The problem(s) with Vaporflys ...

every company now has their own super carbon shoe. that’s the way it is, it’s called innovation.

An often unsaid problem with the anti-vaporfly argument is that they are enjoyable to run in. They are lightweight, cushioned and efficient. They're really good. They don't contain any completely unprecedented technology, they just got the formula spot on. Why take that away from ourselves? It's not like there hasn't been step changes before that have led to increased speeds. Should we also ban synthetic tracks?

Several other companies have now created shoes that are more or less as fast as VF's. Some of them are significantly cheaper.

I used to be a mountain biker, where the difference between pro-level and entry-level bikes was about £8000. My dream bike was always that, just a dream. I've only started running as an adult. With running I can run in the exact same shoe that the pros run in for £160 more than an entry level shoe.

I've got an average car in my drive. In my garage I've got a mountain bike which is decent, it turns heads, but it was the base-model of the bike which for the race-model would have cost twice the amount. But under my bed, I have a pair of Ferraris - well the Ferrari of the running world.

So I don't really get the cost argument. Nike could easily charge $600 and still all the pro's would wear them and a large number of amateurs too. $250, about twice the cost of your average trainer, is very little to pay for the best of the best imo.

+1

The problem with Vaporflys is you can't buy them. Sold out in US as far as I can tell.

OP, they work and are fun to run in.

They're the best shoe on the market, but they don't miraculously make you way faster. Everything either helps or hurts a performance. Doing 10 strides vs 20 strides vs 3 strides before a race all have an impact on the race, but it's very negligible. The shoes would have a bigger impact than that example, but the difference compared to other racing shoes is not nearly as big as people on here love to say. We're talking a fraction of a second per mile when we're talking about people running sub 5 miles, I'd give you at most one second per mile compared to a not as good racing shoe of the same weight. Having a good pace group vs not having any pacers makes a bigger difference, the temperature makes a bigger difference, the wind makes a bigger difference, how hydrated you are makes a bigger difference.

I get it. Full disclosure--I have a pair of Vaporflys, but I haven't yet run in them. Still struggling to justify them to myself or convince myself that my concerns are valid :)

After I bought them I remember mentioning it to my dad and he thought it was pretty funny, since I'm generally reluctant to pay for the latest and greatest. I said pretty much the same comment you did--in what other sport can you get the state-of-the-art, F1 tech that the pros use for only $250?

So my cost argument is more tongue-in-cheek. As long as I can get shoes for less than $250, I really don't care what Nike charges.

My real concern is the performance boost. And again, I get your argument, and one friend (a former D1 runner ) said the same thing you did with respect to synthetic tracks.

I should probably quit worrying and learn to love the super shoe.

One of my friends works at a running shoe store and tried the new Alphaflys on and said they were incredible in pretty much every way possible.

The thing that people get confused about is the 4% number. It’s not 4% faster or 4 minutes off your marathon time. It’s a 4% improvement in running economy.

Which should be noted that it’s 4 percent over the Adidas Adios 3, Adios 2, and Streak 6. TPU shoes with no carbon plate. Nike could have introduced any of the components of high stack, PEBAX foam, carbon plate all individually and we would’ve seen some increase in running economy. Even EVA foam would probably be conducive to more economic vo2 numbers.

The other thing is this test was ran on a treadmill in a completely controlled environment. In an actual marathon there will be wind, heat or cold, humidity or lack there of, hills, turns, etc.

No one should be allowed to buy their way to performance. Bikes should be regulated so that any material used in bikes over a reasonable price point isn't allowed.

Running is a bit more fair sport because shoes only do so much. The advantage vaporflies give over my $90 (retail) streak lt's is much less than the advantage 8000$ bikes give over $500 bikes. There should be an upper limit to the cost of a shoe that is race legal as well, something even an athlete from a poor family or who is a poor adult can afford.

The rich are always going to have an advantage. With work from home, they'd be silly not to be living in Boulder right now and it would be crazy for them to shop at dollar general instead of whole foods. However, we can level the playing field.

Sport should be fair. Part of making it fair is making it as accessible as possible.

250$ is is salty but come on it's the best shoe there is.

And once it loses it's pop for racing, you can still keep pounding training miles in them for few more months so basically you get a racing shoe and training shoe for 250$.

At this point I've ran about 1700 miles in my VF4% training pair (after I used it in couple of half marathon and 10k races).

Here are the pic of my shoes after about 7 months of training in them and getting in 1700 -1750 miles (still they have better pop than my old Asics Gel-451 trainers with almost no mileage at all)

https://imgur.com/a/o9fJUiw

It is interesting how irrational people are in determining how much you should pay for a shoe. There was a guy on here who claimed he made over 500K who refused to pay more than $100 on a pair of shoes. If you have a full time job and put lots of time and energy into the sport (not to mention thousands of dollars traveling to races) then $250 should not be a big expense. But if $100 is the anchor you have for a "fair" price of a shoe then $250 seems like a lot. Interestingly in some countries people routinely pay ~$250USD for the same shoes we get for ~$100.

You should check out the Science of Sport with Ross Tucker. They do a deep dive into the shoe.

Luv2Run wrote:

You should check out the Science of Sport with Ross Tucker. They do a deep dive into the shoe.

I have, and recommend others do so as well. Very interesting stuff.

The problem with Vaporflys is they have a stack height of 4 cm, that's just a ridiculous amount of space on the bottom of a shoe, you could hide a mini-trampoline in that much midsole. The IAAF really screwed up, they should have had a hard limit on how high the stack height can be for record purposes and it should have been about half that height. If you think the Vaporflys are bad, wait and see what kind of new tech these manufacturers try to squeeze into the roughly 600 cubic cm of space the IAAF has now given them to work with.

Ross tucker arguments revisited. Whether you think it’s right or wrong is irrelevant, it’s what the rules currently state is possible. Everything about every running shoe offers a percentage advantage over barefoot, whether it’s the ability to run faster, longer or both. To be honest just train better and get fitter/stronger.

The bigger discrimination is us taller guys with larger feet which don’t meet the typical tiny male runner with are your 5 feet 8 inch, US size 8/9 feet, which these shoes seem to be designed around, any marginal gains with stack height or super foams is outdone with increased shoe weight, sub optimal stack height, narrow last and early deterioration of the foam.

Design a shoe around us and I might be bothered whether it makes a little difference

According to Mr Tucker, despite rumblings and concern with Vaporfly technological advances over the past several years, the straw that broke the camels back was not that a male cracked the 2 hour mark but rather that a female neared sub 2:14 realm. Wow, we just can’t be having that now can we.

Exactly what I was thinking

Just Another wrote:

This pretty concisely sums up my concern--as a 2:43 marathoner trying to break 2:40, does 2:40 really mean anything if I just put on shoes that give me a 3 minute advantage? (That said, if I were competing for real, rather than against myself, I'd absolutely wear the shoes, because that's the way the game is played now. )

If you wore the same (non vaporfly) shoes and had perfect weather conditions, a tailwind or a downhill course would breaking 2:40 still mean anything? You could wear vaporflys and depending on the conditions and course run slower than 2:43. Does that mean you are way less fit than before? At some point if everyone is wearing these shoes going under 2:40 won't mean what it used to so might as well get them and once you break it keep improving with the same shoes so you don't have to worry them being a factor.

VaporBoi wrote:

... At some point if everyone is wearing these shoes going under 2:40 won't mean what it used to so might as well get them and once you break it keep improving with the same shoes so you don't have to worry them being a factor.

It will be interesting to see if the widespread availability of high-stack, carbon-plated shoes ends up serving as a de facto lowering of the OTQ standard.

Just Another wrote:

It will be interesting to see if the widespread availability of high-stack, carbon-plated shoes ends up serving as a de facto lowering of the OTQ standard.

I think it is pretty clear it's already had an effect given the women's OTQ field this year. With that being said, I hope they don't lower it too much as I think having a big field is good for the sport.