Ok good. So what material and what stiffness of that material can be in a shoe? Can a rigid rubber, nylon, or rigid foam be used?
Ok good. So what material and what stiffness of that material can be in a shoe? Can a rigid rubber, nylon, or rigid foam be used?
What is your proposed max height response for a shoe bent and released like is done in the video?
OK Ban’em wrote:
What is your proposed max height response for a shoe bent and released like is done in the video?
Try it out with your available trainers... 0-5cm would seem to be what I get, with the majority being closer to zero and racing flats getting closer to a few cm off the ground. The carbon plate provides clear as day external propulsion.
Note the wave plate in the Mizuno racers. It gets smaller and retreats towards the heel as the shoe gets faster. Why? Because it is there to help maintain foot strike and it gets in the way at higher velocities.
Nike on the other hand, make a clear as day effort to enable their athletes to cheat yet again.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367745https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2014/02000/A_Test_of_the_Metabolic_Cost_of_Cushioning.15.aspxhttps://scholar.colorado.edu/honr_theses/610/Lofty Goals wrote:
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.
Controlling for weight, cushioning wins. Lightweight shoes win over barefoot even accounting for the extra weight.
ooper wrote:
The carbon plate provides clear as day external propulsion.
What do you mean by "external"? There is no energy entering the system that you didn't put there yourself.
800 dude wrote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367745https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2014/02000/A_Test_of_the_Metabolic_Cost_of_Cushioning.15.aspxhttps://scholar.colorado.edu/honr_theses/610/Controlling for weight, cushioning wins. Lightweight shoes win over barefoot even accounting for the extra weight.
Thanks for the articles.
Sounds like a theoretical 0 gram flat using traditional materials would be about 4% more efficient than running barefoot, and actual flats are about 2-3% more efficient, so I would set that as the threshold for the best allowable racing shoe. Maybe allow a 5-6% advantage to make sure that all the current flats are allowed.
Something like the Next% would be close to 10% better than barefoot (5% better than 4% better than barefoot), so it would still be banned.
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.
They're horrible at every other sport and this one they cheat at.
54y5y wrote:
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.
They're horrible at every other sport and this one they cheat at.
Why don’t you post under your real name racist!
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 have waded through 6 pages of this and not word one on SPIRA. Should Spira sue IAAF for ruining their business?
How much would Spira be awarded in a civil suit?
And people are buying them the same way crack cocaine was bought when introduced in the streets. Can you see the analogy?
Vaporfly NEXT% advertising. Should I throw my Vaporfly Flyknit 4%'s in the trash?
Vaporfly Flyknit soaks your socks in any rain or heavy sweat becoming a heavy sloppy mess.
Vaporfly Flyknit causes achilles pain, so they lowered the drop and added a heel pod to make your "achilles happy".
Vaporfly Flyknit has poor grip on the roads so they fixed the sole.
Vaporfly Flyknit has inadequate forefoot cushioning, so they added 15% more.
Is the VF4% a total disaster? You'd think so from how they're advertising the NEXT%. From the prices, it's obvious runners want them.
Why'd they release so few shoes when the VF 4% sucks so bad?
http://spira.com/Mal Content wrote:
800 dude wrote:
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 have waded through 6 pages of this and not word one on SPIRA. Should Spira sue IAAF for ruining their business?
How much would Spira be awarded in a civil suit?
IDK, but Nike is definitely paying their way through. Surly!
That carbon fibre plate delivers all the properties of a spring!
If I were Spira I’d give it a go in court.
circular storage wrote:
Vaporfly NEXT% advertising. Should I throw my Vaporfly Flyknit 4%'s in the trash?
Vaporfly Flyknit soaks your socks in any rain or heavy sweat becoming a heavy sloppy mess.
Vaporfly Flyknit causes achilles pain, so they lowered the drop and added a heel pod to make your "achilles happy".
Vaporfly Flyknit has poor grip on the roads so they fixed the sole.
Vaporfly Flyknit has inadequate forefoot cushioning, so they added 15% more.
Is the VF4% a total disaster? You'd think so from how they're advertising the NEXT%. From the prices, it's obvious runners want them.
Why'd they release so few shoes when the VF 4% sucks so bad?
Haha
100 Billion dollar company; trying to get richer by destroying a sport!
Btw - farah was running with the same shoes
itai wrote:
Btw - farah was running with the same shoes
Yep, and he crashed and burned miserably as I expected from that douche. There was no 4% or no Next% that could've saved him from the curse of Haile.
FFPego wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with this specific shoes.
Shoes have evolved along time and it makes no sense to establish a quantitative cutoff point for how much "bounce" (to avoid putting it in physics terminology) they can have. The only thing that can be ruled about is the fact that no shoes should have what's been described as "mechanical doping" (cycling is the most famous case) - I don't know IAAF rules by heart but there might be something on this.
As long s there's no external energy coming into the [athlete+shoes] system it's all on the athlete's performance and the conceivable technological development of the running shoes.
*In short words: "Bounce" is made of energy that the athlete is spending - it's not cheating. If a certain shoemaker can make shoes that make the most out of the athlete's energy expense, that seems perfectly legal!!
A bike only uses an Athletes energy expense, therefore using a bike is perfectly legal
+ 1
As long s there's no external energy coming into the [athlete+shoes] system it's all on the athlete's performance and the conceivable technological development of the running shoes.
Really the most naive viewpoint you see concerning adding springs into footwear.
I like the cushion / trampoline analogy:-
If you had a world high jumping off a cushion Championships and some guy came along and said I'm just going to replace the cushion with a trampoline then smashed the World Record people would be up in arms. Even if he then argued "well you know there's no external energy being added, it's all my natural performance, just improved technology" people would laugh him out of town and the trampoline would be banned.
Yet in "running" we lap it up, clapping like brain damaged seals because we're all bouncing higher on out trampolines! Wtf?
Free_the_thigh wrote:
A bike only uses an Athletes energy expense, therefore using a bike is perfectly legal
But a bike allows you to sit down which saves energy. I would say that inline skates should be allowed however, they are powered purely by the athlete's own energy and they should be seen as just another type of shoe for a road race.
runn wrote:
EPO/Performance enhancing drugs are dangerous and you risk health. Shoes are shoes.
Galen's achilles blew apart because of bad shoes and he ended up having reconstructive surgery to be able to continue running. Shoes can be a very high risk for your health if they are not biomechanically correct and you run a lot.
Kipchoge ran on a pair of DEFECTIVE Nikes when he won in Chicago in 2:04:00.
Did the Next% help Mo Farah to run his amazing 5th place sir? LOL
Stop it already.
Can you remind us who won Boston 2019 his year for the Women's and what shoes she was wearing? LOL.
Confirmation Bias is real.
Kipchoge would have ran the same times with or without the VaporFly. He just wears them because his sponsors hold them so.
I can bet all my life savings that he would have won London even if he ran on a pair of Adidas.
Care to start a GoFundMe campagin to get Kipchoge off his Nike Contract? LOL.