No. One slow friend bought them and is still as slow
No. One slow friend bought them and is still as slow
Bob Schul Country wrote:
LOL at the 2 most ridiculous things in this thread:
1. OP for posting that a pair of shoes is ruining anything......I guess the logic would apply that Ferriari ruined the car scene for us Honda drivers.
2. That these shoes dont work.....lol. THey surely do.
I didn't say the shoes don't work. I said they are not the only reason people are being faster. OP made it sound like people just magically get a lot faster only because they are wearing Vaporflys, but my point was that if someone is willing to spend $250 on running shoes they appear to take running quite seriously which may include them to also take their training more seriously.
plebian wrote:
Sabre wrote:
After this weekend, everyone in our local running community is complaining about the "illegal" shoes. so I'm surprised no one else on Letsrun is b*tching about it.
Lol I run in an 'elite' rec group (half times around 1:10-1:18). Nobody complains about the Nikes. This doesn't happen.
Yeah, I agree. No one in any of my running groups cares. We barely remember what times everyone in the club runs, better yet anywhere else.
Thought I would add. On a local level, the top finishers aren't even wearing Vaporflys anyways.
It’s just the latest advance in shoe technology. In 5 years there will or will have been multiple new shoe models that displace the current vaporflys and this sentiment will arise again.
Sabre wrote:
Does anyone else see that a lot of local runners are having massive absurd 5k PRs after buying Cheaterflys? I am seeing several runners in my city suddenly dropping 30-45 seconds off their 5k PRs. I recently dropped a minute off from mine. Looking at everyone's training logs, they are having their best training cycles yet, but still, the general feeling seems to be that mid upper tier runners are suddenly top tier after buying new shoes. Anyone else seeing the same thing? Do PRs with Cheaterflys count??
Give us specific examples. You don't have to identify the runner (use Runner A, Runner B, etc.); also their prior PB.
More on point - what about runners using the cheaper ($99) Nike Zoomfly? How fast are they running?
Is Zoomfly just as effective at 5k and 10k? Not everyone wants to be a 'thoner.
fethi wrote:
Sabre wrote:
Does anyone else see that a lot of local runners are having massive absurd 5k PRs after buying Cheaterflys? I am seeing several runners in my city suddenly dropping 30-45 seconds off their 5k PRs. I recently dropped a minute off from mine. Looking at everyone's training logs, they are having their best training cycles yet, but still, the general feeling seems to be that mid upper tier runners are suddenly top tier after buying new shoes. Anyone else seeing the same thing? Do PRs with Cheaterflys count??
Give us specific examples. You don't have to identify the runner (use Runner A, Runner B, etc.); also their prior PB.
More on point - what about runners using the cheaper ($99) Nike Zoomfly? How fast are they running?
Is Zoomfly just as effective at 5k and 10k? Not everyone wants to be a 'thoner.
Ages - all mid 20's to mid 30's. All lifetime PRs. All wearing Vaporflys. Certified course backed up by everyone's Garmin data. I am included in the below so I am not a sore loser, just curious why more people aren't seeing this. No such improvements amongst non-VF wearers.
Male - 15:5X to 15:3X
Male - 16:4X to 15:4X
Male - 17:2X to 16:3X
Female - 17:5X to 17:2X
Female - 18:1X to 17:3X
I sure hope Cheaterflys are ruining local races. I bought myself a pair so I can ruin my goal race coming up this month. I can achieve a lifetime goal by running less than 1% faster than last year, so you'd better believe I'm shelling out $$$ for shoes. I'm also raising my mileage and workout volume. I've tried on the Next% indoors, but I'm saving them for a few key workouts and then racing. I see what people are talking about, though - they don't feel anything like any other shoes I've ever worn, and I do feel the action of the carbon plate. Let's hope they're as effective in practice as they claim to be.
I rolled my eyes this spring when the guy on the line next to me was wearing VF4% for the biggest regional 5K. He finished 30+ seconds ahead of me, but now that I follow him on Strava, I can see that he's a decade younger than me and puts in huge miles and gnarly workouts. So I'm hopping on the Cheaterfly bandwagon.
Sabra Cadabra wrote:
fethi wrote:
Give us specific examples. You don't have to identify the runner (use Runner A, Runner B, etc.); also their prior PB.
More on point - what about runners using the cheaper ($99) Nike Zoomfly? How fast are they running?
Is Zoomfly just as effective at 5k and 10k? Not everyone wants to be a 'thoner.
Ages - all mid 20's to mid 30's. All lifetime PRs. All wearing Vaporflys. Certified course backed up by everyone's Garmin data. I am included in the below so I am not a sore loser, just curious why more people aren't seeing this. No such improvements amongst non-VF wearers.
Male - 15:5X to 15:3X
Male - 16:4X to 15:4X
Male - 17:2X to 16:3X
Female - 17:5X to 17:2X
Female - 18:1X to 17:3X
Thanks. Which one were you? So you are not seeing much improvement from Zoomfly wearers? Or is it hard to differentiate Vaporfly from Zoomfly?
Does anyone see significant improvement from runners wearing Zoomfly Flyknit?
Good to see Vaporfly discused (see what I did there?) in a non-'thon setting.
Sabre wrote:
Does anyone else see that a lot of local runners are having massive absurd 5k PRs after buying Cheaterflys? I am seeing several runners in my city suddenly dropping 30-45 seconds off their 5k PRs. I recently dropped a minute off from mine. Looking at everyone's training logs, they are having their best training cycles yet, but still, the general feeling seems to be that mid upper tier runners are suddenly top tier after buying new shoes. Anyone else seeing the same thing? Do PRs with Cheaterflys count??
Lol 30-45 seconds. Comedy gold!
I'm a vaporfly fanboy. I'm on my 5th pair. I've raced probably 20 times in them, everything from 5K to marathon.
I wear them because they are awesome. And I can afford them. They are definitely faster than trainers in a 5k by a few seconds per mile. They are MAYBE faster than flats by a couple seconds TOTAL but it depends on the runner/surface/course.
Sabra Cadabra wrote:
Male - 15:5X to 15:3X
Male - 16:4X to 15:4X
Male - 17:2X to 16:3X
Female - 17:5X to 17:2X
Female - 18:1X to 17:3X
I may have been at the same race. A fellow geezer (60+) swore to me after the race that his brand new Vaporflys made a 20-second difference. He's been running low 19s all season, then suddenly 18:4X. He said it was incredible, and that a few others reported the same sort of improvement wearing Vaporflys for the first time that day.
I suppose it could be a placebo effect. Plus the race itself was conducive to fast times: Weather was nice, after a warm and muggy summer. It's a flat course with only three turns -- two 90-degree turns, and one sweeping turn. It was an evening race (most people perform best in the afternoon/evening). And the race was more competitive than any local 5K this year.
fethi wrote:
Sabra Cadabra wrote:
Ages - all mid 20's to mid 30's. All lifetime PRs. All wearing Vaporflys. Certified course backed up by everyone's Garmin data. I am included in the below so I am not a sore loser, just curious why more people aren't seeing this. No such improvements amongst non-VF wearers.
Male - 15:5X to 15:3X
Male - 16:4X to 15:4X
Male - 17:2X to 16:3X
Female - 17:5X to 17:2X
Female - 18:1X to 17:3X
Thanks. Which one were you? So you are not seeing much improvement from Zoomfly wearers? Or is it hard to differentiate Vaporfly from Zoomfly?
Does anyone see significant improvement from runners wearing Zoomfly Flyknit?
Good to see Vaporfly discused (see what I did there?) in a non-'thon setting.
The zoom flys are ok. They are a good shoe but there is a massive difference between the zoom fly and the vaporfly. The Vaporflys are noticeably lighter and bounncier. It's not even worth comparing.
Ok
So I own a pair of Vaporfly 4% Flyknits and I have ran 1Mile road, 5K, 10K, Half and Marathon distance.
what I have found is that over 1 Mile, 5k and 10K the vaporfly did not improve my times I actually couldn't get a PB whilst wearing these even with the best training of my life. my previous PB's in these distances had been wearing On Cloudlow (Which is dislike). I recently got a pair of Nike Streak LT4 since having these I have managed to PB the 1 Mile, 5K and expect to on the 10K in the next month.
What I did find with the vapourfly is that during 10 mile + races I was able to hold faster speeds without getting the same leg fatigue that I would in a firmer shoe.
I ran 18:20 for 5 k at age 44 in Vaporfly’s.
They’re light and bouncy so I think they may have helped.
Their only flaw is virtually no support in sharp turns.
Ran a 3:36 marathon in Hoka Bondi, lots of cushioning but slow shoes.
Ran 3:21 and 3:19 last year in Zoom fly in 2018 on flat courses. Shoes helped, better training helped as well.
This year I ran a 3:25 in Boston in Vaporfly’s but I was totally unprepared for the hills (I live by the sea).
I was in 3:16-3:17 shape on a flat course.
So 3 min faster going from Zoom fly to Vaporfly.
Think I’m gonna buy next in a few weeks, the money is no issue.
Daltonj800m wrote:
Sabre wrote:
Looking at everyone's training logs, they are having their best training cycles yet, but still, the general feeling seems to be that mid upper tier runners are suddenly top tier after buying new shoes. Anyone else seeing the same thing? Do PRs with Cheaterflys count??
The answer is right in your face. Solid training= Solid progression
I think the answer is a short course. Are we talking one race everyone ran 45-60 seconds faster than usual? Or is this consistent. My presumption is there was one 200-300 meter short course that everyone ran a huge PR at and now they are saying it's the shoes.
I know a guy who ran an ALL day downhill half marathon and ran 8 minutes faster than he ever ran again. He ran 70 minutes and never broke 78 minutes again. most of his races were over 80 minutes. Was it the shoes? Nope. Was it a great training cycle? Nope. It was an all downhill course with a total elevation drop of 2,125 feet.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Sabre wrote:
I think they do man. Not full of crap or trolling. Watched a dozen good runners get beat by Vaporfly wearing guys/girls they never would have any other year before. The huge PR boosts are real. I hit 2 mile and 5k PRs in the same race and felt like I could have kept going and hit a 10k PR too. Holding 5:00 pace an entire race has never felt easy before. These shoes keep your legs crazy fresh.
After this weekend, everyone in our local running community is complaining about the "illegal" shoes. so I'm surprised no one else on Letsrun is b*tching about it.
I agree. BYU guys all wore them on the track in the 10K at NCAA's. That track runners are trading in spikes for a road shoe should be a huge indicator. These shoes have changed things.
Some of the BYU guys wearing them in the 10000m at the NCAAs told me a lot. They could presumably have any type of shoe they wanted, so must have perceived an advantage. The second major factor to me was that the winner ran a well under 60 sec last lap in them, so you can obviously sprint in them.
I believe tests did show them to be effective at 5k and 3k in addition to longer distances compared to a light weight road she. My perception is that they are certainly faster than a road racing shoe at 5k pace.
Umm nope wrote:
Cheaterflys offer no advantage over regular flats in a 5k. You don't need massive amounts of cushion for that distance. And you're full of crap or just trolling with claims of huge PR boosts.
Dude this has nothing to do with cushion. Normal flats don't have the carbon fiber bounce back action.
Charlesvdw wrote:
I ran 18:20 for 5 k at age 44 in Vaporfly’s.
They’re light and bouncy so I think they may have helped.
Their only flaw is virtually no support in sharp turns.
Ran a 3:36 marathon in Hoka Bondi, lots of cushioning but slow shoes.
Ran 3:21 and 3:19 last year in Zoom fly in 2018 on flat courses. Shoes helped, better training helped as well.
This year I ran a 3:25 in Boston in Vaporfly’s but I was totally unprepared for the hills (I live by the sea).
I was in 3:16-3:17 shape on a flat course.
So 3 min faster going from Zoom fly to Vaporfly.
Think I’m gonna buy next in a few weeks, the money is no issue.
You ran 6 minutes slower going from Zoom to the shoe in question. Maybe you could argue only 3 minutes slower compared to the first Zoom race. By no stretch of the imagination did you run faster unless your comparison is with the Hoka.
You're hoping to prove that they are faster but just like those collegiate clown on YouTube, if anything was 'proven' it is the shoe's inferiority.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
I think the answer is a short course. Are we talking one race everyone ran 45-60 seconds faster than usual? Or is this consistent. My presumption is there was one 200-300 meter short course that everyone ran a huge PR at and now they are saying it's the shoes.
I believe the claims were 15-30 second improvement for those wearing Vaporflys, not all the runners.
If OP is referring to the same race I ran, it is a certified course, as he stated. As always, I brought a printout of the USATF certification map, and verified the start and finish locations before the race.
It's a loop course, start and finish a flat block apart, so no net elevation loss.
But, as I posted earlier, the course and conditions were definitely conducive to fast times: Weather was nice, after a warm and muggy summer. It's a flat course with only three turns -- two 90-degree turns, and one sweeping turn. It was an evening race (most people perform best in the afternoon/evening). And the race was more competitive than any other local 5K this year.
Go away Nike shill.