Did rupp's 2nd place finish have anything to do with shoes?

Skips Arm Day wrote:

All this shoe talk is getting insane. The differences in elasticity and biomechanics from different shoes are just so trivial compared to training and fitness.

No one puts racing tires on a Honda and expects it to drive like a Ferrari.

You obviously haven't compared Chuck Taylor's to modern shoes. Also feet and tires are little different.

LobbyJogger wrote:

I was able to try on a single Vaporfly 4% before Boston and trot around a hotel lobby. Very well cushioned with a distinct but pleasant sensation of tipping forward at toe off. Incredibly light. Like the feeling when you start to catch a wave on a boogie board, dropping in and accelerating . For sure not a spring feeling. As far as the upper quite unstructured and roomy maybe unstable? so can see why Rupp may have a Zoom Streak upper on his. Got to say spectating 100 yards from the finish line they looked goofy but everyone wearing them looked fresh and bouncy. My article about trying them on and lobby jogging

http://www.roadtrailrun.com/2017/04/nike-zoom-vaporfly-4-first-impressions.html

Its all about the midsole compound improvements and thickness. The mechanical aspect with the carbon plate has yet to prove itself out. The plate rebound flex theory has been around for years its not new.

The traditional racing flat is hard on the body especially if your running 26.2.

People laughed at Hoka in the beginning now we know it works.

Nike's MO will follow course by introducing training shoes with the same thick profile down the line. Be prepared to see an evolution beyond what Hoka started.

Skips Arm Day wrote:

No one puts racing tires on a Honda and expects it to drive like a Ferrari.

The original performance target for Honda's new (NSX) sportscar was the Ferrari 328, which was revised to the 348 as the design neared completion. Honda intended its sportscar to meet or exceed the performance of the Ferrari, . . .

Indeed the Zoom X Pebax stuff in the midsole felt incredible on my lobby jog. Shock absorbing and pleasant underfoot with a sense after the landing and a bit of sinking in that there was business to be done as foot pressure started to meet the plate, then a distinct but not abrupt sense of forward drop to toe off. There is no question that the key evolution here is a new midsole compound that is super light cushioned but not to soft. The issue for me with most Hokas except the Huaka and now two a lesser extent the Clayton 2 is that stack has equalled stiffness and a disconnect from the road as well. Here the shoe is incredibly stiff but the geometry of the plate plus the midsole seems to provide not only responsive cushion but forward momentum. As an older slower guy my absolute limit in the Zoom Streak 6 was a 10K race. A fast shoe but almost painful with a very narrow heel landing. To date have much preferred adios Boost.

aksdjfh ioeu wrote:

??????!!!???!!! wrote:

That means that the top 3 were all cheating.

Do you think people who train at altitude are cheating as well?

Rupp sleeps at night in an altitude tent. So, yes cheating x2.

Anybody notice Rupps kit? Very different from his teammate Suguru and all other Nike athletes in the field. Also only runner in the field wearing tights... seems a but odd

epic handle, sam.

Continental wrote:

Skips Arm Day wrote:

All this shoe talk is getting insane. The differences in elasticity and biomechanics from different shoes are just so trivial compared to training and fitness.

No one puts racing tires on a Honda and expects it to drive like a Ferrari.

You obviously haven't compared Chuck Taylor's to modern shoes. Also feet and tires are little different.

Obviously feet and tires are quite different but my point is they are a small component in a much larger system in which there are much more important factors. If you wanted to compare two different race cars, you wouldn't spend all your time analyzing the tires when the engine probably has a much bigger effect on performance. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to assume the difference between two high end racing shoes decided a race when you're looking at two different runners with totally different "engines." If Rupp were wearing Chuck Taylors and Kirui were wearing nike racers then I'd say you have a point, but I suspect the difference between two high end racing shoes is not quite that large.

The tires/shoes are important and have their role to play, yes, but let's not exaggerate their importance like I think OP is doing.

As someone who grew up playing tennis. I'm old enough to remember the "Jack Kramer" autograph wood rackets. This thread is a complete joke and outright weird. Why is T&F so puritanical about these things? No other sport is even remotely like this. New and better equipment has been apart of all sports and virtually never discussed.

While I agree with your larger point, as someone who is quite into cars, track days, and autocross I just want to point out that tires are a poor analogy for what you are trying to communicate. A modestly powered car on racing slicks will be quite competitive with a high powered car on street tires around a technical race track. Go to Youtube and you'll find plenty of videos of Miatas (~100 hp) with mild suspension mods (think springs and sway bars) and good tires running circles around showroom stock Corvettes, Porches, M3s, etc (all 300 hp+ cars). High performance tires are the first - and likely most important - modification someone makes when prepping a car for any form of competitive driving.

God speed wrote:

Anybody notice Rupps kit? Very different from his teammate Suguru and all other Nike athletes in the field. Also only runner in the field wearing tights... seems a but odd

His singlet was super long. It looked a size or two to big.

Interesting observations. I love minimal Japanese style flats but found a pair of Adios Boost on sale for $40. They dramatically slowed and crippled me in a long moderate tempo run. They felt bouncy and responsive

But just didn't pan out.

I can't speak for the vaporflys 4%, I happened across a small town shoe having a clear out and bought a pair adidas feathers and recently the local adventure sports had a big sale on Hoka Clifton 2s. Interestingly, it looks like Nike has married the two; the plastic sprint web (adidas) and the max cushioning (Hoka) I would say that Nike learnt from adidas's mistakes with the Feather by putting a hard plate in the middle of the foam not at the top of the foam (just under the inner soles).

LobbyJogger wrote:

I was able to try on a single Vaporfly 4% before Boston and trot around a hotel lobby. Very well cushioned with a distinct but pleasant sensation of tipping forward at toe off. Incredibly light. Like the feeling when you start to catch a wave on a boogie board, dropping in and accelerating . For sure not a spring feeling. As far as the upper quite unstructured and roomy maybe unstable? so can see why Rupp may have a Zoom Streak upper on his. Got to say spectating 100 yards from the finish line they looked goofy but everyone wearing them looked fresh and bouncy. My article about trying them on and lobby jogging

http://www.roadtrailrun.com/2017/04/nike-zoom-vaporfly-4-first-impressions.html

+1 for use of "Lobby Jogging"