Kipchoge Shoes - Anyone else notice he ditched the Alphaflys?

King Tiger wrote:

capsicum wrote:

The secret ineos alphafly was not the same as the retail version. In the pre-race photo shoot where eliud was holding the shoes there is a clear foam separation in the midsole for an extra plate in the forefoot.

debunked

there was no extra plate

those were just patent drawings

False, those shoes caused the stack height and plate rules so the retail version got downgraded and thus isn’t that great.

King Noob wrote:

King Tiger wrote:

debunked

there was no extra plate

those were just patent drawings

False, those shoes caused the stack height and plate rules so the retail version got downgraded and thus isn’t that great.

No, you are wrong

Steffen wrote:

Also Kipchoge wasn´t wearing Next% at the Monza race.

Monza was a huge part of the original 4% development. Alpha was 2 iterations away at that point so obviously not

King Tiger wrote:

King Noob wrote:

False, those shoes caused the stack height and plate rules so the retail version got downgraded and thus isn’t that great.

No, you are wrong

Sorry Nike, retail version is overpriced and not better than the next%. May as well discontinue it already has it doesn’t live up to the ineos spring loaded prototype.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

study? wrote:

Salvatore

Any scientific evidence for the 7% claim?

The same running economy testing that found the 4% benefit of the original 4% shoes.

Dude, you're being asked for your SOURCE ?

No, there were detailed blueprints of the shoes that matched with all photos shown at the event.

Kengo Suzuki won Lake Biwa in just under 2:05 in AlphaFlys.

How could I forget that race! Some good performances for ASICS in there too.

Salvitore

I was the principal investigator on the original Vaporfly 4% shoes.

So I don't understand why you would respond to the question:

Any scientific evidence for the 7% claim?

with:

"The same running economy testing that found the 4% benefit of the original 4% shoes."

What is your 'source" for the alleged 7% running economy improvement for Next%?

Did you just make it up?

rk

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2

Rodger Kram wrote:

Salvitore

I was the principal investigator on the original Vaporfly 4% shoes.

So I don't understand why you would respond to the question:

Any scientific evidence for the 7% claim?

with:

"The same running economy testing that found the 4% benefit of the original 4% shoes."

What is your 'source" for the alleged 7% running economy improvement for Next%?

Did you just make it up?

rk

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2

Great article rk. Published in 2017. So how exactly did you think this article was going to test a shoe that was still 18 months away from being released (article written Nov 2017, nxt% released April 2019). My god some of you are laughably stupid.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Great article rk. Published in 2017. So how exactly did you think this article was going to test a shoe that was still 18 months away from being released (article written Nov 2017, nxt% released April 2019). My god some of you are laughably stupid.

You're the one who said that your "source" was the same study that verified the 4% benefit in earlier show. The poster you responded to was the principle author of that study and he's asking you how that applies to the Next%.

You ever walk in ski boots? That's the Alphafly.

Grumble, grumble, grumble wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Great article rk. Published in 2017. So how exactly did you think this article was going to test a shoe that was still 18 months away from being released (article written Nov 2017, nxt% released April 2019). My god some of you are laughably stupid.

You're the one who said that your "source" was the same study that verified the 4% benefit in earlier show. The poster you responded to was the principle author of that study and he's asking you how that applies to the Next%.

Is this a serious post or are you complete meathead pretending to be an "expert who can't reveal his sources" ? I think we all know the answer by now...

Salvitore

yes, 2019>2017. That was my point. the 4% study offers no data about Alphafly so I was questioning why you would cite it.

I surmise that:

1. you work(ed) at Nike and meant to write in your post that you have seen (or heard about) internal running economy testing using the same methodology as the original 4% study for the Alphafly vs. Next %. If true, and I doubt it, I don't know why you would violate the "keep it tight" rule of the NSRL just to impress LetsRun crowd.

or

2. you made up the 7% number.