NY Times Article by Amby Burfoot About Nike’s Pogo Shoes

No springs:

... Ross Tucker’s view is more in line with Geoffrey Burns’s. “The solution is very simple,” Tucker said. “Limit the stack height” (earlier in article given as 1.2")— which is the midsole height — “and ban the addition of springlike devices in the midsole.” Burns would not even go that far. “I don’t want to ban anything,” he said. “We can do most of what needs doing with a simple midsole-height limitation..."

Amby, man, I think the world of you, and I know articles have to leave a lot of things out, but you kind of left a lot out.

Like, really? How about the introduction of nylon uppers and midsoles? Air and Gel? EVA? The minimalist revolution and the maximalist backlash? Hoka? Boost?

7 ounces sure is light for all that cushion, but it's in line with other lightweight racing shoes.

But only about 15% more than Boost, which was in turn about 15% more than EVA. I know revolutionary change gets editors' hearts thumping, but two similar-sized steps in a row feels a bit more like evolution than revolution.

Oh, man, this really pains me to read. Leg muscles turn stored chemical energy into kinetic energy. Midsole foam doesn't do anything of the sort. It's entirely passive.

Finally, the article references but doesn't link to an IAAF statement. The only source I can find is still personal communication to Rojo back in July and published on this site, even though news articles keep treating it as a breaking development in reaction to the new world records. I think IAAF is just re-releasing the same statement it's been using for months to any journalist who asks.

But thanks for helping inform the public about the inner workings of track and field. With any luck, all the controversy will set off a Pebax-fueled, carbon-reinforced new running boom

my 2c wrote:

Pebax also delivers 30 percent more energy return than the foams used in most running shoes since the 1970s.

But only about 15% more than Boost, which was in turn about 15% more than EVA. I know revolutionary change gets editors' hearts thumping, but two similar-sized steps in a row feels a bit more like evolution than revolution.

The percentage of energy return is not the only relevant variable. Boost pays a hefty weight penalty, so your statement about "two similar-sized steps" is false. Even if you're correct that the percentage energy return advantage of ZoomX over Boost is the same percentage of Boost's advantage over EVA, the performance improvement of ZoomX is still significantly larger because of how much lighter weight it is. Just take a look and compare the stack heights and weights of ZoomX vs Boost shoes, and you will see a very clear difference. And that's without even considering whether the carbon fiber plate adds anything. Simply quoting the energy return percentages of the foam in isolation is very misleading and leads you to a very false conclusion.

LoneStarXC wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/sports/marathon-running-nike-vaporfly-shoes.amp.html

Boing boing!

The real controversy is patents and money. if all athletes could wear equal shoes that give same improvement then there is no problem. however nike probably has a pretty solid patent on this tech, so Nike's argument is let everyone wear these shoes... these nike shoes... problem solved!

Hayduke wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/sports/marathon-running-nike-vaporfly-shoes.amp.html

Boing boing!

The real controversy is patents and money. if all athletes could wear equal shoes that give same improvement then there is no problem. however nike probably has a pretty solid patent on this tech, so Nike's argument is let everyone wear these shoes... these nike shoes... problem solved!

I would still have a problem.

Running shoes shouldn’t be springs.

The problem with these common sense solutions like Burfoot's is that nike has put a lot of money into the sport. They can get away with tons, including paying a coach who cheated for years (Salazar) with little more than a slap on the wrist. It would take an independent body, not the IAAF, or World Athletics or whatever its called these days, with all the nike money its seen to implement any type of ban. If nike came out with running shoes with wheels or called some type of skates running shoes, I doubt the iaaf would even step in.

He’s the Hillary Clinton of running...trying to remain relevant but failing.

100% right. A boost midsole the same size as a Next % midsole would weigh 15 ounces.

i am so sick and tired of people mentioning "spring". EVERY FORM OF CUSHIONING IS A SPRING. Asics' GEL is a spring, Mizuno's WAVE PLATE is a spring, Adidas' BOOST is a spring, Nike's ZOOM is a spring. according to IAAF rules, the purpose of allowing running shoes is to protect a runner's feet, but every traditional shoe for decades goes above and beyond this. if we actually went by IAAF's rules, the only shoes that wouldn't be banned are those barefoot minimalist shoes. imo, the only problem with what Nike is doing is that they gave out prototype shoes that aren't available on the market to their sponsored runners so that the competition don't have the option of running in that shoe.

imo, rules should be changed to the following:

1) shoe must be easily accessible to the public at least 3 months prior to the event so that runners can decide on the shoe they wear prior to their training session

2) a maximum stack height for the main area of the forefoot and heel (obviously not the arches).

3) shoe cannot run on electricity or anything that moves the runner while the runner is not moving (like wheels).

a runner's glory is relative to their era they ran in. who really cares if old WR are being broken due to shoes. it's not like the former record holders are losing anything

Free_tge_thigh wrote:

Hayduke wrote:

The real controversy is patents and money. if all athletes could wear equal shoes that give same improvement then there is no problem. however nike probably has a pretty solid patent on this tech, so Nike's argument is let everyone wear these shoes... these nike shoes... problem solved!

I would still have a problem.

Running shoes shouldn’t be springs.

tech is in every sport. without aero bars Greg Lemond would not have won 89 tour de france. its swimsuits, its golf clubs and tennis rackets. you cant stop the progress, you just hope that the other companies figure it out or pretty soon only nikes will be on starting line.

Yup, the future is a scary thing.

If you are striving for fairness in athletics, Bobby Morrow, Charles Jenkins, Tom Courtney, Ron Delany and Vladimir Kuts are saying it was unfair to go to synthetic tracks from cinder/dirt tracks.

Hayduke wrote:

Free_tge_thigh wrote:

I would still have a problem.

Running shoes shouldn’t be springs.

tech is in every sport. without aero bars Greg Lemond would not have won 89 tour de france. its swimsuits, its golf clubs and tennis rackets. you cant stop the progress, you just hope that the other companies figure it out or pretty soon only nikes will be on starting line.

Well, on the same token UCI has banned quite a few tech novelties:

Like this time trial bike

Or these time trial shoes. You think the 4% and Next % look like clown shoes after you've seen these?

I remember in cycling they started measuring time trial bikes and tire width in cyclocross and it was ridiculous.

I think it killed participation in time trials.

A few extra centimeters of foam might encourage people to participate in our dumb sport.

Time trial bikes and silly measurements for amateur cyclists killed time trials ... also wider tires in cyclocross make it more fun and easier not to wreck.

MarathonMind wrote:

No springs:

... Ross Tucker’s view is more in line with Geoffrey Burns’s. “The solution is very simple,” Tucker said. “Limit the stack height” (earlier in article given as 1.2")— which is the midsole height — “and ban the addition of springlike devices in the midsole.” Burns would not even go that far. “I don’t want to ban anything,” he said. “We can do most of what needs doing with a simple midsole-height limitation..."

This is all just a bunch of hot air being blown by people that have nothing to do with the footwear industry.

Working as a writer or having a testing lab or degree in exercise physiology is just that nothing relative to the business or evolution of performance running footwear.

As many have stated here, why are running shoes not allowed to become better pieces of equipment as all other sports and their respective equipment have. Golf clubs allow you drive the ball further,bike frames materials lighter and faster less punishment on the body, alpine skiing equipment, swim suits , it’s endless. To say this is novelty advancement in footwear is like saying electric cars are a novelty advance in autos.

No footwear company approaches development of a new racing shoe for the product to be slower nor does the consumer look for a slow shoe.

Weight reduction was the game for years, speed to the future it’s compounding of midsole materials and mechanical components that when combined with the midsole compounds racing flats actually perform better.

This technology will then be transferred into daily trainers. Joe Blow who runs around the block and has no idea of what a sub 2 hour marathon is, would never ask the store clerk give me your slowest shoe.

I’m tired of the backward thoughts when we are finally seeing somewhat of a major breakthrough in footwear technology. We are seeing Nike’s interpretation and every shoe brand will take this as inspiration and challenge to create its own version of the future.

Sorry Amby the world is not flat and future is upon us.

Limiting stack height makes sense to me and is doable.

You are not going to scan all shoes in an olympic marathon field to find plates or springs.

But you can't go about making runners taller, their stride longer, adding layers and layers of stuff under their feet. There must be a limit.

The Vaporflys have been out for over 2 yrs. Why is it taking so freaking long for other companies to catch up? They’re just now complaining? Nike created a better shoe, with better foam and a carbon fiber plate that’s been used in sprint spikes forever. Suck it up Asics, Brooks, Saucony, and Adidas- spend money to make better shoes, or you’ll get left behind. It’s about time distance runners get the equivalent of what sprinters have had for yrs. No way in hell is the IAAF banning carbon fiber plates used in sprint spikes or limiting foam thickness, when Hoka has been making stilts for 10 yrs.

To me the interesting thing in the article was the talk of patents and Nike possibly trying to protect their innovations in this way. But what could be patented? Lots of other shoes, made by other companies, now have carbon plates in the midsole (or something very similar). Over the last few years all shoe companies have introduced new midsole materials which, if reviews are to be believed, are actually pretty similar. Unless there was something about these shoes thta hasn't been publically revealed what exactly was new about them that could be protected by a patent?

500 IQ Opinion wrote:

a runner's glory is relative to their era they ran in. who really cares if old WR are being broken due to shoes. it's not like the former record holders are losing anything

I disagree somewhat. For example, Roger Bannister's 3:59 mile loses much of it's prestige when the WR is 3:43. A common saying is "Scientists used to be believe it is impossible for a human to run a mile under 4 minutes, and now humans have run 3:43." I think it's important that the general public knows that at least half of the improvement is due to tracks and shoes, some of the other half due to drugs, and therefore we don't know how to compare times apples-to-apples.