I have experience using Adidas Response Boost 2.0 and Adidas Supernova Glide 8 Boost. Both models have not worn out, but their foam experienced something akin to catastrophic failure, which raised serious concerns, inside me, on the durability of Adidas Boost foam, the only foam used in their high performance running shoes.
Specifically, Response Boost 2.0 suffered catastrophic failure after low mileage daily running of one month. More importantly, it is a form of failure I never experienced before during my time using the Adidas Response Cushion product line: from Response Cushion 15 to Response Cushion 22. What happened was that there was gel hardening effect in the front part of the right shoe of Response Boost 2.0. Given that Boost foam is a close packed gel of polyurethane pellets, I could not understand the origins of the gel hardening effect that gave rise to catastrophic failure.
On the other hand, Adidas Supernova Glide 8 Boost failed recently after 7 months of usage on daily running of low mileage, and I experienced some pain on both knees as I ran the last mile of the shoe. It is a low mileage failure compared to the one year of usage I could derive from each of the Response Cushion running shoes models. More specifically, no gel hardening effect was observed in the failure of the Supernova Glide 8 Boost foam.
Hence, given the relatively low mileage of usage at which Boost foam fails, it raises serious concerns of the foam’s utility for high performance running shoes, where the usage life span of the foam should be calibrated at one year of usage on daily running.
Category: sports science, sports medicine,
Tags: Boost foam, mileage, gel hardening, high performance running shoes, catastrophic failure,