Vaporflys for High School Cross???

Buy a pair of vapor fly’s.

Drill holes in the bottom.

Add spikes.

Boom.

Problem solved.

How rich are your parents?

Contact Gwen. If you're lucky, her spike version will fit you. She doesn't need them.

Vaporflys have incredibly little tread. Whatever benefit they give from the insole would be lost compared to what they give up in tread. Seriously, the tread is like 1/32 of an inch. I see no benefit for cross country use unless an athlete is injured and is wearing for more structural support. Even this scenario doesn't seem worth it given the price of the shoes. PS: They wear out after 100-120 or so miles.

I think in addition to the lack of tread mentioned before, the stack height is also a problem on most cross country courses. When you had that much foam between you and the ground it can feel really unstable when going over varied terrain or making turns. The Vaporflys are almost universally considered a marathon shoe because they manage to maximize energy return and cushioning over the distance. I think it's been pretty universally decided that the benefits at shorter distances are significantly reduced and you're better off with a pair of $50 flats that have better tread, less weight, and a lower profile (ie closer to the ground).

crisscrosscountry wrote:

I think in addition to the lack of tread mentioned before, the stack height is also a problem on most cross country courses. When you had that much foam between you and the ground it can feel really unstable when going over varied terrain or making turns. The Vaporflys are almost universally considered a marathon shoe because they manage to maximize energy return and cushioning over the distance. I think it's been pretty universally decided that the benefits at shorter distances are significantly reduced and you're better off with a pair of $50 flats that have better tread, less weight, and a lower profile (ie closer to the ground).

VF are still faster than any other shoe for a 10K, and probably for a 5K depending on the course. If it's asphalt or another similar hard surface, the VF will be a lot quicker than a normal XC flat.

Have you ever worn the VF for a 5k or 10k? I have— for both. In the same season I also wore Streak 6s to compare. They are absolutely not better for either distance on any surface than a Streak or similar, or spikes. Don’t make sh!t up.

You would run slower in vaporflys compared to regular cross country spikes. Wear the spikes.

Spikes are lighter, they have spikes in them so you won't slip, the vaporflys would slip.

And it's no secret that vaporflies DO NOT just make you faster. They are still comparable to other road racing shoes for their weight.

Have you ever worn the VF for a 5k or 10k? I have— for both. In the same season I also wore Streak 6s to compare. They are absolutely not better for either distance on any surface than a Streak or similar, or spikes. Don’t make sh!t up.

Yes, I have worn them for both. I wore them for a 2 mile as well. They are absolutely faster than the streak for 10K, 5K/3K more arguable but I'd still roll with the VF for the 5K. There was a study that showed an improvement in the VF even at 3K--1.9 percent faster than the Matumbo.

So in summary: (1) calm down, (2) not making anything up.

For those interested, here is a article that references the study:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2367961/how-do-nikes-vaporfly-4-shoes-actually-work

"To be fair, there are a bunch of interesting new wrinkles and twists in the Grand Valley study. Crucially, unlike the Colorado study, it wasn’t funded by or affiliated with Nike, Adidas, or any other shoe company. It also found that the Vaporfly was 2.6 percent more efficient than Nike Zoom Matumbo track spikes, and observed an average improvement of 1.90 percent in 3,000 and 5,000-meter track times—new territory for a shoe that’s mostly been marketed to marathoners. But the basic claim that the Vaporfly allows you to burn significantly less energy to run at a given pace is now pretty widely accepted."

That's a track spike, too. The Matumbo is 3.8 ounces. XC spikes and flats are generally heavier--the Streak is 6.4oz. Bottom line if the surface isn't slippery and doesn't have tight turns, VF is probably the fastest shoe.

Oh wow a second groundbreaking study of 24 “highly trained” runners piggybacking on the other study of 10 pronounced heelstrikers demonstrating marginal benefits gained through goo shoes with carbon centers.

Your loss, bud.

Sounds like a sprained ankle waiting to happen

Depends on the course.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Sounds like a sprained ankle waiting to happen

Definitely depends on the course. If the ground is uneven, probably not a smart move due to the stack height, and if there are a lot of tight turns they wouldn't work well (although any decent XC course doesn't have too many tight turns, that is a run killer in general).

I have worn the VF on fireroad type dirt courses and they do great. I have worn them on dry grass and they do great. I have worn them for track workouts and races and they do great. Obviously they kill it on the roads/crete. Longer grass, true trail running with a lot of uneven ground, or lots of narrow tight turns and they will struggle.

gopre26 wrote:

It's no secret, vaporflys are making people faster. Would it be worth while to use them on a cross country course instead of spikes? Naturally spikes would be the go to on a muddy day but if it were dry then the vaporflys would be optimal? Right?

I’ve used these on a dry, hilly, long grass, and across farmers fields for a recent cross country course. It was difficult in places with instability and almost rolling an ankle twice.

Depends on the course, if it’s just off road on golf course style terrain then they work perfect, as the terrain get trickier I would say no use spikes.

Watched the CO state champs this weekend and noticed one of the winners wearing the Next%. Pretty much all dirt course.