skyblue46 wrote: » I don't really like to make full comparisons between sports which are tests of the human physical capability and games which involve manipulation of an object. Sports which are a test of physical limits should purely be decided by physical ability...cycling, athletics, swimming, rock climbing should not be decided by equipment. Nor do I agree that we should allow unhindered progress as you call it. Golf clubs the world over had to redesign holes, build new tee boxes, move bunkers etc to facilitate new technology. Legendary holes were destroyed. Wouldn't have been easier to put limits on the tech? Similarly the science to add enough downforce to an F1 car so that it could lap most circuits at full throttle is available. The rulemakers set limits to protect the sport. If one company came up with a chalk to allow rock climbers ascend Spiderman-like up a rock face would it be allowed? Not a chance.
OOnegative wrote: » It’s progress, the Prov 1Max gave you extra yards and spin. The latest Ping, Taylormade etc etc driver keeps it straighter and longer off the tee. The latest soccer ball you get more curve and spin off it. There was massive furore when the first incarnation of the Adidas Predators came out with the advantages it gave footballers. I could keep going. I don’t like the decision either but if they conform to the rules there fair game. But like yourself I won’t be indulging in a pair, I wear Nike runners but the Vaporflys and Alphaflys have sleeping in the spare room written all over them!!
Swashbuckler wrote: » Until Swashbuckler sends you some mega discount code
OOnegative wrote: But like yourself I won’t be indulging in a pair, I wear Nike runners but the Vaporflys and Alphaflys have sleeping in the spare room written all over them!!
skyblue46 wrote: » Hmmm...they reckon the average gain for Alphafly is 8% and up to 12/13% for good responders to the shoe ie heel strikers So if I can get back into 3:16 shape there's a 2:55 there for me if I'm lucky. That's how ludicrously these shoes can fook with things.
OOnegative wrote: » Not a fear of catching him in a pair of Nike’s let alone Alphafly’s S.
skyblue46 wrote: » A quick question L....will you be lacing up a pair of Alphafly? If not how will you reconcile giving away up to 12% to 'rivals' with enjoying racing them?
adrian522 wrote: » Not sure what you mean by overnight rage and virtue signalling. People have been calling out the unfair advantage of Nike athletes since 2016. There were no shoes offering a significant advantage a decade ago so not sure what you would have expected anyone to do then? IAAF should have implemented their own rules prior to the 2016 Olympics but elected not to for whatever reason. They definitely should have new rule sin place in 2017, but again refused to act. The rules they finally announced solved absolutely nothing, making none of these shoes against the rules.
Ironically the way I see it the rules are to keep others from catching up with Nike - Stack height is set just above the new shoe (by 0.5mm) which rules out the new Adidas prototype - The single carbon fiber plate element means that others can't combat the angle element of the patent using multiple variations (and conveniently the Alphafly has evolved from a 3 plate show to a single since Vienna just in time for these new rules) - The 4 month rule means that other companies are rushing to market to make the April deadline or are dead in the water for Olympics which suits Nike as they have shown there shoe is ready to go and expect to see it more than likely in the coming weeks with hitting shops more than likely march (post USATF Olympic marathon trials)
adrian522 wrote: » The rules they finally announced solved absolutely nothing, making none of these shoes against the rules.
sideswipe wrote: » That’s the point. I saw a photo of a prior Adidas curved plate that questioned how Nike could possibly have a patent on it. The foam is nothing new either........Adidas boost. Vaporflys are around since 2016 and all the components that make up it’s MO predate that by quite a bit. The overnight rage and virtue signaling about Nike is misplaced when in reality the governing bodies didn’t act when they should have; and I’m not talking last week, I’m talking a decade ago.
IvoryTower wrote: » I didn't realise that the carbon plate has been in spikes for years, so they've just put it into shoes now, seems like something they should of copped earlier tbh!
mloc123 wrote: » I wonder if ASICS, NB or Adidas had been the first to market with a vaporfly shoe would we see the same reaction.
Murph_D wrote: » It’s not just the plate, it’s also the curve (facilitated by the stack height), and the effect of the foam beneath, etc etc.
sideswipe wrote: » The stroke of a pen, How? Stack height? That stroke would ban Hokas instantly, which people don’t have a problem with.
skyblue46 wrote: » Probably because the Alphafly will improve performance by as much as EPO for some and it could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. The battle against PEDs is a much more difficult fight.
Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: Adidas Adizero prototype. 50mm so not allowed
mloc123 wrote: » 100% - Athletics has some major issues... shoe technology seems to be an easy target in the last year.
sideswipe wrote: » Tucker suggested Nike had 'Broke Running'. I can't agree with that, Athletics in general has faced huge problems for many, many years.
and still ricky villa wrote: » A wholly unscientific experiment I'm at the end of a cold so haven't run much. Thought I'd give the Vaporfly's a whirl on the treadmill but wanted to see what they measured like against other shoes. First thing I noticed is they feel odd and were very loud on the belt. Next thing though was that I struggled to keep cadence to ~180 without resorting to tip toeing, if that makes sense. Anyway, results below. Make of them what you will Treadmill set to 13kmh for all laps. That's slower than my marathon pace and treadmill speeds are fiction anyway. I like you people but not enough to set myself back by running at MP while still sick. Laps are a standing start to 13kmh as quick as the treadmill gets up to that speed (clock started as soon as I hit Go) Pace is not a question. Only effort. All laps were followed by a rest until my HR was under 100bpm. HR was wrist based. Argue among yourselves about that one I'm kind of discounting the first lap. I should have taken a proper warm up first. The Hitogami's are properly knackered and probably dangerous 0-2 Miles - Mizuno Wave Hitogami 2's with over 400 miles on them. Since retired Avg HR = 138bpm - Max HR = 147bpm 2-4 Miles - Mizuno Wave Rider 22's with over 600 miles n them. Since retired Avg HR = 145bpm - Max HR = 153bpm 4-6 Miles - Mizuno Wave Rider 23's. Nearly new Avg HR = 148bpm - Max HR = 154bpm 6-8 Miles - Nike Vaporfly Next%. Never used Avg HR = 143bpm - Max HR = 147bpm
adrian522 wrote: » He mentions the below.
