Adidas’ 3D-printed sneaker review: What are those!?

The Verge - May 10th, 2025

Adidas has introduced a groundbreaking development in footwear with their new Climacool sneakers, which are entirely 3D-printed. This innovative approach marks a significant departure from traditional shoe manufacturing, where 3D printing was limited to specific parts of the shoe. The Climacool sneakers feature a single-piece design with a rubbery lattice structure that provides varying densities for optimal cushioning and flexibility. While these shoes offer a unique aesthetic and comfort, they present challenges such as weight and difficulty when worn for prolonged activities. Currently available in an off-white colorway, they are priced at $140 and can be purchased online or at select Adidas stores.

This development represents a significant step towards customizable footwear, bringing us closer to a future where consumers can upload 3D foot scans for made-to-order shoes. While the shoes have garnered attention from sneaker enthusiasts and city dwellers, they highlight the potential of additive manufacturing in the fashion industry. The ability to produce shoes that mold seamlessly around the foot with integrated comfort features could transform consumer expectations. Adidas' foray into fully 3D-printed shoes underscores the brand's commitment to innovation and may influence future trends in sustainable and personalized fashion.

3 D Printing Adidas Climacool Sneakers Footwear Innovation Additive Manufacturing Sneakerheads Streetwear

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed and engaging review of Adidas' 3D-printed Climacool sneakers, highlighting their innovative design and potential for customization. It accurately describes the product's features and performance, though it could benefit from more diverse sources and perspectives to enhance credibility and balance.

While the article is timely and relevant, its focus on a niche market limits its broader public interest and impact. Expanding the discussion to include societal or environmental implications could increase its appeal to a wider audience. The article's clarity and readability are strong, making it accessible to a general audience, though its lack of transparency and source variety slightly detracts from its overall quality.

In summary, the article succeeds in providing an informative and engaging product review but could be improved by incorporating more diverse perspectives and in-depth analysis of broader industry trends and implications.

Accuracy

The article accurately describes Adidas' 3D-printed Climacool sneaker, noting its unique construction and design features. It correctly states that the shoe is made entirely through additive manufacturing, which is supported by external sources. The article's mention of the shoe's weight at 416 grams and its heavier feel compared to marketing claims is consistent with other reviews, though it would benefit from more precise measurements or comparisons.

The claim about the shoe's lattice structure varying in density to provide cushioning and flexibility is well-documented in product descriptions and aligns with Adidas' design philosophy. However, the assertion that these shoes are suitable for water sports but not ideal for board sports due to the thick sole could be more thoroughly supported by specific user experiences or expert reviews.

Overall, the article provides a truthful and precise account of the Climacool sneaker's features, though it could enhance accuracy by including more detailed comparisons or expert opinions.

Balance

The article presents a predominantly positive view of Adidas' Climacool sneakers, emphasizing their innovative design and potential for customization. While it acknowledges potential drawbacks, such as the shoe's weight and difficulty in putting them on, the overall tone leans towards admiration.

There is a slight imbalance as the article does not explore alternative perspectives, such as potential environmental impacts of 3D printing or comparisons with competitors' products. Including viewpoints from various stakeholders, such as consumers, industry experts, or environmentalists, would provide a more comprehensive picture.

Clarity

The article is well-written and structured, making it easy to follow. It uses clear language to describe the features and personal experiences with the Climacool sneakers, providing a vivid picture of what potential buyers can expect.

The logical flow from the shoe's design and construction to its practical applications and potential drawbacks ensures that readers can easily comprehend the information. The tone remains neutral and informative, though it occasionally borders on promotional, which could affect perceived neutrality.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or expert opinions, relying primarily on the author's personal experience and observations. While personal reviews can offer valuable insights, the inclusion of authoritative sources, such as Adidas' official statements or expert reviews, would enhance credibility.

The lack of varied sources makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information. Incorporating diverse and authoritative sources would strengthen the article's foundation and provide readers with a more robust understanding of the product's impact and reception.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency regarding the methodology behind the author's review and does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest. For instance, it is unclear whether the author received the product for free or has any affiliations with Adidas.

Providing context about how the review was conducted, such as the duration of use or specific conditions tested, would enhance transparency. Additionally, disclosing any potential biases or affiliations would help readers assess the impartiality of the review.