Get em while they last!
Get em while they last!
No thanks
Well, it's not $250. You're racing in something, likely a $100 or so shoe, so the delta is $150 if you want to race as fast as possible. I get it, they are not for everyone, but damn they are good.
How much does it actually make you run faster? Like, does it just make a difference over a marathon or would it help on like a 5k too? I’m in high school, so I don’t have $250 to shell out for shoes, I’m just wondering, lol.
seethat wrote:
Well, it's not $250. You're racing in something, likely a $100 or so shoe, so the delta is $150 if you want to race as fast as possible. I get it, they are not for everyone, but damn they are good.
Thanks, Nike Employee #2!
But no, the delta isn't $150. I bought my last 2 racers (Lunaracers and Streak 6) for $30 (ebay) and $65 (amazon). Delta of the average is $202.50, or 4.26316 pairs of new shoes.
Maybe if I get my fitness to the point where the marathon OTQ is a possibility I'd pay an outrageous sum to try to make that happen. Otherwise, shaving 20 seconds off a meaningless time isn't worth 5x's the cost of my current racers.
LoneStarXC wrote:
How much does it actually make you run faster? Like, does it just make a difference over a marathon or would it help on like a 5k too? I’m in high school, so I don’t have $250 to shell out for shoes, I’m just wondering, lol.
Thing is, there is no data to answer this question. Only conjecture.
Besides they'd make a terrible 5k shoe. You're 10x's better off with spikes.
meh
The Nike marketing on this is brilliant. They'll be teaching it in business schools for decades.
Says the person who hasn't run in them. You can whine all you want about the cost, but if you haven't experienced them on your feet at a quick pace, you have no idea what you're talking about. Best money I have ever spent on my running.
asdfasdfasdfdsfd wrote:
The Nike marketing on this is brilliant. They'll be teaching it in business schools for decades.
Why do they sell out so fast? Somebody must like them.
This is the year I am going to break 5:30 in the 'thon thanks to these shoes!
And.......they're sold out again.
I wore them in a 5K this past weekend. They weren't awful. but wouldn't be my first choice for that distance. They are fast but clunky, and it's hard to get up to speed quickly in them. I also find that I have to slow down to turn in them, even when the turn isn't all that tight.
For a 5K-10K on a loop course, they'd be OK. But I wouldn't want to wear them on a race course with a lot of turns. I really wouldn't want to wear them on any surface other than smooth asphalt or concrete. I definitely would not wear them on the track or off-road.
If you're not racing 10 miles or longer, I don't think they're worth it.
These are the Beanie Babies of running shoes. False limited supply. Fvck Nyke!
$250 is a joke wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
How much does it actually make you run faster? Like, does it just make a difference over a marathon or would it help on like a 5k too? I’m in high school, so I don’t have $250 to shell out for shoes, I’m just wondering, lol.
Thing is, there is no data to answer this question. Only conjecture.
Besides they'd make a terrible 5k shoe.
Why? I would be running a lot closer to the pace they are designed to be run in when doing a 5k than a marathon. A lot of people are saying they'd be a terrible 5k shoe, but offering no reasoning.
Good point. I think one of the other things that need to be considered about the VF4% is whether the $250 could be put toward some other running related expenditure that would make running more enjoyable than a claimed "4% efficiency increase".
$250 is 2+ half marathon entries. $250 is 4 massage sessions. $250 is probably more than the copay on something that your health insurance covers. $250 is enough to actually shop tracksmith or nike gyakusou and buy a cool race kit. Heck, $250 is a pair of Nike Zoom Flys + a decent night out.
At present I can think of a lot of run related stuff I would rather spend $250 on.
.... I just think the "reasoning" being offered here is Nike hatred ($250, etc). I get it, I'm no fan of Nike, either. But I'd like to hear some sound evidence as to why these shoes and their supposed technology wouldn't be beneficial for a 5k.
lollerama wrote:
.... I just think the "reasoning" being offered here is Nike hatred ($250, etc). I get it, I'm no fan of Nike, either. But I'd like to hear some sound evidence as to why these shoes and their supposed technology wouldn't be beneficial for a 5k.
I haven't done a controlled test, but (as I noted above) I wore them in a 5K road race on Monday. I was 45 seconds off of my PR from last summer (when I wore the Takumi Sen), but that doesn't mean much. Monday's course was hilly and slightly longer than 5K (they misplaced the finish line), and the weather (14 degrees and windy) slowed me as well. So not a good comparison.
What I can tell you is that the Vaporflys feel like bullet trains, while my Takumi Sens feel like sports cars. It was hard to get up to speed off of the line with the Vaporflies. And I feel like I can't surge in them. It's weird running with them - like you're got a lot of inertia. Once you get up to speed, it seems easier to hold speed in them than other shoes.
They also turn very poorly. In a longer race like a half or full, any time you lose slowing down for a turn can be made up elsewhere. There's a lot less space to make up that time in a 5K. And you have to slow down relatively more in a 5K than in a marathon for the same turn.
Does that explain it?
I haven't run in the Vaporfly that much - just one easy 10 miler (which sucked), one 2x2mile workout, and then a 5K race. If I was going for a PR in the 5K, I'd go with my Takumi Sen. For my upcoming half-marathon, I plan to wear the Vaporfly.
{since you're going to ask - I'm a masters female with a recent 5K PR of just under 19 minutes. It is possible that runners at a completely different pace and ability level from me might have a different experience with the shoe]
If it helps explain it, the Vaporfly feels like the child of a Mizuno flat (that wave plate) and a Hoka trainer (that really thick, high stack, cushioned sole).
darkwave wrote:
If it helps explain it, the Vaporfly feels like the child of a Mizuno flat (that wave plate) and a Hoka trainer (that really thick, high stack, cushioned sole).
Thanks a lot - your explanation is excellent, particularly as the other shoes you mentioned (Takumi Sen and Mizuno flats) have been my last two training/racing shoes for a couple years.