New unnamed Nike prototype tested

if this is really another 2% boost on top of the supershoes boost -- world athletics needs to get ahead of this and ban it right away before it's released to public. we can't have new shoes every 5 years rewrite the record books

I’m curious as to what shoe was the control. If it was the AlphaFly or Vaporfly…look out…

Too late. If they cared at all in the least they would have already banned the current crop of cheat shoes. I’m just curious as to what will be around 20 years from now. Funny how It’s all coming from Nike. Pre most likely wouldn’t even qualify for US nationals running his, then, AR. We can all thank cheat shoes. Making past icons irrelevant one step at a time.

I don't get how you read out a new additional 3% gain. The study compared a
control running shoe (CON), whatever that was, with a highly cushioned running shoe (HCS), whatever that was It can be any shoe old or new.

“The average benefit (running economy) at all speeds was 3.2%.”

That's almost certain not a 3% gain over the alphafly/vaporfly.

The control shoe here had 69% resilience and the test shoe was 85% resilient.

If you look at the original Fly paper, the resilience of something like the vaporfly/alphafly was 87%, while the Nike Zoom Streak was 66%. So, it doesn't make sense that the
vaporfly/alphafly were used as the control here, with a measured resilience suddenly 20% lower. Maybe what they did here is just test a non-carbon shoe with bunches of cushioning against a non-carbon shoe with normal cushioning.

The control shoe weighed 273 grams, the VF is under 200g and the Alphafly is 227g. I'd guess the control shoe is something like the Invincible, Peg, or NB 1080, it's definitely an easy day shoe.

The 3.2% boost in RE is not in addition to any previously known boost, it's just 3.2% more than the control. In effect, it's worse than the original VF4%, but then, we all knew the Alphafly was a worse shoe

Good explanation. Thanks.

Good sleuthing utilizing the weight markers. I would agree with you.

I think people might be overthinking this and these were simply Nike’s Tempos. Weight looks about right. Furthermore, the shoes lack a plate, which validates the studies’ focus on heavy cushioning without other confounding variables such as 100% superfoam and propulsion plates.

But regardless, 5.7% longer to exhaustion on max test is my main takeaway here. That’s a stunning amount. However, if the control was the Nike React, that’s not saying much. That shoe might be the slowest Nike produced in the last decade.

I misattributed the 273g to the test, not the control, so scratch that.

Maybe the shoe was the tempo with the peg upper- I’ve seen some YouTubers speculating on what Nike was doing with that prototype.

The Tempo has a nylon plate and a combination of React and ZoomX. The React makes up the heel and most of the mid-foot. My guess is they wouldn't use the Tempo as it's one of the new super-daily trainers so not the kind of bog standard shoe you need as a control. The Peg makes most sense and comes in close to the stated weight (Peg officially comes in at 290g), which may be slightly different due to the sizes used by the testers

Oh please, this is a silly strawman. Icons remain icons due to how they stacked up to their contemporary competitors and records. Nobody except a few backwater message board dorks has Pre’s 5K PR or Shorter’s marathon PR memorized. But many remember how many medals they won or how dominant they were in racing.

The Pegasus makes little sense as it is well cushioned, and therefore it is not the control shoe.

The paper is BS, as it is not serious to not mention the shoes. Another 'sientific work' sponsored by Nike. But good to now that a new prototype, whatever that is, is not better as existing supershoes. So no improvement. 3% was measured before.