Has anybody heard of this? For the London Marathon, Mo Farah is supposed to be getting some shoe that will cost tons of money, just for his form. And Salazar thinks it will help him get the world record, knowing Alberto, he's not kidding. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10306178/Mo-Farahs-super-shoes-could-lead-to-world-record-challenge-in-London-Marathon-says-his-coach.html
Yeah I don't think that will make him get the world record. This is kind of unbelievable in the sense that the whole nike team thinks this will matter.
Alan spiderweb wrote:
Has anybody heard of this? For the London Marathon, Mo Farah is supposed to be getting some shoe that will cost tons of money, just for his form. And Salazar thinks it will help him get the world record, knowing Alberto, he's not kidding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10306178/Mo-Farahs-super-shoes-could-lead-to-world-record-challenge-in-London-Marathon-says-his-coach.html
Good find with that article from September. I don't remember reading that but it came out the day before my first anniversary and I was out of town.
I'm VERY skeptical. So the technology exists out there for a shoe to turn a big stride and make it efficient for a marathon? One that "could theoretically help take two minutes off any projected debut time". Really?
Has anyone ever heard of any shoe doing that in the history of mankind? 2 minutes? Five seconds a mile? Really? Suddenly one is going to be invented in the span of 6 months?
Sure why not? I mean Farah is already so good we're practically in fantasy land already with the 3:28 1500. If that translates to the marathon somehow, my goodness.
I was thinking the other day, "i should make some predictions for 2014" and the first thing was "Mo Farah isn't going to win the London Marathon."
To doubt Mo/Alberto seems foolish, but that's what popped into my head. Why? Because running is supposed to logically make sense to me. Why would a guy whose best personal best is his 1500 pb be amazing at the marathon? Everyone has to have an Achilles heel don't they?
Haile G's was xc.
I guess it's almost possible- 5sec/mile... probably not. But if you move the spring to the right point and bevel the heel correctly(not for the masses, but for one particular stride), provide the absolute correct amount of pronation control through posts/ramps, as well as provide the correct foam density/durometer for the weight being 'cushioned', I guess it's possible to make someone have a lower Vv02 and vLT while running in that shoe on pavement. In reality, it will probably depend more upon how the athlete feels on race day and what moves he/she decides to make during the event, the weather, what the competition does, etc. I am thinking that this is a marketing move for future running shoes that can possibly attempt to adapt to a runners stride(more so than dynamic support/lunar/anything else current).
rojo wrote:
I'm VERY skeptical. So the technology exists out there for a shoe to turn a big stride and make it efficient for a marathon? One that "could theoretically help take two minutes off any projected debut time". Really?
Sounds like a safe claim to me... 2 minutes off a theoretical debut time, where you have no other times to compare it to... how can you argue against that?
The real question to answer is "shave two minutes off WHAT"? It's pretty trivial to make a shoe that can shave 2min off of a marathon done in trainers just by making it lighter. Your average trainer weights ~11oz, and high-end racing flats weigh ~4oz. 7oz is 200g. Scientific research shows that every 100g of mass on your foot translates to a 1% increase in oxygen cost, which might be where Salazar is getting this two minute figure (~1.6% over a 2:05 marathon, not counting that oxygen cost is not 1:1 with running time).
Of course, there's a lower limit on how light a shoe can get. Go too light, and you don't have enough cushioning underfoot, and you actually become less efficient, for a few reasons which I won't go into now unless you want to hear more.
Anyways, what we are likely to see is an ultralight shoe that still has adequate cushioning for Mo Farah to run a marathon in, and tailored specifically for his feet. It could perhaps be well under 3oz, which, compared to a middle-of-the-road racing flat, would indeed shave (in theory) a substantial amount of time off of Mo Farah's marathon time, assuming the cushioning was indeed adequate for him.
The "tailored to his feet" part doesn't mean there's going to be any real biomechanical magic going on. It probably just means they'll fit the shoe to Mo's foot specifically. I remember reading about how Nike took X-rays of Bob Kennedy's feet so they could figure out where to put the spike holes on his racing shoes so they didn't push directly on his metatarsal heads. Silly, I suppose, but if you've got the money, why not? Similarly, Salazar had Nike's biomechanics guru make special shoes for Ritz which were supposed to fix all of his injuries—the shoes had variable stiffness in the midsole near Ritz's metatarsal heads, with the idea being to transfer less stress onto whichever metatarsal it was that was bothering him. Now, this is a lot easier to do with a custom orthotic than a custom shoe midsole, but again, if you've got the money, why not? Maybe in Mo's shoe they'll put a bit more cushioning under the forefoot because he has a "loping" stride, or maybe they'll position the rubber on the outsole to give him maximum traction based on his plantar pressure distribution while running. I dunno. What I can say with reasonable certainty is that there isn't going to be any groundbreaking technology revealed in this shoe.
Now, we can always dream. Maybe Nike has secretly spent millions of dollars developing a real breakthrough, like mechanical cushioning (instead of what we have now, which is viscoelastic cushioning). Maybe this new technological breakthrough will debut with Mo at London and he'll run an incredible time. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.
More reading on shoe weight, cushioning, and efficiency:
Franz, J. R.; Wierzbinski, C. M.; Kram, R., Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2012, 1519-25.
Northern Star wrote:
Now, we can always dream. Maybe Nike has secretly spent millions of dollars developing a real breakthrough, like mechanical cushioning (instead of what we have now, which is viscoelastic cushioning). Maybe this new technological breakthrough will debut with Mo at London and he'll run an incredible time. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Or Nike based spent millions on something other than "super shoes" and is using that as a cover. Everyone buy our super shoes!
The question is, does Nike actually think their "shoe technology" will help Farah break the world record, or are they so confident in his marathon debut that they're using it as a marketing point?
It's a very clever marketing campaign from Nike but Mo Farah haven't thought it through going along with it - BECAUSE if he breaks the WR in them everyone will forever wonder if it was him or the shoes.
IMHO he should run his first one or two marathons in a regular top shoe from Nike - if he breaks the WR in those everyone will forever know it was himself that did it.
Then he can go on to run his next marathons in the new shoe - and if it's really that good, if it really shaves off minutes, then everyone in the whole world will buy nothing but Nike for the following ten years.
Peter Andersson wrote:
IMHO he should run his first one or two marathons in a regular top shoe from Nike - if he breaks the WR in those everyone will forever know it was himself that did it.
If he runs a WR his first time out we will be worshipping Mo/Salazar/Nike forever... no need to waste time in the "regular shoes."
Will probably be a copy of the Hoka.
Northern Star wrote:The real question to answer is "shave two minutes off WHAT"? It's pretty trivial to make a shoe that can shave 2min off of a marathon done in trainers just by making it lighter. Your average trainer weights ~11oz, and high-end racing flats weigh ~4oz. 7oz is 200g. Scientific research shows that every 100g of mass on your foot translates to a 1% increase in oxygen cost, which might be where Salazar is getting this two minute figure (~1.6% over a 2:05 marathon, not counting that oxygen cost is not 1:1 with running time)..
this doesn't tally with real world physics
if mo weighs ~ 60kg, all in including 11oz shoes, & assuming he coud go 2"05'00.00 in those, knocking off 100g or 200g, woud give theoretical times of
100g less -> (59.9/60.0)^3 * 125'00.00 = 2"04'55.83
200g less -> (59.8/60.0)^3 * 125'00.00 = 2"04'51.65
lighter shoes woud knock off ~ 5 - 10s depending on weight reduction of shoes
it's not much & weight certainly isn't the decisive factor in these "new" shoes
ventolin^3 wrote:
100g less -> (59.9/60.0)^3 * 125'00.00 = 2"04'55.83
200g less -> (59.8/60.0)^3 * 125'00.00 = 2"04'51.65
What's this formula?
There is no such thing as a shoe that makes you faster....it's all bunch of saladbar gimmicks
Brilliant campaign, IF he runs about 1-2 minutes faster than predicted from experts and pre race calculations he already has a reason tailored for him to dodge some unpleasant questions.
Same thing with a guy i remember who improved his 5k from 13:40 to 13:15 in a 6 month span after 8 years of stagnation. His answer 'i run my easy run 40s/mile faster now.'
The public will hang on to this and all the kids be screaming like 'oh my god, i need to do this as well to step up my game AND in combination with MO super shoes I will improve from 34 10k to 31min' on the message boards.
This is even wors than NOT knowing anything about elite training at all like it was before the age of internet.
Hardloper wrote:What's this formula?
you can derive it from here :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.htmlmass changes ( we are talking small, not losing muscle ) with speed, are a cubic dependency
if a 60kg guy coud run 2"05'00.00 but was carrying 1kg of unnecessary blubber, his theoretical time at ideal 59kg woud be :
125'00.00 * ( 59/60 )^3 =
2"04'18.1
The thing I could conceive of is having some type of Kevlar or other high strength fibers (flywire?) running throughout the shoe (upper and in the sole) which can be individually adjusted (tightened or loosened) to modify the shape of the shoe based on signals from some sort of biomechanical sensors (pressure transducers maybe?)
It would be great for a training shoe which lowered the chance of injury, but I just don't see it being light enough of even effective enough to include it in a racing flat for a world class athlete. Maybe 'm underestimating the technology though.
Do I understand this right and you used a formula for power needed to overcome drag when an object is moving through a fluid to calculate the effect of removing a kilogram from a runner on his race time? You equated drag coefficient x density x cross section with mass?
ventolin^3 wrote:
Hardloper wrote:What's this formula?you can derive it from here :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.htmlmass changes ( we are talking small, not losing muscle ) with speed, are a cubic dependency
if a 60kg guy coud run 2"05'00.00 but was carrying 1kg of unnecessary blubber, his theoretical time at ideal 59kg woud be :
125'00.00 * ( 59/60 )^3 =
2"04'18.1
This formula takes no account as for where the weight will be placed on a person. Would you rather run a race with a 5 pound weight strapped to your back, or two 2.5 pound weights strapped to your ankles?
With that said, this is a great gimmick and an unfalsifiable claim. Take 2 minutes off a person's debut? That makes no sense. If the claim was that is would take 2 min off a pr, it would be slightly better.
Sounds like some technical explanation to avoid questions about something else... He ran so fast must be the shoes....or could it be the zero gravity treadmill... The oxygen sleeping chambers....