|
Feb 2020
3:12pm, 17 Feb 2020
48 posts
|
JR
£240 might not sound a lot to most people but for people with families I'm not sure that £240 for a hobby (which is what it is for most of us on this site) would be easily justfied - even if you did have surplus cash. I can do a local marathon for not much money, get a GFA time and then if you plan well ahead London really doesn't need to cost very much at all. Also, if you live local to London no hotels needed.
|
|
Feb 2020
3:15pm, 17 Feb 2020
6,383 posts
|
jda
If you live local to London you're already quids in compared to the rest of us so stop complaining 
|
|
Feb 2020
3:18pm, 17 Feb 2020
49 posts
|
JR
I'm not compaining - the opposite - as I said I am leaning towards not buying because as I said earlier I am well within the time (35 minutes) so not likely to affect me. I was commenting that several on this site did miss out this year due to the reduction in time by a small amount - VF will exacerbate that problem.
I think I have a right to complain though if I think something is unfairly affectunbg overall results or should we be like the IAAf and just bury our heads in the sand or up Nike's @rse?
|
|
Feb 2020
3:48pm, 17 Feb 2020
6,385 posts
|
jda
I guess the question is where you draw the line regarding unfairness, and people may reasonably differ over this. I certainly think that prototypes for individual athletes is out of order and AIUI the rules already outlawed this in theory but no-one bothered to enforce it. We can debate whether this is the fault of the athletes for doing something against the rules or perhaps the IAAF for giving them a nod and a wink and turning a blind eye.
As for whether VF-type shoes should have been banned....well possibly. How about my old Adios Boost? Same goals, roughly similar tech, just not quite as good at it. Still probably faster than a Dunlop Green Flash or whatever benchmark one prefers.
|
|
Feb 2020
4:01pm, 17 Feb 2020
29,916 posts
|
SPR
I agree there's different arguments re what is unfair.
The results come into it though. The swimsuits were banned based on this.
In regard to the Nike shoes, I doubt many would have batted an eyelid if they'd been banned under the assistance rules (whether those rules would have stood up in a court case is another matter).
|
|
Feb 2020
4:12pm, 17 Feb 2020
68,620 posts
|
Gobi
You couldn't pay me to run London ever again
Sadly JR as a cyclist 240 quid isnt noticed when you need bits. I can buy 2 good tubs , a chain and cassette but not much more.
However it does make me appreciate value hence I have 2 pairs of 4 % and am only just using the new pair now.
|
|
Feb 2020
5:58pm, 17 Feb 2020
8,462 posts
|
ITG
It's not really 240 quid because a runner would be paying 100 quid anyway; so the marginal cost is about the same as travel and 2 nights budget accomm (not including meals). I did have a think and discuss with OH before splashing the cash which I wouldn't have done with "normal" trainers. I do appreciate that it is still a lot for many people but those people are gping to struggle to pay for a city marathon anyway. (I grew up in Caithness so nothing was ever possible without an overnight. Now I live 5 hours drive from Reykjavik so it is even worse. My 11yo's football tournaments (each) cost more than the marginal cost of the vaporfly and my elser just took up skiing! So in comparison, my running is still cheap!
|
|
Feb 2020
6:08pm, 17 Feb 2020
68,622 posts
|
Gobi
It's all relative isnt it ITG
|
|
Feb 2020
7:53pm, 17 Feb 2020
3,550 posts
|
mr d
However if they wear out after 300k rather than 850k....
|
|
Feb 2020
8:34pm, 17 Feb 2020
68,624 posts
|
Gobi
I'd buy them if they lasted 200k if they felt right
|
