The vaporfly thread
81 lurkers |
86 watchers
Jan 2019
12:04pm, 7 Jan 2019
13,745 posts
|
Chrisull
WW - Yes - to your question. So what's the main difference in practical terms (ie not the style/type of weave) between the Zoom Fly and Flyknit? Is one more durable? lighter? faster? There's about £13 difference price wise... |
Jan 2019
12:18pm, 7 Jan 2019
6,413 posts
|
larkim
We've discussed it before on the 3:15 thread a little, it seems to me that its the fact that this one technology seems to make a statistically noticeable step forward rather than just adds to the continuum of shoes / tech getting "better" that irks me. Before this flavour of technology came around, the broad choice was "lighter" traded off against "comfort" or "injury risk" (I know that that is a gross generalisation). But broadly no-one said "buy this shoe which weighs the same as another shoe and it *will* make you faster". I know some anecdotally "liked" some "fast" shoes, but there wasn't a single narrative which said "this one is definitely faster for just about everyone". The VF changed that paradigm. Unless Adidas have something in their product range which isn't getting the publicity or credit it deserves, it's now like the old F1 days where Pirelli tyres were simply faster than Michelin tyres. Buy the right tech and you'll be measurably faster - that's very unusual in the history of amateur level running, isn't it? I do realise that when I go out and race (or more strictly, time trial) I am benefitting from shoe performance gains that mean I am having an easier time than I would have 40 years ago. But (putting the VF / ZF to one side) I doubt that a brand new, good fitting shoe from 2009 or even 1999 would make me measurably slower than my 2018 runners. My running history isn't long enough to be certain about this - and I know that from time to time new shoes and new tech have come along which have changed the direction or shoe technology. But I do get the sense that the step offered by the VF technology seems to be providing a much bigger leap forward than others have done in the past. If I'm wrong about that, I'm more than happy to be corrected!! |
|
Jan 2019
12:25pm, 7 Jan 2019
13,746 posts
|
Chrisull
larks - I sort of agree and sort of don't. So here's a link to the current Nike stock: store.nike.com VF's fall into your anomalous performance gains category (unless you're Kipchoge). But then do ZFs and Flyknits? Ok, perhaps yes too... So then what about Zoom Pegasus ? Don't they have the same foam as VF's? But then what about Nike Free's or Nike Downshifters? Or Nike Airs? Or what about Flexs or LunarConverge? Are you saying simply don't run in Nike? Or in some Nikes? And if so which Nikes? Where is the science behind it? At the moment I only see the VF as being definitively shown to improve non-elite runners (if it improved elites, we'd be in sub 2). BTW yesterday I ran in Adidas's :-). And all my best times were set in minimal H streets, which have as good as no cushioning (even my mara pb!) |
|
Jan 2019
12:40pm, 7 Jan 2019
6,414 posts
|
larkim
Agree with that analysis Chris - I suppose the point is are the VF4%s still "4%" better than absolutely anything else, or is that gap no longer there (either withing Nike's own product range or between brands). That was the point of my first question really - at what point does the difference stop being a noticeable "gap" and just starts being a continuum in the broad range of shoes available. My lay understanding so far is that the science says its the foam making the most difference, and the foam plus the carbon fibre combined makes the optimal solution. But I don't know if the deployment of the foam in other Nike products is being touted as giving the same benefit as it might be in the high end products like the ZF etc. |
|
Jan 2019
12:52pm, 7 Jan 2019
13,747 posts
|
Chrisull
I had read an article that EITHER (I can't remember which) the ZoomFly or the Pegasus Zoom had shown almost the full 4% benefit in tests last year, but I've never seen or come across the same article again. Can't imagine Nike would be singing that one too loudly, as either are half the price of the VFs. If true, it's probably a case of foam + carbon plate give benefit, but looking at Nike stock, it's hard to tell which have it and which don't other than price point (under £90 would seem to be without one/both)... |
Jan 2019
12:59pm, 7 Jan 2019
888 posts
|
puzzler
I'm intrigued but too tightfisted for vaporfly at the moment. Has anyone compared the Garmin running dynamics metrics they get with the vaporfly relative to other trainers? I'm wondering whether they show up in improved cadence or stride length or vertical ratio or perhaps all or none of them (I presume it has to show up in some of them).
|
|
Jan 2019
1:00pm, 7 Jan 2019
6,416 posts
|
larkim
It's an odd one for Nike's marketing department to handle Day 1 "Shout how this specific trainer is 4% better than ANYTHING else". Day 2 "Pretend all our trainers are nearly as good as each other so people keep buying our nearly-as-expensive next tier down trainers" They can't market a whole class of trainers as being markedly worse than another class, so they need to create that grey area where we allow ourselves to gradually up-grade how much we are prepared to pay. |
Jan 2019
1:09pm, 7 Jan 2019
3,850 posts
|
Windsor Wool
Chris, the FlyKnit is a tiny bit lighter than the original upper. In my VF the Flyknit is 176g, the original 185g. There's more structure / support to the FlyKnit version just because of the snug fit that I think many folks like. I'd recommend the FlyKnit for the full experience  I got these grey ones. I reckon the black / orange ones look faster though! nike.com |
|
Jan 2019
1:11pm, 7 Jan 2019
3,851 posts
|
Windsor Wool
Lark, to me they've delineated pretty clearly / cleverly, particularly now all are in place: Zoom Fly = carbon plate Peg Turbo = foam Vapor Fly = both Even I could market that product stack -> all good, only one the best! |
|
Jan 2019
1:16pm, 7 Jan 2019
13,748 posts
|
Chrisull
Cool WW - thanks for the clarification. Yeah I'm sure it was the Peg Turbo that offered nearly the full 4% gain, and it was the foam that was fingered as the true performance enhancement, the carbon plate (as detailed elsewhere) is less necessary, but there has to be something in place to give stability, otherwise you're just running on springy jelly. |
Related Threads
-
Nike Pegasus
Jul 2024
-
Vaporfly vrs Alphafly
Apr 2021
-
Nike shoes
Sep 2020
-
Nike Free 5.0 alternatives
Feb 2018
-
I need Nike Pegasus
Feb 2018
-
Nike Lunarglide Neutral or Supportive shoe
Apr 2016
-
Lighter - only a bit lighter - than nike pegasus
Jul 2014
-
Nike Pegasus
Jun 2014
-
Nike Triax
Jun 2013
-
Nike Pegasus - Is there a lightweight race shoe version?
Jun 2013