Reports: Vaporfly to be banned

Racingflat 4TheWin. Back to basic

RunRaider wrote:

Wildhorse wrote:

It's a Takumi Sen, a well known Japanese race flat: low stack, low drop, mostly EVA and some Boost, no plate. No new tech, no new construction paradigm. Hard to see what's there to ban, really.

This would be a dual-density midsole, which the haters argue constitutes "a spring."

Why not ban this too?

There's no consistency to the argument. People just don't like that the Vaporfly is a good product and are proposing technical "solutions" to ban it without actually thinking through the consequences.

They should limit stack height and limit curvature in any plate within the shoe.

If a simple stack height limit is enacted, it will be super hard to enforce. As someone who works in the industry, it's really hard to verify stack heights, and they actually change depending on your shoe size, within a model. If you'd like some examples, compare some listed heights on manufacturing sites to the heights and drops that running warehouse measures - they often differ, vaporfly included.

Additionally, I assume this will just apply to pros or those in contention for prize money - because multiple shoes from hoka would likely fall above the restriction in stack height, despite not providing a distinct mechanical advantage.

Now when it comes to plate - I don't know if you can ban something. Say they come out and say, "No Carbon Fiber." Well, there's been a long history of shoes adding denser, light, stiff materials to shoes over time - it really just took the vaporfly to illustrate how effective they could be with the right cushion and rocker shape.

Hell, the original cloudrunner from On (most similar to the current cloudsurfer) demonstrated a savings in HR at the same pace compared to other shoes, as well as up to a 30% reduction in ground reaction forces. That shoe, released in 2010 or 11sh, utilized a plastic "speedboard" which acted similarly to the carbon fiber plate. If they had Nike's marketing, they could have marketed that as the original "3%" shoe or whatever percentage they saw fit. 2000s Adizero flats often had "torsion" trusses that extending all the way through the forefoot to provide a stiff shoe with cushion atop. Other materials companies have used include TPU and "Nylon" shanks (old new balance 1600 flat had a pretty stiff shank that extended into midfoot, but not all the way through).

For an old school example: Rod Dixon had Saucony design a special race shoe for him that flipped the standard density of eva foam - he opted for the stiffer, gray piece in the forefoot, softer white eva in the back, because he felt they offered him a mechanical advantage over the contemporary, poorly designed, stiff foam in back, soft in forefoot flats out there. He won NY marathon in that shoe.

Nike will figure ways around the stack height issue, and come out with shoes that get close to the current vaporflys, and hopefully other companies will follow suit.

I don't think you can ban a material, it would have been akin to UCI banning carbon fiber bikes when they started proliferating. Regardless - current aluminum racing frames are lighter and faster than the initial carbon frames of the late 90s, so I expect the running industry will continue to develop around these barriers

Doubt it...

jukeysmoot wrote:

Nike will figure ways around the stack height issue, and come out with shoes that get close to the current vaporflys, and hopefully other companies will follow suit.

What is it about the stack height and curved plate that's providing an "unfair advantage," though?

Would an elite marathoner running in Hoka Cliftons have an "unfair advantage" over competitors in the Zoom Streak? Of course not. So, it's not the stack height in of itself that's the problem. A stack height limit for PEBA-based midsoles would at least be a more logical regulation.

Regarding the curved plate, virtually every running shoe with a drop >0mm is trying to take advantage of the same mechanical geometry as the Vaporfly's shaped carbon fiber plate. I have seen speculation but little hard evidence that the geometry is actually providing an advantage. (And even if it did, see my suggestion above that Nike be forced to sell the patented plate to competitors.) Like many Vaporfly critiques, this just strikes me as an attempt to punish the Vaporfly for doing well what other shoes already do, albeit more poorly.

It would be simple to limit stack height, if you are manufacturing a shoe you can have the largest production size at the limit and then all the corresponding sizes will be below. It's not difficult. As for other shoes, nothing has come close to more than a 1% improvement universally. Here in the UK the number of women running sub 2.30 in a calendar year has doubled. It's a joke. It's time to enjoy the sport for what it should be, a level playing field with shoes and preference based on comfort/weight, not looking to make things unfair. Athletics need to look at Kirin racing. Universal kit which is standardized.

Maybe other companies should just git gud scrub. Not Nike's fault that Addidas brooks and hoka are eating glue instead of mathching their shoe performance

ATEA4RE wrote:

Be careful though...it's not two different sources. And what the Mail does cannot be called reporting. There is likely one source that is being repeated and repackaged. Also, that many of the same-source stories clearly do not understand what the shoe is even accused of doing should reiterate that this may not be any reporting going on at all. My guess is that one person, or one company is waging a PR battle through some leaks. Sometimes such campaigns work, which is why sometimes the Mail turns out to be correct.

Unless, I'm missing something (and I'm aware UK journalism may be different than US), but it appears they are separate reports. I do not see the Times citing the Mirror. Obviously, impossible to know if the same IAAF source is leaking this to both reporters. Could be, as you assume, but maybe is not.

I'm inclined to think this isn't too far off the truth as far as what the UK contingent of the IAAF is planning to get done. I think the egos of Coe/Radcliffe etc. is not taking kindly to the coming assault on their records.

wake up boy wrote:

in the UK the number of women running sub 2.30 in a calendar year has doubled. It's a joke.

Not trolling: Why is this considered to be an objectively bad thing?

In 10 years, people will understand the jump just like we understand the leap from the cinder era, the pre-professional era, and the advent of customized on-course fueling.

I can think of a few dozen other sports where certain gear has been used, and is banned.

Running is a real sport now. At least we ARE seeking better shoes after companies sitting on their heels forever.

Seems Kipchoge has responded....

Darren H wrote:

Seems Kipchoge has responded....

Oh really, who would have thought that the guy sponsored to wear these shoes and broke 2 hours in them would think they are fair? Not me, I totally expected him to say "yep, what I did is unfair, suck failure freaks"

I didn't say it was an unexpected response (it's just a link to article where he gives his view and a fairly poor comparison to F1 tyres).

I just need to know if I can return them or not. I have until mid Feb....

EK made a comparison to car racing, where there a guidelines for design and engine performance?

badCall wrote:

And so the sport will shoot itself in the foot once again, condemning future generations of athletes to shorter, injury-filled careers...

If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?

Terribly lame comparison.

RunRaider wrote:

Would an elite marathoner running in Hoka Cliftons have an "unfair advantage" over competitors in the Zoom Streak? Of course not. So, it's not the stack height in of itself that's the problem. A stack height limit for PEBA-based midsoles would at least be a more logical regulation.

Just because SOME implementations of thick soles don't confer an advantage doesn't mean that other ones don't. If I'm driving an old V-12 XJS, do I have an advantage over a new, V-8 Formula One Ferrari? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that V-12s should be allowed in Formula One.

The theory is that VF's allow your body to offload some portion of the metabolically costly active cushioning of your legs into the metabolically costless passive cushioning of the shoe. Limiting the stack height limits how much offloading you can do. To be sure, there are thick shoes that aren't advantageous, largely because their weight offsets any cushioning advantage. Another issue is that a thicker midsole effectively gives you longer legs. Even 1 cm, if it's light enough, can account for a pretty significant increase in stride length.

There are a lot of reasons to go with a stack height limit. It's extremely easy to regulate because all you need are calipers. (And even though reported stack heights aren't always accurate, athletes competing for prize money can just self-test their shoes to make sure they're compliant.) It doesn't force you to figure out exactly how every new shoe is functioning. It doesn't require lab tests of efficiency. It doesn't encourage cosmetic workarounds, where brands figure out a way to produce the exact same effect without going against the strict letter of a particular regulation. That's the problem with banning thick PEBA midsoles; it just invites brands to look for a material with similar properties but a different chemical structure. A midsole rule also wouldn't limit innovation. Brands could still do whatever they want within a smaller canvas.

twofiddy wrote:

I just need to know if I can return them or not. I have until mid Feb....

This definitely makes me a nerd but I think I will keep them display them even if I don't even compete in them. They look ridiculous, and now are a big part of road racing history, so pretty cool thing and a conversation-starter I'd think.