!!! NewBalance FUELCELL MD-X !!! they break the shoe rules
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Shoes
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
npurdy1112 wrote:
BelgianT&Flover wrote:
I think you can’t find them anywhere..! NB gives
them only to their pro’s. It’s against the rules from WA!
No it is not.
give argumentation why not? -
npurdy1112 wrote:
https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/amendment-to-development-shoe-rules-in-international-competitions
Yeah but all the prototypes need do be on the official World Athletics shoe list and then it's allowed to wear poto's by pro. But on the shoe list the MD-X isn't named as a prototype, it's in the section "released spikes" so it's not correct. -
ok so the argument is only that NB mid x is in the wrong SECTION in the list of APPROVED shoes? get a life
-
albertwo wrote:
ok so the argument is only that NB mid x is in the wrong SECTION in the list of APPROVED shoes? get a life
The argument is that these shoes aren't prototypes but "released" so they have to be for sale. The brands can't put any shoe as a prototype, only the real new testing spikes.
Know your facts before talking like this. -
The New Balance MDX and LDX went up for sale on NB.com around Feb 14, 2020 and quickly sold out. Then covid happened. They are very expensive to make and factory supply is constrained through covid, so NB won’t release another commercial batch again on NB.com until Spring 2021. Hopefully track meets in a larger capacity are happening this Spring, to justify the added production. All WA rules have been followed and the New Balance spikes are legal and sanctioned.
-
Charles River wrote:
The New Balance MDX and LDX went up for sale on NB.com around Feb 14, 2020 and quickly sold out. Then covid happened. They are very expensive to make and factory supply is constrained through covid, so NB won’t release another commercial batch again on NB.com until Spring 2021. Hopefully track meets in a larger capacity are happening this Spring, to justify the added production. All WA rules have been followed and the New Balance spikes are legal and sanctioned.
They were sold out in like 20’ in de middle of the night. Probably their own employers bought the 50 available pairs. It’s a sneaky way to undercut the rule that says “it has to be available for everyone” , yes it was at that moment but not longer than 30’ ... this is scamming the rule. -
This ist funny!
You have a problem with NB following the rule to the word but not with that other company that had the rules written in their favor after the fact...
NB spikes are not listed as prototypes because they have been available for sale already.
Is there a minimum quantity specified somewhere in these rules?
They had a small batch and they are out of stock, simple as that.
You could even go as far to say they are obsolete.
Their pros might show up with an even newer product (then listed as prototypes) and NB would still play within the rules. -
You have a problem with NB following the rule to the word but not with that other company that had the rules written in their favor after the fact...
Another one of the biggest issues on the rules is the conflated details on the restriction of number of plates, and other parameters. I agree with burnsy on this issue, that they just should make a height restriction, and nothing else.
Italien here wrote: Their pros might show up with an even newer product (then listed as prototypes) and NB would still play within the rules.
And besides, what guarantee is there that whatever model of shoe the pros are wearing is the exact same shoe (not even counting the minor tweaks) that is going to be sold to the plebians, even though it may look the same visually? -
It’s funny when I talked to NB after the release in February 2020, they told me they are sold out and the next available opportunity to buy is in August 2020 (wink wink after the Olympic Games. Now that the Olympic Games have been postponed till 2021 isn’t it fitting that they didn’t release them in 2020 like they said and have now opted to release after the olympics in 2021
-
hr measurement wrote:
Another one of the biggest issues on the rules is the conflated details on the restriction of number of plates, and other parameters. I agree with burnsy on this issue, that they just should make a height restriction, and nothing else.
The multiple plates issue is a slippery slope. It'd be all too easy to engineer some kind of "spring" in between plates. The airbag in the zoom victory is junk compared to what will eventually be sandwiched in between those plates. Super foam or otherwise. One of the keys is how the plates connect at the toe. -
Somewhere in Oregon wrote:
hr measurement wrote:
Another one of the biggest issues on the rules is the conflated details on the restriction of number of plates, and other parameters. I agree with burnsy on this issue, that they just should make a height restriction, and nothing else.
The multiple plates issue is a slippery slope. It'd be all too easy to engineer some kind of "spring" in between plates.
First of all, the 'slippery slope' has already been slid down. The horse has left the barn. The genie is out-of-the-bottle. This point is still getting lost on a lot of people opinionating on the matter, which is that these shoes already are a simple, yet sophisticated, spring-system. Burnsy and I went into discussion on some of these issues in this thread:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10373964&page=2#10384747
In the (currently) last post on that thread, I explain:
In response to Canaday, and many others that say there is no 'spring' in the shoes (because the plate shape does not look like the shape of what they typically think of as a 'spring', i.e., a helical coil), I provided an example of how even a flat plate can act as a spring, to counter the argument that just because the shoe's 'spring-plate' does not look like a conventional spring to them does not mean that the curved shoe 'spring-plate', in conjunction with the foam, is not acting like a spring-system.
In the shoe, the curved plate is 'flattened' (i.e., taken out of its neutral position) during ground strike (putting the foam both in shear along the length of the plate as it flattens/lengthens and compressive stress from body-loading) and then it springs back to its neutral position, popping at least some of the foam back to its neutral position. Ideally, that spring-back is synched in time with the foot leaving the ground in order that at least some of that sprung energy is returned to aid in popping the foot off the ground.
Somewhere in Oregon wrote:The airbag in the zoom victory is junk compared to what will eventually be sandwiched in between those plates. Super foam or otherwise. One of the keys is how the plates connect at the toe.
So what? My view, which Burnsy agrees with, and did a good job of reasoning as to why in more detail on that other thread, is to let the shoe companies come up with whatever they want to come with, as long as they meet just a height restriction; i.e. make the regulation a height restriction, and nothing else. Besides Burnsy's reasons, like the problems of how to actually enforce the more spurious regulatory add-on design details, the way the rule is written now reeks of preferential favoritism, in order to lock out competition, as previously stated above,
Italien here that other company that had the rules written in their favor after the fact...
Let the shoe companies continue to innovate without the restrictions that might favor one particular company's patents. We may see continuous 3d printed midsoles in the future with multiple pockets and curves, and it could just become a lawyer's slugfest to try and interpret and enforce the rules if they are anything more complicated than just a simple height restriction. -
OK Hold up, can someone possibly explain to me how and why these break the WA "shoe rules".
And let me preface this by saying there are some people on these message boards that know exactly what the shoe rules are and what you can and can't do.
So how are these illegal, thanks in advance.
SS -
So just a few things because I am reading some of this - need to be very clear.
A "foam" (pebax, TPU, EVA, PU, a dish sponge) is and cannot be illegal. It doesn't matter what it is made out. Foams can have a certain elastic resiliency (of which there is a spectrum), but every foam will impart some form of energy loss from the athlete to the ground. No foam generates more energy on its elastic recovery than what was applied to it. There is prior art to all of this.
A plate of single plane is and cannot be illegal - curved, non-curved, made out of TPU, pebax, PA 10,12 nylon, carbon fiber content reinforced, carbon fiber layered. Curved plates, carbon fiber plates, curved carbon fiber plates have all be used in this industry for decades. Prior art to all of this.
I just read something that made my head explode - that the curved plates "flatten" under load and then "spring" back propelling you forwards. No they don't. The curvature of the plate is in the wrong orientation for that. Take a piece of paper and bend it into a "u" shape and now visualize force being applied in the middle of that "u" which moves to the left (forwards). The "u" shape doesn't resist that motion, it "rolls" with that motion. That's why the plates are designed (and patented) with 24 degrees of pitch because it matches that of the human footstrike/gait/takeoff angle. The only way you would get resistance to that motion from a plate is if it an "n" shape and the force applied by the athlete would actively work against that geometry and bend it, causing elastic deformation that would then in turn elastically recover in the form of a spring.
So again, how are these spikes illegal exactly? -
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
I just read something that made my head explode - that the curved plates "flatten" under load ...
If your head is exploding with the difficulty of this concept, you may need to take some aspirin. There is plenty of video evidence out there of the VaporFly where it is observed doing what I described in my post above.
The foam, in combination with the curved plate, and the boundary conditions under loading, are a non-linear spring system. Any decent engineering undergrad should be able to understand that.
Nike themselves call it a 'spring-plate'!
Yet, you seem to have a problem with that? So much so that your head is "exploding". Why is that? Do you want the rules to continue as they are, in attempts to favor one company's patents over the others? -
the spike himself isn't illegal.
it's just illegal that they aren't for sale; they're tagged by WA as a "released shoe" what means that they have to be available for everyone and not only for the NB Pro athletes. -
hr measurement wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
I just read something that made my head explode - that the curved plates "flatten" under load ...
If your head is exploding with the difficulty of this concept, you may need to take some aspirin. There is plenty of video evidence out there of the VaporFly where it is observed doing what I described in my post above.
The foam, in combination with the curved plate, and the boundary conditions under loading, are a non-linear spring system. Any decent engineering undergrad should be able to understand that.
Nike themselves call it a 'spring-plate'!
Yet, you seem to have a problem with that? So much so that your head is "exploding". Why is that? Do you want the rules to continue as they are, in attempts to favor one company's patents over the others?
+1 -
Questions.
- Do you work in the running footwear industry?
- Have you ever designed one of these products or being privy to the design/development process of one of these products?
- Have you ever seen, touched, held an individual component of one of these shoes (a plate, a molded midsole part etc)?
- Do you have any data as to the properties of the aforementioned parts - eg. density, compression set, Youngs modulus etc
- Have you ever been part of, or seen results of FEA of any of these materials/parts
- Do you have any knowledge of how certain terminology in the industry is deliberately used in and for legal/patent purposes in order to widen the IP footprint/scope of certain innovations etc?
Because I don't think you do.
And because of that I'm going to tell you that you have no place here spouting out fake news about things you think are correct which aren't. For anyone here reading what this idiot is writing - simply disregard.
This conversation is over - this is like me versing a dentist on the details and procedure of a root canal. -
Yes a curved plate can flatten under load and return to its original shape in a spring fashion. Congratulations on pointing out this absolute gem of an insight.
However the orientation of the curvature matters with respect to the location and direction of the applied force - I already gave the practical "u" vs "n" shape example with respect to these shaped plates. With the parabolic "spoon" shaped plates we are seeing in these products the applied force would need to be simultaneously at the very end of the toe and at the point at which the plate flattens (it's referred to as the "aft" point or 326b in the patent) for it to cause flattening. This can't happen because the force applied to the plate travels longitudinally down the plate from the heel towards the toe and by the time this force gets to the toe it is not even imparted on the "aft" point due to the foots takeoff angle of around 25 degrees associated with the human gait cycle. The resistance is required at both points simultaneously to create flexion. Any decent engineering undergrad should be able to understand that.
The plates aren't springs. The plate serves multiple functions - creating a longer ankle levers, immobilizing the MTP joints and maximizing the resiliency (or spring) of the foams they are used in conjunction with. The plates on their own do not flex in a manner that would allow them to act as springs. Don't believe me? Educate yourselves.
https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a20849486/nikes-magic-shoes-what-if-they-really-work/
"Is that all because the shoes have springs in them? Well, yes and no. “Virtually all modern running shoes already have springs,” Kram says. “We call them foam midsoles.”
"That’s the view of Nike’s designers, who see the carbon-fiber plate’s benefits as a result of stiffening the shoe rather than adding any energy return. The “parabolic” curve of the plate, rather than adding springiness, serves to minimize wasted energy at the toe joint and optimize ankle position, they say. From Kram’s perspective, too, the spring in the new shoes is primarily provided by the foam, while the carbon-fiber plate probably functions more as a lever."
https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/training/carbon-fibre-plate-tech-the-calgary-connection/
"The goal was to try to make the shoe behave more like a spring. Stefanyshyn and his colleagues were not entirely successful at this, but they did find that the addition of the carbon fibre plate removed some of the energy loss, so the athlete had more energy to execute the movement."
"Recent studies have found that while the introduction of a curved carbon fiber plate minimizes energy loss, it doesn’t behave like a spring, exactly. And those commenting on the Nike Vaporfly 4% and NEXT% in particular speculate that the spring-like bounce produced by the shoe comes more from Nike’s ZoomX foam than from the plate. Here’s what Stefanyshyn has to say about that: “From all of our research on plates as well as foams and cushioning materials, I speculate that both play a substantial role in the improvement.”
there's your +1
I'm off to lecture my dentist like a real a$$hole. -
Sal with the knowledge right here. I think Jon Gault should put that into an article.
The blatant lack of education/ awareness on the simple effects these shoes and spikes are having is crazy.
