IAAF INVESTIGATING VAPORFLY NEXT%

This is ridiculous wrote:

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....

Just test the damn shoes. Have a list of acceptable shoes for competitions. And keep bleeding edge shoes out of competitions. It is not hard. There are a very limited selection of shoes on the market that athletes have to choose from.

IAAF has a measurement for synthetic track rebound (I don't remember what it is). If it is below or above a certain range, the track is not certified IAAF. Mondo tracks have improved their rebound measurement as have polyurethane tracks. It is a simple measurement where a metal ball drops from a certain height and the rebound is then recorded. I would think shoes can be tested in a similar fashion and then be IAAF certified. If the rebound co-efficient is too high, they can not be used to set records. I think there are similar approaches in other sports, in particular golf.

dsvzdfbdfnd wrote:

Suburban Punk wrote:

Should gels be eliminated since they weren’t available for past efforts? GPS watches? Modern moisture wicking materials?

Cycling kinda has it figured out...minimum weight limits and geometry limits on frames...stiffness, suspension, drive trains(minus motors) are all fair game...

That's precisely what they need to do....not just for the Vaporfly but for any technological advance that improves perfromance by X%...you need to draw the line somewhere....or else where does it end? To extend your logic....at what point do you draw the line then?

You draw the line at introducing carbon fiber plates into running shoes. It's really that simple.

If only the technology existed to invalidate all performances at whatever level by morans like this, desperately trying to validate their own pathetic little hobbyjogger gains by pretending they can't see the obvious, once the bans comes in that would be sweet. Still no matter, they no themselves that their performances have been utterly worthless.

clownshow wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

What are you even talking about?

A perfect spring would continue to bounce perpetually as it would not dissipate any energy.

1.An object in motion will stay in motion, and

2.every action has an equal or opposite reaction.

You drop a perfect spring on the ground and it would perpetually bounce up and down as it would return 100% of the force applied to it on each bounce. (Ignoring drag)

You seem to be describing some kind of perfect damper, which is the exact opposite of a spring.

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

I never mentioned dropping the spring. Why have you added in gravitational potential? I talked about compressing the spring then releasing it.

An ideal spring is modelled as weightless anyway so dropping it would do nothing.

I talked about what an ideal spring is to explain simple physics concepts to those that believed shoes are creating energy.

How much energy return is fair?

Now that people are starting to accept that shoes can’t create energy, at what efficiency would you draw the line? It’s totally arbitrary of course.

60%, 70%, 80% 90%?

Again shoes and tracks have steadily improved since running became a sport.

Technological advancement is a major reason why runners today are faster than runners in 1940 and why world records still progress.

The world record for the marathon in 1940 was 2:26:44. Technological advancements are not a major reason why Kipchoge and Bekele have run 25 minutes faster than that.

CaliforniaCarlson wrote:

IAAF has a measurement for synthetic track rebound (I don't remember what it is). If it is below or above a certain range, the track is not certified IAAF. Mondo tracks have improved their rebound measurement as have polyurethane tracks. It is a simple measurement where a metal ball drops from a certain height and the rebound is then recorded. I would think shoes can be tested in a similar fashion and then be IAAF certified. If the rebound co-efficient is too high, they can not be used to set records. I think there are similar approaches in other sports, in particular golf.

Perfect. I would test the shoe simply by taking the sole off, submerge it in a liquid, and compressing it between two metal plates at a pressure similar to that which would be applied under real world conditions, then measure the volume of displaced fluid.

You hardly need to measure anything. The stiffness of carbon fibre is known.

There is no number which is inherently unfair. It’s a matter of opinion. That is why calling the shoes ‘cheating’ is idiotic because they are within the rules of the sport and don’t perform any magic physics not seen before.

Hey hey hey my thread made the front page

exrunner wrote:

Now that people are starting to accept that shoes can’t create energy, at what efficiency would you draw the line? It’s totally arbitrary of course.

60%, 70%, 80% 90%?

I think you are just trying to save face after being called out on your straw man. Nobody here believed any such thing and you did not seem to understand the significant impact that elastic energy return has on the speed and efficiency of a runner. By Newton's first law of motion, a hypothetical perfectly efficient runner, neglecting air resistance, and assuming the legs only swung at the hip on a friction-free joint, could continue running forever without using an ounce of energy, by using theoretical perfect shoes that return 100% of the elastic energy. The ostrich example I gave before illustrates it perfectly. Ostriches can run twice as fast and much further than humans at a much faster pace, simply because of their super elastic tendons... not because of extra energy or muscle. The mechanical design of the animal makes a huge difference in running potential. Humans are not designed to be very good at running. Special shoes can certainly make a difference.

exrunner wrote:

I never mentioned dropping the spring. Why have you added in gravitational potential? I talked about compressing the spring then releasing it.

An ideal spring is modelled as weightless anyway so dropping it would do nothing.

I talked about what an ideal spring is to explain simple physics concepts to those that believed shoes are creating energy.

No one, literally no one, has suggested that the shoes create energy

runningbats wrote:

Yeah 1 carbon plate is ridiculous. 3 is just comical.

I think we will be entering an era in the running world where we cut open finishers shoes at the end to see what advantages they are trying to use just like corked bats in baseball.

I'm all for advances in cushioning but adding plates that act like springs is going too far. It's not even ethical really.

People laughed at the shoe company Spira for putting springs in their shoes. What's different about this?

200% agree. Surely having springs in your shoes is against the rules? The alphafly litteraly is a spring. I myself own next% since I can’t give away that kind of an advantage (I’m a national level runner) but I much rather would see them banned.

Same as wearing blades. Some Joe Schmoe should put a pair on and run a thon in 1:52 for a new WR. Then we'd see these spring shoe excusers cry a river.

exrunner wrote:

You hardly need to measure anything. The stiffness of carbon fibre is known.

There is no number which is inherently unfair. It’s a matter of opinion. That is why calling the shoes ‘cheating’ is idiotic because they are within the rules of the sport and don’t perform any magic physics not seen before.

The stiffness of carbon fibre or even the presence of it is irrelevant and your comment is nonsensical. By your silly bit of non-logic, rules to ban testosterone should never have come about because it was within the existing rules of sport at one time and because its biological effects have been seen since the dawn of mankind.

This is ridiculous wrote:

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....

There's always a chance that actual elite athletes don't care about any of this. I know, hard to believe.

And having to stick with your sponsor when another company has a better product.. nothing new here. How do you think every team in Formula One not named Mercedes feels? NASCAR has like 50 billion rules to equalize speeds among the manufacturers. Golf club companies, tennis, etc. Anything competitive that uses gear or equipment basically. There will always be come company at the top, and it rarely lasts forever. adidas had a hold on the marathon WR for a long time.

JohnnyS wrote:

runningbats wrote:

Yeah 1 carbon plate is ridiculous. 3 is just comical.

I think we will be entering an era in the running world where we cut open finishers shoes at the end to see what advantages they are trying to use just like corked bats in baseball.

I'm all for advances in cushioning but adding plates that act like springs is going too far. It's not even ethical really.

People laughed at the shoe company Spira for putting springs in their shoes. What's different about this?

200% agree. Surely having springs in your shoes is against the rules? The alphafly litteraly is a spring. I myself own next% since I can’t give away that kind of an advantage (I’m a national level runner) but I much rather would see them banned.

There was a specific rule that said springs were not allowed. Spira had athletes in major races anyways, knowing they'd get a DQ, mainly for publicity so age groupers would buy them. LOTS of local age group races and Ironman events were won with Spira shoes.. but no one knew or cared enough to do anything about it.

They ban the Nike and carbon shoes, and then what? Kipchoge still dominates, winning in 2:02.05? Finishing places stay the same everywhere, but are zero to a minute slower overall? There are a ton of these things in circulation already, so nothing will change in the age group ranks.

UA Runner wrote:

There was a specific rule that said springs were not allowed. Spira had athletes in major races anyways, knowing they'd get a DQ, mainly for publicity so age groupers would buy them. LOTS of local age group races and Ironman events were won with Spira shoes.. but no one knew or cared enough to do anything about it.

They ban the Nike and carbon shoes, and then what? Kipchoge still dominates, winning in 2:02.05? Finishing places stay the same everywhere, but are zero to a minute slower overall? There are a ton of these things in circulation already, so nothing will change in the age group ranks.

The rules should not be so specific. Banning springs led manufacturers to achieve the same effect with carbon plates. Banning carbon plates will just lead manufacturers to find some other material to achieve the same effect. What needs to be banned is the springiness of the sole, regardless of what materials are used to achieve that effect; hence I suggest a test for this on the soles of all shoe lines used in competition. It is simple to do. I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere or it just gets ridiculous. Next athletes will be competing in pogo-shoes. At the very least, it removes controversy. This idea that we should accept that gadgets/gear used by runners should continue to innovate in ways that improve their performance is unreasonable. I see no reason we can't draw a line somewhere and that it couldn't be enforced with a limited amount of resources.

UA Runner wrote:

They ban the Nike and carbon shoes, and then what? Kipchoge still dominates, winning in 2:02.05? Finishing places stay the same everywhere, but are zero to a minute slower overall? There are a ton of these things in circulation already, so nothing will change in the age group ranks.

What makes you think Kipchoge can go any faster than Kimetto's 2:02:57 without Vaporfly's? Has he ever tried?

What shoes was Bekele wearing in Berlin? Just curious.

Whatever one can argue re: physics, there is no denying that marathon and half marathon times are dropping precipitously. I think that simply proves the fact that the shoes are largely responsible. Either we have to regulate shoe construction or we have to plain accept that the running world has changed. But to suggest that it isn't the shoes seems crazy to me.