Track and field's shoe rule needs to be rewritten

The foam makes the shoe spring?

XC 666 wrote:

Go away Ventolin wrote:

Ryun ran as fast as he could. Period.

Your spurious calculations don't help him to run any faster.

WRONG. The Swedes were actually the first to go sub 4 in like the 40s.

What Swedes? Sub 4 in what in the 40s? What are you talking about?

HRE wrote:

XC 666 wrote:

WRONG. The Swedes were actually the first to go sub 4 in like the 40s.

What Swedes? Sub 4 in what in the 40s? What are you talking about?

On modern synthetic tracks, sub 4.

shuttfup wrote:

shut up about shoes

Let's say my in shape mile time is 8 minutes. . .

Let's say you're a moron.

Good Point Man wrote:

shuttfup wrote:

shut up about shoes

Let's say my in shape mile time is 8 minutes. . .

Let's say you're a moron.

GTFO moran

Flyyy wrote:

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

Go away Ventolin wrote:

Ryun ran as fast as he could. Period.

Your spurious calculations don't help him to run any faster.

XC 666 wrote:

WRONG. The Swedes were actually the first to go sub 4 in like the 40s.

WRONG. Paavo Nurmi ran 4:10 in the 1920s.

Of the major manufacturers of running shoes--Brooks, NB, Asics, Saucony, Hoka, Adidas, etc.--who has anything like the 4% besides Nike? I don't mean for public distribution; I mean for their elite athletes. We can speculate that "they must," but does anyone know?

dunes runner wrote:

Any running shoes that don't last for at least 1000 miles should be banned immediately.

3,092 miles on my Hoka Bondi

Put those on the do not ban list!!!

shuttfup wrote:

shut up about shoes

Let's say my in shape mile time is 8 minutes. putting on some carbon spikes or wtf ever isnt going to make me run a 4 minute mile

Do you think human genes have mutated since 1930's & 1940's? Find a pair of leather shoes & spikes from 1930's, 1940's or 1950's. Head out to an abandonded 440 yard dirt/cinder track. Shoes and track surface combined accounts for at least (4 to 5) seconds in 800m performance over past 75 years.

Saucony, Hoka, Adidas

The rule makes no sense because the entire premise that you can speed running by adding bounce to a shoe is hogwash. That is not how running mechanics work.

You can't run faster because of a shoe, with the sole exception of spikes, and in that case, only very slightly and only if you know how to use the extra leverage. There are of course countless gullible posters who don't want to hear how much money they've wasted.

Shoezoo wrote:

The simple answer is to limit the depth of the midsole. If you say that midsole cannot be more than 20_25mm then you know that the leaf spring can only have a limited effect. If you look at the shoes Kipchoge is preparing for his 2hr attempt they are maybe 50-60 mm thick. This would allow them to accommodate a much more aggressive spring than the one currently in the next %. If the 4% is acceptable what about the 8% or the 16%... Because all Nike needs to do is keep adapting the spring.

The new track shoe that Nike Elites are wearing has a taped thick look g forefoot to hide the technology. This is clearly not within the rules. Nobody knows what it is? I've already seen a shoe with a supposed microchip midsole that can measure plant and pressure. This is only the beginning.

+1

A rule limiting stack height to 30mm, availability on sale to all who want to buy.

[quote]rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

Here goes Rojo stirring the pot for good press. Carbon plates have existed in shoes for years friendo, research has shown improvements on the road, not much on the track... That's fair more fair than you'd think. The track is a much different story... Since your body has increased traction on a polyurethane or mondo surface you're more reliant on your own bio mechanics than your shoes... The polyurethane itself gives more energy return per step, even more so with mondo. Are you going to lobby against mondo tracks versus polyurethane next? This is getting out of hand. Can we move on to something that matters? I want to see shoes get cooler and more innovative. Stop fighting change.

Imagine, even more elites clamoring to run for Nike. LOL. If Adidas, Brooks, NB, etc. all had come out with a similar shoe near the same time that improved performance to the same extent as the VP4% would all the models be illegal? How would we know?

rojo wrote:

that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

Bang on this drum all you want but it only makes you look like a naive and very thirsty middle school aged “journalist”.

rojo wrote:

i 100% agree with you. No one knows what unfair is - that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

The reality is is one guy has the vaporfly 4%'s and no one else does - that's not fair. The reality is the 2016 Olympic marathon wasn't fair (thankfully most of the top male athletes were Nike anyway) It's a huge advantage, proven in scientific papers. Our sport is one that will DQ Ezekiel Kemboi for cutting a fraction of an inch off in a nearly 2 mile race but allowed Kipchoge, Rupp and others to potentially save more than a minute thanks to their footwear.

The rule needs to be changed.

Your proposed "no-prototype" rule would be a radical change. As I've noted before, at one point most track shoes were custom made by cobblers, and the first 4-minute mile was run in a pair of very high end, very light shoes that were not designed to last very long. Also, using pros as guinea pigs for development is a big part of the value proposition for brand even deciding to sponsor runners. Nike's slogan for as long as I can remember has been "engineered to the exact specifications of championship athletes," and most other companies use a similar approach, albeit with a lot less R&D money. I don't think we should have a rule that further decreases incentives for shoe brands to invest in the pro side of the sport. Finally, even if we had this rule, it wouldn't matter because as you noted, it's not commercial availability that matters at the elite level; it's the fact that people are locked into sponsorships.

As for the unfairness, that's just an issue of degree. Keep in mind that: (1) all racing flats increase running economy vs. running unshod, and (2) not all racing flats do so to the same degree. Therefore some runners have always had an equipment advantage. There was a study on Adidas Boost foam demonstrating that it increased economy by 1% vs. a control shoe that was identical except for the foam. Was that unfair? Where between 1% and 4% does the unfairness emerge? (Also, as an aside, even if 4% is the correct number in lab tests of economy, it's quite clear that that the VF is not translating into a 4% improvement in performance. One of they mysteries of exercise science is that interventions that have been repeatedly shown to improve performance do not "stack" on each other when you use them all together, which may suggest that a lot of these interventions are ultimately influencing the brain, even if their benefits initially appear to be related primarily to particular peripheral effects. I'm not aware of the VF having been "stack tested," but it would be interesting to see if the VF+beet juice produces the sum of the running economy of either alone. My bet would be it doesn't.)

I'm not saying that shoes shouldn't be regulated and that the 4% isn't potentially a bridge too far. I'm just saying that what's happening now isn't a revolution. It's a continuation of something that's been happening in the sport for a very, very long time, which to me suggests that the "unfairness" isn't so obvious or something that we can just take for granted. The proper response isn't obvious either, which explains why the IAAF is moving slowly.

People can say whatever they like but the plate in the 4% is registered under patent as a spring device. If it isn't as such then can someone explain.

Jzs wrote:

Flyyy wrote:

Okay, I imagined it, now what? Are we going to change all tracks back to cinder and crappy shoes to make it all equal? Are we going to disregard all records from 2017 onward? Same things apply for other sports as well (cycling, skiing, etc)..

That’s the fvckibg point ... are the people better or is it just better sh!t ..?! Yes, better shoes, better understanding of training, better tracks, better understanding of nutrition... Then the topic of better drugs. You’re not watching better athletes ... many of the late 60’s performances are as good as today’s technology and drug abusing times/performances. Shoes matter as much as anything. Move the World Champs to sh!t shoes and dirt tracks, would any of these athletes run any better than Billy Mills or Ron Clarke..?!...doubtful.

So what you are saying then, is that all records should be disregarded unless they are completed in the same conditions as those from cinder tracks? My point was why waste time reaching out to IAAF about shoes and how they need to be "investigated" for cheating, it's a waste of time. BTW, how do you factor in people who have beat records by such a large amount of time that even if you gave them crappy shoes and a cinder track they still would've been faster?

We're in an era where rules don't matter. Get with the times!