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

El Muchacho Peronista wrote:

$250 shoes wrote: So, who spends $250 on their running shoes? Anyone here?

I wouldn't. But after you buy them, I'll take a dump in them. How about that for a deal?

I took a dump on your mother´s face last night. She liked it.

Portland , eh?

The shoe doesn't promise 4% off of your PR, it is only claiming to provide a 4% increase in efficiency. This means that it will be 4% easier to run your PR time. There may be a correlation between an increase in efficiency and faster times, but there is by no means any certainty to this, so I don't think Nike is actually claiming that you will run 4% faster.

The curved carbon fiber plate inside the shoe will apparently put less strain on the legs (due to the increased efficiency). The shoe is obviously not fine tuned to the average person's stride, but I find it likely that the shoe will offer an excellent ride and MIGHT lead to an increase in performance. Either way, I am itching to get my hands on a pair and see what they can do. I don't spend a huge amount of money on running shoes to begin with, so while the $250 may set me back a bit, if these really are a great innovative pair of shoes I think it may be worth it.

From the NYT article:

"saves 4 percent of the energy needed to run at a given speed when compared with another of its popular racing shoes."

Which shoe? 4% better than what is out there?

PS: You can get innovative carbon fiber shoes now for only $120.00

https://amplasport.com/products/ampla-fly-mens-black

proplated wrote:

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.

My guess is that it was a trade off with injury, especially for mere mortals (non-elite athletes).

I think for most people they'd be wise to think of technical gear as the final step to look at for improving performance once they've exhausted all other avenues. If you are at ideal body race weight, run optimal miles, hitting all your workouts and you've now plateaued - sure, look to shoes to eek out that extra little bit. But, until then, everything else will give you much better results than new shoes - lose some weight, run more miles, do great workouts, etc.

Merits of the shoes to one side for a moment, I'm old enought to test the first pair of Tailwinds, but thinking "I'll be damned if I'll ever spend fifty bucks on a pair of shoes."

This. You guys are clowns if you fall for this kind of lame marketing. I have routing access to the Nike Company Store and will not pay $125 for these...

*routine

The metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint dissipates energy so this paper (partially sponsored by Adidas) thought that adding carbon fiber insoles could reduce that.

They found about 1% savings in running economy, but the energy dissipated in the joint was the same. They did not describe the mechanism which improved the economy. The insoles were just plates so it seems like improvements could be made there.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16540846

They seem to refer to another paper that gives a theoretical calculation of a savings of 2% possible from the MTP joint.

If those are both true, then it doesn't seem outlandish that 4% could be obtained by optimizing these methods. 4% better than the original Adios or others would be doubtful in my mind though.

So Nike figured out how to slip "vape" into the name of their top-of-the-line running shoe? smh

The $250 does not bother me, I might try them if I hear good things from actual users, but I'm skeptical that they could be more awesome than Lunar Racers. They will likely be slightly heavier.

cyhawk wrote:

The $250 does not bother me, I might try them if I hear good things from actual users, but I'm skeptical that they could be more awesome than Lunar Racers. They will likely be slightly heavier.

There are 3 wear testers on here that should help alleviate some of your healthy skepticism.

I hope they remembered to glue the insoles in.

$250 shoes wrote:

That just seems like a lot of money to me, and unless you are a pro (where you would get the shoes for free), what do you gain spending that much more cash for shoes?

So, who spends $250 on their running shoes? Anyone here?

When you live in Sydney, Aus, shoes typically cost ~$250

I'd buy them today if available.

$250- nothing if they give me 1 minute in a marathon I'd take it

Just having new sweet shoes always makes me feel faster.

returningor wrote:

When you live in Sydney, Aus, shoes typically cost ~$250

I was just visiting my brother in Sydney (well, a few months ago) - everything there is more expensive. Especially beer. Why is your beer so expensive? And not very good?

Anyway - I think the new Vaporfly will probably be more like $350 in Sydney... will you buy them?

The impressive thing about Sydney was how many people are out running at lunch time. I've never seen so many people running at lunch. Was actually kind of crazy.

"But adidas stopped the proplate concept and I wonder why."

I think the innovation of carbon fiber for running shoes is far less than those used in tennis rackets. Carbon may feel great but the absorption, seems

to me, to wreck havoc on the shins and knees.

From what I heard they are talking more about the energy return from the foam. On the RW podcast the Nike guy was saying they were getting 95% energy return. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall the plate really being the focus of the conversation.

Uriel. wrote:

I drive a big booty wrote:

Sorry, but $250 is NOT a lot of money. I see lots of homeless people in my city wearing shoes more expensive than that.

0/10

He's right. Hate to say it but if you think $250 is a lot, you're poor. $250 to me feels like $20 to you.