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

blue jean mile record

https://www.flotrack.org/video/6050270-dillon-maggard-of-utah-state-breaks-blue-jean-mile-world-record-in-4118

Dril wrote:

I don't believe it's unfair and it's not clear how much the plate improves running economy and thus performance versus the foam.

So I guess it's not a question whether it does or not; just how much it improves RE compared to the foam?

If the plate does at all, it is unfair. The energy return comes from the foam and the plate channels it into big gains. So it depends on how you look at it. The energy return would still bet there without the plate, just not being utilized as efficiently.

It would be awesome to see an analysis of the changes in RE between one wearing the Vaporfly with the plate and a similar shoe with just Pebax/ZoomX.

Runsmith wrote:

Dril wrote:

I don't believe it's unfair and it's not clear how much the plate improves running economy and thus performance versus the foam.

So I guess it's not a question whether it does or not; just how much it improves RE compared to the foam?

If the plate does at all, it is unfair. The energy return comes from the foam and the plate channels it into big gains. So it depends on how you look at it. The energy return would still bet there without the plate, just not being utilized as efficiently.

It would be awesome to see an analysis of the changes in RE between one wearing the Vaporfly with the plate and a similar shoe with just Pebax/ZoomX.

Why? I’m sorry but you need to explain why if the plate helps it is de facto unfair. Shoes have had plastic in them for a long time. The zoom flys have a carbon plate. My track spikes have a plate. The mizuno line shoes all have plates. I won’t accept that the patent calls it a “spring plate” as an acceptable answer.

The scientific research has shown that plates added to increase the stiffness of shoes increase RE by ~1%. No one is hiding this research. If that were reason for banning a shoe the shoe would already banned. (unless you’re wearing a tinfoil hat in which case it’s not really worth discussing anything)

whatsupchucky wrote:

Dril wrote:

Running shorts relative to denim jeans enhance performance but running shorts aren't considered unfair or banned. .

sorry but that's a terrible analogy.

You'd have to compare running shorts to running naked, or maybe a loin cloth. No one ever competed in denim jeans.

Racing shoes are designed enhance performance.

We don't have the tools to know exactly how much any particular shoe actually does.

Trying to draw an arbitrary line when we can't even determine how much aid a particular shoe is ridiculous.

The only safe approach is to make everyone run barefoot.

You are misinformed and completely undersestimsting conventional thinking. There was a time when running shorts were banned.

The greatest folly of mankind may be believing that 20-30 years from now people won’t laugh at you for having absolutely asinine beliefs.

what may be considered “unfair” since the shoe will (hopefully) be universally available is that some get 6% improvement in RE while some get none. I think I read somewhere that heal strikers get the most benefit from these shoes- perhaps why dramatic improvements are seen in slower runners and not elites

However, I would counter argue that those that get no improvement in Vaporflys would get more improvement relative to others in a different type of shoe. For example a low drop shoe with increased forefoot cushioning would theoretically help a mid foot stiker more than a heal striker.

Don’t we all try to find the shoe that helps us run our fastest

Dril wrote:

The greatest folly of mankind may be believing that 20-30 years from now people won’t laugh at you for having absolutely asinine beliefs.

Disagree. The greatest folly of mankind is being a pompous a-hole talking about the greatest folly of mankind on a Letsrun form about a trivial shoe.

my2cents wrote:

what may be considered “unfair” since the shoe will (hopefully) be universally available is that some get 6% improvement in RE while some get none. I think I read somewhere that heal strikers get the most benefit from these shoes- perhaps why dramatic improvements are seen in slower runners and not elites

However, I would counter argue that those that get no improvement in Vaporflys would get more improvement relative to others in a different type of shoe. For example a low drop shoe with increased forefoot cushioning would theoretically help a mid foot stiker more than a heal striker.

Don’t we all try to find the shoe that helps us run our fastest

I feel ya. I agree with this. I think you'd find for many shoes that heel strikers get more benefit relative to forefoot peeps. For many shoes, most of the shoe is located in the back! That does nothing for forefoot strikers.

why should they be banned, its a shoe not steroids

How meaningful is a PR when you know that the improvement came from the shoes you currently wear?

Vxfjlbf wrote:

How meaningful is a PR when you know that the improvement came from the shoes you currently wear?

UA Runner wrote:

That ZoomX foam is pretty soft and flimsy. Without some sort of stiffening plate, the midsole would probably fall apart or be incredibly unstable.

This seems plausible to me.

Vxfjlbf wrote:

How meaningful is a PR when you know that the improvement came from the shoes you currently wear?

So then none of my PRs matter, apparently. Because they were all done in various race shoes, and not the Nike Pegasus.