sisson wore the fuel cell pacer. Basically a 5K/10K shoe that has very little or no pebax. I agree the Brooks are trash, I would rather run in the Pegasus over them, they are so clunky but CJ admitted after the race he didn't know how close he was to third, he might have been able to surge if he pushed harder. Who knows. Don't think the shoes were the deciding factory IMO.
I see we're doing the shoes thing again. Nike/Adidas/Asics are all testing the best. The test is showing up to 4% improvements to running economy, which doesn't equal 4% performance improvements. Elite marathoners have seen something like a 60-90s bump over the distance, assuming good conditions/well paced/no bonking. Then there's how well an athlete responds to super shoes. All of this is to say it's hard to pinpoint an exact number. The shoes are faster than traditional flats but not by 2:00+. Shoe companies like Brooks are catching up. If the best tested shoe gives an athlete 60-90s then the Brooks flat is giving you some percent of that (something closer to 100% than 50%).
All of this is to say shoes did not cost Panning a spot. If he lost by a couple of seconds maybe you could say that but you would need to know that he's a responder & which shoes he responds the best to. Going out too fast & leading in the heat cost him a spot on the team. & that's not a knock. Loved how he went for it. Over this kind of a conversation. People aren't losing because of their shoes. It's about the racing.
Grandpa people are getting faster just in the last 10 years let alone the last 20 or however far back you want to go. In NCAA 3:55 is now the new sub 4. High school boys are breaking 4 every year now. Your rant about milk and vegetables is laughable. Dementia is a bee though.
I see we're doing the shoes thing again. Nike/Adidas/Asics are all testing the best. The test is showing up to 4% improvements to running economy, which doesn't equal 4% performance improvements. Elite marathoners have seen something like a 60-90s bump over the distance, assuming good conditions/well paced/no bonking. Then there's how well an athlete responds to super shoes. All of this is to say it's hard to pinpoint an exact number. The shoes are faster than traditional flats but not by 2:00+. Shoe companies like Brooks are catching up. If the best tested shoe gives an athlete 60-90s then the Brooks flat is giving you some percent of that (something closer to 100% than 50%).
All of this is to say shoes did not cost Panning a spot. If he lost by a couple of seconds maybe you could say that but you would need to know that he's a responder & which shoes he responds the best to. Going out too fast & leading in the heat cost him a spot on the team. & that's not a knock. Loved how he went for it. Over this kind of a conversation. People aren't losing because of their shoes. It's about the racing.
Dude, pull your head out of your a--. The tests were showing an *average* 4% improvement in economy, but some people are "high responders" and gain as much as 6%. The benefit in time is in the range of 2% and possibly more at those levels. So c. 2 minutes in a marathon at minimum. Plus they save your legs -- which will of course help in the final 10k, maybe significantly -- so the time benefit could be even greater.
I'll give you that the comments about Panning are speculative as we don't know the economy benefits of the latest Brooks shoe (though the earlier ones have tested poorly) and we don't know how Panning in particular responds. But to say that "people aren't losing because of their shoes" is naive.
Is there some scientific reason not to use a Pebax foam? It seems like that is the direction everyone is going and there doesn't seem to be anything from stopping all the brands from using it.
So what am I missing? Clearly Brooks invests a ton into the sport so at this point could there be a scientific reason not to use pebax?
Part of it is there isn't just a "Pebax Foam". You can't just go buy the same foam Nike uses.
Every manufacturer has their own custon blend of Peba material with different additives and variations. Then the foaming/processing method that forms the foam matters tremendously. Nikes has optimized these two to build a great foam.
There is a ton of R&D here and it would take a ton of time and money to figure out. Then you need to update all your manufacturing lines to handle the new material/processing.
Yeah, mostly. Nike gets its PEBA foam from Zotefoams, a UK company. At the time that the OG Vaporfly 4% was released, theoretically any company could have bought the same or similar from Zotefoams. Since 2017 Nike entered into an exclusive deal with Zotefoams so since then a company would have to look to another manufacturer or develop its own.
Imo, the knowledge and development is out there for other shoes to be competitive with Nike's shoes. Most every shoe company has moved to PEBA foams -- to my knowledge, the major exceptions are Adidas, Skechers and Brooks -- but I'm open to the idea that the supercritical blown foams can be competitive too. What makes it hard to track, though, is that the companies all use their own foam branding and you have to dig to find out what it means (digging that I think most people don't do). For example, "FuelCell" from New Balance wasn't a PEBA foam until the new SC Elite 4. Same with Hoka with its new Rocket X2 finally having PEBA.
The carbon show that was mentioned does not have a solid carbon sole, it works like tennis strings or a trampoline, the foot bed is suspended a Ross the frame. It has more bounce than any foam pebax or not a d it doesnt wear out.
You children might not know this, but people used to run pretty fast without all this here fancy carbon fibers and pebaxes. Back in my day, quite a few people ran faster than 2:08 without those newfangled materials. We used to run over one hundred miles a week on roads with shoes that weren't even as cushy as your track spikes! People didn't get as many stress fractures back then either. Maybe because we drank milk and ate vegetables? I don't know.
Now go put your $275 super shoes on and do your triple thresholds or whatever y'all call running fast these days.
People still ran fast in leather shoes on cinder tracks as well, but that's not the point.
The point is, they would've run slightly faster in super shoes on all-weather tracks; in the same way that an athlete will run a faster time at Chicago than they would at New York (all else being equal).
That "slightly" that I mention may not seem like much - but it's what makes a lot of the difference, especially when all of your competitors are wearing super-shoes (and you are not).
I'll repeat once again for the thickos; Yes, you can run fast without super-shoes, but you would run slightly faster with them.
I think either could’ve been top 3 with better race strategy. No need to blame the shoes.
At least this thread is getting some traction. I think it's a legitimate question. Agree that Panning probably could have been top 3 with a different strategy but he was trying to get the standard AND top 3 to ensure he was going to the Olympics. Hard to say on CJ, if you look at his Strava he slowed down a bit to keep from blowing up and was able to pick people off at the end of the race. Obviously he ran out of room and could have gone a bit earlier but I don't know how he was supposed to know that.
I'm also not assuming this shoe is a piece of a junk. CJ did very well in them and they cost $250. Now could there be another shoe that 11 seconds better?
This is rhetorical right? You claim minutes on super shoes compared to traditional. I'm willing to bet there could easily be 30 seconds between different versions of the same shoe on a given athlete and that's with it being pretty much identical tech (i.e. Vaporfly 2 vs Vaporfly 3). A completely different shoe with different foam, plate and weight is likely to be double if not more than that.
The Running Event 2023 is here! Take a first look at the new New Balance SC Pacer v2. Be sure to tune in all week long for sneak peaks and designer deep dive...
While I do respect his race, Pannings shoes would not have changed the fact he started fading around mile 22 and after.
Having more energy return means that you fade later.
On top of that, if he is a high responder in a good/different pair of shoes, maybe when he started to push the pace he would have dropped everyone and run away with it.
Her version is peba but it's not the exact same shoe as the v2. Hers has a pacer v1 upper, but a slightly thicker (and peba) midsole than the v1 which was released.
You children might not know this, but people used to run pretty fast without all this here fancy carbon fibers and pebaxes. Back in my day, quite a few people ran faster than 2:08 without those newfangled materials. We used to run over one hundred miles a week on roads with shoes that weren't even as cushy as your track spikes! People didn't get as many stress fractures back then either. Maybe because we drank milk and ate vegetables? I don't know.
Now go put your $275 super shoes on and do your triple thresholds or whatever y'all call running fast these days.
I agree with you here and know what you're getting at, but maybe the old-timers who "ran faster than 2:08" could have been running 2:05 - 06?
Many of the highest consumer countries of milk per capita are also the highest prevalence of osteoporosis...
The second best coach and training group - behind only the great Newbury Park team - in history, BTC, got 3 runners into the top 100. One, 30th place in the men's race, ran a time that would have won the women's race. Would they have made the team in Brooks?