NIKE VAPORFLY NEXT% BAN!

To sum things up the shoes are awesome but provide nothing near the benefit that people on this board say they do. The mad people wanting them banned are people who are poor and just don’t have the money to spend on nice shoes. Idiots claiming u will run 25-35 mins faster in a marathon in them need help.

---

HDahhaid wrote:
Idiots claiming u will run 25-35 mins faster in a marathon in them need help.

---

What's the issue?
Kipchoge ran slower in London than in Berlin.
There was a time when London had the WR and Berlin did not.
Wake up sheep.
It's not the shoes.
It's the GOAT Marathon runner.

Callum Hawkins is a New Balance athlete...

Foam can be springy as well. Other shoes have rigid components. Anyone acting like there is a hard, obvious line to draw -- well, they just don't get it.

I own a pair of the first 4%’s and the Flyknit version. They definitely propel you forward from experience and make running feel much easier; hence the 5% improvement in RUNNING ECONOMY! Look up what running economy is please people.
The plate needs to be banned like other shoes have been prohibited with similar tech. The real benefit comes for the elite athletes. 4% improvement in running economy is huge at the elite level.
Generally the other athletes drop off the Vaporflys wearers very quickly. Look at this new runner out of know where that just eclipsed Bekeles Marathon PB!

Poverty + High mileage at early age + altitude + lightly regulated testing regime + great training + state of the art shoes = better than any US runner ever

---

Phantasy Star wrote:

Doped up East Africans bouncing along these courses in clown shoes. Question the narrative and you're a jealous racist. Honk honk.

---

---

jlwespn wrote:

What's the issue? The carbon fibre plate.
Kipchoge ran slower in London than in Berlin. So? Yes Kipchoge is the best. He’d win without the shoes if everyone else couldn’t wear them too! But the times wouldn’t be of such a HUGE improvement sorry! He’s a great runner and it’s nice to think that ‘no human is limited’ BUT THEY ARE he was never a Geb or Bekele he was close! Hence why he’s above the rest of the fields.
There was a time when London had the WR and Berlin did not. So we all know Berlin is faster and now no names are running those times on a slower course and they all have these spring shoes in common? Hmmm amazing coincidence!
Wake up sheep. I think you’re Nike’s and a corrupt iaaf’s sheep. You’re the majority that has a blind fold on!
It's not the shoes. It’s the plate!
It's the GOAT Marathon runner.

---

---

Getrealus wrote:

Poverty + High mileage at early age + altitude + lightly regulated testing regime + great training + state of the art shoes = better than any US runner ever

---

---

800 dude wrote:

---

Lofty Goals wrote:
I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

---

This would be impossible to implement. You would never know if a shoe passes until after it was produced and you got a bunch of lab testing done, and even then, the numbers would vary widely depending on the protocol used.

In any event, all racing shoes are more efficient than running barefoot. It's just that the VF is the best of the bunch.

---

Increasingly genetics is codeword for race. But if you actually understand the science you’ll know that the environment impacts the expression of genetic qualities. Send whitey to the Rift Valley for five generations and you’ll see the “East African genetic superiority” in action. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404135433.htm

---

Lofty Goals wrote:

---

800 dude wrote:

---

Lofty Goals wrote:
I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

---

This would be impossible to implement. You would never know if a shoe passes until after it was produced and you got a bunch of lab testing done, and even then, the numbers would vary widely depending on the protocol used.

In any event, all racing shoes are more efficient than running barefoot. It's just that the VF is the best of the bunch.

---

I feel like it’d be doable, and definitely better than banning a specific technology. The problem is that if you ban something specific like carbon springs, Nike will just figure out how to make a 5% shoe with only foam.

Companies already make prototypes of every shoe, so it wouldn’t add that much cost. It’s not like they would have to build a billion dollar assembly line to find out there shoe fails. They could simply run a standardized test with an identical preproduction model.

Testing to make sure a shoe qualifies seems pretty straightforward. Get 15 elite/sub elite runners and have them run a few miles barefoot and a few miles in a new shoe. Measure and compare their oxygen consumption. If the new shoe is “too efficient,” it is banned from elite competition. Hobbyjoggers, the real market for these shoes, could still use them.

Also, I’m not convinced that racing flats are more efficient than barefoot. I couldn’t find any research on flats specifically, but comparisons with regular shoes show that barefoot wins. Obviously flats will be better than trainers, but still: the goal of traditional flats was to be as similar to barefoot as possible, so I don’t see how they could be better. Traditional 5k/10k flats are basically a thin sheet of foam glued to an upper; there’s not really any room to improve efficiency.

Either way, you could tweak the rule to allow current shoes. For example, give 3-4% of leeway over barefoot. Or, if you really want, you could base the efficiency comparison off of a standardized traditional trainer rather than barefoot.

---

---

Getrealus wrote:

Increasingly genetics is codeword for race. But if you actually understand the science you’ll know that the environment impacts the expression of genetic qualities. Send whitey to the Rift Valley for five generations and you’ll see the “East African genetic superiority” in action. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404135433.htm

---

Good question

Maybe we should ban the vaporfly, but then what, what about the next ?
.
,
;-)

---

Lofty Goals wrote:

---

800 dude wrote:

---

Lofty Goals wrote:
I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

---

This would be impossible to implement. You would never know if a shoe passes until after it was produced and you got a bunch of lab testing done, and even then, the numbers would vary widely depending on the protocol used.

In any event, all racing shoes are more efficient than running barefoot. It's just that the VF is the best of the bunch.

---

I feel like it’d be doable, and definitely better than banning a specific technology. The problem is that if you ban something specific like carbon springs, Nike will just figure out how to make a 5% shoe with only foam.

Companies already make prototypes of every shoe, so it wouldn’t add that much cost. It’s not like they would have to build a billion dollar assembly line to find out there shoe fails. They could simply run a standardized test with an identical preproduction model.

Testing to make sure a shoe qualifies seems pretty straightforward. Get 15 elite/sub elite runners and have them run a few miles barefoot and a few miles in a new shoe. Measure and compare their oxygen consumption. If the new shoe is “too efficient,” it is banned from elite competition. Hobbyjoggers, the real market for these shoes, could still use them.

Also, I’m not convinced that racing flats are more efficient than barefoot. I couldn’t find any research on flats specifically, but comparisons with regular shoes show that barefoot wins. Obviously flats will be better than trainers, but still: the goal of traditional flats was to be as similar to barefoot as possible, so I don’t see how they could be better. Traditional 5k/10k flats are basically a thin sheet of foam glued to an upper; there’s not really any room to improve efficiency.

Either way, you could tweak the rule to allow current shoes. For example, give 3-4% of leeway over barefoot. Or, if you really want, you could base the efficiency comparison off of a standardized traditional trainer rather than barefoot.

---

---

Moo Goo wrote:

---

tarckstar wrote:

---

qw wrote:

tarckstar, you seem to miss the entire point of what I said – EK ran 2:03:05 in London in 2016. And he did it without VF4%. Yesterday he ran 2:02:37 which is what – 28 seconds faster. So less than 0.7 sec per km. In almost perfect conditions (relatively low temps, almost no wind and low humidity). You see that it is only Eliud who is producing insane times. Still the second best time after EK was drafting behing him for entire race and barely got under 2:03.

If we ban VF4%, then I would say we should ban all the shoes for good. Since all shoes provide some benefit of cushioning and protection. Let's just go barefoot like good guy Abebe did in his first marathon win.

---

tarckstar wrote:

Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.

Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.

They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.

It's not difficult to get your head around this.

---

---

Nike had the carbon fiber plate in shoes before the 4% with the newer foam came out - Rupp had the plate in his shoes in the trials in 2016. I have zero doubt Kipchoge's shoes had it that year, too. You can go on and on about how it's the foam, and not the plate making the difference, go ahead.

---

It's the plate. Put on Pegasus Turbo and then put on Zoom Fly Flyknit. Turbo does very good job cushioning but the bounce is very barely there. ZF is ready to go like a rocket off your foot. Cushioning plus the plate is the 4%. Nike wants to lie to us about the benefits of the plate because they know it's cheating but it sells like crazy.

---

Give every single elite runner in the race the same Nike shoes and the results would be exactly the same.