IAAF INVESTIGATING VAPORFLY NEXT%

Like Really Bro wrote:

My gripe is against the people arguing that it should be banned because of their use in Recovery. People do hard runs in them and don’t feel so beat up the next day, then opponents come on and say this is bad.

Why is that bad!? That sounds like a really good thing and I hope the technology gets more widespread, especially for those of us who live in concrete paradises with no real access to dirt or grass for much of the year.

I could care less if people wear them out of the competition. To me, they fall into the competition ban category of things like caffeine(although there is no evidence they are harmful to you).

But similar to PED's different people will get a different benefit to these shoes. For PED's there is levels of responders, same with these shoes based on individual stride and other factors. The competition will no longer be which runner is the most talented. It will be which of the talented runner is the highest responder to Vaporfly's. Which is totally against the spirit of the sport.

yes, but... wrote:

Height isn't a bad starting point at all, but would you keep that at 31mm across all shoe sizes? If so, then you've created a new problem. The industry already changes the height of the midsole, increasing in height as the size of the shoe gets larger to compensate for athlete weight among other things. The height of the foam determines how much energy can be stored and then returned, so if you limit it to 31mm, suddenly you're allowing the smaller sizes an advantage over the larger ones.

Regulation is probably a great idea, but finding the perfect solution is going to be extremely tricky.

Perhaps just a simple elasticity test of the sole of the shoe. In the spirit of IAAF rule 143.2:

"The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. "

Then any purpose the shoe provides outside of this which is purposely engineered into the shoe should lead to the banning of said shoe. If the sole of a shoe can be tested to have an unnecessary level of elasticity, calculated by the % volume change in the sole when compressed under a fixed pressure and released, then that shoe is clearly overstepping the spirit of the rules.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect: 1. Runners use shoes that are on the market available to all. 2. That those shoes be tested to ensure they do not provide and advantage outside of "give protection and stability to the feet".

As long as all runners are clear on these expectations prior to the start of any event, I don't see the problem.

intenserunner wrote:

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect: 1. Runners use shoes that are on the market available to all. 2. That those shoes be tested to ensure they do not provide and advantage outside of "give protection and stability to the feet".

As long as all runners are clear on these expectations prior to the start of any event, I don't see the problem.

I don't think it would take a whole lot of resources for the IAAF to simply test the soles of all popular running shoes on the market as they come out and provide a table of which shoes are OK to compete in. Don't allow athletes to compete in major competitions in any shoe line that is not available to all on the market and has not been tested. This will get rid of all the controversy and will be easy to comply with.

“Pokémon Power: Energy Return. As often as you like during your turn, you may take one discarded energy card and return it to your active Pokémon. The power cannot be used if AlphaFly is asleep, confused, or suspended for doping”

Burnsy wrote:

Will someone turn this into a Pokémon meme? It’s evolving!

https://ibb.co/0DPTcWy

They should also ban anyone who buys shoes with a credit card since people without a credit card may not be able to afford the same shoes. Also Bikila didn't use a credit card in order to run barefoot.

Credit Card === Cheating

glaukos wrote:

Hypothetically, if Nike's shoes RETURN (not create) 75% of the energy while all other shoes RETURN (not create) 25% of the energy, then Nike's shoes have a very clear advantage. They do not have to create energy to have an advantage. If they simply return significantly more energy than other shoes, then that is a significant advantage. You seem to be struggling to understand this very simple point. Whether the shoes create energy or simply return more energy is completely irrelevant to most of the arguments people are making.

From the BJSM blog post linked earlier, you'll see there's no need to speculate. The post links to a published study that found 66% energy return for EVA, 76% for Boost (a 15% improvement!), and 87% for the Vaporfly (a 14.5% improvement over Boost).

Boost shoes offered an advantage because they were marginally but clearly better than EVA (which in turn was clearly better than blown rubber). Now the Vaporfly represents another incremental improvement over Boost. If the IAAF fails to ban boost, I predict the sky will not fall.

us old timers will remember when Lance Armstrong and his bunch called for a ban against too much carbon fiber, which is why he (famously) sometimes raced on a titanum bicycle.

Lance may have his detractors, but on this point I think we can all agree with him that carbon is an inherently unfair material and too much of it is a bad thing

https://gtms1339.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/oly_g_larmstrong2_300.jpg

I think we should invalidate every record that wasn't set wearing 100% cotton shirts and nuthuggers. For that matter, Greek sandals and floral wreaths should be mandatory.

That’s an interesting point. Controlling the thickness of the sole does make sense to me as a longer lever could multiply the force through the fulcrum effect.

I don’t think the shoes are overly thick to me though.

dont post those pics wrote:

runNomad.com wrote:

The Next% is the wrong show to investigate.. what a waste of time.

Lighten up, Colby.

ttps://

Wildhorse wrote:

How can you be proud of setting a PR just because you could afford to pay 250$ for a pair of shoes?

Compared to what?

120$ running shoes?

130$ racing flats?

140$ track spikes?

Looks like she had to use significantly less force to push off with the new shoes. Easier to stay relaxed and save yourself for the long haul. Would this actually assist with knee and impact injuries???

Otherwise it directly alters performance by reducing necessary energy output, doesn't just aid a runner like food or supplements taken on the run.

Lol. Always amuses me when this guy tries to sound smart. Not an engineer yet I can grasp these simple concepts.

I’m not struggling with anything. Post after post people are talking about trampolines that are more than 100% efficient or springs that are cheating by propelling the runner or storing energy from multiple foot strikes and releasing it later.

I wrote that these shoes might return more energy than other shoes but that they still lose energy, in my post about leather shoes. We have come from heavy shoes that waste energy as heat to much lighter shoes that also return more of the runners energy.

It’s the same reason we have moved from grass to cinder to now rubber tracks. It’s the evolution of sports technology.

I said, if you want to draw the line somewhere where do you draw it? All shoes waste energy. Some waste more than others. All new shoes waste less energy than old shoes. How do you arbitrarily decide that 51% energy return shoes are ok but 63% isn’t?

Do we go back to running barefoot on grass?

The push off doesn't look natural. But I'm not sure if I'm just seeing what I want to see. There does seem to be more "pop" before the heel lift compared to slow mo videos of athletes in other shoes

Impossible scenario.

For shoes to do nothing other than provide protection for feet without rebounding that energy to the runner (which everyone is suddenly opposed to) they would have to absorb as much force as possible.

So the shoes would slow the runner down.

Here’s a couple questions: who here would buy shoes that made them slow?

Who here goes out buying shoes that they think are slow? Who picks up shoes and thinks that they would make them too fast and puts them back?

Key is "purposely engineered". If layers are added to the shoe that serve no other purpose then to increase the efficiency of the runner ie. several layers of springy plates, it is pretty evident that the spirit of the IAAF rule has been broken. It is easy to test how much spring is in the sole of a shoe. It is then a simple matter to enforce running manufacturers to not make extra-springy soles...

Imagine as 2018/19 rolls around you are one of the top marathon runners in the world. You are in with a chance of an Olympic or world medal. You have a contract with Adidas which states you must wear their shoes. Do you lose the contract and wear the Nike shoes or do you lose to an inferior athlete. These are the choices that shouldn't have to be made if the playing field is level. I am quite frankly amazed that almost all Nike athletes wore a prototype Spike at the world champs featuring The same tech as Kipchoges Ineos 1.59 shoe yet nothing has been said....