Nike carbon plate technology: how many of posters wear the vapor fly/how many are against the technology/how many don't car?

I personally ride a motorcycle and don't car.

I agree with you. Don’t car.

We must save our planet.

I don't car at all. It's my small part I can do for the environment. I ride my bike or walk everywhere.

Riding my bike. Not with my vaporflys though. Don't car. I don't need my vaporflys to ride my bike fast.

When is there going to be a "Nike foam technology" thread, as that's the real reason? A carbon fiber plate does not help you recover faster.

People are acting like they put real springs in shoes, like Spira did. They improved the foam and the rigidity, like adidas did with the Adios Boost and countless other companies. New Balance Fuel Cell foam is another great one.

I definitely car but am afraid to fly. It has nothing to do with the technology. I just don't understand how flying works. And could an airplane even takeoff if it was on a treadmill?

Don't bother asking this important question in LetRun as from my observation on previous relating threads most of them are in denial that this new technology crosses the line on energy return . There has never been such a big controversy about a running shoe and it's just common sense that the shoe provides much more . Most of them would argue and compare to shoe's technology of the past from other brands . However once you wear it (yes I've tried them Vaporfly) it just takes a little intuition and awareness to understand that the energy return is way beyond energy return .

I am only against this shoe because Nike would file lawsuit if other brands mimics a similar curve plate technology. They know very well they have an edge . So now what's the point of sports when we clearly know one team has an extra % advantage.

Don’t have kids if you really care. A 1st world kid is 10x the carbon footprint of an ICE car

They took away my driver's license, so...

Hey, I'm an old guy and I just wore vaporfly in my first ever marathon. They felt good and it was a success. But I have nothing to compare it to. I have no problem with wearing the supershoes.

Well, here is something. My main tempo run course, my training PR was 1:08:16. I put on the vaporfly and ran it in 1:06:01. I would not call it cheating, but I know I'm getting some, um, free speed.

i have no problem with the technology, and if i was good enough to be a competitive runner, even locally, I'd wear them. As it is, I have some long time personal goals I'd like to reach, which are modest, but challenging for me. I'd like to hit those goals in normal shoes so I can compare me to me. Not me in every other shoe on the planet vs me in Vaporflys.

If I ever hit those goals, sure I might jump to Vaporflys after that to see how much further I can go.

I wear them for races and faster longer efforts. I love them. As to the ban, carbon fiber plates are in other shoes and Pebax foam is available to all, I think Nike just has the resources ($$$) to sink a ton into making the shoes the best of the bunch on that realm of higher stack lightweight racers. I'm of the crowd who lean toward it being an arm's race, but I guess I am biased just because I find the shoes so comfortable to run in. Do I think Nike is scummy in a lot of things they do? Absolutely. In the grand scheme of things, I am merely a hobby jogger and don't matter in the long run.

I rotate several pairs of shoes for interval workouts. Sometimes, I'll change shoes in the middle of the workout. I can definitely tell a difference in perceived performance. My intervals are also faster. Obviously, it could be a placebo effect, but assuming it's not, should the best performing shoes be banned because I'm better in them?

Of course not. Shoe technology has improved over the years. My feet have a number of chronic injuries from the cr*ppy shoes we had in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

If you're going to ban these shoes because they convey a performance benefit, then you should definitely ban Gu and other gels. When Gu first came out, I remember runners telling me that it took 5 minutes off their marathon times. They would even joke about their pre-Gu and post-Gu times.

Why aren't we banning energy gels? It's because they are inexpensive. The only problem with these Nike shoes is that they cost $250.

fisky wrote:

If you're going to ban these shoes because they convey a performance benefit, then you should definitely ban Gu and other gels. When Gu first came out, I remember runners telling me that it took 5 minutes off their marathon times. They would even joke about their pre-Gu and post-Gu times.

Why aren't we banning energy gels? It's because they are inexpensive. The only problem with these Nike shoes is that they cost $250.

The gels should definitely be banned from competition. It is the equvalent of blood doping with carbohydrates during a marathon race. No drinks or eating should be allowed in any marathon race as it is a test of your body's glycogen stores as much as anythng else.

I actually think its more of a placebo effect if any. And obviously good marketing. Friends of mine also have not improved (out of the ordinary) with those shoes.

I bought them, used them, didn't like them and ended up donating them at my local Goodwill. Not the shoe for me. I used the Adidas sub2, loved them, ended getting 2 pairs of them and 2 pairs of the DPR Pureboost as well as a pair of Saucony type a4. These shoes work great for me.

For what I've seen, a lot of people love the vaporfly (I wouldn't say most since there will always be haters) good for them. They just didn't work as intended for me. Hope that helps.