Results – perception test
The positive biomechanical test results were confirmed by our tester perception ratings. The runners rated the crivit PRO in all tested categories with 4 or 5 out of 5 starts, only fitting of the forefoot and the lacing was given 3/5 stars.
Perception of dampening / cushioning
The Asics Nimbus 18 was rated 44% softer than the other two shoe models (p=0,05). The crivit PRO was rated medium soft with 56 points (0=very soft, 100=very hard). THe liking of all shoes ws rated good with 4 out of 5 starts; it is mentionably that the crivit PRO received only very few negative ratings of 1 or 2 stars.
Perception of pronation & stabilization
The stabilizing qualities of the crivit PRO were perceived as medium stable (51/100). This values did not differ statistically to the values of the benchmark shoe models, despite a 35% more stable perception of the Asics Nimbus 18. However, this difference was not significant due to the wide variability.
How did the runners like the stabilization quality? crivit PRO and Asics Nimbus were rated with 4 out of 5 stars. The Nike Pegasus 33 was given 3/5 stars. The differences were not statistically significant, however, the stabilization of the Nike Pegasus was relatively often rated negatively with only two stars.
The potential danger of slippage was perceived relatively low (40/100 points), consequently, the traction properties of all shoes ware rated positively (4/5 stars). and rated positively. The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in traction perception or liking from the brand benchmarks.
Flexibility / ride
Flexibilty of all shoes was perceived to be average (55-60/100) and rated positively with 4/5 stars. The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in flexibility perception or liking from the brand benchmarks.
Fitting – general, forefoot and rearfoot
The fitting of all shoes were perceived as average to positive with values between 60-80 out of 100 (100=fits very well). The crivit PRO did not differ statistically in general fitting perception compared to the brand benchmarks.
The rearfoot was rated average with a tendency towards tight, which was rate positively with 4/5 stars. The forefoot fitting of all shoe models were rated average, not too tight or too wide. Hereby, the crivit PRO received only three out of five stars compared to the brand benchmarks with 4/5. However, the observed differences were not statistically signifiantly different.
In the crivit PRO, the fixation of the foot through the lacing was perceived and rated significantly lower compared to the brand benchmark models.
Perception of the in shoe climate was significantly lower in the Nike Pegasus 33 (3/5) compared to the crivit PRO and the Ascis Nimbus 18 which were both rated positively with 4 out of 5 stats. An explanation could be that the runners perceived the Nike Pegasus to be colder.