NIKE VAPORFLY NEXT% BAN!

To sum things up the shoes are awesome but provide nothing near the benefit that people on this board say they do. The mad people wanting them banned are people who are poor and just don’t have the money to spend on nice shoes. Idiots claiming u will run 25-35 mins faster in a marathon in them need help.

HDahhaid wrote:

Idiots claiming u will run 25-35 mins faster in a marathon in them need help.

Please post a link to just one example of someone making this claim on any of the dozens upon dozens threads this site has had on this topic. Thank you.

What's the issue?

Kipchoge ran slower in London than in Berlin.

There was a time when London had the WR and Berlin did not.

Wake up sheep.

It's not the shoes.

It's the GOAT Marathon runner.

Callum Hawkins is a New Balance athlete...

Foam can be springy as well. Other shoes have rigid components. Anyone acting like there is a hard, obvious line to draw -- well, they just don't get it.

I own a pair of the first 4%’s and the Flyknit version. They definitely propel you forward from experience and make running feel much easier; hence the 5% improvement in RUNNING ECONOMY! Look up what running economy is please people.

The plate needs to be banned like other shoes have been prohibited with similar tech. The real benefit comes for the elite athletes. 4% improvement in running economy is huge at the elite level.

Generally the other athletes drop off the Vaporflys wearers very quickly. Look at this new runner out of know where that just eclipsed Bekeles Marathon PB!

Poverty + High mileage at early age + altitude + lightly regulated testing regime + great training + state of the art shoes = better than any US runner ever

Phantasy Star wrote:

Doped up East Africans bouncing along these courses in clown shoes. Question the narrative and you're a jealous racist. Honk honk.

What's up with all the Neo Nazis on this site? Lots of posts here with the HH. That's really efed up.

Yes he is so? It doesn’t make him a god, Bekele had more talent, he just got injured.

Getrealus wrote:

Poverty + High mileage at early age + altitude + lightly regulated testing regime + great training + state of the art shoes = better than any US runner ever

WRONG.

Genetics main reason

800 dude wrote:

Lofty Goals wrote:

I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

This would be impossible to implement. You would never know if a shoe passes until after it was produced and you got a bunch of lab testing done, and even then, the numbers would vary widely depending on the protocol used.

In any event, all racing shoes are more efficient than running barefoot. It's just that the VF is the best of the bunch.

I feel like it’d be doable, and definitely better than banning a specific technology. The problem is that if you ban something specific like carbon springs, Nike will just figure out how to make a 5% shoe with only foam.

Companies already make prototypes of every shoe, so it wouldn’t add that much cost. It’s not like they would have to build a billion dollar assembly line to find out there shoe fails. They could simply run a standardized test with an identical preproduction model.

Testing to make sure a shoe qualifies seems pretty straightforward. Get 15 elite/sub elite runners and have them run a few miles barefoot and a few miles in a new shoe. Measure and compare their oxygen consumption. If the new shoe is “too efficient,” it is banned from elite competition. Hobbyjoggers, the real market for these shoes, could still use them.

Also, I’m not convinced that racing flats are more efficient than barefoot. I couldn’t find any research on flats specifically, but comparisons with regular shoes show that barefoot wins. Obviously flats will be better than trainers, but still: the goal of traditional flats was to be as similar to barefoot as possible, so I don’t see how they could be better. Traditional 5k/10k flats are basically a thin sheet of foam glued to an upper; there’s not really any room to improve efficiency.

Either way, you could tweak the rule to allow current shoes. For example, give 3-4% of leeway over barefoot. Or, if you really want, you could base the efficiency comparison off of a standardized traditional trainer rather than barefoot.

Increasingly genetics is codeword for race. But if you actually understand the science you’ll know that the environment impacts the expression of genetic qualities. Send whitey to the Rift Valley for five generations and you’ll see the “East African genetic superiority” in action. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404135433.htm

+1 great idea

Yeah this isn’t a bad idea. Setting up regulations that a shoe can only enhance performance so much. Then the can make them cushioned, leg protecting, responsive and whatever but they have to only improve economy by a maximum of say 5% to a barefoot elite runner average.

Remember that that 4% statistic is how much better they are then the Nike streak.

Getrealus wrote:

Increasingly genetics is codeword for race. But if you actually understand the science you’ll know that the environment impacts the expression of genetic qualities. Send whitey to the Rift Valley for five generations and you’ll see the “East African genetic superiority” in action.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404135433.htm

Yes that’s true it’s thousands of years of Evolution that have made the East Africans of Rift Valley the best not PED. Jealous idiot westerners haha even though I am one!

Good question

Maybe we should ban the vaporfly, but then what, what about the next ?

.

,

;-)

Well a lot of us are completely fine with Nike and anyone else making a shoe that is efficient with only using foam. In fact the Reebok run fast pro uses the exact same foam without carbon fiber and I would encourage people to use that shoe. The problem comes when you have a hard elastic material like carbon fiber and configure it in a way to produce a propulsion effect. There are only so many configurations you can come up with to create this effect but as Oscar Pistorius has shown the propulsion effect can create a huge advantage.

I fully believe that the 4% and the other carbon fiber propulsion type shoes work well. But whether or not they work shouldn't be the focus or concern. The focus should be around creating standards around what type of footwear you can use so that moving forward everyone is on the same page. If you create standards that all shoes have to follow to then this isn't a problem anymore and there is a clear limit to the advantage a shoe can give you.

Moo Goo wrote:

tarckstar wrote:

Nike had the carbon fiber plate in shoes before the 4% with the newer foam came out - Rupp had the plate in his shoes in the trials in 2016. I have zero doubt Kipchoge's shoes had it that year, too. You can go on and on about how it's the foam, and not the plate making the difference, go ahead.

It's the plate. Put on Pegasus Turbo and then put on Zoom Fly Flyknit. Turbo does very good job cushioning but the bounce is very barely there. ZF is ready to go like a rocket off your foot. Cushioning plus the plate is the 4%. Nike wants to lie to us about the benefits of the plate because they know it's cheating but it sells like crazy.

I think a better comparison would be the Zoom Fly FK and the 4%, both have the same plate, same upper, different foam. THEN tell us which one is faster. Obviously the 4% because of the ZoomX foam!

In regards to the "There's a spring in the shoe!!" Why doesn't anyone ever reference these bad boys. THAT is a spring!

Give every single elite runner in the race the same Nike shoes and the results would be exactly the same.