It's just going to be like the flyknit racer. Lots of hype, lots of money, disliked as time goes on- for marathoning.
It's just going to be like the flyknit racer. Lots of hype, lots of money, disliked as time goes on- for marathoning.
Peter Andersson wrote:
It's a very clever marketing campaign from Nike
THIS
Nike will most likely take an existing platform (e.g. lunaracer or Zoom), adjust the width of the shoe to Mo's liking, maybe even alter the drop and arch support. Not a big effort in doing so. Then they can construct an upper with their knit technology, which should be fairly inexpensive too.
Many athletes get adjusted shoes, I doubt it's going to be that much different for Mo.
Total science fail.....No ventolin. Overcoming air resistance is not the main energy expenditure in distance running. (if it were we'd be running 1 hour marathons given a decent tailwind) And even if it were, a cubic relationship of drag to weight would only be relevant if the weight reduction we were talking about resulted in a smaller cross-section into the wind. That would be an appropriate approach if runners were uniform density spheres where reduction in weight resulted in a corresponding reduction in cross section and therefore air resistance. Or if that were a good approximation of the effect we were interested in. Do you really imagine that lighter shoes confer an advantage because they are smaller and therefore present a smaller cross-section to the wind? Is that why runners wear lighter shoes? Of course not. So blindly applying a drag formula as it were somehow relevant is just dumb.This is the sort of "reasoning" that makes physicists weep.
ventolin^3 wrote:
Hardloper wrote:What's this formula?you can derive it from here :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.htmlmass changes ( we are talking small, not losing muscle ) with speed, are a cubic dependency
if a 60kg guy coud run 2"05'00.00 but was carrying 1kg of unnecessary blubber, his theoretical time at ideal 59kg woud be :
125'00.00 * ( 59/60 )^3 =
2"04'18.1
beer can wrote:
Northern Star wrote:Now, we can always dream. Maybe Nike has secretly spent millions of dollars developing a real breakthrough, like mechanical cushioning (instead of what we have now, which is viscoelastic cushioning). Maybe this new technological breakthrough will debut with Mo at London and he'll run an incredible time. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Or Nike based spent millions on something other than "super shoes" and is using that as a cover. Everyone buy our super shoes!
Beer Can > Northern Star
Northern Star how many words did you use in giving your opinion; KISS. Beer Can agreed; Mo's "shoe" improvement will be spelled ... DOPE.
Based on ACTUAL RESULTS, Salazar is the most overrated marathon coach on the planet.
The man can recruit essentially anyone he wants, and has yet to get a runner under 2:07?
How much have Ritz'a scientifically-tuned shoes (and every other gimmick) helped him? He still can't stay injury-free or even race consistently.
All of this tech seems like a facade to draw attention away from Salazar's admitted promotion of borderline pharmaceutical practices, eg
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
All of this tech seems like a facade to draw attention away from Salazar's admitted promotion of borderline pharmaceutical practices, eg
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072
yip...if you were cynical you might suspect they've got a new drug program for the marathon and the shoe is 'cover' for it
wouldn't be the first time
Nutella1 wrote:
Peter Andersson wrote:It's a very clever marketing campaign from Nike
THIS
Nike will most likely take an existing platform (e.g. lunaracer or Zoom), adjust the width of the shoe to Mo's liking, maybe even alter the drop and arch support. Not a big effort in doing so. Then they can construct an upper with their knit technology, which should be fairly inexpensive too.
Many athletes get adjusted shoes, I doubt it's going to be that much different for Mo.
Now that, is clever.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
Based on ACTUAL RESULTS, Salazar is the most overrated marathon coach on the planet.
The man can recruit essentially anyone he wants, and has yet to get a runner under 2:07?
How much have Ritz'a scientifically-tuned shoes (and every other gimmick) helped him? He still can't stay injury-free or even race consistently.
All of this tech seems like a facade to draw attention away from Salazar's admitted promotion of borderline pharmaceutical practices, eg
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072
Just realized you're kind of right. Has Kara Goucher ran a marathon with Salazar? Curious. Dathan running 2:07 was nice, but Mo will be a good indicator.
The highest energy return without using an illegal spring mechanism would be a bare foot that was trained to it's maximum reactive capacity. Clearly this is the lightest as well.
If a shoe actually makes you faster it means some combination of 2 possible things.
1. It should be illegal due to un-natural energy return.
2. The feet are not trained to their maximum capacity.
ordersofmagnitude wrote:Total science fail.....
No ventolin. Overcoming air resistance is not the main energy expenditure in distance running. (if it were we'd be running 1 hour marathons given a decent tailwind) And even if it were, a cubic relationship of drag to weight would only be relevant if the weight reduction we were talking about resulted in a smaller cross-section into the wind. That would be an appropriate approach if runners were uniform density spheres where reduction in weight resulted in a corresponding reduction in cross section and therefore air resistance. Or if that were a good approximation of the effect we were interested in. Do you really imagine that lighter shoes confer an advantage because they are smaller and therefore present a smaller cross-section to the wind? Is that why runners wear lighter shoes? Of course not. So blindly applying a drag formula as it were somehow relevant is just dumb.
This is the sort of "reasoning" that makes physicists weep.
it is quite obvious you have absolutely no clue about physics with this nonsense
if you had a clue, you woud know the kinetic energy of a runner, 0.5mv^2, reaches an equilibrium speed due to the air-resistance building up until propulsive force = drag
( friction is separate, but it's hard to see much frictional difference between going at 5.6m/s or 5.65m/s )
the faster you try to run, the higher the drag, which is in effect another v term from equation quoted, meaning 0.5mv^3, which eventually causes a steady pace gun-to-tape
i e a 3'30 guy running 56.00/lap as kinetic energy output is limited to 56.00/lap because of drag
no one is interested in cross-sectional areas differences, as assumed constant
so, effectively
force exerted = 0.5mv^3
assuming constant force exerted, only blubber changes & maintaining propulsive muscle/mass, the above boils down to cubic root of ratio of masses for the difference in speed with weight loss/gain
'I was thinking the other day, "i should make some predictions for 2014" and the first thing was "Mo Farah isn't going to win the London Marathon."
To doubt Mo/Alberto seems foolish, but that's what popped into my head. Why? Because running is supposed to logically make sense to me. Why would a guy whose best personal best is his 1500 pb be amazing at the marathon? Everyone has to have an Achilles heel don't they?
Haile G's was xc'
Haile was still pretty good at xc he just didn't like geting beat because Tergat was better at it. Even if Mo doesn't win marathon first time does not mean he will be great at it. I remember watching Haile in his first London run past where I was stood with 5km to go thinking my £100 was money in the bank - just before the wheels fell off
But I still think it's horses for courses and Mo is a 1500m/5000m guy. You saw in Great North Run what happended when someone had the bottle to really put him under pressure on a longer course
As for the shoes it's just BS for advertising Nike shoes
Quick Dave Bedford (now OBE) story for you. He came to give a talk in a pub for my local running club of weekend warriors. His fee 2 pints
Wow, this is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. It's like a study in the sort of pseudo-physics answers I've seen on exams from intro physics classes. It's airplanes taking off from treadmills sort of logic. I really hope you're just trolling here and don't actually believe any of this.If so I suggest you return to an intro physics text (if you've ever read one) and reconsider your understanding of the difference between force and energy.
ventolin^3 wrote:
ordersofmagnitude wrote:Total science fail.....No ventolin. Overcoming air resistance is not the main energy expenditure in distance running. (if it were we'd be running 1 hour marathons given a decent tailwind) And even if it were, a cubic relationship of drag to weight would only be relevant if the weight reduction we were talking about resulted in a smaller cross-section into the wind. That would be an appropriate approach if runners were uniform density spheres where reduction in weight resulted in a corresponding reduction in cross section and therefore air resistance. Or if that were a good approximation of the effect we were interested in. Do you really imagine that lighter shoes confer an advantage because they are smaller and therefore present a smaller cross-section to the wind? Is that why runners wear lighter shoes? Of course not. So blindly applying a drag formula as it were somehow relevant is just dumb.
This is the sort of "reasoning" that makes physicists weep.
it is quite obvious you have absolutely no clue about physics with this nonsense
if you had a clue, you woud know the kinetic energy of a runner, 0.5mv^2, reaches an equilibrium speed due to the air-resistance building up until propulsive force = drag
( friction is separate, but it's hard to see much frictional difference between going at 5.6m/s or 5.65m/s )
the faster you try to run, the higher the drag, which is in effect another v term from equation quoted, meaning 0.5mv^3, which eventually causes a steady pace gun-to-tape
i e a 3'30 guy running 56.00/lap as kinetic energy output is limited to 56.00/lap because of drag
no one is interested in cross-sectional areas differences, as assumed constant
so, effectively
force exerted = 0.5mv^3
assuming constant force exerted, only blubber changes & maintaining propulsive muscle/mass, the above boils down to cubic root of ratio of masses for the difference in speed with weight loss/gain
ukathleticscoach wrote:You saw in Great North Run what happended when someone had the bottle to really put him under pressure on a longer course
err...
you did see that he had dropped kennster beforehand & only allowed him back by heeding paula's stoopid advice of
"take it easy on downhills or it hurts your hamstrings"
no one had told kennster this drivel & he caught up & passed mo !!!
Quick Dave Bedford (now OBE) story for you. He came to give a talk in a pub for my local running club of weekend warriors. His fee 2 pints
quintupled his usual asking price i see...
ordersofmagnitude wrote:Wow, this is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. It's like a study in the sort of pseudo-physics answers I've seen on exams from intro physics classes.
It's airplanes taking off from treadmills sort of logic. I really hope you're just trolling here and don't actually believe any of this.
If so I suggest you return to an intro physics text (if you've ever read one) and reconsider your understanding of the difference between force and energy
you have posted copious amounts of drivel without hard numbers
impress me :
"a 60kg guy wearing a smooth-fitting, unimpeding 1kg belt around his waist runs a M in
2"05'00.00
what coud he have run for it without the belt ???"
The shoe is similar to the Hoka Bondi
ventolin^3 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:You saw in Great North Run what happended when someone had the bottle to really put him under pressure on a longer courseerr...
you did see that he had dropped kennster beforehand & only allowed him back by heeding paula's stoopid advice of
"take it easy on downhills or it hurts your hamstrings"
no one had told kennster this drivel & he caught up & passed mo !!!
Quick Dave Bedford (now OBE) story for you. He came to give a talk in a pub for my local running club of weekend warriors. His fee 2 pints
quintupled his usual asking price i see...
Actually, I agree with Ventolin on this.
Ventolin, I don't understand how you did your math in your post.
2h05=125 minutes.
(59/60)*125 minutes = 122,9 minutes.
multiply that with (59/60)^2 and you get an even lower time, breaking two hours.
you must be one of the dumbest maths profs who ever drew breathe if you didn't work it out for yourself
which part of
^3
you not see ???
Why would a corporation make an exaggerated claim about what its product can do? That would be unprecedented, reckless, and undeniably dishonest.