Wow. As this is more ironic than rain on my wedding night.
-
90
-
rojo wrote:
There were a number of years, starting in 2016, when the Nike athletes had a huge advantage. Basically they were mechanically doping as they had access to super shoes that no one else did.
Now everyone has a super shoe, but are they all created equal? When adidas came out with their $500 shoe - the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1, I thought to myself, "What if those shoes ends up being way better than Nike's - wouldn't that be rich?" Then Assefa promptly DESTROYS the world record in the first major race in the shoes.
Sports scientists/shoe experts, I'm trying to figure out how much the reduced weight helps. These new shoes are just 4.8 ounces. That's crazy. Despite being HUGE and proving a ton of support. they weigh less than even old school flats like the Nike Streak XC (5.5 oz) or the Vaporfly's (6.5 ounces).
What I want to know is how important is that 1.7 ounce difference.
I've written several sports scientists this afternoon asking them this question.
If Assefa ran 2:11:53 in a 4.8 ounce shoe (well hers was less as the weight I found are for men's size 9 and 9.5), what would she be expected to run in a 6.5 ounce shoe that worked just as well? What about Kipchoge? Kipchoge ran 2:01:09 in a 6.5 ounce shoe, what would we expect him to run in a 4.8 ounce shoe that worked just as well?
And Petros set a new German record as well.
00 -
This is not the case in golf. There are no golf balls or clubs you can buy that are better than what the pros use.
Earlier this year there was a proposal from the USGA to "rollback" the golf ball for professionals (i.e. make it go a shorter distance) and it has been met by a huge amount of resistance.
00 -
rojo wrote:
There were a number of years, starting in 2016, when the Nike athletes had a huge advantage. Basically they were mechanically doping as they had access to super shoes that no one else did.
Now everyone has a super shoe, but are they all created equal? When adidas came out with their $500 shoe - the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1, I thought to myself, "What if those shoes ends up being way better than Nike's - wouldn't that be rich?" Then Assefa promptly DESTROYS the world record in the first major race in the shoes.
Sports scientists/shoe experts, I'm trying to figure out how much the reduced weight helps. These new shoes are just 4.8 ounces. That's crazy. Despite being HUGE and proving a ton of support. they weigh less than even old school flats like the Nike Streak XC (5.5 oz) or the Vaporfly's (6.5 ounces).
What I want to know is how important is that 1.7 ounce difference.
I've written several sports scientists this afternoon asking them this question.
If Assefa ran 2:11:53 in a 4.8 ounce shoe (well hers was less as the weight I found are for men's size 9 and 9.5), what would she be expected to run in a 6.5 ounce shoe that worked just as well? What about Kipchoge? Kipchoge ran 2:01:09 in a 6.5 ounce shoe, what would we expect him to run in a 4.8 ounce shoe that worked just as well?
Jury is still out on the Adidas shoe. The men's side results showed it was not an advantage. Tekele was wearing regular old Adios Pro 3s, which you can find for $150 if you look around, and the first finisher wearing the $500 shoe, Kipruto, finished 7th almost two minutes off his PR:
To me the fact that the shoe was such a bust on the men's side of the race--Kipruto was defeated by a guy wearing a La Ning Shoe and thr Asics Shoe--makes the women's results even more dubious.
One great way to cover up doping is to give the credit to some fancy new shoe. I suspect the Adidas shoe is a marginal gain over the other shoes, if it's a gain at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't really a gain. You can't decrease weight without decreasing cushioning. And the magic of the super shoe has never really been the weight. It's delivering cushioning without having your foot sink into the shoe, the way it would in a Brooks Glycerin or New Balance 1080. They protects your legs while giving you the same responsiveness of an old style racing flat.
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.134 -
Hot Takes wrote:
team Unruly Bush wrote:
Assefa better be getting a huge WR bonus from adidas. With her time and lack of name recognition, I'm assuming everyone now thinks adidas new shoe is by far the best.
Was she the only Adidas athlete in the race? Or is this another time where people will use the excuse that she is a 'responder' and someone else isn't.
Amanal Petros, in the same shoe, finished ninth in 2:04:58 to shave more than one minute from his previous national record of 2:06:27 and move to fourth on the European all-time list
90 -
Great athletes but the shoes are making it impossible to compare the times to past great performances/performers. The new normal takes away from the history of the sport. Is that good or bad? I don't know.
40 -
How many ocean waste shirt must adidas produce to compensate for a single one time use shoe?
This post was edited 12 seconds after it was posted.50 -
Styrmann wrote:
Hot Takes wrote:
Was she the only Adidas athlete in the race? Or is this another time where people will use the excuse that she is a 'responder' and someone else isn't.
Amanal Petros, in the same shoe, finished ninth in 2:04:58 to shave more than one minute from his previous national record of 2:06:27 and move to fourth on the European all-time list
And Amos Kipruto finished 7th, almost two minutes slower than his PR. He was the top Adidas finisher wearing those shoes (guy in third wore regular Adios Pro 3s). In between Kipchoge and his Alphaflys and the first $500 shoe finisher were an Asics Metaspeed and several Alpha/Vaporflys. Seems like this shoe might be vaporware and the real reason for the performance might not be the shoes...
12 -
RunCzar wrote:
Weight may only be part of the equation. From what I read and what folks are glossing over is that they are SINGLE USE, yes $500 for a race day shoe good for only ONE marathon. So what if Adidas just said, Screw It! and formulated the foam for max energy return and saving the legs, with no care in the world regarding durability. I'm sure Nike when they did the vaporfly had to formulate the super foam to at least last for 100-200 miles so they mixed in other rubbers/foams for durability but reduced energy return.
I am very skeptical of the notion that they are “single use.” If they were only designed to be single use in general, they likely self destruct before the race was even over for someone who puts greater than average forces on the shoe. Besides, early in the Vaporfly days, while people didn’t say “single use,” people assumed based on nothing whatsoever that they’d be less durable than conventional racing shoes for reasons nobody could explain, yet now we know they’re not only as durable as conventional shoes but actually more durable. Unless the Adidas shoe uses some brand new foam (I.e., not pebax) the notion it’s only good for me race is most likely nonsense. Sure, sponsored professional athlete will likely be given a fresh pair for major races, but until proven otherwise I don’t buy the notion that they can’t or shouldn’t be used for at least several races.
10 -
this thread is further proof that a degree from Princeton means nothing
truly stupid
102 -
The irony clearly is that we don't know if Kipchoge is already wearing something akin to what adidas brought to the market and haven't been told. Just because the shape of the shoe is the same as what we buy, does not mean Kipchoge isn't wearing something a bit different. We all know Nike owns the running world. I would love to see the alphas he wore for the INEOS 1:59 (and potentially world records) meet a band saw. I promise you, at least the sub 2 hour shoes...are a different composition. Maybe not drastic, but enough to get him over the hump of 2 hours.
11 -
Do you think rojo used the word “irony”because he knew people would roast him for not using the word properly? Or is he actually incredibly stupid?
40 -
logical conclusion wrote:
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.
There is nothing in the IAAF rules that bans wheels anymore.
The same Berlin marathon course has rollerbladers (inline skates) race the weekend after the running race.
They are amazing to watch and the best athletes can do it in an hour flat or just under, I think the record is 56 minutes!
So an hour marathon is obviously the physical limit of super-shoes under human power but that is decades away.
Or we could just get rid of Seb Coe and ban super-shoes with plates (or rods) which would radically limit their enhancement regardless of foam improvements.
At this rate by the end of the decade someone is going to run Berlin at 4 minute miles the entire way which would be 1:45 lol
41 -
Hardloper wrote:
High hopes wrote:
No, there's no way to generalise about how much time is gained from improving running economy. It's too individual, it's why Nike never made any time-related claims when pushing the OG Vaporfly
The Nike labs OG Vaporfly study claimed 4% improvement in running economy would yield 3.4% improvement in marathon performance at WR pace
The study linked above also came from Nike labs. A 1.1% improvement in running economy corresponded to only a 0.78% improvment in performance in a 3000m time trial.
00 -
Disko Eric wrote:
Do you think rojo used the word “irony”because he knew people would roast him for not using the word properly? Or is he actually incredibly stupid?
I'm honestly not sure. Sometimes I think he must be trolling, because no one could really be that dumb.
51 -
I highly doubt the pros are using any shoes for more than one marathon. Maybe they keep them for a few workouts but it's probably not long before they have another retired race shoe to replace those. At least these ones use less material.
40 -
Disko Eric wrote:
Do you think rojo used the word “irony”because he knew people would roast him for not using the word properly? Or is he actually incredibly stupid?
He is actually incredibly stupid.
61 -
okay!@! wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Do you think rojo used the word “irony”because he knew people would roast him for not using the word properly? Or is he actually incredibly stupid?
I'm honestly not sure. Sometimes I think he must be trolling, because no one could really be that dumb.
He is really that dumb, and so is his brother.
61 -
you're benevolent mini-brains wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Do you think rojo used the word “irony”because he knew people would roast him for not using the word properly? Or is he actually incredibly stupid?
He is actually incredibly stupid.
ofa lon teh
50 -
you're benevolent mini-brains wrote:
okay!@! wrote:
I'm honestly not sure. Sometimes I think he must be trolling, because no one could really be that dumb.
He is really that dumb, and so is his brother.
ofa lon teh
30
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.