First, it was a soft record, mostly because the mile is not competed very often compared to the 1500. Second, indoor tracks are better built and faster than they used to be. Third, her time is completely consistent with times she has run outdoors - she is undoubtedly the fastest British miler of all time. The shoes are a small part of all this.
another runner wrote:
another hobbyjogger wrote:
Lord. If you are going to accuse someone of cheating at least put forth some effort and make some attempt to explain your argument. Copy and pasting a link to a patent shows nothing. Let me guess you like zoom zoom zoom are hung up on the word springplate? If springplates unequivocally provided an unfair advantage than the IAAF would have banned them from competition.
It has been explained enough on these forums, if you don't get it by now I can't help you.
This translates to: you aren't capable of explaining it.
Dril wrote:
Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:
" Further to that, it says shoes ‘must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage’."
Of course there is no unfair advantage if every athlete starts competing in these like just those at the head of marathon fields!
Seriously though, this Frankenstein shoe business is becoming something of a joke. She broke the national record for a relatively short distance by FIVE SECONDS! Swimming introduced their regulations over an estimated performance benefit of 2% yet here we are in 2019, with well established athletics records being SMASHED by margins which just should not be possible. Or is everyone really just training better / better nutrition / bla bla over what we had say 10 years ago? Ha ha, does anyone really believe that?
What is the unfair advantage of her shoes? Simply that they're better than others?
it was a weak record anyway
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
lol have you seen these frankensteins, my gosh, pretty sure no-one else on the top 10 list used anything but regular track flats+spikes
https://imgur.com/a/PSrC0wq
Huh? The majority of our top athletes in any event have custom made spikes. Many test parts of prototypes throughout the year. It is the same with most companies. Strangely, adidas rarely makes custom spikes for their top athletes.
DK needed no such voodoo magic to run his 2:02 world record.
What's 4 percent off 2:02.57 again?
another hobbyjogger wrote:
another runner wrote:
It has been explained enough on these forums, if you don't get it by now I can't help you.
This translates to: you aren't capable of explaining it.
I've explained it several times on here
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9152152&page=3Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:
Spikey wrote:
Saw this earlier
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-6722325/Laura-Muirs-record-mile-run-risk-spiked-shoes-specifications.html" Further to that, it says shoes ‘must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage’."
Of course there is no unfair advantage if every athlete starts competing in these like just those at the head of marathon fields!
Seriously though, this Frankenstein shoe business is becoming something of a joke. She broke the national record for a relatively short distance by FIVE SECONDS! Swimming introduced their regulations over an estimated performance benefit of 2% yet here we are in 2019, with well established athletics records being SMASHED by margins which just should not be possible. Or is everyone really just training better / better nutrition / bla bla over what we had say 10 years ago? Ha ha, does anyone really believe that?
I know you’re just a poor troll, but Muir broke the record by less than 2%.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
compare that to say Shelby MF Houlihan, who if she wore any less shoe she'd be barefoot
https://imgur.com/a/Jd3bmwc
Ironically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
another runner wrote:
I've explained it several times on here
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9152152&page=3
I don't think you understand what it means to explain something. Spoiler alert its not repeating the same over an over again.
another runner wrote:
Great, then remove the plate and no one will have a problem with them!
Sounds like someone is upset that their PR has an asterisk next to it.
Except there has enough evidence to show that the 4% shoes do have a big advantage. Remove the carbon spring and we won't have a problem with it! *Editors note: This is followed by a series links that provide zero support for an argument to ban carbon springs. I won't bother spamming the thread with those links
We are not talking about feeling. We are talking about measured efficiency. These shoes have been measured to be more efficient for a given runner than when they wear any other shoe. Some the efficiency improvement comes from the carbon spring. Other shoes with the same heel to toe offset do not give the same efficiency improvement. Remove the carbon spring and no one has a problem with it.
No, I can't stand Nike. But Nike isn't the only company who are creating shoes with carbon fiber springs that should be banned. Sketchers and Hoka both have racing flats that also should be banned. I hold the same opinion as Ross Tucker. This issue is extremely similar to the LZR swim suit that was eventually banned. Athletes wearing these shoes have an unfair advantage just like the LZR athletes had.
Do you believe Oscar Pistorious should of been allowed to break the work record with his blades? Do you think the bionic boots should be allowed? I do not think we should allow shoes with springs in them. And I am not talking about the foam. I am talking about adding a spring of external material to the foam. Nike's own patent for the vaporfly shoes use the words "spring plate". Even they acknowledge that is what it is. Here is a patent lawyer's interpretation:
There is better equipment then there is equipment that aids. The LRZ suit in swimming provides floatation and is an aid. A shoe with a spring in it is an aid. Would you think it's ok to allow someone to set a world record in air trekkers? No, because that athlete would be unfairly aided. If you want to put special foam material in a shoe and make it more responsive then go for it, that is a great technology improvement. But the second you put an external spring like device in the shoe you are adding an unfair aid. Tri bikes are regulated to prevent this. Running shoes should also be regulated.
You have yet to make any valid arguments. If a bunch of runners we're taking epo and the ones that weren't taking epo only cite cost as a prohibitive factor for them, would that make taking epo ok?
What vaporfly asterisk, I, and many others want is a clean sport. We see the VF4 as cheating by providing an unfair advantage. I'm sorry that you are offended by this but it doesn't change the facts.
Both of you are idiots for using a sample size of 1, assuming the race conditions are the same, and not considering the fact that this is probably not the only race these guys wore the VF4s. There is enough evidence (NYT, lab studies, etc...) to show that the VF4s provide an advantage. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not the advantage is unfair or not.
I like Ross Tucker's simple definition: "any external device inserted for the purpose of energy return should be banned."
More specifically I say that a shoe should be banned when an external material (such as carbon fiber) is added to the core material of the shoe (generally foam) with the intent of acting like a propulsion device. Generally this means that one end of the external material is offset in someway than the other side and the larger the offset the greater the spring (see Air Trekkers and Bionic Boots for an extreme example of this). The intent of VF4s using the carbon plate as a spring is also easy to prove as Nike's own patent for the VF4 uses the term "carbon spring" when referencing the plate.
I'm sure that is not a perfect definition and I'm sure there are ways around it but I think we have to start somewhere to protect the integrity of the sport.
TT fan wrote:
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
compare that to say Shelby MF Houlihan, who if she wore any less shoe she'd be barefoot
https://imgur.com/a/Jd3bmwcIronically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
At the time, when she was sitting on the track post race, I thought, "those spikes Laura is wearing look slightly different." They've got the Vaporfly zoom-x cushioning and heel tapering. I'd give them a try. BTW isn't Cory McGee hot?
TT fan wrote:
Ironically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
Wait, those are too shallow to be VF?
Flanagan DOES have VF spikes though, they look different than that track photo or Muir's
See the heel stack height + matumbo spike plate (anything to keep her going through masters I guess?)
https://imgur.com/a/vFkmzJ3very similar to Gwen's with some tweaks
https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Shoes-Thumbnail.jpgClonedDuck wrote:
No offense to the other ladies, but why would you post a picture saying look at Shelby when Cory McGee is also in it. Obviously our male eyes won't look elsewhere.
Cory is indeed hot but Shelby is super cute and she's killing it right now. I'd be happy with her!
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
TT fan wrote:
Ironically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
Wait, those are too shallow to be VF?
Flanagan DOES have VF spikes though, they look different than that track photo or Muir's
See the heel stack height + matumbo spike plate (anything to keep her going through masters I guess?)
https://imgur.com/a/vFkmzJ3very similar to Gwen's with some tweaks
https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Shoes-Thumbnail.jpg
Yes, they are prototypes. Meaning, each prototype is typically different. So, inherently, an earlier prototype such as Flanagan's is distinctly different than what you see Muir wearing. Later prototypes had a different midsole taper, heel plate, visible carbon fiber plate, and 3D printed spike plate. Nike experimented extensively with different midsole thickness and it's relation to the actual efficiency of the shoe/spike. Don't test me on this. Believe that I know what I'm talking about.
And no, they are not even close to "similar with Gwen's with some tweaks".
You guys are way too obsessed with what spikes people are wearing.
TT fan wrote:
Ironically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
I cannot believe I missed that, the lack of heel height threw me off (or her legs, dang)
https://imgur.com/a/ezJSifNzoomzoomzoom wrote:
TT fan wrote:
Ironically, Flanagan also has a prototype spike version of the VF midsole in that picture.
I cannot believe I missed that, the lack of heel height threw me off (or her legs, dang)
https://imgur.com/a/ezJSifN
Nice legs
not the spikes but wrote:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4
Are those the flys? I'm pretty sure they have different cushion than the 4%.
rendoabe wrote:
Personally I think she is a stuck up bit** as she is always complaing about her competition and the nike oregon project.
Aren't you talking about Sharp?
I don't understand why she wouldn't just wear normal spikes though? She's run 3:55 with horrible splits - it's not like she needs any advantage. Why would Nike sabotage one of its own athletes?
