4% slower than 2:00:25 Is 2:05:13

But it's 2:05:13 barefoot, still very impressive, and I am pretty sure the fastest barefoot time.

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Not too impressive when you think about it that way...

Only you are probably thinking of it that way.

2:05:13 wouldn't even be a PR effort for Kiochoge, kind of amazing huh

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

2:05:13 wouldn't even be a PR effort for Kiochoge, kind of amazing huh

It's not a linear scale.

The 4% is probably a real figure but it's probably 4% over Walmart running shoes, not whatever Nike normally puts their marathoners in

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Not too impressive when you think about it that way...

What part of 4% "more efficient" do you not understand?

Gas in the tank wrote:

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Not too impressive when you think about it that way...

What part of 4% "more efficient" do you not understand?

No you got me all wrong, I just mean think about it this way... if 2016 London Kipchoge had shown up today, we would have gotten a 1:58:11 last night! Crazy to think about.

Efficiency ≠ Time Improvements

Rockgip wrote:

Efficiency ≠ Time Improvements

Yes, efficiency does equal time improvements.

you're wrong there wrote:

Rockgip wrote:

Efficiency ≠ Time Improvements

Yes, efficiency does equal time improvements.

Yes, but a 4% efficiency benefit will not make you run 4% faster.

Spanish Inquisition wrote:

you're wrong there wrote:

Yes, efficiency does equal time improvements.

Yes, but a 4% efficiency benefit will not make you run 4% faster.

Ok right technically it means that you can run at the same speed with 4% less energy but obviously that means you have 4% extra energy which you can use to run 4% faster. Sorry didn't realize I was dealing with a semantics master over here

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Spanish Inquisition wrote:

Yes, but a 4% efficiency benefit will not make you run 4% faster.

Ok right technically it means that you can run at the same speed with 4% less energy but obviously that means you have 4% extra energy which you can use to run 4% faster. Sorry didn't realize I was dealing with a semantics master over here

That assumes efficiency is 100% the reason for your time. It's about 10% if that, 4% makes you closer to 0.4% faster.

Only about a quarter of the energy we burn ends up actually propelling us forward. So at most he would run 1% faster with that extra 4% of energy.

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Spanish Inquisition wrote:

Yes, but a 4% efficiency benefit will not make you run 4% faster.

Ok right technically it means that you can run at the same speed with 4% less energy but obviously that means you have 4% extra energy which you can use to run 4% faster. Sorry didn't realize I was dealing with a semantics master over here

Running economy is not efficiency. Running economy is an outdated term.

Efficiency does not necessarily translate to time improvements.

Nike is reporting data which makes their shoe look good but this claim is not independently confirmed data,

They are incentivized to lie because they want to sell overpriced sweatshop shoes.

Johnny Karate wrote:

Only about a quarter of the energy we burn ends up actually propelling us forward. So at most he would run 1% faster with that extra 4% of energy.

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Ok right technically it means that you can run at the same speed with 4% less energy but obviously that means you have 4% extra energy which you can use to run 4% faster. Sorry didn't realize I was dealing with a semantics master over here

So where does the other 3% go? Was he going 1% higher? Or was moving to each side 1% more? Sorry bud but I think you may have been talking a little above your level of expertise in the subject

Rockgip wrote:

Efficiency ≠ Time Improvements

This is all that needs to be said. Not all equations are linear people.

Spaghettimonster wrote:

Rockgip wrote:

Efficiency ≠ Time Improvements

This is all that needs to be said. Not all equations are linear people.

So then it's possible the 4% more efficient shoes would have made him more than 4% faster??

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

Spaghettimonster wrote:

This is all that needs to be said. Not all equations are linear people.

So then it's possible the 4% more efficient shoes would have made him more than 4% faster??

5/10, either you're a troll or you'll just never understand.

dsrunner wrote:

Running economy is not efficiency. Running economy is an outdated term.

Efficiency does not necessarily translate to time improvements.

Nike is reporting data which makes their shoe look good but this claim is not independently confirmed data,

They are incentivized to lie because they want to sell overpriced sweatshop shoes.

This is correct, Wanjiru and Kipsang have more economical actions than Kipchoge. He really works his arms.

I seriously think that the new Nike Vaporflys spend too long on ground contact and make the runner pronate too much.