Vaporfly - why are people against them?

For me, personally, it's because running is such a pure thing that any artificial help kind of spoils it for me. I wear shoes to protect my feet.

But if others wear them for performance, then it's their choice.

You don't wear shoes to protect your feet. If you did you would make sandals out of tires.

It’s because these shoes have crossed the line from shoe to propulsive device.

It would be more obvious if the devices—or 3–weren’t covered in foam. The new prototype Nike spikes make it more obvious, with an elevated device under the forefoot.

It’s the same issue as pistorious blades (attaching a non-fatiguing DEVICE to the bottom of your limbs), but in this case the blades are attached to the bottom of a shoe (hence the ridiculous stack heights) and surrounded by foam.

Think it through: if you have no issue with the current ridiculous stack height, do you have a problem if the stack height is found to be superior at 40cm, and we have racers bouncing down the road, 8 feet tall on their stilts?

I and many others do. That’s not running, that’s a new sport, competitive pogoing or something.

They are elitist due to the price. Wealthy runners gain an advantage over poorer runners. Bernie should champion their ban (or a price drop to sub-$100 prices).

I agree completely. I don't see why everyone has a problem with them. To me, spikes seem way more unnatural.

josh1988 wrote:

You don't wear shoes to protect your feet. If you did you would make sandals out of tires.

Actually I do. I run in minimalist shoes, with only a thin layer of rubber between my feet and the ground.

If you have a problem with the vaporfly's then you should also have a problem with spikes

There is a very vocal minority that is against them. There was a somewhat similar backlash against the Adios BOOST when they came out circa 2013 and guys like Kimetto and Mutai started running 2:03s regularly.

The price point is insignificant when you look at what the average person spends on their running each year between race entries, nutrition, apparel, accessories, travel, training groups, etc.

The only people who have any gripe are the athletes not sponsored by Nike. They will not be as peeved once their sponsor develops a competitive shoe.

I disagree that the carbon plate in the shoe acts as a spring. If you hold the shoes in your hands you will realise there is no way it is possible that the carbon is a spring.

The foam is a different matter, but all foam in shoes (like the boost) is springy. Moreso than previous shoes. This is just the next step.

What if a maximum stack height was brought in by the IAAF? Say 20mm?

So what does the fiber carbon in a golf club or tennis racquet act as? If you don't like "spring" then how about "whiplash"?

U tell me. And yes, cheater shoes did employ blade runner technology.

A fun way of thinking of the vaporflys...

They seem to be the signal of broad, global changes. It's the most immediate thing runners can point to in order to wrestle with these changes. Technology is supplanting a lot of human performance across physical, academic, and social realms. We should probably accept some things, but I think we do need to slow down, or at least give some thought to where this is taking us. The vaporfly is a stepping-stone to more serious, invasive "human-performance" enhancements. It's not too far of a leap to see this as an early sign of cyberpunk-like sports of the future.

"If we want athletics to progress" - yes athletics will progress, but will we? or are we just going to be along for the ride? Medicine, energy, communications, entertainment, etc... can all be viewed through a similar lens. At one time we were in control of the waves of technology, and soon we might be surfing.

Yes, I would be a proponent of maximum allowable stack heights.

But back to my question: "Think it through: if you have no issue with the current ridiculous stack height, do you have a problem if the stack height is found to be superior at 40 cm, and we have racers bouncing down the road, 8 feet tall on their stilts?"

I never hear the "innovation" crowd answer this question. Attaching 40 cm blades to the bottom of a shoe is certainly innovative. It's just the next step, to use your words.

Pretty much this.

Proponents of the cheaterflys will claim that they're simply sophisticated running shoes. But this is incorrect -- they aren't running shoes at all! A running shoe provides cushioning, support, and traction. The work still needs to be done by the runner. A springy propulsion device is something entirely different. Anyone competing in these isn't actually running in an authentic fashion.

Carbon fiber is used for its superior strength-to-weight ratio, immunity to changes in humidity and temperature, durability, and reliability as well as enabling much more precision and complexity in the design process -- not a supposed spring, whiplash, or blade phenomenon.

The cow's out of the barn, good luck herding her back in...

My problem with my Vaporfly Next% shoes is that the sole protector wore through at 70 miles, and the shoe is wearing out quick. Is this 'cause I'm a somewhat large distance runner (6'0", 145 lbs.), or because Nike wants me to buy a new pair every two races?

my only issue with the vaporflies is that there aren't yet any comparable alternatives from other brands, so athletes are stuck with one option. I guess two options...pink or green

and this isn't the same as changing track surfaces...everybody runs on the same surface in a race. now you get some athletes wearing the vaporflies and others who would be breaking contracts and risking their jobs to wear the same shoes.

/mu/tant runner makes good points. It's not just athletics, tech is changing what it means to be a human being.

Look at the smart phone/iphone. Not only have we voluntarily become cyborgs (part human, part machine), but we voluntarily allow governments and corporations to track our every move, buying habits, and personal information.

The speed with which this happened is unprecedented in human history. Even Terence McKenna would be astounded at the changes wrought by the "smart" phone.

Fjfug wrote:

For me, personally, it's because running is such a pure thing that any artificial help kind of spoils it for me. I wear shoes to protect my feet.

But if others wear them for performance, then it's their choice.

Putting anything on your feet is ‘artificial’.....don’t be a hypocrite, run barefoot.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

There is a very vocal minority that is against them. There was a somewhat similar backlash against the Adios BOOST when they came out circa 2013 and guys like Kimetto and Mutai started running 2:03s regularly.

The price point is insignificant when you look at what the average person spends on their running each year between race entries, nutrition, apparel, accessories, travel, training groups, etc.

The only people who have any gripe are the athletes not sponsored by Nike. They will not be as peeved once their sponsor develops a competitive shoe.

Because it's a "competitive SHOE!"

It should be about my body/mind/spirit vs your body/mind/spirit.

It should not be about the SHOE!

I am glad You agree it's about the shoe. I am not criticizing you.

Anyone who thinks this is not a bad trend for our sport is an IDIOT!