Does it really matter? wrote:
If the VFs are so far superior to the other shoes, shouldn’t only Nike athletes be able to qualify for the olympics? So what would it matter if shoes from other companies can’t be used, the entire Olympic field should be Nike athletes
Good point. All (almost all) are legal until the end of spring marathon season. And if Nike & adidas runners sweep the Olympic trials in ATL.. then none of this matters for the Olympics. Callum Hawkins being one exception.
runn wrote:
There's a few threads. Some are saying the Alpha's are banned some are saying they are not.
What is the actual deal?
Can someone wear them in a race?
From the best info we have, the stack heigh will prevent the ones Kipchoge wore from being used. Most suspect the stack height of those was closer to 50mm than the legal 40mm (Next %s are 36mm). Nike could change on the fly and create an Alphafly version that complies by the rules and looks similar, but it doesn't sound like it would be the ones that we've seen with Kipchoge and popping up on social media.
No those spikes Muir and other elites have are not for sale. Their prototype zoom x foam and the same plate as the 4%. Remember everyone complaining that Muir record indoor shouldn’t stand because of them.
UA Runner wrote:
wejo wrote:
Saucony's shoe which Jared Ward uses was supposed to release after April 1. So he's out of luck at the Olympics. The Brooks Hyperion may release before that date, but I've also seen after. What about HOKA's rumored shoe that I assume won't be here until after April 1.
We at LetsRun had advocated on the LetsRun podcast that one fix would be to mandate that shoes have to be on the market for a set period of time before they can be used in competition. This rule has adopted this proposal, but I am against it now at least for the first year.
The shoes have to be on market for X many days before they can be used was designed from a shoe company dropping a new shoe that was superior to anything else right before a competition. I was operating under the assumption the IAAF wasn't going to put in concrete rules on what is legal and what isn't.
.
"On the market" is a fairly loose term. Couldn't Saucony just list the Endorphin Pro on their website next month, sell ten pairs per month (to Saucony employees), show it as perpetually sold out and fall within the guidelines?
Most people couldn't get their hands on a pair of the Vaporfly 4% when it came out either. It took a good year before those were actually readily available.
On the other hand.. I don't feel bad for the other brands. The Olympics will be 37 months after the public release of the Nike Vaporfly. There's been plenty of time to catch up.
BINGO! The shoe manufacturer's involved will air freight a couple dozen pairs from the factory (Any April-June 2020 release shoes are already built, in production, or "on the water" as we speak.) and get them on their commercial website. They will sell out in minutes but, technically, they were released and available to the public. Problem solved.
Time for an emergency podcast! Get the gang together today.
https://www.prodirectrunning.com/p/nike-spike-flat-sail-blackened-blue-ashen-slate-mens-shoes-aq3610-144-200350/track79 wrote:
I’m just glad that Nike will be forced to release to the public soon the carbon plated track spikes all the elites have been racing and training on for 1500 to 10k. It’s bull that we can’t get our hands on them. I mean I been trying to get the LT4 spike flats and even those our no where to be found most of the time.
Easy access here. I got a pair in 3 days. Nice shoe.
track79 wrote:
No those spikes Muir and other elites have are not for sale. Their prototype zoom x foam and the same plate as the 4%. Remember everyone complaining that Muir record indoor shouldn’t stand because of them.
The interesting part of the new spike rule is that the plate has to be part of where the spike attaches. So they can't have an external spike plate where the spikes attach and another plate sandwiched in the foam. That also limits those custom vaporfly spikes as well from being used on the track (you could still use the vaporfly w/o spikes on the track though).
All this is going to do is push Nike to figure out the best way to maximize the rules. Now they have the groundwork and they can start doing more R&D. Give them a year and the shoes will be even more efficient and still within the new rules!
nikemann wrote:
track79 wrote:
No those spikes Muir and other elites have are not for sale. Their prototype zoom x foam and the same plate as the 4%. Remember everyone complaining that Muir record indoor shouldn’t stand because of them.
The interesting part of the new spike rule is that the plate has to be part of where the spike attaches. So they can't have an external spike plate where the spikes attach and another plate sandwiched in the foam. That also limits those custom vaporfly spikes as well from being used on the track (you could still use the vaporfly w/o spikes on the track though).
All this is going to do is push Nike to figure out the best way to maximize the rules. Now they have the groundwork and they can start doing more R&D. Give them a year and the shoes will be even more efficient and still within the new rules!
The rule says that an additional plate is permissible as long as it's only function is to attach the spikes to the shoes. Which would make the prototypes from last summer legal. I am having a hard time believing that taking a conventional 3/4 or full length carbon fiber spike and adding a couple of pressurized bags is going to make much of a difference over the mile or 5k. It just doesn't seem like a fundamentally different design to cause such an uproar like was seen with Muir or Hassan
Oneplate? wrote:
Prince Valiant wrote:
Recent prototypes have only one plate.
+1
https://www.facebook.com/1882863668612344/posts/2529807290584642/
You’re working on the assumption that that info is correct. The truth of the matter is that Kipchoge’s shoe only ever had one plate and people have been drooling over an old patent that refers to a different shoe entirely. It might very well be over the allowed height, but I think that’s probably something that could be modified fairly easily. I think you’ll see the Alpha at the Olympics in one form or another.
Alphafly as worn by Kipchoge banned. Good.
The other companies that have had years to respond to the Vaporfly - what the heck have you been doing?
No sympathy for the slackers. 40mm and single plates. Let's move on now. And put an asterisk next to the 2016 Olympic Marathon results.
track79 and 3/4 wrote:
nikemann wrote:
The interesting part of the new spike rule is that the plate has to be part of where the spike attaches. So they can't have an external spike plate where the spikes attach and another plate sandwiched in the foam. That also limits those custom vaporfly spikes as well from being used on the track (you could still use the vaporfly w/o spikes on the track though).
All this is going to do is push Nike to figure out the best way to maximize the rules. Now they have the groundwork and they can start doing more R&D. Give them a year and the shoes will be even more efficient and still within the new rules!
The rule says that an additional plate is permissible as long as it's only function is to attach the spikes to the shoes. Which would make the prototypes from last summer legal. I am having a hard time believing that taking a conventional 3/4 or full length carbon fiber spike and adding a couple of pressurized bags is going to make much of a difference over the mile or 5k. It just doesn't seem like a fundamentally different design to cause such an uproar like was seen with Muir or Hassan
Incorrect. They WOULD NOT be legal. The additional plate sandwiched in the foam does not allow the spikes to be attached to it. The spikes are attached to another plate ("the spike plate").
Oneplate? wrote:
Prince Valiant wrote:
Recent prototypes have only one plate.
+1
https://www.facebook.com/1882863668612344/posts/2529807290584642/
I understand why they chose the 40mm stack heigh limit. It’s a round number, and gives some shoe companies some room to innovate further. A pogo show ban would have been nice, but, at least the rocket launcher shoes (i.e AlphaFlys) are out. Now I just wonder if Nike will still sell the AlphaFlys for people to wear at their local turkey trots. ? Boing boing!
oldmantake wrote:
Why is it Nike's fault they innovate better than everyone else? Why do they and their athletes need to hold themselves back? There will always be an era effect comparing races from different eras, as all sports get better with newer technology. Going as far as to say 2016 should be invalidated is insane.
Track and field, road racing, and cross-country are supposed to be about athletes battling other athletes to see who is the best - not a proxy war to see who is the best shoe-manufacturing company. The Olympics (and other competitions) were conceived as individuals representing their home nations or teams, not their shoe sponsors.
Theoretically, the ideal state is for everyone to race barefoot. That does away with the shoe problem altogether, and would help preserve one of the best aspects of competitive running:
being able to compare times across eras, and being able to compare yourself to other runners without having to account for differences in equipment. But since widespread barefoot competitions are probably not feasible, the ideal should be to have racing shoes that are as minimal as possible - basically just foot protection.
Granted, we have already long since passed the mere foot protection stage, as for decades shoes have provided support, cushioning, spikes for grip, etc. However, just because our ideal is already somewhat compromised doesn't meant we have to completely give up and say "anything goes". We can call a halt to further improvements in shoe technology.
I think the new rules from World Athletics are a decent start. They at least acknowledge the existence of a problem.
And I'm not arguing against the vast majority of the shoe company business. Nike, Adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Skechers....whoever... could continue to do their thing, trying to come up with the greatest TRAINING shoes they can possibly conceive. People could even wear shoes with 100mm stacks and thirteen carbon fiber plates - on training runs. There can continue to be plenty of competition in that area. But once racers line up on the starting line, shoes should be a neutral factor.
yee-haw!
This is just like NASCAR in the early days. Sell a few "production cars" to friends of dealers, then you can race it.
So....what are the nuances of "openly available"?
There are plenty of shoes made only in men's sizes, and sometimes the sizing does not go low enough for some women to wear the shoe. If a shoe is released only in a men's size, are women allowed to compete in it?
And...what about shoes that are only sold in certain countries? Are those considered "openly available"?
Our analysis of what it all means with quotes from Geoff Burns.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
It's really a PR thing, you could understand Wejo if they didn't have the 4 months rule, that a brand could release something their Vaporfly answer a week before the Olympics promoting some hysteria as everyone tested it and generating headlines.
The way the rule is written the shoe convo goes away with everyone's cards on the table before the Summer.
Don't get me wrong I advocated for a no prototype rule so I'm not totally against it but getting the timing right is important especially with everyone playing catch-up. And with hard rules in place the 4 month thing isn't as important. People largely will be copying one another now right? They could say, "here are the rules. If you come up with a radical new design that fits under these rules, then you need to get pre-approval"
This 4-month rule is going to be a disaster, not just for the Olympics (because shoe companies were blindsided), but for pro running going forward.
The entire point of professional running is to sell shoes to the masses. Shoe companies build buzz about shoes by having their pro runners wearing them first. You start with instagram teasers. You have them mentioned in some articles. You debut them at a major marathon. Then a month later, finally you let the average joe buy them. This rule makes pro runners almost irrelevant when it comes to shoe marketing. Sure, they can promote stuff that they're not allowed to use, and they can promote stuff that's already been on the market for a while, but that's not sexy. 90% of shoe marketing is at launch.
Now you're going to have marathons in which the pros are using inferior technology to the masses. That might be justifiable if it were actually banned technology like the Alphafly. (You see the same thing in golf and skiing, where recreational athletes can buy illegal equipment that's better than what the pros use.) But in this case we're banning the pros from using stuff that will be perfectly legal in a couple of months. That's nuts.
nikemann wrote:
[Incorrect. They WOULD NOT be legal. The additional plate sandwiched in the foam does not allow the spikes to be attached to it. The spikes are attached to another plate ("the spike plate").
“ For a shoe with spikes, an additional plate (to the plate mentioned above) or other mechanism is permitted, but only for the purpose of attaching the spikes to the sole, and the sole must be no thicker than 30mm.”
The part in parentheses means that there can be a midsole plate in addition to the the spike plate.