The 4% is cheating and should be banned

I love lamp?

hokas wrote:

I'm excited to hear what you guys have to say about the new hokas coming out.

Only good for a 2:09 marathon so far.

It seems like unregulated shoe technology is going to be a huge problem in the long term. The 4% is only the first model. Technology will improve and the shoes will only get more unfair.

When people start running 1:55 marathons in the vaporfly 30% I think everyone will see that something is wrong

Why don't you see ANY zoom flys at the head marathon fields wrote:

This guy answered the Zoom Fly question right here:-

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

it's most definitely an engineered leaf-spring

it is not a flat plate like you might find on spike shoes, etc.

here is an x-ray/mri of a vaporfly, you can clearly see the shape of the spring, sandwiched between the foam to cushion the impact and store/forward the energy from the landing for toe-off

https://i.imgur.com/VfRS4sM.gif

and this is just the first generation, imagine how much better with every year as they tune it - I don't think anyone would have a problem with this shoe if they simply removed the literal spring, in fact they make a model without it so it's possible but no-one uses it for good reason

They Zoom Fly does have the carbon plate in it, just a different type of foam, so no, it wasn’t answered.

You’ve just contradicted yourself. The 4% should be banned because of the plate, but people don’t use the zoom fly for good reason.

So the real benefit is the foam, and not the carbon plate?

No he didn't. That's the NEW version, the zoom Fly Flyknit, which has only recently been released that has the plate.

He was obviously taking about the long existing model which DOESN'T have the plate when making that comparison.

I'm not sure this guy understands anything.

Lofty Goals wrote:

It seems like unregulated shoe technology is going to be a huge problem in the long term. The 4% is only the first model. Technology will improve and the shoes will only get more unfair.

When people start running 1:55 marathons in the vaporfly 30% I think everyone will see that something is wrong

There are diminishing returns limited by energy return and compliance. Even if you could have a "perfect" shoe that had 100% energy return and 100% compliance (ie, it flattenes to zero mm on footstrike, then springs up to full height without losing any energy), you're not getting to a 30% gain. And the VF already provides something like 87% return. There's only so much further you can go.

So you are ok with someone setting records in these shoes: https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2014/11/bionic-boots/

Too poor to own a pair or two? wrote:

So you start this same thread every few weeks huh?

nothing wrong with starting new threads on very important issues as additional information could be released since the last tread.

similar to starting a new Rauschenberg thread every so often.

Why don't you see ANY zoom flys at the head marathon fields wrote:

No he didn't. That's the NEW version, the zoom Fly Flyknit, which has only recently been released that has the plate.

He was obviously taking about the long existing model which DOESN'T have the plate when making that comparison.

Check the description on the Nike site.

The old version has the plate too. Your name even says “why don’t you see zoom flys at the front of a marathon”.

You’re basically helping prove the point that you guys just hate Nike.

So I’ll ask AGAIN? Should we ban the zoom fly as well?

The comments on here as to it's spring mechanism all seem to make sense (and these diagrams looked at together certainly visualise what's going on) but as to the OP's question should they really be banned?

I mean Kipchoge has just smashed the WR in them and pretty much every marathon you watch now has an army of guys at the front all wearing them, and all smashing course records or PRs. That's great for Box Office people!

Surely that's what we all want to making distance running more appealing no? They're not drugs and Nike itself is selling them on the fact they make you go faster - it's not like they're trying to hide anything!

While I don't doubt the VF and ZF variants are providing some level of real efficiency enhancement depending on the runner (anyone who is not a forefoot striker is likely to see little if any gain), there is also a strong placebo effect. And this placebo effect holds for many shoes to some degree: if one really believes that one is going to run faster in the shoes than any other shoe, they most likely will. Don't underestimate the power of the mind to add to the performance effects.

I run some in the ZF variants and I do run my fastest in those, but they are brutally firm shoes with the plate. IMO, the shoe is completely shot after 200 miles max because the plate compresses the cushioning faster than shoes without the plate.

T Funke wrote:

The comments on here as to it's spring mechanism all seem to make sense (and these diagrams looked at together certainly visualise what's going on) but as to the OP's question should they really be banned?

I mean Kipchoge has just smashed the WR in them and pretty much every marathon you watch now has an army of guys at the front all wearing them, and all smashing course records or PRs. That's great for Box Office people!

Surely that's what we all want to making distance running more appealing no? They're not drugs and Nike itself is selling them on the fact they make you go faster - it's not like they're trying to hide anything!

What is with the obsession on here to make distance running more appealing? If you want to go that route then why don't we just leagalize EPO.

How are the runners not sponsored by Nike supposed to compete with spring loaded shoes? If Nike weren't making these shoes then there would be many more calls to ban them to protect the integrity of the sport. But Nike owns the distance running community right now and no one would dare to stand up to this, especially if it means it makes their own PR have an asterisk next to it. Everyone would throw a fit if people were competing in the bionic boots. This is the same thing at a smaller scale.

Barefoot running should be banned.

"Laboratory studies show that the energy cost of running is reduced by about 4% when the feet are not shod. "

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

Have any of the people who whine about these shoes actually run in them?

Downhill marathons are cheating and should be banned.

Bodyglide is cheating and should be banned.

As many had already said, if vf is "spring loaded", then the new zf is exactly the same way. Should it also be banned? The more interesting question is, if it's the carbon plate "spring" that makes all the difference, why don't people race zf, which is cheaper, more available, more durable?

The answer is obvious. The plate alone doesn't make all the difference. It's the interaction between the plate and the zoomx foam. The plate provide an even surface that transfer the pressure of the foot. It's the plate that makes the foam work.

Is this the description you've handily provided a link to:-

"Built with a carbon-infused nylon plate inspired by the VaporFly 4%"

That's the description Nike provides. Do you understand what "inspired" means? Do you understand what "nylon" means?

Given that you obviously couldn't be bother reading and comprehending before rushing to post further nonsense, do you know understand what this means? Do you now understand why that guy was pointing out that no one was wearing zoom flys?

CrazySlowRunner wrote:

As many had already said, if vf is "spring loaded", then the new zf is exactly the same way. Should it also be banned?

Yes, both should absolutely be banned, built in springs should not be allowed. Do you think the bionic boot should be banned?