These look like Hoka OneOne rip offs. People swore by the Huakas now Nike has their own version.
These look like Hoka OneOne rip offs. People swore by the Huakas now Nike has their own version.
dc-guy wrote:
For masters runners, these are golden. All that cushioning with the right amount of energy return. Could be a breakthrough.
You read my mind. I'll be ordering 3 pair as soon as possible.
A study by Dr Jack Daniels found that adding 100g (3.5oz) to a shoe increased the aerobic energy cost by 1% or just under 1s per mile. That's 40 seconds over a marathon.
Where exactly are Nike getting the other 2 minutes 20 seconds from? Are these shoes 16oz lighter than the shoes Kipchoge wore in London...?
Where does 4% come from? wrote:
A study by Dr Jack Daniels found that adding 100g (3.5oz) to a shoe increased the aerobic energy cost by 1% or just under 1s per mile. That's 40 seconds over a marathon.
Where exactly are Nike getting the other 2 minutes 20 seconds from? Are these shoes 16oz lighter than the shoes Kipchoge wore in London...?
He's probably training too.
Some people are comparing this to buying $250 trainers. These could last you a pretty long time if you only wear them for races and the occasional workout.
Unrelated - I think Dr. Kram did that shoe weight study at CU.
I'm going to buy. $250 is not a lot of money if you have a job. $250 for 4% is very worth it as others have posted. If you have the money and don't buy you aren't a real runner.
I am torn on this one. $250 is not a lot of money in other sports like cycling and not a lot of money in general but I would not get a ton of use out of them. I also would feel somewhat lame even running a 2:45 marathon with others knowing I paid that much for the shoes.
No way they improve your time by 4%. I wonder how much improvement you would get from the adidas adizero adios according to the study
The 4% is running economy not time.
Demographics wrote:
Who would spend $12K for a bicycle? Many, many people.
Majority of runners fall in a high income category and have the ability to spend $250 for a piece of gear.
After trying way too many shoes, I've finally decided that Adidas are the best shoe for me. But I will likely buy a pair of Vaporfly's. I'm curious. Plus, Amy Cragg wore them at the trials and she had a breakthrough performance.
Ability or gullibility!
Where does 4% come from? wrote:
A study by Dr Jack Daniels found that adding 100g (3.5oz) to a shoe increased the aerobic energy cost by 1% or just under 1s per mile. That's 40 seconds over a marathon.
I've always wondered about these study findings- is there not a lower limit to the weight of shoe where it does not make any difference if the shoe is any lighter? If not then why not just run barefoot? The adidas adios boost racing flats used for the marathon look to be quite "heavy" weighing over 200 g. Surely adidas researched this before launching a shoe that would be worn by several world-class marathon runners.
Bart Hersey wrote: Yes. 300 dollar shoes have been out there for about 30 years and those were shoes with no technology.
All shoes have "technology."
There's nothing about these modern shoes that's really revolutionary. And if there were, then the sport wouldn't be running anymore, and the shoe would likely be banned.
I am betting that the 4% really only applies to your marathon or half marathon time.
Cushioning vs weight. The marathoners asked for a shoe with more cushioning as opposed to a super minimal shoe.
For a 5k/10k, my guess is that you are better off going for the minimal lightweight vs the maximal cushioning. You don't need the super padding and plate and are better off going minimal and using your body's natural spring plate (achilles and arch).
Plus, that carbon plate really does the work its supposed to when you are 20mi into a race, not 2mi into a 5k road race.
A story in the Daily Mail today that the IAAF are investigating Mo Farah's shoes for springs adds the Nike Vaporfly has a carbon plate.
I am a 2017 Nike Wear Test subject. I tried these Vapoflys and was pretty impressed honestly. I was amazed how light the material on the bottom of the shoe was and for being 7 ounces, I did notice that A.) I was faster B.) I had a pretty nice "bounce" added to my stride.
The unknown quantity wrote:
Where does 4% come from? wrote:A study by Dr Jack Daniels found that adding 100g (3.5oz) to a shoe increased the aerobic energy cost by 1% or just under 1s per mile. That's 40 seconds over a marathon.
Where exactly are Nike getting the other 2 minutes 20 seconds from? Are these shoes 16oz lighter than the shoes Kipchoge wore in London...?
He's probably training too.
It's a valid question. Studies show that the aerobic cost is decreased by under 1% by removing 100g of weight from the shoe.
So how is Nike reporting these shoes will save 4%? Or allow an athlete to run sub 2:00:00? Kipchoge would have to be in ~2:01 shape for a lighter shoe to bring him under the barrier.
Bart Hersey wrote:
are you joking? wrote:Yes, it is a lot of money for shoes. Am I out of touch? I only buy my shoes on sale and last years model, so I never spend more than maybe $80. So, honestly, people will pay $250 for a pair of runners that will last at most about 4 months???
Yes. 300 dollar shoes have been out there for about 30 years and those were shoes with no technology.
Adidas also came up with some computerized shoe that was hundreds of dollars about 12 years ago.
I am old enough to remember when New Balance came out with $100.00 shoes in 1981. According to an inflation calculator that is about $280.00 today.
John Clendon wrote:
I am betting that the 4% really only applies to your marathon or half marathon time.
Cushioning vs weight. The marathoners asked for a shoe with more cushioning as opposed to a super minimal shoe.
For a 5k/10k, my guess is that you are better off going for the minimal lightweight vs the maximal cushioning. You don't need the super padding and plate and are better off going minimal and using your body's natural spring plate (achilles and arch).
Plus, that carbon plate really does the work its supposed to when you are 20mi into a race, not 2mi into a 5k road race.
Track spikes have had springy plastic plates for decades now. Carbon fibre may give slightly better energy return or allow a stiffer shoe for less weight, but it's not fundamentally any different. The amount of cushioning is the major difference.
Man, for that much couldn't they make them better looking? They are ugly...yes, I know we don't wear them for the looks, but come on. All the money and designers Nike has and they couldn't come up with something more attractive?
Isn't plastic technically a liquid whereas carbon fibre could be shaped to increase your standing vertical jump?
LA just approved a quarter cent sales tax to help alleviate the homeless problem. With this money they should buy every homeless person a pair of Vaporflys so they can run faster to the food line, crack house, and away from the law.
"Make America Not Great Again" Gilbert Salvadore Iberri Garcetti