I suspect the new shoe IS very fast due to a new spring technology. The foam is very soft and very light, but deteriorates very fast. The 5 oz weight would not boost the marathon time by 5% or more. Springier carbon plate or similar technology is the only aspect that would account for a 5 - 7% faster time.
I am sure it all adds up. Being lighter, having better energy return, better geometry, and the rest and you get a shoe that gives another 2% efficacy and a little less wear on the legs.
I also wonder if they are doing a better job tuning shoes for 95lb woman runners instead of 130lb guys.
we will have to see what the results are when we have a couple hundred marathons in these shoes. People personal variance in a marathon race is like 5 mins(how fast was Kipchoge at Boston).
I miss the days when winning a race was based on talent, preparation, and sound racing tactics, not who had the best shoes. 😔
You miss the 1930s? Runners have been chasing gear for longer than you'd think.
Thank you for this. Running since the 70s and long before the word super shoes the shoes evolved in great ways that sped folks up. As did the track surfaces. So while we may find out about other things, the shoes are not like the motor assisted bicycles we have had discovered in major cycle races. They are shoes. Better yes, but shoes.
It would be quite ironic if Nike invented super shoes to give their athletes an advantage but in the end adidas ends up with a shoe they can't match.
I know Kiptum said he's not in peak form for Chicago but what if he is and he smashes 2 hours in a pair of adidas shoes?
Couple of things
1) The "technology" adidas used on their midsole foam (they CNC milled it vs autoclave molding it) is available to every brand (and especially Nike), so if Nike wanted to copy it they could (in the same way every other brand copied the OG 4% to start this craze).
2) There is no difference between this shoe and the Adios pro other than the midsole foam which, because it wasn't "squashed" in a mold at any point, is lighter and might have some momentary elastic resiliency benefit as the cell structure is simply larger. "Rods" are the same, upper is the same. We know the science - 100g is 1% running economy benefit. 75g is 0.75%. Let's just round up and say it's a full 1% given we can only hypothesize a potential resiliency benefit.
3) The Adios pro did not have the same running economy benefit value as either the Vaporfly or Alphafly to begin with. At best, this shoe (the Adios evo) simply gains parity with the best Nike offering.
4) Does a 1% improvement in the running economy benefit of a shoe (vs it's predecessor) translate and enable an overall 2.75% tangible performance increase by the athlete? Okay, we can factor in some variables like "a year more specific training for the event", "more experience racing the event" etc etc, but surely as a distance runner, someone that has run a marathon before and someone that understands holistically what a WR represents, you fully understand the gravity of a near 3% improvement at this plateau right?
You might want to think of something else at play here other than just a pair of shoes.
Rojo has never been accused or being particularly bright, good with language comprehension or logically consistent. No surprise: he's one of James "Gays are Pedos" Lindsay biggest fans.
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.
It's funny how people take a good thread and instead of input they are focused on word usage. He must not be that dumb if he's got you here living on his messageboard.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for and you generally get 2/3rds of the economy gain in time, right? So a 0.33% improvement in time, which would only be like 27.5 seconds for a 2:15 marathoner.
So the weight doesn't appear to explain this.
How is 2/3rds 0.33 % derrr
How about:
2/3rds of the claimed 0.5% economy gain = 0.33% time gain
"the shoes are not like the motor assisted bicycles we have had discovered in major cycle races".
You make it sound as if it's a regular occurrence, but there are no motor assisted bikes discovered at major cycle races. None. The only case where a hidden motor was actually found was at a cyclocross race. It was a promissing, young, Belgian female athlete, and she wasn't riding it, it was just one of her bikes that were prepared for her to race. But cyclocross is a niche sport (absolutely wonderful, but niche nonetheless, so that race surely didn't qualify as a major cycle race) and as stated it's the only known case..
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, sch...
"the shoes are not like the motor assisted bicycles we have had discovered in major cycle races".
You make it sound as if it's a regular occurrence, but there are no motor assisted bikes discovered at major cycle races. None. The only case where a hidden motor was actually found was at a cyclocross race. It was a promissing, young, Belgian female athlete, and she wasn't riding it, it was just one of her bikes that were prepared for her to race. But cyclocross is a niche sport (absolutely wonderful, but niche nonetheless, so that race surely didn't qualify as a major cycle race) and as stated it's the only known case..
Here is a question for you - do you believe that over the course of history, pro cyclists have taken drugs to the assist their performances?
(this isn't loaded - it's a simple yes or no question)
It would be quite ironic if Nike invented super shoes to give their athletes an advantage but in the end adidas ends up with a shoe they can't match.
I know Kiptum said he's not in peak form for Chicago but what if he is and he smashes 2 hours in a pair of adidas shoes?
I think “karmic” would be the word you’re looking for. Seems more like karma than irony. With you on the sentiment though. Ghirmay Gebreselassie was about 1:01 behind Galen Rupp in Rio. Galen had Vaporflys. Ghirmay ran in Nike flats. (He also was a Nike sponsored athlete).
The cost is irrelevant as elite runners don’t pay for their shoes. Besides, no elite runner ever wears the same pair of shoes for more than one marathon.
Thats not true. Kevin Kiptum wore the same pair of shoes for both Valencia and London marathons. His shoes still had 2:01:50 written when he were crossing finish line in 2:01:25. Are two 2:01 marathons sufficiently elite?
There's no 'if', same materials, same response, 50g less less weight. That's a game changing response by adidas in this arms race.
What you describe is nothing like “game changing.” Moving from ultra thin shoes to thick shoes with a substantial rocker, what previously would have been an unusual degree of longitudinal bending stiffness, and brand new foam technology that returns a whole lot more energy was game changing. Making the same thing a little bit lighter is a modest incremental improvement on the other thing that was the game changer.
There's no 'if', same materials, same response, 50g less less weight. That's a game changing response by adidas in this arms race.
What you describe is nothing like “game changing.” Moving from ultra thin shoes to thick shoes with a substantial rocker, what previously would have been an unusual degree of longitudinal bending stiffness, and brand new foam technology that returns a whole lot more energy was game changing. Making the same thing a little bit lighter is a modest incremental improvement on the other thing that was the game changer.
