New Nikes (Vaporfly) - is anyone here willing to spend $250 for a pair of running shoes?

800 dude wrote:

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.

Ok they had ancient technology.

The sport hasn't been running since the first shoes were developed then.

I'm no biomechanics expert, but late in a marathon, if you start fatiguing, and can't create enough ground force, wouldn't the advantages of having a carbon fiber plate in the shoe be taken away?

It would be like a 15 foot high school pole vaulter trying to jump using poles made for Renaud Lavillenie. That 15 foot pole vaulter wouldn't be able to bend the pole, and his ass would end up on the runway instead of the landing pit (extreme example).

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Damn those are ugly.

John Clendon wrote:

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.

Maybe the design is different on these nikes but I remember wearing some adidas' pro plate racing shoes about 13 years ago and I found them to put a huge amount of pressure on my calves and achilles.

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.

I'm in the same boat as you. I'll probably get it once it comes out and I consider my running hobby to be cheap compared to my previous hobbies like golf and cars.

I'm also into adidas shoes but dabbled back with Nikes lately as their Streak 6 and Elite 9 has been great.

proplated wrote:

John Clendon wrote:

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.

Maybe the design is different on these nikes but I remember wearing some adidas' pro plate racing shoes about 13 years ago and I found them to put a huge amount of pressure on my calves and achilles.

Face to palm.

Gummy chicken wrote:

proplated wrote:

Maybe the design is different on these nikes but I remember wearing some adidas' pro plate racing shoes about 13 years ago and I found them to put a huge amount of pressure on my calves and achilles.

Face to palm.

Actually, wasn't the Adidas pro plate a carbon-fibre plate in the forefoot just like the new Nikes? It was suppose to add spring? Or was it different than what Nike is doing now?

Springing back and forward between flat and launch positions it's only going to help move all that foam as well. Think of the hood of Starsky's car!

This is a drop in the bucket compared to what I used to spend on bicycles, and got almost zero improvement as a result. I'll be buying these the day I can get my hands on some.

I do have my doubts, as I wouldn't say the performances I've seen in the American pro ranks have exactly blown me away.. for example. Flanagan is perhaps the best benchmark, since she's been running consistent marathons for years. I don't think she exactly blew her PR out of the water at the trials or in Rio, but those weren't really ideal situations either. And Rupp was new to the marathon, so we don't have a "before" scenario.

But, for someone who isn't that efficient (me), perhaps the improvement will be more significant.

tippyflap wrote:

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.

Same. I've never had a road shoe that felt like I was wearing a track spike before with the energy return. It's frankly the best performance-road shoe I've ever worn.

how are they different wrote:

Actually, wasn't the Adidas pro plate a carbon-fibre plate in the forefoot just like the new Nikes? It was suppose to add spring? Or was it different than what Nike is doing now?

From my memory the adidas proplate shoes had the carbon plate going from the heel, through the midfoot and into the forefoot. The shoe was very difficult to bend in your hands and I felt it put a lot of strain on my calves but maybe that was my biomecanics. Gebrselassie used them to break his first marathon world record in 2007 so he must have liked them:

But adidas stopped the proplate concept and I wonder why.

no.

there are people who fly cross country to a fast course in search of a 1 minute PR. So yes, they will spend $250 for a pair of shoes.

Slow Bro wrote:

Yeah, 4% off my 5k time would be a 45 second PR. I'd definitely pay $250 for that!

So you are saying your 5k PR is 18:45.....

and you would actually spend 250 just to get down to the supersonic 18minute 5k barrier.

$250 for a 10 minute marathon PR, that's not a bad investment

I mean I am going to get these shoes, but is the second part a joke?

Homeless people getting $300 shoes? I mean if they have them, they aren't paying for them.

A lot of my cop buddies talk about busting homeless people all the time for trying to steal shoes. They say that it is the most common type of theft because they go through shoes very quickly.

Those shoes are stolen.

But I guess if you are going to be a thief, might as well grab the running shoes...

milethon wrote:

If the shoe actually cut 4% off my time, I would certainly buy a pair for $250.00. That would mean a mid 16 guy or gal would magically start running high 15's.

The claim that this shoe improves performance by 4% is highly unlikely. From the article I read about the shoe, it is not significantly lighter than other racing flats. In terms of weight, the shoe would have to cut out half the weight (3.5 oz) compared to other racing flats to gain a 1% advantage. As for the carbon fiber plate, I highly doubt this can account for 4% energy returns. If you are talking about a carbon fiber blade that replaces your entire lower leg (pistorious) then sure 4% seems reasonable. But a 10 inch long plate that sits flat under your foot? I don't think so. What's really happening is that the shoe is probably 4% more efficient than the heaviest trainers. But most racing flats are already 4% more efficient than trainers....don't fall for the gimmicks. Save your money.

basic math wrote:

Slow Bro wrote:

Yeah, 4% off my 5k time would be a 45 second PR. I'd definitely pay $250 for that!

So you are saying your 5k PR is 18:45.....

and you would actually spend 250 just to get down to the supersonic 18minute 5k barrier.

It's all relative, tough guy. Your 15.xx 5k is nothing to brag about in the scheme of things, I assure you.

Would any of you testers consider this shoe a good traininer?