How come the shoe guys never thought of the 4% technology until now?

Nike doesn't own the patent for the carbon plate or foam, right?

So wouldn't other companies be able to use the same materials in their shoes?

Ummmm...,ever see this commercial? It explains everything Nike does. Complete with Al Sal cameo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awLm0Nc5uus

For the same reason that no one had thought of a troll-encouraging message board with egotistical doping moderators before you. Human progress. Kudos to Nike (and you).

:-)

Man that commercial was so cheesy.

facts and reason wrote:

Nike doesn't own the patent for the carbon plate or foam, right?

So wouldn't other companies be able to use the same materials in their shoes?

They do own a patent on the curvature of the plate, though. I read an article somewhere that said that earlier, flatter plates showed an increase in efficiency from the toes, but resulted in a loss of efficiency in the ankle area. It was only after perfecting the curve of the plate that they got the increased efficiency in the toe area without losing it in the ankle. The Pebax foam is something other companies can and are using, though.

There is a lot more to a material development than just the "will" to create a faster shoe.

From what I have seen the major breakthrough was the new knitting technology which was invented by Nike I think.

Now the upper part of the shoe is created a lot faster without much sewing.

Gone are the leather parts.

On top of that there are advancements in foams as well.

Everything together makes a great light shoe.

It's not just one invention. It's more like hundred of great inventions coming together.

I ran my last thon in them. I wasn’t impressed. Not sure what the hype is about.

In the 1980s I worked in the Nike advanced design group in the research facility in New Hampshire. We had the freedom to experiment with everything we could imagine and some things that happened by happy accident. We used carbon fiber and little plastic spiders in a foam matrix combined with and with out the air technology. We looked at everything that we could find. We knew then that there was no magic shoe—no perpetual motion machine, but only a shoe that protected the runner's foot and minimized energy loss while doing so. The subsequent generations of Nike designers have continued that search into materials, and manufacture and have gotten better at it.

I suspect the best "shoe" would be barefoot on a surface that had perfect traction and resiliency for the specific athlete of a certain weight at a certain speed.

A runner could go far under two hours for a marathon running barefoot on such a perfect surface. Of course that would amount to a 26 mile long Vaporfly shoe... otherworldly expensive too.

Tom

The Fila Racer in the late 90's was a great race shoe that had a carbon plate, Adidas also experimented with the 'Pro Plate' range around the same time, so carbon plates/insoles have been around 20 years+. Seems (as some are stating), the combination of the ZoomX foam (the ZoomFly with React foam is nowhere near as responsive a shoe) and 'curvature' of the plate are the key to the VapourFly/Next%.

With the natural running movement of minimalist shoes and the thought that the foot was perfectly designed coupled with the cheater blades Oscar P wore there were too many negative connotations to bring the technology out right away.

wejo wrote:

The shoe companies have been trying to come up with a faster shoe for ages.

From what I can tell scientists are in agreement this technology with its lever or spring like effect (not sure how to describe it) is superior and the concept doesn't seem that complicated. (Maybe it is complicated because I can't explain it).

My question is how come no one thought of this previously?

Was everyone else obsessed with foams and what not and Nike thought of changing the angle of the shoe? Or was this only possible once foams got super light?

as i posted in another thread, there were carbon fiber plates in running shoes in the late 80's, and shoe companies were all looking into these types of enhancements and technologies. I know, i worked on them.

I think it would be too heavy. Everun seems very dense and if you gave it stack a la Vaporfly, I don't know that you could pick your feet off the ground for any decent amount of time.

Wejo, you guys didn't hear about Flubber in the 60s ?

https://www.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/absent-minded-professor.jpg

I thought of it years ago.

But I didn't have the way to get it to market.

The frickin' Nike patent has the word " spring" in it for goodness' sake. Also, whatever happened to good old USATF rule 143? It doesn't look like it includes the word "spring" anymore. From days of yore (2017 and earlier): "Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give the competitor any unfair additional assistance, including the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage, such as a spring or similar device. " Now (2018/2019) it just says "Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give the competitor any unfair assistance or advantage."

When was 4% released? Conveniently between when the 2017 and 2018 rules were released. Makes me sick. That being said, I'm tempted to buy a pair just to see how much of an improvement it gives me for the sake of personal science.

>>>>

4/2007 wejo: I'm writing an editorial on the mockery of the sport Spira is attempting at Boston but discovered that the master's champ is listed as a Spira athlete.

Hopefully, Boston checked his shoes after the race or will enquire as to what shoes he ran in or look at the tape. Then I assume they will disqualify him.

I have some sympathy for him and hope Spira and Foot Solutions honors his $10,000 first prize that Boston would give him if he is not DQd.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1863999

>>>>>>>>>

Not impressed wrote:

I ran my last thon in them. I wasn’t impressed. Not sure what the hype is about.

people who run marathon's do not call them 'thons' so, calling bs

Make it stop. Spira was never banned.

the bulk of the performance gain is not from the foam, it's from the plate, and no, no researcher has ever proved it's the foam by itself, they just wildy speculated (and the alphafly and prototypes at Doha prove you don't need any foam at all under the forefoot during toeoff)

the reason why previous plates failed or not as good as Nike is because it took three generations of academic researchers eventually working for Nike that figured out the curve to the plate

the curve changes everything, as subtle as it is, it actually prevents the fatigue and eventual injury from a straight plate on the MTP joints

then Nike patented the heck out of it to prevent retail competition and tuned it a bit more in "next5%" and even further for alphafly

other shoe companies can and have put plates in the shoes, adidias had the proplate a decade before Nike and it was even carbon-fiber but it does not have the curve and it's at the wrong layer/level in the shoe to really give full effect

same thing for the hoka carbon rocket which first model was out before vaporfly even existed but they also have a straight plate

many other shoe companies have now put a plate, possibly with a curve, into prototype shoes for their sponsored pros

but they can never ever bring a curved plate to market, they'd be sued to death

people are going to watch other companies send out their pros in shoes and perform as well as vaporflys eventually, but then people will buy those shoes and find hey wait it's not as good

nike now owns the market and if that's the case, they have to be stopped because then it's not a level playing field at all

either Nike releases all patents/rights or ban plates for all brands (actually there is a third option, China or "wild west" country can just ignore Nike patents and make their own)

https://i.imgur.com/ub3dFgg.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MND7CIw.gif