Pete, why don't you expedite matters and call, not write, somebody at USATF and get the answer to your question? Writing, as I've discovered, often gets little, much delayed or no action.
Pete, why don't you expedite matters and call, not write, somebody at USATF and get the answer to your question? Writing, as I've discovered, often gets little, much delayed or no action.
Roller blades give you an advantage; Spira shoes don't.
If someone wore roller blades would they be DQ'd? Yes. Not because of the advantage but because they are against the rules.
Scott,
this is as good a place to discuss the question. If nobody has an answer, that's fine, then maybe there is no answer. If there is a valid answer, I'm certain someone from USATF could chime in and resolve the question - hey, maybe consider this an open letter to USATF, eh? Call me lazy (I am lazy), but if I can't google a good answer, there probably isn't one.
are you sure you are not german or swiss? where does this strict adherence to rules come from?why concern yourself over it - my gosh?drugs are one thing but shoes, come on?
wejo wrote:
u fool wrote:Poor comparisons all around. What SCIENCE is the Spira ban based on? You come off as incredibly naive here and as an apologist for lazy bureaucrats.
Spira can argue with USATF about the science. Currently that is not my concern. My concern is that the shoes are banned yet Spira purposely at Boston violates the ban for publicity reasons. The rules of competition that are designed for a level playing field need to be enforced. If I disagree with some drug being on the USADA bannedlist, that does not mean I can take it without repercussions. If Spira has a problem with the rule then they need to focus on getting the rule changed, not purposely breaking the rule.
Similarly, if athletes are being encouraged to race and just get as much tv time as possible that presents other problems as well for me. My article is up:
http://www.letsrun.com/2007/spiraban4167.php
If you want to compare this shoe ban with the drug issues of the sport, then it is important to adhere to the rules. Part of the reason why track/running has lost its following over the years is because everyone thinks the best athletes are on drugs. So if you have good athletes blatantly disregarding the USATF rules on footwear, who is to say they ignore any other rules?
Spira might think this is good publicity, but who are they marketing to? They are not setting a good example for anyone. I think like Nike a little more now.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
So if you have good athletes blatantly disregarding the USATF rules on footwear, who is to say they ignore any other rules?
* "...do NOT ignore any other rules?"
If you can't see how something with an actual spring would be a mechanical advantage, then you are an idiot.
I saw this chick at mile 24:
http://www.travelizmo.com/archives/spring-shoes-model.jpg
Someone get her banned.
I. Newton wrote: If you can't see how something with an actual spring would be a mechanical advantage, then you are an idiot.
It's possible that I am an idiot. Or perhaps it is you, happy to jump to the easy conclusion, who is an idiot.
You go run a marathon with springs on your heels and report back. Thanks.
Pete,
Any piece of rubber is a spring that offers a combination of energy return and energy dissipation. So the outersole, midsole and innnersole of any shoe can be regarded as a system of springs connected in series, which creates one big effective spring between your foot and the running surface. You can't have cushioning without energy dissipation, and any energy return has to be opposite to the direction in which the spring (or effective spring) is compressed. Depending on the relationship between energy absorption and return, some midsoles are stiffer and more responsive, and others are better at shock absorption. Think of the shocks on your car or changing the tension on a trampoline.
Spira is essentially using a compositite midsole to change the effective spring constant of its shoes, just as other manufacturers have done with gels, air pockets, compressed gases or systems of rubber springs. I don't think there is any inherent performance advantage, and I haven't seen any technical document to show otherwise. There might be a long term benefit through the mitigation of the loss of responsiveness in the shoes as they accumulate miles. In other words, the metallic springs might be less prone to collapse than typical foam rubber midsoles, and that is indeed one of the marketing claims from Spira.
Disclaimer: My physics PhD is in optics, although I have done a fair amount of work in mechanics. I don't know of any law of physics that would lead to a technical advantage for these shoes, so I would also like to know what basis was used in banning these shoes. It's been a heck of a marketing gimmick for Spira, similar to when the sales of Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager shot up when it was banned in Texas due to its name.
[quote]Pete wrote:
To take a relevant tangent... can anyone point me to some legitimate science one way or the other that shows if these shoes actually create an advantage? What is USATF's basis for this rule?
quote]
Just as a heads up, I was watching the Eurosport Live Broadcast and they did mention that these were the Spira guys and were wearing Spira shoes and spent some time elaborating on the whole thing. I can only speak for the Dutch broadcast in the Netherlands, but could have happened elsewhere depending on the broadcast team...
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
Spira might think this is good publicity, but who are they marketing to? They are not setting a good example for anyone. I think like Nike a little more now.
Like any running shoe company, they are marketing to the masses.
Whether or not the technology actually provides an advantage to an elite runner is irrelevant if they can create a perception of an advantage. USATF isn't going to go to the trouble of DQing hundreds of mid-packers and more than a few of them might be tempted to buy a shoe they perceive will make them a little bit faster.
"Good" athletes who have a realistic chance to win significant races probably aren't going to wear a shoe that may get them disqualified unless someone (e.g. Spira) is paying them to do so.
This strikes me as similar to Cannondale's (the bicycle company) "Legalize my Cannondale" campaign a few years ago where they were marketing a frame that was lighter than the UCI weight limit for competition (if you bought the smallest frame size). Sure they could (and did for their pro riders) add a little weight to make it competition legal, but you the casual rider could buy an "illegal performance enhancing bicycle" down at your corner bike shop.
The shoes are a hard sell: too expensive.
nyloco wrote:
Pete,
Any piece of rubber is a spring that offers a combination of energy return and energy dissipation. So the outersole, midsole and innnersole of any shoe can be regarded as a system of springs connected in series, which creates one big effective spring between your foot and the running surface. You can't have cushioning without energy dissipation, and any energy return has to be opposite to the direction in which the spring (or effective spring) is compressed. Depending on the relationship between energy absorption and return, some midsoles are stiffer and more responsive, and others are better at shock absorption. Think of the shocks on your car or changing the tension on a trampoline.
Spira is essentially using a compositite midsole to change the effective spring constant of its shoes, just as other manufacturers have done with gels, air pockets, compressed gases or systems of rubber springs. I don't think there is any inherent performance advantage, and I haven't seen any technical document to show otherwise. There might be a long term benefit through the mitigation of the loss of responsiveness in the shoes as they accumulate miles. In other words, the metallic springs might be less prone to collapse than typical foam rubber midsoles, and that is indeed one of the marketing claims from Spira.
Disclaimer: My physics PhD is in optics, although I have done a fair amount of work in mechanics. I don't know of any law of physics that would lead to a technical advantage for these shoes, so I would also like to know what basis was used in banning these shoes. It's been a heck of a marketing gimmick for Spira, similar to when the sales of Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager shot up when it was banned in Texas due to its name.
[quote]Pete wrote:
To take a relevant tangent... can anyone point me to some legitimate science one way or the other that shows if these shoes actually create an advantage? What is USATF's basis for this rule?
quote]
Shoes with natural rubber soles, as opposed to carbon rubber soles, are very bouncy. Natural rubber has incredible energy return.
I have run in shoes in which all of the sole and the cushioning is made of natural rubber. When running in these shoes. I have a very long stride, but a lower stride rate, so there doesn't seem to be any advantage in speed or energy efficiency, despite the fact that they are extremly springy.
Mockery? Hardly. Boston condones and even encourages banditing. Spira was simply playing up to that fact when it staged it's very effective fake runner commercial (well, because of dumb editorials like yours, it's now a commercial). If you're so concerned about mockery of the sport, try convincing the IAAF/USATF to reverse the retarded banning decision over a shoe technology they clearly don't understand.
scotth wrote:
Pete, why don't you expedite matters and call, not write, somebody at USATF and get the answer to your question? Writing, as I've discovered, often gets little, much delayed or no action.
You should see all of the private response and action I received from the measurement thread from people in a position to rectify things with that operation. I didn't even have to write to them.
Some guy had a quote about the power of the pen. If he would have written it down, I would know that quote.
New RD wrote: Some guy had a quote about the power of the pen. If he would have written it down, I would know that quote.
Hahaha good one.
I think USATF should have simply mocked the Spira spring-shoe gimmick instead of banning it, myself. That's what I would do anyway. Mind you I already do mock the shoes, but I'm not in a position to ban them.
I'll bet the Spira folks are quite happy with how this has all turned out. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.
I agree with you, Pete. First, some people seem to be confused with the difference between breaking a pre-stated rule (which is not being condoned) and figuring out whether a rule is good to have in the first place.
Also, for a company that's just trying to break into the scene... all they care about is becoming a little better known. The more of an issue this is made out to be, the more people hear about them, the more they figure their stunt was well worth their time and effort. No one is other than TxRunGrl is going to boycott their shoes SOLELY because they broke a rule at Boston (and I bet more people like their moxie), BUT no one will buy their shoe if they don't know the brand exists.
If the shoes do not give an unfair advantage, I said I'm all for Spira shoes being allowed in the race AFTER they get their shoes approved. But until then they should not be blatantly violating the rules because the perception and/or reality is the sheos give an unfair advantage.
And if the shoes do not give an unfair advantage then much of the marketing behind Spira seems to be thrown out the window. So Spira in some ways likes being banned- ie more publicity.
But even worse I believe is if the athletes were instructed to go out front with no intention of finishing and were doing it solely for marketing reasons and the other athletes did not know this. This could ruin the race and affect its competitive outcome. (I've received an email about this today). It makes a joke out of the event. The Boston Marathon first and foremost is a race not a marketing event for Spira or some shoe store chain.
And I don't think a good reason to not write my editorial is because it will give them more publicity. My site is centered around the more serious fans, decision makers in the sport and I think any benefit from discussion of the matter far outweighs whatever small publicity gain Spira may get. And I don't believe any publicity is good publicity. One way to handle it would be to ignore it, another to call them out.
All sports have their rules on having level playing equipment. Baseball and its bats:
(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
(d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee.
