes. They're no longer vegan, but they are exactly 50% better than before. I'll bring them along for you to try tomorrow night!
    That's exactly what I need to win the prestigious Round the Rhubarb race. I've worked out I need to run at least 41% better to win and 47% improvement will crown me the Rhubarb King.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Sam W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWoodman View Post
    "it's not marketing hype, it's scientifically proven". "Get a grip" is the response that should be given to anyone stating that!

    All of this marketing hype got me rather wound up last night. I'd like to attribute it to the fact I'm jet lagged and over-tired like a toddler, but the phrase "50% stronger, 50% more elastic, 50% harder wearing" is particularly annoying me. 50% more than what?! You would assume the rubber used in previous versions of the shoe?

    When I click to "See the science" on inov-8s website, I get a dummies guide to materials testing without actual referral to the ISO or ASTM tests used, any results, or any comparisons. However a media statement from Manchester University back in December states "Our unique formulation makes these outsoles 50% stronger, 50% more stretchy and 50% more resistant to wear than the corresponding industry standard rubber without graphene.Ē This "industry standard rubber" presumably isn't the rubber used in previous versions of the shoes! Interestingly Manchester Uni have also removed this crucial bit of information from their most recent media statement on 20th June, again leaving you wondering exactly what the new shoes are 50% greater than.

    When I have a minute I'm gunna do some searching for the actual science (for my own interest if nothing else). Manchester Uni must be publishing stuff on this given its been partly funded through an EPSRC Impact Acceleration grant and Innovate UK (as in the government research agency not the shoe brand), that's of course unless inov-8 have managed to get some kind of non-disclosure agreement in place pending patents.

    Whether it makes a good pair of shoes or not, the science is quite intriguing. In my material mechanical testing knowledge (albeit most of that in crushing rock, rather than trying to create something that will stick to rock), I'm curious as to how you mix something like graphene, which is reportedly the stiffest material known, (young's modulus of ~1 TPa) with something rubber-esque (young's modulus when behaving linearly elastically at small strains of ~0.1 GPa) to produce a material that is "more stretchy"? I'd have thought at the micro level with increasing strain you just get large amounts of shear occurring at the interface between the rubber and graphene particles.

    I'm sure there is decades worth of interesting research in to applied rubber technology in the tyre manufacturing industry and other sporting industries such as rock climbing that could be applied to make a seriously grippy pair of running shoes, and that could probably all be done without producing a load of media hype full of buzz words, or committing daylight robbery.
    Good post. I too am left wondering just what is meant by Ďindustry standardí. There are, to my mind, a few models of shoes made by a few manufacturers that are specifically marketed as fell shoes - Inov8 (with market share), Walsh (now with a small market share, since the former has really established itself in the last decade) & Salomon (with only a couple of fell-specific models). Iím aware that there are other shoes out there that are worn by fell runners (orienteering shoes without metal dobs, being one example). The aforementioned shoes have very different feel, fit & variation in grip - can an Ďindustry standardí be found amongst this? Iím unconvinced.

    Similar marketing claims were made by Adidas when the company started to use Boost cushioning (marketed as having better energy return); Nike have also made claims of energy return benign improved by 4% (or some similar number that has the whiff of bullshit). Iíve worn Adidas shoes both with & without aforementioned cushioning, noting that my improvements were in fact due to better training, rather than spurious marketing claims.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •