I am Sam wrote:
Some shoes offer better cushioning and other shoes return more energy. What we haven't proven that they do, other than mechanically powered ones, is that they provide you with external energy.
To everyone on here who spouts arguments like the one above or the one of "Just don't sign a contract with an inferior company", let me address you.
This is real simple.
Imagine if someone not named Nike had invented this shoe and Kipchoge was regularly getting crushed in marathons as a result. Imagine what the sport would have lost. A LOT.
Or think of it this way. What if this technology existed for spikes and suddenly Ben True was the best 5000 runner in the world? (A 2% advantage for a 13 flat runner would be 15 seconds). If this technology existed in the 1500 and you gave it to Stewart McSweyn, he'd be dominating the world (4.5 seconds) instead of failing to make the final. Give it to Craig Engels and he's suddenly crushing Jakob Ingebrigtsen on a regular basis.
And to everyone who says "Just sign with another company."That's great and all but most athletes are locked into multi-year deals. If I was them, I"d beg my sponsor to buy the vaporflys and change the upper but that's time intensive and expensive.
And what about kids in college? Do you really expect college kids to transfer to another school so they can run in a certain brand's shoes? Do we really want college races decided by which track teams can afford $250 shoes that last for about 200 miles? I think the bigger issue is potentially in college.
Yes a pair of spikes might be better in races with turns but lets' say a $500 shoe is invented that gives people a 3% gain in performance. Do we really only want the rich to succeed in the sport?
Swimming long ago decided that there needed to be limits to technology. They don't want access to certain swimwear to be critical to the outcome of a race.