Thanks for sending that info. The patent is rife with design-around options; I imagine a motivated competitor wouldn't be wanting for design opportunities.
Thanks for sending that info. The patent is rife with design-around options; I imagine a motivated competitor wouldn't be wanting for design opportunities.
Three points:
I received an email on Thursday night from a dealer in Boston who was on his way to the meet with a truck load of vapor flys and wanted to know if I was interested. (Heartbreak Hill)
Don't know about other schools, but as a state school that gets its budget cutyear after year, and has all sorts of issues trying to order any equipment without quotes/bids there was no way we can suddenly get $4000 worth of shoes on a days notice.
Would love to know exactly who made the decision. Input from coaches that were prepared for the road? It's bad enough that Regionals have become somewhat of a joke in an effort to find the fastest, flat courses available.
cestpourcela wrote:
. . . a 1% difference in a 10k is right around 30s.
Yeah, if you're running 50min pace! Otherwise, 20s or a bit less.
Burnsy wrote:
And what about the parents who will throw down for HS kids wearing them in 3200m races? Get ready
Already have a kid here who runs for Caledonia that uses in them for EVERYTHING - 1600, 3200, cross country. Really surprised this fall to see him running cross country courses in them, but I guess if his parents spent that much for a pair of shoes they probably told him he has to use them in every race. Not sure if they help him, but I'm sure in his mind he thinks so. Thinks he's hot &*$&.
Wait until the entire Harvard team wears them at nationals
Dude it's like what Jamin said. It's really not that costly to pay for a shoe that will last you 200 miles worth of racing over a long dang period of time. The vaporflys originally came out years ago and equipment for running is relatively cheap compared to other sports. Bottom line is if you are any good you have money for them or have been able to save enough over the past three years for them. Everyone has an iPhone and they cost a thousand dollars! The Hyperspeed was $80 and lasted like 75 miles at best that's almost the same thing when you account for the fact that they are not anywhere near as good. This is November 2019 if you are arguing for the placebo effect of the Vaporfly you must not own one. They are obviously superior to any other long distance racing shoe. It's not even close. It sucks that I sound like a shill, soon these other companies will catch up hopefully.
Since only some schools are sponsored by Nike, and therefore only some athletes have access to a patented technology that helps you run faster, I would think the NCAA needs to step in immediately.
The Addidas, NB, Brooks schools are at a disadvantage.
I've been watching this thread and I am surprised that more people haven't brought this up. Unless athletes/coaches are free to wear any shoes they want?
zzzz wrote:
zzzz wrote:
I mentioned the pending patent on the curve of the Vaporfly plate as a potential and likely access/fairness issue for pro runners with other shoe sponsors because it does seem to be the secret sauce. After all, shoe companies have experimented with plates for decades without the same results, and other companies trying to copy the Vaporfly, but not using the curve (due to patent pending) are not getting the same result. Plus Nike's own study on curved vs flat plates showing why that is so. It all adds up.
I just looked up the patent on the Nike (curved) plate with foam again, and it is no longer pending. The patent was granted last month on October 22, 2019. It doesn't expire until August 26, 2036 (20 years after the application was filed). So that is potentially how long it will take for the other shoe companies to catch up. That's a long time to have an uneven playing field.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170095034A1
Thanks for the link. That being said, Claim 1 contains:
"a concave portion extending between the anterior-most point and the posterior-most point and including a constant radius of curvature from the anterior-most point to a metatarsophalangeal (MTP) point of the sole structure, the MTP point opposing the MTP joint of a foot during use; and
a first cushioning layer disposed between the concave portion and the upper."
So make it a non-constant-radius curvature between the anterior-most-point and the MTP and you could mimic that design without infringing the patent.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about the vaporfly, Every freaking podcast, please find some new content. Literally any time something happens that isn't supposed to or someone who has trained hard accomplishes something that was thought not to be possible the vaporfly is the first thing to be blamed. As far as I am concerned the thing that makes the biggest difference in the shows is that it alters your landing pattern to where it is more efficient for your body. It works the same as a sprint spike to help keep the runners on their toes making them more efficient. The carbon fiber plate offers very little energy return compared to the altered biomechanics.
Robbie Cozean, the NBNO 5k champ, was wearing 4%'s and wore them for all his other 1600m and 3200m races.
6 guys on strava raced with GPS and actually remembered to stop their watch at the finish line. All 6 have it as 6.16-6.18:
https://www.strava.com/activities/2866863112
https://www.strava.com/activities/2866904520
https://www.strava.com/activities/2867216526
https://www.strava.com/activities/2866867701
https://www.strava.com/activities/2866974297
https://www.strava.com/activities/2867020836
In the absence of data showing that it isn't short, I'm inclined to believe that it was short.
tgi. wrote:
cestpourcela wrote:
This is what I was hoping someone would do. The men’s list is far more extensive, and I might be missing a few but this’ll be a good start.
Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, Syracuse, UConn, UMass Lowell’s top 3, Misai from Hofstra, Fordham, Brown, and Marist.
There could very well be more but that’s about the end of the list of where it actually matters.
I know only UConn’s top 3 men had them. Their team’s finishing positions?...
15-17-18...102-127-135-136
Same with the women...
4-36-45... 78-114-119-120
Men were ranked 9th and finished 8th
Women were ranked 12th and finished 9th
Now, that’s not enough to say the team results were because of shoes but it’s a bit weird that both teams had big gaps after their 3rd when the shoes changed over.
Fair point, but it’s also only fair to mention that their 1-3 were a redshirt Junior, redshirt sophomore, and another sophomore, versus their 4-7 all being true freshman.
Yeah
I think the biggest issue with the Vaporfly is that the shoes have been shown to improve running economy, some people improve more than others, but essentially nobody is worse off. So, when someone runs in the Vaporfly and has a great performance, it is logical to attribute it to the shoes to some extent. How much improvement was from the shoes and how much was from runner becoming better? We don't know, but it is unlikely to be completely unrelated to the shoes, and I think this problem will persist even when other brands release their own "Vaporfly."
rojo wrote:
In case you didn't know, the NE XC regional was moved to the roads as the officials determined the cross country course was unrunnable due to ice. A few schools were able to drop $3500 on some Vaporflys (or maybe they already had them) and the results were impressive.
The Cornell women STUNNED everyone by qualifying. They were only ranked 11th in the region but they ended up finishing 2nd. That was probably the biggest stunner of the day. What will be interesting to learn is wehther the third, fourth and 5th placers behind Cornell - BC, Columbia, Syracuse - were also wearing Vaporflys. The Conell women only made it by 7 points over BC.
The Harvard men and women - also both wearing Vaporflys - won both races. The Harvard women came in ranked 5th and won. The men were ranked 4th and won.
I'm not saying the runners and coaches - Alex Gibby and Mike Henderson - don't deserve credit they do. But let's give some to the Nike designers once again.
Picture of Cornell team in vaporflys
https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/D8ACF97F-1BE2-495A-8A38-FC00F13E3DC4.jpeg
If y’all don’t shut the hell up about the damn vaporflys
Too late. We are already at the point where Middle School kids are rocking Vaporflys for the 3000 meters in XC (road) races.
if you think that you lost a 3 mile race because the other team wore vaporflys, you are wrong. Train harder. Eat better. Sleep more. Exercise every day. Shoes don't win races you do.
anyone have the course map? I'll do a loop tomorrow and report back
reader of patents wrote:
zzzz wrote:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170095034A1Thanks for the link. That being said, Claim 1 contains:
"a concave portion extending between the anterior-most point and the posterior-most point and including a constant radius of curvature from the anterior-most point to a metatarsophalangeal (MTP) point of the sole structure, the MTP point opposing the MTP joint of a foot during use; and
a first cushioning layer disposed between the concave portion and the upper."
So make it a non-constant-radius curvature between the anterior-most-point and the MTP and you could mimic that design without infringing the patent.
A couple of issues:
1. The 'constant radius of curvature' of the Nike plate is pretty subtle. Any attempt at producing a non-constant-radius is going to need to be fairly extreme in order to not be arguably infringing, and I'm not sure how you manage that extreme without it being very uncomfortable.
2. Any attempt at circumventing Nike's patent with a subtle change in geometry is likely to be met with a slew of letters from their lawyers with threats of 'treble damages' if the would-be company were to continue their efforts to sell the product and then be found to be infringing.
Nike got there first and they are a giant company. It's a bad place to be if you are anyone else and want to make a Vaporfly-like shoe.
The easy answer is obviously to innovate on their own and create something totally different with the same or better performance. The likely outcome is a bunch of whining about a broken patent system, claims of Nike bullying smaller companies, stifled innovation, wasted money in lawsuits, etc.
Disclaimer: I don't own any Nike shoes nor do I have plans to buy any nor have I owned any in the past 25 years or more, save for my 3 year olds Velcro-strap Nikes, but do have a decent amount of experience with patents and their ups and downs.
Try this: Some triathletes use them during the running portion. Take a look at this video from the Super League Triathlon back in September. If you want to, skip the video to the 4:50 or 4:52 mark, you will see. Vaporfly Next%. Bear in mind the running portion for this even is 3 x 2 k for a total of 6k. 8k the most when the format is changed.
