Former marathon star Rob de Castella calls Vaporflys "ludicrous – it definitely needs to be addressed."

physics defiant wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

You would have needed binoculars to see his feet

Interesting way of saying you were wrong.

Wrong about what?

That he ran behind Deek at some stage? That he diagnosed Deek had bad pronation? That he even spoke to Deek about his pronation?

You still have no understanding what over pronation really is, despite my attempts to explain.

Mencken1976 wrote:

All materials capture/return some energy and how are you going to measure exactly how much is being returned? It varies with every runner.

Since even barefooted runners have energy return , a better way of putting it might be that "energy losses are less on some materials vs others, and that itself varies with runners/running style"

Egads, have you run in them? I am older, slow, coming back from injury and got them on sale. Anything to run again. Springs? No. Your foot rolls in a very ideal way. They feel like they help you run with a more efficient stride due to that. Springy a bit, but not much more than some other good shoes. Nike put it all together into a shoe, no engine, no spring big enough to not be still a running shoe, and it's the total package that makes the difference (add in super lightweight). I wish I had them years ago. Betting I would have had fewer injuries and a more efficient stride to have helped me nip PRs. The placebo effect is also likely a factor by now.

Try them on in a store at least. They are shoes. Clever yes. But not blades like Pistorius had. An evolution of shoes. Not taller or thicker than Hokas.

kiowavt wrote:

Try them on in a store at least. They are shoes. Clever yes. But not blades like Pistorius had. An evolution of shoes. Not taller or thicker than Hokas.

Yeah, the blades essentially replaced the lower limb with a more responsive and lighter spring as opposed to normal calf etc

[quote]kiowavt wrote:

Egads, have you run in them? I am older, slow, coming back from injury and got them on sale. Anything to run again. Springs? No. Your foot rolls in a very ideal way. They feel like they help you run with a more efficient stride due to that. Springy a bit, but not much more than some other good shoes. Nike put it all together into a shoe, no engine, no spring big enough to not be still a running shoe, and it's the total package that makes the difference (add in super lightweight). I wish I had them years ago. Betting I would have had fewer injuries and a more efficient stride to have helped me nip PRs. The placebo effect is also likely a factor by now.

Try them on in a store at least. They are shoes. Clever yes. But not blades like Pistorius had. An evolution of shoes. Not taller or thicker than Hokas.[/quote

Thank you.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that the carbon fiber plate is a spring which I have pointed out many times on these boards is ridiculous when you really think about it. People have latched on to this notion that the plate is a spring because anything carbon fiber intuitively seems to be a spring but this isn't in reality. As you pointed out the only way a carbon fiber plate would act as a propulsion spring would be in a reverse "C" shape - exactly the same way that an amputees blade is. Clearly as these plates are just single plane with no void to allow compression and elastic rebound. Even more comically the elastic rebound of these plates under a tiny amount of bending force (with a take-off angle of around 30 degrees these plates "roll" as opposed to truly flex) the elastic rebound force isn't even in the correct direction. The plate increases foot lever length, allows the foam to more effectively rebound (the "spring") and has curvature to put the body in better positions bio-mechanically and enable that "rolling" sensation you mention.

Thanks for a great account of your experience

Ran with him in 82 a few times.

He was wearing the Adidas LA whatever shoes with the variable firmness plugs you could put in them, and racing in the Adistar Roadrunner (or whatever the photos show, that shoe). And yes, looks just like that.

I am Sam wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Interesting way of saying you were wrong.

Wrong about what?

That he ran behind Deek at some stage? That he diagnosed Deek had bad pronation? That he even spoke to Deek about his pronation?

You still have no understanding what over pronation really is, despite my attempts to explain.

But you haven't actually seen him run in person or on video. It would become very clear if you did and in fact he had near textbook overpronation.

So you're wrong about everything.

physics defiant wrote:

But you haven't actually seen him run in person or on video. It would become very clear if you did and in fact he had near textbook overpronation.

So you're wrong about everything.

Stop derailing a thread about the shoes with guesses on how Deek ran.

I have run with him (I guess he cured his over pronation since racing days), met him, talked to him, worked for and with him.

Your understanding of over pronation is like a general person having heard of it.

You have to land on the outside (heel) of foot and roll over severely to the inside, i.e. 'pronation' as opposed to 'supination'.

No matter how ugly it looks, landing duck like on the median and inside of foot does not constitute 'rolling inwards'.

Anyway, back on topic...

Thanks guys for putting it simply. As I said before, they are not springs, nor like a pogo stick or Oscar's blades, nor do they impart some mechanical movement without the person having to take a step.

The one phrase that sums up the misguided and misdirected furor about these shoes is "perception is reality".

99% of people who care about this (former athletes like DeCastella, Ryan Hall, all the "highly knowledgeable" journalists that write articles, and your average running dork) have simply perceived something based off intuition, guess work and misguided hypothesizing that simply isn't the case (carbon fiber plates in shoes are inspector gadget-like evil SPRINGS!)

Sadly for those people when it comes to decisions from governing bodies etc on the ability for an entity to do its job and provide innovation for it's athletes, facts and realities are used rather than perception and emotion. Hence, carbon fiber, zoom X, boost, freshfoam and any other combination of cushioning technology that fits in 30mm of forfeoot space is going to be just fine

I am Sam wrote:

Thanks guys for putting it simply. As I said before, they are not springs, nor like a pogo stick or Oscar's blades, nor do they impart some mechanical movement without the person having to take a step.

And the latest:

De Castella said they act in a similar way to a spring.

"The principle of running with springs in your shoes makes an absurdity of it," de Castella said.

"You're creating an energy rebound effect that has never been used by runners in the past."

Australian running coach Nic Bideau, who is sponsored by Nike said...ah well, read the latest article:

That's actually a very good in-depth article on the subject.

I am Sam wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

But you haven't actually seen him run in person or on video. It would become very clear if you did and in fact he had near textbook overpronation.

So you're wrong about everything.

Stop derailing a thread about the shoes with guesses on how Deek ran.

I have run with him (I guess he cured his over pronation since racing days), met him, talked to him, worked for and with him.

Your understanding of over pronation is like a general person having heard of it.

You have to land on the outside (heel) of foot and roll over severely to the inside, i.e. 'pronation' as opposed to 'supination'.

No matter how ugly it looks, landing duck like on the median and inside of foot does not constitute 'rolling inwards'.

Moran.

Agree, seems Deek does too.

To me the biggest and really only compelling issue of the shoes is how they affect competition between differently-sponsored athletes. They really aren't that inaccessible, expensive or impractical (in the great scheme of things) unlike the suits or the bikes. Time-wise in road racing the records have been on a downward trajectory for years, and you can't compare Bill Rodgers to Galen Rupp anyway outside of the context of their eras (nobody would say Dennis Kimmetto is a bigger legend than Paul Tergat even if he ran faster etc.).

If everyone catches up in terms of shoe tech and the average athlete is running 1:30-2:00 faster over the marathon, it isn't such a big deal to me. Sure, the old guard might complain and people like Ross Tucker might say the level of responder you are is compromising the results (I think this is overstated). But really we just want the best athlete to win. Let's hope it gets there because while in the 10K and down I think that is the case, there's reason to believe above that there might be some moments when technology is making a decisive difference.