Dead On Arrival: Brooks Hyperion Elite Performance Review

Rojo, at this point, I think you owe it to your readers to get a pair of Vaporfly. The Next will do. You're writing so much about them, but haven't worn them yet. Go for a few runs. Then you'll know what everyone is talking about.

I was very surprised the first time I wore them. Very different to anything I'd ever put on my feet.

patent? wrote:

That carbon plate appears to be curved? Looks the same as the Nike plate? Doesn't that infringe Nike's patent? Or doesn't this offer the same advantage as the Nike plate somehow?

The thing that's been mentioned as being key in the Nike patent is that their plate has a "constant radius" curve to it. The plate in that photo looks like a compound curve that gets very flat at the forefoot.

patent? wrote:

Wildhorse wrote:

Spanish website foroatletismo.com attended the European launch and report a 50% energy return. Here are some graphics presented by Brooks at the event:

https://www.foroatletismo.com/imagenes/2020/02/brooks-innovation-camp-hyperion-elite-exploded-view-1068x603.jpg

That carbon plate appears to be curved? Looks the same as the Nike plate? Doesn't that infringe Nike's patent? Or doesn't this offer the same advantage as the Nike plate somehow?

I have not read Nike's patent, but I am a USPTO-registered patent attorney, so I have some inclination of this sort of thing in general. Merely having a curved plate is not necessarily infringement of Nike's claims. Patent infringement requires an alleged infringer's invention to met all the limitations of at least one independent claim of Nike's patent. The carbon plate may be one limitation in the claim, but it may not be all of it. Moreover, Nike may have claimed the angle or composition of the plate - in which case Brooks's variation of those factors may skirt infringement. Brooks has counsel and I'm sure they looked into this.

There's also the issue of litigation. Nike is (as I understand it) reasonably litigious, but consider the exposure - a defendant would challenge Nike's patent's validity, which, if proven, would ruin the monopoly as they have it now. It's a balance, and I can't imagine that Nike's attorneys and outside counsel wouldn't have already considered this.

Agree, 50 - 100 miles seems like a disposable shoe and a really expensive one at that. Brooks was also way too slow bringing these to market, the official release date will be over two years after Des won Boston. Nike is already on to newer technology.

J.D. wrote:

anon197 wrote:

Damn that's gotta be a tough read for the folks at Brooks. But I wouldn't buy it even if it matched the performance gains of Nike. The lifespan is too low. If someone comes up with a durable shoe with even just a 2% gain I'd be all over it instead of a flimsy slipper with a 4% gain. Or you can sell these flimsy slippers for half the price and then I'll consider them.

Isn't the lifespan of the Next % supposedly only 50 miles or so? I've put 30 miles on my pair and am deathly scared to put many more before my next marathon.

I have 150 miles on my %'s and they are still good. I've run two marathons and a bunch of tempo workouts in them. I expected to get 100-150 miles out of them. I would think the lifespan has be different depending on weight. I weigh 165.

There is no way Brooks is going to sell this shoe with a suggested life that won't cover two marathons, even if the performance was similar to next %, which it sounds like it clearly isn't close.

oohh no

jxdfghjdf wrote:

Rojo, at this point, I think you owe it to your readers to get a pair of Vaporfly. The Next will do. You're writing so much about them, but haven't worn them yet. Go for a few runs. Then you'll know what everyone is talking about.

I was very surprised the first time I wore them. Very different to anything I'd ever put on my feet.

+1 on Rojo just buying the shoe. Definitely the Alphaflys.

Though I will say, I've run in the Next% once (saving for racing) and I didn't particularly think anything was that crazy. Yes they're soft and have return, but coming from wearing Bostons a fair bit it felt just like a less subtle effect. But then I saw I was clicking off miles 15 second faster than I expected with minimal effort.

Thanks. So unless the exact circumstances mentioned in the patent are required to achieve the performance benefit, then the other companies should have, and in the case of Brooks here have produced an equal performance benefit when it comes to the carbon plate? That gap should be closed?

Maybe they should reintroduce the Kinetic Wedge.

Saw a pair today....

Largely, you’re correct. There’s a theory called the Doctrine of Equivalents, whereby if an allegedly infringing invention (a) performs substantially the same function; (b) in substantially the same way; (c) to obtain the same result, it can be considered infringing. Again - this is why people hire lawyers, and I can’t make that evaluation here.

What’s interesting to me is that Skechers says their carbon fiber plate is patent pending - it could be a design patent (I couldn’t find anything in my searches), but I’d be interested to see where they have innovated over the current technology. Regardless, it seems like our shoe likes the shoe so far (patent or not) and I’m hoping to get a big workout in this weekend in them.

I'd be interested in reading what you think after you've used them.

Looks like RoadTrailRun is now testing the Brooks with much more positive feedback than Believe in the Run.

I'd trust RTR 100x over BITR, though it doesn't look like anybody has put in enough miles on their testers yet to make any claims.

Agree on that for sure they are much more thorough and technical with their reviews. Glad Sam is sending his to Michael the 1:07 half guy

Montesquieu wrote:

I'd be interested in reading what you think after you've used them.

Speed Elite - I still am looking only at non-ideal testing conditions. Workout planned for yesterday (10 miles alternating MP/HMP) was impossible due to snow. So my work in the Skechers has been limited to a progressive treadmill effort, some easier outdoor miles, and strides. I will say this - there is not a lot of outsole here. Durability-wise, they seem about average for a racer (hard to forecast, but I expect 200+) but in terms of grip... I wasn't so impressed. Thus the cancelled workout.

I'll reserve full judgement until I get something complete in (hopefully Wednesday!) but I do like them. They're aggressive - they actually feel to me like a mix between Hoka's Carbon Rocket (really firm, really propulsive, not a great fit) and Carbon X (a bit more relaxed, but a comfortable shoe). I don't know where this idea that they aren't marathon-ready is coming from. If you're a forefoot striker, I don't think you'll have an issue with these over a half or full distance.*

*But let me get a 10+ mile workout in them to confirm.

thanks for the feedback! I'm really hoping these could be a 5K-half shoe for me. Can't find any discount codes (beyond the standard 10%) to pick them up. But I still have a ton of life left in my Speed 6 and LT4. The LT is still my favorite for the fast stuff though

Jeremy R wrote:

thanks for the feedback! I'm really hoping these could be a 5K-half shoe for me. Can't find any discount codes (beyond the standard 10%) to pick them up. But I still have a ton of life left in my Speed 6 and LT4. The LT is still my favorite for the fast stuff though

RTR has a 10% code on the homepage (to RW) but Skechers may run promos directly - I know Reebok sure does.

For 5K-Half, I think you're on the money with the Elite. Consider also the Run Fast Pro, which (as mentioned above) can often be found pretty cheap from Reebok. I wore it for the HM where I set a big PR - though my calves were pretty trashed after, and it was pancake flat.

So I got to take the Hyperion Elite out (err, in?) for a workout on the treadmill. Anyone who follows me on Strava already saw the write-up.

I really dig the Hype Elite. The workout went exceedingly well (10 miles alternating MP/HMP, for a 5:25 average), so it's easy to like them for that reason alone, but I also tried to actually evaluate the shoes critically (or as critically as you can running 11.6 on the treadmill). Early impressions were right - they are firm (probably more so than Next% - my testing there is limited), but I really felt a compelling rolling sensation, and enjoyed it. They aren't bricks beneath my feet - at least, not indoors, and not running at faster paces!

Need to test outdoors, which is always more telling than the treadmill. My footstrike is shorter (and probably better) indoors, and I want to test them over some more moderate running, slick conditions, etc. But for now, I am carefully optimistic.

Raggedman wrote:

bladerunner wrote:

No one would pay 250 for the zoom fly because it sold for 160. The shoe proved one thing: that the carbon plate is not the primary reason the vaporfly is so fast. The cushioning in the zoom fly is so dead; it's like running in sand.

I picked up both the Zoom Fly Flyknit and Zoom Fly 3 with heavy discounts and both went in the donation bin. The Flyknit version was okay but nothing to write home about. I wore them at Houston but I don't think they helped or hurt. I could've put on a worn out pair of Altra Solstice and had the same result.

I don't think I even got over 30 miles with the Fly 3. More foam but somehow less cushion? They felt like bricks to me. Unless I was walking, then they felt super soft and wobbly.

I had the exact opposite experience. The zoom fly flyknit to me felt like a brick but the zoom fly 3 felt really soft.