Crumbling shoes syndrome

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wear either Dr. Comfort custom shoes or Nunn Bush.

Nunn Bush usually cost in the neighborhood of $100 bucks, the Dr. Comfort approx. 4400/$600 a pr.

Never in my whole 70 years have I seen a sole go out like that. You wading around in lacquer thinner?
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
I wear either Dr. Comfort custom shoes or Nunn Bush.

Nunn Bush usually cost in the neighborhood of $100 bucks, the Dr. Comfort approx. 4400/$600 a pr.

Never in my whole 70 years have I seen a sole go out like that. You wading around in lacquer thinner?


$400-$600 for a pair of shoes? Holy c r a p!
 
How do you define good shoes?
I guess you have to cut them open to see if they are made from polyurethane foam?
Price doesn't guarantee anything.

I found some good answers here. The key factor is storage and little use:

Quote:
Look up "crumbling soles" on Google, and you'll be amazed at how many people have had their soles suddenly crumble under them, leaving them shoeless and bereft in situations ranging from formal weddings to wilderness adventures.

Ecco comes in for pages and pages of angry postings, but they are by no means alone. Apparently all sorts of shoes with molded polyurethane soles--hunting boots, riding boots, walking shoes, comfort shoes, etc.-- can succumb to hydrolysis.

I spent hours trying to get through to somebody who knew something at Nike, Sanita and Ecco. As I write this, Ecco spokesman Dan Legor is still working on "determining who is the correct person" to answer my questions. The folks at Sanita are consulting with their Danish production team. Nobody at Nike has returned my calls.

But I'm beginning to think that this epidemic of crumbling soles has two distinct causes. One, as then-Ecco brand manager Dave Pompel explained to me six years ago, is a manufacturing defect that can cause a molded polyurethane sole to disintegrate without warning.

I suspect the second cause is an unnoticed, acknowledged collision of paradigms. Our expectations about shoes are formed by centuries of experience with soles made of leather, an organic material that is slowly and steadily worn down by friction when exposed to pavement--and, absent friction, will last pretty much forever.

Molded polyurethane foam soles can be amazingly comfortable but, unlike leather soles, they have a limited shelf life. According to footwear industry consultant Phillip Nutt, the shelf life of a direct-injected polyurethane sole should be in the range of four to five years. He says the material tends to "crumble into a sticky mess" when stored for "periods longer than four years or so."

Disuse apparently increases the risk that polyurethane soles will degrade--and that probably increases the indignation of consumers whose barely worn shoes disintegrate. If you wear your shoes every day and walk miles in them, you expect the soles to show wear. You don't expect shoes to be destroyed by months or years of sitting unworn in their box in your closet.

But that is what happens. It's striking that some of the disintegrated soles people complain about in online postings are hunting boots or hiking shoes, shoes that--like the Nike lace-up boots I only wore in the winter--spend months at a time unworn, waiting for the next hunting trip or whatever.

Maybe by next week I'll find someone at Nike or Ecco or Sanita or somewhere else who can explain exactly how and why such inactivity turns out to be sole-destroying--at least when it comes to injection-molded polyurethane.

Meanwhile, I think shoe manufacturers should consider establishing a freshness-dating system for polyurethane soles. You wouldn't buy a gallon of outdated milk. You probably shouldn't buy shoes with 8-year-old polyurethane soles, either.


http://www.phlmetropolis.com/2011/11/the-case-of-the-crumbling-shoes.php

BTW, the picture in my post was not from my own shoes, I trashed them without taking pictures. The most frustrating part is, you keep new "good" shoes in your closet for the special occasion to wear them and then they suddenly suffer the "explosive decompression." Very embarrassing. Last time it happened to me was on a cruise and the next port of call I was shopping for shoes. Between my spouse and myself we had several pairs lost just recently.
 
Good is easy, for formal wear or business Cole Haan or Allen Edmonds.

For work boots I like Red Wings, or any other high quality US made boot.

Merrell has been treating me well for regular shoes, Sperry for topsiders.

For example a dress or more formal shoe should have a leather sole, don't buy [censored] for $40 at Walmart and be shocked when it explodes.
 
Last edited:
Longest lasting and most comfortable shoes I current have,Asics running shoes and Dexter boat shoes/mocassins (not even sure if they make the Dexter mocassins anymore,they're around 10 years old). Haven't had any problems with either pair.
 
I was stupid enough to have bought half a dozen Ecco shoes in years past. Every one of the soles disintegrated. My boss has banned them from our lab. All my workstations were paved with polyurethane, and it cost the company to have the floors buffed.

I don't believe Ecco had a single incident of manufacturing. I believe they were making them this way for a long time. If shoe manufacturers would test their product as thoroughly as auto manufacturers, this obvious defect would have been caught. Each shoe cost me $70 to have resoled with Vibram. Because of the good uppers, they were worth the salvage.
 
I remember back in the late 70s-early 80s New Balance running shoes were soled with Vibram. Are any of them still using it?
 
Sadly, this is common today. My wife, a shoe nut, has a closet full of deteriorating shoes. Some of which have only been worn once.
 
Notice the biodegradable part:

Quote:
PU soles are widely used in some styles of top brands of “comfort” shoes such as Froggie, Tsonga, Green Cross, Clarks, Hush Puppies, Scholl, Blundstone, Bass and Ecco – shoes that are relatively expensive. Ironically, the soles don’t disintegrate due to over-wear, they do so because of lack of wear.

It seems the act of wearing the shoes puts pressure on the soles and squeezes out the moisture in the PU, which would otherwise insidiously break apart the foam-like structure, a process called hydrolysis.

It is most prevalent in humid, coastal areas, and keeping the shoes in a box, in a dark cupboard, accelerates the process.

The problem is that, typically, someone will put away winter boots – in a cupboard, often in the original box – until the following winter, by which time the soles could well be crumbling.

Again, the six-month “implied warranty” of the CPA warranty would be long over by then, so they have no recourse.

To my mind, shoe retailers should warn those buying shoes with PU soles about the problem, and urge them to wear their sandals from time to time in winter, and get their boots on in summer.

Local manufacturer Froggie recently began issuing such warnings with their PU products, and Beier Safety Footwear carries a hard-to-miss warning on its boxes, bags and box liners: “It is not recommended to keep these biodegradable PU soles in a dark and unventilated space for long periods.”

Fay-Rose Silverman of Camps Bay bought a pair of Green Cross boots from the company’s factory shop in Cape Town two years ago.

“When I wanted to wear them this winter the leather uppers were still in great condition, but I noticed that the soles had crumbled and cracked.

“I took them to a shoe repair shop where I was advised to take them back to Green Cross as the deterioration did not constitute ‘fair wear and tear’.”

She did so, and says she was told by Green Cross staff that the problem was not unusual in PU-soled shoes, and sometimes even occurred while shoes were still on the shelf, in the case of old stock.

“But they were not prepared to compensate me in any way,” Silverman said.

I took up the case with Green Cross’s retail general manager, Chum Edwards, who confirmed that no warnings about PU soles were given to consumers, because the incidence was “negligible”.

“These complaints are really the exception and we deal with them as they occur.

“We will always honour the product if this should happen.”

That’s not what Silverman was told originally, so it’s good to know.

Meanwhile, a delighted Silverman has exchanged her crumbling-soled boots for “a very nice pair of walking boots”.

Here’s the crux of this issue, for me – the average consumer expects shoes they wear often to show signs of wear on the soles. But they don’t expect shoes to fall apart as a result of having been left unworn in a box or cupboard for months.

Which is why they need to be informed.


http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/want-these-shoes-to-last-1.1578089
 
It's rather ironic and a defeated purpose that, for the sake of environmental responsibility, we have to prematurely scrap certain shoes and add more to the landfill.
 
Had the soles blow out in a nice pair of Vasque hiking boots in 2001, that I kept in the box for several years until my other pair wore out. Had them resoled at REI, which charges the same as anyone else on the Internet but you don't get hit with shipping charges when you drop off and pick up in person (though they send them to another state to do the work).

Resoles were Vibram, originals were something else than that which I liked more. That's when I noticed almost every brand has gone to Vibram.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top