I'm pretty locally competitive. However, it is apparent that the VP4% is giving others an advantage. People who I have easily beaten, and follow on Strava (ie no changes to their training) are all of a sudden much faster times in all distances 5K to 10K (15 to 20 sec/ mile faster). Many of these guys prior to the VP have stagnated in performances with the only clear variable is the shoe.
I was so anti-VP, but I'm going to grab a pair of these to level up the field, where the top local guys (70+% are wearing them)
I bought a pair of Cheaterfly 4% , how are they even legal?
Training Advice/Discussion
Marathon
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Locally Quick wrote:
I'm pretty locally competitive. However, it is apparent that the VP4% is giving others an advantage. People who I have easily beaten, and follow on Strava (ie no changes to their training) are all of a sudden much faster times in all distances 5K to 10K (15 to 20 sec/ mile faster). Many of these guys prior to the VP have stagnated in performances with the only clear variable is the shoe.
I was so anti-VP, but I'm going to grab a pair of these to level up the field, where the top local guys (70+% are wearing them)
Provide some actual evidence?
I will partake in the evidence with actual evidence.
2018 Telford 10k Results, which highlight PB’s and SB’s:
https://runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=264183
2016 Telford 10k results (not ran in 2017):
https://runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=186339
Now, given the amount of runners wearing VF’s in the photos, you’d expect to see way more SB’s and PB’s. Clearly not the case.
I ran faster in my streaks. So, that’s my research complete. -
Just checked 4 of the elites from the photos and results, one PB. And he’s a U23, so you’d expect him to progress.
If the hysteria was right, they’d ALL PB!
Do the research you hack. -
At what point do you say the technology in a shoe is too much? As this seems to be the discussion on the vaporfly leaver only. What other leavers are ok?
All shoes act as springs, this has been established throughout the various threads, either through the latest and greatest midsole foam or the extras which the companies add with the midsole, ask yourself why they do this? Extra flex points, airbags, torsion bars, wave plates, duel density midsoles, etc. which all allow the midsole to compress and leaver the foot to the right position to the right toe off, some shoes do it better than others (vaporfly more than others it seems) based on the person weight, contact time, contact position and running mechanics, - could it be the vaporfly is a leveller that does punish bad form like other shoes and allows fitness levels to show instead? - This can be compared with basic running tech on yourself testing the “performance” in different types of shoes with different technologies on the same weigh -
I’mm better than you... wrote:
Just checked 4 of the elites from the photos and results, one PB. And he’s a U23, so you’d expect him to progress.
If the hysteria was right, they’d ALL PB!
Do the research you hack.
Both of you are idiots for using a sample size of 1, assuming the race conditions are the same, and not considering the fact that this is probably not the only race these guys wore the VF4s. There is enough evidence (NYT, lab studies, etc...) to show that the VF4s provide an advantage. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not the advantage is unfair or not. -
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
Except for Rupp, American male marathoners' times currently aren't decreasing. -
another runner wrote:
I’mm better than you... wrote:
Just checked 4 of the elites from the photos and results, one PB. And he’s a U23, so you’d expect him to progress.
If the hysteria was right, they’d ALL PB!
Do the research you hack.
Both of you are idiots for using a sample size of 1, assuming the race conditions are the same, and not considering the fact that this is probably not the only race these guys wore the VF4s. There is enough evidence (NYT, lab studies, etc...) to show that the VF4s provide an advantage. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not the advantage is unfair or not.
You’re an idiot. They improve running economy, which I guess effects slower runners more than faster ones who’ll have better running economy.
All shoes create an advantage! And some more than others. It’s all in the foam (see boost) baby. Now stop crying. -
Matbar wrote:
At what point do you say the technology in a shoe is too much? As this seems to be the discussion on the vaporfly leaver only. What other leavers are ok?
...could it be the vaporfly is a leveller that does punish bad form like other shoes and allows fitness levels to show instead? - This can be compared with basic running tech on yourself testing the “performance” in different types of shoes with different technologies on the same weigh
+1
It creates a forward lean. -
Locally Quick wrote:
I'm pretty locally competitive. However, it is apparent that the VP4% is giving others an advantage. People who I have easily beaten, and follow on Strava (ie no changes to their training) are all of a sudden much faster times in all distances 5K to 10K (15 to 20 sec/ mile faster). Many of these guys prior to the VP have stagnated in performances with the only clear variable is the shoe.
I was so anti-VP, but I'm going to grab a pair of these to level up the field, where the top local guys (70+% are wearing them)
Lying little prick. -
Matbar wrote:
At what point do you say the technology in a shoe is too much? As this seems to be the discussion on the vaporfly leaver only. What other leavers are ok?
All shoes act as springs, this has been established throughout the various threads, either through the latest and greatest midsole foam or the extras which the companies add with the midsole, ask yourself why they do this? Extra flex points, airbags, torsion bars, wave plates, duel density midsoles, etc. which all allow the midsole to compress and leaver the foot to the right position to the right toe off, some shoes do it better than others (vaporfly more than others it seems) based on the person weight, contact time, contact position and running mechanics, - could it be the vaporfly is a leveller that does punish bad form like other shoes and allows fitness levels to show instead? - This can be compared with basic running tech on yourself testing the “performance” in different types of shoes with different technologies on the same weigh
I like Ross Tucker's simple definition: "any external device inserted for the purpose of energy return should be banned."
More specifically I say that a shoe should be banned when an external material (such as carbon fiber) is added to the core material of the shoe (generally foam) with the intent of acting like a propulsion device. Generally this means that one end of the external material is offset in someway than the other side and the larger the offset the greater the spring (see Air Trekkers and Bionic Boots for an extreme example of this). The intent of VF4s using the carbon plate as a spring is also easy to prove as Nike's own patent for the VF4 uses the term "carbon spring" when referencing the plate.
I'm sure that is not a perfect definition and I'm sure there are ways around it but I think we have to start somewhere to protect the integrity of the sport. -
another runner wrote:
Matbar wrote:
At what point do you say the technology in a shoe is too much? As this seems to be the discussion on the vaporfly leaver only. What other leavers are ok?
All shoes act as springs, this has been established throughout the various threads, either through the latest and greatest midsole foam or the extras which the companies add with the midsole, ask yourself why they do this? Extra flex points, airbags, torsion bars, wave plates, duel density midsoles, etc. which all allow the midsole to compress and leaver the foot to the right position to the right toe off, some shoes do it better than others (vaporfly more than others it seems) based on the person weight, contact time, contact position and running mechanics, - could it be the vaporfly is a leveller that does punish bad form like other shoes and allows fitness levels to show instead? - This can be compared with basic running tech on yourself testing the “performance” in different types of shoes with different technologies on the same weigh
I like Ross Tucker's simple definition: "any external device inserted for the purpose of energy return should be banned."
More specifically I say that a shoe should be banned when an external material (such as carbon fiber) is added to the core material of the shoe (generally foam) with the intent of acting like a propulsion device. Generally this means that one end of the external material is offset in someway than the other side and the larger the offset the greater the spring (see Air Trekkers and Bionic Boots for an extreme example of this). The intent of VF4s using the carbon plate as a spring is also easy to prove as Nike's own patent for the VF4 uses the term "carbon spring" when referencing the plate.
I'm sure that is not a perfect definition and I'm sure there are ways around it but I think we have to start somewhere to protect the integrity of the sport.
Hi Ross -
All the people who are getting triggered in this thread probably have set their PRs in the vaporflys and can't stand the idea that their PR isn't legit.
-
isn't it obvious wrote:
All the people who are getting triggered in this thread probably have set their PRs in the vaporflys and can't stand the idea that their PR isn't legit.
It’s it obvious by now that you’re slow and even with the 4% boost you’re still slow. I pity you. And at the same time I laugh in your general direction. You stupid little prick troll. -
Correct my friend wrote:
isn't it obvious wrote:
All the people who are getting triggered in this thread probably have set their PRs in the vaporflys and can't stand the idea that their PR isn't legit.
It’s it obvious by now that you’re slow and even with the 4% boost you’re still slow. I pity you. And at the same time I laugh in your general direction. You stupid little prick troll.
Wow, you sure showed me! lol -
Just going to throw this out there, when running and racing aren't the lungs and heart doing all the work ?
-
Matbar wrote:
At what point do you say the technology in a shoe is too much? As this seems to be the discussion on the vaporfly leaver only. What other leavers are ok?
All shoes act as springs, this has been established throughout the various threads...
When they can do this:-
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4
Because at this point you have an external mechanical aid being added to a running shoe which makes it fundamentally a different device. Although some seen to struggle to get their heads around it, it's no different from adding a motor engine on to a push bike and going "well, it's just technology isn't it...". But yeah, please show us a foam which can make a shoe spring like the Vaporfly in that video...
As I've said before - it's the difference between landing on a pile of cushions vs landing on a trampoline. The cushions will support you but they ain't going to push you back up into the sky. THAT'S when you say it's too much. -
I don’t disagree with you asterisk, my question is why isn’t everyone complaining about other types of technologies doing the same thing to a maybe a lesser degree. Take the latest full length zoom air pad, in Nike Pegasus, it’s doing exactly the same thing as carbon fibre plate but not as efficient, it provides cushioning but the also as a leaver (spring). I would not necessarily quote Ross Tucker reading his comments he does not seems to understand what a spring is and how this applies to current running shoe technologies.
As I have said, for me it appears the more efficient a shoe, the less it punishes bad running form and allow the fitness level of the runner rather than the technique to apply. -
another runner wrote:
[quote]Matbar wrote:
I like Ross Tucker's simple definition: "any external device inserted for the purpose of energy return should be banned."
This will be impossible to regulate.
Let's say there's a spectrum where plain old EVA midsole is on the left and a the VF carbon plate is on the right. Where would you draw the line of what's legal?
Clearly it's okay to have firmer medial posts to prevent pronation, as well as plastic 'trusses' like most Asics had for many years. If the carbon plate were deemed illegal, what if there was a very stiff piece of plastic-like foam in it's place? Or other densities of foam that replicated a VF-like lever.
Impossible to draw the line. -
Well...I set my PR with their little cousin the Zoom Fly Flyknit. Though I imagine I could have shaved another 30sec-1min off my half time of 129 with my vaporflys.
Honestly, I don't think I am much faster pace wise with them, rather they don't beat me up as bad for long runs so I can last longer instead of dragging ass at the end.
The carbon plate is the key aspect for me as a heel striker, but I came from zero drop altras and was prob working extra hard -
gsimmons2005 wrote:
Well...I set my PR with their little cousin the Zoom Fly Flyknit. Though I imagine I could have shaved another 30sec-1min off my half time of 129 with my vaporflys.
Honestly, I don't think I am much faster pace wise with them, rather they don't beat me up as bad for long runs so I can last longer instead of dragging ass at the end.
The carbon plate is the key aspect for me as a heel striker, but I came from zero drop altras and was prob working extra hard
I find they help my gait (only on stable ground) and I also heel strike, so they help with that. I'm going to continue to enjoy setting PR's in my Vaporflys, and they'll be no asterix next to my times, just a big fat smiley face. Heck, it's easier than losing weight.
