NYTimes Jere Longman article questions legality of Nike Vaporfly shoe

People forget that Rupp was already wearing a pair of these on his way to a bronze medal in Rio (and not DQ'd for unfair shoes).

Did they help help run faster? Yes

Did he cut over minutes off the time he would've ran in other racing flats?

Probably not.

MarathonMind wrote:

from the article:

In 2007, during the Pistorius track case, the I.A.A.F. introduced a rule prohibiting technical aids that use springs or wheels, which seemed aimed at his use of J-shaped carbon-fiber blades. That year, Spira Footwear said its running shoes were banned because of spring technology that the federation deemed improper.

also found this Outside article from 2 years ago interesting. At the closing of the article, IAAF confirms it will absolutely ban a mechanical spring shoe. outsideonline.com/1930921/will-next-gen-running-shoes-be-banned

Sure, the Spira shoe had actual springs in it. The Vaporfly doesn't. End of story.

MarathonMind wrote:

Yes, it's exactly that. The concept is "energy return" and it's also exactly why the Spira shoe was banned. The spring action of the shoe allows the runner to use less of their own energy. Same action, different materials.

We went over this about two weeks ago in a different thread that you must have missed. Any engineer can tell you that springs come in many forms. For example air springs have been in many Nikes for a long time in the form of air bags. The Zoom Air unit is a airbag that is preloaded by strands of fibers connecting the top and bottom of the bag. Those are real springs just as much as the air springs in my 23 year old mountain bike fork (not new technology!), air springs in truck and car suspensions, steel coil springs, steel or fiberglass leaf springs, and carbon fiber springs.

The Boost material is also a spring. The store displays that compared Boost to EVA using steel balls bouncing on the materials were in many running stores when Boost came out, and you could see the substantial increase in energy return in the Boost. Similar elastomer materials were used in mountain bike forks in the '80s and 90s. This is energy return.

The Adidas Boost advantage is so good that most of the top marathon times ever run, including the current WR, were run in the Adios despite the shoe being quite heavy for a race shoe. Now Saucony, Altra, Puma, apparently Nike in this shoe, and some other brands have similar foams.

The "Torsion" plates in some Adidas shoes that go into the forefoot that I already mentioned in this thread are just as much springs as carbon plates.

So there are already springs in many different models of shoes that consumers can go out and buy. The Nike Vaporfly, with its springy foam and carbon plate, is using concepts that are used in other shoes that have been on the market already. Maybe the execution is better, maybe not and it's just a sales job. I'm not a Nike fan, but a shoe that is just an execution of existing concepts that are already in other shoes shouldn't be illegal.

For the engineers and biomechanics experts out there ... is it possible the new shoe Is better suited to some elite runners vs others? (To be clear -- not weighing in on whether it is unfair or not -- I don't know).

I must admit that I was surprised by the recent half results for Amy Hastings Cragg and Jordan H. -- a huge PR for Amy well into her career, and a time for Jordan that seems quick give.previous results on the track and road. Compare these results to Shalane Flanagan -- her performance at RIO seems more consistent with prior results. (As an aside, I would be interested to know what she was wearing on the treadmill when she got injured recently.)

Before the Nike types freak out, I am perfectly open to the idea that the shoes made no real difference -- Amy has had a good chunk of time training with BTC and Flanagan at this point, and the course and weather may have been great. Hasay appears to have had an uninterrupted block on injury free training, and she may just be a natural half/ full runner.

Just interested in getting an expert's perspective.

That NY Times article is basically "paid content".

I thought that after they put up the paywall they didn't need this, but the buzzfeed-style journalism can't be stopped.

FAKE NEWS it is.

Illinoisphotographer wrote:

Are we banning track spikes too? Because the Vaporfly is essentially a track spike with cushioning and a thin rubber outsole.

Funnily enough some track spikes in the past have been banned from competition. Puma's brush spikes were banned from the 1968 Olympics for example ...

zzzz wrote:The Adidas Boost advantage is so good that most of the top marathon times ever run, including the current WR, were run in the Adios ... a shoe that is just an execution of existing concepts that are already in other shoes shouldn't be illegal.

MarathonMind wrote:

Interesting thoughts.

IMO, there's going to be a two-tier shoe market. The pros will have shoes with carbon tuned to their weight and stride. It will benefit them greatly. These shoes will not be available except to sponsored athletes.

The consumer will have a stripped down version with generic carbon tuned to average overweight runner. It won't be as good for fast runners, and won't work as well for sub-elite or elites sponsored by other brands. It will, however, cost plenty. IMO.

Ed Caesar (Two Hours) is on board.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/nikes-controversial-new-shoes-made-run-faster/

Seriously, the guy should be banned from the internet.

Tucker is a retard wrote:

Seriously, the guy should be banned from the internet.

Agree. Any "scientist" that spends as much time on Twitter as Tucker, cannot possibly be a scientist. Free State = Free Time