Next % to be banned?

mloc123 · 07-02-2020 5:13pm

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.

100% - Athletics has some major issues... shoe technology seems to be an easy target in the last year.

skyblue46 · 07-02-2020 7:30pm

mloc123 wrote: »

100% - Athletics has some major issues... shoe technology seems to be an easy target in the last year.

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.

Swashbuckler · 07-02-2020 8:39pm

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote:

Adidas Adizero prototype. 50mm so not allowed

My god. In about five years we're all gonna look like the spice girls at the start line. Jaysus.

sideswipe · 07-02-2020 9:36pm

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.

The stroke of a pen, How? Stack height? That stroke would ban Hokas instantly, which people don’t have a problem with.

skyblue46 · 07-02-2020 10:04pm

sideswipe wrote: »

The stroke of a pen, How? Stack height? That stroke would ban Hokas instantly, which people don’t have a problem with.

People didn't have a problem with them, still don't because they are not filled with tech. Don't get me wrong, Nike designed absolutely fantastic shoes but whether that is good for the sport is another question altogether.

My present favourite easy/ long run shoe would also fall foul of a stack height reduction but I think it's a price worth paying. Anyway this discussion is pretty pointless as the rules have been made. I'm just interested in what reactions will be when numerous landmark world records are demolished this year...

IvoryTower · 07-02-2020 10:33pm

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!

Murph_D · 07-02-2020 11:02pm

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.

IvoryTower · 08-02-2020 12:02am

Yep, it just doesn't seem that out there really, just a better shoe all round.

sideswipe · 08-02-2020 12:06am

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.

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.

mloc123 · 08-02-2020 8:51am

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.

I wonder if ASICS, NB or Adidas had been the first to market with a vaporfly shoe would we see the same reaction.

skyblue46 · 08-02-2020 9:17am

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.

I would think that anyone who had any interest in the integrity of running as a pure sport would be concerned irrespective of manufacturer.

KSU · 08-02-2020 11:22am

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.

I do remember similar grumbling with the boost foam alright think it didn’t get as much traction because benefits weren’t as prominent and Adidas doesn’t sponsor as many athletes so improvements could be attributed to training improvements moreso

KSU · 08-02-2020 11:27am

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!

Carbon plate by themselves have been in road shoe since early 2000. The problem was these tended to benefit forefront running which longer distance events rarely see due to fatigue nature of calves. The carbon plating was harsh on the body offsetting most of benefits. The combination of energy return from foam, stack high rolling the foot into toe push off without same reliance of calf endurance and the carbon plating is why the combination works the stacking angle in relation to the carbon plating is one of the aspects of the patent Nike have applied for meaning that competitors would only be able to offset this with a higher stack height which they can’t do with new rules

KSU · 08-02-2020 11:30am

Patent details

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3355737A1/en?inventor=Geng+LUO&page=1

IvoryTower · 08-02-2020 11:37am

Yep its definitely shady. I just mean the tech itself just seems like a smart improvement, when I heard "inserting carbon plate" I was like okay hold on this is getting out of hand. But I didn't realise that's been around for yonks. Figuring out the best way to cushion the shoe is just doing their job really isn't it?!

adrian522 · 08-02-2020 7:43pm

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.

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.

KSU · 08-02-2020 7:53pm

adrian522 wrote: »

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)

sideswipe · 08-02-2020 10:07pm

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.

Perhaps Adrian, but I honestly didn't come across much chatter about it, possibly because the promise of performance gains by shoe companies was nothing new. Other companies were making claims about the performance benefits a decade ago, they always have. The uproar only really started when people saw Nikes promises were not just another marketing ploy.

World Athletics should have absolutely stepped in a long time ago, as companies started to use plates as springs, so regardless of it's effectiveness it always had the potential to end up like it has.

It's a mess now at elite level at least. For the shuffling masses I think less so.

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)

Nike are in dreamland, they couldn't have wished for a better situation from their point of view. I do think competitors had a lot longer than a couple of weeks to step up having seen what Nike have been doing since 2016. I can see some challenges to patents down the line, the patent on an angle of a plate seems ludicrous!

WA have just stuck a finger in the dyke, this will rumble on for sure.

skyblue46 · 08-02-2020 10:08pm

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?

OOnegative · 08-02-2020 10:14pm

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?

Not a fear of catching him in a pair of Nike’s let alone Alphafly’s S.

skyblue46 · 08-02-2020 10:38pm

OOnegative wrote: »

Not a fear of catching him in a pair of Nike’s let alone Alphafly’s S.

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 · 08-02-2020 10:49pm

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.

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 · 08-02-2020 10:56pm

OOnegative wrote:

But like yourself I wonâ€™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!!

Until Swashbuckler sends you some mega discount code

OOnegative · 08-02-2020 10:59pm

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Until Swashbuckler sends you some mega discount code

Nope!! Herself being a runner knows a discount of any kind would still mean paying crazy money.

Murph_D · 08-02-2020 11:01pm

As long as the shoe as legal, and you can afford to buy, and if you want to compete with everyone else, it’s a bit silly not to wear it.

Unless it’s a matter of principle, which I totally respect.

Otherwise, you have to work with the rules. Personally, I’d have preferred a different WA ruling, but whaddyagonnado?

skyblue46 · 08-02-2020 11:04pm

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!!

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 · 08-02-2020 11:29pm

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.

I’m equally as unimpressed about it as yourself, one thing I have noticed here is the Vaporflys/Alphaflys rage hasn’t caught hold. The Dutch are strictly Saucony/Mizino/Asics fans, you see very very few here running in Nike’s(around Den Haag anyway).

daydorunrun · 09-02-2020 1:16am

Just checking back in on this thread- it seems to go around in more circles than the folks in Donadea earlier:pac:

Originally Posted by skyblue46 View Post
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.

This needs to happen. I'll cover the cost of the shoes if you get into shape and run 2:55.

To say they give 12/13% gain is fairly outlandish. I've heard it said using the current incarnation (NeXt%) means a top end marathon time has gone from 2:05 to 2:03. To suggest the bulk of a marathon field could improve by 13% by shoe choice is a stretch to say the least.

skyblue46 · 09-02-2020 3:11am

daydorunrun wrote: »

Just checking back in on this thread- it seems to go around in more circles than the folks in Donadea earlier:pac:

This needs to happen. I'll cover the cost of the shoes if you get into shape and run 2:55.

To say they give 12/13% gain is fairly outlandish. I've heard it said using the current incarnation (NeXt%) means a top end marathon time has gone from 2:05 to 2:03. To suggest the bulk of a marathon field could improve by 13% by shoe choice is a stretch to say the least.

Haha...I was being somewhat facetious to some people who know me and would expect nothing from less from me. The 12/13% is the expected maximum gain possibly for just one person. There is obviously more to who will benefit this amount than simply heel striking.

Conclusions from tests done on athletes (both by Nike and independent tests) wearing the 4% showed a range of improved efficiency of between 0 and 6.5% with the largest gains being for slower runners possibly because they were less efficient to begin with. The average of those tested was 4%. It is expected that when independent trials are done on the Alphafly, which are reputed to have an average 8% benefit in Nike tests, that the spread of ranges which result in an 8% average will be 0-12/13%.

Am I likely to be lucky enough to be this person? Probably not.....but here's to hoping! ;-)

Marty Bird · 09-02-2020 2:38pm

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.

Really that much ? that’s great 2:40 here I come

Next % to be banned?

Comments