After reading the Colorado study, and observing the anecdotal evidence on the message board, how long until a governing body makes these shoes illegal?
Or is it all Placebo?
After reading the Colorado study, and observing the anecdotal evidence on the message board, how long until a governing body makes these shoes illegal?
Or is it all Placebo?
A better question is how long until we go a week without this same stupid thread popping up?
Postdupes wrote:
A better question is how long until we go a week without this same stupid thread popping up?
9 months
Never. It's too anchored in the sport now to go away--no one will want to have to put an asterisk next to Shalane's NYC win, for example, or the various illegitimate sub-2:40s we're going to see out of HJers in Boston next Monday.
IAAF made spring plates illegal in 2007 after Adidas prototyped them (and had a WR set in them)
and then Oscar Pistorius sued because well I guess he had no other option but to use springs
but it's time now to just put the original rule back on the books, no wheels, no springs
Nike makes the same shoe without a plate and just pebax, I have no problem with just pebax
https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/iaaf-council-introduces-rule-regarding-techni
I have no problems with the shoe... just the price.
How long until every other company has the same shoe? That technology can be duplicated if it works.
Adidas Brooks Saucony New Balance wrote:
How long until every other company has the same shoe? That technology can be duplicated if it works.
Ditto. Other companies are welcome to do the same thing. Nike just took a spike plate and embedded it in foam. They can’t ban spikes. Nike just evolutionized road racing shoes.
Bdubs wrote:
After reading the Colorado study, and observing the anecdotal evidence on the message board, how long until a governing body makes these shoes illegal?
Shortly after I send rupp home devastated on Monday while sporting my new vaporflies. #stoprupp
Bdubs wrote:
After reading the Colorado study, and observing the anecdotal evidence on the message board, how long until a governing body makes these shoes illegal?
Never. Morans.
road shoes reinvented wrote:
Other companies are welcome to do the same thing. Nike just took a spike plate and embedded it in foam. They can’t ban spikes. Nike just evolutionized road racing shoes.
This.
Shoe technology continues to evolve. The 4%'s foam returns 80% of energy, per one of the articles I read. I'd be surprised if someone doesn't top 90% in the next 5 years.
The Hoka spike uses a similar pronounced upward curve in the spike plate. I just got the... can't remember... their shortest distance spike... Rocket? I'm looking forward to comparing them to my favorite spike.
It's a runner who makes a shoe great, not the other way around. I bet you I can get some sub-par Kenyans or Ethiopians wearing $3.99 Kung-fu shoes and still run between 2:10-2:15
If virtually everyone can easily acquire these, with no I'll effects to health, what exactly is the issue? Should we ban rubber tracks because they make for faster times than cinder?
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
IAAF made spring plates illegal in 2007 after Adidas prototyped them (and had a WR set in them)
and then Oscar Pistorius sued because well I guess he had no other option but to use springs
but it's time now to just put the original rule back on the books, no wheels, no springs
Nike makes the same shoe without a plate and just pebax, I have no problem with just pebax
https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/iaaf-council-introduces-rule-regarding-techni
Every shoe is a spring. This rule doesn't mean anything. It wasn't written by anyone with an understanding of either physics or biomechanics. That's why it was never enforced.
In any event, why should we care that you have a problem with plates but not pebax? What qualifies you to make the determination that one technology is fair and another is not? Even the people who did the only real study on the shoe don't know exactly what the plate does.
That rule is over 10 years old.
Here's the new version:
IAAF Rule 143.2
Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.
The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,
however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair
assistance or advantage. Any type of shoe used must be reasonably
available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics.
Note (i): Adapting a shoe to suit the characteristic of a particular
athlete’s foot is permitted if made in accordance with the general
principles of these Rules.
Note (ii): Where evidence is provided to the IAAF that a type of shoe
being used in competition does not comply with the Rules or the
spirit of them, it may refer the shoe for study and if there is
non-compliance may prohibit such shoes from being used in
competition.
You also need to understand the practical application of any rule - how do you determine if a road running shoe is actually illegal at an event - especially if most of the top runners are wearing custom shoes or prototypes. We would have to require event directors to have CAT scan or X-ray machines on site. Most event directors are lucky they can restrict track athletes form wearing spikes too big from tearing up a track!
I finally secured a pair last night, I'm really excited to give them a try (although I'm not running right now, injury lol), what was striking about the experience is that I called my local running store when I found out Nike was sending out a re supply 4/11, anyway, ended up getting a lead and having to call a running store in another state to get a pair, as the nike.com sold out when I checked at 8am my time. Never thought it would be difficult to buy a running shoe.
Stopcecil! wrote:
If virtually everyone can easily acquire these, with no I'll effects to health, what exactly is the issue? Should we ban rubber tracks because they make for faster times than cinder?
these are not free and readily available for anyone to use like rubber tracks
firstly, nike is doing this "exclusivity" thing and generating hype by making them hard to get - controlled release and such
secondly, they are $250 per pair. running is a sport that has beautifully demonstrated that one does not need very much in the way of money or resources in order to yield success. take a look at training camps in iten and eldoret. look at some of the US's first breakthrough distance runners. hard work, sometimes genetics.
if these shoes really go global, we're going to turn into triathlon where you can buy your way to speed, and then the socioeconomic filter goes up and running becomes a rich person sport. i don't like it!
PS what colorado study? can someone link to this?
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:
these are not free and readily available for anyone to use like rubber tracks
Rubber tracks aren't free and readily available for anyone to use. They pretty much exist only in the developed world, and in a lot of places, it's very hard to get on one.
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:
firstly, nike is doing this "exclusivity" thing and generating hype by making them hard to get - controlled release and such
Yeah. Totally lame, and it makes me dislike Nike even more. If they really were all about athletes, like they claim to be, they'd get these shoes into the hands of the people who want them. Nevertheless, this is a short-term marketing ploy that won't last indefinitely.
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:secondly, they are $250 per pair. running is a sport that has beautifully demonstrated that one does not need very much in the way of money or resources in order to yield success. take a look at training camps in iten and eldoret. look at some of the US's first breakthrough distance runners. hard work, sometimes genetics.
$250 is not so much more than other running shoes that it should cause you to have existential questions about the nature of our sport.
Moreover, nobody, not even the biggest 4% enthusiasts, is claiming that the shoes are so good that they've become necessary for success. At most, they make a difference at the margins. But there are lots of expensive things that make a difference at the margins, such as Alter-Gs and altitude tents.
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:
if these shoes really go global, we're going to turn into triathlon where you can buy your way to speed, and then the socioeconomic filter goes up and running becomes a rich person sport. i don't like it!
There's only so much you can do with shoes. The impact will never come close to the impact of bike technology.
It's also unlikely that the elite racing flats of the future will be all that expensive. Adjusted for inflation, running shoes are typically cheaper than they were in the good old days. The Vaporfly is obviously an outlier, but only because Nike is artificially restricting supply. Other companies will come out with their own versions eventually, and we'll see prices drop to some extent. (Probably not all that much, because prices tend to be sticky, but what will happen is that they will stay at the same price for a very long time until inflation catches up.)
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:
PS what colorado study? can someone link to this?
Just google "vaporfly 4% study."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2Ultimately, I wonder if the line that the IAAF eventually draws is with stack height. Seems like at some level, having a really thick sole could help you simply by lengthening your stride a bit. All the other tech might just be ways of mitigating the kinds of problems that typically arise with really thick shoes. Also, if the technology seems to work for reasons that aren't fully understood (a distinct possibility), then limiting stack height would basically mean that the shoe designers just have less to work with, which would limit the impact of technology, even if we cant' figure out what exactly should and shouldn't be allowed.
it's not the shoes, it's shalane. wrote:
Stopcecil! wrote:
If virtually everyone can easily acquire these, with no I'll effects to health, what exactly is the issue? Should we ban rubber tracks because they make for faster times than cinder?
these are not free and readily available for anyone to use like rubber tracks
firstly, nike is doing this "exclusivity" thing and generating hype by making them hard to get - controlled release and such
secondly, they are $250 per pair. running is a sport that has beautifully demonstrated that one does not need very much in the way of money or resources in order to yield success. take a look at training camps in iten and eldoret. look at some of the US's first breakthrough distance runners. hard work, sometimes genetics.
if these shoes really go global, we're going to turn into triathlon where you can buy your way to speed, and then the socioeconomic filter goes up and running becomes a rich person sport. i don't like it!
What does exclusivity and price have to do with the legality of running shoes? Did the IAAF rule on this? It's called capitalism baby! Why do you hate America?