Is Vaporfly 4% worth 10 secs per mile of a boost in a full marathon?

I don't know if the "proper" 4% are very different but I've not been massively impressed with the Zoom Fly Flyknit for racing.

They just feel like massive spongy blobs and I don't seem to be running any faster than I'd expect wearing my normal racing NB1400s.

I will say they are wonderful recovery and long run shoes though, that bounce and the plate really help there and my feet feel way less smashed up then but I don't think I'll be racing in them any more.

A guy in adidas won the half in Dubai recently (Stephen Kiprop) beating the guys in Vaporflys.

You're not getting anywhere near 5 to 10 seconds per mile with them. I'm on my 4th pair. They are light, comfortable and efficient. I love them. But there's no way I've taken off 2 to 4+ minutes in a marathon. It might get me 3 or 4 seconds compared to my trainers, but not compared to the next best racing shoe on the market.

runnER/DR wrote:

You're not getting anywhere near 5 to 10 seconds per mile with them. I'm on my 4th pair. They are light, comfortable and efficient. I love them. But there's no way I've taken off 2 to 4+ minutes in a marathon. It might get me 3 or 4 seconds compared to my trainers, but not compared to the next best racing shoe on the market.

Wait, so you are getting 3 to 4 seconds. I'll take shaving 1.5 minutes off the thon.

Subway Surfers wrote:

A guy in adidas won the half in Dubai recently (Stephen Kiprop) beating the guys in Vaporflys.

But the half is quite different from the full, more different from the full than from the 10k.

it's simple wrote:

runnER/DR wrote:

You're not getting anywhere near 5 to 10 seconds per mile with them. I'm on my 4th pair. They are light, comfortable and efficient. I love them. But there's no way I've taken off 2 to 4+ minutes in a marathon. It might get me 3 or 4 seconds compared to my trainers, but not compared to the next best racing shoe on the market.

Wait, so you are getting 3 to 4 seconds. I'll take shaving 1.5 minutes off the thon.

.... I'm not sure you understood what runnER/DR said .....

read this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html

To the OP:

I am about a 3:10 marathoner and I am currently training and tracking performance in these with a weekly run in them versus my Hoka Cliftons.

I am using a certain 10 mile course and runing with a garmin heart rate monitor. my 10 mile run in Hokas at 75% max heart rate has been around 7:30-7:33 per mile. My Vaporfly runs have been 1:11 to 1:13 total time. 7:11-7:20 pace with the exact same HR.

THere is no doubt in my mind they will cut 5-8 minutes off my time in a full

I do feel they are faster than any other shoe I’ve worn on long races (hm and full) and my times back this up. But more than that I like the 4% due to the fatigue or lack there of on my legs. When I run in the 4% I feel fresher longer and less beat up afterwards. I feel they are worth the $$.

Hourunner wrote:

I do feel they are faster than any other shoe I’ve worn on long races (hm and full) and my times back this up. But more than that I like the 4% due to the fatigue or lack there of on my legs. When I run in the 4% I feel fresher longer and less beat up afterwards. I feel they are worth the $$.

Interesting concept with these......can you run your current pace with less effort. Do they delay fatigue just as much as they make you go forward faster?

It will depend on a lot of factors like your stride mechanics. I'm a lot slower than most of the people on this board--lady who runs ~1:33 half, training for sub 3:20 (maybe 3:17-3:18) marathon, and I find them to really work for me. I've used them from a 10 mile race through a marathon. I got my first BQ in them. I would say they are definitely faster than trainers (as you would expect from a flat), but how much faster they are compared to other flats is going to depend on your biomechanics. Prior to vaporflies, I raced in Nike Lunaracers which are nice and light but really lack energy return. I have a pair of original generation Zoom Flys (not the new Flyknit ones) and while I like then for workouts, especially tempos, and they have some of the forward propulsion from the plate, it really isn't the same as the lightness and pop you get from the 4%s. The 4%s also are light without having the beat up feeling you get from lighter, more responsive shoes. For what it's worth, I'm 110 lbs, so I seem to be able to get away with less shoe than some of the guys I know, but I still find it to be a nice plus.

I have no idea how much I get time I get in the vaporflies versus other flats, because my fitness is much higher since purchasing them. If nothing else, they are just really fun to run in, at least for me when I'm going marathon pace or faster and have a really fun bouncy feel. I think they are worth $250 for the enjoyableness of the ride alone and the combo of lightness and cushioning (and lack of a beat up feel after a race), since after all this is just a hobby. I think of it is a sunk cost--I'm going to need to wear shoes to race, and if not vaporflies, I'm going to buy another pair of racing flats. A lot of nicer racing flats are $100-180 or so anyway. So let's say I get seven or so races out of a pair of flats, that works out to an extra 10-20 dollars per race that I'm spending using vaporflies over another pair of shoes. IDK, I can live with that.

As for whether I would be able to achieve my current PRs in other shoes, I have no clue, nor do I particularly care. Some of my PRs lately have been on hilly hard courses, or in rain/heat, or tune up races training through without a taper, so I'm confident there are a myriad of factors besides shoes that affect performance on a given day, but it's a nice psychological boost to put on some shoes that are fun to run in and make me feel fast.

I'm waiting for the injury reports to pile in. These shoes can't be healthy for the body

if you run 3 hours in the marathon, you can just train a little harder and more and will run faster. This isn't the case for guys running 204-202. They need that small percent. sorry to be frank

MONTANA.S wrote:

I'm waiting for the injury reports to pile in. These shoes can't be healthy for the body

You get done faster in them.......hence reducing injuries!!!!

While we are on the subject.......does any other shoe manufacturer making performance claims with a model of shoe?

MONTANA.S wrote:

I'm waiting for the injury reports to pile in. These shoes can't be healthy for the body

I have the Zoom Fly Flynit. Same plate, different foam. They are stiff. Kinda like running in track spikes.....which I haven’t done in 20 years so maybe they flex now lol. Anyway, for the first few times I wore them I would have very sore feet, sort of like if you had to stand all day at your job.

So my concern is that such a stiff shoe doesn’t allow your feet follow a natural motion. But meh, I’m passed the point of caring. I’ve run 26.2 miles in boots before.....now that’s stiff. Kinda like running in ankle weights + stiff shoes.

Alan

it's simple wrote:

For those who have worn it - what would be your estimate of its per mile boost in seconds?

None. I think there are a lot of reasons people are reporting they are faster.. less fatigue because the shoes are cushioned a ton (this I can get on board with), and that would explain why people are reporting big marathon PRs, but not half or 10k. Purely speculation

They're trendy, which means a lot of people who previously didn't use racing shoes at all, are going from their standard Asics Nimbus or whatever to the Vaporfly, getting an improvement and reporting it. Placebo effect for someone who was running a 3:50 marathon can really go a long way as well.

Of course my result isn't the definitive answer, but I don't buy it. The NY Times study shows people are 4% faster on average and it's pretty compelling.. but it also says the Zoom Streak 6 is 3% faster in average compared to the normal racer, and I don't see people flocking to those like they do with the Vaporfly.

I firmly believe that people run the fastest in whatever shoes they feel most comfortable and confident in. For every guy passing me at mile 24 of a marathon in Vaporflys, there's another guy in Hoka Bondis or Skechers GoRuns.

Bob Schul Country wrote:

Do they delay fatigue just as much as they make you go forward faster?

I tend to think that's it, only it's not as sexy to advertise or publish, so people go with the "it's faster" idea. Probably the same concept as a Hoka, only the ZoomX foam keeps the shoe at half the weight of a Hoka Clifton so it's more race-able.

I ran in a pair of 4% at last year's Boston Marathon, in the rain, cold and wind. Going in, based on my workouts and past performances, I was in 2:55 shape for good conditions. The conditions at Boston should have easily added 5 minutes to my time, probably closer to 10. I ran 2:57.

A lot of asteriks with the weather. I do train outside throughout the winter in the northeast, so I wasn't personally bothered by the conditions. I'm used to running in wind, snow, ice, cold rain, etc. Still, with that constant headwind at Boston last year, and soaked head to toe the entire time, I was really surprised by running sub three.

Having gone through a pair of 4%, I think another thing to consider is your running form. It seems to me that you need to be a heel striker to capture the full return of the 4%. When you look at the geometry of the plate, if you are a forefoot striker you aren't going to get as much energy return.