If it were the Vapourfly 20%, 100% of people would think they should be banned.

cheater fly away baby wrote:

People will tolerate a bit of a speed boost with shoes due to carbon fiber plate spring-board technology, but if it's too much, it will not be tolerated.

Maybe we should allow a tiny bit of EPO then? Maybe a tiny bit of xenon gas? HMM???

"Not everyone has access to EPO."

Not everyone has access to these cheater shoes. They are hugely expensive.

It's nuts.

I am against the cheaterfly but think you have a flawed argument. If a shoe provides an advantage under specific guidelines that all shoes must adhere to then it should be allowed. The guidelines are what need to be argued. Right now there aren't clear guidelines. The intent of each shoe material must also be considered. Materials added to the shoe to provide an advantage (like a carbon fiber plate) should have rules on how they are used and what is allowed.

Shoes are not supposed to provide an advantage.

No medal for Rupp, no WR for Kipchoge. Carry on.

Give it another year and every company will have carbon fiber shoes on the market. There are already several other options than the Nikes, yet no one ever mentions those when these arguments come up. What this boils down to is Nike hate.

cheater fly away baby

Maybe we should allow a tiny bit of EPO then? Maybe a tiny bit of xenon gas? HMM???

"Not everyone has access to EPO."

Its not that difficult to buy EPO.

But the real difference is that EPO use can lead to death. Almost the same with other PED, sereous negative effects. Shoes - no.

Objections to the VF are stupid. Every shoe with foam soles provide some degree of cushion and some degree of energy return at the cost of a certain amount of weight. The materials used in the VF are incrementally better at doing what every other shoe out there is trying to do. There's no magic to them, no extra source of energy. Supplementing foam with mechanical additions of various kinds has been tried for years by Mizuno, Newton, On, and probably others. Now Nike is doing it, only they're doing it better than their competitors. It's capitalism and competition and technological innovation at its finest, and I am going to buy a pair.

dsadsa wrote:

Give it another year and every company will have carbon fiber shoes on the market. There are already several other options than the Nikes, yet no one ever mentions those when these arguments come up. What this boils down to is Nike hate.

This is a stupid comment. It's nothing to do with Nike hate, not for me anyway, I've ran in Nike flats in the past and have the epic reacts at the moment for recovery runs. But I've been pretty vocal in my disapproval of the Vaporflys.

It doesn't matter one jot who they're manufactured by. The point is that they're hybrid footwear not running shoes and should be recognised as such.

The spring is a foreign mechanical aid which has never been part of running shoes as much as roller blade wheels are mechanical aids which have never been part of running footwear. If you allow Vaporflys you should allow roller blades also for Marathon world record attempts. The logic of allowing one and not the other is beyond me.

I wonder perhaps if it is because the spring is hidden within the foam? Out of sight out of mind.

Many features of many brands of shoes improve performance by reducing slippage or reducing energy return loss or reducing weight. And "improve" here is defined as compared with other shoes that are not as grippy or are heavier or which cushion by absorbing too much of the energy that our strides produce.

The debate comes down to whether or not the carbon fiber plate should not be allowed because the device gives runners an unfair advantage over others who do not have the device. In my view, provided that the shoe - or a reasonable competitor - is widely available in the market, there really is no unfair advantage in a given race. Another question is can these be homolgated to the point that carbon fiber plates are "fair" for recognition of event records - given that runners ten years ago couldn't have run in them? That's trickier in my view but I would still come down on the side of this being little different from a myriad of tech changes that have occurred over the past decades - from lighter shoes to compression gear, electrolytes and gels. Today's training and equipment is way different from 50 years ago and I think everybody who looks at records over time acknowledges today's advantages.

At the end of the day, it's still our energy that is propelling us. We may be losing less of it in the VF4s but it's still ours.

Ottawa Runner wrote:

At the end of the day, it's still our energy that is propelling us. We may be losing less of it in the VF4s but it's still ours.

Op is correct, you are wrong. We have learned how to significantly improve our efficiency with use of "just our energy propelling us" via equipment that gives mechanical advantage (think Blade Runner), and now have developed ways to do so within the construct of our footwear. Shoes with mechanical advantages that have been proven to harness kinetic energy return beyond an agreed upon standard that is provided by the surface we are running on should be banned from official competitions.

Works 100%, 70% of the time.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

If you allow Vaporflys you should allow roller blades also for Marathon world record attempts. The logic of allowing one and not the other is beyond me.

At least you're up front and honest when it comes to your stupidity. I appreciate you not trying to hide it.

If you think there is unfair competitive advantage in a carbon fiber plate in a racing shoe, then you should be mad about the use of spike plates in track spikes. In context, they are very similar innovations that enhanced athletic performance drastically but look at how commonplace spike plates are now. The vaporfly argument is just a passing topic that will cave in on itself as the use of carbon fiber plates become more commonplace just like spike plates did (which they already are).

The fact that this thread exists shows you just how good Nike's marketing is. They have Nike haters screaming "Look how great Nike's shoes are, they are so great they need to be outlawed".

I think the vaporflys are great shoes, the best on the market, but their only incrementally better than the second best pair of shoes which are incrementally better than the third best.

They do not make you run 4% faster. Without them Kipchoge would still run a lot faster than 2:06.

lmaoooo wrote:

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

If you allow Vaporflys you should allow roller blades also for Marathon world record attempts. The logic of allowing one and not the other is beyond me.

At least you're up front and honest when it comes to your stupidity. I appreciate you not trying to hide it.

Lovely. I was hoping someone snag on that.

Ok, so why don't you humor a moran such as myself by explaining why that was so stupid. As someone else has pointed out above "many brands of shoes improve performance by reducing slippage or reducing energy return loss". That's exactly what roller blades (as well as Vaporflys) do. As is commonly used as an excuse by the apologists on here - you cannot use roller blades without using your own energy. They are simply more efficient at retaining the energy you put into the activity. They cannot and do not supply an additional energy input so why should they be banned?

Of course, having been so willing to point out my stupidity, I'm sure you'll have a perfectly valid explanation of the difference. Look forward to hearing it!

I thought we had reached peak stupid, but I guess not.

Go to the top of a hill. Put on shoes. Point your shoes downhill but don't move your feet. Your speed will be 0.00 m/s.

Now put on rollerblades. Point your feet downhill but don't move them. Do you notice a difference?

Brilliant insight of the day: Wheels are not the same as soles made of foam.

local maximum identified wrote:

I thought we had reached peak stupid, but I guess not.

Go to the top of a hill. Put on shoes. Point your shoes downhill but don't move your feet. Your speed will be 0.00 m/s.

Now put on rollerblades. Point your feet downhill but don't move them. Do you notice a difference?

Brilliant insight of the day: Wheels are not the same as soles made of foam.

Ha ha, what an absolute clown but I love it!!

Apologies - I didn't realise that we were talking DOWNHILL marathons here but I guess that's EXACTLY the type of person whose going to have no problem wearing a pair of Vaporflys as well to PR in. Ha ha ha, I'm arguing with a downhill Boston qualifier about ethics...

How about you go down to your local flat park and put on your rollerblades. Point your feet in whatever direction takes your fancy but don't move your feet. Your speed will be 0.00 m/s... Now tell us the difference between standing on the spot in a pair of rollerblades and standing on the spot in a pair of Vaporflys.

Moran!

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Ha ha, what an absolute clown but I love it!!

Apologies - I didn't realise that we were talking DOWNHILL marathons here but I guess that's EXACTLY the type of person whose going to have no problem wearing a pair of Vaporflys as well to PR in. Ha ha ha, I'm arguing with a downhill Boston qualifier about ethics...

How about you go down to your local flat park and put on your rollerblades. Point your feet in whatever direction takes your fancy but don't move your feet. Your speed will be 0.00 m/s... Now tell us the difference between standing on the spot in a pair of rollerblades and standing on the spot in a pair of Vaporflys.

Moran!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Seriously? Roller blading and running are two completely different sports. Is that the best comparison you could come up with? Why not ice skates or cross country skis or a jet pack?

You need to go back and read my first post. I'm not comparing rollerblading and running as sports. I simply said that rollerblades and Vaporflys are hybrid footwear rather than running shoes as both have mechanical aids, which allows the wearing to obtain an energy saving which would be impossible in conventional footwear.

Obviously it's an evocative comparison to stir debate but in terms of the physics I believe it's true. A spring is an additional device, wheels are additional devices. There is no pure logic to allowing one and not the other.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

You need to go back and read my first post. I'm not comparing rollerblading and running as sports. I simply said that rollerblades and Vaporflys are hybrid footwear rather than running shoes as both have mechanical aids, which allows the wearing to obtain an energy saving which would be impossible in conventional footwear.

Obviously it's an evocative comparison to stir debate but in terms of the physics I believe it's true. A spring is an additional device, wheels are additional devices. There is no pure logic to allowing one and not the other.

Plastic spike plates were a controversial "mechanical aid" when introduced in the 1960's but now it's almost impossible to find a pair of spikes without them. Do you think modern day spikes should be banned from competition? Why are those any different than carbon fiber racing shoes?