If the Vaporfly is the best shoe on the market, and no amount of innovation by other companies can improve on it, then Nike will sell lots of shoes and their competitors will go out of business.
This is called "capitalism" and "fair" has nothing to do with it. You either innovate or move aside.
Consumers are king. If no one buys your product anymore, you have a lousy product. Such is life in the "free market."
Blitzfield12 wrote:
If the Vaporfly is the best shoe on the market, and no amount of innovation by other companies can improve on it, then Nike will sell lots of shoes and their competitors will go out of business.
This is called "capitalism" and "fair" has nothing to do with it. You either innovate or move aside.
Consumers are king. If no one buys your product anymore, you have a lousy product. Such is life in the "free market."
Folks with this mindset seem to be unable to differentiate technological progress, capitalism, and sport regulation.
To use the swimming and baseball bat analogy again:
Swimming could be radically changed through supersuits and the free market. They chose not to.
MLB could be radically changed with metal or composite bats and the free market. They chose not to.
PLEASE, stop conflating these issues. A sport must regulate it's equipment apart from what is technologically possible.
Again, there is the sport of distance running, and then there are the shoe giants who have sprung up to make money off it (and, to be fair, have provided the necessary equipment). But the sport itself shouldn't be making decisions that compromise its integrity merely out of concern for the shoe giants, and a feeling that we have to adjust our sport to cater to their innovations. That's backwards.
Maybe somebody in the future will develop a rocket-powered anti-gravity shoe. Are we then obligated to change the rules of running again, because innovation is intrinsically good and must be catered to?
Car racing keeps coming up.
In F1, teams have come up with crazy ideas the FIA had to ban to keep one team from dominating the competition.
Personally, I think the problem with F1 now is that teams aren't allowed to innovate enough. The regulations are so tight there is virtually no room for any truly creative thinking. So Ferrari can point hundreds of engineers at a narrow band of wiggle room in the rules. Williams can do a fraction of that. The only chance a Williams has is if they're free to come up with radical designs. Something not possible in the rules now. Sure, Ferrari could do that too, but at least Williams would have a chance. Or F1 needs to become a spec series.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/10-craziest-technologies-banned-f1/
aesthete, thinker wrote:
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
You can't be this dense, so I choose to believe you are being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
I specifically wrote that MATERIALS should improve through time (mesh vs leather, canvas, etc) in the name of light weight and comfort. But the IDEA of a racing shoe is the same--thin upper, thin midsole for protection, outsole for traction. Cheaterflys distort that and ADD the ingredient of DEVICE to improve performance.
The picture of the Paavo Nurmi spikes is pure gold, you cheaterfly apologists prove the point for me---that spike is much closer IN FORM to a nike victory or jasari than a viperfly with an extra spring blade or alphafly clown shoes, but most importantly, the Nurmi spikes are in the same SPIRIT of fair competition.
You can’t just change your argument - you said shoes “SHOULD BE” made of mesh - you said nothing about it being ok to change material but not shape. I am actually not dense - I can see they are shoes ....
Jimmy Shortz wrote:
Again, there is the sport of distance running, and then there are the shoe giants who have sprung up to make money off it (and, to be fair, have provided the necessary equipment). But the sport itself shouldn't be making decisions that compromise its integrity merely out of concern for the shoe giants, and a feeling that we have to adjust our sport to cater to their innovations. That's backwards.
Maybe somebody in the future will develop a rocket-powered anti-gravity shoe. Are we then obligated to change the rules of running again, because innovation is intrinsically good and must be catered to?
But they are not anti gravity and they are not rocket powered .......
rojo wrote:
So normally around lunch time, I give Jonathan Gault a call to see what he's up to. He said he'd just gotten off the phone (or maybe it was a text exchange) with a shoe exec. The exec said that the reason why no one is getting close to the Vaporflys is because the key to them is the curved fiber plate. You can't really make it work without that - unless you use multiple plates and then he thought you might be able to get close - and Nike has a patent on a curved plate.
Except if you look at this picture of the Hyperion Elite, it too has a curved plate.
And for the 200th time, if the curved plate was the answer, then the Nike Zoom Fly would be killing it too.. and that is not the case.
https://www.foroatletismo.com/zapatillas/brooks-innovation-camp/?fbclid=IwAR0QwGEDQ74YvjLVH-X_NGhRNDc5EBR_4UDcAiyc_ZB7w7KA7PLwGiBPaLcIt's the curved plate and the foam.
The curved plate which can't be copied due to patent (no idea how brooks get around this - but this is the reason Adidas have not done it).
The foam - which Nike has an exclusive licence for.
hsrhds wrote:
Car racing keeps coming up.
Adding to that yet again, look at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. They have a lot of different classes for cars with different capabilities and specs. The fastest classes aren't competing directly with the slower classes. A potential 8% shoe like the Alphafly should be in a completely different class than a Hoka Carbon Rocket (what would we guess based on reviews? 2%?) or adidos Adios 4 (0%) if if were a car racing Le Mans.
Here's a way you could equalize that. I'm not saying this is a good way, just throwing it out there to discus (shot put). You could have the top new models be tested for efficiency by an agreed upon lab like CU Boulder's. Then convert that efficiency gain to average time gains per event in 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, etc. efficiency gain classes. Let the runners choose their weapon (shoe). For smaller events, like the Olympics, the runners choosing the faster weapons would start the predetermined times back (from a table or equation) from the first starters using the 0% shoes. Lets say for example, the runners choosing a 8% shoes might have to start 7 minutes after the gun in a marathon, 5% shoe runners have to start 4 minutes back, etc. Or in a larger event, like a major marathon, they'd have to do that for the first corral runners, and then for other corrals, add the appropriate time to the finish time according to what shoes they wear. Of course, there should be allowance for Sasha's kid to race in his Crocs, or people to run in Vibrams or sandals, or small shoe brands that don't submit to efficiency testing, so there should be a technical official that can physically examine random shoes and put them in the 0% category.
SaraBaller wrote:
It's the curved plate and the foam.
The curved plate which can't be copied due to patent (no idea how brooks get around this - but this is the reason Adidas have not done it).
The foam - which Nike has an exclusive licence for.
Even though adidas made this over ten years ago?
https://twitter.com/sweatscience/status/844984347786661889?lang=bgzzzz wrote:
hsrhds wrote:
Car racing keeps coming up.
Adding to that yet again, look at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. They have a lot of different classes for cars with different capabilities and specs. The fastest classes aren't competing directly with the slower classes. A potential 8% shoe like the Alphafly should be in a completely different class than a Hoka Carbon Rocket (what would we guess based on reviews? 2%?) or adidos Adios 4 (0%) if if were a car racing Le Mans.
Here's a way you could equalize that. I'm not saying this is a good way, just throwing it out there to discus (shot put). You could have the top new models be tested for efficiency by an agreed upon lab like CU Boulder's. Then convert that efficiency gain to average time gains per event in 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, etc. efficiency gain classes. Let the runners choose their weapon (shoe). For smaller events, like the Olympics, the runners choosing the faster weapons would start the predetermined times back (from a table or equation) from the first starters using the 0% shoes. Lets say for example, the runners choosing a 8% shoes might have to start 7 minutes after the gun in a marathon, 5% shoe runners have to start 4 minutes back, etc. Or in a larger event, like a major marathon, they'd have to do that for the first corral runners, and then for other corrals, add the appropriate time to the finish time according to what shoes they wear. Of course, there should be allowance for Sasha's kid to race in his Crocs, or people to run in Vibrams or sandals, or small shoe brands that don't submit to efficiency testing, so there should be a technical official that can physically examine random shoes and put them in the 0% category.
Add: There'd be interesting strategy involved in selecting the shoe. If you were a Nike runner, you might choose the Alphafly if you really respond well to it. Or you could choose the Streak if you don't respond as well to the super shoes. There would also be interesting strategy in the races, which might make it potentially interesting TV. You'd have packs of 8%ers teaming up and trying to team time trial up towards the earlier starting packs. You'd have runners choosing 0% shoes because they want to take a flyer off the front. I can see it being good TV, with the strategies, more like bike racing makes good TV.
If what I just suggested ever becomes a thing, remember it came from here ;).
Come on, rojo, say it's brilliant.
Solves several problems all at once. Allows innovation to continue without limit (lift 40mm rule, if someone makes a 15% shoe, they just have to start way back), allows luddites to race on equal ground, increases strategies during the race, gives TV commentations something that matters to talk about before the race discussing the different shoes that the top runners are choosing for that day, makes for better and more exciting racing, makes better TV.
zzzz wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Adding to that yet again, look at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. They have a lot of different classes for cars with different capabilities and specs. The fastest classes aren't competing directly with the slower classes. A potential 8% shoe like the Alphafly should be in a completely different class than a Hoka Carbon Rocket (what would we guess based on reviews? 2%?) or adidos Adios 4 (0%) if if were a car racing Le Mans.
Here's a way you could equalize that. I'm not saying this is a good way, just throwing it out there to discus (shot put). You could have the top new models be tested for efficiency by an agreed upon lab like CU Boulder's. Then convert that efficiency gain to average time gains per event in 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, etc. efficiency gain classes. Let the runners choose their weapon (shoe). For smaller events, like the Olympics, the runners choosing the faster weapons would start the predetermined times back (from a table or equation) from the first starters using the 0% shoes. Lets say for example, the runners choosing a 8% shoes might have to start 7 minutes after the gun in a marathon, 5% shoe runners have to start 4 minutes back, etc. Or in a larger event, like a major marathon, they'd have to do that for the first corral runners, and then for other corrals, add the appropriate time to the finish time according to what shoes they wear. Of course, there should be allowance for Sasha's kid to race in his Crocs, or people to run in Vibrams or sandals, or small shoe brands that don't submit to efficiency testing, so there should be a technical official that can physically examine random shoes and put them in the 0% category.
Add: There'd be interesting strategy involved in selecting the shoe. If you were a Nike runner, you might choose the Alphafly if you really respond well to it. Or you could choose the Streak if you don't respond as well to the super shoes. There would also be interesting strategy in the races, which might make it potentially interesting TV. You'd have packs of 8%ers teaming up and trying to team time trial up towards the earlier starting packs. You'd have runners choosing 0% shoes because they want to take a flyer off the front. I can see it being good TV, with the strategies, more like bike racing makes good TV.
Continuing the fantasy race and shoe revamp:
- Similar to how cyclists have climbers, break specialists, all-arounders, you'd have the break specialists that choose a lower percentage shoe to take flyers, you'd have the "springers" using the 15% shoes, you'd have the all-arounders that can win with either shoe strategy.
- You could have records for each shoe class, which would increase interest and discussion. The top class, whatever it becomes at the time, say 15%, would be the "Unlimited" class for that era. Though they would start a long ways back, their "chip time" could still set class records. That would encourage further innovation from manufacturers to set the "Unlimited" class record of 1:49:xx for the marathon or whatever it might be.
- Once you thought the last barrier had been broken with 2:00 and the excitement is gone forever for the general public? Nope, now you have the sub-1:50 barrier. Or the sub-2:10, then sub-2:05 for women.
- An additional benefit of this would be the ability to go back and put an asterisk to already set WRs and say that "This is considered the 4% class record", and Kimetto's record the "0% class record", and so on, at least until they are broken again
- Once you allow different classes of shoes, you no longer get complaints that you are limiting innovation. Yet you can also designate specific races a 0% race or an "Unlimited" race, so not every race has to have the staggered start. Then you designate a race like the Olympics a 0% class race (or keep the staggered start). This would be like cross country skiing has a classic and freestyle. Or swimming has different strokes. Not every race has to have a staggered start.
By the way, if anything makes sense at all in my fantasy race and shoe revamp, that only shows how ridiculous it is to have people with different shoe sponsors racing with unequal shoes.
zzzz wrote:
By the way, if anything makes sense at all in my fantasy race and shoe revamp, that only shows how ridiculous it is to have people with different shoe sponsors racing with unequal shoes.
All of that was so stupid
CMBarton wrote:
zzzz wrote:
By the way, if anything makes sense at all in my fantasy race and shoe revamp, that only shows how ridiculous it is to have people with different shoe sponsors racing with unequal shoes.
All of that was so stupid
World Athletics needs to do it. Better that what Seb Coe is doing.
How about a different example.
I present Graeme Obree.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Obree
This guy is the epitome of innovation. I’m not comparing him to Nike but it could have been any company that came up with the same thing that Graeme did.
This guy built his own friggin bike out of washing machine parts. He was a total amateur yet due to the new bike position he came up with he set the hour record beating all the pros. That Superman position was then banned for some obscure reason. Graeme innovated again and still was able win. Once again that position was banned. The UCI eventually banned all tech since Eddy Merckx set the hour record. That stiffled virtually all attempts at the new record. Tech kept advancing but very few people attempted the new record. The UCI eventually allowed new style bikes and people started racing and breaking the new record.
The same thing could potentially happen with running. It’s not just the shoes either that can get banned. We’ve had incremental improvements for years. Similar to the UCI, do we want to go back to some “golden age” in running? Do we go back to the first olympics?
Do we go back to the Roger Bannister era?
There has always been innovation. 20-30 years from now there will be foam that will be even better than what we have now that can return even more energy than we could imagine today. Should that be banned too? Where is this imaginary line in the sand that you want to draw?
Should altitude training be banned too? It definitely gives marathoners an advantage over those that don’t train at altitude. They have more red blood cells and thus are able to send more oxygen to their muscles.
I don’t have access to altitude training but those with more money or that are born close to the mountains can benefit from this training. How am I as an amateur supposed to compete with pros that have the means to train at altitude and have an unnatural amount of red blood cells in their body?
Take a minute and read this article
https://www.outsideonline.com/2408971/nike-vaporfly-controversy
The 4% / Vaporfly look just like regular shoes. What’s in them? Foam? Yep lots of shoes with that. Carbon plates? Plenty of shoes for decades with that. Taller stack height? Those have been out a while too.
Nothing in the shoes is anything that hasn’t been done before. Nike just got it right somehow and got a great result rather than the smaller incremental results they have been getting in the past.
And what’s the Alphafly except them saying I wonder what would happen if we used AirPods (like we have for decades) For some of the cushioning? You know the whole idea of Nike Air was to create a full length air sole that was lighter, have better energy return and not break down like foam, right?
Nike and other companies try to innovate in every area to improve performance. Maybe it’s arm sleeves with little plastic nubs to improve air flow to save hundredths of a second. Maybe it’s making a singlet that is 5 grams lighter. Or using ceramic spikes instead of steel. Or fixed spikes to save the weight of receptacles. Or hoods or bodysuits to be more aerodynamic. Or one time use spikes with plastic spikes that are part of the plate (Mizuno).
Maybe it’s coaches using innovative training methods or technologies like alter g treadmills. Maybe it’s video analysis. Or altitude training. Or wind tunnel testing. Or maybe it’s sophisticated analysis of athletes blood and nutrition and creating custom drinks (or food) for use during the marathon.
If you bothered to read the article above you’ll realize there is nothing wrong with the vaporfly and that it would likely never get banned. And it was obvious that if WA was going make Vaporfly stack height the max, then as long as the alphafly was no taller it would be ok too.