The vaporfly thread
88 watchers
Oct 2019
7:47pm, 11 Oct 2019
5,477 posts
|
jda
It would seem fairly natural and straightforward to limit the sole thickness. That's easily done, without any need for detailed legalistic arguments about discerning the purpose of shoe elements such as springs versus stiffener plates. And would immediately put an upper bound on any possible performance advantage (simple argument from physics). High jumpers have a limit on sole thickness IIRC. |
Oct 2019
9:32pm, 11 Oct 2019
824 posts
|
SKR
Thats really a beast of a shoe!
|
Oct 2019
10:25am, 12 Oct 2019
15,343 posts
|
Chrisull
It's funny that in cycling they went back to the hour record and ripped up so many previous attempts with limits on position - bike adaptations (so Obree's bike with even a part adapted from a washing machine, was disallowed), only to relent a bit (I see Campanaerts had gold tires which are aerodynamically superior!) , where as now in running such innovations are just seen as a marketing opportunity. ATM no-one is seriously considering banning the shoes in competition, there has been some idle speculation. Ross Tucker is now claiming the shoes made ALL the difference (which I thought was contrary to the last attempt, where they said drafting + shoes + other bits and pieces all combined). In fact letsrun is saying 1% - see here: letsrun.com which is still significant. I'm not arguing either way, it was a great attempt, well done Kipchoge. It feels a little bit sour grapeyness though from a few scientists who said it's physiologically impossible, and are now having to partially eat their words. I get it's totally artificial, and that this is a world best not a record, and that these advantages probably took a 2.02/2.03 to 1.59, but before then their position was "none of these changes can make that much of a difference". The 4 minute mile didn't suddenly open up the floodgates (although Landy did break it a month later), I wonder if Bekele will also look to go sub 2. If we see a few go under then maybe the shoes will be looked at more comprehensively. |
Oct 2019
4:06pm, 12 Oct 2019
13 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
I wonder if Kipchoge is maybe capable of 1:57-1:58 already in these new shoes, who can say if he was all out there? (He did have a bad patch somewhere first half I think?) Looked full of running coming down the last km and was skipping about afterwards. I am expecting the 2 hour mark to be broken fairly easily at a major next year, it seems like each iteration of the shoes can be made arbitrarily faster than the last with no rules/limits. Several runners might go under 2 hours next year or so, no doubt to a chorus of “just like when the 4 min barrier was broken! Amazeballs!” It seems important to draw out the advantage the shoes are offering over previous models. I’m not convinced Kipchoge is faster than Makau was at his peak - it’s reached the point where performances can’t be compared even over a very short time span, especially when a new shoe appears which we haven’t even seen anyone else run in before. Was today’s model worth 1/2/3/4/5 minutes? No way of telling, but Kipchoge looked like he had a fair bit more to give |
Oct 2019
4:17pm, 12 Oct 2019
24,292 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
I would think 2 hours won't get beaten regularly, that business of having pacers screening is a big thing, let alone the shoes, and it is artificial, waiting on the correct weather fair enough, good publicity, no more. Racing is different, racing in a championships with no control of conditions, no pacers etc. Racing is what counts. I sat down to watch and found it fantastically boring, so waited for the last 2 or 3 mins...can't take anything away from the effort and organisation but dull as Boris Johnson's ditch water. |
Oct 2019
8:33am, 13 Oct 2019
29,497 posts
|
SPR
I'd agree with Jda's idea but I think I'd be barring internal devices as well as there's little doubt that they act as a spring in my mind. Regarding the gains, apparently at elite level 1% efficiency = 0.65% as a baseline. Ross Tucker posted some stuff on it. I don't think it's fair to criticise scientists, they never said it was impossible, just with the known inputs at the time and the rules (many thought the shoes would be banned), it wasn't possible now. I'm pretty sure most scientists don't believe in a barrier that corresponds to a landmark time. As an aside, did scientists think sub 4 was impossible? It's always said but it's something I find surprising. |
Oct 2019
9:55am, 13 Oct 2019
9,040 posts
|
larkim
We’ve definitely lost something through the rapid development over the last few years (assuming we believe the hype is valid, and the various papers suggesting the efficiency gains do seem to be supporting it) which means we’ve lost some of the basic comparability between runners of the past and the current benchmarks. From the first time I saw Kipchoge running the marathon though I thought he was a beautiful sight to behold. I’m sure there are things to criticise in his gait etc, but he just looks effortless, compact, consistent etc. Those aren’t things the VFs have brought to him, so with no real evidence at all I’m happy for him truly to be the best ever. |
|
Oct 2019
10:10am, 13 Oct 2019
5,490 posts
|
jda
The thing about legislating for internal devices and springs is that any stiffener plate and all cushioning is also a spring in principle, so you may end up with arguments about how to discern the primary purpose of elements of design. Bikes have this problem with frame components having to be primarily structural even though aerodynamics is a huge issue (not sure of precise language and it differs a lot between disciplines and governing bodies). I can't see any obvious drawback of limiting sole thickness (possibly other parameters too such as length) and this will automatically limit performance benefits.
|
|
Oct 2019
10:40am, 13 Oct 2019
14 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
Seen an early whisper that yesterday’s shoes might be 7-8% more efficient (than what? Where’s the baseline these days?) Might just be people guessing based on Next% being touted as “almost 5%” and the ones worn today looking quite a lot more built up. There is bound to be a clamour to get hold of the triple carbon plated version, Nike can probably sell them for any price they like. The only difference between VF and the Enko G4 (link below) is the problem is a lot more obvious/hilarious. The genius of VF and newer versions is concealing the parts that give the massive boost. ZoomX foam heel at first looked really conspicuous (esp on release of Next%) but we’ve adjusted to seeing it now, because they have been taken up by so many. runningmagazine.ca I say bring the Enko’s back and see how fast Kipchoge can go in them, what’s the difference? |
|
Oct 2019
11:05am, 13 Oct 2019
29,498 posts
|
SPR
Have the Enko been shown to work?
|
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