regarding MILERS ONLY, how much of improvement in times is contributed to the advancement of space-age track spikes?

Are today's milers that much better than Jim Ryun with these new spikes?

3:51 way back when

There was an interesting study done on synthetic tracks vs dirt/cinder ones of the past. The craziest stat was a composite image showing where 100m runners would have finished on a "neutral" track. You'd be surprised how close they were...I'm talking Jesse Owens breathing on Bolt close. There is a video online somewhere. I think track spikes and light shoes in general are more of a mental thing.

Someone with the math, what is the energy saved (maybe in calories?) of an ounce or two on 5'9"/1.75m tall runner?

Craig Mottram holds the record on the Iffly Road Track, where Bannister ran his sub-4, in 3:56. The next year, Mottram ran 3:48 in Oslo. Draw your own conclusions. That's why some people claim that Ryun ran the equivalent of 3:25.

Has physics proven that lighter shoes mean faster running? Let's see your calculations Champ?

If lighter shoes equals faster times then smaller feet should mean even faster times?

coach d wrote:

Craig Mottram holds the record on the Iffly Road Track, where Bannister ran his sub-4, in 3:56. The next year, Mottram ran 3:48 in Oslo. Draw your own conclusions. That's why some people claim that Ryun ran the equivalent of 3:25.

Iffley Road is an all weather track, but it's seemingly always windy there. Oxford doesn't have the best of weather either.

Fig Newton wrote:

Has physics proven that lighter shoes mean faster running? Let's see your calculations Champ?

If lighter shoes equals faster times then smaller feet should mean even faster times?

surely this is a troll post?

common sense proves that lighter is faster.

how many Shaquille-oneill type sub 4 milers do you see?

Fig Newton wrote:

Has physics proven that lighter shoes mean faster running? Let's see your calculations Champ?

If lighter shoes equals faster times then smaller feet should mean even faster times?

F = ma

I was going to give you a serious reply until I saw your user name. Your corporation has more than enough funds to research this question without stooping so low as to steal other runners/coaches hard earned secrets. Go away and go piss up a rope.

A difference of a couple ounces means diddly squat.

All improvements in the mile world record since the 1930's can be chalked up to doping methods. First amphetamines, which bit a huge 10 second chunk off the WR in barely a decade, then when they were banned, steroids and blood boosters nibbled away at it until they were cracked down too.

You could design a spike weighing 0.000001 ounces and it would never get anyone near 3:43, or near 3:25 except on a certain suspiciously elastic track.

Asbel Kiprop could put on high heeled Doc Martens and easily destroy anyone posting here.

Bad Wigins wrote:

A difference of a couple ounces means diddly squat.

All improvements in the mile world record since the 1930's can be chalked up to doping methods. First amphetamines, which bit a huge 10 second chunk off the WR in barely a decade, then when they were banned, steroids and blood boosters nibbled away at it until they were cracked down too.

You could design a spike weighing 0.000001 ounces and it would never get anyone near 3:43, or near 3:25 except on a certain suspiciously elastic track.

Asbel Kiprop could put on high heeled Doc Martens and easily destroy anyone posting here.

Man, that last paragraph really caught me funny. Well done. Best visual analogy in awhile.

Unregistered Name wrote:

Man, that last paragraph really caught me funny. Well done. Best visual analogy in awhile.

There were no analogies in that post, visual or otherwise.

I agree that 25-50g of shoe is unlikely to make a material difference. Increases in traction might though.

I remember that a South African coach/researcher from quite a while back (50+ years?) reported in Track Technique that he had experimented with painting a thin layer of rubber cement on the soles of sprinters' otherwise-bare feet, and that those runners had shown significant time improvements.

And I do remember a nicely-done bit of research from perhaps the 1980s--I have a vague memory of Sir Peter Snell's being one of the authors?--that examined the oxygen/energy costs of footwear of differing weights. In contrast to what an earlier poster suggested, an ounce or two of weight saved in shoes can make a measurable difference in energy expenditure.