The Chicago time was run in the Nike Vaporfly Elite, absolutely akin to what is available now. At that, they were customised as well.
So you're saying the Vaporfly from 2018, offered the same benefits as today's version...? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. The shoe guru scientists are constantly tweaking (making them marginally lighter, but still preserving their protective elements) their products.
Look at Puma, for example - in 2018 they didn't even have a super shoe of note.
I'm saying the VAPORFLY ELITE made custom for pros absolutely offers the same benefits as the current iteration of supershoes. This referenced Vaporfly elite eventually morphed into the Vaporfly next%, showing as high as 10% change (why it was named "next%") as opposed to the original 4% change seen in the Vaporfly 4%.
I'm saying the VAPORFLY ELITE made custom for pros absolutely offers the same benefits as the current iteration of supershoes. This referenced Vaporfly elite eventually morphed into the Vaporfly next%, showing as high as 10% change (why it was named "next%") as opposed to the original 4% change seen in the Vaporfly 4%.
Certainly your take is closer to the truth than Ghost1's presumption that new shoes are 3 minutes faster than Nike's v1 supershoes. Maybe 1 minute generously, but even there I'd be skeptical for an elite male runner. It does appear the women have larger gains.
So you're saying the Vaporfly from 2018, offered the same benefits as today's version...? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. The shoe guru scientists are constantly tweaking (making them marginally lighter, but still preserving their protective elements) their products.
Look at Puma, for example - in 2018 they didn't even have a super shoe of note.
I'm saying the VAPORFLY ELITE made custom for pros absolutely offers the same benefits as the current iteration of supershoes. This referenced Vaporfly elite eventually morphed into the Vaporfly next%, showing as high as 10% change (why it was named "next%") as opposed to the original 4% change seen in the Vaporfly 4%.
Getting nerdy and into the weeds, this is correct. A dirty little secret is that the Alphafly 3 (current iteration) actually tested with less economy (~2%) than the original Alphafly (~5%) and its precursor, Next% (~4.2%). Economy being defined as the oxygen cost or energy requirement needed to run at a certain speed.
Note that this testing was done at higher speeds, with numbers worsening as speed decreased- ie they work better at faster speeds (assuming body size held constant).
It will be interesting to see how the new Puma mentioned with Linkletter tests as well as the ASICS Metaspeed Ray coming in August (looks extremely promising at 160g). The Adidas adios pro evo 1 tested all over the board, and perhaps this inconsistency will change with evo2? I do not know of any studies with the Cloudboom Strike. I believe Saucony has their endorphin pro at ~3%, and am unsure of what Brooks Hyperion tests at.
The Chicago time was run in the Nike Vaporfly Elite, absolutely akin to what is available now. At that, they were customised as well.
So you're saying the Vaporfly from 2018, offered the same benefits as today's version...? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. The shoe guru scientists are constantly tweaking (making them marginally lighter, but still preserving their protective elements) their products.
Look at Puma, for example - in 2018 they didn't even have a super shoe of note.
But in 2018 it was still legal to customize the shoe for an individual runner. Since Mo was one of Nike's very best at the time, it's extremely likely they did in-lab testing on him specifically, tuning the "recipe" of foam and plate parameters for him in particular. There's a decent amount of runner to runner variation in response to various shoes, so the quoted numbers ("4%" for example) is just an average across individuals. I think a tuned shoe from back then could get you up to more like 5-6% energetic cost reduction. Runners today ARE NOT allowed the custom tune, they have to go with off-the-shelf models. So you see more variation, a new shoe comes out and all of a sudden a 2:05-low guy is now a 2:03-high guy by virtue of getting lucky with the new shoe and his individual characteristics.
So you're saying the Vaporfly from 2018, offered the same benefits as today's version...? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. The shoe guru scientists are constantly tweaking (making them marginally lighter, but still preserving their protective elements) their products.
Look at Puma, for example - in 2018 they didn't even have a super shoe of note.
But in 2018 it was still legal to customize the shoe for an individual runner. Since Mo was one of Nike's very best at the time, it's extremely likely they did in-lab testing on him specifically, tuning the "recipe" of foam and plate parameters for him in particular. There's a decent amount of runner to runner variation in response to various shoes, so the quoted numbers ("4%" for example) is just an average across individuals. I think a tuned shoe from back then could get you up to more like 5-6% energetic cost reduction. Runners today ARE NOT allowed the custom tune, they have to go with off-the-shelf models. So you see more variation, a new shoe comes out and all of a sudden a 2:05-low guy is now a 2:03-high guy by virtue of getting lucky with the new shoe and his individual characteristics.
I am of the thought that the 2017-19 Elite that was only available to pros is probably the best Nike had produced. It's definitely better than what is mass produced now.