Breaking: Science of Sport calls for Nike Vaporfly Elite to be banned

It's funny as just the other day I was thinking about this topic and I thought to myself, "If this ends up with people calling for the shoes to be banned, I wonder if that's exactly what Nike was looking for. To get the idea out there that their technology is superior is worth a ton - do they really care about the WR or medals?"

The other thought I had was, "If their technology is so much better than everyone else's , can someone please explain to me why the last 5 men's world records have been set by someone wearing adidas?"

2:04:26 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 30, 2007- adidas

2:03:59 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 28, 2008 - adidas

2:03:38 Patrick Makau Kenya September 25, 2011 -adidas

2:03:23 Wilson Kipsang Kenya September 29, 2013 -adidas

2:02:57 Dennis Kimetto Kenya September 28, 2014 - adidas

Maybe that fact leads to my initial thought?

Bunch of nonsense. If you set a sole thickness maximum and ban any "active" components in the shoe, there is essentially no chance of these passive components offering anything that other shoe companies cannot immediately copy.

Setting a maximum thickness is the key though, if you allow too large of a thickness, it allows you to tune the shoes to where they can become a massive benefit. Oscar pistorius ran on the equivalent of 2 foot thick shoes with springs in then, which allowed them to be tuned to his body weight and return nearly 100% of the energy at a certain range of running paces. If his blades were shorter, they would have needed to be less stiff to maintain the same tuning. Eventually as the thickness decreases, the stiffness will need to be so low that it is a negative stiffness, which of course doesn't exist.

Spikes in certain events already have a maximum thickness, so this is not unprecedented. For example, long jump has a specified thickness allowed in the iaaf rule book. It was originally to prevent athletes from gaining an advantage by basically jumping off of a platform.

But to ban something for being "intended" as a spring is obviously not possible. Everybody will just claim everything is intended as cushioning then.

There are some valid discussion points here, but personally I don't think this crosses the line. I haven't physically seen the shoes yet, but it sounds to me that the majority of the return is coming from the foam, similar to the boosts. As noted, carbon plates are nothing new, and if I recall correctly the whole point of having a carbon plate on the vic 2's was specifically for "energy return". Trying to legally define an angle offset or curvature where that becomes bannable would be tough.

I personally don't believe the swimsuits should have been banned either, because it's just natural progression in sports science. If the Spring Blades worked as advertised I would be quick to shoot them down because of the blatant, observable function of the springs, but innovation through better materials is only natural. By even calling for a ban we are encouraging this behaviour further because it will give them free publicity and thus increase sales.

why were those small motors banned for bike races?

They will respond with "why not run barefoot"?

Place a limit on mechanical advantage then ban.

Re: adidas

There are athletes who sell better because they have more appeal to the US market even if they do not set records.

I agree it should be banned if in the end the shoes are that much of a factor to enhance performance. It's like PEDs for your feet, companies will see a new dawn of a shoe era if Nike succeeds. It's not like our sport isn't having enough issues without these shoes.

Lol honestly though this is why I will NEVER EVER get into Competitive triathlon, if you don't have the best most expensive bike you will get schooled into the ground.

I support these spring shoes. You are all Luddites who stand in the way of running progression.

rojo wrote:

It's funny as just the other day I was thinking about this topic and I thought to myself, "If this ends up with people calling for the shoes to be banned, I wonder if that's exactly what Nike was looking for. To get the idea out there that their technology is superior is worth a ton - do they really care about the WR or medals?"

The other thought I had was, "If their technology is so much better than everyone else's , can someone please explain to me why the last 5 men's world records have been set by someone wearing adidas?"

2:04:26 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 30, 2007- adidas

2:03:59 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia September 28, 2008 - adidas

2:03:38 Patrick Makau Kenya September 25, 2011 -adidas

2:03:23 Wilson Kipsang Kenya September 29, 2013 -adidas

2:02:57 Dennis Kimetto Kenya September 28, 2014 - adidas

Maybe that fact leads to my initial thought?

I think you're right. They're goal is to make as much money as possible, and if they can set a few records in the process, great. If not, well at least they still got good press out of the deal. I doubt they care about it more than marginally.

Nike's are made in third world countries by children, let's not pretend like they are in it for the greater good.

GrandmaFilly wrote:

Lol honestly though this is why I will NEVER EVER get into Competitive triathlon, if you don't have the best most expensive bike you will get schooled into the ground.

I can believe that. Just think if these companies have 3 years (or less) to develop something far exceeding the Nike prototype. Nike cares about one thing, like all corporate giants, and that's money. Turns out these shoes work and Nike has the patents that's a direct revenue of new sales straight to their shopping cart. Even if the major competitive races ban the shoes, it creates an unfair advantage on the micro level too. I don't wanna get beat some slower guy in a 10k springing along like a gazelle as he gets his 6 min pr without breaking a sweat just because he bought a 200 dollar pair of shoes. If cyclists fish out several thousand on a bike for faster PRs you better believe people will do the same for running shoes.

I may be dumb... but if I'm capable of running a 15:00 minute 5k in Nike Victories, then I run a 5k in Vaporflys, are they actually suggesting I'd be capable of sub 14:30 just because of the shoes? Or are the current shoes that everyone wears already X% higher than running barefoot, and this is just a slight addition? Or does it only apply to the marathon or something?

Might as well ban the whole Mizuno brand since their Wave Plate does the same thing. What if I have a XC flat that I use for road races? Some of those have a plastic shank. Banned as well?

If these shoes didn't have a swoosh on them I have a feeling there would be less controversy.

Too bad, grandpa. You can't stop the progress of technology. You either adapt or you lose. Runners didn't have form fitting shoes or dry wicking fabrics for running clothes in the 19th century so you are already cheating by using today's gear.

The Dingo^3 wrote:

I may be dumb... but if I'm capable of running a 15:00 minute 5k in Nike Victories, then I run a 5k in Vaporflys, are they actually suggesting I'd be capable of sub 14:30 just because of the shoes? Or are the current shoes that everyone wears already X% higher than running barefoot, and this is just a slight addition? Or does it only apply to the marathon or something?

Nike doesn't give a rats about your 5k, only whats in your wallet. They'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and provide some circumstantial evidence to get you to bite.

I am looking forward to springing like a gazelle if these aren't banned

i think that there is not an advantage in the Nike Zoom Bullshit Fly.

solid reasoning. Another way to put this is that the softest link in the chain absorbs most of the energy. If the softest thing is a 2 foot long, springy carbon fiber blade, it will absorb almost all of the energy of impact and because it's elastic return essentially all of it. Make it too short or thin and it has to be stiffer. Once the spring is stiffer than your leg/pelvis/torso, the spring absorbs little of the energy and your tissues take most of it.

Funny I was reading today that Haile thinks the last true WR was set when last run barefoot in 1960, and he personally would have taken any shoe advantage Adidas would have given him.https://www.wired.com/2017/03/nikes-controversial-new-shoes-made-run-faster/

With his customary Klieg-light smile, Gebrselassie would happily admit that when he was at his peak, he wanted the best, fastest, “dirtiest” shoes his sponsor could make him. (That would have been Adidas, not Nike.)

As an amateur inventor of three running related devices, I've often thought that running shoes could be manufactured to create more energy return using a plate as a spring or a specially formed "superball" forefoot outsole.

The challenge is tuning the device to individual running mechanics. Even a slight deviation could negate the benefits. Energy released before the foot reaches push off position is lost. Energy released after the shoe leaves the ground is lost. Energy released at the wrong point on the shoe is reduced.

According to the articles in this thread, Nike is addressing this challenge by manufacturing unique plates for each runner. Even this would be hard to do because a treadmill doesn't reflect energy return the same as asphalt.

I think just preventing top athletes from running in custom made shoes would be enough. The off-the-shelf Vaporfly Elite probably won't convey any advantage to the majority of runners.

Forcerunner wrote:

Might as well ban the whole Mizuno brand since their Wave Plate does the same thing. What if I have a XC flat that I use for road races? Some of those have a plastic shank. Banned as well?

If these shoes didn't have a swoosh on them I have a feeling there would be less controversy.

You might want to read up on the subject a bit. Little of what you said makes any sense.