A lot of people are saying The Shoe is only good for 1 race, The Top Stars can EASILY afford that especially if they only race 2-3 times a year, but an unsponsored runner who only works part time because of their heavy training load (Very few have the Energy to work full time and run 120-150 Miles A Week) or poorer runners in General will have a hard time buying $500 shoes will be at a disadvantage Assefa having run 2:15 is Likely Sponsored and Paid ZERO for the shoes and she may have even been paid to wear that Shoe, But someone Unsponsored and struggling Financially would be at a Disadvantage, Most People want a Level playing field, But this would favor Sponsored and or rich Runners over Unsponsored and or poor runners
-
107
-
douglas burke wrote:
A lot of people are saying The Shoe is only good for 1 race, The Top Stars can EASILY afford that especially if they only race 2-3 times a year, but an unsponsored runner who only works part time because of their heavy training load (Very few have the Energy to work full time and run 120-150 Miles A Week) or poorer runners in General will have a hard time buying $500 shoes will be at a disadvantage
These are shoes for a marathon. How many marathons does a very good marathoner run per year? Maybe two? It's not like they need to buy a new pair every month.
94 -
automorphic wrote:
The comparison is interesting because if Adidas does end up having a game-changing shoe, then I could see history repeating itself. Nike gets mad they're no longer on top and wants to go back to the old game. Athletes and fans get sick of all the technology-aided records. And then they get banned, from the Vaporflys onwards. The difference between running and swimming is it's possible that these records never get broken. Maybe Kiptum switches to Adidas, runs a 1:59, and then within a year we're back to 2:03s. Maybe Assefa's time remains the only sub-2:14. And while times do trend down in running, a few minutes could take decades to drop, if not longer. The swimming community can't wait for the 2009 times to be off the record books. We're the same way with the known dopers' records from the 1980s. It's worth thinking about what it will be like if the same thing happens with some of most prestigious events in running and in a way where there's serious doubt about the records ever being broken again.
Supershoes aren't getting banned, period. Every hobby jogger and their mother wears them now, the genie isn't going back in the bottle.
If the Adidas shoe is actually a game-changer, Nike will release a similar shoe within the next year.
170 -
Does anybody really believe that the Vaporflys are the fastest shoes that can possibly be made (within the rules)? There's nothing stopping any other manufacturer from dumping money at the problem and making a better shoe. Nike has a few years head start but that advantage always diminishes over time.
230 -
rojo wrote:
mmrmm wrote:
Where’s the irony?
It would be quite ironic if Nike invented super shoes to give their athletes an advantage but in the end adidas ends up with a shoe they can't match.
I know Kiptum said he's not in peak form for Chicago but what if he is and he smashes 2 hours in a pair of adidas shoes?
It all started with Adidas Boost. That 1% foam got the two companies in this boxing fight with no turning back now. I really think one day they will move on to the outer sole that is nano mm wheels. Why not recover the energy lost through friction? 4 min pace marathon will happen and new generation will say it's innovation.
112 -
osm wrote:
If the Adidas shoe is actually a game-changer, Nike will release a similar shoe within the next year.
Exactly. Not sure why Rojo didn't think about that before he started this thread.
133 -
osm wrote:
automorphic wrote:
The comparison is interesting because if Adidas does end up having a game-changing shoe, then I could see history repeating itself. Nike gets mad they're no longer on top and wants to go back to the old game. Athletes and fans get sick of all the technology-aided records. And then they get banned, from the Vaporflys onwards. The difference between running and swimming is it's possible that these records never get broken. Maybe Kiptum switches to Adidas, runs a 1:59, and then within a year we're back to 2:03s. Maybe Assefa's time remains the only sub-2:14. And while times do trend down in running, a few minutes could take decades to drop, if not longer. The swimming community can't wait for the 2009 times to be off the record books. We're the same way with the known dopers' records from the 1980s. It's worth thinking about what it will be like if the same thing happens with some of most prestigious events in running and in a way where there's serious doubt about the records ever being broken again.
Supershoes aren't getting banned, period. Every hobby jogger and their mother wears them now, the genie isn't going back in the bottle.
If the Adidas shoe is actually a game-changer, Nike will release a similar shoe within the next year.
I don't think they would be able to do that before the Olympics
12 -
Hardloper wrote:
High hopes wrote:
No, there's no way to generalise about how much time is gained from improving running economy. It's too individual, it's why Nike never made any time-related claims when pushing the OG Vaporfly
The Nike labs OG Vaporfly study claimed 4% improvement in running economy would yield 3.4% improvement in marathon performance at WR pace
The study linked above also came from Nike labs. A 1.1% improvement in running economy corresponded to only a 0.78% improvment in performance in a 3000m time trial.
Take a look at the language used around that claim. It's not based on any measurable improvements from using the VF shoe, but assumptions derived from another experiment. There a reason that Nike never went with the claim that the shoe will improve your marathon time by x%
42 -
High hopes wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
The Nike labs OG Vaporfly study claimed 4% improvement in running economy would yield 3.4% improvement in marathon performance at WR pace
The study linked above also came from Nike labs. A 1.1% improvement in running economy corresponded to only a 0.78% improvment in performance in a 3000m time trial.
Take a look at the language used around that claim. It's not based on any measurable improvements from using the VF shoe, but assumptions derived from another experiment. There a reason that Nike never went with the claim that the shoe will improve your marathon time by x%
Nike and Adidas are selling shoes to almost everybody. It only matters if most people think their shoes make them faster. Joe Average walking his dog might make a buying decision based on that.
What people here don't get is that runners are just a teeny tiny market. They are not important for the overall sales numbers.
82 -
There's a simple solution to this. IAAF should just implement a minimum weight rule (in addition to max stack height). UCI applies rules like this with road bikes, for instance. It prevented big budget cycling teams from gaining too much of an upperhand (which is essentially what this Adidas vs Nike is about).
58 -
This thread is peak rojo.
213 -
I'll wait til they go on sale a year from now for $119.99
110 -
The sad thing is i would actually prefer it were drugs than the Shoes
Those things need to be banned tomorrow
418 -
mmrmm wrote:
Where’s the irony?
Come on, it's like RAAAAAAIN on your wedding day...
102 -
Today we learned that capitalism runs not on market competition, but on irony. Who says that an Ivy League education doesn't have trickle down benefits for the Hoi polloi?
131 -
RoJo - I’m old enough to remember when you were calling on Nike to be made to subsidize super shoe research for Adidas and other brands, as if the market correction we’re seeing now wouldn’t have happened without it. Good times!
92 -
I think we're going to see something other than shoes is the x factor...
60 -
The cost is irrelevant as elite runners don’t pay for their shoes. Besides, no elite runner ever wears the same pair of shoes for more than one marathon.
43 -
Dudewhat? wrote:
There's a simple solution to this. IAAF should just implement a minimum weight rule (in addition to max stack height). UCI applies rules like this with road bikes, for instance. It prevented big budget cycling teams from gaining too much of an upperhand (which is essentially what this Adidas vs Nike is about).
There are already shoes lighter than this adidas shoe that the Japanese runners used for marathons pre super shoes.
70 -
"waahhh mechanical doping waaahhh"
Get a better a sponsor if you don't like the shoes, nerd.44
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
Does not wanting my kids to watch a bisexual threesome at the Olympics make me a bigot?
-
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
-
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
-
Gudaf Tsegay will not race the 10000m? Just to spite the federation?
-
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out