The origin of plated 'spring' shoes

Google Adidas proplate. The Adidas sponsored research was all done by Darren Stefanshyn at Calgary. They launched a few shoes in 2002/2003 including the Proplate Gazelle and adidstar Comp. One of his phd students Geng Luo went to Nike and was behind the 4% shoe. End of story. Any other springs in shoes is just stupid ideas like saying rocket boosters in shoes. Just because I say Rocket Boosters in shoes doesn't mean that in 20 years when people break records in in shoes with rocket boosters that it was my invention. The reality of how these carbon plated shoes is that they do not act like springs.

For more reading:

https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/training/carbon-fibre-plate-tech-the-calgary-connection/

For other readers. Either read this or move on. Don't waste your time debating.

It only caught the hype because of Nike's marketing. Saying a shoe is 4% faster catches people's attention, and then you say it's because of a carbon plate inside the shoe, makes it sound like some great technology.

But as you say, the 'technology' has already existed for quite some time. If anything, it's the newest variation of foam that is making shoes better than ever before, not the 'spring'.

Proplate Gazelle wrote:

Google Adidas proplate. The Adidas sponsored research was all done by Darren Stefanshyn at Calgary. They launched a few shoes in 2002/2003 including the Proplate Gazelle and adidstar Comp. One of his phd students Geng Luo went to Nike and was behind the 4% shoe. End of story.

For other readers. Either read this or move on. Don't waste your time debating.

Not end of story, actually. I don't know Jeff Milliman and have never patronized nor have any interest in any business he owns. I have no dog in any fight. However, this guy thought of, built, and ran in shoes with similar technology long before anyone you mention. Long before. Perhaps you misunderstood the O. P. This thread was not intended to be a debate. I'm not sure what topic we would debate if it was. I was actually informing the masses of something I just found out myself.

Converse Catapult basketball shoes from around 1990 were shoes improving athletic performance. They were for jumping higher. The “catapult” was in the heel. Karl Malone was the sponsor.

Let’s not forget track spikes were built for improving for running faster and jumping farther or higher.

I didn't know about that Converse. I didn't watch basketball at the time. Do you know what was in there or how it worked? I'm just curious. Interesting topic. Nothing more.

I did not know that! wrote:

I didn't know about that Converse. I didn't watch basketball at the time. Do you know what was in there or how it worked? I'm just curious. Interesting topic. Nothing more.

My mistake. Actually LA Gear Catapult:

I think it is cool that there were people thinking about this kind of thing decades before all of us were. I wasn't really sure what was happening in other sports but the basketball shoe idea is very interesting to me in a historical way. Similarly, I was somewhat shocked listening to the interview linked in the OP. This guy was thinking about the same factors everyone seems to be the last few years - and literally building the shoes, then wearing them - long ago. I thought it was fascinating, but maybe that's just me!

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

Anyone else generally roll their eyes at these type of insinuations that people came up with ideas long before they are credited to have happened?

Yeah, it's cool and all that you thought about the idea of an airplane, but you have to actually go and make it happen if you want credit.

I'd be willing to bet the idea of a rigid midsole and bouncy foam that return energy have existed for centuries, just the same as the idea of flying cars.

Hell, I could lay claim to the idea of curing cancer. Hasnt happened yet, probably wont for many more decades.. so its my idea because Im talking about it before it happens.

GettingFasterDude wrote:

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

Why do people keep parroting this obvious lie?

Also “Nike Air“ was all about improving performance.

Nike Air 180 had a really cool clear air pad sole for a training shoe. The 80s and 90s saw a lot of innovation and gimmicks. That’s what leads to progress.

OozmaKappa wrote:

GettingFasterDude wrote:

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

Why do people keep parroting this obvious lie?

Because it is true?

I titled the thread poorly. I suspect some people see it and believe I'm asking a question. In that sense some of the posts are perhaps my fault. I am not wondering when, where, or by whom the stiff plate idea came into existence. All of you are free to post your idea, theory, irrefutable facts, proven historical events, or whatever else about the origin of the idea. I am telling you all where, as of yesterday, I believe it originated.

I just found out first actually tried the now much-hyped idea. Perhaps he was not the first one to merely think about it, but was, I believe, the first to use the idea to make shoes using the plate idea. He literally built shoes with stiff plates that flexed and rebounded quickly. He didn't just say one day, "You know, it could be very efficient to have a stiff but flexible material under the foot." He tried it in shoes that actually existed.

I am coming across like I'm promoting or defending Jeff Milliman. Or maybe I am him. To be honest, I'd never heard of him prior to listening to the linked material less than a day ago. All I am saying is:

A. The idea of a stiff but flexible and quickly rebounding plate to increase efficiency in a shoe specifically for long-distance running originates with him as far as I can tell.

B, I found it very interesting to hear him tell the story about this concept and the development of shoes according to it.

I didn't realize that the interview would involve this topic at all. I thought it would be about training for marathons. Most of it was. The shoe topic caught me by surprise but was fascinating from the perspective of being familiar, as are all of you, with shoe technologies that have become popular in the recent past. Hopefully this clears up any confusion about why I started the thread. I am suggesting listening to the podcast if this topic is interesting to you. It may change your mind concerning the history of rebounding plates in distance running shoes.

GettingFasterDude wrote:

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

Great, where is this non-plated marathon shoe that is just as fast and as highly regarded as the Next%?

GettingFasterDude wrote:

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

It's not the plate, it's the foam.

Then why is the plate even needed?

Malehide wrote:

Then why is the plate even needed?

To stabilize the high foam stack.

overcommitted wrote:

Great, where is this non-plated marathon shoe that is just as fast and as highly regarded as the Next%?

You can find shoes with the Pebax (or similar lightweight, high-energy return) foam and no plate, but the sole isn't stacked as high and they may not be as good for that reason. That's due to lack of foam, not lack of a plate.

If you think it's the carbon fiber plate that makes the shoes faster, you're going to be susceptible to shoe companies putting a carbon plate in an obsolete shoe design, with obsolete foam that doesn't have the energy return (spring-like bounce) that makes the supershoes faster. You might end up paying super-shoe prices for outdated technology with no speed advantage.

Reebok had a carbon shoe in the '90s. So did the GT-2030 and Adrenaline GTS in the 2000's. But they didn't have the modern lightweight foam with high energy return.

TLDR: Do your research when paying super-shoe prices, regardless of brand. Make sure you're getting a modern, high-energy return foam, not just a carbon plate with old, heavy, responseless foam.

Alternatively, it's the combination of materials that make the shoe good and both the foam and the plate are necessary design elements.

If you had said the airpod is useless or even sacrifices performance for looks, I would agree with you. But to say the carbon fiber plate is useless is just ignorant.

OozmaKappa wrote:

...to say the carbon fiber plate is useless is just ignorant.

I didn't say the plate is useless. I said what it does, two posts above yours. All parts of a shoe have a purpose. Some make it faster. Some don't.