Does anyone seriously want vaporflys banned?

The Nike Shox got banned because they contain actual springs.

https://news.nike.com/footwear/nike-shox-total

Link?

Not banned all out, but you have to ask, what are the limits. Are we going be racing on powered springs with 10-15% energy return in a few years? BQs in the 2:30s, all because of the shoes?

I agree that the IAAF needs to look at the technology and establish some common sense limits. And it seems like the number of plates and thickness/drop of the foam are good things to look at.

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

Very good article on the swimsuit issue. Very much like the shoe issue.

Are you proposing they ban the shoes for training? Because if not, you could still get the ‘unfair’ recovery every day leading to the race.

DC Wonk wrote:

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

This idea sounds naïve at first, but not completely untrue. People ran *with* pacers for years, then EK came along in Breaking2 and really tried to stay out of the wind. Now you have Brigid Kosgei running right behind two pacers to help block the wind.. this wasn't as common, or deliberate until late. People ran in packs, but this was a different intent I believe.

So there have been changes in the way people run, just as there have been in the way people swim or cycle etc. Phelps started going deeper and longer on his flip turns, which saved a lot of time. Cyclists now are much leaner than those back 15~20 years ago. Things evolve.. both shoes and tactics.

Shoebacca wrote:

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.

Maybe he just doesn't really know. He's a runner, not a scientist. That quote on the LR home page says it all.. women's WR holder says "I chose the pink shoes because that's what Kipchoge used". Kipchoge was wearing white shoes, which were totally different. She had no idea.

Or maybe Gebrselassie is making excuses for himself, as if he would have been just as fast if he had the same shoes. "Shoes are the only reason these guys are faster than I was".

UA Runner wrote:

Shoebacca wrote:

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.

Maybe he just doesn't really know. He's a runner, not a scientist. That quote on the LR home page says it all.. women's WR holder says "I chose the pink shoes because that's what Kipchoge used". Kipchoge was wearing white shoes, which were totally different. She had no idea.

Or maybe Gebrselassie is making excuses for himself, as if he would have been just as fast if he had the same shoes. "Shoes are the only reason these guys are faster than I was".

Geb said that? Link please. Probably just paid by Adidas to say it if it is true.

What Geb DID actually say is that he thinks the VF4% is making running unfair and is WAY over the top. He said new marathoners have a massive advantage and that they run faster than him simply because of the shoes. He was one of the first runners in the world to speak out against the VF4%, and that was before many fast times were run. Geb saw it coming, I mean if Kipchoge, a guy that Geb consistently beat in his old years on the track suddenly runs 2:01-2:03 every single race I would question too if that's really just the training.

UA Runner wrote:

This idea sounds naïve at first, but not completely untrue. People ran *with* pacers for years, then EK came along in Breaking2 and really tried to stay out of the wind. Now you have Brigid Kosgei running right behind two pacers to help block the wind.. this wasn't as common, or deliberate until late. People ran in packs, but this was a different intent I believe.

So there have been changes in the way people run, just as there have been in the way people swim or cycle etc. Phelps started going deeper and longer on his flip turns, which saved a lot of time. Cyclists now are much leaner than those back 15~20 years ago. Things evolve.. both shoes and tactics.

Good post, agree with all except with the cyclists. Cyclists have always been razor thin - look at Rasmussen, or Pantani they were below 56 kg and crazy fast on the climbs.

Yes, there were big guys like Armstrong or the monstrous Jan Ullrich, but that was because they were completed doped to the gills with everything available. Imagine a clean Ullrich riding a steep climb, that just wouldn't work his TdF would be over in a single race. Ullrich was a living bag of blood, he spent $35,000 on blood doping alone each year in addition to EPO and many other things.

Yes, Rasmussen and Pantani were dirty too, as all cyclists, but the "evolvement" is not due to tactics or knowledge that a leaner body is better for cycling, it's due to a shift to different drugs/types of doping. It's hard to get away with 80kg body as Ullrich had without substantial amounts of blood doping and EPO.

The swim suit issue isn't a perfect parallel. A better parallel would be using Aerotape to improve aerodynamic efficiency in running...which is banned (by the IAAF, at least).

Vaporflys also aren't like running blades because they're not replacing some essential part of the human body used in running (like the lower leg,ankle, and Achilles tendon) with a mechanical equivalent. They're just shoes with stuff under your feet. Apart from rumors and marketing hype, I can't see any case of any shoe actually being banned before. I don't see any obvious reason to start now. I read IAAF Rule 143, and there's nothing in there about stack height outside of a few jumping shoes: "In all other events the sole and/or heel may be of any thickness."

Advances in shoe technology in racing are 100 years old. And recent improvements started well before Vaporflies. The midsole foam wars have been going on for a while. Something else to consider is that Nike is now at the point of tinkering with and refining the Vaporfly technology. We've already seen the big gains. From here on out for a while, it will be marginal improvements until the next big thing comes along.

So if we can run faster and farther with faster recoveries and less injuries in the Vaporflies, then the goal should be to make them as widely accessible as possible. Markets work pretty well for this kind of thing. Let Nike earn a bundle on the Vaporflies, just like Adidas was making a bundle on Boost while its competitors tried to catch up. Eventually Asics and Saucony and Hoka and New Balance and everyone else will figure out a way to offer a lot of the Vaporfly benefits at a more affordable price.

You know who I think will benefit the most? Master's runners. Running is hard on the bottom of your feet. Your foot bones and fascia and fat pads start to wear out. A few years ago, I thought NB Zantes were awesome. Now they hurt. If the Vaporfly tech lets people keep running seriously who would otherwise have to give up the sport, it will be a huge benefit to the health of a lot of people. Possibly including me.

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.

I nominate this for dumbest post of the week.

Yeah Kipchoge showed people what was possible. That's why the half marathon record also has been broken twice, the women's half and fulls have gone by the wayside as well.

I put a huge asterisk next to Rupp's medal in 2016. I think he might have medalled without the shoes but am not sure as the 4th and 4th placers didn't have the shoes and they were 59 seconds behind. I don't think success should depend on whether you are willing to violate your endorsement contract and pay $250 to a rival shoe company to buy one of their patented shoes.

If we want to allow the shoes, we need to have strict rules about them. They must be out for 6 month s etc.

I think the new shoes are significantly better than the original 4% shoes.

Here is what I wrote about the shoe rule in July. I think it's VERY important we address this before Tokyo.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

The swimsuits are not comparable at all. They allowed mediocre, second-class swimmers like Biedermann to destroy world records set by the "Great's" in swimming. In running, no 2:10 guy is suddenly gonna win major marathons because of shoes, it's still the same old people on the top (Kipchoge, Bekele, etc.).

You take Kipchoge in a regular pair of shoes. I get Bekele in the Vaporflys. It's not even close. Bekele is going to win. The shoes are probably worth 1-2 minutes.

Even a good foam can have some mechanical energy return to it like a spring does. You smoosh it and it wants to return to normal which returns a bit of energy. I think they crossed the line with a curved plate. Surely that mofo flexes in the shoe and counts as a spring like device???

And excessive stack height is like wearing stilts. Extends your reach.

If I could wave a magic wand I would put bans on inserts/frames/plates/rock guards, and excessive stack height for competition. Just foam and foot.

I'd love to see an event where they had the athletes run in pre Nike waffle shoes.

In the meantime I loooooove this. I can't wait to see hobby joggers wearing 600$ Alphaflys.

Best Ted talk ever on sports and tech.

https://youtu.be/8COaMKbNrX0

It probably makes sense to revisit how we regulate the performance gear in running.

We do have an interest in being able to, within limits, compare the performances of runners at different time periods. I'd argue we also have an interest in not fully embracing the sport as an arms race with science and technology being the deciding factor.

For instance, we could have car racing events with no regulations on what technology and design the car uses. At that point, it becomes a simple arms race to building the best hardware, without any circumscribed limits, and talk of who is the best racer car driver turns unquestionably into talk of who has access to the best technology and designers, and sure, a skilled racer is important too.

No one really likes that outcome in sport, unless the technology, science, and engineering *is the point*. Those are fun too, but given the negative reaction most people here have to, say, PEDs, the sport of road racing, cross country, and track and field is not that sort of sport.

So, we should regular shoe wear. Maybe we should even regular what can be consumed during the race, e.g., only water bottles, which must be placed on drinking stations by the event organizers where every competitor has access equal access to them.

Back to shoe wear. We could regular the material, the minimum weight allowed, in fact, we could just require everyone to run the same exact shoe. That's "the running shoe." You get to choose a size, maybe a color, that's it.

Most people here talk a good game about fair play. These sort of regulatory developments would support that end, and also put an end to the arms race.

Not sure why repeatedly misspelled "regulate" as "regular" in my previous post.

rojo wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

The swimsuits are not comparable at all. They allowed mediocre, second-class swimmers like Biedermann to destroy world records set by the "Great's" in swimming. In running, no 2:10 guy is suddenly gonna win major marathons because of shoes, it's still the same old people on the top (Kipchoge, Bekele, etc.).

You take Kipchoge in a regular pair of shoes. I get Bekele in the Vaporflys. It's not even close. Bekele is going to win. The shoes are probably worth 1-2 minutes.

I agree that the shoes should be banned, but I doubt the current models are worth 1-2 minutes. The new alphaflys might get close to that though.

Most people thought Kipchoge was the GOAT marathoner before vaporflys even existed, so I think he probably could have smashed Kimetto’s record in traditional shoes.

I think he goes 2:02:25 in traditional shoes vs 2:01:39 in vaporflys.

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

Adidas should host a big marathon on the London or Berlin course that you cannot wear Vaporfly's to participate and there's a huge payout for:

-the top 3 winners

-a World Record

-a time under 2:03

It'd be interested to see how fast Bekele and Kipchoge or the studs could run

new era, new gear, hoppy beer wrote:

Adidas should host a big marathon on the London or Berlin course that you cannot wear Vaporfly's to participate and there's a huge payout for:

-the top 3 winners

-a World Record

-a time under 2:03

It'd be interested to see how fast Bekele and Kipchoge or the studs could run

BREAKING NEWS: No Africans show up for Adidas Marathon in London

I think the new shoes are significantly better than the original 4% shoes.

Do you mean Kipchoge's cloven moon bots or the Next%s? If you mean the Next%s why do you think they're significantly better? The foam's are the same, the plate is the same shape, they look much more to me like a cosmetic upgrade.