Does anyone seriously want vaporflys banned?

Bob Schul Country wrote:

Bob Schul would like to request we ban all weather tracks and start running on Cinders again.

In all seriousness if we are going to ban shoes there needs to be similar scrutiny of tracks. It would be expensive but relatively easy from an engineering perspective to design a track that returned much more energy than the 4% the vaporfly's supposedly return.

UA Runner wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

No don’t ban them. I’d rather other companies innovate so everyone is on an even playing field

Exactly. New Balance, Asics, Skechers, Brooks and more all have competitor models on the way.

Besides, no one is complaining about Hoka, as they have two models with carbon plates. No one is even complaining about the Nike Zoom Fly, which has the exact same plate as the Vaporfly. So, it's likely the foam making the difference anyways.

But wait. Reebok has the same foam in their RunFast and RunFast Pro. Do we ban them?

So dumb. What they should ban is all the internet chatter over this topic. Surely Zuckerberg could figure out how to do that.

Ban the competitior models too. The only reason people aren't complaining about the Zoom Fly (which only has the carbon plate since the Flyknit iteration, it was a nylon plate before that), is that if you can afford these shoes in general you're racing in the Vaporfly - no-one cares about your training in the Zoom Flys.

Foam technology seems like a "safe" field that shoe companies can tinker in which, as long as stack height is regulated won't affect the nature of the sport. The Alphaflys have 3 carbon plates. It's the plates that make the difference.

Vaporflys and other carbon spring shoes are as much in the grey area as TUEs, thyroid medications, vitamin infusions and asthma inhalers. It does not seem like one cannot compete at the highest level without them. Are there any top marathoners running in Adidas anymore? Have they given up or are they all 2 minutes back?

Don’t ban them. Instead ban finishers medals.

I’m eating EPO wrote:

Don’t ban them. Instead ban finishers medals.

Everyone who believes in global warming should refuse to accept finisher medals.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Vaporflys and other carbon spring shoes are as much in the grey area as TUEs, thyroid medications, vitamin infusions and asthma inhalers. It does not seem like one cannot compete at the highest level without them. Are there any top marathoners running in Adidas anymore? Have they given up or are they all 2 minutes back?

Geb ran a 2:03 in 2008 in an old version of the Adios. By giving the VF SO much credit, you are essentially saying that Geb would be the marathon GOAT of all time and not Kipchoge/Bekele as has been repeatedly stated here.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The tech hasn't improved. Why are consumers such suckers for every gimmick that comes along, decade after decade? Remember Nike Air?

About a third of the sub-2:04s ever run happened between 2011 and 2014, before the 4% shoes, including the first sub 2:03. Slightly under two-thirds happened since 2015. That is not an abnormal progression at all. It didn't happen because of shoes, but because the runners got better - in particular, Kipchoge who first dared to experiment with paces previously considered suicidal. His breakthrough is what led to every other sub 2:03 since Kimetto.

+1

I read on another post that they function like capacitors and dominoes to keep running by themselves after providing an initial charge. In that case, I think they should be banned.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Vaporflys and other carbon spring shoes are as much in the grey area as TUEs, thyroid medications, vitamin infusions and asthma inhalers. It does not seem like one cannot compete at the highest level without them. Are there any top marathoners running in Adidas anymore? Have they given up or are they all 2 minutes back?

Geb ran a 2:03 in 2008 in an old version of the Adios. By giving the VF SO much credit, you are essentially saying that Geb would be the marathon GOAT of all time and not Kipchoge/Bekele as has been repeatedly stated here.

Is that really so hard to imagine though? Geb and Beleke were neck and neck on the track and both were better than Kipchoge and Geb was less broken down than Bekele when he first moved to the marathon. I don't think it's crazy at all to think that given the same gear Geb could do what those gentlemen are doing today.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

The people who want the VF banned either 1) can't afford them, so they're butthurt or 2) can't BQ (even with the VF) and are butthurt.

It's not a matter of affordability on race day -- it's a matter of affordability for multiple training pairs. These shoes take so much of the shock out of each stride it's almost surreal. Runners who can shell out $500/month on shoes (realistically, only people who are pretty well off) are able to train with much more volume and intensity because of the Vaporflys alone.

Thanks for the reasonable argument. My response:

1. Technological improvements will always muddle history. Improvements in shoes definitely improved performances in the 60s and 70s, and improvements in track construction, sports therapy, medicine, sports drinks and supplements have all led to performance improvements for decades. It's never a perfect match between the past and the future.

2a. Shoe bans can only be enforced at an elite or sub-elite level, whenever prize money and sponsorships are involved. Anybody at that level is able and willing to access $250 shoes. In tennis, people spend more than that all the time for a better racquet. Our sport is generally pretty cheap, so the only people a price tag like $250 would defer are non-elite club runners ("hobbyjoggers") who are not full-blown into running.

2b. Also, $250 is only the current price tag. Once competition arises and everybody releases their own comparable shoes, these prices will even out lower.

3. The only argument I can see as valid is that a non-elite club runner (like me) would gain an advantage against another non-elite club rival by spending $250 on shoes. To which I have a twofold reply - I) there is no way a ban could be enforced and II) this already happens with track spikes (if I don't have track spikes, I would be at a disadvantage to others).

Among all these things, another big reason I would avoid banning them is just from a sport perspective. Who likes asterisks? They make sport history way too complex, and in this case there is no wrongdoing that would cause it. Banning and shoes and effectively clearing all marathon/HM performances over the last 4 years would cause me to grow even more apathetic to race results.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Geb ran a 2:03 in 2008 in an old version of the Adios. By giving the VF SO much credit, you are essentially saying that Geb would be the marathon GOAT of all time and not Kipchoge/Bekele as has been repeatedly stated here.

Is that really so hard to imagine though? Geb and Beleke were neck and neck on the track and both were better than Kipchoge and Geb was less broken down than Bekele when he first moved to the marathon. I don't think it's crazy at all to think that given the same gear Geb could do what those gentlemen are doing today.

Ok, Geb probably really was just that good. How about (quoting rojo):

2:04:26 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 30, 2007- adidas

2:03:59 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 28, 2008 - adidas

2:03:38 Patrick Makau Kenya September 25, 2011 -adidas

2:03:23 Wilson Kipsang Kenya September 29, 2013 -adidas

2:02:57 Dennis Kimetto Kenya September 28, 2014 - adidas

? How fast would Makau/Kipsang/Kimetto have been with the VF? Saying the shoe gives 2 min at the elite level, means they would all own the WR right now.

Maybe this helps people realize how much it is all about marketing. Nike SPONSORS the best runners - Kipchoge, Bekele, Kosgei, etc. - so naturally a lot of great performances come from athletes wearing their shoes. But if marathoners not considered to be THE VERY BEST of all time can run 2:02/2:03 in Adidas, is the VF REALLY that big of a difference and should we accept the fact that all of them could have broken Kipchoge's WR with better shoes? I think not.

Except you forget that Gebrselassie himself said he had the shoe technology to thank for his improvement. Maybe he was doing Adidas a favor when he said, but he's on record as saying his marathon times improved to things like better shoe technology and a few other little things like quality midrace timing.

Oh, yeah, I mean if you believe the VF is 4% better than what Kimetto had, then put VF's on Kimetto in 2014 and he runs 1:58:03. Doesn't sound plausible, does it? Then again Paula Radcliffe's Mount Everest of a marathon record just got smashed so I don't really know what to think.

you fuckin what? wrote:

Matbar wrote:

The problem with swim suits is improvement argument is that they were they passive, you did not have to do anything for the advantage whereas atleast with running you need to actually need to run

As opposed to those swimmers who don't swim, right?

Utter nonsense.

I guess you don’t under fluid dynamics, friction etc, and never saw any test with the suit that lead to their bans? Some of the tests involved diving in and gliding through the pool and measuring the distance/time and of kick off on the turn. On Olympic size pools, this passive device was seconds quicker not milliseconds, seconds quicker than the other swim suit. Hence a passive device without actually swimming.

As fast as I know, correctly me if I’m wrong we don’t have anything think like that?

Maybe we could strap a small parachute to us and run with the wind at our back and it would give us the same affect as the ban swim suit

Be consistent please wrote:

Does anyone really want to place asterisks on every single performance by the shoe in the last 4 years just because shoe technology has improved? Or is it just talk?

Why are track fans so against technological improvement? If they were consistent, they'd also be opposed to the new scientific training research in the last 20 years, or the gradual shoe improvements in the last 40 years.

Either be fine with technological and scientific improvements in Athletics or be consistent and advocate for barefoot running without and physiotherapy, or coaching/nutritional books

If thats the case then Jesse Owens world records should still stand.

Matbar wrote:

you fuckin what? wrote:

As opposed to those swimmers who don't swim, right?

Utter nonsense.

I guess you don’t under fluid dynamics, friction etc, and never saw any test with the suit that lead to their bans? Some of the tests involved diving in and gliding through the pool and measuring the distance/time and of kick off on the turn. On Olympic size pools, this passive device was seconds quicker not milliseconds, seconds quicker than the other swim suit. Hence a passive device without actually swimming.

As fast as I know, correctly me if I’m wrong we don’t have anything think like that?

Maybe we could strap a small parachute to us and run with the wind at our back and it would give us the same affect as the ban swim suit

Are you trolling?

"...diving in and gliding through the pool and measuring the distance/time and of kick off on the turn."

"Hence a passive device"

The swim suit did exactly what the shoes do - reduce the loss experienced as an athlete converts potential chemical energy into kinetic energy.

Broski, just to be 1000% clear - despite what any shoe brand may want you to believe or what you perceive - no shoe, no shoe technology, nothing GIVES or GENERATES you energy. In fact energy is the by-product of the maximum force your body can generate and direct into the ground and what the ground gives you back. (Energy being 1/2 your mass x your velocity squared and your velocity is related to the force you can impart and have returned by the surface you run on)

So shoes like the vaporfly are simply economy or efficiency monsters (go read Ross Tucker’s blog for him to explain economy) that enable the most force imparted to the ground and then returned to your bodies mass.

The shoe won’t generate any of that itself (only something like a prosthetic spring will do this) it will only be better (more economic/efficient) at getting it (force) back to you.

On this topic hard to believe the human race would want to ban a shoe that simply increases the efficiency of a system of which the key component is something our bodies generate and provide. Think about that for second. It’s ridiculous. Until a shoe is provided that actively generates its own force and supplies this to our bodies then quite frankly how can anything be off the table. One brand is just doing it better than everyone else at the moment.

Again, this is a dumb argument. You're correct on the science but efficiency is a fundamental tenet of running competition. Everyone loses energy on every step to heat, noise and extraneous motion. The runner who limits that loss most effectively has an advantage. Rollerblades are passive. Bikes are passive. Running is a very, very inefficient way to get around under your own power. That's the point.