What will the Vaporfly do to BQ standards in the upcoming years?

Seriously mate? wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Anyone who runs marathons can afford Vaporflys

Right? You can afford outrageous registration fees, multiple pairs of trainers, hotels in big cities, flights, shorts, socks, shirts/singlets, watch, all the other gear, but you can't afford $250 for a pair of marathon racing flats? Give me a break

There might be a demographic that will be price inelastic and will be willing to undertake the additional cost. Me, personally, I would never spend more than $90 on a pair of shoes and would not buy more than 1 pair per year. But that’s just me. And I’m in the top tax rate bracket.

The most I’ve spent to run a marathon is $150+/-. That was Chicago, and I’ve run it only because I am local. The only race I might consider traveling to would be Boston, but even that is a stretch. Thankfully I’ve never BDd (although I was close enough that the Vaporflys might have gotten me over the top).

math time wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Math is not your strong point.

"Johnny runs a marathon in 180 minutes. His new shoes allow him to improve that time by 4%. How many minutes faster will Johnny run in his new shoes?

Take your time. Show your work.

The consensus is that there is not a 4% time reduction with these shoes. More like 1% to 2%. Review your assumptions.

Show your work

What I said was anyone who runs marathons (at least anyone who would consider running Boston) can afford Vaporflys. You can easily afford them, you just choose not to for some reason.

Thankfully I’ve never BDd (although I was close enough that the Vaporflys might have gotten me over the top).[/quote]

The above statement should have no place in sport. Auto Racing, yes.

There have already been two Boston marathons where these were available to the public. And one before that with the elite field. So not sure why the standards would change now.

UA Runner wrote:

There have already been two Boston marathons where these were available to the public. And one before that with the elite field. So not sure why the standards would change now.

They're more widespread now. 2 years ago very few had them yet.

Yes! Babies. I am so done with this cannibalism runners have over what is largely just terrific marketing. I'm coming from a team sport background and there is always equipment that is super expensive compared to other equipment you buy at a sporting goods store. Its great use it. It's way more expensive in any team sport for top end gear. You do it cause you swear it gives you the best chance to perform. If you don't want to, cool story bro. Don't. This culture over gear in running sucks.

I think maybe the biggest source of resentment is pricing. Runners on this board are caught in a vice between wanting to shave time off their super-non-elite times, and the feeling that they are being duped to fork over an extra $100+ for a shoe that will be cooked at the end of a single season. Elites are not even asking these questions, it is clear that this is the new standard and soon everyone will have a similar shoe on the start line, actully tis seems to have happened as of this month. $250 makes most of us skinflints grit our teeth, but when it drops to $169 (as it has for v.1.0 and I picked up a pair at that threshold, even though I have no plans to race in the next year) or definitely $120, the flood will commence. In a year, two max, this will be a non-issue.

What will shoes like the Vaporfly do to all events in the upcoming years.

I am glad they can make legs for those who have none. That's great.

But it should not apply to the Olympics, or other serious competitions.

The shoe should not set world records. Period.

UA Runner wrote:

There have already been two Boston marathons where these were available to the public. And one before that with the elite field. So not sure why the standards would change now.

They just came out this year, no?

Why bother to lace up shoes..just drive your fancy SUV.

Bib #1 wrote:

Has it already started?

Will it confer an undue advantage to people who can afford the technology over those who can’t? Should Bernie institute a free 4% program for everyone?

Discus

I'm convinced that the rise in downhill marathon popularity is pushing the standard more than the shoes.

4% improvement in running economy doesn't mean 4% faster.

I feel like the downhill marathons take off more time than wearing the vaporflys do. I do think there should be some kind of limit on the descent to qualify for races. This isn't based on any math or science, but I think I could have run maybe a minute or faster with vaporflys, but 5 minutes faster at a downhill marathon.

That said, the vaporflys have been around for a couple years now, and this year's BQ times didn't seem outside what was expected.

If you can afford the huge entry fee to Boston and an expensive weekend in a hotel, just go ahead and buy the damn shoes.

Les wrote:

4% improvement in running economy doesn't mean 4% faster.

It basically does, at least over long distances. The scientist who did the running economy said a hypothetical 4% improvement in running economy would correspond to about 3.4% faster speed in a marathon, so it's not exact but would be on that order of magnitude.

I've run 4 marathons in the last 2 years, 2 with VF 4% and 2 without. I ran a 2:38 and 2:39 without vaporflys and a 2:37 and 2:39 with vaporflys. The 2:38 came on the hardest course and the 2:37 came on the easiest. They haven't made me run faster, but I have noticed very quick recovery after races with them.

A benefit in running economy actually helps more at a slower paces. Nonlinear increases in air resistance as you get faster, along with slight nonlinear increases in O2 uptake with speed, mean that economy benefits see diminishing returns at faster and faster paces. Shalaya Kipp and co. at Colorado had a nice modeling paper earlier this year that outlined it really well.

For a 70 kg, 1.80m runner, a 4% improvement in running economy is:

4.2% improvement in speed at 4:00 marathon pace (10 min; 3:50 'thon)

3.8% improvement in speed at 3:30 marathon pace (8 min; 3:22 'thon)

3.3% improvement in speed at 3:00 marathon pace (6 min; 2:54 'thon)

3.0% improvement in speed at 2:30 marathon pace (4.5 min; 2:25 'thon)

2.8% improvement in speed at 2:20 marathon pace (4 min; 2:16 'thon)

2.8% improvement in speed at 2:15 marathon pace (3.5 min; 2:11 'thon)

2.7% improvement in speed at 2:10 marathon pace (3.5 min; 2:06 'thon)

2.7% improvement in speed at 2:05 marathon pace (3 min; 2:01:45 'thon)

There are obviously other factors at play with the shoes at different speeds and over longer periods that haven't been explicitly studied yet, but if the economy benefit persists, it's quite impactful for the BQ lines.

The paper with the models:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378703/

Bump this after Dubai next year. The floodgates are open. Marathoning is-a-chagin'.