Will the 1.0 Ultra boost be replaced? >Perfect comfort >Perfect

>>12353966
>0 traction

You forgot that

2.0s are the best functionally

>>12353982
My creams have the same tractions as the 2.0's I've tried.

File: dd6e09d2bc02beb0757dbdd8b8bc6882.jpg (91KB, 736x492px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 736x492px

>>12353987
Not in wet grass faggot

>>12353966
1.0s have shitty bottoms that wear out fast. They fixed that with 2.0 and 3.0.

>>12354106
With what soles?

>>12354178
I meant the undersides of the shoes that touch the ground when you walk. I read it was made from a weak kind of rubber but then Adidas made a deal with a tire company to produce more durable ones for 2.0s an 3.0s. Anyway, just what I read. Won't deny 1.0s are aesthetic af.

>>12353987
I'm p sure creams are one of the few 1.0s that have the continental rubber so you're getting 1.0 looks with 2.0 function

>>12353966
I'm sure they'll be brought back eventually. Adidas must know people prefer the 1.0 aesthetic. I could see them releasing a few more versions before re-releasing the 1.0s though. They will milk the UB hype for all it's worth.

Dooms > 1.0 UB > EQTs

File: article_1485880149_adidas-originals-by-white-mountaineering-eqt-support-93-17-first-look-2.jpg (85KB, 1024x615px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x615px

>>12355024
>bulky ass shoe
i have 2 pairs of dooms and i barely wear them
same reason i rarely wear my ozweegos
and the eqt 93 17s (at least the white mountaineering collab) are as comfortable if not more comfortable than the 1.0s and look pretty damn good

>>12354895
Yeah, a 1.0 og purple restock is bound to happen, they did it with the NMD so I'm sure they'll do it with the UB

>>12355394
Tried on a pair and I must say the sole felt really unstable and squishy. I prefer ultra boost for it's stability.
93/17 could really benefit from a torsion system, and it's weird that it doesn't have one since the rubber sole already has a hole cut out for it.

>>12355394
When will they have a proper Prime Knit pattern?