Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
From The Floor
A Brief History of Civilian Drones
Scan of the Month
Apple AirPods Pro (2nd Generation) CT Teardown
Materials World
Apple Rethinks Paper Packaging
Design to Reality
Apple vs. Meta: Same Problem, Different Answers
The Quality Gap
Behind the Battery Report
The Quality Gap
Blind Spots in Electronics Quality
Design to Reality
Building for the Brain: Pioneering a Long-Term Neural Implant
Design to Reality
CT Teardown: AirPods Pro (3rd Generation)
Recall Radar
Defective On Arrival
The Quality Gap
Do Water Filters Actually Work?
Design to Reality
Eight Years to Redesign a Ketchup Cap
Design to Reality
Evolution of the Plastic Bottle
Recall Radar
Fall on Fire
From The Floor
Finding Lead in Stanley's Quencher
Design to Reality
Furbo and KONG: Two Ways to Give a Dog a Treat
Recall Radar
Hidden Failures of Everyday Interfaces
Design to Reality
How Does a Car Cigarette Lighter Work?
Scan of the Month
How Four Pens Solve the Same Problem
From The Floor
How Ground Truth Data Builds Trust Between OEMs and Suppliers
Design to Reality
How I Think About R&D (and Turning Ideas Into Products)
The Quality Gap
How People Drive Quality
From The Floor
How Saucony Uses CT to Build Better Running Shoes
Design to Reality
How SawStop Stops a Saw Blade in 5 Milliseconds
Materials World
How We Learned to Hold a Bit Still
Materials World
How the Wine Industry Engineered Around Cork's One Flaw
From The Floor
How to Read a Plastic Bottle
From The Floor
Inside a 12‑Month Sprint from Concept to Factory‑Ready Product
Scan of the Month
Inside the Nintendo Switch 2 Joy-Cons
From The Floor
Malicious Hardware Hidden in Plain Sight
From The Floor
Manufacturing in 2026: Less Disruption, More Discipline
Materials World
Materials That Make or Break a Shoe
Design to Reality
Not All USB-C Cables Are the Same
Design to Reality
Nothing Ear 3 Has Nothing to Hide
Recall Radar
Parts Under Pressure
Design to Reality
Pulling the Thread on Talenti’s Stubborn Lids
The Quality Gap
Reshoring's Hidden Constraint: Quality
Recall Radar
Routine Uses, Real Risks
Recall Radar
Safety Gaps That Keep Shipping
Materials World
Seashell Architecture
Materials World
Speaking in Steel and Sapphire: MING’s 20.01 Series 5
Recall Radar
Stored Energy Meets Soft Spots
From The Floor
The Missing Middle in Battery Manufacturing
Design to Reality
The Pink Tax: Are Men's and Women's Razors Actually Different?
Recall Radar
Tolerance Tested
Recall Radar
Too Hot, Too Sharp, Too Loose
Scan of the Month
We CT Scanned a Bag of Chips and 3D Printed the Results
Design to Reality
What Are Counterfeit Batteries?
The Quality Gap
What Counterfeit Apple Products Look Like on the Inside
The Quality Gap
What Food Manufacturers Can't See
Scan of the Month
What Medical Connectors Have to Get Right
Design to Reality
What QMSR Means for Medical Device Product Lifecycle Management
Materials World
What Roasting Does to a Coffee Bean, Seen From the Inside
The Quality Gap
What Went Wrong Inside These Recalled Power Banks?
Scan of the Month
What's Inside a Contactless Credit Card
Design to Reality
What's Inside the World's Fastest Marathon Shoes
The Quality Gap
What’s Hiding Inside Haribo’s Power Bank and Headphones?
Materials World
What’s Inside a Battery?
From The Floor
Your Toner Cartridge Is Lying to You

What's Inside the World's Fastest Marathon Shoes

In this Article:

  • CT scans of the Nike Alphafly 3 and Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1, produced by Lumafield in collaboration with the Financial Times, reveal that the two shoes pursue marathon performance through opposite engineering strategies: Nike builds a system of interacting components including a curved carbon-fiber plate, dual forefoot Air Zoom pods with internal fiber dividers, and a continuous ZoomX foam midsole, while Adidas reduces weight to 140 grams by replacing the plate with eleven anatomically mapped carbon-composite rods and applying liquid rubber directly to the foam outsole.
  • CT scans of the Adidas Pro Evo 1 revealed internal air pockets within several of the shoe's eleven carbon-composite energy rods, a manufacturing variation invisible to surface inspection; Adidas described the voids as minor irregularities that do not affect performance or durability, and no rod failures have been reported in competition, but the finding illustrates the gap between design intent and manufactured reality that CT imaging is built to surface.
  • Inside the Nike Alphafly 3's forefoot Air Zoom pods, CT scans resolved fine internal fibers that divide the air volume into smaller cells, limiting radial expansion under load and improving energy return per compression cycle, a structural detail invisible from the outside and not shown in any published cutaway of the shoe.
7.30.2024

In 2017, Nike released the Vaporfly, the first commercial running shoe with a carbon-fiber plate embedded in the midsole. Before it, only 19 women had ever run a marathon in under two hours and twenty minutes. In 2023 alone, 26 did. The performance shift was significant enough that World Athletics introduced regulations in 2020 limiting sole thickness and requiring competition footwear to be commercially available before use in elite races.

Every major brand has since developed its own version of the super shoe. To understand what separates the leading models, Lumafield worked with the Financial Times visual storytelling team to CT scan two of them: the Nike Alphafly 3 and the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1. The FT used the scans as the evidential foundation for a reported investigation into the technology driving record-breaking marathon performance. What follows is a detailed account of what the scans revealed.

Why CT scanning

A running shoe is a layered object. The components that matter most for performance, the carbon plate, the foam geometry, the air chambers, sit inside a midsole that is sealed and opaque. You can cut a shoe in half (which reviewers do regularly) but you can only cut it one way, you destroy the shoe in the process, and you see a single cross-section. CT scanning rotates the X-ray source around the object, reconstructing a full three-dimensional density map from hundreds of two-dimensional images. The result is a model you can slice in any plane, isolate by material density, and examine without touching the object.

If you’re interested in what’s actually inside these shoes, and whether the manufactured product matches the design intent, CT offers the only way to see the whole picture.

Tradeoffs at every turn

Every foot strike in a long-distance race is an energy transaction. Force travels down through the shoe, and some fraction of that energy returns to the runner as forward momentum rather than dissipating as heat. Over 26.2 miles, the cumulative difference between a shoe that returns measurably more energy and one that doesn't ultimately translates to finish time.

The engineering challenge is that the three variables runners care about—energy return, cushioning, and weight—compete against each other. More foam means more cushioning and potentially more energy return, but also a heavier shoe. A stiffer plate improves propulsion but changes how the shoe interacts with different foot-strike patterns. Every design decision involves a tradeoff, and those evident in these two shoes speak to the divergent philosophies behind them.

Nike Alphafly 3: perfect synergy

Nike's answer is accumulation. The Alphafly 3 is built around three technologies working together: a full-length carbon-fiber Flyplate, two Air Zoom pods embedded in the forefoot, and a continuous ZoomX foam midsole connecting heel to forefoot. The stack height is 40mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot. The shoe weighs in at 218 grams.

The scans show how those components relate spatially inside the assembled shoe, something a simple cutaway illustration can’t provide. The carbon plate runs the full length of the shoe at a consistent depth within the foam and is curved rather than flat. That curvature has a purpose: a flat plate would shift the point of force application toward the toe, increasing calf strain. The curved plate keeps it under the ball of the foot and directs propulsion forward.

The two Air Zoom pods sit in the forefoot above the plate, enclosed in foam on all sides. Inside the pods, we see a division of the air volume into smaller cells. Those fibers limit radial expansion under load, which increases the pressure the pod sustains and improves the energy it returns per compression cycle. This detail is invisible from the outside and does not appear in any published cutaway of the shoe.

The continuous midsole, a change from the Alphafly 2 which had a gap between the heel and forefoot sections, shows in the scan as a single uninterrupted foam body from heel to toe, with the plate and pods embedded within it. The geometry confirms what Nike describes as a smoother heel-to-toe transition.

Adidas Pro Evo 1: less is more

Adidas took the opposite approach. Where Nike added components, Adidas removed them. The Pro Evo 1 weighs 140 grams (78 grams less than the Alphafly 3), and much of that reduction comes from eliminating material instead of replacing it with lighter versions.

Instead of a full-length carbon plate, Adidas embedded eleven carbon-composite rods, each 5.5mm thick, running longitudinally through the midsole and mapped to the metatarsals. The intent is to target propulsion under specific joints, including the big toe, rather than distributing it across the full foot. Two pieces of Lightstrike Pro foam are bonded around the rods. The outsole is not a separate rubber component but a liquid rubber coating applied directly to the foam surface, removing approximately 20 grams compared to a conventional outsole. The upper is a single-layer transparent mesh with no sock liner.

The scans confirmed the rod placement and bonded foam geometry. They also found something Adidas had not publicized.

Inside the Adidas rods

Several of the carbon-composite rods contain internal porosity, visible in the density mapping as voids within what should be solid carbon composite.

The FT shared this finding with Adidas directly. The company described the voids as minor irregularities that can occur during the manufacturing process without affecting the performance or durability of the rods, and said it was not aware of any rods breaking in competition. That response is plausible. Carbon composite fabrication at complex geometries routinely produces small internal voids, and the rods have indeed performed at the highest level of marathon competition without reported failures.

But the finding points to crucial particularities of performance footwear manufacturing. The Pro Evo 1 is largely assembled by hand, a consequence of the precision required to position the rods correctly. Adidas has acknowledged the shoe does not generate direct profit at its $500 retail price. It serves as an engineering platform: learnings about rod placement, foam bonding, and wear behavior at the elite level feeds into higher-volume models. A scan that surfaces manufacturing variation in that platform is exactly the kind of evidence that drives the next iteration.

CT produces quantitative density data rather than surface images, which means it can measure the difference between a solid rod and one with a void, between a foam layer bonded as designed and one with a gap, between a component that meets spec and one that doesn't. The same thing CT insight contributed to this investigation is exactly what makes it so critical to the manufacturing process more broadly.

Differences that make a difference

The two shoes represent different theories about where the performance gains in marathon footwear come from. Nike's idea is a tuned system of interacting components, each refined over multiple generations, designed to work across a range of foot-strike patterns and runner profiles. Adidas bets that weight is the primary variable and that the structural function of a plate can be distributed through discrete rods positioned anatomically, eliminating material rather than optimizing it.

Both approaches have produced marathon world records. What the scans add is a precise account of what each shoe conceals, what the manufacturing process delivered against the design intent, and where the gap between those two things becomes visible. The distance between design intent and manufactured reality is where quality is won or lost, and where visibility matters most.

Citations
No items found.