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

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Yawn. Not that old chestnut again. As I've said on here many, many times before please feel free to go run a marathon in a pair of plate spikes and report back to us....

If you're gonna nitpick arguments then I could easily join the train of people clowning you for the retarded roller skates argument. The point isn't that a spike provides the same advantages to a marathon as a carbon fiber plate. The point (and an obvious one at that) is that going against innovations in competition shoe design is stupid and they should be embraced like every other innovation that came before the carbon fiber plate

I'm not nitpicking anything! You literally just said there was no difference, so go run a marathon in a pair of spikes...

Of course you, and nobody else in their right mind will, because it's an invalid argument. They aren't the same thing as far as distance running goes.

The plate does not represent innovation in a running shoe. It represents the establishment of a new form of footwear.

Innovation is one thing. But in this day and age any improvements should now be reaching a point of being very largely marginal. We shouldn't be seeing records getting smashed in pretty much every discipline from mile up over such a short period of time. If that had happened any historic era, I'm pretty sure we'd have no problem laughing at the stupidity of it and calling it out for exactly what it was.

Personally I think they should be banned from competitions, unless it can be shown that they don't have that much advantage.

It feels a bit similar to the full body swimsuit debate, where they were banned in 2010 or so. They need to do it sooner than later though.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

The plate does not represent innovation in a running shoe. It represents the establishment of a new form of footwear.

What do you think the track spike was considered to be when it was first created? It was a new form of footwear. And times dropped dramatically. There was immediate backlash but eventually they became so popular that they are commonplace from junior to elite level running. These arguments have been done before and you know this exactly where this is gonna go. Carbon plate footwear is already becoming commonplace with companies other than Nike making their own carbon copies (pun intended) of the vaporfly because, like the first spike ever introduced, the vaporfly is just a base for advancement towards innovations that go towards some of the most amazing athletic feats in history. How can you be opposed to that prospect?

I have a three post per thread rule so I am out of this debate as of now.

I have run in VFs and have done multiple time trials at 1 km and 1 mile distances alternating Saucony Type A8 racing flats with the VF 4%. To the split second, I experienced zero difference in speed. None. Using my Garmin Fenix 5 and a Garmin Run HR strap, none of my metrics were consistently different in either shoe - no difference in ground contact time, LR ratio, vertical bounce, cadence, or stride length.

My marathon experience with the VFs earlier this year confirmed that these shoes weren't really propelling me faster but were significantly easier on me - leaving more in the tank for later. I normally race in Kinvaras and the VFs were maybe slightly more responsive than the Sauconys but they significantly more cushioning. But faster because of some spring effect? Nope - not feeling it.

My very unscientific experience with the VFs leads me to conclude that the carbon fibre plate doesn't really act like a spring but rather seems to stabilize the foot better and reduces leg fatigue in the process - something that essentially gives stability and required firmness that the cushioning (and light) zoom-x foam cannot offer.

The zoom-x foam, IMO would be too mushy at the VF's stack height without the plate - while that would help cushion the runner, I believe that the energy return would be so-so. Running on the Pegasus Turbo helped me conclude that - maybe I didn't give them enough of a chance but I found them to be way too bouncy and mushy. The first shoe I've really hated.

If it can be demonstrated that the carbon fibre plate acts like a spring, then I would sympathize more with the nay-sayers. My (very unscientific) experience with them suggests that the plate is more to offset some downsides of a Zoom-x sole.

The above poster is obviously not me and having failed to make an argument has resorted to impersonation to try and discredit my comments.

Pathetic that you are too intellectually small minded to stand on your on two feet on a platform where you can put your point anonymously in the first place.

I hope you are identified and IP banned.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

The above poster is obviously not me and having failed to make an argument has resorted to impersonation to try and discredit my comments.

Pathetic that you are too intellectually small minded to stand on your on two feet on a platform where you can put your point anonymously in the first place.

I hope you are identified and IP banned.

I don't know what kind of game you're playing, but to me it just looks like you're just trying to shift the goal posts so you don't have to answer to anyone's posts. There are some solid answers to the nonsense you keep posting, and you just keep ignoring everyone's arguments, to the point where you've stooped this low. It's obvious you're a troll, so I don't know why I'm replying to you. But I guess this last attempt you tried was just so ridiculous I had to speak up.

Everyone stop feeding the troll now, guys. He's running out of bait, so let's not encourage him any further.

I have answered everyone's legitimate posts but would be interested in hearing any reasoned responses to my point.

My last post was simply to point out that someone stole my handle and posted that racist garbage.

I've posted here for probably over a year now under the "Vaporfly Asterisk" handle - something which is easily searchable on this site but you will find NO instances at all of that kind of nonsense on ANY dated posts...

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

The above poster is obviously not me and having failed to make an argument has resorted to impersonation to try and discredit my comments.

Pathetic that you are too intellectually small minded to stand on your on two feet on a platform where you can put your point anonymously in the first place.

I hope you are identified and IP banned.

You have to have credit first in order to be discredited Mr. roller blades.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

I'm not nitpicking anything! You literally just said there was no difference, so go run a marathon in a pair of spikes...

Of course you, and nobody else in their right mind will, because it's an invalid argument. They aren't the same thing as far as distance running goes.

If you’re not nitpicking then go do a trail marathon in a pair of rollerblades.

Well like I said you haven't discredited anything yet so why not actually try?

As I have said, whether Vaporflys or Rollerblades, if you are on a flat surface there is NO difference. It is a closed system, you can only get out of it what you put in. The Vaporflys' springs are a mechanical device which reduce the amount of energy loss to the system. The rollerblades' wheels are mechanical devices which reduce the amount of energy loss to the system.

Now the truth is, no matter how outlandish, how hysterical it may seem, that is indisputable.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

I have answered everyone's legitimate posts but would be interested in hearing any reasoned responses to my point.

You didn't respond to mine.

They don't make you 4% faster.

Eliud Kipchoge is not a 2:06 guy in special shoes.

Breaking 2 was a two hour shoe commercial.

Prove me wrong.

Nike Marketing is Great wrote:

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.

Sorry but your post was irrelevant to me as you put "They have Nike haters screaming...".

I'd already stated in a post prior to this that I actually run in Nikes so I could / can only assume your comments were aimed elsewhere.

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.

This argument is ridiculous. EVERYONE has access to them at this point. Whether they can afford them is another conversation. But unlike the past, they are readily available at MSRP.

The other argument over technology improving performance is also crazy. I compare it to golf, a sport with arguably a more entrenched heritage in the past. That's like the PGA saying no one can use the new Callaway driver because it provides an advantage over the last Callaway driver (5 more yards). Or the new Titleist wedges over the old ones because they have better grooves and allow you to have more control greenside.

Get over it. If you don't like them, fine. No one is forcing you to buy them. But until they violate any rules/regulations, they should stay.

But didn't that all happen? Drivers have COR restrictions and wedges can't use U grooves anymore, right? My golf days are 10-15 years behind me but I recall those being big things previously.

cheater fly away baby wrote:

"Not everyone has access to EPO."

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

Horrible argument here. There is a world of difference between "access" and "ability to purchase."

Everyone does have access to the VF. Not everyone has the resources to purchase a $250 pair of shoes.

Not only that, but the purpose of the VF is to increase running efficiency, not to give the runner a "speed boost."

Here's an idea: learn the basics of what you intend to b*tch and moan about before you proceed to post anything. It will be a nice challenge for you.

tour balata 90 is where it's at wrote:

But didn't that all happen? Drivers have COR restrictions and wedges can't use U grooves anymore, right? My golf days are 10-15 years behind me but I recall those being big things previously.

The COR restriction is real (USGA = .83 Max, R&A = .86 or .83 Max, depending on the tournament).

U Grooves are not illegal, although, because of a USGA rule change regarding the volume of the grooves and grooves spacing, it makes much more sense to utilize V grooves on any club lofted 24º or more. Better put: with the new(ish) rules regarding the volume of club face grooves, you can either use a club with U grooves that are spaced further apart or a club with V grooves that are spaced closer together (a huge majority of club manufacturers opted for the latter).

#BringBackTheBalata!

aoxomoxoa wrote:

Not only that, but the purpose of the VF is to increase running efficiency, not to give the runner a "speed boost."

What an absolutely absurd thing to write. Especially in the context of your self righteousness.

Talk about a lack of self awareness.

You are correct. The only difference is the rules were adjusted to specifically draw a line in the sand, and these features you are describing were determined to be across it. The same thing goes for belly putters.

The 4%/Next% shoes aren't breaking any explicit USATF regulations. And until the regulations and rules are changed, they're completely within reason to use and the runner shouldn't be called out for it as being a cheater.

BTW, Balata90 was the best ball ever. I still keep 1 in my bag.