NIKE VAPORFLY NEXT% BAN!

c7runner7 wrote:

DietBacon wrote:

Stopping by to remind everyone that Kosgei was NOT wearing the NEXT%, and beat her competitors who were.

Dude it’s 2019. Logical statements contradictory to the original opinion aren’t allowed, and definitely aren’t taken into consideration. ‘Debates’ aren’t a thing anymore. There’s people who are 100% correct, and everyone else who doesn’t fully agree is either evil, racist, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Just stopping by to point out that:-

A) That isn't a "Logical" statement per se, it's just a statement. And

B) It isn't contradictory to the OP. It's got nothing to do with the point raised in the OP.

Thanks

Alan

no do not ban good shoes, that get you as close barefoot striking as you can,

it is the crap shoes from the past that should be banned. like most shoes of the past. injury machines they are, were.

ban crap.

personally i have no injuries to speak of from running.

i bought a pair of mid level Reebok, and found that on long walks, my achilles hurts, due to idiotic soft padding

in the heel, which is rectified immediately by disgarding.

i'm an idiot for not noticing any how 100%

"olyrun wrote:

Seems like Americans will look for anything to discount the fastest runners in the would all to justify our mediocrity in international distance running. Every pro/elite runner in the U.S. could wear Vapor Flys (legal) and do EPO (illegal) and they would still not win any major marathon or get in the top 100 times at year end."

10/10

FFF wrote:

qw wrote:

tarckstar, you seem to miss the entire point of what I said – EK ran 2:03:05 in London in 2016. And he did it without VF4%. Yesterday he ran 2:02:37 which is what – 28 seconds faster. So less than 0.7 sec per km. In almost perfect conditions (relatively low temps, almost no wind and low humidity). You see that it is only Eliud who is producing insane times. Still the second best time after EK was drafting behing him for entire race and barely got under 2:03.

If we ban VF4%, then I would say we should ban all the shoes for good. Since all shoes provide some benefit of cushioning and protection. Let's just go barefoot like good guy Abebe did in his first marathon win.

Given Dubai this year, and London this weekend, you have to see that something is going on in world marathoning.

I called it long before and repeat it: Of course it might be new drugs or the shoes etc, but I really believe it is the money on the roads in combination with the great runners time trialing harder, fearless and open minded. No one really speaks about the wall anymore in elite marathoning.

When you see a 26:17 10000: Why wouldn't it be possible to run 2 x 27:15ish for a half? I know many runners who run 30:00 10ks and 1:05 halfs. So we have a realistic shot at 57:xx on the half. And this means it is getting close to 2:00:xx or even under when the big guns hit it for real. In my opinion the breaking 2 project opened up the minds. You can say what you want. But somehow Nike got Kipchoge damn near a freakin' sub 2 hours marathon in an "almost" regular setting. If I were him this would fire me up. And If I were his competitor, it would motivate me, too.

It's the plate. Put on Pegasus Turbo and then put on Zoom Fly Flyknit. Turbo does very good job cushioning but the bounce is very barely there. ZF is ready to go like a rocket off your foot. Cushioning plus the plate is the 4%. Nike wants to lie to us about the benefits of the plate because they know it's cheating but it sells like crazy.

qw wrote:

idiots everywhere wrote:

Why tf some people still believe the Vaporfly makes athletes run even 1 second faster?? Kipchoge ran a tactical 2:03:05 without Vapoflys in London before, a chubby Bekele produced a 2:03:03 in Berlin also without any marketing stunt on his feet, Keitany's second half in NYC last year was ran in some old adidas shoes etc. Probably the creators of such threads are a) either hired by nike to keep people stupid or b) brainless idiots who don't follow the sport enough.

This.

Why you all Nike haters don't count in the weather at London? The temperature was close to perfect yesterday and almost no wind. If Eliud could run 2:03:05 without VF then I'd assume getting 30 sec faster per 26.2 miles isn't that big of a deal.

Ross Tucker after the sub 2 event did a good analysis that much of the improvement realized was a drafting advantage not a shoe advantage. The time clock on the car provided significant wind displacement and they had a laser line behind it for the optimal distance to run behind the vehicle. Anyone who has run a race with a significant wind knows the factor it can play. Having a significant drafting advantage could make a minute or more difference.

Paula Radcliffe..................2:15:25...............Without NIKE VAPORFLY...........Superior than ‎Eliud Kipchoge's two hours one minute 39 seconds.

facts and reason wrote:

tarckstar wrote:

Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.

Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.

They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.

It's not difficult to get your head around this.

Excellent post.

I want to see who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.

OK then let's just compete barefoot. All shoes make some difference.

And by the way - yes, it's the foam and not the carbon plate. Carbon plate has been in track spikes since 90s. Every fool knows that cushioning makes running more efficient not the plate that's why you can run 13 and 26 in Crocs. The problem with foam is the weight and energy return.

I don't see what's wrong with this specific shoes.

Shoes have evolved along time and it makes no sense to establish a quantitative cutoff point for how much "bounce" (to avoid putting it in physics terminology) they can have. The only thing that can be ruled about is the fact that no shoes should have what's been described as "mechanical doping" (cycling is the most famous case) - I don't know IAAF rules by heart but there might be something on this.

As long s there's no external energy coming into the [athlete+shoes] system it's all on the athlete's performance and the conceivable technological development of the running shoes.

*In short words: "Bounce" is made of energy that the athlete is spending - it's not cheating. If a certain shoemaker can make shoes that make the most out of the athlete's energy expense, that seems perfectly legal!!

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

qw wrote:

This.

Why you all Nike haters don't count in the weather at London? The temperature was close to perfect yesterday and almost no wind. If Eliud could run 2:03:05 without VF then I'd assume getting 30 sec faster per 26.2 miles isn't that big of a deal.

Ross Tucker after the sub 2 event did a good analysis that much of the improvement realized was a drafting advantage not a shoe advantage. The time clock on the car provided significant wind displacement and they had a laser line behind it for the optimal distance to run behind the vehicle. Anyone who has run a race with a significant wind knows the factor it can play. Having a significant drafting advantage could make a minute or more difference.

drafting is under utilized, it pretty bad in track, you want several bigger dudes blocking your wind,

most of the records had bad drafting, even when the guy had drafting he was too far back, or running wide or something stupid.

if you had every top marathoner in the world set up to run even pace to 35km, and pick like 5 studs to draft, like they do in cycling, then you have a 2 hour marathon NOW.

above - this was already demonstrated in the nike 2 hour marathon.....

2 hours is there.

that is only 400m from the 201 run

no more speculation

OK Ban'em wrote:

What specific elements/components of the vaporfly need to be changed to make them acceptable? And to what degree do those components need to be changed?

This seems like an appropriate place to start?

""olyrun wrote:

Seems like Americans will look for anything to discount the fastest runners in the would all to justify our mediocrity in international distance running. Every pro/elite runner in the U.S. could wear Vapor Flys (legal) and do EPO (illegal) and they would still not win any major marathon or get in the top 100 times at year end."

10/10"

11/10

OK Ban'em wrote:

What specific elements/components of the vaporfly need to be changed to make them acceptable? And to what degree do those components need to be changed?

What specific elements need to be changed?!! Are you kidding?

The plate needs to be removed. Completely. It's that simple.

... And then these 3hr breaking Marathon hero bouncers won't complain anyway because it's actually all in the magic foam rather than the foreign carbon plate!

The difference between running and cycling or pistol shooting is that running is a natural activity and cycling is unnatural. It seems fair to allow technological improvements in cycling because cycling is, itself, a technological improvement. In contrast, running is fundamentally about restricting our use of technology. It isn't just about how fast you can cover 26.2 miles, it's about how fast you can travel 26.2 miles under your own power and with no assistance.

Distance running should be purely a test of human limits. Ideally everyone would just compete barefoot, but this is obviously impractical.

I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

Lofty Goals wrote:

I think a fair standard would be to say that a shoe is illegal if it is more efficient than running barefoot. Maybe allow 1-2% of leeway just to make things simple. Barefoot running is pretty efficient, so most current shoes would still be allowed.

This would be impossible to implement. You would never know if a shoe passes until after it was produced and you got a bunch of lab testing done, and even then, the numbers would vary widely depending on the protocol used.

In any event, all racing shoes are more efficient than running barefoot. It's just that the VF is the best of the bunch.

To those who have a problem with these shoes: Have you actually run in them?

Lol - No one who's run in them has a problem with them because they've PR'd!

the next % is the same as the vaporfly ELITE, both of which elicit 4-5% (hence why they aren't called 5%) better efficiency compared to the streak 6 and adidas adios boost. Eliud set the world record and ran the Sub 2 race in the vaporfly elite