Does anyone seriously want vaporflys banned?

Looked at the figures in this one, and this one IS the Vaporfly plate. The status is pending for the patent. What does that mean for other companies that might want to use the shape of the plate assuming the Nike studies on plate curvature are correct?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170095034A1

I would submit that patents are a red herring. Any athlete who wants to can by a pair of Vaporflies. If they have contractual obligations that prevent them from using the best equipment available, that's between them and their sponsor. Or a national team could require all its athletes to use a piece of suboptimal equipment - burqinis for women athletes, for example - but that does not constitute an argument for preventing athletes of other nations from running in singlets. A few years ago when Boost was the best there was, Nike athletes running in suboptimal shoes was an issue between Nike and the athlete, not the IAAF.

I have to say, I appreciate the way this thread has turned, which is a more reasoned discussion of where the advantage lies, If it is in fact the patented shape of the plate (or some single factor) that accounts for the time advantage, then it seems to me much easier to regulate. Just say no plate, or different plate. Nike can adjust with a small loss, and times become more legit. Future shoes are built without these plates.

Banning the whole shoe, based on fuzzier things like the combination of stack height, the type of foam, the shape, weight etc just open races to constant litigation and distract what I think is a more urgent and constant battle: the attempt to keep athletes from doping, destroying their long term health for a few years of running prosperity.

Running shoes can assist too much, lowering times to levels that discredit records, but at least they don't cause retired runners to die of heart attacks in the middle of the night!

my 2c wrote:

I would submit that patents are a red herring. Any athlete who wants to can by a pair of Vaporflies. If they have contractual obligations that prevent them from using the best equipment available, that's between them and their sponsor. Or a national team could require all its athletes to use a piece of suboptimal equipment - burqinis for women athletes, for example - but that does not constitute an argument for preventing athletes of other nations from running in singlets. A few years ago when Boost was the best there was, Nike athletes running in suboptimal shoes was an issue between Nike and the athlete, not the IAAF.

The Adios was the WR shoe (Geb) before there was a Boost version, and I'm not sure the Adios Boost is any better than the Nike Streaks.

The IAAF has had a rule change since then anyway. Since 2018, shoes with unfair assistance or advantage are supposed to be referred for study to see if they should be prohibited. Someone is posting links in the past couple hours suggesting the the IAAF is finally looking into the Nikes. We'll see how that turns out.

Current IAAF footwear rule is below. I'd argue that "type of shoe" reasonably available to all for road racing would be carbon plated shoe with an extreme curve where the plate is close to the outsole in the forefoot and concave up shaped, and close to the foot in the middle and heel (the Vaporfly patent pending shape, performance supported by Nike study), rather than a specific model or brand. They are interested in the top of the sport, so parity between runners with different shoe sponsors is probably the best way to interpret that line.

Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.

The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and

stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,

however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair

assistance or advantage. Any type of shoe used must be reasonably

available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics.

Note (i): Adapting a shoe to suit the characteristic of a particular

athlete’s foot is permitted if made in accordance with the general

principles of these Rules.

69 RULES 142, 143

IAAF COMPETITION RULES 2018-2019

Note (ii): Where evidence is provided to the IAAF that a type of shoe

being used in competition does not comply with the Rules or the

spirit of them, it may refer the shoe for study and if there is

non-compliance may prohibit such shoes from being used in

competition.

Ban Rupp. He wore these in the 2016 Trials, and Games. So did Cragg, and Flanagan.

In the Games, Kipchoge wore them, Lelisa wore them, and Rupp wore them.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

The people who want the VF banned either 1) can't afford them, so they're butthurt or 2) can't BQ (even with the VF) and are butthurt.

Yet they type their complaints on smartphones, not the 3310, drive latest model vehicles they can afford etc... Such crybabies. Tech makes life easier. Deal with it. While we are at it, remove the shock absorbing landing area behind high jump and pole vault.

my 2c wrote:

I would submit that patents are a red herring. Any athlete who wants to can by a pair of Vaporflies. If they have contractual obligations that prevent them from using the best equipment available, that's between them and their sponsor. Or a national team could require all its athletes to use a piece of suboptimal equipment - burqinis for women athletes, for example - but that does not constitute an argument for preventing athletes of other nations from running in singlets. A few years ago when Boost was the best there was, Nike athletes running in suboptimal shoes was an issue between Nike and the athlete, not the IAAF.

Good point. Unless certain athletes are using a shoe that is not commercially available. Which was the case in 2016 and at the Olympics, but may or may not be now. I'm assuming the shoes Bekele and Kosgei wore (as well as others in the WMM) were standard products anyone can buy.

I wonder if similar shoes can be made or adapted to sprinting, as this would be a useful tool for overspeed training (downhill, etc).

Matbar wrote:

you fuckin what? wrote:

As opposed to those swimmers who don't swim, right?

Utter nonsense.

I guess you don’t under fluid dynamics, friction etc, and never saw any test with the suit that lead to their bans? Some of the tests involved diving in and gliding through the pool and measuring the distance/time and of kick off on the turn. On Olympic size pools, this passive device was seconds quicker not milliseconds, seconds quicker than the other swim suit. Hence a passive device without actually swimming.

As fast as I know, correctly me if I’m wrong we don’t have anything think like that?

Maybe we could strap a small parachute to us and run with the wind at our back and it would give us the same affect as the ban swim suit

You're all wrong. You don't 'coast' in running, like you do in swimming, and cycling. Those swimsuit were excessively slippery, and you can't have a mechanism to store/release energy in cycling, both during "coasting" phase. In running, you are always actively moving, and these shoes are a spring. These situations are similar, but different, and all are defined as "cheating."