just wear them for a race. What if you only run 2:40, so what, if that is a pr, you'll be happy you set a pr vs run a minute over your pr and wonder what if.
just wear them for a race. What if you only run 2:40, so what, if that is a pr, you'll be happy you set a pr vs run a minute over your pr and wonder what if.
LeeW wrote:
weird logic.
what if you wore some light flats.. did they make you faster than if you went barefoot? maybe all running shoes make times illegitimate?
That's a poor attempted analogy. There's always a trade off to be made between pace and pain threshold over distance to be made when considering cushioning.
However there's nothing "weird" logic-wise. I can only repeat the same thing but we're talking about a SPRING. You are therefore using a different device for your running. I don't particularly care if anyone else is happy using them for a "PR*" but to not even acknowledge that difference is what I find weird.
Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:
And given your use of "butt hurt" you're obviously too much of a Moran to get this but personally I don't care if they get banned
rotflmao!
I think you mean "moron" - a Moran is an unmarried Maasai or Samburu warrior.
not that I suggest buying the vaporfly but you already bought them. go for it. go for a run in the vaporflys a PR isn't worth 250 maybe, but if they can motivate you to be the best runner you can be, it's not just about the times you run. it's about the time you have running. How couldn't running in a more economical shoe be fun?
I feel remorse on behalf of all those who resurrect old, dead threads.
We'll have to pardon you for your ignorance, but the patent mentions "spring plate" 6 times in just the abstract summary. "An article of footwear may include an upper, an outsole, and a spring plate. The spring plate may be located above at least a portion of the outsole and may extend through at least medial forefoot and medial midfoot regions. 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. The spring plate may comprise an open central region defined by a surrounding band and may be nondestructively removable from and replaceable into the upper. The article may further include at least one inner sole member shaped to rest securely within a void defined at least in part by the upper. The at least one inner sole member may be compressible in at least first and fifth metatarsophalangeal joint regions."
Hate Nike Much wrote:
It’s a carbon plate, not a spring. It’s also in the Zoom Fly. Should both versions be banned?
Or is it the foam that’s the “spring”? So should the Pegasus Turbo be banned?
Is the Adidas boost not quite a “spring”.
You’re such a little bi-tch and butt hurt over these shoes.
Ottawa Runner wrote:
I feel remorse on behalf of all those who resurrect old, dead threads.
You stole the thoughts out of my mind, thanks!
vaporflyremore wrote:
Let me get this right wrote:
You have buyers remorse about a product you haven't even tried out yet? A product that has the potential to shave time off your mary PB with literally no effort?
At least run in them first , you moran.
Yep, that's exactly what I said. For me, the cost vs. benefit isn't worth it. Is the value of a PR worth $250 to some? I'm sure it is. I was admittedly a sucker to the hype and marketing.
And running in them destroys the possibility of returning them for a full refund (to credit card). And yes, I'm worried if I run in them I won't want to :)
5 years from now, every manufacturer is bound to have a version of these at a lower price. I'll try them then.
Hell the flock yes a PR would be worth $250 to me.
Obviously worth the money
I tried on the Vaporfly yesterday and went for a short jog (50m) on the sidewalk outside the store. The shoe felt great while running and very soft. It felt comfortable and fast, but it also felt tall and a little unstable. Maybe that feeling would have gone away with more time so no knock against the shoe there. We added a superfeet carbon. That helped some, but now the shoe+insert cost was north of $300.
What turned me off, in addition to the ridiculous price, was the curve of the last had my little toe and 5th metatarsal hanging over the side of the shoe. In my experience that can eventually cause problems for me.
My takeaway is that this is a great shoe for running mostly in a straight line on pavement. Since I don't run races longer than 5k (and I don't really care about my 5k times), it's not for me.
I'm strictly a 400/800m runner.
Shoe dweeb wrote:
I ordered a couple pairs of them off Eastbay and the order has not shipped yet. Does the Eastbay company actually have them or are they just pulling our leg(s)?
Yeah I’ve been using eastbay for like 15 years they are pretty clutch with discounts. I got mine for 180 like 4 months ago but haven’t used them yet.
I bet 95% of the people freaking out about $250 running shoes are about to go spend $13 at lunch today. And did so every day this week. Gimme a break about the cost. Its nothing.
and all this BS about "real PRs" - you're telling me when this technology gets even better in 5-10 years you will keep wearing your Asics from 1999? And the shoes in 2008 were not slightly better than in 1999? It all adds up people. Who cares.
runnerchef wrote:
I bet 95% of the people freaking out about $250 running shoes are about to go spend $13 at lunch today. And did so every day this week. Gimme a break about the cost. Its nothing.
Yeah pretty much this...I bring my own “lunch” daily and it’s under 5 bucks in total cost including coffee.
Can’t be spending 300-350 a month on lunch and also on shoes. Well you can but it would be pretty financial irresponsible for most people.
runnerchef wrote:
I bet 95% of the people freaking out about $250 running shoes are about to go spend $13 at lunch today. And did so every day this week. Gimme a break about the cost. Its nothing.
You're right about that. People are funny about money. They're frugal in one expenditure and extravagant in another that might cost much more money in the long run.
I see people waiting in line to buy gas that's 10 cents cheaper than the station a block down the road. The savings for waiting an extra 10-15 minutes is less than $2.
I have a good friend who thinks nothing of spending $150 to go to a concert, but balks at paying $130 for a pair of running shoes that will last her for 4-6 months.
In my case, I budget $2,000 annually for running-related expenses. I'm way under that this year due to injuries so if I thought the Vaporfly would drop my 800m time by three seconds, I'd buy them without thinking twice.
OFF TOPIC: I bought the NB FuelCell Rebel instead. It felt entirely different, but it felt extremely responsive and, unlike the Vaporfly, stable enough to do intervals on the track. I'm going to give them their first trial run today on Vandy's 300m indoor track.