IAAF INVESTIGATING VAPORFLY NEXT%

I don't think there should be any limitations on height. There is the point of diminishing returns with weight. And we are currently seeing it with the Next% and Alphas. They will regulate themselves.

“Recent advances in technology mean that the concept of ‘assistance’ to athletes… has been the subject of much debate in the athletics world,” said the statement. “The IAAF has established a working group to consider the issues.”

Zero percent chance the shoes are banned. They are doing this to make the half dozen athletes complaining shut up. All for show.

The same for roller skates.

Roller skates will move by themselves when placed on hill. Vaporflys don’t move by themselves.

sanchobaile wrote:

sanchobaile wrote:

Ryan Hall weighs in:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3uPF1cpAjk/?igshid=t36b02h34abo

With all due respect to @kipchogeeliud as he is clearly the greatest marathoner of all-time irregardless of the shoes he is in, when a shoe company puts multiple carbon fiber plates in a shoe with cushion between the plates it is no longer a shoe, it’s a spring, and a clear mechanical advantage to anyone not in those shoes. I’m just hoping @iaaf_athletics makes sure the upcoming Olympics and @wmmajors are fair playing fields for athletes of all brands.

You probably need to re-think your use of irregardless.

If vaporflys are banned, we have to ban indoor tuned tracks.

Hypocrates wrote:

If vaporflys are banned, we have to ban indoor tuned tracks.

Vaporflys won’t be banned because the people who make rules in this sport thankfully aren’t quite as thick as posters who think that trampolines are more than 100% efficient.

The shoes are (potentially) an advancement in technology over existing footwear which has been steadily improving since we used to run in heavy leather shoes.

On paper, the ideal shoe in terms of energy return is something which is weightless whilst perfectly stiff. We have been moving towards that slowly since the early days.

Carbon plates improve stiffness and the light composite and foamed materials used keep the shoes light.

Again it’s just personal opinion as to what shoes should be allowed. No shoes can return more energy than put into them. You can make a decision that only old leather shoes, modern shoes or no shoes should be allowed.

soccerxc wrote:

https://hypebeast-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/hypebeast.com/2019/10/nike-zoomx-vaporfly-iaaf-investigation-unfair-advantage-sub-two-minute-record-marathon?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fhypebeast.com%2F2019%2F10%2Fnike-zoomx-vaporfly-iaaf-investigation-unfair-advantage-sub-two-minute-record-marathon

Discus

I KNEW that it was just a matter of time before these shoes made their way into the throwing events.

The Elements of Style wrote:

sanchobaile wrote:

With all due respect to @kipchogeeliud as he is clearly the greatest marathoner of all-time irregardless of the shoes he is in, when a shoe company puts multiple carbon fiber plates in a shoe with cushion between the plates it is no longer a shoe, it’s a spring, and a clear mechanical advantage to anyone not in those shoes. I’m just hoping @iaaf_athletics makes sure the upcoming Olympics and @wmmajors are fair playing fields for athletes of all brands.

You probably need to re-think your use of irregardless.

You meaning Ryan Hall... You should rethink your likely habit of commenting on internet links without reading them.

The most ridiculous part of his post is the last statement "are fair playing fields for athletes of all brands." Uh since when does it matter that its fair for athletes of all brands? As long as the shoe is publicly available and not banned, it should be allowed.

If an athlete's sponsored brand is forcing her to run in the brand's shoes and therefore she cannot race in Nikes, well that's a problem between the athlete and the sponsor.

People are so absurdly entitled these days. They want a shoe contract, they want to be paid to run (lol), and then they cry if another company develops a better product. If you don't like the terms of your contract negotiate another or find a new sponsor. The terms of individual athletes contracts should not dictate the rules of the sport and should not inhibit innovation in the industry.

If athletes want to compete in running competitions absent innovation, they should start a purist league where everyone runs without cloths, shoes, gels, special drinks, or tracks.

Kipchoge's shoe is available to all? Was the shoe Rupp wore in the 2016 Trials available to all?

It's been said before, cycling figured this out. It's not terribly difficult.

We need to read the article and stop listening to Steve Magness. The author says Vaporflys are $350 and just seems to lack any authenticity. Drugs are a way bigger threat to records.

sanchobaile wrote:

Ryan Hall weighs in:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3uPF1cpAjk/?igshid=t36b02h34abo

This from the guy who claims his marathon PR is from a downhill course with a hurricane tailwind.

The difference between the non-vaporfly Marathon WR 2014 and the Vaporfly WR 2018 is 1:18. Not really that much difference over 4 years.

You clearly don’t know much about simple physics. If the shoe returned 100% of the energy put in it would bounce up and down to the same height forever. This means on each stride the total energy returned would be the sum of all previous strides.

Also perfectly stiff shoes is not what you want at all. That’d be like running on wood blocks. You want a shoe that’s tuned perfectly to the natural frequency of the compression portion of the runners stride.

Is the technology patented? Why haven’t Adidas, NB and ASICS used the same technology?

Curious was Rupp wearing this shoe last weekend? What about the BTC runners did they use the same spike Hassan wore? Houlihan set an AR , would it be erased?

Here’s a proposal with a brief explanation and justification. Note: we used 31 mm as an example proposal here, as that’s what Nike reported the original VF midsole thickness was, but independent outlets have typically measured it as 36-37 mm.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2019/10/14/shoes-and-sub-2-hr-marathon/

exrunner wrote:

Shoes can’t create force.

All the energy to move the runner forward comes from the runner.

Do with that basic physics lesson what you wish.

queue the man on springs jumping over a building...

As an interesting note, remember that back in 2010, NBA banned the Athletic Propulsion Labs Concept 1 Shoes, the reason being that they produced “unfair competitive advantage.”

The shoes, featuring APL’s Load ‘N Launch technology, apparently, improved a player’s vertical leap by up to 3.5 inches while simultaneously reducing player energy input.

Dufus wrote:

IAAF cooperates in propagandizing Nike shoes.

Propaganda as in advertising.

I got to hand it to Nike. They are the master's of the PR/Marketing world. It's only been a couple of weeks since their running club coach was banned and incriminating emails between him and the CEO were displayed to the world and they've managed to create a scandal of much less dubious ethical proportions that has made the track world forget about the NOP debacle. And at the same time, it is going to help them sell more shoes. This is a huge win-win for them. If the shoe is not banned any elite not sponsored by another shoe company and many hobbyjoggers will be buying this shoe. If the IAFF deems the shoes illegal elites won't wear them, a minuscule market share, but hobby joggers and those trying to get their Boston qualifiers surely will and they will probably sell even more shoes.

This is a periodic reminder that the article linked to in the OP is literally fake news. The article was likely generated purely by computer algorithm based on an older article, and there is no new statement from the IAAF, which the cited article does not link to. The worst part is that the original source is literally an article by one Robert Johnson posted at the running site Let Us Run dot com, which you may have heard of. And that article was posted back in July.

As for limiting shoes based on stack height, that's a workable standard, but why 31 mm? Because that would end up banning a lot of Hokas and maybe the Brooks Adrenaline. I remain in favor of letting gravity and weight increases determine the limit on stack height

As the BSJM blog post makes clear but doesn't say outright, Nike isn't doing anything hugely new here. They've just finally figured out how to combine the plate of track spikes (and Mizuno), the stack height of Hoka, and an even better foam than Adidas's Boost.

I don't think this will be going anywhere, maybe a height limitation ?

In any case the 1:59:40.2 is not IAAF sanctioned so KIP gets the last laugh anyway ;-)