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

Nonono wrote:

It’s not that other shoes make you 0% more efficient for example streak 6s are 3.1% more efficient it’s just that these increase it by the largest percent so no chance 5-10s/mile

I'd like to know what the percentage gain is running in new pair of eva blocks?

They're comparing these shoes against times which will predominantly have been run in old knackered traditional cushioned shoes which people carry on into marathons, etc. It'd be interesting to see the gains of those who switched to a fresh pair, e.g. less than 50 miles logged, before racing (regardless of brand / model).

it's simple wrote:

I am in about a 3:00 flat shape, and wanted to make sure I definitely get within 3 flat at Boston in 2 months.

If you are on the edge and $250 won't leave you starving, go for it. They definitely won't make you slower compared to other shoes and are guaranteed to work as a confidence booster.

What a worthless comment. Why spend money on anything? Why try to maximize anything with your training? You can always just work harder...

Your value judgement over whether you would spend money on an item like the Vaporfly has no bearing on the question regarding whether there is any effect on performance. To be dismissive and say ‘just work harder’, would be like suggesting to not worry about your diet because you will be faster if you just ‘work harder’. Wouldn’t you be that much faster if you ‘worked harder’ AND ate healthier?

Have you ever bought a piece of clothing anywhere besides Goodwill? I mean, the thrift shop clothing will cover your body just as good as new clothing from a retail store, so why care about the way it looks or makes you feel.

When someone is dropping $200+ for a marathon entry, $300+ for a hotel room, $300+ for airfare, etc, I don’t think they care about paying $250 for Vaporflys, versus $100 for budget racing flats...

Curious about the distinction you’re making between the “proper” 4% and the flyknit. I have a pair of the Vaporfly 4% Flyknit — do you consider that the former or the latter?

Regardless, they have been a game-changer for me. I am a woman in my 40s and It is hard to control for all variables (fitness, course, weather) but I think they are worth at least 20 seconds a mile for a 10K. On downhills they are magical.

As a 50+ competitor and natural forefoot striker, the VF series are easily the fastest shoes for me. Even wearing the rather stiff and unforgiving standard Zoom Fly in training, I definitely run faster with the same amount of energy expended compared to other shoes.

Why: 1) the shoes are stiff with not much flex; 2) ramped 10mm from heel to forefoot, almost forcing you into leaning forward a little and rolling off the forefoot; 3) not sure how much the plate does, but the shoe "snaps" off the pavement.

Of course, the Vaporfly is a lot more forgiving and soft compared to the others, but still has the snap. I'm not a Nike fan, but these shoes are fast. Whether they work for you, only you can know. Not everyone likes how they feel, and not everyone's feet may fit the shoe well for whatever reason. They work for me.

Note that if you don't want to spend the $250 for VF, you can but the Zoom Fly SP any day on auction site for well less than $100 per pair.