Vaporfly 4% Flyknit - break in period?

Nike only says they're good for 150 miles. Take care of them and only use them in the race if they feel good right now.

I did my first run in them on a 20 mile run and they felt great. Saving them for marathon now. Either is fine, but I recommend you run in them for at least 10 miles to get the sock/fit right.

nikefourpercent wrote:

I did my first run in them on a 20 mile run and they felt great. Saving them for marathon now. Either is fine, but I recommend you run in them for at least 10 miles to get the sock/fit right.

Same story here, took them out of box wore for 16 MP run, 20 total. Felt good, so I'll wear again for the marathon. I'd recommend one prep run just to make sure they feel good on your feet.

How did they work out of the box? Any issues?

They only have a "break down" period.

Think about it. The only reason their shelf life is so limited is because every time you run on them you are applying pressure to the leverage point on the carbon fiber spring (it isn't metal). Once that's shot the shoe is shot.

Therefore don't waste wearing it as the best it can ever be by worrying about hobbyjogger "breaking in" periods...

Shoeguys14 wrote:

Nike only says they're good for 150 miles. Take care of them and only use them in the race if they feel good right now.

Where does Nike actually say this?

I've heard a lot of people concerned about durability because the exposed outsole gets chewed up pretty quick, and the midsole develops creases immediately, but I know people who have put a few hundred miles on them and say they're still springy.

Anyway, no running shoes need to be broken in. They need to be tested to make sure they work for you. For instance, I had the Adios Boost 1s. They felt great in the store, but a few miles into a run I developed shooting pains in my foot because of the narrow midfoot cage. Take the VFs out for a good hard run to make sure you have no issues. Then save them for races. If 95% of the miles you run in them are in races, then I actually consider them pretty affordable. Think about how much you spend per mile in just race fees. If a marathon costs $4/mile in fees, the extra per-mile cost of wearing VFs (vs. whatever other shoe you'd wear) is like $1.

Just wore a pair for 4 miles on intervals before a marathon, no problem

800 dude wrote:

If 95% of the miles you run in them are in races, then I actually consider them pretty affordable. Think about how much you spend per mile in just race fees. If a marathon costs $4/mile in fees, the extra per-mile cost of wearing VFs (vs. whatever other shoe you'd wear) is like $1.

This is a great way to think about it, but I think your math is a bit off. $250 / 26.2 miles = $9.54/mile. Or, you would have to run just a bit over 9 marathons and 1 HM to get the per-mile rate down to $1. Are they that durable? Plus it would take most people 4-5 years to run that many races, and the equation should probably factor in at least one or two pre-race dress rehearsal workouts.

I ran in them straight out of the box at NYC Marathon and didn't have any issues. I already had a few pairs of the originals though.

I wore the flyknits for one 8 mile tempo to break them in and make sure my socks felt good.

Ran a half in them and then a full a week later. Felt perfect!

my 2c wrote:

This is a great way to think about it, but I think your math is a bit off. $250 / 26.2 miles = $9.54/mile. Or, you would have to run just a bit over 9 marathons and 1 HM to get the per-mile rate down to $1. Are they that durable? Plus it would take most people 4-5 years to run that many races, and the equation should probably factor in at least one or two pre-race dress rehearsal workouts.

Though I don't think 9 marathons is out of the question at all, I was conservatively guessing 6, but I was also subtracting the cost per mile of whatever other shoe you'd wear otherwise. Unless your alternative to the Vaporfly is to go full Bikila.