Next % to be banned?

Itziger · 29-01-2020 8:11pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

Sounds like you're unwilling to accept you just bought yourself a nice pb

I don't recall quite as much fuss when I went from 3.03 to 2.59 in my Pearl Izumi!!!

They're not even a running company FFS.

ultrapercy · 30-01-2020 2:29am

Nike have pulled the greatest stroke since Kiaser Sosa. How is it possible that so many people can fall for this ploy? Fair dues to them though nobody will ever pay less than 300 euros for a pair of runners again and the 1000 euro/dollar shoe is months away.

sideswipe · 30-01-2020 9:38am

ultrapercy wrote: »

Nike have pulled the greatest stroke since Kiaser Sosa. How is it possible that so many people can fall for this ploy? Fair dues to them though nobody will ever pay less than 300 euros for a pair of runners again and the 1000 euro/dollar shoe is months away.

You don't seriously believe that shoes will cost over 300 a pop from now on?

As far as I remember Kiaser Sosa didn't actually exist. Whet Nike have done here is not a case of the emperors new clothes, they developed a shoe and made outlandish claims about them as sports companies and marketeers are renowned to do, the difference being that the claims turned out to be true and now everybody is losing their ****.

I'm not trying to defend Nike here, they are a very questionable company. Maybe others are correct in terms of the overall health of the sport. I just have a very blinkered approach to my own goals.

and still ricky villa · 30-01-2020 9:50am

ultrapercy wrote: »

Fair dues to them though nobody will ever pay less than 300 euros for a pair of runners again and the 1000 euro/dollar shoe is months away.

That'll never happen
(Sent from my €1000 iPhone)

Damo 2k9 · 30-01-2020 10:34am

Currently awaiting delivery of a pair of Next%, zoom fly's are just about up apparently and I had the opportunity to a nice discount.

Times have moved on, technology has moved on, its the regulations that are slow to catch up in Athletics case.

I know I spoke to S about this the other night but take Golf for example.

How far have golf clubs and the accompanying technology come along? New Graphite shafts to allow for greater swing speed/club head speed, weight shift technology in driver/fairway woods head. Albeit there are a lot more regulations surrounding golf clubs. I know if I can afford a driver that can help me hit the ball further than I can with my 50 euro one, I'm going to go for it anyway (disclaimer: I am muck at golf :pac:)

So, with running, if there is equipment that can help me achieve a better time (Maurten Gels? Calf Sleeves? Carbon Plate runners?) but in conjunction with better training, then so be it, I'm going to go for it.

skyblue46 · 30-01-2020 5:05pm

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

Currently awaiting delivery of a pair of Next%, zoom fly's are just about up apparently and I had the opportunity to a nice discount.

Times have moved on, technology has moved on, its the regulations that are slow to catch up in Athletics case.

I know I spoke to S about this the other night but take Golf for example.

How far have golf clubs and the accompanying technology come along? New Graphite shafts to allow for greater swing speed/club head speed, weight shift technology in driver/fairway woods head. Albeit there are a lot more regulations surrounding golf clubs. I know if I can afford a driver that can help me hit the ball further than I can with my 50 euro one, I'm going to go for it anyway (disclaimer: I am muck at golf :pac:)

So, with running, if there is equipment that can help me achieve a better time (Maurten Gels? Calf Sleeves? Carbon Plate runners?) but in conjunction with better training, then so be it, I'm going to go for it.

I take your point. I also argue against the idea that by being against the use of any particular running shoe means that anybody is anti-innovation or believes we should return to cinder tracks or cotton vests.

Your comparison with golf is a fair one in one way but ignores the main point by glibly dismissing "a lot more regulations". It is the regulations that keep the integrity of the game somewhat intact. The fact is that manufacturers could produce a golf 'club' and a golf 'ball' which anyone could use and make one hit the other more than twice the distance they do now. They could make wedges to spin balls more than presently or to stop them dead like a stone. Again rules were brought in to control this. Similarly the LAZR suit was banned from competitive swimming. There is hardly a sport that doesn't regulate its equipment.

Nike have done nothing wrong in developing the shoe. They developed them within a practically non existent set of rules most of which in any case were never enforced. As has been said other manufacturers will catch up and the playing field will be levelled albeit at a higher level. There is no doubt though that a set of regulations to control future development are badly needed.

robinph · 30-01-2020 5:23pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

There is no doubt though that a set of regulations to control future development are badly needed.

Until now the definition of "shoe" was sufficient. They are perfectly capable of coming up with rules regarding the length of spikes on shoes, the weight of things that get thrown or length of poles used to jump things. Just until Nike reinvented the spring to be something that didn't look like a spring the rules have had no reason to say anything other than "don't use springs 'cos that would be cheating".

Whilst it is a new thing for road running to need to define the equipment used compared with other sports that have been doing it for ages for defining size of wheels and such like and it's over due a definition. I don't think we can be overly critical in the delay in coming up with a regulation as until this point there was no need to define a shoe.

It takes a while before each new tech can be understood and regulated, and until someone invents it there is nothing to regulate.

Damo 2k9 · 30-01-2020 5:30pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

I take your point. I also argue against the idea that by being against the use of any particular running shoe means that anybody is anti-innovation or believes we should return to cinder tracks or cotton vests.

Your comparison with golf is a fair one in one way but ignores the main point by glibly dismissing "a lot more regulations". It is the regulations that keep the integrity of the game somewhat intact. The fact is that manufacturers could produce a golf 'club' and a golf 'ball' which anyone could use and make one hit the other more than twice the distance they do now. They could make wedges to spin balls more than presently or to stop them dead like a stone. Again rules were brought in to control this. Similarly the LAZR suit was banned from competitive swimming. There is hardly a sport that doesn't regulate its equipment.

Nike have done nothing wrong in developing the shoe. They developed them within a practically non existent set of rules most of which in any case were never enforced. As has been said other manufacturers will catch up and the playing field will be levelled albeit at a higher level. There is no doubt though that a set of regulations to control future development are badly needed.

I didnt mean the comparison about Maurten Gels/Calf sleeves to be me saying "Well everyone should be against everything running related that has advanced in the last 20 years if they are against these shoes" I was just using it as a comparison that people use these for aiding them to a better time, so why not shoes.

100% agree that the regulations keep the integrity of the sport intact, and I think its something everyone can agree on. I could be wrong on this as I am only a newcomer myself, but with the ever growing popularity of running do you think that the sport has grown a bit too fast and its why regulations are slightly behind? Or they simply never thought that a manufacturer could make a shoe that can help performance so much. Whereas maybe it was apparent at a much earlier stage in the development of the sport of Golf that technology was going so fast they needed to slow it down, to keep that integrity of the sport. So people weren't shooting 12 under par in Augusta.

Weve already seen Hoka Carbon X help (along with unbelievable training) Walmsley set a new 50 mile World Record, and no doubt more manufacturers will be jumping on the carbon plate train this year, as well as even more advanced technologies.

Murph_D · 30-01-2020 9:15pm

robinph wrote: »

It takes a while before each new tech can be understood and regulated, and until someone invents it there is nothing to regulate.

Easy enough to have a regulation that all shoes are illegal by default until the model is officially approved.

skyblue46 · 30-01-2020 10:03pm

Itziger wrote: »

Yooooooooooooooo!!!!

Feel I have to jump in here because that's the very expression I used after a recent marathon PB wearing the Vapoflys. Here's exactly why the jury is still out for me. I trained hard and well for the marathon and to be honest I really expected to PB with whatever shoes I wore on the day. As it was my first time trying the Hansons plan, I don't know how much that contributed in terms of improvement.

My PB was from Cork which is a tougher course than Valencia and in the end I only improved by 95 seconds or so. I was targeting a 5 minute improvement but faded in the second half of the race in very similar fashion to most of my other 42.2k efforts. My legs were well sore after the race. My first recovery run was 6 days later and still my quads were aching. Sorry to disappoint some of ye but I didn't feel a great benefit on the day. Yes, they had felt great in a training spin but that's not what I bought 'em for!!

I know the stats do not support my own experience but what I wrote and felt is not nonsense.

Sorry only seeing this now as I was reading the thread in reverse.

Sorry, my use of a common phrase was in no way aimed at yourself. It was a general comment. That being said I still believe in the weight of what might be called circumstantial evidence that suggests the shoes give substantial benefits.

Your expectations weren't met on the day but many people line up for races feeling a PB is in the offing based on training and it doesn't happen. Maybe you got a 95 second PB instead of a time 2 mins outside a PB, who knows? Maybe it's all a ball of smoke, maybe the Alphaflys will also be.

sideswipe · 30-01-2020 10:23pm

https://twitter.com/Sub2hrs/status/1222956115111088128?s=20

skyblue46 · 30-01-2020 10:32pm

sideswipe wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Sub2hrs/status/1222956115111088128?s=20

Hopefully it's worth the watch...although I suppose 'unfair' is the crucial word. That one is just a matter of opinion...

sideswipe · 30-01-2020 10:35pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

Hopefully it's worth the watch...although I suppose 'unfair' is the crucial word. That one is just a matter of opinion...

You saw 'unfair', I saw 'unfair to elite runners'. :P

Lambay island · 31-01-2020 11:51am

Anyone catch that interview last night on Euro News? I didn't.

I used them for the first time for Raheny last week. I Initially felt like a bit of smug knob lacing them up at the car to be honest. Twice, I debated just sticking on my newer Nike reacts instead. I had ran an 18.31 5k (Jingle bells) in a fairly battered pair of reacts back in December, that I had used for DCM too, so I had a element of trust in them although they had seen far better days. I had no issue while running but had pain in calves, feet etc for a couple of days after.

I'm still new enough to running so I haven't had runners up to now just for racing. I made a conscious decision after Jingle Bells to have a sole pair of runners I just simply used for racing. I toyed with it for a while but eventually purchased a pair of Vapourflys earlier this month, less for the extra speed but more for the recovery "in my mind anyway".
Roll on the race, I didn't notice any major difference while running and I had no comparison 5 mile to compare but I was probably at least 30/45 seconds faster then I expected my best could be(29.34 was result with a sub 18 5k in there). I was fitter and better trained going into this race then December but cant help but think the only reason I got under 30 was the runners. Who knows I suppose, kinda regret wearing them here though, as I cant be sure where I am truly at right now. The biggest thing I noticed was in fact recovery. Next day, I had no issues or tightness whatsoever.

Laineyfrecks · 31-01-2020 2:04pm

Gonna give my tupence here as i also own a pair of vapourfly 4%. I like D am very new to running. To me runners were just runners, had no preference on brands or styles. The main thing for me was that they fit correctly & i could run comfortably in them. Now that i am a real runner(after completing my marathon this was the title i assumed) I am learning about the importance of my runners, which let me add to someone new this is a minefield!! There are so many runners out there and even more opinions on them, it's enough to make you dizzy!
I wanted to purchase a pair solely for races and had heard all the hype about vapourflys but when i 1st looked at them i couldn't justify the cost. Roll on a couple of weeks to black Friday deals & i was able to purchase a pair for 118euro which i did straight away! I had them for Jingle bells but again through reading stuff here & listening to opinions i was torn about wearing them, so i didn't. Was it the right decision who knows? All i know is that day is best forgotten haha. I thought hard about it and decided that technology moves on & yes there was lots of research saying they helped people get their pbs...could i live with that? Yes i could, so i wore them for my parkrun & yes i got a pb but along with the runners (that did not magically run the race for me )there was a lot of hard training behind the scenes and pure grit & determination! Again i wore them for Raheny and again i did a brilliant time, down to the runners? Maybe a little but i actually don't care because I know how hard i work & i listen to what I'm being told to do training wise. As D said my legs felt great during & after each of those races which to me is a huge bonus!
Technology moves on it's that simple, you either move with it or don't but ultimately that is a personal choice.

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 2:44pm

The Euro News slot wasn't great- one guy for and one against. The general gist was they had nothing against the shoes just the lack of regulation and enforcement particularly in an Olympic year were athletes are affected.

In the mean time new shots fired in the arms race:

https://twitter.com/runnersworlduk/status/1223231218294099969?s=20

TFBubendorfer · 31-01-2020 3:30pm

sideswipe wrote: »

In the mean time new shots fired in the arms race:

"These shoes only have 50-100 miles in them. They’ll retail at £210." :eek::eek::eek:

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 3:42pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

"These shoes only have 50-100 miles in them. They’ll retail at £210." :eek::eek::eek:

Shocking ain’t it- disposable race day shoes!

IMO the Vaporflys are the same, I’ve a pair with 300k on them and they are not the shoe they were out of the box. I think the Alphaflys intend to address this with the air pockets which are actually old tech for Nike, if they ever see the light of day.

KSU · 31-01-2020 3:54pm

sideswipe wrote: »

Shocking ain’t it- disposable race day shoes!

IMO the Vaporflys are the same, I’ve a pair with 300k on them and they are not the shoe they were out of the box. I think the Alphaflys intend to address this with the air pockets which are actually old tech for Nike, if they ever see the light of day.

Will never beat the original's

https://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/products/NIK607/mens-nike-mayfly/

You would be welcoming short courses just to keep cost down

KSU · 31-01-2020 4:14pm

WA have now released the guidelines for going forward

Highlights:
-Stack heigh limit- 40mm for shoes, 30mm for spikes
-No prototype shoes (except for medical reasons)
-Shoe must be available for 4 months to the public to be used
-Only one rigid plate allowed in the shoe

So TUEs will now extend to shoes :P

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 4:27pm

KSU wrote: »

WA have now released the guidelines for going forward

Highlights:
-Stack heigh limit- 40mm for shoes, 30mm for spikes
-No prototype shoes (except for medical reasons)
-Shoe must be available for 4 months to the public to be used
-Only one rigid plate allowed in the shoe

So TUEs will now extend to shoes :P

So that's the Next% still in the game and the Alphafly in it's proposed guise gone!

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 4:31pm

As expected really-

https://twitter.com/runnersworld/status/1223266839297392640?s=20

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 4:33pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

So that's the Next% still in the game and the Alphafly in it's proposed guise gone!

From runners world:
Nike Alphafly, a prototype worn by Eliud Kipchoge during his sub-two-hour marathon in Vienna last year, will not be allowed among athletes competing for prizes

KSU · 31-01-2020 4:34pm

sideswipe wrote: »

As expected really-

https://twitter.com/runnersworld/status/1223266839297392640?s=20

I think most people expected the Alphafly to get a pass?

and still ricky villa · 31-01-2020 4:35pm

sideswipe wrote: »

From runners world:
Nike Alphafly, a prototype worn by Eliud Kipchoge during his sub-two-hour marathon in Vienna last year, will not be allowed among athletes competing for prizes

So, available to the general public for a paltry $500

Ceepo · 31-01-2020 4:43pm

KSU wrote: »

WA have now released the guidelines for going forward

Highlights:
-Stack heigh limit- 40mm for shoes, 30mm for spikes
-No prototype shoes (except for medical reasons)
-Shoe must be available for 4 months to the public to be used
-Only one rigid plate allowed in the shoe

So TUEs will now extend to shoes :P

Who signs off on the TUE ??

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 4:57pm

KSU wrote: »

I think most people expected the Alphafly to get a pass?

Perhaps, personally I didn’t think they would. They had to be seen to do something to stop things getting out of hand even if some believe they already are. No doubt they’ll tweak and rename the alphas now?

Damo 2k9 · 31-01-2020 5:06pm

KSU wrote: »

I think most people expected the Alphafly to get a pass?

Yep including Nike who I presume were waiting to launch it in conjunction with the big race at London. Will be interesting to see what happens with them.

TFBubendorfer · 31-01-2020 5:13pm

and still ricky villa wrote: »

So, available to the general public for a paltry $500

They would also have to remove the additional carbon plates

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 6:00pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

They would also have to remove the additional carbon plates

Or they could leave them with 3 plates and a stack height over 40mm. If the last couple of years have proven anything it is that there a very large group of people who are prepared to part with lots of cash to chop free seconds off their PBs...ones who will never have to worry about the 'win prizes' part of the new ruling.

Swashbuckler · 31-01-2020 6:35pm

skyblue46 wrote:

Or they could leave them with 3 plates and a stack height over 40mm. If the last couple of years have proven anything it is that there a very large group of people who are prepared to part with lots of cash to chop free seconds off their PBs...ones who will never have to worry about the 'win prizes' part of the new ruling.

Coz why focus on the 96% when you can get 4% for "free"... (joking)

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 7:21pm

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Coz why focus on the 96% when you can get 4% for "free"... (joking)

8% is the suggestion for the Alphafly as designed. I guarantee you they would sell even if not competition legal.

Swashbuckler · 31-01-2020 7:44pm

skyblue46 wrote:

8% is the suggestion for the Alphafly as designed. I guarantee you they would sell even if not competition legal.

I completely agree judging by how many I've seen wearing them.

Damo 2k9 · 31-01-2020 8:34pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

8% is the suggestion for the Alphafly as designed. I guarantee you they would sell even if not competition legal.

Have my pre order in already....:pac:

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 8:44pm

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

Have my pre order in already....:pac:

Yep, the sport now truly is at the mercy of one gigantic sporting brand and its puppet at the head of World Athletics....

Some people seem to think this is the end of the issue. It's only the start.

daydorunrun · 31-01-2020 9:31pm

Every generation looks over their shoulders and say things like the ‘sport is gone’.

From coloured football boots to ones that promise a more powerful shot or ability to whip the ball, boots with blade studs that promise ability to turn quicker on the ball.

Old runners look at the variety of gels and drinks and think ‘in my day we weren’t going on a picnic, we just ran’. Technological advances in all sports happen all the time- golf, tennis, cycling etc Having gloves to play GAA was rare in my day, now they available to all and are like spiderman hands. Never heard of gum shields, you took a whack and either lost a tooth or didn’t things move on.

The virtue signaling and hyperbole online in relation to the shoes is quite something.

Anybody can buy any shoe that WA have now deemed acceptable, they have drawn a line in the sand to prevent any further escalation or arms race, do people really think they should/could be banned and all races over the last couple of year be wiped.

The funny thing is athletics has real problems. These shoes have been a distraction from them. Having said that it’s certainly got more non-negative attention over the last while.

My only regret about the whole situation is that I didn’t buy shares in Nike.

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 9:36pm

daydorunrun wrote: »

Every generation looks over their shoulders and say things like the ‘sport is gone’.

From coloured football boots to ones that promise a more powerful shot or ability to whip the ball, boots with blade studs that promise ability to turn quicker on the ball.

Old runners look at the variety of gels and drinks and think ‘in my day we weren’t going on a picnic, we just ran’. Technological advances in all sports happen all the time- golf, tennis, cycling etc Having gloves to play GAA was rare in my day, now they available to all and are like spiderman hands. Never heard of gum shields, you took a whack and either lost a tooth or didn’t things move on.

The virtue signaling and hyperbole online in relation to the shoes is quite something.

Anybody can buy any shoe that WA have now deemed acceptable, they have drawn a line in the sand to prevent any further escalation or arms race, do people really think they should/could be banned and all races over the last couple of year be wiped.

The funny thing is athletics has real problems. These shoes have been a distraction from them. Having said that it’s certainly got more non-negative attention over the last while.

My only regret about the whole situation is that I didn’t buy shares in Nike.

Ah yeah blame it on the older generation....you are absolutely so far off the mark I spat out my tea laughing.

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 9:39pm

daydorunrun wrote: »

Anybody can buy any shoe that WA have now deemed acceptable, they have drawn a line in the sand to prevent any further escalation or arms race, do people really think they should/could be banned and all races over the last couple of year be wiped.

I agree a full ban would have been impossible, especially in an olympic year. I just wonder if these are indeed 'cheaterflys' as I've seen them referred to how come they were ever allowed in the first place? I mean Nike weren't releasing them stealthily, they were shouting their benefits from the rooftops! Where were WA then?

daydorunrun · 31-01-2020 9:41pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

Ah yeah blame it on the older generation....you are absolutely so far off the mark I spat out my tea laughing.

Hope your dentures stayed in, enjoy the Late Late Show:pac:

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 9:44pm

sideswipe wrote: »

I agree a full ban would have been impossible, especially in an olympic year. I just wonder if these are indeed 'cheaterflys' as I've seen them referred to how come they were ever allowed in the first place? I mean Nike weren't releasing them stealthily, they were shouting their benefits from the rooftops! Where were WA then?

That's the thing. WA didn't do their job. To be honest they still aren't. Today was a total fudge. Why would a total ban have been impossible in Olympic year? Could athletes not just run in different shoes?

Lambay island · 31-01-2020 9:53pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

That's the thing. WA didn't do their job. To be honest they still aren't. Today was a total fudge. Why would a total ban have been impossible in Olympic year? Could athletes not just run in different shoes?

Personally dont think it was impossible but would have opened a bigger can of worms. For example the marathon, you have guys who have qualified for Olympics already using the shoe and you have guys about to run a qualifying race to do the same.
Do you say to anyone from now who hasn't run their qualifying race - tough luck you cant use same shoes what the others used or do you scrap all results and start from scratch 6 months out?

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 9:57pm

Lambay island wrote: »

Personally dont think it was impossible but would have opened a bigger can of worms. For example the marathon, you have guys who have qualified for Olympics already using the shoe and you have guys about to run a qualifying race to do the same.
Do you say to anyone from now who hasn't run their qualifying race - tough luck you cant use same shoes what the others used or do you scrap all results and start from scratch 6 months out?

It's messy but the alternative is worse. Has nobody thought down the line on this one?

daydorunrun · 31-01-2020 9:58pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

It's messy but the alternative is worse. Has nobody thought down the line on this one?

What are you predicting down the line?

A retrospective ban would have been some mess recalculating results etc

I don’t have a problem with the verdict TBH but then again I’m willing to try anything to get where I want to be....legal that is.

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 9:58pm

daydorunrun wrote: »

I meant a retrospective ban. Would have been some mess recalculating results etc

I don’t have a problem with the verdict TBH but then again I’m willing to try anything to get where I want to be....legal that is.

4% weren't legal for a long time...lots ran in them

sideswipe · 31-01-2020 10:03pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

That's the thing. WA didn't do their job. To be honest they still aren't. Today was a total fudge. Why would a total ban have been impossible in Olympic year? Could athletes not just run in different shoes?

There would have been people stripped of Olympic qualifying time running in shoes that were legal at the time, it’d be chaos, think legal cases etc.

daydorunrun · 31-01-2020 10:06pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

4% weren't legal for a long time...lots ran in them

But sure the tech is available to all companies to use, when all the (free) publicity dies down and other companies catch up things will settle down again.

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 10:20pm

daydorunrun wrote: »

But sure the tech is available to all companies to use, when all the (free) publicity dies down and other companies catch up things will settle down again.

Eh no...Nike have erected a patent ringfence which makes it very difficult for others to catch up...

skyblue46 · 31-01-2020 10:23pm

sideswipe wrote: »

There would have been people stripped of Olympic qualifying time running in shoes that were legal at the time, it’d be chaos, think legal cases etc.

Most were not legal at the time...prototypes were not legal. Nor do shoes released in tranches before being off the market for weeks fall under the category of "reasonably available".

daydorunrun · 31-01-2020 10:30pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

Eh no...Nike have erected a patent ringfence which makes it very difficult for others to catch up...

I wasn’t aware of that, I’ve seen Adidas and Brooks with carbon plates? Didn’t Adidas have special ’Boost’ foam before. I’m just finding it hard to understand why it riles you up, I guarantee the others will come up with similar, you may be sure they’ve been furiously working on them for months. I think it has an effect at the top of the field which will balance out in time but I’m not sure why middle aged men and women in bright pink shoes is a big deal.

shotgunmcos · 31-01-2020 10:37pm

I've no doubt big shoe companies will speed their prototypes to market in the next 3 months otherwise they miss the Olympics as any new shoes need to have a 4 month shelf life.

Be good to see other options than bright pink

Next % to be banned?

Comments