NEW 2006 hummel boot pics

Cool design, I'd have to say. Better than the croc skin ones

 

sorry but look just a bit 2 much like the nike total 90 2 me

 

They dont really do anything for me. They just look a bit too much like shoes? rather than football boots. Sure some people will like them though.

appleCORR

 

Do you guys need someone to test these cleats? Always ready .

 

I think the whole Hummel Brand is a breath of fresh air in Soccer (or Football, as I refer to it). Instead of going for the regular design us players see on the more popular Nikes, Adidas, and Pumas, they are trying something outlandish and something that has never really been noted in the sport. Some people, like me, make statements on the pitch, regarding what they wear. Headbands, Armbands, Braces on the legs, odd-colored boots (i.e, Burnt Orange Vapors), are all things we see. I think that some of the Hummel products are things that represent a footballer.

It's great that you aren't here just to advertise and you're taking some of the opinions back to the drawing board. I will be sure to check out some Hummel products in the future.

PS -- I am not familiar with players wearing Hummel, but does Jon Dahl Tomasson wear the brand?

 

Interesting comments Richard regarding the new materials in your boot. I would however like to correct you on a number of certain issues regarding your claims (which I assume are simple marketing claims without any real technical foundation pushed by lack of understanding and spin from the suppliers). As you are aware, I used to work for Pittards for 12 years as their Innovations Manager, I know all of the so-called ‘tricks’ to goat skin.

So let me take your claims one by one, before finally offering a great deal more information that is pertinent to your thread:

“The main part of the shoe (the vamp and the lateral/outside parts) use a new material from Pittards called WR Premiership. It is a new goat skin material developed specifically for football boots and hummel is currently the only brand using it (although I know for a fact some of the other big brands are now testing it).”

The caprine material (goatskin) you talk of is not new. It is simply a new application for this leather, which is generally used in gloving leathers. The WR100 treatment that you mention later is a pretty generic and old technology for water resistance, pioneered back in the 80’s for golf gloves. It is also alledged that Hummel were approached 5th in line after the other major brands rejected this leather for use in soccer boots.

“This goat skin material has many of the same properties as K, (soft feel, lightweight, stong) but some otehr great properties that actually outperfrom K.”


Regarding strength, well the fibre structure of goatskin is significantly different to kangaroo. The strength characteristic of leather comes from the fibre structure in the "corium" section of the skin, in particular the angle of weave of the fibre structure and the grain:corium fibre ratio. This is where kangaroo shows superiority in that the fibre structure is a "flat-weave" which allows the fibres to act like a rope and thus have extreme tensile strength and tearing resistance. When larger goatskins are shaved, such as those that are 5 square feet and above in size, the "strength part" of the corium is mostly removed. I believe you have witnessed this in previous literature. Under our competitior analysis regime, we have tested WR Premiership in the past at a substance of 0.8-1.0mm from the Official Sampling Positions, we have found the tearing force according to the standard test method DIN 53329A to be no more than 20N, which is not really strong enough for soccer boots. Kangaroo is a minimum of 50N at these thicknesses (generally we run much closer to 80-100N). Caution must be paid also to the test method quoted. If it is tested on DIN 53329B, then this is a slot tear test (akin to the Baumann tear test), which will automatically give results twice as high as they should be for footwear applications.


“Compared to K, goat skin is much better for abrasion resistance (so your boots wont wear out), and also shows better breatheability.”

The only properties that it shares with kangaroo is the relatively soft feel, which is created through numerous chemical and physical softening operations. However, goatskins generally need to have an operation called ‘bating’ in a more severe format in order to gain softness of the grain layer. This process tends to reduce abrasion resistance of the grain layer. Kangaroo also has a tough grain layer, but it is much finer in appearance than the coarse look of the goatskin. In our testing, there is little difference between the grey species of kangaroo and the goatskin. Also Pittards gain their goatskins from various countries around the world. Thus goatskins from various parts of the world behave differently, particularly under seasonal variations.

I am unsure of the water vapour permeability (breathability) tests you have completed. There are a few different types. I do observe a fair amount of technical ignorance on this fact though from most designers at brands. The leather is coated with various polyurethane and acrylic polymers. The amount of coats, will influence breathability. The only fair way to tell is to compare alike colours. In our competitor testing using , on black leather, we observed better breathability by the kangaroo skins, by all test methods.


“In addition, because of the WR100 treatment (dyed right into the leather grain, not sprayed on top), the leather is very water resistant and drys soft, while retaining the breatheability and touch.”

Sorry to have to correct you once more, but 99% of soccer leathers are dyed right through these days. Kangaroo is no exception to this, infact we offer the largest amount of dye in penetration stages to get colour all of the way through. In addition, our hi-tech technologies are fully impregnated throughout the entire x-section of the base leather to provide water resistance, sweat resistance, quick drying out, dry soft qualities, high colour fastness (i.e. the colours wont bleed on to your socks) and the list goes on. Being impregnated they last the life of the boot. Interestingly, WR100 relates to water resistance. It does not, I believe at present, contain a sweat resistant back up tannage. Our kangaroo matches the water resistance values, and beats the WR premiership on colourfastness and sweat resistance as well.

One other thing special to Packer Leather kangaroo is that it passes washability tests which are very severe. Generally the perborates in washing powders cause havoc with stripping fats, causing the leather to dry out very hard and crack, but our special tannage resists this, although I still maintain the best way of cleaning boots is to wipe them down with a wet cloth and then allow them to air dry naturally.

“The medial (inside) of the boot (the part that looks like textured leather) is actually also the same goat skin, but processed in a special way to have a small texture cut into. This gives improved grip in both wet and dry conditions and also makes the inside ball control area more lightweight and touch responsive.”

This is a direct copy of the new Wet Grip Nomis boots, although you do not have the FriKtion technology which provides much higher coefficients of friction (grip) as in the Nomis boots. I do not think it will reduce the mass of the leather significantly I must say, as the cut areas generally reduce the mass by only 5%. Having made textured leathers for over 15 years, I know a lot about them. Actually, it’s uncanny that I seem to recognise that particular texture design……….I wonder if it is trademarked or owned.


To summarise, I could write a lot, lot more about your post and your claims regarding goatskin, but guess that should be away from this forum. But it is interesting that Hummel are interested in kangaroo (from us at Packer Leather) for your future boots, yet you are trying to bag it so much here and now on this forum…….rather confusing in some respects.

In addition I see that Hummel kitted out the entire YTFC in the UK earlier in the year with this leather. Not so many stuck with them, and I hear there is at least one now having switched to Nomis with more in the pipeline.

Remember all you guys out there playing soccer…..kangaroo is best. Accept no imitations.

Rgds,

Dr Leather

 

Thanks for the info Dr. Leather. But I can't help but defend Hummel. Since you are an expert in leather and all, you know every little nuance with the matereal. And, just so happens that you work with Nomis; a new brand competing with Hummel. It seems you just focused on the negatives of the matereal and none of the positives. Never saw too many negatives from you about Nomis. Or, about Adidas or Nike, for that matter.

It is a good thing to have such information, as a consumer. But, you have to understand Hummel was a small company once as well. I really don't think they would take apart all of Nomis's boots and point out the flaws.

Had you not worked with a competing brand, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. You wouldn't have a whole lot to gain from it if you didn't do work for a certain brand. However, I do not know if you are still associated with Nomis. So, I don't know if you really have anything to gain. But just the fact that you had done work in the past just makes it seem like you are doing this to take Hummel a peg down.

Overall, it is very good information. I appriciate it and I thank you for taking your time out to type it all. However, on a moral standpoint, I don't support it. Yes, people do have the right to know. But, in all honesty, we haven't heard anything but praise for your brand.

Hummel and Nomis are no where near as large as Adidas or Nike, so what good are you really doing? If people don't like your boots and find out Hummel's boots are not as great either, you'll just put more revenue into the real Giant's hands.

Regards,

-ADIK

 

I would wear these, I like them.

 

Let me reiterate to absolutely everybody on the forum and in the whole wide world. I DO NOT work for Nomis, nor adidas, nor Nike, nor any sports brand. I work in the leather industry and was just illustrating some key points regarding some comments made about goatskin and kangaroo leather. Simple as that my friends. And quite rightly as you say ADIKeeper, I am an expert in my field, thus I feel I am qualified to comment on these issues....objectively and technically truthfully.

Richard - with regards to your point about unprofessionalism in knocking a competitor. I simply took your lead by you bagging kangaroo in the first place. Simple as that. Please PM me with test specs and their results and let me see. Maybe things have changed with WR Premiership. In honesty Richard you are not a leather expert of over 15 years experience, and multiple top qualifications in the profession, of that I am sure you would agree, and so you should be careful with your limited knowledge of leather and the words you write. You are a very good designer by looks of the boot and from your website, of that nobody can argue. I would suggest we stick to our relative fields of expertise my friend.

At the end of the day you are both right on one point. People make their own decisions for sure, and that is the acid test for everybody. I wish Hummel every success for the future with their new products.

Best wishes,

Dr Leather

 

You two should collab. I'm sure some amazing stuff will come out of it. Both of you are great at what you do. I appologise for starting this little argument with my post. I just think focusing on negatives isn't what we need to succeed.

 

yeah from my observations, it seems like both of u should partner

 

The 2006 hummel collection isn't quite as nice as the 2005 collection

 

I actually like what Hummel and Nomis are doing. For so long football boot designs have been stagnant. What real innovations have their been since the Predator? Adidas/Nike just seem to flood the market - they know they practically own it, so they can mass market, they have the dosh to have Beckham & co on their books and so it's too easy for them. Nike sticks a (90) on the side of the boot big deal. I don't think they seem to care about player's performances anymore - where are the break throughs in technology from them? As someone who has worked with a lot of global brands I understand this quite well.

At least with Hummel and Nomis they are trying to make products that actually will improve a player's performance and are spending time and effort in developing new technologies. At the end of the day I would rather be wearing boots that give me a small advantage over others (Cause I need help wherever it's going!!)

I think people are put off by smaller brands with expensive products so yes Hummel/Nomis will not compete with adidas/nike yet. How could new brands anyway? I just think it will be interesting to watch how these smaller companies go over the next 10 years.

I've said it before on this forum, the more choice the better. It's just too many people don't think for themselves anymore. (Opens himself up for attack!)

That's my $0.02

 

um dr leather is feakin smart. GO NIKE!!!!!!!!

 

imagine on the second pic of the black ones, the white parts black and you got yourself some profies! but i'm sure its just a coincidence!

 

Richard, now that you're taking requests, perhaps you could favor me with details of your 05 Silver Anniversary Indoor model. Specifically, upper material, midsole material, and shoe weight... or any other notable info. Is this considered your top-of-the-line indoor model? Reason I ask is that someone is currently offering these and the Squadras on blowout on ebay. One more, how do hummel shoes fit compared to say Nike or adidas... large or small per a given size?

Many thanks,

-Professor Calgues