Non-Nike Athletes May Be F**ked - Nike WILL Release Alphaflys and they WILL BE LEGAL for 2020 Tokyo

---

Raggedman wrote:
Where's the eye bleach? Those things can't be unseen.

---

---

Specified in the Rules wrote:

---

deathinparadise wrote:
Actually it's even worse than the average 35/45, the article says "39.5mm-45mm " so it seems they could be interpreting the rule as "the lowest height of the sole has to be a maximum of 40mm" ? What next ? A 39.5mm/51.5mm shoe with a 12mm drop ?

---

The rules clearly state that the stack height will be measured in the toe and in the heel. It even specified a certain distance in from the heel and in from the toe where the measurement will be taken. So no, a 39.5mm/51.5mm shoe will not meet the max of 40mm. Both measurements need to be under 40mm. It could be that the foam rises up around the heel cup, making the stack height look taller than it really is.

---

And the “technology” is trickling down to trainers to help in training.

---

600mRunner wrote:
Yes, they have new regulation, but Nike obviously knew what these were going to be and their competitors will not have time to release an alphafly rivaling shoes before the Olympics.

---

The amount of conjecture and just plain misinformation on the message boards is insane - as usual. You know you can read the actual rules right?

Just to clear some things up:

Vaporflys as prototypes and on sale to the public for over 4 years now.

WA isn’t going to ban a shoe they let be in competition that long.

Nike has been working with WA for years to make sure the next% platform is and would stay legal.

Other companies pushed for the new rules.

Carbon fiber plates are allowed in anything.

The Alphafly used in Ineos had 1 plate.

The rules allow a stack height OVER 40mm. 40mm is the limit at the two measuring locations (back from toe and heel) for a men’s size 8. It scales up as the shoe size goes up. Read the rules.

Nike shoes for the Olympics will be on sale in time for them to be used in Tokyo.

Alphafly on sale 2/29.

The Viperfly spike is currently not legal because it has 3 plates and the stack height is too high for spikes. Nike will revise it in time to be compliant with new rules.

More new Nike shoes likely to come out - matumbo and peg turbo.

Every athlete at the Trials and Tokyo will have the opportunity to wear Nike shoes. Nike will not hold them back from non-Nike athletes. Plus they will all have been on sale to the public beforehand. The playing field IS LEVEL. Now it’s up to the other athletes and shoe companies.

The equipment dilemma is something all pro athletes - especially ones in some other sports like triathlon or cycling or swimming but also basketball - have had to deal with forever. If you sign on with someone who makes inferior product that’s on you. See Lonzo Ball and Big Baller Brand shoes.

---

Caruso > D. Rose! wrote:

---

ATEA4RE wrote:
How is any of this unfair? Are the laws of gravity or physics or chemistry known only to those at Nike? How is it that Reebok also uses Pebax? Nike does not own the copyright on its use, nor on the use of CF plates. So, again, unfair how?

---

Does Nike not have patents related to their shoe technology? Can other shoe companies copy their design without being sued? Or do they have to come up with innovative tech that they can then patent and hope to be the new leaders for a year or two?

Cycling has had this problem for a while, where certain brands are simply better than others and then you see competitors using other sponsors gear but they try to rebrand it. It’s a frustrating side of the sport knowing you may have lost due your sponsors not making as good of equipment.

I don’t blame Nike on this one. It’s their job to move forward within the rules. So whoever makes the rules is to blame here, if anyone.

Those shoes really are ugly as sin, but if they work who cares.

---

Dude everyone knew the rules were going to be change to one plate and a reduced height. A coworker and I were chatting and we both firgured one plate and 30mm

Don’t you think a company like Nike would have had plans for this? Oh I don’t know had several different shoes ready to go?

And it isn’t unfair if any Olympic runner could run in them if they wanted.

---

not sure wrote:
More info here: https://hypebeast.com/2020/2/nike-air-zoom-alphafly-next-tempo-viperfly-victory-spikes-release-date-info-atomknit-running-2020-olympics-tokyo

Quotes the stack at 45mm, so I'm not sure how that'd be legal.

---

Do you have any idea how far you are prepared to let shoe technology take us? If yes, please tell us.

---

Seriously mate? wrote:
I wonder if the 40mm stack height refers to average stack height? If the heel was 45mm and the forefoot 35mm then it would average out to 40mm and still be "legal."

---

---

adidas, where are you? wrote:

---

tarckstar wrote:
Adidas is going to be okay. Skechers will continue to surprise.

But Brooks/Saucony/Just about everyone else needs to buy out OnCloud yesterday to stand a shred of a chance. Nike has tried everything for the past 50 years, and they're putting it all in these shoes. Nobody has patents that will allow them to do anything remotely close.

Trials are going to Nike and Hoka. If Hoka grabs OnCloud IP, Saucony and Brooks are a memory.

---

How is Adidas OK, but not Brooks or Saucony? At least Brooks and Saucony are releasing VF competitors this spring. Does Adidas have anything that comes close? The way I see it, Adidas has been caught flat-footed with its own technology (carbon plate, foam). Boost shoes don't even come close to VFs. I'd buy Reebok Floatride ahead of Boost at this point.

---

---

Subway Surfers wrote: Exactly, essentially Nike is spitting at the IAAF and saying we run the sport ban them. I hope that all the guys at the Olympics in Alphaflys get DQed and some little Japanese guy coming 11th in Asics or Mizuno gets the gold. I would wet my pants with laughter 😂

---

---

Tommy Ferrari wrote:
I don't understand how all the other shoe companies were caught so off guard by this shoe. All the people involved in designing a shoe and bringing it into production, and Brooks et al can't find ONE source within Nike to tell them about the damn thing so that they can get started with tech of their own to respond? I bet Nike knows what is going on within Brooks's R&D department...because their information people are doing their jobs.

If you're a non-Nike athlete. Don't be pissed at Nike. Be pissed at your own shoe sponsor.

---

You probably wet your pants on a regular basis..

---

U know nothing jon snow wrote:
The amount of conjecture and just plain misinformation on the message boards is insane - as usual. You know you can read the actual rules right?

---

---

U know nothing jon snow wrote:
The rules allow a stack height OVER 40mm. 40mm is the limit at the two measuring locations (back from toe and heel) for a men’s size 8. It scales up as the shoe size goes up. Read the rules.

---

---

NoBan wrote:
Saw this article on twitter from Nike. Found it quite interesting. http://news.nike.com/news/air-zoom-alphafly-next-percent

Editor's note: We changed the title of the thread to make it clear that Nike has publicly announced the new AlphaFlys and that it's believed they will be legal for Tokyo 2020. When the thread started, many thought they were only for amateur runners. We deleed the posts talking about how the amateur runners would be in better shoes than the pros. Below is a picture of the shoe pros will soon be racing in.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/nikeinc/assets/93825/NIKE_AIR_ZOOM_ALPHAFLY_NEXT_PERCENT_native_1600.jpg?1580334343

---

---

UnpopularOpinion wrote:
I'm happy to see this info all release "officially" so the LRC community can loose it's collective minds.

Regardless of what you think of Nike as a company you cannot deny that they have out innovated, out researched and out designed the competition. They are a world-class product company that knows how to develop product. Very obviously the best in the industry. I realize they do have questionable moral practices around some of the training groups (i.e. Oregon Project, etc) but that is a separate issue than product.

All other running shoes companies were caught flatfooted and have had years now to innovate. A handful have barely reached the bar of the 4%/Next% by basically copying the Nike design in their midsoles and foam techs.

This isn't about Nike b being "evil"...it's about other companies being behind, due to their own investment in product development.

Nike is far beyond their competition as far as product. Nike athletes do have an advantage bt it's not their fault. The choose the right company to run for, or their were lucky enough to be chosen by Nike. Athletes with other sponsorships...that is their own problem for not pushing their brands to develop product.

Don't punish a design/product leader for doing a good job.

Feel sorry for all the other companies for not having a clue.

Have fun LRC...loose your internet message board minds.

---

I'm not sure why we're putting so much weight on one news outlet's report of the height. I've seen some outlets peg the height at 50 mm even. It's pretty clear that no one knows exactly what the height is; otherwise there wouldn't be some articles saying 45 and others saying 50 for the same shoe.

Also, the rules are new and without precedent, and we don't know the size shoe that the "45" was measured on, and +5mm could be something that IAAF doesn't care about.

---

Subway Surfers wrote:

---

Seriously mate? wrote:
I wonder if the 40mm stack height refers to average stack height? If the heel was 45mm and the forefoot 35mm then it would average out to 40mm and still be "legal."

---

Interesting, looks like Nike may be arguing a legal technicality via 'the average' stack height, unless they have shaved off foam and not informed anyone.

---