Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Next % to be banned?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
SuspectZero wrote: »But carbon plates have been in running shoes for decades now, every track spike I've ever owned has had a carbon plate in the sole, the reason it never crossed over to the road is because it would be painful to run without good cushioning, the track with tartan and mondo surfaces do what the cushion on the vaporfly does and a lot more effectively. Tracks nowadays are estimated to be 1 to 1.5 seconds per lap faster than dirt or cinder tracks between spikes and superfast surfaces. Technology in running hasn't stood still until the vaporfly came along. The dominant shoe before the vaporfly came along was the adios adizero boost which was a 2% jump in economy over others because of the boost cushioning and owned the world record road times too. Someone just thought lets bring the track to the road with the vaporfly. The difference been that 50 years of track technology development was all added to the marathon in one shoe so the effect is much more noticeable and even more so when the main distance it was made for is 4 times longer than any track distance and cushioning is more important.
even the comparison in stiffness is huge between track spikes and vaporfly's when you try and bend them, my mid distance spikes barely flex compared to vaporfly when you bend them, sprint spikes are even more tuned towards rigidity with carbon plates.
I get the outrage at prototypes but commericially avalible shoes are different I believe, the gap between the brands will close very quickly again and we will be back to normal on a competitive level. The historical cross era effect on times is a sad one but it has happened across the history of the sport especially in one as time based as athletics but the media rhetoric is frustrating when you see that asteriks should be put besides times. Should an asterix be put after every fast time run after Jim Ryun's 3:51.1 Mile WR on a clay track without carbon fiber and lightweight synthetics materials have an asteriks on it? should any run after Abebe Bikila barefoot marathon world record have an asteriks after it? Technology has driven performance for decades, In 30 years, people may be still arguing on the internet about it because this is what historic comparisons entail.
ever since a person put anything on their feet, ran on anything other than dirt, technology has had had a huge influence on performance.
Have a listen to some of the recent Science of Sport podcasts, the ones that address shoe technology especially. Ross Tucker convincingly uses performance and research data to argue that, yes, technology has always had an influence, but the very recent and dramatic advances (based entirely on the shoe) are on a different order of magnitude from previous incremental advances and need to be thought of differently.
That said, as the shoe is now officially legal, resistance is futile as the only way to level the playing field is to adopt the technology (or work to have it banned). Although not everyone responds to the shoe in the optimal way, one of the interesting things about the research to date is that there are no negative responders - in other words, the shoe won’t hinder your performance, and is likely to improve it, perhaps dramatically. And of course if you know what you’re doing, by the time you use it in a race you will know that already.
Yes, it’s technology, Jim, but not as we (have) know(n) it.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Have a listen to some of the recent podcasts, the ones that address shoe technology especially. Ross Tucker convincingly uses performance and research data to argue that, yes, technology has always had an influence, but the very recent and dramatic advances (based entirely on the shoe) are on a different order of magnitude from previous incremental advances and need to be thought of differently.
That said, as the shoe is now officially legal, resistance is futile as the only way to level the playing field is to adopt the technology (or work to have it banned). Although not everyone responds to the shoe in the optimal way, one of the interesting things about the research to date is that there are no negative responders - in other words, the shoe won’t hinder your performance, and is likely to improve it, perhaps dramatically. And of course if you know what you’re doing, by the time you use it in a race you will know that already.
Yes, it’s technology, Jim, but not as we (have) know(n) it.
Not denying that the shoe is a huge step forward in road shoes but this is technology as we have known it for decades. The key elements of the shoes is basically this:
Carbon plate: been used in track spikes for decades
High stack height: been used in marathon shoes for decades
high heel drop: Probably the oldest of them all
Pebax foam: This is the only breakthrough material in the shoe in terms of key elements
hence why the IAAF couldnt ban the shoes, the only new thing was pebax. The rest is a lot of old hat materials that are already used individually in 100's of shoes and pebax a upgraded polyurethane and elastomer which both materials were already present in the previous generation adizeroadios boost. what Nike has done is not bring a load of unheard tech to running, it put together old materials and design together to make the sum greater than its individual parts.
On pebax, its shown to give around 85% energy return, an 8% increase on the previous generation best adidas boost foam, which actually gave a 10% increase on EVA that was used at the time in other shoes.
I haven't listened to the tucker podcast but your short synopsis and words like incremental and dramatic give me a fair idea of how he went about this and correct me if I'm wrong please and the numbers I'm using are just off the top of my head to illustrate, did he say things like track surfaces gave a .5% increase in performance compared to the previous generation, carbon plates gave a .5% increase in track times compared to without etc? and say the vaporfly gave a 2% increase in performance compared to previous marathon shoes?
because it can be very easy to manipulate or catch bias in research, if anyone is interested in that, there's a really interesting dark side of statistics paper out there which is completely fact and research based where smoking was found to be as effective as blood doping. it just so happened that the references were completely manipulated . What you decide to reference sways conclusions, not the actual science itself. science and research will always be perspective based, not answer based.
My view from the words used in your post would be that Tucker hasn't taken a whole view on running tech innovation but has compartmentalised the vaporfly as marathon shoe so all the 4% increase in economy is labelled as a dramatic increase in overall running tech and has forgot that the vaporfly is made from old tech.
4% increase in economy over previous generation= dramatic
But a carbon plate in a track shoe 30 years over previous generation giving .5% economy boost=incremental
But what Nike has really done and I know people will laugh at this is marginal gains, it's put together a history of incremental increases that have been used in running for donkey years and turned it into a dramatic improvemnt in MARATHON shoes over PREVIOUS generations. It hasnt introduced tons of new materials beyond comprehension.
Another way to look at it is like this using random numbers, where does the 4% economy improvement come from:
carbon plate: 1% over previous generations from the mid 90's
high stack: 1% over previous generations from the 70's
pebax: 1% over previous generations from the 2010's
and lets say the three together add a further 1% as the the sum is greater than the individual parts.
What you end up with looking at it from this perspective is that Nike have only invented a 1% economy increase in pebax(which would be considered incremnental) but turned it into 4%(dramatic) because no one thought about using already existing and widespread materials or design from running already. this is the stance the IAAF has taken with their myriad of research scientists from every concievable science background hence why they cant and wont ban it. They make the rules on running technology full stop, not compartmentalised marathon running shoes. you cant ban a carbon plate from marathons but allow it on the track etc.
And even with all this hype, asphalt and vaporfly's are still slower than the track and spikes because the track and shoes return more energy and more spring like than the former duo. This is a fact otherwise the diamond league circuit stadiums should rip up their multi-million euro tuned track surfaces and replace them with asphalt if they want fast times.
I also think its problematic when you start saying something improved too much in one go as it has turned it into a moral debate rather than a scientific one, a scientic one is to set a ceiling, not decide on the fly that something is too good, too fast, if nike took 10 years of gradual increases to reach the same point, does that make it ok?
Despite the absolute monstorous length of this post, the question ultimatally boils down to, Is the vaporfly too good or were it predessesors just terrible?
or in Ross Tuckers case:
is 10*1=10 ok?
but 5*2=10 not?
Perspective again0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
SuspectZero wrote: »Not denying that the shoe is a huge step forward in road shoes but this is technology as we have known it for decades. ...
Yes, these points about the vaporfly's combining existing technologies to new effect have all been made in this thread already. Tucker takes into account most of what you are saying, but reaches a different conclusion, obviously.
The smoking article you refer to (here's a link) was a piece of academic satire designed to illustrate the dangers of selective sourcing, by the way - not an actual attempt to convince people that the fags = EPO. The intention of the article is flagged very clearly in the abstract. To imply (perhaps unintentionally) that Tucker is in the 'fake science' camp is a bit mischievous, especially if someone hasn't actually listened or read these arguments.
But yes, welcome back! 0 -
Yes, these points about the vaporfly's combining existing technologies to new effect have all been made in this thread already. Tucker takes into account most of what you are saying, but reaches a different conclusion, obviously.
The smoking article you refer to (here's a link) was a piece of academic satire designed to illustrate the dangers of selective sourcing, by the way - not an actual attempt to convince people that the fags = EPO. The intention of the article is flagged very clearly in the abstract. To imply (perhaps unintentionally) that Tucker is in the 'fake science' camp is a bit mischievous, especially if someone hasn't actually listened or read these arguments.
But yes, welcome back!
I know it wasn't an attempt to convince people that smoking is as effective as EPO, that should of been clear from post, it's an extreme exaggeration of how bias can change conclusions, something that every study known to man has to some degree, hence my point re perspective but no answers. And I never said he's a fake scientist or even tried to imply it. but I know from your synopsis and Reading Tucker for years that he uses science for moral questions.
All I have to read from your synopsis to understand his argument(its essentially his conclusion and I already understand both sides of the argument as he's been talking about it for 3 years now, not just in his single podcast) is the gain is too big over other marathon shoes to understand because it implies that small advantages are ok but not big ones which means he has created a line in his head that is too much which is very much a moral conclusion. If thats what he wants, fair enough but I dont agree that conclusion should be based on how big the gain is on a constantly moving reference point like the development of competitor tech, a more scientific and less morally bound conclusion is always a definite reference point like having ceiling on energy return where you can define something as a spring, not how much better it is than competitors. Otherwise you will end up a rulebook similar to F1 where the viability of the sport dictates the rules rather than pure science.
And I did ask for corrections on if i misunderstood the position. A simple question, did tucker compare to competitors shoes or was he arguing on the definition of a spring? The former is more morally biased and the latter is more scientifically cold.
And there definetely moral questions there too, not denying that.
Its also veryimportant to note Ross Tucker is a paid ambassador of Adidas0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement