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

glaukos wrote:

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.

There's a third variable beyond density and energy return percentage: compliance. ZoomX compresses much more than Boost, which means that it doesn't just store energy more efficiently, it also stores a higher quantity of energy.

my 2c wrote:

This allows Pebax to function almost like leg muscles, but without the fatigue that can debilitate the legs after 20 miles.

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.

I'm on board with most of what you wrote, but I don't think this is a fair point. If you had legs with 100% passive energy return, you could run at an even pace on flat ground indefinitely, without having to consume any chemical energy beyond your BMR. Uphill running and acceleration is obviously a different story.

People who study passive dynamics have built various models that can "run" with just a little forward push, the same way a bike would maintain forward motion once it gets a push. So while it's true that midsole foam doesn't turn chemical energy into kinetic energy, it doesn't need to. The only reason you need to actively contract muscles is because your legs aren't that good at returning energy passively.

This debate finally feels like it's getting somewhere. The march of technology is inevitable and you can't compare a 3:59 run 50 years ago to a 3:43 run in the modern area because of (pick any number) better training, drugs, technology, genetics and/or luck. This problem isn't unique to running and I think it's worthwhile to look to other sports for precedent.

I feel cycling has gotten the development of technology correct. Granted tech in cycling is much more intertwined with success and there is a greater component to luck in that sport (your shoes can't get a flat tire for example) but still the development of super aerodynamic frames was getting somewhat out of hand in the mid 90s. To simplify cycling stated that bike frames had to have a double triangle configuration (IE look like a bike and not a sail), fairings were not allowed, a low weight limit was put on bikes (mostly for rider safety so the bikes wouldn't be so flimsy that they'd break and cause injury) and certain limits were put on geometries. Within these confines technology was still allowed to develop and bikes got faster, lighter, better but.... still looked like bikes. Additionally these bikes are all available to the public (at extravagant prices) under the rule, that running has, that competition equipment needs to be commercially available to the public.

So why not this. Shoes must weigh at least 6 ounces. Put a limit on the stack height of one part of the shoe. Ban any device that uses an energy source other than that derived from the runners muscles or the road (IE no electronic propulsion or wheels) and define exactly what commercially available means. Commercially available could be defined as XYZ company has sold or has for sale at least 1000 units of these shoes to non sponsored athletes.

This doesn't stifle technological development but simply channels it into parameters that allow fans to recognize the sport and for participants (especially amateurs like ourselves) to reap the benefits of technological innovation as we chase our own PRs.

cinder/dirt tracks wrote:

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.

But they haven't said that because their competitors were also racing on dirt or cinder tracks. If somehow there had been tracks that were half cinders or dirt and half modern synthetic in their eras and they were forced to race on the cinders while they had competitors racing on the synthetic part you may have heard a complaint or two.

The patent applies to the curve of the plate. Other companies can use plates, just not plates with the same shape, which apparently makes a difference.

thisssssssssss wrote:

(your shoes can't get a flat tire for example).

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 don't really like Nike, nor do I like the Vaporflys. And I've been pretty consistent in my ill-feelings toward Nike and all this.. but, if the IAAF is going to make rules, or people in power are going to publish pieces on this..

1. Amby Burfoot and most of these people writing pieces, as far as I know, aren't engineers and haven't done extensive lab studies. I have yet to see a back to back treadmill test over the marathon distance truly measuring benefits of this shoe. So they're speculating, and probably don't know what they're talking about. It's amazing how little F1 drivers know about their cars. I would suspect most elite runners really don't know much about shoe testing or design either.

2. Most importantly, forget Nike. At least their shoes are available to the public. Brooks, Saucony, Asics and NB are the ones up to no good with their prototypes that apparently aren't in any hurry to go on sale.

You can debate the merits, or lacke thereof, of the Nike shoes all day. But, at least they're doing it legally and having their shoes available to the consumer. It's Brooks and others being shady, letting their runners use prototypes in major races. Jared Ward suddenly runs 2:09 in Boston in a prototype, carbon plate Saucony shoe and that's cool?

The prototype thing is a red herring, and we should stop worrying about it. I think the only reason people suddenly care about prototypes is because some people erroneously thought that the IAAF had banned them.

Here are some of the reasons we shouldn't ban prototypes from competition:

- History. Elite athletes have been running in custom and prototype shoes forever. At one point, there was no such thing as a sports shoe that WASN'T custom. Roger Bannister wore a specially made pair of spikes when he ran the first 4-minute mile. Nike's slogan for as long as I can remember has been "engineered to the exact specifications of championship athletes," and it's not just marketing. Nike, along with most brands, has been customizing shoes forever.

- Financial health of the sport. For shoe companies, one of the benefits of sponsoring athletes is that they get to use the athletes for product testing and development. Also, it's great marketing when shoe companies can build buzz around the prototypes that their professionals are wearing. Normal runners see that the shoes are "proven," and they can't wait to get their hands on them. Hoka basically ripped off Nike's entire marketing scheme with their carbon shoes, and it seems to have worked pretty well. Banning prototypes would make elite athletes less valuable to shoe companies. Since most pro runners are hardly making anything, this seems like a bad idea.

- It's not unfair. At the elite level, athletes are not foreclosed from accessing the best shoe tech because it's not commercially available; they're foreclosed by their own sponsorship contracts. Why does Jared Ward care if the 4% is on the market? He cares that Saucony can't get its act together and make its own version.

lotta cheaterfly apologists crying about how people want to keep people from winning races just because they have a better shoe

letsrun trolls are so subpar these days they reaching for extra stupid sh!t just to stay relevant

In all the hoop-la of Kipchoge’s attempting and conquering the 2-hour barrier there seems to be one thing missing, at least for me. That is his courage to step into the unknown in a very public way. It takes courage just to attempt something that no one has ever done. His Monza attempt was admirable; his Vienna attempt was incredible. What if he failed in Vienna? Would those who call his Vienna run a “circus” start calling him a “clown”. He was putting it all on the line in front of millions.

Marathon legends Jones, Smith and Dixon can say “it’s a bit like Evil Knievel jumping the Grand Canyon or someone eating 100 hotdogs in 10 minutes”. That’s fine. But, as I see it, they never had the courage to “put it out there” like Kipchoge did.

I’ve been a runner (now a shuffler) for 62 years and I still move every morning except Sundays. Those who inspired me have been Roger Bannister, because he was the first; Daniel Komen, because he split a 3:59 first mile and then did it again; Bekele because of his 10,000 meter WR with his 5k split being 13:09 and then been able to keep going by himself; Abebe Bikila, because he inspired everyone; and Bernard Lagat; because he is still doing it at 44. And frankly, if Lagat can get inspired by seeing it all “up close and personal”, that is good enough for me.

I know some will say that all these inspirations are drug-induced or better equipment or friendlier tracks. That’s their right. But those who inspire me have one thing in common – courage to step into the void. Kipchoge, for me, has it in spades.

Running is a sport. Selling shoes is a business. There is a difference.

If the elites want to run races in propitiatory shoes, that others cannot get and these shoes give them an advantage then their times are not official and don't qualify for records and they are disqualified from winning the race they are in. We don't exist to provide NIKE with control of our sport.

If the shoes are available, like the 4% then everyone can buy them for $250 a pair. There is no difference from controlled equipment reserved for a select few then hiring a bib mule.

Jones ran a 61 minute half in the beginning of a marathon with no pacers, to say that he never “put it out there” is a joke and a travesty.

it's just a shoe with a plate in it; people who actually think it makes you "4%" faster based on a study completed by Nike are plain dumb. The questions is where do we draw the line of a "shoe" being fair to the sport. I think the line is very readily apparent, and we'll know when we see it. Put simply, a PLATE IN A SHOE isn't cheating.

Rules are silly wrote:

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.

I understand what you’re saying but without rules everyone would be forced to use a recumbent with fairings to be competitive unless it was an uphill TT. Without rules in general a sport can’t exist. How limiting the rules are is what gets difficult.

So Burf' resurfaces just to stay relevant. Happens every decade. I would say someone who ran in the low 2:20s was no slouch. A well-known runner just retired, to much fanfare, with a similar PR. Sara Hall just banged one out. These are not the greatest runners of all time necessarily, but respectable.

Until you realize Amby is apparently a boy's name and Burf' is male. So someone who ran in the low 2:20s - once - on a downhill course - AND IS MALE - suddenly doesn't seem so great. Realizing this, a comparison with RYAN Hall is more appropriate. He ran about 15 minutes faster on the same course with, we are told, reasonably similar shoes.

This clown is less relevant than Shorter himself. No one cares - nor should they - what my opinion or yours is. Let's keep Amby in that category where he belongs.

He's a writer. He writes things.

If you're going to trash someone for not running as fast as you think he should have you might want to be sure you know what those times actually are. That might make your opinion seem a little less irrelevant,

Please shut up and go away.

The scary thing is shoe technology might ruin the sport.

It is important that people without legs are able to walk and run.

However, it's not important for only the rich to dominate the sport.

If it's the shoe that is winning the race, and they come to cost a great deal,

Houston, we have a problem.

Are we like Auto racing which solves car problems and creates better engines?

Is track & field a sport?

These are questions which need answers.