lrlrismymotto wrote:
It looked like Rupp was wearing the OG Alphafly today
Mantz too, no?
lrlrismymotto wrote:
It looked like Rupp was wearing the OG Alphafly today
Mantz too, no?
More Instagram Noise wrote:
After reading through the comments, I don't understand why this was "published". The guy performing the study believes his new equipment has too much noise. Does that invalidate the whole test? Is there anything to glean from this?
I mean take it how you want to take it but a lot of Nike athletes haven't been wearing the AF 3s. They've been wearing older models of the AFs or VFs. Response matters & not everyone is able to test & find out which shoe they're faster in. You'll be faster in the AF 3 than a normal flat so getting the newest model can still give you a racing bump. But you won't know how you respond to each shoe company's version
but were the shoe testers doped wrote:
I thought the AF 1 was clunky.
I thought so too at first (even started a thread on it) but over time learned to like it more than the VFs
I would word it differently. New Study finds the original AlphaFly is better than the Alphafly 3.
The AF3s were tested on some of the top athletes headed into the trials. They tested much worse than the AF1s. 2-3% worse. Sorry I can’t say more but if you don’t want to take me at my word shell out nearly $300 like I did to get them in time for the trials only to put them on and find they have no bounce and feel very firm. I’m sure there are ideal footstrikes/form that make them work for some but I don’t think that’s the majority. Better start stocking up on the old ones before prices go way up on stockx
The Vaporfly next %s or whatever the other one is called is getting worse with each model as well. Or maybe I'm just getting fatter and slower.
F. Bacon wrote:
This guy's methodology is a joke.
Anyone with half a brain would know it's not a real "study". At least it's something better than socktuber reviews
Gronland wrote:
Granted, very interesting, but all arbitrary numbers in an inordinately low power (n=1?) study. As I said, really cool that he did this, but it has zero statistical significance.
Maybe you should take or retake a stats class if you think anything has "zero statistical significance"...just saying you'll learn a lot!