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

Hayness personified wrote:

I ran a 1:20 HM in boost

I ran a 1:20 HM in 4%

THEY DON’t make you faster.

I fixed it for ya:

They didn't make you faster.

You go home devastated.

Burnsy wrote:

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.

Most BQs are accomplished in the 3 hour to 4 hour marathon range, depending on gender and age group. Based on the above, BQs could drop by more than 6 minutes.

For those saying it’s just an incremental couple of hundred bucks on top of other marathon participation costs, I guess part of the sour taste in my mouth is that the money goes to Nike. I’m not a particularly big fan of that company.

I am on the side of believing the shoes work, and work very well for certain people, but I think 6-8 mins is kinda insane. I'm sure that's what Nike wants us to believe, but I'm not seeing it unless you're doing a disingenuous comparison like people switching from 13 oz trainers to VFs rather than proper flats to VFs.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Bib #1 wrote:

Most BQs are accomplished in the 3 hour to 4 hour marathon range, depending on gender and age group. Based on the above, BQs could drop by more than 6 minutes.

For those saying it’s just an incremental couple of hundred bucks on top of other marathon participation costs, I guess part of the sour taste in my mouth is that the money goes to Nike. I’m not a particularly big fan of that company.

I am on the side of believing the shoes work, and work very well for certain people, but I think 6-8 mins is kinda insane. I'm sure that's what Nike wants us to believe, but I'm not seeing it unless you're doing a disingenuous comparison like people switching from 13 oz trainers to VFs rather than proper flats to VFs.

I tend to agree that many people won’t gain the full benefit, although some may. Enough to make a material impact to BQ standards, perhaps.

Meanwhile, Nike will laugh all the way to the bank, since they make the sale regardless of whether the shoes work or not

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I am on the side of believing the shoes work, and work very well for certain people, but I think 6-8 mins is kinda insane. I'm sure that's what Nike wants us to believe, but I'm not seeing it unless you're doing a disingenuous comparison like people switching from 13 oz trainers to VFs rather than proper flats to VFs.

Those estimates have nothing to do with Nike - that’s purely the estimate of what a 4% improvement in running economy will do to your time at those speeds.

The open question is whether the shoes still provide a 4% improvement in economy at slower speeds. All the studies so far have had the slowest speed at 6:54 pace (~3 hr. ‘thon) and still observed that consistent benefit. Whether it persists at 8:00 pace? Not sure. But they will shift BQ standards.

Note that they’ve likely already inflated the Olympic standards. The 2:11:30 this year was derived in part from the faster and faster performances of 2017 and 2018, many of which were done in those shoes

I just ran a BQ in Next%s (2:58 against a 3:05BQ) at the Des Moines Marathon.

I only saw a few runners in them at the Des Moines Marathon. There hasn't been massive uptake, at least in a middle-income area like Iowa. From watching people at the turnaround I think I may have been the only person sub-3 in them. (I finished 35th.). I don't think the market of runners near BQs is flooded with Vaporfly wearers, at least not yet. So I don't think it's going to lead to a massive drop. Plus, they just ratcheted the times down 5 minutes and that's going to provide a little buffer too.

I think when all goes well they help average people shave a couple minutes off.

I'm not 100% they were a net positive for me because I got unusual hamstring cramping near the end of the race that several others have reported (see here:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9652727

). I had to dial back the pace to keep from having to stop completely, but I never fell off the cliff, so maybe it was a wash, maybe a small advantage.

Of course, I may have cramped just as bad or worse in other shoes. I don't know. But something just felt different about this cramping and 5 days later my hamstrings are still sore. I think I needed to train more in the shoes before racing the full in them (I put about 35 miles on them, one big workout and one longer tempo run and an easy run).

Just buy the shoes wrote:

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.

This type of reasoning doesn't make sense (or other posters saying that everybody who can afford to do the race in the first place can afford more expensive shoes).

Among all the people who would otherwise run Boston, there is a spectrum of wealthiness. Some have so much money that a couple of hundred extra is of no consequence to them. At the lower end, some people might have decided they can JUST BARELY pull off this Boston thing if they save up and scrape their money together and cut costs wherever possible. An expensive pair of shoes would put them over the line.

Also, many people running a qualifying marathon live in the area. That's what I've always done - run the local city marathon.

The course isn't perfect, but it's OK. Basically, I can qualify for Boston for a $100 or so investment, running a race that I probably would have run anyway. Adding in $250 shoes would be a no-go.

Look at the same basic issue but from another angle: high school running. What if in the future, all the well-to-do kids have expensive shoes that give an ACTUAL advantage of a few percent in races, while the rank-and-file kids have to make do with the usual old stuff.

Shoes have been getting cheaper and cheaper relative to inflation. The New Balance 990 debuted in 1983 at $100, which is actually a bit more than $250 in today's dollars.

A local sporting goods store up here - they specialize in gear for the three triathlon sports - recently stopped carrying my favourite line of winter running gear but they continue to carry that manufacturer's line of cycling wear. Why? The store manager told me that runners were notoriously cheap compared to cyclists - a $250 winter running jacket that will probably last 10 years is too pricey for the local running market but the store has no trouble selling to cyclists almost exactly the same thing priced often a little higher. I do triathlons - hardly a poorer person's sport when you start factoring in wetsuits, carbon fibre bicycles, aero gear, etc. In the scheme of things, I have zero trouble spending $250 on a pair of good running shoes and I currently own two pairs of VFs.

For me, though, the jury is out as to whether or not the VFs are the real deal - it feels as though they aid my recovery period and let me train harder but I am not positive. I know that they do not allow me to increase my stride rate in short and middle-distance races but they do seem to shine for me in the later splits in my long runs - although nowhere near 4%. They are certainly not slower than my previous go-to marathon shoe, the Kinvara. I will stick the VF for at least another marathon or two and then, who knows?

I am a cyclist and a runner. I'm more than happy to pay absurd prices on cycling gear but always skimp on running gear. Even though I'm aware it's ridiculous and illogical. I think it's because you compare everything to the price of your bike. $50 for some gloves seems like nothing in comparison to the $3000 you spent on the bike. In running you don't have the comparison and $50 for gloves seems crazy.

I just ran my first marathon in a pair of $80 Pegasus. Already decided I'll be treating myself to some Vaporflys for the next one. For marginal gains per dollar they're probably better value than anything I've ever bought for cycling.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Bib #1 wrote:

Most BQs are accomplished in the 3 hour to 4 hour marathon range, depending on gender and age group. Based on the above, BQs could drop by more than 6 minutes.

For those saying it’s just an incremental couple of hundred bucks on top of other marathon participation costs, I guess part of the sour taste in my mouth is that the money goes to Nike. I’m not a particularly big fan of that company.

I am on the side of believing the shoes work, and work very well for certain people, but I think 6-8 mins is kinda insane. I'm sure that's what Nike wants us to believe, but I'm not seeing it unless you're doing a disingenuous comparison like people switching from 13 oz trainers to VFs rather than proper flats to VFs.

I think that’s a lot of people. It’s the cushioning to weight ratio that’s huge. Before the VF I wore big cushy trainers - needed that for 26.2 miles of pounding the pavement. Now I can wear a much lighter shoe that’s more cushioned - hell yeah!

WSJ claims up to 9 minute improvement for a 3:30 marathoner

https://www.wsj.com/articles/recreational-runners-stand-to-benefit-the-most-from-the-nike-vaporfly-11572606004?mod=hp_lista_pos2