For elite runners competing in performance enhancing shoes (PESs) the following should be considered...

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

It does bother me that if I had been in my peak shape three years later and the shoes had been available my PR could have been 2 min faster with no other differences. If this was over a period of 20 or 30 years of technological advances it would feel different. But that it happened so fast bothers me more. Its like there was this running world that existed for my entire career where I could compare myself to guys 30 years in the past. Then overnight everything changed and now I can't compare myself from 5 years ago to myself now without putting myself at a competive disadvantage to those I'm competing against.

That is a very good and honest reflection on the matter, but, doesn't that apply the same for almost every aspect of life? Kids now have incredibly more powerful tools to study that the previous generation.. also better life quality, better food, better medicines, etc, etc

Generations before us didn't had wikipedia, google, or even computers... had to buy en encyclopedia, do research in libraries and write essays on a typewriter. Do people refuse to study or use computers now just because they feel that wouldn't be fair? or that their college degree is less worth than those in the past?

Imagine two athletes with appendicitis; one goes with new treatment and is back in one week... the other one goes with traditional surgery (not due economic reasons) and takes one month away... would that be "unfair" competition if they had to race in a fixed date after that? As long as both had the same choice initially (which is the case with the shoes today), I don't think so

The thing is that the mechanical advantage they provide is more a decrease in inefficiency that an increase in efficiency if that makes any sense. It’s physically impossible for the plate or foam to produce more force that the runner applies. We can make the argument that world records and all time marks should have asterisks on them, but why should they? If a guy like Baldini was wearing vaporflys and is now a 2:04 guy instead of a 2:07 guy, what difference does it make? He’s still an Olympic gold medalist. There will be more advancements in running where we will see more and more athletes running 2:01 or 2:02 but it doesn’t matter where you stand on the all time list because eventually someone will beat that time. In the case of world records, Dennis Kimetto still has one of the fastest marathon times ever, and was a world record holder. No one can take that away from him. I think it’s almost selfish to say that times after 2016 shouldn’t be counted the same because of shoes. It discredits the work the athletes have put in to be able to run those times. The same could be said for those who didn’t get the opportunity to race in these shoes except for the fact that their times have already been celebrated and put in the books. The times from the cinder tracks are not world records anymore because of advances in technology and I don’t think it’s fair to say that new records shouldn’t count because of this specific invention.

And the argument that somehow Nike is at fault for creating this movement is so silly. This innovation has led to improvements in running foams and shoe design across the board. Pulling out a shoe from 2015 feels completely different than it does now and I think that’s a good thing. It’s not Nikes fault the other companies have struggled for so long to keep up.

It is not physically impossible for a plate to provide more force than the runner can apply if what you mean by force is energy return. Take the example of a diving board which is a semi-stiff plate that when flexed by the diver jumping, converts the board's potential energy into kinetic energy as the board recoils to have an additive effect to the height of the jump, thus increasing the jump height to one greater than that which the diver could perform on their own.

Another important point is it is an extension of the limp that does not fatigue like your body will over the course of a marathon. It is the same reason blade runners need their own catagory. The carbon fiber blades do not get fatigued and develop lactic acid like muscle. This is an enormous benefit.

In theory, the plate could be custom "tuned" by altering plate length, curvature, and stiffness to the individual athlete's biomechanics, body weight, foot shape/size, etc., for optimal energy gain.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ENERGY GAIN IN THIS SCENARIO

Have you taken high school physics? Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy? Let me restate it for you: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved.

In your example of a diving board, the person jumping can jump higher from the springiness of the board. Yet the jumper is exerting the same amount of force and both the board and if he/she were to jump off the ground regularly. The reason the jump is higher is due to the force of gravity as you fall toward the board and the elastic energy the board exerts BACK onto the jumper. THE BOARD CANNOT CREATE ENERGY, ONLY RETURN THE ENERGY THAT IS STORED. Yet energy storage is not perfect. Objects lose energy due to friction, gravity, wind resistance, etc.

It is physically impossible to return 100% or more of energy. This is why perpetual motion machines don’t work. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand.

Carbon Plated shoes work to reduce energy loss and cannot provide any energy gain.

Clearly we all should run barefoot and naked (lest people wear special aerodynamic suits that reduce drag and wind resistance) on grass tracks cut to a uniform length. Anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a Nike shill.

they are legal like caffeine wrote:

Grassrunner wrote:Who exactly is the "we" you are speaking for?

The people at the front.

HAHAHA get rekt

+1000000000000000

This guy gets it.

Who Cares?! wrote:

Who cares that present day athletes have an 'unfair advantage' over athletes of the past? They all doped anyway! Fed up of listening to old people sit there saying "waaah waaah waaah my time from the 80's has been beaten because of those unfair shoes!" It's not like anyone's coming into your house and taking your medals off you!

Seriously, who cares? Everyone has access to them so they do not provide an unfair advantage. And unlike drugs, wearing a fast pair of shoes does not cause you to die at a young age. I for one look forward to the future advancements in shoe technology.

Amen to that.

I took H.S. physics nearly 40 years ago (got a B) so I'm a bit rusty on what I'm trying to explain, but the concept is clear. You can jump higher from a diving board than from concrete. Your technical explanation is correct, but the point I'm trying to make is that one can use materials to harness the energy you provide to obtain significant "performance" gains (significantly more efficient use of your energy input, as you correctly point out) as compared to if you didn't have the benefit of those materials being used as simple machines such as springs, wedges, and levers to gain a mechanical advantage.

And I’m saying that these “simple machines” I.e. carbon plates. Do not provide any energy gain whatsoever but mitigate energy loss. There is science to back this up. Stop trying to argue your crybaby anti supershoe point because you think they’re cheating when A. Scientifically they are not cheating and B. Legally according to World Athletics are not cheating.

sizz wrote:

And I’m saying that these “simple machines” I.e. carbon plates. Do not provide any energy gain whatsoever but mitigate energy loss. There is science to back this up. Stop trying to argue your crybaby anti supershoe point because you think they’re cheating when A. Scientifically they are not cheating and B. Legally according to World Athletics are not cheating.

Agreed, but mitigating energy loss is can be a HUGE DEAL, depending on how much. For an extreme example, if you can achieve a state of only 0.1% energy loss, once you reach your cruising speed, almost no further energy is required to sustain it. But even small percentages of reduction in energy loss from a "simple machine" can be a huge advantage in sport.

Grassrunner wrote:

Agreed, but mitigating energy loss is can be a HUGE DEAL, depending on how much. For an extreme example, if you can achieve a state of only 0.1% energy loss, once you reach your cruising speed, almost no further energy is required to sustain it. But even small percentages of reduction in energy loss from a "simple machine" can be a huge advantage in sport.

So then we should be all running barefoot and naked along packed dirt paths then eh?

The whole purpose of shoes is to prevent energy losses and provide traction. Progress is never liner, Nike made a huge jump and we've seen the efficiency of shoes increase.

By your logic, no shoes should be worn and no clothes should be worn as half tights/sleeves reduce aerodynamic drag and shoes provide energy return. Ever wonder why sleeves have grooves in them? air flow. All shoes are designed to provide a mechanical advantage by reducing energy losses. Any shoe with foam in it is designed to cushion the impact to allow for a more explosive step-off and less energy loss through absorbing the shock of landing.

Again by this logic, all carbon fiber bikes should be banned as they are stiffer and lighter than all aluminum or steel framed bikes. All tracks should be packed dirt or cinder etc etc etc.

sizz wrote:

The thing is that the mechanical advantage they provide is more a decrease in inefficiency that an increase in efficiency if that makes any sense. It’s physically impossible for the plate or foam to produce more force that the runner applies.

That's a strawman. No one ever argued that a device has to break the rules of physics to be unfair. The performance difference is a step increase faster than previous shoes, and there is unequal access among top competitors. National elite not having a sponsor on purpose like Jake Riley isn't a way forward for the sport. Nike can't and shouldn't sponsor everyone.

This was the previous rule. Says nothing about needing to break laws of physics.

"Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs

- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage."

sizz wrote:

And I’m saying that these “simple machines” I.e. carbon plates. Do not provide any energy gain whatsoever but mitigate energy loss. There is science to back this up. Stop trying to argue your crybaby anti supershoe point because you think they’re cheating when A. Scientifically they are not cheating and B. Legally according to World Athletics are not cheating.

Scientifically (backed by efficiency studies, including those by Nike and others), the Vaporflies were cheating when they came out, and for a couple years until the rules changed. The rule was:

"Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage."

Vaporflies were not reasonably available to runners for other shoe companies, because quitting you sponsor is not a reasonable request. The did/do provide an unfair assistance and advantage.

They are legal now according to World Athletics, but a lot of people think they yielded to/colluded with Nike to get the rules changed. Particularly with the last change to 40mm nominal stack height at Euro size 42, which is a half size smaller than industry sample size to get the Alphafly to measure just under at 39.5 mm (Kipchoge's size 10.5 is 45mm).

All shoes are performance enhancing.

What is a "traditional" shoe? Leather sandal?

Vaporflys have always been legal mate. And don’t blame this situation on Nike because they were the first to do it. Vaporflys came out in 2016 and this year is the first year where other companies have released competitors besides HOKA. They do not provide unfair assistance or advantage because there is no mechanism that allows the shoe to create forces that propel the runner beyond their means. Nike should not have to tell every other company years before they release the vaporfly that they’re making it to “get on the same level” it’s 100% other company’s faults for not being able to get their foot in the door.

And my previous argument wasn’t a strawman. I was responding to this grass jogger who believes that vaporflys somehow create extra energy and should be illegal because of that. I had to explain to him that it’s physically impossible for that to happen

Grassrunner wrote:

sizz wrote:

And I’m saying that these “simple machines” I.e. carbon plates. Do not provide any energy gain whatsoever but mitigate energy loss. There is science to back this up. Stop trying to argue your crybaby anti supershoe point because you think they’re cheating when A. Scientifically they are not cheating and B. Legally according to World Athletics are not cheating.

Agreed, but mitigating energy loss is can be a HUGE DEAL, depending on how much. For an extreme example, if you can achieve a state of only 0.1% energy loss, once you reach your cruising speed, almost no further energy is required to sustain it. But even small percentages of reduction in energy loss from a "simple machine" can be a huge advantage in sport.

Your argument doesn't hold up against these facts that you conveniently ignore.