Maybe the shoes did Kipchoge in? adidas goes 1-2-3 in Boston. Are adidas super shoes better than Nike's, especially in rain?

I ran in VF 2's yesterday, the only slippery areas were the lane lines, normal. I wouldn't blame shoes on Kipchoge's performance, more on his inexperience with course and or a bad day personally. Boston is probably one of the most technical marathon courses and requires experience to run it your best. As a 6 time Boston runner, I dropped 4 minutes off my course pr with a negative split in those conditions.

I dunno...his run looked very familiar to what the Boston course can do to you. Sometimes I have felt zapped around 30-35k after feeling fine just before then, and been able to finish fine. Other times cruised over the hill no problem...who knows.

Spot on. The conti rubber is so dialed. I only race my bike with conti tires on. No cyclist worth anything would race on crap rubber in the rain. Nike has no idea that the wet traction on their super shoes is so bad vs conti rubber. It very well could be the difference in his race. dry = Nike wet = adidas

Ok, so the $250 Nike shoes should only be worn in the dry. Thanks for verifying my hunch.

I tried Adios 3 over the weekend in the rain and the traction was very good, relatively speaking (relative to my Endorphins). I could see that being a difference. Some of the Nike soles (even in their trail shoes) are notoriously bad when the going gets wet, to the point that I switched out my trail shoe purchase on the basis of consistently negative views.

Not to pile on (okay maybe a little), but there's only enough material in those uppers to keep the things on your feet (same for my Adios). I don't know why you'd expect them to protect you from the weather, if you're concerned about the conditions.

Some people claim AF2's are not good for dowhill running.

@labratrundown did do some work on uphill/downhill efficiency and concluded there was a pretty small difference in performance in the supershoes.

Who is going smaller and sleeker with their marathon racers? Adidas, Saucony, and New Balance have all gotten progressively wider and bigger, and have maxed out their stack heights if they weren't already. Plus New Balance and Adidas also offer even bigger shoes.

Yeah, shoes aren't to blame. Great ad for Adidas yesterday but Kipchoge overcooked the front half and paid the price. It's similar to so many first time Boston runners who go in with a time goal, get slightly less than ideal conditions, make no adjustments, and fall off sometime between 30k & 35k. He's human. He had a very human result.

I recently bought my first pair of Puma shoes, and they're outstanding on wet roads.

Adidas shoes do better on hills - has nothing to do with rain.

Adidas does have better rubber soles.

Kipchoge said he had upper leg problems.
In every race I ever ran, especially on hills, I had upper leg problems and lung problems. That’s why running is hard. 400m hurdlers and 800m runner have especially problematic upper leg issues when they race.

Pretty sure this is mostly a difference between Adidas just sponsoring more athletes these days. Nike seems to have drastically reduced their number of runners. Just yesterday I saw Koko announce her departure from Nike for Puma.

Waterproof racing shoes? Are you joking? I never wear waterproof running shoes, not even when it's freezing cold.

Grow a pair.

You’ve actually trained and raced in that many different brands of shoes?

Continental makes very good rubber for both shoe soles and cycling tires, but the rubber itself for cycling tires is one of the least important aspects of the traction equation. Likewise, cornering traction is directly correlated with an increase in rolling resistance. I daresay no cyclist worth anything would race on functionally slower tires in the rain. Corners are such a small part of the race, it just doesn't make sense.

A running shoe is roughly 10in^2 contact area, a cycling tire is under 1in^2. At this small size by far the greatest source of friction is the surface of the road and the ability of the tire to contour around the surface. This is why cycling improvements have been seen in the casing of the tires and the tubes, but not so much for cornering ability, but for the reduction of hysteresis (bending losses) in the tube/tire.

This is the true source of traction on the adidas shoes. The rubber outsole is so incredibly thin that the midsole is able to contour it around the surface imperfections and provide mechanical grip as opposed to remaining relatively static like a traditional outsole. Of course the drawback to this is that an amount of energy is lost as the outsole/midsole bends/unbends in a direction not in line with the runner's up/down forces.

I just thought I would bump this thread to show how hilariously it aged (a week).

So the general consensus from the LRC super shoe experts after Boston was that because adidas went 1-2-3 in the mens race (throw in 2nd in the womens as well) and it was raining that they are now superior to Nike.

Okay so London just happened, in the rain, with Nike going 1-2 in both the mens and the womens and let's just throw in a 2.01.25 clocking for good measure (yes Boston is a harder course but this is a superior performance irrespective of that).

"It's the continental rubber" - "no it's the rods which are better than the plate" - "no the foam is just better". Well whatever Nike had on the bottom of their shoes today seemed to do just as well if not better in the rain that what Adidas had on the bottom of theirs a week ago.

The point really is this - shoes mean nothing without athletes. What happened in Boston wasn't because of the f-ing shoes, just like what happened in London wasn't because of the f-ing shoes. All brands footwear is better than it was a decade ago and completely comparable to each other. Why do Nike dominate some races and Adidas others? They pay the best athletes and coincidences happen (like multi-podium finishes for brands who pay the best runners on the planet).

Please by all means can one of the experts that contributed to this utterly stupid thread please come and explain what happened in London. Cheers.