I bought a pair of Cheaterfly 4% , how are they even legal?

Moo Goo wrote:

It runs itself. A definite cheat shoes. I think Zoom X alone would still make it a great marathon shoes for cushioning but that plate gives you that bounce on each step. I am definitely working lot less to run the same pace. The guys who ran 2:03s in Boost would have ran Kipchoge's time if they had the 4% at that time.

Explain to me again why Spira is illegal?

Explain to me why so many non-Nike athletes wore (and BM qualified) at CIM?

this is most STUPID thing i have heard in 42 years of running and following the sport. Actually marathoners times decrease from the 80's. /90's. Eliud is a phenomen. He is. NOT his shoes

Kind of disappointed that the Cheaterfly 4% don’t seem to come in size 14, at least online they don’t sell over size 12. It seems a little short sighted by Nike to not give big footed hobby joggers a chance to steal some PRs and BQs and age group world records, like a Gene Dykes. Considering they probably make about $200 profit from each pair. Nike could be missing out on millions in lost sales. However I’m just spitballing.

I missed that they go up to size 13, but I’d still need a size 14 with a jet pack to BQ anyways at age 52.?

dos santos64 wrote:

this is most STUPID thing i have heard in 42 years of running and following the sport. Actually marathoners times decrease from the 80's. /90's. Eliud is a phenomen. He is. NOT his shoes

Way to have a well thought out argument...

Easy Peasy wrote:

jrtjrsjksty rykj s wrote:

Super fast, highly competitive 10k from the UK...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/128461028@N06/albums/72157704144892334/page1

A LOT of these runners are wearing the 4%...

Weird that they're wearing them for a 10K. Do pros wear the 4% for anything shorter than a half? Seems like you don't need it at those shorter distances and would be better off with a much firmer shoe, maybe an ounce lighter.

1st and 2nd in the Zatopek 10000 were in 4% for 27:50 and 28:12. They can't be too much slower than spikes.

303Mainiac wrote:

Kind of disappointed that the Cheaterfly 4% don’t seem to come in size 14, at least online they don’t sell over size 12. It seems a little short sighted by Nike to not give big footed hobby joggers a chance to steal some PRs and BQs and age group world records, like a Gene Dykes. Considering they probably make about $200 profit from each pair. Nike could be missing out on millions in lost sales. However I’m just spitballing.

It's probably just the opposite. Nike probably makes little to no money on this shoe. It's great pr for them and they try to implement the technology into some lower priced shoes. Shoe companies don't create a shortage on purpose. It's probably a very difficult shoe to make and the materials are not cheap.

Why are we still paying so much for sneakers when Nike's got them made by little slaves kids. What are their overheads?

another runner wrote:

Devils Advocate for vaporfly wrote:

Here's a devils advocate question for you. I've read a lot about these shoes, and reviews say the heel is higher than the forefoot but an amount greater than in most shoes.

Couldn't the feeling of being propelled forward just be coming from having your heel higher than usual?

Thanks for the feedback.

We are not talking about feeling. We are talking about measured efficiency. These shoes have been measured to be more efficient for a given runner than when they wear any other shoe. Some the efficiency improvement comes from the carbon spring. Other shoes with the same heel to toe offset do not give the same efficiency improvement. Remove the carbon spring and no one has a problem with it.

Hmmm. No one was complying when Adidas boost claimed to increase running economy. It doesn’t make you faster. It makes you run better. There is a BIG difference you silly little prick.

Ha ha, spot the Cheaterfly PRing apologist ?

You’re a prick wrote:

another runner wrote:

We are not talking about feeling. We are talking about measured efficiency. These shoes have been measured to be more efficient for a given runner than when they wear any other shoe. Some the efficiency improvement comes from the carbon spring. Other shoes with the same heel to toe offset do not give the same efficiency improvement. Remove the carbon spring and no one has a problem with it.

Hmmm. No one was complying when Adidas boost claimed to increase running economy. It doesn’t make you faster. It makes you run better. There is a BIG difference you silly little prick.

Why do you pro VF4 guys have so much trouble formulating a logical argument? Could it be because there aren't very many ones to make? The case in favor of VF4 like shoes looks very weak.

The closest valid argument I've seen in favor of the VF4 is that track spikes have carbon fiber in them so they would have to be banned as well. Except the problem with this argument is that the carbon fiber on track spikes do not behave like a spring like the VF4 carbon fiber is designed to do.

If we truly want to protect the future of the sport then there needs to an offset limit of carbon fiber in footwear. One end of the carbon fiber inside of footwear cannot be offset from the other end determined by the shoes point of contact with the ground. So if one end of the carbon fiber sits 1mm off of the ground, then the other end must also be 1mm off of the ground when the shoe is laid flat. We don't have to limit this to carbon fiber but to any external material inserted into the foam of the shoe.

Obviously this rule would make the VF4s illegal but it would protect the integrity of the sport and prevent athletes from using Oscar Pistorius like technology in the future.

Why just limit this to just carbon fibre, any non single structures material should be banned, as this is the point of them. After all we are all running in “spring” like bionics boots, all our runs have an asterisk again them, i wonder why Nike never tested the vaperfly vs the adios boost 3, only the Eva adios 2, is it because boost gives the same 4% or is it 5%?

There are two choices either stop wearing shoes for running (unnatural levels of spring, cushioning and responsiveness) or the other option is our bionic boots can only be a maximum thickness and you can put whatever technologies take your fancy that fit.

Er... Or just go with the much simpler option of banning shoes that can do this:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

Pretty sure no foam on it's own is doing THAT!

Matbar wrote:

Why just limit this to just carbon fibre, any non single structures material should be banned, as this is the point of them. After all we are all running in “spring” like bionics boots, all our runs have an asterisk again them, i wonder why Nike never tested the vaperfly vs the adios boost 3, only the Eva adios 2, is it because boost gives the same 4% or is it 5%?

There are two choices either stop wearing shoes for running (unnatural levels of spring, cushioning and responsiveness) or the other option is our bionic boots can only be a maximum thickness and you can put whatever technologies take your fancy that fit.

Exactly right. (Except for the fact that the shoe the VF was tested against was the adios boost 2, not an EVA shoe.)

How is better running shoe technology different than more aerodynamic bikes in triathlon or time trial? Times improve with better gear. Purists can have their barefoot races just like the bike races that don't allow modern bikes.

rfed wrote:

How is better running shoe technology different than more aerodynamic bikes in triathlon or time trial? Times improve with better gear. Purists can have their barefoot races just like the bike races that don't allow modern bikes.

Or golfers using titanium heads or graphite shafts on their clubs...or Pro V1s instead of old balata balls.

Or football players wearing gloves instead of using their bare hands.

Or soccer players wearing boots with the laces strategically placed for better ball control on contact.

Equipment evolves. That is just part of life and sport. People can complain about it, but that's not going to stop it.

They can keep running 5 hour marathons in their bare feet or hitting 175 yard drives with their persimmon head drivers with wooden shafts and feel 'holier than thou.' But that isn't going to change anything. Just a waste of time.

rfed wrote:

How is better running shoe technology different than more aerodynamic bikes in triathlon or time trial? Times improve with better gear. Purists can have their barefoot races just like the bike races that don't allow modern bikes.

There is better equipment then there is equipment that aids. The LRZ suit in swimming provides floatation and is an aid. A shoe with a spring in it is an aid. Would you think it's ok to allow someone to set a world record in air trekkers? No, because that athlete would be unfairly aided. If you want to put special foam material in a shoe and make it more responsive then go for it, that is a great technology improvement. But the second you put an external spring like device in the shoe you are adding an unfair aid. Tri bikes are regulated to prevent this. Running shoes should also be regulated.

I’ve seen dozens of runners wearing them and the dozens of runners I’ve spoken to only cite cost as a prohibitive factor in purchasing the shoes.

I’m fed up of this one-man war against the VF. Let’s me honest, looking at this thread, we are talking about one obsessed monkey.

He’s a little prick and he is SLOW.

Seriously.... wrote:

I’ve seen dozens of runners wearing them and the dozens of runners I’ve spoken to only cite cost as a prohibitive factor in purchasing the shoes.

I’m fed up of this one-man war against the VF. Let’s me honest, looking at this thread, we are talking about one obsessed monkey.

He’s a little prick and he is SLOW.

You have yet to make any valid arguments. If a bunch of runners we're taking epo and the ones that weren't taking epo only cite cost as a prohibitive factor for them, would that make taking epo ok?

What vaporfly asterisk, I, and many others want is a clean sport. We see the VF4 as cheating by providing an unfair advantage. I'm sorry that you are offended by this but it doesn't change the facts.