Spot on. The shoe effectively turns your foot and ankle system into a "spring". This is how I think of it and also experience (in 4%s)
Spot on. The shoe effectively turns your foot and ankle system into a "spring". This is how I think of it and also experience (in 4%s)
Way too complicated here.
I like the look of the Vaporfly. The technology interests me. I have discretionary funds and will pickup a pair on StockX.
If after a few miles in them my perception is that the hype is reality, I will eagerly await the opportunity to run my first half marathon in them.
Can I wear an “I Cheated” medal to drape around my neck? Although I wonder if the race officials that I pay fees and race bling bling to, numerous race venders that I buy products from, hotels that I stay at and restaurants that I frequent give a crap what’s on my feet as I plod along their city streets?
Spikes are not a natural extension of the human body. someday , they will be able to genetically modify human toes into sloth toes , where the 5" curved toe nails can grip the Mondo surface .
I've read plenty about these shoes and there is NOT general consensus about what's happening in there, but at least 1% of the 'improvement' comes from flex in that plate. BTW, you sure are a nice little fluffer for Nike. I hope they pay you to be such a nice little fluffer, fluffer.
Ricardo Ruderness wrote:
Plate in Vaporflys = Increase lever length of foot by "locking MTP" joint. Reduce fatigue in MTP joint by reducing movement of said joint. Work in conjunction with easily compressible foam (Zoom X) to allow 10mm of rear to fore-foot drop putting athlete in more biomechanically dynamic and efficient position for running without them needing to do it themselves.
Is that good enough for you? How you enjoy that figurative punch in the face?
Hardloper wrote:
It's way too late to make them illegal. The cat is out of the bag and nearly everyone has them, this is the new standard for racing flats.
I think the term you are looking for is "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." That implies that it is too late to change something where as "the cat is out of the bag" implies that a secret is no longer a secret.
Happy to help.
There is a reason Adidas has taken so long to bring out a super thick carbon plated shoe. It is because Nike has the technology patented - specifically the geometry of the full length carbon plate. This is why Adidas has had to resort to the carbon rod solution - as a full plate would have definitely been subject to injunction and lawsuit by Nike. Carbon rods obviously are going to have less stiffness and be less effective than a full plate. The rods and the heel plate don't even seem to be connected. But adidas was backed into a corner and had to try to find an alternative solution.
Other smaller brands can take a risk and bring out vaporfly versions but they are too small fry for Nike to sue. Saucony, NB. The negative PR for Nike to sue competitors for breaching their patent would be outweighed by what would happen if they did nothing. Sure, some people will by the clones from the Saucony and NB, but because they are US brands, if they do nothing - everyone will mostly continue to buy VF or AF.
Now, the big overseas players. Adidas (Germany) and Asics (Japan). It's no coincidence that these two companies being the two largest competitors to Nike in the global running world space have not brought out a Vaporfly clone like NB and Saucony have. Because those are the two brands that Nike would most likely sue. Nike has worked super hard to break into the Europe and Asian markets and have cracked it with the VF.
It is worth noting that Sketchers - did not bring out a full length carbon shoe either. Their weird scoop plated effort doesn't quite work. Sketchers have been sued for patent infringement recently by Nike for some of their models so it makes sense that they were more reluctant to make a Vaporfly clone like Saucony and NB.
In other industries, if a company has a dominant patent which essentially must be used in that market, the patent holder can be forced to licence that technology at a reasonable price to competitors. The racing shoe market is so niche, that is never going to be picked up by regulators. So what we have is Nike in a dominant position, and the brands with the most resources to compete, unable to due to the threat of lawsuit. Hooray,
Non-ASCII characters are not allowed wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
It's way too late to make them illegal. The cat is out of the bag and nearly everyone has them, this is the new standard for racing flats.
I think the term you are looking for is "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." That implies that it is too late to change something where as "the cat is out of the bag" implies that a secret is no longer a secret.
Happy to help.
Thank you. Will use this correctly in the future.
I agree with the OP. I haven't tried the AlphaFly, but I don't feel the need to -- I'm totally satisfied with the Next%. I have over 100 miles on the Saucony Endorphin Pro and find it not as forgiving as the Next%, and I don't like the way the upper fits my foot - YMMV. The Endorphin Pro requires that you hit the "sweet spot" on the shoe to get the most out of it, while the Next% feels quicker at all efforts.
I have two pairs of the Carbon X with lots of miles on them, and think they're great as training shoes, especially if like a stiff shoe with good cushioning. The Carbon X is not as fast as either the Next% or Endorphin Pro.
I may try the new Adidas Adios Pro, probably more as a training shoe because of its extra weight.
Nike haven't sued anyone because they can't. As you say, it's the geometry of the plate that they have patented, the specific curvature. Anyone can shove a full length carbon plate in a shoe, they've been doing it for decades. Just no one got it right like Nike did.
Everyone's playing catch up but I've yet to see any hard data on comparable results to the VF. I read that the Endorphin Pro can have similar benefits but only for some runners, others get no benefit. I'll believe the other companies have caught up when their athletes start putting in significant PRs.
The others companies will never catch up in that sense. How many East Africans do HOKA, Brooks, Saucony, New Balance sponsor? Collectively a big fat 0.
Work Commute Track Club wrote:
Other smaller brands can take a risk and bring out vaporfly versions but they are too small fry for Nike to sue. Saucony, NB. The negative PR for Nike to sue competitors for breaching their patent would be outweighed by what would happen if they did nothing. Sure, some people will by the clones from the Saucony and NB, but because they are US brands, if they do nothing - everyone will mostly continue to buy VF or AF.
if you think that Nike wouldn't take the opportunity to squash Hoka, Saucony, Skechers, Brooks...think again. They'd sue in a heartbeat given the opportunity.
This thread is very disappointing though...very little discussion of the shoe comparisons. Just people saying the Nikes are better because all the best Nike-sponsored athletes wear them. You don't think there's any flaw to that logic?
I hope to be able to weigh in soon with my own comparisons of various models. I have a prototype of one upcoming model (photos online but unreleased).
I've worn 4 or 5 versions of the Zoom Fly, plus the carbon x for a few workouts and long runs. I defintiely prefer the zoom fly (any edition, especially the fkyknit though). I love that shoe for tempos and quick long runs. People saying it has no benefits are too concerned about the weight. they may be 9 or 10oz in my size 10 but they feel quick enough. I'd race a road ultra in them for sure, even over the original 4% which is too unsupportive for me beyond a marathon.
Quite a few Nike interns on this thread. Are you working from home, or at the mothership?
It sure sounded like trampolines, that last 5K I ran before the world ended. It reminded me of the illegal swim suits, the TT bike Obree built, the rotating javelin throw.
Yes, you can use certain things that maybe you shouldn't. You can't ride time trial handlebars in a mass-start bicycle race, even though people used them for a while there. You can't use flippers in swim contests. There's a limit to the size of driver you can have in golf.
Nike doesn't care, though, and they don't have to. Might have been different if an upstart company had done this, though. I guess we'll see.
I agree. They are the best so far. I have the NB Rebel TCs and they are heavy compared to the Vaporfly, though they are supposed to be more of a trainer so that is understandable. My next purchase is between the Endorphin Speed and the Vaporfly.
runderun wrote:
Nike haven't sued anyone because they can't. As you say, it's the geometry of the plate that they have patented, the specific curvature. Anyone can shove a full length carbon plate in a shoe, they've been doing it for decades. Just no one got it right like Nike did.
Are you a patent lawyer? They absolutely could sue. When you have probably 95% of the market even with your competitors it is not a good look.
Why on earth do you think Adidas are using carbon rods instead of a full plate? The gaps between the rods mean it is definitely less effective in terms of force.
Adidas sat on the Adios Adizero pro for months for fear of lawsuit (it was supposed to be released fall last year for elites). After legal advice they changed the shoe from a scoop plate to the carbon rods.
none of this matters if there are no more marathons due to COVID
stop writing "it's" when you mean, "its."
Maybe you should learn the difference between "no body" and "nobody."
Non-ASCII characters are not allowed wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
It's way too late to make them illegal. The cat is out of the bag and nearly everyone has them, this is the new standard for racing flats.
I think the term you are looking for is "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." That implies that it is too late to change something where as "the cat is out of the bag" implies that a secret is no longer a secret.
Happy to help.
I’ve never heard the term toothpaste back in the tube . I think hardloper had a more relatable phase.
[quote]gubyenletsrun wrote:
I agree. They are the best so far. I have the NB Rebel TCs and they are heavy compared to the Vaporfly, though they are supposed to be more of a trainer so that is understandable. My next purchase is between the Endorphin Speed and the Vaporfly.[/quote
Saucony wanted to copy Nike. Then they decided to create a “saucony” shoe , resulting in an overpriced , clunker . Same with Brooks . Adidas are trying to sell a $200 adios ,with a plastic plate .
Work Commute Track Club wrote:
This is why Adidas has had to resort to the carbon rod solution - as a full plate would have definitely been subject to injunction and lawsuit by Nike. Carbon rods obviously are going to have less stiffness and be less effective than a full plate.
I agree with you that they went to rods to avoid potential patent infringement. But I don't agree with your stiffness assessment. The rod diameter is much greater than the plate thickness, so the area moment of inertia scales up substantially. It's also not clear that it is worse than a full-length solution considering that shoes don't bend much where it goes from rods to plate.
Just eyeballing the exploded diagram drawings, let's say the diameter of the 5 rods is 4 mm. Then the area moment of inertia would be 5*pi*(4^4)/64 = 63 mm^4. If the Nike plate is 1.5 mm thick and 70 mm wide (also just eyeballing photos), the area moment of inertia would be only (1.5^3)*70 = 6 mm^4. If the Nike plate is 2 mm thick, that jumps to 47 mm^4. The materials are likely not the same Young's modulus, and little changes in the thickness or diameter affect the result, so carbon rods are not "obviously" going to have less stiffness.
My first guess was that the rods are stiffer in bending. The first review I saw on youtube seems to confirm that. (Not the the stiffness difference is what makes the shoe...)