The vaporfly thread
88 watchers
Oct 2019
7:29pm, 17 Oct 2019
5,569 posts
|
jda
I agree with the thrust that there needs to be a rule to limit this. I would place a limit on sole thickness and not worry about anything more intricate or complicated.
|
Oct 2019
8:17pm, 17 Oct 2019
828 posts
|
SKR
Ryan's wife Sara Hall ran recently in a pair of modified asics with a carbon plate in them. I remember when they said the ultraboost foam provided an unfair advantage when Adidas was winning all the records also. Its a ridiculous argument in my view, the Next% are readily available to all athletes and those stuck in brand contracts should get their brands to innovate better. |
Oct 2019
8:35am, 18 Oct 2019
17 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
TopCashback have 10% off Nike store (over £99 I think)
|
|
Oct 2019
8:40am, 18 Oct 2019
18 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
Does appear that several athletes have run in non Nike carbon plated prototypes recently, which seems to ignore the rule about equipment being available to all - nobody seems to bother enforcing that? Even the male winner of Kona Ironman WC last weekend had an ASICS prototype with carbon plate |
Oct 2019
8:50am, 18 Oct 2019
9,138 posts
|
larkim
I've been waffling on about the shoes over on the elite athletics thread, but this is a better place for it. K5 Gus posted a really good link that I'd not read before which brought things together nicely, and sets out a way forward. blogs.bmj.com The big problem is that everyone appears to be over-simplifying and concentrating on the "spring" which is the carbon plates, when the science doesn't appear to support that at all. Feel free to correct my reading of this, but it seems that the first thing to accept that it is the whole shoe "package" which works. Separating each individual bit out is a challenge. But broadly the shoe has 3 elements. Carbon plate, Pebax foam, overall structure. The BMJ doc above says that possibly 25% of the benefit of VFs was simply the height of the shoe lengthening the leg. The shoe could achieve this without increasing weight because the Pebax foam is so light. The foam itself returns energy better from compression, so less is lost in the simple act of compressing and unloading the shoe, and therefore returned to the body of the athlete. And the carbon plate mostly aids stiffening of the platform which allows more stability in the toes and less ankle flexion needing to be supported by the calfs muscles. Having high profile indiviudals like Hall waffling on about carbon springs seems to be a complete misunderstanding about how the shoe works to help the runner, and misunderstands the fact that a spring in and of itself doesn't provide propulsion. |
Oct 2019
8:57am, 18 Oct 2019
29,533 posts
|
SPR
The shoe that Kipchoge used had three carbon fibre plates. That's not about stiffening, I think the patent even talked about the energy being directed to them.
|
|
Oct 2019
9:09am, 18 Oct 2019
5,572 posts
|
jda
"and misunderstands the fact that a spring in and of itself doesn't provide propulsion." No, that is your repeated misunderstanding larkim. Springs may not be the whole story but springs certainly can be a large part of it. It's not about providing energy - no shoe without an external energy source can do that - it's about storing and then releasing it without losses. Foam and/or other spring elements with a greater coefficient of restitution does that better and should result in faster running assuming a good design. "Fast" running tracks do exactly the same thing for track runners, only in that case the spring is in the ground rather than the shoe. Limit to sole/shoe thickness is still the obvious answer irrespective of all the analysis about exactly what is going on. It just solves the problem at source. |
|
Oct 2019
9:09am, 18 Oct 2019
9,140 posts
|
larkim
That's not what the bmj article suggests though. How much do the plates actual compress and unload in a normal running stride? It can't be a large deflection, can it? Or is it more pronounced with a forefoot running style? |
|
Oct 2019
9:14am, 18 Oct 2019
9,141 posts
|
larkim
Lol, you're right jda, I should have clarified that I meant it's the foam spring that is the key, not the carbon plate. That's the conclusion of all the science docs I've read on this.
|
Oct 2019
9:19am, 18 Oct 2019
3,181 posts
|
K5 Gus
Schematic showing the components of the new shoe that Eliud wore ( the AlphaFly ). Interesting that they've introduced some "old-tech" alongside the ZoomX and carbon, with the introduction of air pockets - I remember having a big air pocket in my first ever Nikes, the original Pegasus which must have been about 1984 |
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