Vaporfly - why are people against them?

Non-Running

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

4 years ago 01/01/2020 11:45am EST

re: ex-runner

ex-runner wrote:
Artificial aid wrote:
They are like the blades that can transform an average runner into a world class runner. Good runners become very good. Great runners become world beaters.
It is well understood that the carbon fibre does not act like a prosthetic blade in the 4% or Next%. It might do in the alphafly.

Agree and if people just researched a little bit would see has been proved few times now. It's the foam (and how much of it) not the plate.

Having said that it is also well known that one rarely gets over 100 miles out of these shoes so the issue is really a "social" one in that not everyone can fork $250 (or is willing to) on a shoe.

Now the stack height is an issue and i hope the ruling will issue some guideline on it. Also i wonder how many people will get injured by using a shoe with this profile consistently over time....

4 years ago 01/01/2020 1:24pm EST

re: ex-runner

I don't have really strong feelings about the shoe. But if, as you say, the shoe improves performance it seems to violate the IAAF rule that says a shoe is not allowed to improve performance. I'd like to see that cleared up. And somehow, I cannot help but think that if a smaller company, Saucony, Altra, etc., had developed the shoe first Nike would have gotten it banned on the grounds that a shoe is not allowed to improve performance.

4 years ago 01/01/2020 1:54pm EST

re: Yes-sir

4 years ago 01/02/2020 7:35am EST

re: HRE

HRE wrote:
I don't have really strong feelings about the shoe. But if, as you say, the shoe improves performance it seems to violate the IAAF rule that says a shoe is not allowed to improve performance. I'd like to see that cleared up. And somehow, I cannot help but think that if a smaller company, Saucony, Altra, etc., had developed the shoe first Nike would have gotten it banned on the grounds that a shoe is not allowed to improve performance.

Not allowed to improve performance over what? What does the rule say?

I guarantee running in spikes or any shoe for that matter improves running performance on roads and the track over barefoot.

4 years ago 01/02/2020 9:21am EST

re: ex-runner

I don't know exactly what it means to say a shoe cannot improve performance, at least as far as that rule goes. That's the thing I'd like to see cleared up. Someone else mentioned the possibility of the shoe actually providing some propulsion. If it does that, it would be improving performance. Contrast that idea with Racing Shoe A which provides the same amount of protection and cushioning as Racing Shoe B does but at only 70% of Racing Shoe B's weight. You'd imagine that people using Racing Shoe A would be able to race a bit faster than those in Racing Shoe B so you could argue that A has improved performance. But really, what A has done is hinder performance less than B does. That's my take on the situation. I think someone needs to clarify whether or not the VF is simply hindering performance less than any previous shoe has done or whether it actually is providing propulsion.

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Vaporfly - why are people against them?

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Vaporfly - why are people against them?

Follow ex-runner

Block ex-runner

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.