I figured I would finally register and make a post about this because I'm super confused as to why so many people are calling for the ban of the Nike Dragonfly or invalidating or detracting from performances just because they were run in the so-called "super" spikes. Is there some research that I'm missing out there saying that the Dragonfly provides anything close to the 4% boost in economy provided by the Vapor/Alphafly? While they're clearly better than previous models of track spikes, I just see no reasonable argument for banning them or putting an asterisk next to records set in them, or discounting marks just because they were run in Dragonflies.
While I can certainly see the argument for calling into question or putting asterisks next to marks run in road supershoes (as they're a new frontier of footwear that provides a tested and reproducible 4%+ boost to running economy), I don't think it makes any sense to do so for the Dragonfly. They follow the same design principles that track spikes have for forever, and only improve upon it by adding a better foam and a few millimetres of stack height.
They use a traditional Pebax plate which has been in use for years without issue, and the shoes do not have the sufficient stack height or the rigidity required in order to produce the same rolling effect as the plated road super shoes (the road shoes mainly work by combining the trademark superfoam bounce and energy return and stopping the MTP joints from bending (as they do not return any energy when flexed, unlike the arch of the foot and the ankle). In order to reap the benefit, there has to be a specific shape to the plate allowing for a footstrike and a roll off the toes, which isn't present in the Dragonfly. A flat plate only transfers the load from the toes to the ankle, negating any benefit. While they accommodate a heel or midfoot strike, due to the angle of the plate but lack of stack height the Dragonfly clearly reward an aggressive forefoot strike that is not required to enjoy the benefit provided by the plated road shoes.
Coming back to my main point, they are, in effect, the same track spikes that we've been using for years with a key difference, the type of foam. Which brings us to my main point: how can anyone justify a ban of the Dragonfly or discrimination/prejudice against marks set in them, on only the basis of them having a superior foam to the EVA fare that has dominated track spikes for years? We've seen softer, higher stack height spikes before with the Avanti Boost, if fast times began to be set in them would people be calling for the same bans/asterisks? By that logic, would we be clamoring against EVA spikes if say, solid rubber or polyurethane was industry standard?
Assuming the foam and only the foam is the problem, are runs done or times set in the Pegasus Turbo line or ZoomX Invincible inferior or invalid? What about the Reebok line of Pebax foam shoes? What's the logic behind an arbitrary rule or ban against a specific shoe that follows all rules and has only upgraded one component of the design and has otherwise followed all the traditional design principles?
What about a ban on Pebax foam? What's the reasoning? How do we determine which foams are "too good" and foams that are "acceptable"? Unless I'm mistaken, there's no research suggesting that the super spikes provide a boost approaching that of the road supershoes, so where's the fire? Are people just jealous that they didn't have access to the shoes when they were in their prime? Do they just not understand how the shoes work? Are they under the impression that they provide a flat 4% reduction in times, when in reality the 4% stands for a 4% boost to economy, which likely has a much smaller benefit than in the 10,000 or marathon than over shorter distances like the 1500-3000 (distances in which I've seen marks be highly criticized/invalidated by people, not to mention that the spikes have not been shown to provide such a boost).
Are people just in denial? Am I just dumb and missing something important about the spikes? What's the deal? I realize that this may come off as ranty or like I'm obsessed with shoes (I am), but I really hate to see people's hard work and race performances come under fire and be invalid in the eyes of the public just because they decided to wear a certain pair of shoes.
Super Spikes and a massive advantage: Misinformation or truth?
Report Thread
-
-
I agree with this fro the most part. We've seen that the spikes are better but they don't give a huge advantage, athletes like filip ingebrigtsen not PR but he has been in the super spikes, we've seen athletes like shelby houlihan say that she like the original vic elites better. We've seen athletes like jacob kiplimo wearing the mamba Vs and not super spikes, yet taking down athletes in super spikes. The notion that these spikes give an unfair advantage is pretty absurd and not based off actual facts. Theres been spikes fro decades now that have utilized carbon fiber and the most contriversal spike of all (nike dragonfly) doesn't even have carbon fiber in them. The newbalance prototypes have been said to be better than the new nike victories yet no one has a problem with those. I have the nike air zoom victories and they're overbuilt, they're bouncy but just don't feel smooth, i prefer the mamba V and i can say that the nike air victories don't give any unfair advantage over the mamba V. I have yet to try the dragonflys so I cannot speak on that but i agree with the OP. Nike makes good spikes but they also sign alot of the best athletes. the 1500m world record in that meet yesterday was broken in regular addidas spikes and not "super spikes"
-
Vaporflys and Road racing times were definitely effected, anyone can see this change by simply watching a road race.
As far as the nike spikes go, I do not see any advantage to them over other brands. Some of the best times in the NCAA this year were run without those spikes. If they make any difference at all it is nowhere near as extreme as the Vaporfly made to the roads. That was a little ridiculous. -
Effects of super spikes are not that big at all. they may help a little little bit but that’s all. i don’t get why people can’t except that we’re in a golden age of running right now and it’s not because of the spikes.
-
What about tracks improving? There has to be a lot of room for improvement in that department.
-
They’re just in denial. Innovation will always happen, and there are always those that resist.
-
bump. i want to see what people have to say about this.
-
running2begood wrote:
Effects of super spikes are not that big at all. they may help a little little bit but that’s all. i don’t get why people can’t except that we’re in a golden age of running right now and it’s not because of the spikes.
Agree, it’s inadequate PED testing -
Ive ran in the dragonflys and i have a pair of the new vics and next percents. the dragonflys are definitely not super shoes, they literally feel like a less stiff, more cushioned splat. Nothing like a fresh pair of next percents.
The only benefit of the dragonfly is that your legs might feel a little better at the end of a race but that doesnt even matter for a 1500/3000 -
If there was a shoe that was a second faster per lap than any other shoe and only certain athletes could have access to it, would it be fair?
Second per lap doesn't sound like much. But put them on elites all within a few seconds of each other or the WR for that matter, now you've got a problem.
It's the same as the vaporfly problem, people will get all excited about every record being suddenly set over the next few years and keep comparing it to years past or other athletes without the shoe when there cannot be a fair comparison.
Then the record will be tightened by better athletes over the next few years and then the records will cease until the next technology advance happens and IAAF lets it roll by.
And all the while the flat-eathers on letsrun will keep arguing "it's the special magical training not the shoes" -
If there wasn't some perceived advantage to carbon-plate shoes, the shoe companies wouldn't have invested so much into the development, and World Athletics would not have felt it necessary to limit stack height.
Thin runners lack power, which is why they took animal or human growth hormone. They are light and a little extra muscle gets a large return.
The thin runners could also dope so that they kept up a high cadence, compensating for the lack of power.
When I watch a slight runner with a lot of spring in their step, even though they are running elite times, I realize that likely they are on PEDs or they have extra spring from the shoes.
I watched Salazar run a 2-mile his senior year in HS, and there was nothing to indicate PEDs. He had awkward form because of being thin and lacking power, but stayed with the pace and he was exhausted at the end of the race, having given his all. The race was won by Rudy Chapa, who had good power for a distance runner, which he showed by running away from everyone the last lap.
When I watch athletes in a world class 1500/mile, and their pace is under 57 per lap for 1200, I expect they are very tired and will be struggling to hold on. When the athletes looks almost fresh, as though they just ran 59 per lap for 1200, I doubt that the run was legit.
The training was intense back in the 50s and 60s, so there is little change when accounting for tracks (cinder versus synthetic), shoes and PEDs.
Jim Ryun's 3:51.1 is about 3:46 on a synthetic surface. -
It's the shoes, but not the spikes.
Better shoes mean more training miles with less strain, resulting in better race times. That's why the Nike Revolution 4 is the shoe all the pros are using. -
shoo smoo wrote:
If there was a shoe that was a second faster per lap than any other shoe and only certain athletes could have access to it, would it be fair?
Second per lap doesn't sound like much. But put them on elites all within a few seconds of each other or the WR for that matter, now you've got a problem.
It's the same as the vaporfly problem, people will get all excited about every record being suddenly set over the next few years and keep comparing it to years past or other athletes without the shoe when there cannot be a fair comparison.
Then the record will be tightened by better athletes over the next few years and then the records will cease until the next technology advance happens and IAAF lets it roll by.
And all the while the flat-eathers on letsrun will keep arguing "it's the special magical training not the shoes"
That would most certainly be a problem, but I've seen no concrete research that shows that they give such a benefit, unlike the Vaporfly which certainly do. They're also readily available, so I don't see your point about shoes not being available to athletes, although of course I agree that such an unavailable shoe would be unfair. (Unless you're talking about sponsors, at which point I disagree, you're sponsored by who you're sponsored by and that's your blessing or burden to bear, always has been and always will.)
As for the records being set, I don't see how, purely in terms of spikes, comparing recent records to past marks is any different than it's ever been. As I said in the original post, unlike the Vaporfly, the new spikes are not massive paradigm shifts from previous designs and wisdom and only upgrade made is one component, the foam. That is patently true, and nobody can argue against it without exposing a lack of knowledge on the subject of shoes.
If we start navigating this slope of questioning marks set in spikes with new foams, how far do we go? Where do we set the arbitrary limit? Do we add time to Bekele's marks because his spikes had EVA and previous records didn't? There's no logic behind this push to ban the spikes and/or deprecate marks set in them, only ignorance and misguided emotion.
Almost no competitive athletes will ever return to wearing regular racing flats for road races, because there is a cut and dried, proven advantage inherent to the Vaporfly and other plated supershoes. Plenty of athletes are still using older spikes (e.g. Jacob Kiplimo's 3000 NR in the Mamba V, Houlihan's AR in the 5000 while wearing the Victory Elite 1, et cetera). Although obviously unscientific, I think the fact that there are elite athletes still wearing and setting records in old spikes should serve to shore up my case that I've done my best to make: that the new spikes aren't unfair, and shouldn't be used as ammunition to discredit marks or claim that new records shouldn't be accepted on account of spike choice. -
Can someone who is up to date on Adidas spikes let us know if Tsegay was wearing the standard adidas Avantis? If so, that’s incredible
-
jabouko wrote:
Can someone who is up to date on Adidas spikes let us know if Tsegay was wearing the standard adidas Avantis? If so, that’s incredible
I'm pretty sure they were the standard ones, they definitely look like it in this picture.
https://i2.wp.com/www.dai-sport.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/gettyimages-1231068238-2048x2048-1.jpg?resize=2048%2C1365 -
You are 100% right and I've posted many times on the forum about the drama-filled misconceptions, around especially the Dragonfly spikes, and how there are vast differences to the effectiveness/performance of the tech in the road product and the track offerings even though it's all fundamentally the same principles.
The most stunning thing I have read/heard in all of these conversations is the mystique around stiff and/or curved plates which it appears many people believe have only just popped up in product this season. A lot of short memories and people who have clearly never held a track spike before.
The second is the narrative that "carbon fiber" really does anything, as in "add carbon fiber and all of the sudden the shoe is a spring". Here is a technical tid-bit for anyone that believes this. Carbon fiber in that sense (a spring like a prosthetic blade) are layered laminates. That means you lay down multiple flat sheets of carbon fiber fabric that is impregnated with a glue or matrix and you heat and press form them into shapes. However these shapes can only be in general flat or smooth radiused (think flat plate or bike frame). Ever held a track spike? - there are a couple of things that make it almost impossible to make a single plate out of true layered carbon fiber. 1) See the the little screw receptacles that hold the spikes? They are aluminum parts that need to be placed into the plate when it is manufactured. In a layered carbon fiber construction and manufacturing process that's simply impossible. They can only be over-molded in an injection nylon/plastic process. 2) See the other little sharp "spikes", areas of traction? Can't do that with a layered process - the angles and radiuses are way too small - can only be done with flow-molding. When we speak of "carbon fiber" in these shoes, if they have any at all it is by way of micro-fine chips or particles that are put into the nylon "mix" to make it stiffer. More carbon fiber = stiffer and the content ranges from 4 - 30% max.
The latest thing I'm reading is "PEBAX" - a new magical material. Except Pebax is just a type of basic thermoplastic elastomer and it's been around and used in running product for decades. Here is the best part - it's actually one of the lesser performing materials available in the industry and it is usually used on lower end, price point product. It is heavier and much softer than a material like LX9012 which is an industry standard in track plates/football cleats etc. If the plates in the Dragonfly are actually only Pebax (which I doubt) then Nike got away with dumping the cheapest cr@ppiest nylon into their tooling. Of course it doesn't really matter because the plates aren't springs, they aren't magic and as you said the big difference is really in the foam and the amount of it.
Zoom X is a new type of foam actually pioneered by Reebok and funnily enough it's base constituent is Pebax or TPE. Very different from EVA or a pellet molded foam like adidas boost. It's very light, but it's biggest and most important property is that it is very easy to squash or compress and after that happens it rebounds nicely. That's important because in the concept of "energy return", no foam actually returns you energy (their primary job is to cushion and dissipate energy) but it needs to allow as much of it to impart onto the ground (or in this case track) which is what actually returns your energy and propels you forwards. So the secret of the new foams is that because they compress so effectively you can put a lot of foam under the foot which supports the benefit of cushioning by way of fatigue reduction etc without compromising the force you put into the track. The plate in this equation simply serves as another rigid platform to support this and provides the benefits of reducing MTP/ankle joint work and in the case of shoes that allow for a greater deviation of curvature from the bottom of the last (the foot shape the shoe is built on), the "rocker" effect that promotes your center of mass forwards and promotes better ground push-off angles etc.
What's the real magic? Mind space. Road racing product hasn't been able to utilize the benefits of full length plate stiffness/curvature etc because of the fact a road surface simply didn't allow for it (think wearing an OG Vic or something for a marathon). All of a sudden it had these benefits made feasible by the foam. It wasn't feasible before because with the amount of foams in these shoes, if it wasn't super light and compliant (compressible) it wouldn't engage/entertain the benefit and would make the shoes massive heavy bricks. So the road product really does work (upwards of 5% running economy benefits) and so the belief that the spikes will do the same because they have the same tech is so powerful (especially because most runners are neurotic and will believe anything they can in the pursuit of being better). It's so genius when you think about it - Nike started this by taking the benefits of a track spike and taking them to road product. They then turned it back and convinced people they were taking the benefits of the road product back to the track - even though the track was where it all started anyways! Brilliant.
So yes, all in the foam - the light, easily squishable foam that is nice and resilient and durable (and don't take that for granted because those properties don't often line up - especially light + squishable vs resilient + durable). Lighter product that cushions the athletes more effectively while allowing them to transfer as much force as possible into the track with no loss in joint efficiency. Simple yet very effective.
If we really want to freak out about massive leaps in performance we should focus more on the lights allow perfectly even pace distribution from the first step and the fact nobody has been drug tested in a year. -
Let me tell you something. The Avantis are amazing spikes. Period.
-
No doubt there are many that are poorly informed on such matters that, nonetheless, continue to bloviate when they cannot understand basic engineering concepts. Many still think this all falls into the category of 'marketing hype'. They would likely argue the concave spoon shape in the forefoot of the Vaporfly's carbon plate is just a triviality of little to no benefit, and certainly not worth wasting the time and money it took to patent it.
-
hr measurement wrote:
No doubt there are many that are poorly informed on such matters that, nonetheless, continue to bloviate when they cannot understand basic engineering concepts. Many still think this all falls into the category of 'marketing hype'. They would likely argue the concave spoon shape in the forefoot of the Vaporfly's carbon plate is just a triviality of little to no benefit, and certainly not worth wasting the time and money it took to patent it.
Here's the "expert" again. And here we go again educating the "expert" that as we have discussed before has never even held the components of these shoes and/or worked a second in the industry with the products.
1) The plate isn't carbon It's a nylon plate with carbon fiber content in it to make it stiff. Not a carbon fiber plate.
2) The concave spoon shape is a great benefit. It allows 10mm of forefoot "drop", guided by the spoon shape that enables a smooth roll to the an optimized take-off angel. And because its stiff it reduces work down in the MTP joint and in the ankle not.
3) However all of this has existed in track spikes (stiff plates that reduce foot work and curvature that follows that of the human foot as well as geometries that enable forward promotion of the athlete center of mass. It was only when zoom X foam (and variants) were bought into the equation could this science be applied to road shoes (discussed above).
So what exactly is your point? In case you hadn't read correctly (and that's possible because you've chimed in on these discussions before claiming knowledge you don't have without appearing to have the ability to read or comprehend), this is a discussion about track spikes and not the Vaporflys or any road shoe variant.
Now be a good little fellow and scurry off back to that hole where you came from, this is an intelligent discussion.
SS -
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:optimized take-off angle. SS
