Nike 4% - how long do they really last?

Easy Peasy wrote:

I'm surprised by the number of people saying they ran a 5K in the VF.

I ran all my 5ks this year in VFs and my times are faster than I've been in a decade.

Maybe I'm suddenly in peak form at age 44.... or maybe it's the shoes!

Cut the carbon plates out and stick them in some slip-on checkered Vans from the 80s.

craig_c wrote:

i've run my mile pr in VF

I have found ZERO difference between my mile time trials in VFs and Saucony Type A8s. Zero.

And the Saucony is about 1/3 the price.

That being said, I have never raced in a better marathon shoe than the VF.

adfasfsdfds wrote:

Cest ridicule! wrote:

They are indeed ridiculously expensive but they are an amazingly good marathon shoe - if not the best. If they indeed are the best marathon shoes out there and I can afford them, why would I not buy them?

What is your upper limit? Would you spend $500 on them? $1000? I'm guessing if you could afford $250 sneakers you could also afford $500 sneakers or maybe even $1000. What are you willing to pay for running shoes?

Sure. Whatever.

Compared to Ironman triathletes equipment the vaporfly is dirt cheap.

I'm also a cyclist and I have the upgraded 2k wheels. The shoes will save you more time in a long course triathlon than the wheels. Any serious runner who knows he can get a significant performance boost from a pair of shoes, and does not seize the opportunity is out of his mind.

+1 Even as the most expensive shoe out there they are an incredible value vs what it would cost to gain the same performance benefit in cycling.

I weigh 160lbs and have a grossly normal stride. I feel like the shoes run best from 25-75 miles and would use them for an A race up to 100 miles. From 100-200 miles I use occasionally for faster workouts or structured long runs. I don't run in Zoomflys because I want to not get "to used" to the feel of running downhill with the plate and I love the feel of the Pegasus anyways. So two pairs at all times. Race them up to 100 miles. Train with them past 100 miles. I throw them out at 200 miles. Yes I would pay $500 for them.

I'm not really questioning the cost of running in it for a short race, but just the purpose. The shoe is built to give your legs that extra cushion needed in a full (and a half to an extent).

For one, I don't see what value they're adding in a 5K, when your limiting factor is not often a result of whether your legs are cushioned enough.

Second - the shoes are unstable when turning at faster speeds. I already find them challenging at marathon pace, I can't imagine what it must be like at 5K turnover. I feel like my ankles would break.

Finally, I like the idea of firmer shoes for faster races for feel. This may just be more preference than anything, but I would think most runners are similar - the shorter the race, the firmer the shoes you want.

I have the original type (not flyknit). After only about 60 miles the large pentangle under the heel on the outsole of the right shoe came loose and dropped off. I was not impressed. However after I glued it back on it's stay put and they're wearing quite well. 135 miles so far, good for at least one more marathon.

Bennnn wrote:

They’re good for 300 miles.

Peak is up to 150 miles. After that good for long runs and stuff

I have two pairs, one is right around 300 miles. I used it for race up to maybe 100-150 miles and then started using it for select long runs and workouts.

Same here...150 miles for racing and they loose their ooompph. Still got great cushion and they are my long run shoes for another 125 miles, then my speed shoes since durability on track is not relevant. Great shoes, a little narrow, but still the best shoes out there even for heel strikers like me. And I’ve been through all the top shoes from the major brands.

Easy Peasy wrote:

I'm not really questioning the cost of running in it for a short race, but just the purpose. The shoe is built to give your legs that extra cushion needed in a full (and a half to an extent).

For one, I don't see what value they're adding in a 5K, when your limiting factor is not often a result of whether your legs are cushioned enough.

Second - the shoes are unstable when turning at faster speeds. I already find them challenging at marathon pace, I can't imagine what it must be like at 5K turnover. I feel like my ankles would break.

Finally, I like the idea of firmer shoes for faster races for feel. This may just be more preference than anything, but I would think most runners are similar - the shorter the race, the firmer the shoes you want.

I think a lot more is going on than cushioning. A study found that they were quicker than a Nike spike even at 3000m/5000m. It's also somewhat more about pace than distance. Kipchoge is running at 14.23 pace for a marathon, which is faster than most of us for a 5000m. The also seem to work for the other end of the scale as I believe Camille Heron wore the for a 100 mile race.

I don't have a problem with them on turnover, my Garmin tells me that I'm turning 190+ strides per minute, and I've topped 200 at times.

I'm somewhat conflicted, as I've always raced and trained in the lightest shoe possible, but on speed v effort, I'm feeling that they are quicker at the same heart-rate.

Yes, the VFs are fast marathon shoes - the fastest I've ever worn. For short distances, I am unconvinced and doubt that I will wear them again for anything but marathons. I have done time trials for 1000m and the mile in these and there are zero differences between the VFs and Saucony Type A8s in terms of speed and other metrics. No discernable difference whatsoever for cadence, stride length, vertical oscillation, ground contact time. None.

I am going to try a couple of 5k's with the two shoes to see if VFs make a difference for the middle distances.

It really is an amazing shoe when you think of it - a cushioned marathon shoe that is as fast as a racing flat. Still, with good racing flats selling for 1/3 the price of VFs, I would be hard pressed to wear out the VFs doing track work or short time trials.

How long are people finding the next% is good for racing? my old pair has 45 miles and feel much more broken in than a brand new pair. Is the magic lost? am I sacrificing 2min if I wear my 45mile shoes?

Easy Peasy wrote:

I'm surprised by the number of people saying they ran a 5K in the VF.

Me too. We all know they jogged those 5ks.

From each pair I've owned I'd say the shoe loses its pure benefit (lack of a better word)after 100 miles. After 100 miles I noticed a decline in performance ability in those shoes.

Nicole J wrote:

Wondering if anyone knows how many miles the Nike Vaporfly 4% shoes will really last before dying/ceasing to be effective race shoes. I have raced in mine four times (5k, 10k, 2 x half marathon) and done a couple of short jogs in them to test them out, so probably total of 70 km (approx 45 miles I think) and wondering if I should replace them before my next marathon or whether they are still in great shape to race a marathon in.

Thanks in advance!

I got 160 klm on mine, but after each run put them in the freezer.

Easy Peasy wrote:

I'm not really questioning the cost of running in it for a short race, but just the purpose. The shoe is built to give your legs that extra cushion needed in a full (and a half to an extent).

For one, I don't see what value they're adding in a 5K, when your limiting factor is not often a result of whether your legs are cushioned enough.

Second - the shoes are unstable when turning at faster speeds. I already find them challenging at marathon pace, I can't imagine what it must be like at 5K turnover. I feel like my ankles would break.

Finally, I like the idea of firmer shoes for faster races for feel. This may just be more preference than anything, but I would think most runners are similar - the shorter the race, the firmer the shoes you want.

It depends on your age. I'm 55. The vaporfly is a great 5k - 10k shoe. If I was 35, I would wear the lightest firmest flats on the market. But now, even short road races beat the hell out of my legs and feet. Plus, once you get used to them, turning gets easier. We are actually seeing elites and semi elites racing short distances in these shoes.

It depends to which shoes you compare them to. I have multiple pairs of VF4%. One pair is used for all my training runs and has accumulated about 960 miles now and I would still choose it over my Asics running flats for racing because they are still more responsive than Piranhas. The other pair of VF4% has only about 40 miles now and is used for races only and of course they are much more responsive than the training pair. This difference is especially felt when after the race I switch the racing pair to training ones. Regarding when to switch to new pair it's hard to say as it depends on your weight but I think it's closer to 100 miles really.

Nicole J wrote:

Wondering if anyone knows how many miles the Nike Vaporfly 4% shoes will really last before dying/ceasing to be effective race shoes. I have raced in mine four times (5k, 10k, 2 x half marathon) and done a couple of short jogs in them to test them out, so probably total of 70 km (approx 45 miles I think) and wondering if I should replace them before my next marathon or whether they are still in great shape to race a marathon in.

Thanks in advance!