You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Against better judgment we bought our daughter expensive school trainers (Nike air force pro’s) and the material in the heel has worn all the way through to the cup, and then the sole in the heel is wearing through on both pairs.
She’s walked to school and back everyday (20 - 30 minutes each way) since September, which I don’t think is good enough for the price we paid.
They have a 2 year warranty for defective or faulty. This isn’t a manufacturing failure, more that the materials used aren’t up to scratch IMO.
We’re going to contact them but does this seem genuinely not fit for purpose?
‘Lifestyle’ I expect. She’s probably covered about 120 miles in them.
Our kids have always used Air Force, never had a pair do that in over 10 years...they normally eventually go at the back where they try and put them on without undoing the laces.
These were the normal AF1s though, not sure how the Pro model differs.
They are the AF1s actually.
shes always untied the laces, but the heel has still gone through.
Sounds about right for trainers worn almost daily...
Why is she wearing trainers for walking, shirley a decent pair of clarks leather shoes or simmilar* would be a better choice for school & walking to school.
Trainers are for running/gym class etc. the clue is in the name.
*kickers leather shoes used to be the shoe de jour in my day, so just get the modern equivelent of that.
If you don't ask you don't get....
Nike have a 1 or maybe 2 year warranty based on the production date on the tongue lable.
I have not purchased any of my last 5 pairs of Nike. They wear out (typically where the big toe flexes), I take them to the McArthur Glenn Nike outlet and swap them for something else. Canada though, YMMV
Sometimes with receipt, sometimes without.
You could also email CS and ask.
If you don’t ask you don’t get….
Ask what? the OP bought his daughter some Nike fasion trainers and wonders why they are ruined after less than 6 months of general abuse by a teenager?
Just had a warranty refund accepted (got to post them off) for a pair of 3 month old scarpa crux that have worn through the heel cup inside, previous pair were the first pair of shoes I'd worn through the sole before the rest had disintegrated 3 years in.
Don't ask, don't get.
Why is she wearing trainers for walking
Perhaps she just ran to school slowly everyday? Why would walking in trainers wear them out faster than running?
I was a big fan of Nike SB shoes
i recently bought a new pair and they lasted about 2 months before splitting at the base- a bit of skateboarding and the odd cycle, Id bought them off Amazon & nike refused to warranty because they're not an official seller
Why would anyone choose Clark's leather shoes as a shoe to go walk in.
What a weird choice*
* I have a pair for work. They are not for walking in. Be for ever at the cobblers getting the soles replaced.
4 months does seem a bit poor. Even my Merrell vapor gloves have done much more than that and they are like an inner tube for the sole of the foot..... Hell if I got 130 miles out my runners while using them for running I'd be pissed.
Our kids have always used Air Force, never had a pair do that in over 10 years…they normally eventually go at the back where they try and put them on without undoing the laces
I was going to say the same. They’re both at college/uni now but the routine at the start of a new school year… buy two pairs of plain black Air Force Ones for the Binnerettes. They walked to school every day, 20 minutes each way. Both sets of Nikes lasted the year.
Have she been dancing on angle grinders en route? 😉
I’d definitely complain. They’re not cheap, after all
I own both clarks and some Merell shoes... I use both for 'walking' in.
Very different types of walking, mind!
What I'm trying to say is the kid needs a decent leather shoe for school/walking to school.
And a pair of trainers for trainer duties.
Two very different types of shoe. Horses for courses.
I used to work in a sports shop.
Some of the absolute crap heap shoes we used to get back in as "defective" was a joke.
Unless they had been obviously abused, they would almost always get a replacement pair.
An old woman bought in a pair of Adidas running shoes that her disabled husband had worn out. The sole one one side was completely worn - not just the outer, but the mid sole all the way to the upper. She admitted that he walked with a pronounced limp & dragged that foot on the ground rather than lift it. They were 18 months old. We didn't even sell that version of the shoe any more, which she wasn't happy about.
Manager replaced them for her with absolutely no quibble.
Do you still have the receipt? Or maybe find the purchase on a bank statement.
What I’m trying to say is the kid needs a decent leather shoe for school/walking to school.
Would a leather trainer be acceptable.
I'm not sure what relevance leather has to being a suitable school shoe.
It's not 1974 anymore.
Any well made shoe/trainer/boot should last longer than 4 months unless she's being dragged to school by something. Under regular walking even the shittest shoes I've had have lasted longer than 4 months.....
What I’m trying to say is the kid needs a decent leather shoe for
school/walkinggetting the living shit kicked out of them on way to school for looking like a dweeb
FTFY Grandad 😉
Ask what? the OP bought his daughter some Nike fasion trainers and wonders why they are ruined after less than 6 months of general abuse by a teenager?
sorry, didn't realise it required explanation.
currently he has zero chance of getting a refund, if he tries for a return and gets nothing he is at least no worse off but may get lucky. I think Nike can cope
Good luck with any claim; store/Nike *may* be feeling generous...
Warranty returns direct to Nike are really easy - We always buy our 13yo son Nike trainers off the website. We've returned his last 3 pairs as they've never lasted longer than 6 months and he only walks 250m to school and been given a refund each time. As they give you a refund we just buy a different style in the next size up. Each time ours have been returned it's due to a design fault as you look at the shoe and think "why've they put a hard sharp thing next to something really soft - it's clearly going to push through and make a hole"
Definitely.
Our boys play a lot of football, so we don't expect a pair of boots to last all that long, but one set lasted about three months which we raised with Nike (who we'd bought them from direct). We had to post them back which wasn't a bother as they were knackered anyway - we still had to buy another pair though as he still needed new ones - but the warranty was accepted and they gave us a full refund.
Would a leather trainer be acceptable.
I’m not sure what relevance leather has to being a suitable school shoe.
It’s not 1974 anymore.
It's very much 1974 at all the academised high schools around here. Trainers are verboten unless in PE.
Clarks got a mention up there as an alternative, based on recent experience they be lucky to match these Nikes!
It’s very much 1974 at all the academised high schools around here.
Weird isn't it - Blazers, tie and leather school shoes are somehow meant to make academic thoughts flow....until you are at uni and all that bollox is binned yet curiously education continues unimpeded!
I always knacker my trainers in that area. Does she have the hideous gnarled feet of a gibbon? If so that might be the issue.
She’s walked to school and back everyday (20 – 30 minutes each way) since September,
Just came here to say well done. Not enough kids doing that nowadays, good effort.
Whatever all, you do you and I'll do me.
I know if I wear a runing trainer or a basketball boot, or tennis shoe style footwear as a daily drive, for 6 months straight, as my main shoe, it's gonna get busted up and stink, and drop to bits, or all of the above.
🙂
Under CRA goods have to be of acceptable quality and inside of six months a failure is deemed to be inherent unless the seller can prove otherwise.
Two years' warranty also.
Why would it not be worth a claim? Merchant in the first instance, Nike as a fallback.
Under CRA goods have to be of acceptable quality
https://www.nike.com/gb/t/air-force-1-07-pro-tech-shoes-2mKLRJ
It's marketed as a basket ball shoe/trainer. Not for tramping rough tarmac pavements and going to school in with all the abuse that that entails.
Basket ball courts generally have very nice/smooth wooden floors.
Good luck trying to sue Nike for false advertising, when they specifically say it's footwear for playing basket ball.
AF1's are not really sport shoes, and they last way longer than 'school' shoes. If people want to pay through the nose for Clarks or other shit then that's all good. AF1's are way more suitable for the walk to and around school than whatever the shoe shops are selling.
I'd say that the vast majority of kids at secondary school round here wear black AF1's as they just last (so OP, yep, put a claim in).
Edit
Good luck trying to sue Nike for false advertising, when they specifically say it’s footwear for playing basket ball.
Air Force 1 (the non pro version) are clearly marketed towards school kids.
As cool today as when it first dropped more than 40 years ago, the AF-1 is a classic you can count on. Its durable construction and grippy tread will see you through breaktime after breaktime. And while they look great fresh out of the box, they remain cool even when covered in scuffs and scrapes. In fact, they might be even better.
https://www.nike.com/gb/t/air-force-1-le-older-shoes-4dFJ5B/FV5951-111
I've never had nike trainers last long tbh (af1s included). Ive just got a new set of af1s actually so Im not anti nike, but i dont expect too much. Adidas seem to last wayyyy longer for me. Not sure if anyone else has found this. Anyway I wore DMs for school and they lasted for ever but aren't to everyone's taste haa.
It’s not 1974 anymore
And if it were. They'd be Clarke's commandos and you'd wear the badge.
Another who’s daughters wore AF1 for school, fit with school regulations and comfier than Clark’s. They walked around 20 minutes to school, they outlasted any Clark’s. Sounds like your daughter may shuffle her feet, my right shoes always wear quicker due to a slight limp.
Clark's shoes for kids are terrible, you'd have been back already for a refund before the AF1's had worn out.
Anyhow, Nike seem pretty good at honouring their warranty. Quite a few at my running club have got refunds on expensive (vaporfly/alphafly) racing shoes so definitely worth a punt.
At my daughters school the af1s are the example picture of what is not allowed. Surprised any allow them with that wacking great tick on the side.
Lightweight running & fashion trainers in not lasting shocker.
I would ask them and see.
But we were the embarrassing parents who insisted on shoes in line with uniform policy and that they were decent brand such as Clarks (who did replace a premature wearing pair), Kickers, DM, Hobbs etc, all bought in the sales.
For reference, this is the shoe they all wear round here.
all of my Nike air's do exactly the same
Interesting. Our eldest has just started in year 7 and his school specifically bans Air Force 1's, citing affordability. It is an academy that caters for pretty wide range socio-economic areas, so I do kind of get this. They are super-strict regarding uniforms generally, with debits for untucked shirts and missing blazers. I do wonder about the point of uniforms in 2024, but if you're going to have them they probably should be enforced.
Anyway, apologies for the digression.
At my daughters school the af1s are the example picture of what is not allowed. Surprised any allow them with that wacking great tick on the side.
Same here. No trainer style allowed even if all black. Has to be "smart", no logos, no colour, no decoration like tags or metal bars etc. Makes buying school shoes an absolute nightmare that normally involves being dragged around multiple shopping parks while being repeatedly told how uncool I am by my daughter.
Last summer the boys needed new shoes so we bought 3 pairs from Next, not quite plimsolls but lightweight summer shoes.
All 3 completely fell to bits in about 1 month. We took them back for a refund and went running around the shop to find a manager, every staff member who saw them said "oh wow that's terrible I'm sure it'll be fine".
Manager shows up, took one glance and absolutely did not want to know.
"Look at how worn they are, that's wear and tear not a failure"
"But they've only lasted one month, look at all this splitting round the sides and soles!"
"They're summer shoes, they're not meant to be worn all the time."
"But it's summer. They haven't even lasted this summer."
Nothing doing. Was treated like I was an idiot and trying to scam them or something.
Cool story bro, I know 😁
To put it in context, the large sports retailers spend millions on 'Back to School' advertising campaigns, the spend being second only to Christmas. I've been involved in design work for one of them (no, not that one) over the last few years
The campaigns feature Air Force 1's, and other plain black trainers like Adidas Forums (which I ended up buying for Binnerette number 2 last year as we couldn't get black AF1's in her size for love nor money). This would suggest that black trainers are the norm in the majority of schools. All the major manufacturers are clearly making a range of plain black trainers specifically for this market
Personally I think a pair of decent trainers make a lot more sense than traditional shoes if, like both my daughters and the OP's daughter, you're spending an hour a day walking back and too to school. If I'm going to be walking back and too to work for an hour a day in all weathers, I'm not going to do it in a pair of brogues. Its not 1950. Should they wear a cap and carry a satchel too containing their ration card and a copy of the Beano?
They look like cheap crap fashion trainers to me, but then you look at the price and its scary ! All the big brands appear to have a range of stuff that looks nice but is utter crap
Why dont schools have standards anymore, or does she change in to shoes when she gets there.
Just for reference our lad (13) got through a pair of Clarks shoes in about 4 months. Start rite are much better and we now get nearly a year
Why dont schools have standards anymore
They do. They're just different standards to when we were at school, though not by much. Its hardly a technicolour free-for-all, is it?
OP Is your daughter tying the laces each time, of running the loose enough to just slip on and off without tying/untying? I know this is how I have most of my trainers, because I'm lazy and they're comfy like that. I also get the exact same wear pattern as you describe, but I accept if as a consequence of how I wear them.
FYI My kids have the same/similar Nikes for school and they too are battered, only 6 month into the school year...
Why dont schools have standards anymore, or does she change in to shoes when she gets there.
They do, certainly more so than when I was at school. Many you have to purchase the clothes from specified shop, we didn’t except the ones with the logo. Even the PE kits have a logo and that’s what they must wear.
Hope my lad doesn't read this thread, just got him a pair of George's finest from Asda for £20.
binners
The campaigns feature Air Force 1’s, and other plain black trainers like Adidas Forums (which I ended up buying for Binnerette number 2 last year as we couldn’t get black AF1’s in her size for love nor money). This would suggest that black trainers are the norm in the majority of schools. All the major manufacturers are clearly making a range of plain black trainers specifically for this market
They're certainly not the norm here. I just checked my 3 local secondary schools websites and none accept this type of shoe. AF1 are specifically shown as being not allowed on one of their websites. We are classified as a deprived area though, so they probably don't want some kids being bullied cos they can't afford them.
Got some adidas walking shoes replaced as the soles disappeared in only 3 months. This was with Sports Shoes who were fantastic about it all.
Air Force 1s and the like are also banned here. It has to be black and a proper shoe that is capable of being polished and no logos. Ie normal school shoes like our days at school. No bad thing though and keeps uniform neutral and not a fashion/ affordability thing.
If you step away from tradition and think about bringing up children in 2024 and what they'll go on to for a minute.....
How many adults work in a place where a blazer and tie is a thing? Precious few - so why do we make our kids do it? And how many of us could look down right now and find a version of school shoes on our feet? Maybe a few more than the first question but still a lot less than half of us I suspect. Making our kids do what we don't makes us look like a bunch of dafties.
I used to teach in a school that didn't have uniform. Initially I thought it great (mainly because I didn't have to spend half my life telling kid off!) but I've rowed back on that now. They just made up their own uniform that was more expensive and more far more judgemental.
If I was able to set the standard now, it'd be a uniform not a free for all. But it would have tough durable (and repairable) heavyweight canvas trousers - somewhere between jeans and combats, probably a logoed polo - intended to be worn untucked, and a jumper or hoody. Then a pair of trainers not unlike the Air Force. They'd look like a cross between a warehouse worker, a member of a emergency response service and Maccy D worker; an uncool but very hard to get too wrong look that would not cost parents a fortune and should last until outgrown. No skirt option; totally non-gendered, just choose the option that suits your body shape. Blazers, leather school shoes, ties and ****ing FLANNEL TROUSERS that rip just thinking about a kick about could all get to ****.
But it would have tough durable (and repairable) heavyweight canvas trousers – somewhere between jeans and combats, probably a logoed polo – intended to be worn untucked, and a jumper or hoody.
Isn't that standard prison issue?
Isn’t that standard prison issue?
Yes, exactly that. I was going to use that as my description but thought it might have the wrong connotation!
Trainers are verboten unless in PE
Be interesting to see a definition of a trainer.
An AF1 as above has an all black, mainly plain leather upper with black rubber sole. By many definitions that is a shoe and not a trainer.
Anyway, Nike CS has always been pretty good for me, so well worth a shot on a return.
I always buy my Nike stuff direct from them via their app. I've had issues with a couple of items, one pair of trainers that split and a duffle bag where the stitching failed. Depending on how long I'd owned the item (and if it's still a current product), I've been offered either a complete replacement, full refund or partial refund. All done via the chat function on the app and very simple.
In regards the AF1 in question, I doubt it's a fit for purpose thing; sounds more like they don't fit properly or aren't being worn with the laces fastened correctly but I doubt Nike would quibble. I don't wear AF1's but my Nephews do and theirs seem to wear just fine (they seem to live in them and are 12 months+ old)
They do, certainly more so than when I was at school. Many you have to purchase the clothes from specified shop, we didn’t except the ones with the logo. Even the PE kits have a logo and that’s what they must wear.
The (remarkably shit) school i went to had that, shirt, tie, trousers and all the PE kit came from two preferred suppliers that (according to the school) offered the best value for money and quality of kit.
Maybe they had in the 1930s. But not when i was there. Most of the local supermarket own brands were better quality, less than half the price and made out of fabric which contained actual cotton.
Even M&S was cheaper.
Anyway, i got a fairly regular detentions for not wearing correct school uniform.
They still have the same two suppliers, despite the entire school having been shut down, the site levelled and rebuilt with all new staff.
My daughters wear them for walking to and from school. Maybe 3 miles. Not the cheapest but we've found they last for ages. I think a word should be had. They are banned in school so they leave their school shoes in their lockers and change when the come and go.
I used to think proper shoes are what's needed, however comparing these trainers to 'proper' shoes, and also looking at the (flawed?) barefoot movement, there's nothing in it IMO.
Anyway, they've offered a full refund as they're less than 2 years. With that level of service we may be a customer for life - maybe that's their plan (depsite the dubious resource considerations).
Ive found nike to be very good at customer service.
My kids (age 15 and 14) have had a variety "all black" trainers as school shoes. They tend to outgrow them before they wear out... Generally they just ask for the black version of their preferred "not school" trainers. It does mean that are happy to wear them outside school as well.
Seems odd to ban Airforce 1s specifically, some of my kids school mates rock up in £200 worth of Nikes.
Examples: https://www.nike.com/gb/w/mens-black-lifestyle-shoes-13jrmz90poyznik1zy7ok
Are we sure that the airforce ban isn't more to do with "roadmen"/gangs?
Eldest is enjoying Nike AirMax SC and youngest who is more \m/ is currently on some Vans Half Cabs.
Kickers for my lad .... the old school style ones to begin with, loads of his mate had the same, and now more of a trainer style but still kickers. They have lasted his abuse well (never undoes his laces, I really cannot moan, its a learnt behavior) .... Now if he'd just stop growing for a second they might last even longer.
For those questioning school uniforms in general .... If the some of the above issues are over just the shoes, imagen what it would be like if the kids didn't wear uniforms !!
At my daughters school the af1s are the example picture of what is not allowed. Surprised any allow them with that wacking great tick on the side.
Why dont schools have standards anymore, or does she change in to shoes when she gets there.
Many schools are just pleased when children turn up without inventing artificial barriers. Covid sent a message to a large part of that generation that (a) attending school was optional (b) they weren't a huge priority (c) the sanctions for not complying were probably pretty minor compared to being locked in hour house for months (d) during the time they were in school the windows were open for improved venitlation and uniform was ignored as it was freezing. Add in some genuine cases where isolation has caused anxiety for returning to school, and some cases where parents attitudes to schools has become worse than before and suddenly you are presented with a problem. If a uniform policy is perceived to be part of that problem its going to be deprioritised. Now add in a "cost of living crisis" which whilst affecting some very badly, will also be quoted by those who can only afford 2 foreign holidays a year! And you have an issue when a kid arrives at school wearing trainers and parents say the thought it was OK and don't have the money to buy new shoes. Once one does it, the problem spreads. Once your kid is the "minority" not wearing something "trendy" on their feet, you feel pressure to not make them exposed to inevitable social stigma and the problem self perpetuates. Once the school loses grip on this it becomes VERY hard to reintroduce it.
My daughter's school recently sent out a reminder about uniform policy (which only requires footwear to be predominantly black), because a "spot check" has identified that across the school 20% of pupils were not even wearing a shirt and tie. The backed up their reminder by pointing out that a parent survey at the end of last year had seen the "vast majority of parents supporting the policy". The vast majority was 75%. In reality the sanctions available to the school are pretty nonsensical.
At my daughters school the af1s are the example picture of what is not allowed. Surprised any allow them with that wacking great tick on the side.
Its not 1950. Should they wear a cap and carry a satchel too containing their ration card and a copy of the Beano?
I was going to say "isn't it time that we binned this idiocy?" but Binners beat me to the punch.
I understand the benefits, not least of which being a leveller so that the poor kids don't get picked on by the rich kids. But really this smacks of (let's say it together) "we've always done it this way." It's archaic, who cares what shoes kids wear. Who cares what shoes anyone wears outside of a construction site? (And, er, in Woodwork.)
High school kids are going to want minor acts of rebellion. It's exciting. When I was at school we were always pushing boundaries, neon socks were a thing in the 80s and you could mostly wear them in secret assuming your pants were long enough. Shirt not tucked in, ties tied backwards with the thin end at the front and the proper bit inside your shirt... I think if it were my kids I'd rather that was their first pushback against authority rather than doing a couple of lines in the bogs at breaktime.
I think I've just argued against my own argument...
Well said Cougs, especially this bit:
High school kids are going to want minor acts of rebellion
A ‘uniform inside the uniform’, short tie, shirt-tail blowing in the wind etc that sort of thing.
so that the poor kids don’t get picked on by the rich kids.
But we all knew who the poor kids were didn’t we? A school uniform didn’t hide that.
Our London comp in the early seventies didn't give two hoots about school uniforms (or teaching come to that!).
I do wonder about the point of uniforms in 2024
I used to work in a school. The headteacher made a point that can't be argued against:
The 'home' situations of a lot of pupils is on an incredibly broad spectrum, from people living in gated 8 bedroom houses in north london suburbs, to kids living in HMO's with other families with barely any money. The uniform 'levels the playing field' for the kids and creates genuine equality in the school environment (which is an incredibly important and formative environment in someone's life).
It made a lot of sense when it was explained to me that way. Especially when you view it from a child's quite one dimensional lens of life. Others have also pointed this out above.
Generally it's positive. 4 months isn't great. Nike don't make premium products though, they make trendy products.
The headteacher made a point that can’t be argued against:
Yes it can, I’ve already disagreed with that and will do so again. That was exactly the argument our headmaster used in 1971 and, bear in mind this was a really shit School with kids from working class families in West London, we still knew who the poor kids were. A nice new uniform looks a lot different from a third hand-me-down one.
Good outcome.
Nike don’t make premium products though, they make trendy products.
Its a pair of plain black trainers, not some leopard-print stiletto's. As myself and others have pointed out from experience, a pair of Air Force Ones will last a full school year of walking an hour back and too to school every day, as well as all the general abuse they get while they're there. My daughters would happily wear them at the evening and weekends too.
The OP's experience wasn't as good as this and they've offered him a full refund, without quibbling, as part of their two year guarantee. Seems pretty good to me
There was a thread on here the other day about things being worth what you pay for them. I'd say that given that, 100 quid for the Nikes represents pretty good value for money
Edit: just had a quick google and you can get them for 70 quid, though I doubt you would in September
a point that can’t be argued against:
You've been here for ten years, surely you know better than that by now.
Nike don’t make premium products though, they make trendy products.
Which do we suppose kids care more about?
Not sure the logic of "no trainers in school because poor people can't afford them" stands up to much scrutiny. Kids are unlikely to wear a pair of Clarks/Brantano's finest outside of school but they will wear a pair of predominantly black trainers.
It's not a tick, it's a swoosh
Haven't Nike always lasted only a few months at best and Sketchers less so.
Fashion over function me thunks!
Ironically enough I have bought a set of £30 Bikes of late to find they comfy and half smart casual haha
Uniform is just another way of schools showing "common sense" that will appeal to people who won't know any better, it's also a great way to generate revenue when items have to be bought from a preferred supplier.
As for levelling up and hiding the poor kids, as mentioned above that's nonsense and you can tell the poor kids because the shit blazer you make them wear has fallen apart and they can't afford a new one.
Somehow Finland, Sweden and Demark manage to thrash the UK by most education metrics despite allowing civvies, trainers and pink hair...