Reports: Vaporfly to be banned

Agree with your hampering innovation point. Additionally to your point, product cycles are long and there are probably a lot of shoes in the pipeline with significant investment already that this not-well-communicated ban would throw a wrench into. Not just Nike would be affected.

BULLSHIT. well the angry/jealous broke people who cant afford the shoes will be happy for today at least

I could get behind a 36mm limit.

I hear you on the sponsorship implications of banning prototypes. I think I'm proposing something slightly different than what you're concerned about, though.

I don't actually think shoes should need to be commercially available (although some people do favor that approach). As someone implied above, that requirement would be a huge giveaway to Nike, who can afford to sell tens of thousands of competition-category shoes at a loss.

I'm saying if a brand is releasing a new competitive shoe, they'd have to "announce" that intent in some formalized way that exposes some amount of the technology. This could take several forms, like blueprints, manufacturing specs, or just simply providing a sample to other brands. This would avoid a scenario akin to the 2016 Olympics where some athletes were able to gain advantage from a technology that the rest of the field didn't know existed.

This might be less than ideal from a marketing perspective, but it would still allow brands to hype up a shoe prior to competition, in my opinion. You could even put in a clause wherein the other brands must treat the new product announcements as a trade secret subject to an NDA.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

"World Athletics have assembled a panel of experts to review Nike’s range of Vaporfly shoes that have sparked the biggest mass drop in road race running times in history. It is understood the governing body will soon introduce new regulations prohibiting their use in professional competition."

I think at this point if you're questioning the reporting, you're somewhat in denial.

Right. Because "It is understood" is certainly the tell-tale sign of solid journalism.

Lookeee here, we have a smalldickprick.

wake up boy wrote:

Here in the UK the number of women running sub 2.30 in a calendar year has doubled.

I’ve seen other people, including the brojos, throwing around stats about more women going sub 2:30 and more men sub 2:10 and attributing that to the vaporfly. However, let’s not forget that those “barriers” match up pretty well with the new Olympic standards, so there’s a bigger incentive to go after them now. The US only had Rupp running sub 2:10, and now Korir, Ward and Fauble have join the club, even though the last two aren’t sponsored by Nike.

With that said, I do agree that the vaporfly helps, however I do not think it should be banned.

Simple - this is fabricated bullshit. The Flys are going NOWHERE.

I see the potential for a myriad of unintended consequences similar to what happened with the full-body polyurethane swimsuits.

World Athletics will simply impose UCI (cycling) styled rules for equipment. Limits on stack height, aid from mechanical sources (carbon and plastic plates, foams, etc.) so that all athletes are racing on similar products.

Cycling mandates limits on bike weight and tube shapes to keep competition fair and safe. They also ban recumbent bikes, fairings, and the like to insure that it is the athlete that wins, not the gear.

The AlphaFly or some variant will still be sold to triathletes as ITU and WTC have virtually no rules. Ironman Hawaii will eventually be won in 6:55 by a guy in a special material wetsuit with greater buoyancy properties while riding a bizarrely shaped bike in the "Superman" riding position. He will finish off his race with a 2:25 marathon performance thanks to his 40mm stack KonaFly Infinite % flats.

Can runners where these?

https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_b29bec13-517d-49de-918e-a8663d7e2e16?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg

UA Runner wrote:

UmbrellaMans wrote:

So uhhh would it be a bad idea to buy a pair of vaporflys now? Im a D3 runner but will be moving on to road racing in the next couple months.

I don't even think this would apply to people who aren't elites, and/or doing a World Athletics sanctioned event. It's not like they're going to go around and repo everyone's Nikes, or go to the local Color Run 5K and make sure no one has Vaporflys.

If this happens, my guess is it would apply to elite field only. Mayyybe age group winners at WMM events? No idea. Certainly the organizers at Rock & Roll San Diego or similar are not going to spend time looking at shoes for people finishing in 4hrs 30min, and so on.

They coming for our Vaporflys and our guns!

So are elites going to have to check in and get approved for their racing flats now? Like throwers having to check in their implements?

Why not ban all shoes and make runners go barefoot then?

Or have to wear sweats because singlets are more efficient.

We've always been allowed to use the best gear for running. We put spikes in our shoes for Christ's sake that isn't banned.

Shoes always provide an advantage..for a country that lauds progress and innovation. Were being pretty damn hypocritical. Nike makes a superior shoe. And it results in faster running. That's super cool. We should be applauding this.

For all you supposed "purists" out there who will argue. "Oh running is just about how fast the athlete is, not the gear" or " this will just make those who can afford the shoe have an advantage over those who don't." Shoes should just be enough to protect your feet" Cut the self righteous b.s. If you believed that you wouldn't use spikes. Or gps watches. Or basically anything someone else Potentially couldn't afford. Plus every runner is spending money on racing flats or spikes, gear, and singlets. And most good runners on coaches, agents, etc.

Comparing eras has always been difficult. Track surfaces have improved. Should we still run on cinders? Obviously not.

This is all just hindering progress b.s. imagine a show could allow me to run a 4 minute Mile. I'd love it! And elite runners would still be proportionately better than me. So whatever I gain no advantage in that regard.

I do see how if I switch to the shoe and get faster I wouldn't consider myself a better runner though.

My guess is they will allow the original 4% to remain and ban from the Next % onwards. Will allow competitor's to catch up.

The Alphafly took it 2 new extremes really

The Hobbiest Jogger wrote:

UmbrellaMans wrote:

So uhhh would it be a bad idea to buy a pair of vaporflys now? Im a D3 runner but will be moving on to road racing in the next couple months.

Vaporfly 4% Flyknit is $50 off right now. I ordered a pair and am just going to leave them in the box and return them if they get banned...

Where are you seeing them $50 off?

Kosgei is on EPO and testosterone.

Hardloper wrote:

badCall wrote:

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

Slippery slope fallacy

You are too intelligent to believe that the Slippery Slope doesn't exist.

It seems they are trying to ban both carbon fiber plates and thick soles shoes.

This brings up some new questions, like

- How can you tell if a shoe has a carbon fiber plate in it?

- If carbon fiber is banned, can other materials be used to make a similar plate?

- What happens to records/course records set in vaporflys, other carbon plate shoes, or just plain hoka cliftons/bondis?

- What does this mean for mid or back of the packers who aren’t going to podium or set records? Can they wear vaporflys?

- What does this mean for trail running?

- Will lug depth on trail running shoes count as part of the midsole thickness?

Daily Mail = British equivalent to TMZ

/endthread

Tyler_Runs_Lifts wrote:

The Hobbiest Jogger wrote:

Vaporfly 4% Flyknit is $50 off right now. I ordered a pair and am just going to leave them in the box and return them if they get banned...

Where are you seeing them $50 off?

nike.com. You have to enter them into your cart and checkout for the discount to be applied.