Should the Vaporfly 4% be banned? Let's hear your opinions

Lmaoooo wrote:

Does Nike pay all of you guys to shill for them? Because they honestly should....this is the fourth thread on this I've seen this week!!!!

Didn't they start by just flooding the responses to threads that may have been innocently started? Now a step beyond to starting threads. You'd think they sell enough junky shoes to the gym/sports fans/walking pit bulls/ridicule actual runners crowds, but their desperation knows no bounds. LR moderators, can't you pick up on the origin of posts and cut them off? They can pay for advertising like anyone else!

dosomeresearch wrote:

"In truth, some experts said, debate about Nike’s latest shoes may only help increase sales to joggers and four-hour marathoners. A less expensive model than the Olympic shoe, with similar technology, goes on sale in June for $150."

From the NYT- not just a customized shoe, a different shoe with "similar technology". We don't really even know what the elites are racing in.

Wait, don't they already have? The lousy crappy and inferior ZoomFly?

dosomeresearch wrote:

From the NYT- not just a customized shoe, a different shoe with "similar technology". We don't really even know what the elites are racing in.

This is referring to the ZoomFly, NOT the VaporFly.

The elites are racing in a customized version of the VaporFly, which retails for $250, not $150. Anyone's guess to what extent it's customized. I'd be ok if it's just adjusting sizing and fit. But moving or changing position of the foam or plate pushes the limits...

I don't get the impression that the shoe Nike tested vs adidas and their other model was not a customized version; I recall reading they had trouble finding enough size 10 fast enough runners which limited the study.

I really want to give them a try. I cant find them anywhere. Well besides ebay where people are marking them up or are not new. Get on it Nike, produce more of these, I will snatch a pair ASAP.

just a reminder since everyone seems to have forgotten since last year - the US and international patents that Nike filed during their sub2 project specifically called the device a SPRING PLATE and the vaporfly (and the zoomfly to a lesser extent because of cheaper nylon) is simply a refined version of the prototype - as soon as people started pointing out that IAAF rules forbid such devices (remember the spira debacle) Nike marketing stopped talking about that and instead focused on the (massive amount) of foam - but they cannot make the language in the patents disappear now

IAAF simply needs to ban spring plates - I don't care about what kind of foam and how much they use in a shoe, there is no foam on the planet that improves running economy more than 1% and foam is necessary to recover if you are going to do major mpw week after week and run for decades

but a physical plate allows energy from one part of the footstrike to be shifted to another part of the foot like a seesaw, the Nike plate is engineered to do this, it's not straight plate, it's high in the back and low in the front to "teeter" - this is why heel strikers get 4-6% in the vapors and toe/midfoot get less

the plate also does nothing to teach you better form, if it did, you could train in vapors and then switch to flats for racing and run better, except that doesn't happen, the plate becomes a "crutch"

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2016179265&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016179265A1

Les wrote:

InformedAthlete wrote:

The version the elites wear is not the same as the shoe available for purchase. It is not available to all and that is one of the many reasons it is mechanical doping.

Of course it's not. Elite can have the shoes CUSTOMIZED for them. That goes not just for the 4% but all Nike shoes and all competitors' shoes. Obviously, the general public have to buy a version standardized for the masses, just like the off the shelf clothes we buy.

My friend and I were at the Boston Marathon expo last year, talking with one of the sales guys at the Skechers booth. We were looking at a version of Meb's racing shoes and the guy flat out said that they were similar to what Meb actually wears, however that Meb had a carbon fiber plate in his to stiffen them up. I don't know if that's just a sales guy spouting out garabage, but that is exactly what he told us. Maybe the plate isn't shaped like the one in the VF, but it is what is - seems that many elites might have carbon plates in their racing shoes. Do we know this to be common among elites? Any evidence out there which proves this claim to be true or false? Maybe that's why these shoes aren't banned? Many elites already have carbon fiber plates in their running shoes? The VF simply combines that with a new extra springy/responsive foam?

All they've done is manufacturer a shoe that's compliant (the compression of the shoe) without sacrificing resilience (amount of mechanical energy stored). They created a new foam that has both these properties like all the other brands are doing. They also added in a carbon plate that adds stiffness to the shoe, which can reduce energy costs (~1%). Carbon plates aren't new, but they are new in road racing shoes. Typically the stiffness of the carbon plate would increase stress on the joints and make the shoe a poor road flat. The combination of the new foam and plate results in a shoe that has stiffness like a mid-distance spike but still provides enough cushioning to run 26.2 miles on the road. It's incrementally better than its predecessors. Nothing more.

The shoe doesn't create energy. There's no propulsion other than the propulsion created by your own legs. In fact, like all road shoes there's still energy lost due to the compliance of the foam.

Of course it doesn't create energy, we never said it did. You mentioned how the foam is softer and has a high energy return, and how the plate adds stiffness. All of those are true. But what you left out was the shape of the carbon fiber plate.

The energy return due to the foam is being better utilized, because of the way the plate is higher at the back. The shoe does not create energy, it just properly uses what it gets. It creates a lever which mimics the natural motion of the foot as if it was barefoot (stretching of the achilles tendon and then elastically releasing energy stored).

The way I interpret this is that the Vaporfly is, like you said, trying to make up for lost energy while also being soft and taking a load off your lower legs. This seems unfair because if there is more foam, I think there should be a performance penalty due to energy lost. And those who wish to forgo this penalty should be forced to choose less or no foam.

It's letting people compromise and cheat by assisting them via a device inserted into the shoe. That is the aspect which bothers me the most. People can take all the foam they want, because they will sacrifice performance for comfort. But once an external "spring plate" is inserted into the shoe to do a lot of the work for the runner -- that's an unfair advantage.

Essentially, the VF is making it possible for runners to forget about using proper bio-mechanics without penalizing them for doing so.

As much as people wish to run faster, races need to also be fair and down to whoever is the best runner. Running should not rely on technology, specifically the type that gives runners an unfair advantage.

and again, if it's the "magic" foam Nike uses, then Nike should just make a model with the foam but no plate

which they won't do, because it's the plate that adds the extra 3%+ to running economy because it's a mechanical device, changing foot motion, energy return and preventing/limiting loss from compression

just make the same shoe without the plate Nike, but you won't because it won't work anything better than the competition, adidas boost, hoka's stack, etc.

btw to answer another comment, yes there are carbon plates you can put in your shoes, either as replacements for insoles or below insoles - but they don't work, or at least nothing remotely close to the vaporfly or zoomfly, because that's the wrong location (too high in the stack) and it's a straight plate instead of engineered like nike's seesaw

see the purple line, that's the path of the plate, not straight through like an insole which wouldn't work

https://i.imgur.com/fvLKb8S.jpg

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

btw to answer another comment, yes there are carbon plates you can put in your shoes, either as replacements for insoles or below insoles - but they don't work, or at least nothing remotely close to the vaporfly or zoomfly, because that's the wrong location (too high in the stack) and it's a straight plate instead of engineered like nike's seesaw

see the purple line, that's the path of the plate, not straight through like an insole which wouldn't work

https://i.imgur.com/fvLKb8S.jpg

It's not a seesaw. It's a leaf spring. Here's what it says in the patent link that the OP posted, and if you read more of the patent, there's accounting for future versions with or without midsoles (for spikes perhaps), and also potential for a removable spring plate. The key is the shape:

"The spring plate may have an unloaded shape in which a front portion of the spring plate in a forefoot region is downwardly bent relative to a rear portion of the spring plate located rearward of the front portion. "

That curve in plate where it dips going to the forefoot region is the top arc of the leaf spring. Imagine the leaf spring of an old truck or car (turning it upside down), or the transverse composite leaf spring out of the rear of a Corvette. It's clever in that it basically mimics the foot's natural arch structure in location and function. The foot's natural arch is also an elastic spring. Maybe runners with flat arches get more of an advantage with the shoe because their feet have less natural spring. If you were to design a prosthetic for a runner with half a foot (like the football kicker Tom Dempsey), it might look like this.

How come no one's sawed a vaporfly in half yet to look at the plate? Surely it'd get enough youtube views to cover the cost.

heyyo wrote:It's letting people compromise and cheat by assisting them via a device inserted into the shoe. That is the aspect which bothers me the most. People can take all the foam they want, because they will sacrifice performance for comfort. But once an external "spring plate" is inserted into the shoe to do a lot of the work for the runner -- that's an unfair advantage.

Essentially, the VF is making it possible for runners to forget about using proper bio-mechanics without penalizing them for doing so.

Since this discussion seems to be focusing on the plate... read here:

Ross Tucker claimed that the shoe should be banned due to the plate, and that's exactly what many are saying here. However, there are some interesting quotes in this article about what the original VF study found:

"As Ross Tucker, an influential sports scientist and blogger, put it at the time: "Any device inserted into the shoe, and which purports to add to energy return or elastic recoil or stiffness should be banned. That means the carbon fiber plate, or plastic etc but not necessarily the gels/air patches that offer cushioning, and not the foam, either."

But according to this study, at least, Tucker has it backwards. "In our lab the shoe reduced the energetic cost of running by an average of 4 percent. If you ask me what the breakdown is, I'd say about 3 percent of that is from the foam and about 1 percent from the carbon fiber plate," Kram says."

The quote from "Kram" is from biomechanist Rodger Kram, director of the CU Boulder Locomotion Lab and the original "4%" study's principal investigator.

Let's repeat what the biomechanist said: 3% energy return from the foam, 1% energy return from the carbon fiber plate.

If you've actually run in these shoes, you'll know firsthand that the foam is unique, unlike anything you've ever run in. The foam is soft and bouncy. I really wonder what the shoe would feel like without the plate. Would it be too flimsy in the toe? Is that why they added the plate?

Takeaway though - it seems Nike knocked it out of the park with the foam. That's pretty much exactly what Adidas Boost foam claimed to due. Nike just did it better. Even the biomechanist who conducted the studies agrees. How are we going to ban shoes based on foam? All shoes have foam.

ItstheFoam wrote:

But according to this study, at least, Tucker has it backwards. "In our lab the shoe reduced the energetic cost of running by an average of 4 percent. If you ask me what the breakdown is, I'd say about 3 percent of that is from the foam and about 1 percent from the carbon fiber plate," Kram says."

The study studied the shoe's effects. It was not a study on how the shoe works. That breakdown is unsupported by the study, just an opinion from Kram.

zzzz wrote:

ItstheFoam wrote:

But according to this study, at least, Tucker has it backwards. "In our lab the shoe reduced the energetic cost of running by an average of 4 percent. If you ask me what the breakdown is, I'd say about 3 percent of that is from the foam and about 1 percent from the carbon fiber plate," Kram says."

The study studied the shoe's effects. It was not a study on how the shoe works. That breakdown is unsupported by the study, just an opinion from Kram.

Agreed, good point. I think that's the missing piece here - the scientific study or authority stating that the construction of the shoe gives runners an unfair advantage. We know it does give an advantage, but is it doing so unfairly? Until we have that, and until the IAAF decides to act on it, we're all left to our own interpretation and opinions.

Having the patent state "spring plate" is quite damning to the plate's purpose. But I still think the biomechanists opinion is interesting. He must have had knowledge of how the shoe was constructed. He knew there was a carbon fiber plate in it and I assume he would've known the shape of it.

ItstheFoam wrote:

Having the patent state "spring plate" is quite damning to the plate's purpose. But I still think the biomechanists opinion is interesting. He must have had knowledge of how the shoe was constructed. He knew there was a carbon fiber plate in it and I assume he would've known the shape of it.

That's probably assuming too much. As far as I know, I'm the first in this forum to note that the shape of the carbon plate is a leaf spring. I should have noticed before, but reading the patent made it obvious.

The shape of the plate is well known. There are plenty of cutaways online and I have seen a video of the components being laid together in the midsole but can’t find it again. This shows the shape..

https://www.google.com/search?q=shape+of+vaporfly+4%25+plate&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS594US594&hl=en-US&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIvJaq0tPZAhXRzlkKHUk_BHwQ_AUIESgB&biw=1024&bih=653&dpr=2#imgrc=bxokaklK0IjTsM

:

ItstheFoam wrote:

zzzz wrote:

The study studied the shoe's effects. It was not a study on how the shoe works. That breakdown is unsupported by the study, just an opinion from Kram.

Agreed, good point. I think that's the missing piece here - the scientific study or authority stating that the construction of the shoe gives runners an unfair advantage. We know it does give an advantage, but is it doing so unfairly? Until we have that, and until the IAAF decides to act on it, we're all left to our own interpretation and opinions.

Having the patent state "spring plate" is quite damning to the plate's purpose. But I still think the biomechanists opinion is interesting. He must have had knowledge of how the shoe was constructed. He knew there was a carbon fiber plate in it and I assume he would've known the shape of it.

To expand on that notion, I've heard rumors and seen images of new Pegasus models incorporating ZoomX foam. I recall seeing an image of Lopez Lomong wearing a prototype Pegasus that had ZoomX cushioning.

If/when a non-Vaporfly model is released that incorporates ZoomX without the carbon fiber plate, I think it'd be interesting to see similar studies done on those shoes.

Meruntoofast wrote:

The shape of the plate is well known. There are plenty of cutaways online and I have seen a video of the components being laid together in the midsole but can’t find it again. This shows the shape..

https://www.google.com/search?q=shape+of+vaporfly+4%25+plate&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS594US594&hl=en-US&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIvJaq0tPZAhXRzlkKHUk_BHwQ_AUIESgB&biw=1024&bih=653&dpr=2#imgrc=bxokaklK0IjTsM

:

It was shown during the Breaking2 race. Nike has the marketing video still on youtube. It's the "Innovation" video. See here:

another good read is a patent attorney's dissection of Nike's patent and how they state the spring plate is to enhance locomotion efficiency

btw it also implies the "elite" version of the vaporfly simply uses custom made plates with fewer layers of carbonfiber as necessary to reduce the weight even further, only as much as needed based on the weight of the runner they are designed for - obviously the mass produced version cannot be that custom - however expect successive generations of the mass produced vaporfly to get even lighter and faster as they tweak the design, some year it might be 5%, 6% etc. until Rule 143 is a complete mockery

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nikes-breaking2-project-patent-attorneys-phil-jeffrey