Hoka Rocket X ‘THE TRIALS DAGGER’ has arrived (Pic)

I dunno.. Jim ran 31 miles on a sandy, hilly trail and averaged 5:34 pace. I imagine if those 31 miles were on a paved road with the same effort, his pace would have been.. well, we will find out 24 hours!

The Hoka Tracer is perhaps one of the best EVA foams out there in my opinion. I prefer it over the ZoomX anyday. Soft, bouncy, excellent. Hopefully this new shoe 1. retains that feeling, and 2. comes out soon for sale!

And the winner of the USA Marathon Trials...in 1:58!!!

one dos wrote:

King Tiger wrote:

While Hoka still keeps using standard EVA foam they will never be competitive

Not true, Hoka is the only brand that has really competed with Nike in the CF shoe realm. Plus, The Carbon X is a better shoe than the Next % in many regards. It has far greater longevity, stability, usability, and it accommodates a greater range of foot types.

I was given a free pair of Carbox X, but sold them to a friend after 4 runs at a variety of paces (totaling about 60 km). They’re way too stiff for me and I just didn’t feel comfortable in them. I ran slower in them that even something like a pegasus. No arguing that they work some people though. The Nike Next% is a much better shoe: lighter, bouncier, propulsive. Running with them feels effortless.

Was thinking exactly the same thing...

I don't think any details have been shared regarding the Rocket X, including the type of foam.

Still a better looking shoe than anything Hoka has developed.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0gYAAOSwIyhc~s0L/s-l1600.jpg

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

Well, you might want to get Ben Rosario's take, about 'being in the Hoka DNA', because before they were calling those alpha's 'clown-shoes', Hoka's had already owned that title for years.

Hoka was just BURYING nike for all those years so nike did what any shady losing company would do. They produced a shoe with a mechanical advantage and with their "support" coerced the governing bodies to make them "legal". Of course this forces all the other companies to produce a like product. Might as well make separate records for carbon plate aided races and non carbon plate aided races.

Bob schul country wrote:

Tremcc wrote:

None of that matters if they don't actually help you run faster than the Vaporfly's.

this

this what?

If runner A wearing VF gets a 4% advantage and runner B using Hoka Carbon X gets a 2.5% advantage and runner B is 2% faster and finishes 0.5% ahead of runner A then YEAH I think it matters. Runner B wouldn't have beat runner A running is regular racing flats.

All these other shoe companies can do it at least TRY to match the efficiency of VF's. You're argument is that they shouldn't try at all unless they can go over 4% the VF give you.

If a runner injured their heels in the VFs that would surely matter! I'd rather take the 2.5% than a rupped tendon!

The Carbon Xs have a great heel counter: hardly any. I read that Rupp is wearing a custom version of the VFs/AFs with heel counters removed. The construction in the heel is so stiff and it's not possible to do that yourself for the VFs at least.

heelhubbles wrote:

If a runner injured their heels in the VFs that would surely matter! I'd rather take the 2.5% than a rupped tendon!

The Carbon Xs have a great heel counter: hardly any. I read that Rupp is wearing a custom version of the VFs/AFs with heel counters removed. The construction in the heel is so stiff and it's not possible to do that yourself for the VFs at least.

Yes, shoes designed with 'mechanical advantage' can also be detrimental to the 'sustainability' of the runner; the complexity of many factors (foot strike mechanics, etc.) determine degree of 'mechanical advantage'.

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

Yes, shoes designed with 'mechanical advantage' can also be detrimental to the 'sustainability' of the runner; the complexity of many factors (foot strike mechanics, etc.) determine degree of 'mechanical advantage'.

I think it could behoove a company (maybe HOKA), with a large corporate budget, to come out with prototypes that really pushes the 'mechanical advantage' (trampoline effect) to better demonstrate the salient points of the shoe debate.

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

I think it could behoove a company (maybe HOKA), with a large corporate budget, to come out with prototypes that really pushes the 'mechanical advantage' (trampoline effect) to better demonstrate the salient points of the shoe debate.

Another point that factors into any benefit of 'mechanical advantage' is the terrain of the course. For example, a lightweight, properly tuned 'trampoline shoe' may be more advantageous in a course with rolling hills, allowing the runner to 'bound' down the hills with greater stride length. Of course, it is up to the structural mechanics of the runner as to whether they can take advantage of that 'trampoline effect'.

Possibly the ultimate allegory imagery for those that still are lost in the basic argument of whether or not footwear can even actually provide a mechanical assist 'trampoline affect' would be that of the 'blade-runner':

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.france24.com%2Fmedia%2Fdisplay%2Fd32bf270-09db-11e9-bbe7-005056a964fe%2Fw%3A1240%2Fp%3A16x9%2Fsport-pistorius.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.france24.com%2Fen%2F20120704-london-olympics-double-amputee-runner-pistorius-historic-relay-blade-sport&tbnid=2K1sxk00opFazM&vet=12ahUKEwiBpP680fnnAhUBP80KHfwNCHkQMygOegUIARCQAg..i&docid=SjBdQu4VW1OjNM&w=1240&h=697&q=blade%20runner%20olympics&ved=2ahUKEwiBpP680fnnAhUBP80KHfwNCHkQMygOegUIARCQAg

usatf should be ashamed wrote:

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

Well, you might want to get Ben Rosario's take, about 'being in the Hoka DNA', because before they were calling those alpha's 'clown-shoes', Hoka's had already owned that title for years.

Hoka was just BURYING nike for all those years so nike did what any shady losing company would do. They produced a shoe with a mechanical advantage and with their "support" coerced the governing bodies to make them "legal". Of course this forces all the other companies to produce a like product. Might as well make separate records for carbon plate aided races and non carbon plate aided races.

It’s truly incredible what we can delude ourselves into believing. We repeat something so many times, all of a sudden, it becomes real in our heads.

a simple thing wrote:

usatf should be ashamed wrote:

Hoka was just BURYING nike for all those years so nike did what any shady losing company would do. They produced a shoe with a mechanical advantage and with their "support" coerced the governing bodies to make them "legal". Of course this forces all the other companies to produce a like product. Might as well make separate records for carbon plate aided races and non carbon plate aided races.

It’s truly incredible what we can delude ourselves into believing. We repeat something so many times, all of a sudden, it becomes real in our heads.

You can decide whether Mr. Rosario is 'deluded'. But I think his statement does not touch upon obvious point in the debate, which is that of 'mechanical advantage'. Simply installing a carbon plate does determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance.

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

You can decide whether Mr. Rosario is 'deluded'. But I think his statement does not touch upon obvious point in the debate, which is that of 'mechanical advantage'. Simply installing a carbon plate does determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance.

But I think his statement does not touch upon *the obvious point in the debate, which is that of 'mechanical advantage'. Simply installing a carbon plate does determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance.

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

that is why they lace 'em up wrote:

You can decide whether Mr. Rosario is 'deluded'. But I think his statement does not touch upon obvious point in the debate, which is that of 'mechanical advantage'. Simply installing a carbon plate does determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance.

But I think his statement does not touch upon *the obvious point in the debate, which is that of 'mechanical advantage'. Simply installing a carbon plate does determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance.

EDIT: Simply installing a carbon plate DOES NOT determine whether a shoe actually provides 'trampoline effect' assistance. (sorry)

Have you tried them?

The Nike tends to feel heavy as the miles go on, the Hoka on the other hand just stays with you. Super return no matter how long the run is. I've run them both and the Nike just isn't worth it for less than elites. Mind you, my normal shoe of choice is the Altra Torin line FWIW.

Actually, I've seen greater impact on uphill segments with the Carbon X. I can maintain a faster pace uphill with them than a normal shoe (Altra Torin for example).