Seems like Nike has been leading a revolution in the shoe industry. Even the runners who preach minimalist shoes swear by them.
Seems like Nike has been leading a revolution in the shoe industry. Even the runners who preach minimalist shoes swear by them.
A Nike sponsored athlete hyping up their newest expensive toy? No way.
Jealous, much?
RonnieMervis wrote:
Jealous, much?
Jealous of what/whom? I'm just pointing out that Camille is literally paid to say those things.
Compatible with trails? Seem not too durable.
O P wrote:
Compatible with trails? Seem not too durable.
Absolutely not. Merrell probably makes something for that demographic. Or maybe the five finger glove shoes.
I made my own version of these shoes. Took a pair of Skechers with no outsole and added a carbon layer and a thin outsole.
Way cheaper and maybe even a bit better. I call them the Rip-Off 5%.
Total cost: about 80 bucks although I already had the carbon and epoxy for another project.
"Real deal" and 4% improvement are not the same.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that Galen Rupp (2:09:58 PR) would really be a 2:15 something marathoner without the 4% shoes. Or if you put them on Bekele (2:03:03 PR), he would suddenly be a 1:58 something marathoner.
Improvement in running economy doesn't equal improvement in finishing time.
George213 wrote:
Improvement in running economy doesn't equal improvement in finishing time.
If the shoes don't improve your finishing time, then what's the point?
George213 wrote:
Improvement in running economy doesn't equal improvement in finishing time.
After all these months, how is this concept so difficult for many to comprehend? It's just weird.
I have the Zoom Fly (the $150 version of the Vaporfly with less tech in them, but similar overall). I love them so far, can't imagine racing without them. I mainly do half marathons. Maybe I'll step up to the 4% if i do a full marathon.
As another poster said. .Slap a "Roos" sticker on there instead of the Nike Swoosh and charge $60 and see if people still say the same about the shoes. The placebo effect is real.
Ugh you Nike shills, go away.If this concept is so obvious, why don't they just call them the Nike vapor fly 0.367%, because that's the actual decrease in race time one will experience on average? It's just a marketing lie meant to deceive hobby joggers. I'll stick with my Spira 10% and compression socks.
Reading Comprehension wrote:
George213 wrote:Improvement in running economy doesn't equal improvement in finishing time.
After all these months, how is this concept so difficult for many to comprehend? It's just weird.
Adidas Adios Boost is currently the fastest marathon shoe.
Adidas.
Now she can DNF faster
Okay, but... wrote:
"Real deal" and 4% improvement are not the same.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that Galen Rupp (2:09:58 PR) would really be a 2:15 something marathoner without the 4% shoes. Or if you put them on Bekele (2:03:03 PR), he would suddenly be a 1:58 something marathoner.
Firstly, Bekele I think used a prototype version of the 4% in Berlin last year but not the exact same as what is on the market. The same for Rupp last year. So last year's prototypes are so far, faster than the finished model. I don't think that Rupp has run in anything other than the vaporfly range over the marathon.
O P wrote:
Compatible with trails? Seem not too durable.
They are the real deal, but not compatible with trails. No bounce off pavement. It's not a durability thing.