Here’s an interesting article on some research that Nike did a while back on how the weight of shoes can affect performance. 0.78% per additional 100 grams. Easy to see how the super light adidas shoes could help Assefa run a couple of minutes faster.
It's not that simple, and the some of the researchers (not done by Nike) who published the above referenced research did a follow-up paper on this subject in 2019 (see article link below) to give a more accurate explanation. Summarizing, running economy vs running velocity is not a linear relationship. You have to factor in other variables such as running velocity, air resistance, frontal body surface area, body weight and body weight.
If you click on the "Supplemental Material" link, they even provide a running economy to running velocity conversion calculator you can download.
That being said, like an earlier poster stated, the shoe weight to running economy relationship has best been equated to 1% increase in running economy per 100g decrease in shoe weight. Once you know the percent change in running economy, you can plug it into the change in running economy to change in running performance conversion calculator to get the effect on race performance time.
It's not that simple, and the some of the researchers (not done by Nike) who published the above referenced research did a follow-up paper on this subject in 2019 (see article link below) to give a more accurate explanation. Summarizing, running economy vs running velocity is not a linear relationship. You have to factor in other variables such as running velocity, air resistance, frontal body surface area, body weight and body weight.
I suspect the new shoe IS very fast due to a new spring technology. The foam is very soft and very light, but deteriorates very fast. The 5 oz weight would not boost the marathon time by 5% or more. Springier carbon plate or similar technology is the only aspect that would account for a 5 - 7% faster time.
I am sure Nike is going to cry all the way to the bank.
How many one time use $500 shoes can Adidas possibly sell while the vaporfly can be had for $100-$150 on clearance every winter which at least last a couple hundred miles?
You think those packs of hundreds at CIM are suddenly going to be wearing $500 shoes like the hilarious photos of them all wearing bright vaporflys?
Meanwhile I have to force myself to stop using each pair of $50 Saucony Endorphin Speeds at 600 miles because they still look fine and have enough bounce left, I just use them for rainy days when the road is muddy.
BTW all Nike has to do is upgrade their foam too before the Olympics, you can be sure selected sponsored athletes will get that upgrade first. Adidas apparently makes it out of castor-oil so it's not a secret, just breaksdown really fast.
It's interesting to note that many of the 2009 records have still not been beaten, even with the rapid rate of improvement typical of swimming. I'm convinced that eventually they will all fall, but even today several are not seen as under threat.
The comparison is interesting because if Adidas does end up having a game-changing shoe, then I could see history repeating itself. Nike gets mad they're no longer on top and wants to go back to the old game. Athletes and fans get sick of all the technology-aided records. And then they get banned, from the Vaporflys onwards.
The difference between running and swimming is it's possible that these records never get broken. Maybe Kiptum switches to Adidas, runs a 1:59, and then within a year we're back to 2:03s. Maybe Assefa's time remains the only sub-2:14.
No, supershoes aren't going to get banned. And we won't be going back to the types of shoes that were used 5 years ago.
Not to pile on Rojo or anything, but I recall him harping on the super shoes for YEARS via quote of the day, endless articles, blog posts, etc. It was just endless.
And then just recently... -maybe it was 2021?- someone gave him his first pair of supershoes. He went on the boards to post that 'they're definitely cheating! I'm literally bouncing as I walk around the house!'.
And I remember thinking... wait....this former high level runner and turned running journalist never once thought to actually try out the tech he's been ranting on daily for the last 5+ years? Kind of a pointless story, but I found it an interesting peak into the thought process of those who run this place.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for and you generally get 2/3rds of the economy gain in time, right? So a 0.33% improvement in time, which would only be like 27.5 seconds for a 2:15 marathoner.
Shoes have always been springy, they are just 'more springy' and return more of the athlete's own energy back to the swing cycle. The energy is not being externally created. As a marathon traditionalist, I am perfectly happy with what the shoes save.
What exactly has the shoe done on its own?Otherwise maybe we should all level the playing field and run barefeet.
As for weight, why is that parameter being brought into what rojo calls shoe doping
The comparison is interesting because if Adidas does end up having a game-changing shoe, then I could see history repeating itself. Nike gets mad they're no longer on top and wants to go back to the old game. Athletes and fans get sick of all the technology-aided records. And then they get banned, from the Vaporflys onwards. The difference between running and swimming is it's possible that these records never get broken. Maybe Kiptum switches to Adidas, runs a 1:59, and then within a year we're back to 2:03s. Maybe Assefa's time remains the only sub-2:14. And while times do trend down in running, a few minutes could take decades to drop, if not longer. The swimming community can't wait for the 2009 times to be off the record books. We're the same way with the known dopers' records from the 1980s. It's worth thinking about what it will be like if the same thing happens with some of most prestigious events in running and in a way where there's serious doubt about the records ever being broken again.
Supershoes aren't getting banned, period. Every hobby jogger and their mother wears them now, the genie isn't going back in the bottle.
If the Adidas shoe is actually a game-changer, Nike will release a similar shoe within the next year.
Every hobby tennis player quickly adopted the oversize racquets made famous first by Prince, but that didn't stop the ATP from placing a ban on racquets more than a certain size. And that didn't stop the hobby tennis players from continuing to use the bigger ones.
Aluminum bats have been around forever, aiding non-professional baseball players up to the college level. That hasn't stopped the MLB from banning them to this day, but nearly everybody else uses the aluminum bats.
The genie of technology has gotten out of the bottle before, and pro sports have been them. No reason it couldn't happen here as well. Pro sports can certainly ban something that the hobby athlete can continue to use and benefit from.
Shoes have always been springy, they are just 'more springy' and return more of the athlete's own energy back to the swing cycle. The energy is not being externally created. As a marathon traditionalist, I am perfectly happy with what the shoes save.
What exactly has the shoe done on its own?Otherwise maybe we should all level the playing field and run barefeet.
As for weight, why is that parameter being brought into what rojo calls shoe doping
This is why I am pushing for all track races to allow Pistorius racing blades. And after that we can start putting bicycles in marathon running.
Supershoes aren't getting banned, period. Every hobby jogger and their mother wears them now, the genie isn't going back in the bottle.
If the Adidas shoe is actually a game-changer, Nike will release a similar shoe within the next year.
Every hobby tennis player quickly adopted the oversize racquets made famous first by Prince, but that didn't stop the ATP from placing a ban on racquets more than a certain size. And that didn't stop the hobby tennis players from continuing to use the bigger ones.
Aluminum bats have been around forever, aiding non-professional baseball players up to the college level. That hasn't stopped the MLB from banning them to this day, but nearly everybody else uses the aluminum bats.
The genie of technology has gotten out of the bottle before, and pro sports have been them. No reason it couldn't happen here as well. Pro sports can certainly ban something that the hobby athlete can continue to use and benefit from.
Totally different thing and not an accurate comparison. Aluminum bat companies aren't the biggest sponsor of Major League Baseball. If fact, they don't sponsor professional baseball at all.
But running shoe companies ARE the biggest sponsors of professional track and field. Follow the money. Super shoes will NOT be banned.
Every hobby tennis player quickly adopted the oversize racquets made famous first by Prince, but that didn't stop the ATP from placing a ban on racquets more than a certain size. And that didn't stop the hobby tennis players from continuing to use the bigger ones.
Aluminum bats have been around forever, aiding non-professional baseball players up to the college level. That hasn't stopped the MLB from banning them to this day, but nearly everybody else uses the aluminum bats.
The genie of technology has gotten out of the bottle before, and pro sports have been them. No reason it couldn't happen here as well. Pro sports can certainly ban something that the hobby athlete can continue to use and benefit from.
Totally different thing and not an accurate comparison. Aluminum bat companies aren't the biggest sponsor of Major League Baseball. If fact, they don't sponsor professional baseball at all.
But running shoe companies ARE the biggest sponsors of professional track and field. Follow the money. Super shoes will NOT be banned.
The shoes would never be banned completely, just not usable in the pro ranks. That won't cost the sponsors much of anything if the hobby joggers are still buying them. The biggest names in golf produced golf clubs that hit so long it made the major courses too easy to play, so the PGA limited the allowed energy return on the clubs so courses like the Masters weren't reduced to driver and a wedge courses. But hobby golfers can still buy them, and they can buy golf balls that have dimple patterns that aren't allowed by the PGA either, so the money still flows. Just like tennis players can still buy oversized racquets. The ban didn't ruin the club manufacturers or lessen golf's popularity, it just reset the playing field for the pros. If tennis and golf can reset the playing field with new limits that wipe out the recent advances of all the major manufacturers without any major issues, certainly track could as well. But "could" is the operative word. The only reason I see the sponsors being against it is the argument that "If we reset the playing field, and everyone is running well behind previous records, the fans will think it is boring and they won't show up as much." I don't think that is true, I don't think you would lose any measurable amount of fans just because records aren't being broken. But that doesn't stop them from making the argument, and somehow convincing themselves it is true. One other argument is "If we go back X years in shoe technology, then our current heroes may not look like the greatest after all. Perhaps they are just a creation of super shoes. People will lose interest." Again, I don't buy that argument, but someone could still use it to keep the record setting train moving.
I agree there will be those who will be against a ban of some type, but I don't agree that it is completely out of the question. And if the record setting isn't considered out of hand now, something could still come along to make it so.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the record number of Adidas Super Shoes that are being autopsied in other shoe companies labs over and over and over again this week. :-(
Excerpt from the Guardian today; "Did Tigist Assefa’s ‘super shoes’ make her a record-breaking marathon winner?"
Adidas claims these shoes... contain a “first-of-its-kind forefoot rocker, placed at 60% of the length of the shoe”, which is “lab-tested to trigger forward momentum and improve running economy”.
(1) competition is not ironic. it's not ironic that both pepsi and coke exist. (2) "but what if he is and he smashes 2 hours in a pair of adidas shoes?" okay, what about it? (2) "Any additional posts about where the Irony is will be deleted." Now THIS is ironic
"What is a example of situational irony? When something happens that goes entirely against our expectations, usually in a funny or twisted manner."
You guys think you're trolls, but you just look antagonistic retards