Is the Adizero Adios Pro legal?

Think there's only a plate in the heel?

It’s not legal Adidas just went out of their way to make a show that can’t be utilized in competition for elite athletes. They just made it because they wanted to

600mRunner wrote:

Think there's only a plate in the heel?

Yeah, maybe thats the technicality theyll use. But those five rods are carbon-infused and act like a plate

Broski cool yer jets.

This shoe is legal and complies with World Athletic regulations. It's signed off, done, passed.

I am not sure if I understand your construction claims here. The key aspects of the WA memorandum surround basic stack height (outsole to sockliner) and how a plate or plates are located in the midsole. The most important thing to know is the legality with respect to overlapping plates or plates that aren't on a single plane ie. think plates that run in parallel between the ground and your foot in a vertical fashion (you mention this but I think you have your interpretation completely wrong).

For this shoe, even if you take each individual rod as a "plate" and the flat heel plate itself, they run on the same plane, do not overlap at any point and therefore at no point do they run in parallel on differing planes. In contrast if you look at the early versions of the Alphafly 1) the shoe was way over 40mm in height from outsole to sockliner and 2) it had individual plates that overlapped each other (ie. ran at points in parallel in differing planes) - therefore isn't legal for competition use.

So the rods beside each other in the midsole (while running in parallel across the shoe medial to lateral - except technically not really due to the anatomical shape of the rods) are still on the same fundamental plane. It's that simple, end of discussion.

Final thing, addressing the topic of carbon fiber feels like explaining the concept of asphalt to kindergarten children. It's not some magical elixir and has been used in athletic footwear literally for decades. Stop mentioning "carbon fiber" as this unbelievable new advantage that has been just unearthed that is so unfathomably unfair and performance enhancing.

In this case the rods and the plate will just be some kind of PA11-12 with 15-30% carbon fiber content (basically pencil shavings). Available to any shoe manufacturer on the face of the planet.

It's designed for this time of non-competition. Grab it while you can, and TT your way to glory.

It's way faster than Nike's stuff, and nobody will care what you're wearing when there's only beer miles and mall loop 5Ks going on.

Ricardo Rude wrote:

In contrast if you look at the early versions of the Alphafly 1) the shoe was way over 40mm in height from outsole to sockliner

Nice summary, except the Alphafly is still over 40 mm in most sizes that men wear - reportedly 45 mm in Kipchoge's size for example. The size 42 size was probably negotiated by Nike, because the Alpha fly is 39.5 mm in that size.

Interesting design. Could allow spring while still letting the foot move with natural pronation.

Cheaterflies wrote:

Ricardo Rude wrote:

In contrast if you look at the early versions of the Alphafly 1) the shoe was way over 40mm in height from outsole to sockliner

Nice summary, except the Alphafly is still over 40 mm in most sizes that men wear - reportedly 45 mm in Kipchoge's size for example. The size 42 size was probably negotiated by Nike, because the Alpha fly is 39.5 mm in that size.

Yes good point. 40mm is the extreme height at size 8.5UK (or US9). So there are incremental increases allowed based on a set ratio between the height and the stick length of the shoe. At US9 you are talking approx 260mm (the rules state "standard sample unisex size"). So the ratio is approx 6.5:1 (length to stack height)

Now I don't know Kipchoges shoe size but if he was a US11 (looking at images of him holding shoes I am going to guess that's pretty close) this means the allowable stack height is bumped up by 5mm. Quite substantial. So as a rule of thumb you are allowed an extra 2.5mm of height per jump in full size.

You still got the sample size wrong. World Athletics says that the sample size for shoe thickness is unisex size 42 (EUR), as amended on January 31, 2020 (after Alphafly was developed). That is US men's 8.5, a half size smaller than what is usually used as "sample size". That's rightfully what led to speculation that there was some behind-the-scenes influence from Nike on that rule.

Kipchoge wears size 10.5.

See page 8 (page 10 of pdf):

Kipchoge shoe size 10.5, thickness is 45 mm:

okay bro whatever - to show how meaningless that detail is in reality, let's go back to the ratio.

A 42 (US8.5) is 265mm stick and a 42.5 (US9) is 270mm

"Magic" ratio for the US8.5 is 6.625, ratio for the US9 is 6.75

If we apply this Kipchoges 10.5 (285mm) then he's allowed 43mm with the first ratio and 42mm with the second. A difference that is almost certainly negligible either way when it comes to tolerances of expanding materials/stockfitting etc.

Good enough mate?

Ricardo Rude wrote:

okay bro whatever - to show how meaningless that detail is in reality, let's go back to the ratio.

A 42 (US8.5) is 265mm stick and a 42.5 (US9) is 270mm

"Magic" ratio for the US8.5 is 6.625, ratio for the US9 is 6.75

If we apply this Kipchoges 10.5 (285mm) then he's allowed 43mm with the first ratio and 42mm with the second. A difference that is almost certainly negligible either way when it comes to tolerances of expanding materials/stockfitting etc.

Good enough mate?

They aren't using ratios. His size 10.5 is actually 45 mm. My point is that the rule change was a sham to make the Alphafly legal. If they were really serious, they would have had 40 mm be the limit period, regardless of size, which was how most were anticipating the rule would mean.

From the World Athletics rules:

"World Athletics acknowledges

that a shoe above that standard sample size might contain a marginally thicker sole

than that of a standard sample size shoe of the same make and model, which marginal

increase in sole thickness is only attributable to the larger size of the shoe. Such

marginal increases will be disregarded for the purposes of confirming compliance

with these Rules."

runderun wrote:

Take a look at the construction of this shoe

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2020/06/a-first-look-at-the-new-super-shoe-from-adidas-the-adizero-adios-pro/

The rules say that shoes can have one plate on the same plane which may be separated and can run in sequence but can't be stacked. The rods on this shoe are separated from the plate by a layer of foam and each rod is individual so more like running parallel to each other which is also against the rules. How can this be legal?

The shoes are technically legal because the carbon rods are not plates - they are rods. So these are not restricted by the "plate" language in the rule. Whether or not the shoes will be fast remains to be seen, but they are heavier than Next% or Endorphin Pro.

I highly doubt Adidas would release the shoe to the public without first consulting the guys from World Athletics, considering how we now have official rules and regulation on racing shoes.

So i am sure it is legal. i just hope it will be widely available and not some limited supply non sense like Nike %

I don't get the rods. Rods (cylinders) weigh more than a plate for the equivalent stiffness. A cylinder is technically just a "rolled up" rectangle (plane) but the cylinder walls need to be beefed up to prevent buckling. As a result, the rods weigh more for the equivalent N/mm.

moran112312 wrote:

I don't get the rods. Rods (cylinders) weigh more than a plate for the equivalent stiffness. A cylinder is technically just a "rolled up" rectangle (plane) but the cylinder walls need to be beefed up to prevent buckling. As a result, the rods weigh more for the equivalent N/mm.

I don’t get it either. What’s also interesting is that both the rods and the plate are “carbon infused” rather than just carbon fibre, which I think it what Nike does. The plate is nylon/carbon and the energyrods are just described as infused. I’m wondering if the rods air carbon with pressurized air inside similar to Nike’s zoom pods or whatever they’re calling them.

Anyone know the weight on these shoes?

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Anyone know the weight on these shoes?

7.9 oz for men's 9 (next percents are 6.7 and endorphin pro are 7.5 oz).