Wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from using EPO

In any event, the energy return of the plate has been measured. It's close to zero.

800 dude wrote:

Foam is a spring. Spring characteristics can easily be measured. How much do they compress, how much energy can they store, and how much energy can they return?

Ah oui, oui! Je concur! Je remember at the Maginon Line before ze Germans came someone suggest we replace all the wood in our catapults with foam because zey are lighter no? Anyways c'est was magnifique! The cannonballs we fired using le foam beams that day, incrouyable!

Or... No, you absolute cretin. Foam could only be reasoned as a very weak form of coiled spring, which I'm sure you are aware is only one type of spring and obviously NOT the pivoted form that the carbon plates represent.

Monsieur Trebuchet wrote:

Foam could only be reasoned as a very weak form of coiled spring, which I'm sure you are aware is only one type of spring and obviously NOT the pivoted form that the carbon plates represent.

Fortunately for you, you don't have to reason. You can measure. Foam turns out to be a spectacular spring.

Your pivot spring theory applies to any stiff shoe, by the way. That includes all sprint spikes going back to cinder tracks.

... And there we have it - the classic "they used to run marathons in their tracks spikes back in the day so I don't see any difference" argument. Once again wonderful!

800 dude wrote:

In any event, the energy return of the plate has been measured. It's close to zero.

Then why would nike put the plate in the shoe, it would just be extra weight

free_the_thigh wrote:

800 dude wrote:

In any event, the energy return of the plate has been measured. It's close to zero.

Then why would nike put the plate in the shoe, it would just be extra weight

This article explains why...

That article has been discussed on here countless times.

They did not do anything with the plate in isolation so it tells us nothing other than the fact that the plate and foam in combination returns way more energy when compressed than any other foam. But I guess we all already knew that hence the discussion?

In fact, this is still the only legitimate independent study of the carbon fiber plate's energy potential that I've seen to date:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

OneMoreTime wrote:

free_the_thigh wrote:

Then why would nike put the plate in the shoe, it would just be extra weight

This article explains why...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2367961/how-do-nikes-vaporfly-4-shoes-actually-work

Where?

at most it speculates.

Creased wrote:

Technology advances over time, and the VF 4% are one of those advancements. Arguing that everyone should just continue to run in slow shoes because that's how it's always been, is ridiculous. This tech will trickle down to other shoes, other vendors, and the field will again be even. It's a running shoe. There are no springs, there's no propulsion, just efficiency.

There is no worse argument than: That's how it's always been.

Spira was a technology advance also. How is a carbon plate not a spring? They both recoil and project you forward far more than if you went barefoot. There is a reason tennis and golf went carbon fiber. Whipping/whiplash effect.

Mal Content wrote:

Creased wrote:

Technology advances over time, and the VF 4% are one of those advancements. Arguing that everyone should just continue to run in slow shoes because that's how it's always been, is ridiculous. This tech will trickle down to other shoes, other vendors, and the field will again be even. It's a running shoe. There are no springs, there's no propulsion, just efficiency.

There is no worse argument than: That's how it's always been.

Spira was a technology advance also. How is a carbon plate not a spring? They both recoil and project you forward far more than if you went barefoot. There is a reason tennis and golf went carbon fiber. Whipping/whiplash effect.

We don’t care what you think. You suck, slow hobby jogging douche bag. We will leave you in our wake with our super fast shoes whilst you clump around in your 700g ASICS Slowfly Nimbus’. You’re opinion is irrelevant and won’t stop me beating all the local runners in their cheap old fashion clogs. We win, you lose, EVERY TIME.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

In fact, this is still the only legitimate independent study of the carbon fiber plate's energy potential that I've seen to date:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

^+1

Case closed. unfortunately, expecting the IAAF to have any principles is all too naive.

ooper wrote:

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

In fact, this is still the only legitimate independent study of the carbon fiber plate's energy potential that I've seen to date:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

^+1

Case closed. unfortunately, expecting the IAAF to have any principles is all too naive.

My Adidas do that.

My Hokas do that.

My La Sportivas do that.

What’s the point of the video?

4%=cheating wrote:

badMath wrote:

Doesn't seem to be quite 4% difference...

For the millionth time. They don't make you 4% faster. 4% refers to nike studies showing they make you 4% more efficient. How much faster they make someone run? My educated guess is about 1-2 % faster.

Yes, the study shows what Nike wants you to believe.

But what we are all saying is if I ware "regular" shes I will run slower. Then if I ware "the Nike 4% shoes" I will run faster. Then if I ware my "regular" shows again I will now run slower than if I was warring the "4% shoes".

One's running efficiency doesn't change overnight.....

If the only difference in overall time is because of the shoes then the SHOES (new technology) make you faster not your individual efficiency.

And if you still say the shoe change your efficiency then you have a different definition of the word but it still doesn't change the fact that the bottom line is the SHOE makes you run faster (by making you more efficient if that's what you believe).

The shoes are available to everyone if they really want them and we can all see who has them at the start. So no it's not cheating!

Cocomaster wrote:

ooper wrote:

^+1

Case closed. unfortunately, expecting the IAAF to have any principles is all too naive.

My Adidas do that.

My Hokas do that.

My La Sportivas do that.

What’s the point of the video?

Nice story about tennis rackets, using the same just replacement technology historically the design of running shoes, leather sole and a leather sandal upper, no cushioning and zero drop, whereas the tennis rackets have gone from wood to composite materials. Running shoes pre vapour, a bit more than the sam component technologies.

Look at all the insert technologies, like the springs to make you run faster, the duel/multiple midsole, gel pockets, shanks, airpods, wave plates, etc. If you want to use the tennis racket analogy than all running shoes should just be single density midsole and nothing else with a protective upper. Clearly not, the plate in the vapourfly is just an extension of the stabilising shank.

Compare leather sole no cushion shoes, the a test see the improvement in efficiency to the vapourflys. Now do the same with any other non single density midsole, like the cheater Pegasus 35, with than full length cheater hidden spring, aka full length AirPod, with their replacement technology, allowing someone to run harder and faster for longer, seems like the same argument being used against the vapourflys. Hope you put you asterisk against your time for your past races and stick basic shoes. What shoes did you say you run in again?

Guess they should take carbon plates off spikes then too.....and out of the Hoka Carbon Rocket, Sketchers Razor Hyper Elite, and the saucony prototype