Amy Cragg on Zoom Vapofly 4% Shoes: "I think they’re worth a lot..they kind of save your legs in training."

This is the juiced baseball bat era.

I think only a small fraction of people who believe the 4% shoes are "spring loaded" because of the carbon plate would call them "infamous".

i'm slow for letsrun standards as a 3:09 guy but i agree, that foam is so soft there is really nothing like it. i love the damn things.

Glad she's honest about it. A runner with her sense of pace should certainly be able to feel a 4% difference.

Were the 4% shoes available to anyone else in the 2016 Olympic Trials or Olympic Games? They weren't called 4% publicly at that time, of course, but could anyone else have gotten them, if they chose to do so?

I've ran a marathon in Nike Streak LT, how does it compare to that?

Amy Craig said:

“I think they’re worth a lot just because if you can train in them, they kind of save your legs in training.”

Worth a lot? Amy gets them for free so to her not even a nickel unless she's reselling them. To most everyone else they are worth $250 if you are willing to spring for them.

I've ran a marathon in Nike Streak LT wrote:

I've ran a marathon in Nike Streak LT, how does it compare to that?

The 4% claim has always been toward the Streaks.

Do they really have added cushioning AND stability?

If they "king of save your legs in training" why has she been injured so much of late?

in the past, shoes were pretty bad. now they're figuring out how to make it closer to natural barefoot on good ground.

of course, if it is good for your legs and you run better, some want to ban it.

and go back to bad shoes. and more injury.

just adjust the old times for 209 to a 207 if you want the conversion.

really if you want the fastest "shoe" it would be a bare foot, and spray on some extra synthetic skin with grit or small spikes, and have the track like a perfect natural surface with bounce but firm.

What Are They Worth? wrote:

To most everyone else they are worth $250 if you are willing to spring for them.

The 4% cost $175 in two stores near me now--not much more than the expensive trainers that most companies offer. The Next% are $250 at one local store before the discount that any regular customer can get, but I've heard that most stores can't get them yet (?)

There's no question that the 4% help in the last 6 miles of the marathon. Huge change in how your quads hold up.

For those of us who don't want to spend $175 on every day trainers but want much of the benefit, the Zoomfly Flyknit is great, and I've purchased multiple pairs online for under $100.

jongall wrote:

Do they really have added cushioning AND stability?

Definitely a lot of cushioning. The stability wasn't bad considering that I usually run in-stability shoes. Amy is right about it preserving your legs. After running a marathon in them, I felt no pain or soreness below my knees. (I did strain one of my quads and felt exhausted otherwise.) More importantly, I was able to walk normally after the marathon, and didn't trip over every cobblestone. The shoes are worth it for a destination marathon, just because it allows you to sight see after the race.

To limit wear on them, I wore them right out of the box for the 1st marathon. I figure if I only wear them for marathons, I'm hoping that they last at least 8 marathons as this below post seemed to imply, which drives the cost down to about $25 per race. Worth it to avoid the soreness and stumbling after the race, and to run a faster time.

tarckstar wrote:

Were the 4% shoes available to anyone else in the 2016 Olympic Trials or Olympic Games? They weren't called 4% publicly at that time, of course, but could anyone else have gotten them, if they chose to do so?

You're not going to cry, are you?

NameAndStuff wrote:

What Are They Worth? wrote:

To most everyone else they are worth $250 if you are willing to spring for them.

The 4% cost $175 in two stores near me now--not much more than the expensive trainers that most companies offer. The Next% are $250 at one local store before the discount that any regular customer can get, but I've heard that most stores can't get them yet (?)

There's no question that the 4% help in the last 6 miles of the marathon. Huge change in how your quads hold up.

For those of us who don't want to spend $175 on every day trainers but want much of the benefit, the Zoomfly Flyknit is great, and I've purchased multiple pairs online for under $100.

Has anyone raced the same distance (say 10k) in both Vaporfly and Zoomfly Flyknit? How did you do? In other words, how much better are Vaporfly (measured in seconds) than Zoomfly? I would rather know HOW MUCH better they are than why they are.........yeah yeah it's the foam.

Rather, give me factual evidence (times) instead of theories. Surely some of you sub 14/$250,000 guys on here have raced in both.

Thanks in advance for your insights.

longjack wrote:

rojo wrote:

Jonathan Gault has a profile of Cragg up on the homepage. One of the most interesting parts for me was when he talked to her about her racing shoes.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/08/remember-amy-cragg-with-the-olympic-trials-looming-the-world-championship-medalist-is-heading-to-chicago-her-1st-marathon-in-19-months/

in the past, shoes were pretty bad. now they're figuring out how to make it closer to natural barefoot on good ground.

of course, if it is good for your legs and you run better, some want to ban it.

and go back to bad shoes. and more injury.

just adjust the old times for 209 to a 207 if you want the conversion.

really if you want the fastest "shoe" it would be a bare foot, and spray on some extra synthetic skin with grit or small spikes, and have the track like a perfect natural surface with bounce but firm.

They have already done that, it was called the Nike Free. Remember them? Why are they not the equal of the Vaporfly = because they only have ankle propulsion.

So why hasn't the Nike Free weathered the sands of time as the running shoe of all running shoe........ie. so what was so wrong with the Free? I thought it was a damn good concept.

I have and nothing compares to the 4%.

longjack wrote:

rojo wrote:

Jonathan Gault has a profile of Cragg up on the homepage. One of the most interesting parts for me was when he talked to her about her racing shoes.

in the past, shoes were pretty bad. now they're figuring out how to make it closer to natural barefoot on good ground.

of course, if it is good for your legs and you run better, some want to ban it.

and go back to bad shoes. and more injury.

just adjust the old times for 209 to a 207 if you want the conversion.

really if you want the fastest "shoe" it would be a bare foot, and spray on some extra synthetic skin with grit or small spikes, and have the track like a perfect natural surface with bounce but firm.

Did you miss the Vibram movement? Vibrams are exactly what you are describing. They were terrible in every single way. Look. Use. Injury prevention. Etc.

I remember when Prefontaine said the same thing as Cragg about his waffle flats... and Shorter about his ASICS Tigers... and etc. etc. etc. Remember Jim Ryun's first race on mondo? Damn.