IAAF INVESTIGATING VAPORFLY NEXT%

These regulations are long overdue. Yes Bikila ran barefoot in 1960 and maybe if this were 1960 I would be saying we all should run barefoot. But the fact is we've gotten to this point due to lack of forward thinking. How much longer are we going to postpone some kind of upper limit to performance enhacement. We all have all these rules for example about how female testerone cannot be higher than X nanomoles per liter or whatever. Why don't we quantify the percent improvement that any shoe, substance, watch, surface, etc...gives athletes and then draw the line at that number. For example wasn't ti determined trough a reputable trial that the Vapoflies make runing seem like you're running downhill at a gradient of 1-1.5%? Is that where we draw the line?

exrunner wrote:

All the energy to move the runner forward comes from the runner.

The same for roller skates.

the line should be the % of the energy return. I have read somewhere that in Vaporfly next it goes up to 87%, and in Alphafly is even higher, it may go 100% or even more!

Subway Surfers wrote:

Did you know I complained to the IAAF about these shoes. Not because they enhance performance but because of this spurred heels flick water up at the person behind you on a wet day. I was getting water on my face.

I didn’t even consider the spurred heels and the problems that they might cause. That would be SO annoying. What’s the point of the spurred heels anyway?

Is anyone complaining about these shoes over the age of 40? I'd guess most of the complainers are too young to remember when Gu hit the market.

In the mid-1990s, runners in my group would joke about their pre- and post-Gu race times. Marathoners were saying it cut 5+ minutes off their race time.

epicTCK wrote:

exrunner wrote:

All the energy to move the runner forward comes from the runner.

The same for roller skates.

Are these shoes roller skates? Try and run in roller skates.

Idiotic comparison

basque wrote:

the line should be the % of the energy return. I have read somewhere that in Vaporfly next it goes up to 87%, and in Alphafly is even higher, it may go 100% or even more!

Joke right?

Subway Surfers wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

+1. And scrub any records they set in them as well. Boing boing!

Darn it you beat me to it. I want carbon plates out as well. They are obviously an enhancer not available to past efforts.

Do you not realize carbon fiber plates have been in sprint spikes forever. Want to ban those too? Not possible.

exrunner wrote:

epicTCK wrote:

The same for roller skates.

Are these shoes roller skates? Try and run in roller skates.

Idiotic comparison

Actually it’s a great comparison. There is less lost energy when moving forward with a spring mechanism, similar to a wheel. Less energy lost by the shoe is less energy expended by the runner.

enough already wrote:Why don't we quantify the percent improvement that any shoe, substance, watch, surface, etc...gives athletes and then draw the line at that number. For example wasn't ti determined trough a reputable trial that the Vapoflies make runing seem like you're running downhill at a gradient of 1-1.5%? Is that where we draw the line?

That doesn't work. Every study has different results and the results are going to be different for each runner. Also, what's your baseline? Is it barefoot? Because many runners aren't used to running barefoot, which will make the baseline measurements extremely unreliable.

Bottom line is there has to be a way of knowing in advance that you're designing a legal shoe. You shouldn't have to design a shoe from scratch, then run a bunch of experiments, then learn if it's okay. That'd be treating running shoes like FDA regulated medical devices. Whatever the rule is, it has to be something objectively measurable and highly repeatable. For instance, golf clubs have restrictions on the coefficient of restitution.

I've been saying for a long time that the easiest approach is just a midsole thickness ban. It's super easy to implement. You just need calipers to test it on the spot. It doesn't restrict innovation, but it does place realistic limits on how much tech can impact performance.

Banning plates is silly. Running shoes, and especially track spikes, have used stiffness to aid performance for most of the history of the sport. What do you think the WRs in the sprints would be if they'd been run in a flexy spike like the Matumbo? Probably over 10 seconds. The only thing that's truly new about plates in recent shoes is that people who were previously naive about the benefits of stiff shoes are now increasingly aware.

exrunner wrote:

basque wrote:

the line should be the % of the energy return. I have read somewhere that in Vaporfly next it goes up to 87%, and in Alphafly is even higher, it may go 100% or even more!

Joke right?

You've never been on a trampoline, have you?

Morannnn wrote:

exrunner wrote:

Are these shoes roller skates? Try and run in roller skates.

Idiotic comparison

Actually it’s a great comparison. There is less lost energy when moving forward with a spring mechanism, similar to a wheel. Less energy lost by the shoe is less energy expended by the runner.

A spring mechanism is similar to a wheel?

An wheel only operates with horizontal force vectors. It’s not comparable.

An ideal wheel would conserve momentum and continue moving forward or spinning forever when pushed.

An ideal spring returns to its original shape when compressed and that’s it. Returning the force put into it and it’s done.

I’ve said from the start that shoes can’t create force they can only return it. It’s up to you if you consider it ‘cheating’ to not use energy inefficient shoes.

Maybe runners should use football cleats or run in ski boots?

Springheel Jack wrote:

exrunner wrote:

Joke right?

You've never been on a trampoline, have you?

Oh God.

Trampolines don’t create energy.

Is everyone’s issue with these shoes based around the fact that they are thick as f*ck?

Ryan Hall weighs in:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3uPF1cpAjk/?igshid=t36b02h34abo

sanchobaile wrote:

Ryan Hall weighs in:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3uPF1cpAjk/?igshid=t36b02h34abo

With all due respect to @kipchogeeliud as he is clearly the greatest marathoner of all-time irregardless of the shoes he is in, when a shoe company puts multiple carbon fiber plates in a shoe with cushion between the plates it is no longer a shoe, it’s a spring, and a clear mechanical advantage to anyone not in those shoes. I’m just hoping @iaaf_athletics makes sure the upcoming Olympics and @wmmajors are fair playing fields for athletes of all brands.

Some simple rules about stack height and construction would be the way to go.

Like let's say no more than three layers of material, not counting the outsole. That would avoid the monstrosity Kipchoge used in Viena.

A limit in curvature for embedded plates, or better yet, no plate allowed into the forefoot.

And so on. Technology can still progress, but within reason.

The Vaporflies are against the spirit of the sport and against the rules themselves. How can you be proud of setting a PR just because you could afford to pay 250$ for a pair of shoes?

800 dude wrote:[/b

That doesn't work. Every study has different results and the results are going to be different for each runner. Also, what's your baseline? Is it barefoot? Because many runners aren't used to running barefoot, which will make the baseline measurements extremely unreliable.

Bottom line is there has to be a way of knowing in advance that you're designing a legal shoe. You shouldn't have to design a shoe from scratch, then run a bunch of experiments, then learn if it's okay. That'd be treating running shoes like FDA regulated medical devices. Whatever the rule is, it has to be something objectively measurable and highly repeatable. For instance, golf clubs have restrictions on the coefficient of restitution.

.

Not sure I share your skepticism that this would not work. It's going to take rigorous testing and the baseline should be how the shoe itself reacts to forces (not how an individual responds to the shoe). If golf clubs can have restrictions, why can't shoes?

A lot of things have improved over the last 50 years and I think the mistake we made was not preemptively attacking the issue of how much assistance is over the limit. The gels example is a good one. But these shoes are not just giving you an edge. It's a quantum leap forward.

The only limit that really makes sense is stack height, or just a general set of regulations around the physical dimensions a hypothetical "stack" is allowed to encompass. Obviously if you could make an arbitrarily tall/angled shoe you could create a "spring" capable of storing ridiculous amounts of energy (like the actual stunt-bouncing shoes that exist). Just limit the stack height and it doesn't matter if a shoe gets close to 100% return of energy because they can only store so much energy in less than an inch and a half of vertical space.

I don't even think that Next% shoes literally spring runners forward in any case. But this seems like the best kind of regulation to prevent the scenario people fear with too much energy return from shoes.

Innovation is cool, even in running. The limits need to be around physical dimensions, not some arbitrary % efficiency increase or energy return deal. Create reasonable rules, and allow the manufacturers to work within them.

Springheel Jack wrote:

exrunner wrote:

Joke right?

You've never been on a trampoline, have you?

Trampolines do not return more than 100% of the energy out in. You've never been in a physics class, have you?