The 4% is cheating and should be banned

what, you can't bounce your shoes six feet off the ground?

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

So you can't get your hands on any or can't afford them?

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

what, you can't bounce your shoes six feet off the ground?

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

I agree, this is definitely cheating since running is predominantly about how high you can bounce.

The problem is that most of runners who have worn them have set their PR in them. Those people on here will never agree that their PR has an asterisk next to it. It is too personal to them.

It's a shoe...

Just admit it wrote:

People who wear them are just as guilty as someone who unknowingly takes a banned substance.

Just like those who drink coffee before a race. Those dirty cheaters

fyciykhc wrote:

The problem is that most of runners who have worn them have set their PR in them. Those people on here will never agree that their PR has an asterisk next to it. It is too personal to them.

I set my PR's in Adidas. I know for sure that if I ran in bare feet I would go a lot slower. What about spikes? Aren't all shoes performance enhancing?

do your next run in bare feet wrote:

fyciykhc wrote:

The problem is that most of runners who have worn them have set their PR in them. Those people on here will never agree that their PR has an asterisk next to it. It is too personal to them.

I set my PR's in Adidas. I know for sure that if I ran in bare feet I would go a lot slower. What about spikes? Aren't all shoes performance enhancing?

So you wouldn't be opposed to someone winning in roller skates as long as the wheels were hidden? It's not just a shoe, it's a shoe with a spring in it.

So when Bowerman was making all them adjustments to his team's running shoes he was cheating ??

Pretzel Man wrote:

So when Bowerman was making all them adjustments to his team's running shoes he was cheating ??

Last time I checked Bowerman wasn't putting springs in shoes. It's one thing to improve traction and cushioning of a shoe. It's another to add equipment to shoes that litterally propels runners forward.

Corked bats aren't allowed in baseball, certain wet suits aren't allowed in swimming, a spring loaded shoe shouldn't be allowed in running.

Exactly, well said.

I can't believe all these idiotic justifications I read on here - "well you know, this / that / whatever shoe has cushioning so I guess they should be banned too / my PR in them shouldn't count". Absolutely Bananas! We are talking about a device which literally has a SPRING mechanism in it!

It is essentially in a different category of transportation. The Morans arguments on here is analogous to someone going out on a motorbike, breaking a cycling course record, then justifying it by saying "well you know, it just another improvement, you might as well say that only records set on penny farthings should count".

Justifying Vaporflys is equally ridiculous.

Just admit it wrote:

So you wouldn't be opposed to someone winning in roller skates as long as the wheels were hidden? It's not just a shoe, it's a shoe with a spring in it.

So the 4% is the same as wearing roller skates to you?

I've never word the 4% and probably never will. I guess I just don't believe the hype. Has there been any actual studies done on the current available model that shows that they give an actual advantage? If so, which shoes were they compared against? Is everything else equal other than the carbon fibre plate (same weight, amount of cushion, same type of cushion material, stack height, drop, etc etc.).

I should say that I have big concerns about placebo effect. I think if someone drops down a lot of money on shoes that are suppose to make them fast, it will make them fast. So the study would also have to control for people not knowing which shoes they were wearing.

Cheating is really easy to identify, it is anything that is against established rules. As of now, their is no rule against the Vaporfly, therefore it's not cheating. If you don't like getting beat by someone in that shoe, go get the shoe yourself. If down the line IAAF or another governing party determines the Vaporfly is cheating, then it will from that time on be cheating. As of now it is NOT cheating. Does it give a runner an advantage? Yes. But no runner is banned from seeking that same advantage. No runner's health is jeopardized by engaging in the advantage (as it would be with PEDs). There is an advantage available to all athletes and some are using it, while others are crying about it. Cycling, golf, tennis are other examples of where better equipment can give you an advantage, but no one is banned from obtaining that equipment. Everyone is welcome to use it. It's within the rules.

Yes, true I agree - it's not cheating as the rules stand.

However, as far as I'm concerned, it is cheating yourself. You'll never know if you really would have PR'd without them and down the line that's surely going to niggle for some people

Yeah, others won't care - recent hobbyjogger converts are just going to be happy to check in at the water cooler with the tale of their new "PR", but the guy who's been running for years, training damn hard, and decides to give them a go is going to have that doubt in the back of his mind as to whether he'd have PR'd without them.

And the way it's going to go as well is people will start asking what your best times are, if you ran in Vaporflys, and if so what your best time WITHOUT the Vaporflys are. So they will essentially become worthless anyway.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Exactly, well said.

I can't believe all these idiotic justifications I read on here - "well you know, this / that / whatever shoe has cushioning so I guess they should be banned too / my PR in them shouldn't count". Absolutely Bananas! We are talking about a device which literally has a SPRING mechanism in it!

It is essentially in a different category of transportation. The Morans arguments on here is analogous to someone going out on a motorbike, breaking a cycling course record, then justifying it by saying "well you know, it just another improvement, you might as well say that only records set on penny farthings should count".

Justifying Vaporflys is equally ridiculous.

It’s not at all a different category. Every shoe is a spring. Literally every one. The Vaporfly is a slightly better spring because it uses foam that compresses a lot while still having high energy return. The foam isn’t even a new technology. What’s innovative is using a giant thick slab of it instead of trying to make racers as minimal as possible.

Note that Adidas actually started the trend of having beefier marathon racers, at the request of their athletes. Adidas also used a different foam, and as a result, the Adios was proven, in a lab setting, to be more efficient than Nike’s best shoe. The Vaporfly is just the next step in this competition.

And no, there’s nothing special about the carbon plate. It isn’t even the source of the Vaporfly’s springiness. It makes the shoe stable and functions as a lever. But that’s not new either. You would have to eliminate all records worn wearing track spikes if rigid plates were a problem. Many road shoes have used and continue to use rigid plates. Heck, Nike has always made custom road racers with spike plates at the request of sponsored athletes.

Nobody has proposed a workable way of banning the VF based on its tech that wouldn’t also sweep in a huge number of other shoes.

jrtsrsj wrote:

Cycling, golf, tennis are other examples of where better equipment can give you an advantage, but no one is banned from obtaining that equipment. Everyone is welcome to use it. It's within the rules.

Certain equipment is banned from each those sports just like a spring loaded shoe should be banned in running. But because of conflict of interest, Nike shoes will never be banned. Sorry that your PR has an asterisk next to it, that would piss me off too.

Also, the main complaint I hear in regards to the Vaporflys is the carbon fiber plate. But from the studies I've read, the plate only producing 1% of the claimed 4% advantage. The real bang for your buck is the cushion technology that Nike uses in the show. If the shoe were banned for the plate acting as a spring, from what I understand Nike could remove it and you'd be left with the Vaporfly 3%. The spring action doesn't come from the plate as much as it does from the cushion. The plate is pressed down on the cushion at impact and the cushion compresses and then releases, pushing the plate upward.

I'll try to find the article I read, but I'm struggling to find it at the moment. It's been a few months.

But would people still cry foul if the plate were removed? Would you still blame Nike for creating better cushion technology than their competitors?

800 dude wrote:

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Exactly, well said.

I can't believe all these idiotic justifications I read on here - "well you know, this / that / whatever shoe has cushioning so I guess they should be banned too / my PR in them shouldn't count". Absolutely Bananas! We are talking about a device which literally has a SPRING mechanism in it!

It is essentially in a different category of transportation. The Morans arguments on here is analogous to someone going out on a motorbike, breaking a cycling course record, then justifying it by saying "well you know, it just another improvement, you might as well say that only records set on penny farthings should count".

Justifying Vaporflys is equally ridiculous.

And no, there’s nothing special about the carbon plate. It isn’t even the source of the Vaporfly’s springiness.

Keep telling yourself that.

If the carbon spring was removed the shoe wouldn't have the same affect.

If springs don't matter then people wouldn't have a problem with Oscar Pistorious running in the Olympics.

Just admit it wrote:

800 dude wrote:

And no, there’s nothing special about the carbon plate. It isn’t even the source of the Vaporfly’s springiness.

Keep telling yourself that.

If the carbon spring was removed the shoe wouldn't have the same affect.

If springs don't matter then people wouldn't have a problem with Oscar Pistorious running in the Olympics.

Other brands have used carbon fiber plates. Gebresalasse had a plate in his Adidas shoe when he broke WR in marathon. Hoka One One has had shoes with a carbon fiber plate. Track spikes have stiff plates to promote speed. What's different between those attempts and Nike's?

Quote from a Runner's World Article discussing Adidas's attempt at carbon fiber plate "Road shoes, too, have incorporated carbon-fiber propulsion plates. Here’s what Runner’s World UK wrote back in 2000 about the debut of Adidas’s Gazelle Pro Plate shoe: “Much as the German giant would like to be the first to use a springy carbon-fibre plate to augment a shoe’s forefoot performance, the Italians have been using a similar technology in the Fila Racer for two years. The good news is that the technology works, and the Gazelle benefits from it.”