The reality is that none of these foams are actually very new at all. These current foams have all existed for years just in other industries, they have simply found a home in running product which as we know started on the road and made its way to the track.
My point is, there isn't just this boundless pandoras box of potential "new foams" or "midsole materials" out there, there just isn't - and certainly not ones that don't get immediately banned. The best thing you could probably make a spike out of would be a carbon fiber leaf spring, similar to a prosthetic blade (best combo of weight and energy return) - but that's never happening. And everything has a trade off - make your foam lighter (less dense) lose your ground force efficiency and resiliency. Make it more "springy" and reactive, you will increase weight. There are simple physical boundaries for optimum performance and we unfortunately are playing very close to the edges right now.
Hey - you can build a bridge out of cardboard if you want - doesn't mean it's long term viable.
There is no super spike making a mockery of sub-4 in the future - not for women.
I was aware that the foams were mostly preexisting. I actually have a degree in materials engineering, so I understand there are tradeoffs, and you may have assessed those correctly (I haven't looked into it, as it's never been my field of work or interest in decades.) That's why I said "midsole materials" and yes, carbon blades came to mind as one way how shoe form can change. The current rules are just current rules. Forever is a long time. The 2016 Vaporfly prototypes were technically against the rules of the time, but snuck in and forced many rule revisions since then.
The bouncy indoor tracks are also tuned to be fast. There could be future changes in the tracks and rules to make them faster. No, I haven't studied how close they are to possible theoretical limits. This is just a dumb LR thread. Forever is a long time.
The reality is that none of these foams are actually very new at all. These current foams have all existed for years just in other industries, they have simply found a home in running product which as we know started on the road and made its way to the track.
My point is, there isn't just this boundless pandoras box of potential "new foams" or "midsole materials" out there, there just isn't - and certainly not ones that don't get immediately banned. The best thing you could probably make a spike out of would be a carbon fiber leaf spring, similar to a prosthetic blade (best combo of weight and energy return) - but that's never happening. And everything has a trade off - make your foam lighter (less dense) lose your ground force efficiency and resiliency. Make it more "springy" and reactive, you will increase weight. There are simple physical boundaries for optimum performance and we unfortunately are playing very close to the edges right now.
Hey - you can build a bridge out of cardboard if you want - doesn't mean it's long term viable.
There is no super spike making a mockery of sub-4 in the future - not for women.
I was aware that the foams were mostly preexisting. I actually have a degree in materials engineering, so I understand there are tradeoffs, and you may have assessed those correctly (I haven't looked into it, as it's never been my field of work or interest in decades.) That's why I said "midsole materials" and yes, carbon blades came to mind as one way how shoe form can change. The current rules are just current rules. Forever is a long time. The 2016 Vaporfly prototypes were technically against the rules of the time, but snuck in and forced many rule revisions since then.
The bouncy indoor tracks are also tuned to be fast. There could be future changes in the tracks and rules to make them faster. No, I haven't studied how close they are to possible theoretical limits. This is just a dumb LR thread. Forever is a long time.
Hey funnily enough so do I - then we speak the same language.
Re Nike in 2016, one thing that is important to note is that nothing that made its way to production/legality in the eyes of WA was in essence new. WA couldn't stop plates, curved single plane plates or any foams because of prior art in the sport. What they could do was a) ban multi plane plate setups (ie. two plates on top of each other/leaf springs style plates and b) limit things like stack height which directly correlates to the amount of foam in the shoes. And honestly that was kind of a null and void move anyway because at 35-40mm off the ground, shoes were becoming inherently unstable (an issue the AF has now) and it was a situation of diminishing returns because obvious more foam is more weight and less ground force articulation.
So yeah, Nike forced rule revisions but not overly extreme ones and not ones that honestly would have made a huge difference - example can you imagine an elite track runner lining up with a spike that has 50mm of foam (or any cushioning mechanism) underfoot and needing to run around a track? I can't.
You make a good point about tracks though, but again - this is so easy for WA to control and they will control it. Monaco could build a 400m asymmetrically banked track out of bouncy plywood like BU - but the WR's hold too much history of being run on flat 400m tracks with a very slow moving pipeline of innovation impacting them. Tokyo in '21 was blazing fast by Mondo standards - but the difference between that track and say Atlanta in 1996 which was also blazing fast but in a different way (just hard as concrete) wasn't massive.
Getting back to the original question - is a very regulated a slow moving evolution of innovation in shoes or tracks enough to support a 2.2% drop in performance from a level that we know was favourably impacted by doping and now the benefits of pacing (and equipment but more so pacing)? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Wouldnt be shocked if faith or tsegay did a record ineligible womens sub 4 attempt.
Straight road race, illegal shoes, 4 male pacers breaking the wind running exactly 60s quarters. Maybe even a slightly downhill course. Would be pretty cool tbh
Faith needs to do the WaveRunner downhill mile first, and then a few years later the legit sub 4 will come.
Are you saying a 3:50.09 1500m is better than a 4:07.64 mile? Because thats what the records were on July 2023. The women will be under 4:05 very soon, but thats a long way from 4:00.
Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely certain? Maybe you want to check on that one more time, just in case?
Oops you were right. Not sure why I thought she ran the mile record fist.