for more details please read the post here https://tennisshoesguides.com/
for more details please read the post here https://tennisshoesguides.com/
Bollocks! wrote:
LLOWL wrote:
The 36mm is so irrelevant. I work in product. We'll just innovate below that threshold. Completely arbitrary.
“I work in product” selling shoes at footlocker doesn’t count. If you really did work in footwear innovation or product development you would understand that the thickness increase is not irrelevant. 36mm is still crazy thick. Kimetto (the last legit WR) was run in shoes that had 10mm midsole thickness and total 14mm if you include insole and outsole.
The Adios Boost also increased running economy, but only 1%:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19424280.2013.799566Incidentally, I am just going to claim credit for being the first person to suggest stack height as the most reasonable way to regulate shoes:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=8760161&id=8762740#8762740Already been suggested- and the IAAF rule 142.
More people need to pay attention to the “technology” Nike is putting out. Their new workout shoe seems to have the same transparent pod the alphaFly will have. Nike develops stuff, it looks cool, they claim this and that and everybody buys it and their products. If this stuff was that nefarious they would be hiding it, no?
People thought the Next% was going to be over $300 and they came out at the same price as the VaporFly. Don’t be surprised if Nike phases out the VaporFly for a bit to pump up the other models. The alphaFly will be $275 at most.
Many studies have been conducted to test the effects of the shoe on running efficiency. Every study has shown a substantial increase.
sorry 800 dude wrote:
Already been suggested- and the IAAF rule 142.
His post pre-dates this article by over a year
my 2c wrote:
- Screw over Hoka (the Bondi would need a redesign to be legal) and possibly some of its competitor's prototypes
Nobody races in Hoka Bondis so it wouldn't matter
my 2c wrote:
Think about it. The new midsole is even more complicated than the Vaporfly, so the manufacturing is going to be complicated and expensive. They'll have to sell at some unholy price point like $400 if they come to market. A lot of serious runners are already sold on the Vaporfly and unlikely to be in the mood to buy even more expensive shoes right now, especially with any advantage over the Next% being theoretical. The Vaporflys are already earning Nike money and notoriety.
So it will cost $10 for Nike to get manufacture rather than $8? With apparel, the manufacturing cost is a very small part of what the consumer pays. If there is a cost increase it will go to the R&D for the shoe or more likely Nike increasing its profit margin.
Hardloper wrote:
my 2c wrote:
- Screw over Hoka (the Bondi would need a redesign to be legal) and possibly some of its competitor's prototypes
Nobody races in Hoka Bondis so it wouldn't matter
I love Hoka Bondi!
Sounds like this Ross Tucker dude is jealous of Nike.
Hoka Bondi wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Nobody races in Hoka Bondis so it wouldn't matter
I love Hoka Bondi!
For easy runs maybe. They're actually the slowest shoe according to the NY times analysis of Strava data.
bloviating wrote:
More people need to pay attention to the “technology” Nike is putting out. Their new workout shoe seems to have the same transparent pod the alphaFly will have. Nike develops stuff, it looks cool, they claim this and that and everybody buys it and their products. If this stuff was that nefarious they would be hiding it, no?
Nike would LOVE for their shoe to be banned. Can you imagine the exposure?
Nike isn't making money from selling shoes to a few elites for the world marathon majors.
They make money by selling the shoes to the hobby jogger businessman who wants to drop $500 on the latest pair to show off to his corporate mates.
Don't really care... Just got me a sweet pair of Nike Next% Ekiden edition released today, with some coupons;)
https://www.runningwarehouse.com/Nike_ZmX_Vprfly_Next/descpage-NMNEXT2.html
800 dude wrote:
>Incidentally, I am just going to claim credit for being the first person to suggest stack height as the most reasonable way to >regulate shoes:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=8760161&id=8762740#8762740
It's hard to claim credit when using a pseudonym. ;-)
ex-runner wrote:
bloviating wrote:
More people need to pay attention to the “technology” Nike is putting out. Their new workout shoe seems to have the same transparent pod the alphaFly will have. Nike develops stuff, it looks cool, they claim this and that and everybody buys it and their products. If this stuff was that nefarious they would be hiding it, no?
Nike would LOVE for their shoe to be banned. Can you imagine the exposure?
They definitely would not. Nike shoes already have all the exposure they need, and illegal gimmicks (like those 600CC golf drivers) are ultimately not that popular and not on brand for a company that makes equipment for serious athletes. If a 36mm stack height limit comes out I bet the Alphaflys don't get released at all (or at least a 36mm version comes out).
JustRunBaby wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
Nike would LOVE for their shoe to be banned. Can you imagine the exposure?
They definitely would not. Nike shoes already have all the exposure they need, and illegal gimmicks (like those 600CC golf drivers) are ultimately not that popular and not on brand for a company that makes equipment for serious athletes. If a 36mm stack height limit comes out I bet the Alphaflys don't get released at all (or at least a 36mm version comes out).
They absolutely would fly off the shelves. No hobby jogger is going to care they are banned in international competition.
Running is not golf. And besides the golf balls which always fly straight sold incredibly well.
Rodger Kram wrote:
It's hard to claim credit when using a pseudonym. ;-)
Touche, Rodger!
Bad Wigins wrote:
PIK wrote:
If the height is arbitrary, then why the higher stack height?
The entire concept is arbitrary. The only reasoning involved is whether the public is ready once again to bite on the fantasy that running fast is about bouncing up and down off your heels, and that a shoe can make you bounce better. This has been going on for decades.
All that has really happened is the distance road racers have gotten faster over the years, as they naturally do, so the gimmicks their sponsors happen to have been pushing seem like they're working.
Exactly. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. The shoes are simply a placebo. Runners are approaching races with more confidence and thus running faster. They run faster wearing the shoes so they believe it's the shoes. When in reality it's better training (or doping). I hope Nike's marketing team got a HUGE bonus for convincing all these people the shoes are special.
It's not a placebo effect. The shoes really do help. Looking back at the last Olympics Jared Ward was racing in Type As, that was barbaric. We have no name athletes running 2:03. Are they better or more trained or more doped than Haile? That's obviously a ridiculous question to have to ask which is why you all look stupid right now. If Kipchoge decided to lace up some Streaks for his next marathon it's his choice to do so and assuming the other big Nike names are there he would lose the race for sure. To think that the top level athletes just weren't trying as hard and under the most intense physical and mental pressure is insane.