Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Next % to be banned?

15678911»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭ SuspectZero


    robinph wrote: »
    But they can define things like saying no carbon plates and the sole can only consist of foam, rubber and air and be no deeper than Ymm.

    Then just let us know if you are making it out of some other material and we'll have a think about it. If they end up making a super strong carbon plate like rubber which acts as a spring then you rethink the rules at that point, just like F1 where they rewrite them every so often when things change.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭ MY BAD


    Looking at photos of the start line of the men's and women's US marathon trials while there's plenty of Alphaflys and Vaporflys on show there are plenty of other bands on show too


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭ healy1835


    Only one shoe on show on the podium of the men's anyway......


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭ and still ricky villa


    healy1835 wrote: »
    Only one shoe on show on the podium of the men's anyway......

    Rupp has the advantage of magic shoes and Uncle Alberto's magic vitamins


  • Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭ KSU


    healy1835 wrote: »
    Only one shoe on show on the podium of the men's anyway......

    Women's should be different anyway as only 2 in top 10 at the moment.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭ KSU


    For anyone not aware Molly making the team would be a hell of a story in her debut.

    https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a31093821/molly-seidel-marathon-trials-comeback/


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 Shadow88


    It does kind of move the goalposts though.
    How can you compare what you have done up to now against what you do in future once you cross over to these shoes.
    How do you measure your progress?
    You could have good runners almost sub three for years and these shoes put them over the top, was it them or the shoes...

    I take your point for the first time you wear the vaporflys, but if you continue to use them you can measure your progress against the previous races you wore them in. I’ve been wearing them in marathons for the past two years or so and have progressed each time, which I put down to consistent hard training.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭ rovers_runner


    Shadow88 wrote: »
    I take your point for the first time you wear the vaporflys, but if you continue to use them you can measure your progress against the previous races you wore them in. I’ve been wearing them in marathons for the past two years or so and have progressed each time, which I put down to consistent hard training.

    Genuine questions:
    Would you have raced and PB'd to a similar degree at all distances?

    Do you find the benefits increase significantly the longer the distance?

    Also do you keep track of pre and post vaporfly PBs?

    Did it ever occur to you to time trial say a mile in regular racers vs the vaporfly when at peak fitness?
    Would you agree that would give people an indication of their true fitness?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 Shadow88


    Genuine questions:
    Would you have raced and PB'd to a similar degree at all distances?

    Yes. My times have improved over the past few years at all distances but I only wear the vaporflys for halves and full marathons.

    Do you find the benefits increase significantly the longer the distance?

    I think so, the main benefit I find is that recovery times is reduced when wearing them.

    Also do you keep track of pre and post vaporfly PBs?

    No, not sure what that would prove for me? My times have improved over the past few years including when I’ve been wearing the vaporflys.

    Did it ever occur to you to time trial say a mile in regular racers vs the vaporfly when at peak fitness?

    No


    Would you agree that would give people an indication of their true fitness?

    No, why would it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭ IvoryTower


    I could pick 2 different pairs of runners, non vaporfly, and have 2 very different times, you wear your best runners to race


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭ MY BAD


    KSU wrote: »
    Women's should be different anyway as only 2 in top 10 at the moment.
    Saucony, Hoka One One, and Nike... Its all about the shoes


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,210 ✭✭✭ Murph_D


    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. ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 873 Casey78


    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.

    Excellent post, a bit of common sense that has been missing on this thread from most posters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭ justdoit


    As he says himself, this is not a scientific experiment, and there are clearly lots and lots of variables that are accounted for, but the results in this video are interesting (at least I thought they were). Ben Parkes is worth a follow/ subscribe, if you haven't come across his content before.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ekW7ksZtc


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭ IvoryTower


    justdoit wrote: »
    As he says himself, this is not a scientific experiment, and there are clearly lots and lots of variables that are accounted for, but the results in this video are interesting (at least I thought they were). Ben Parkes is worth a follow/ subscribe, if you haven't come across his content before.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ekW7ksZtc

    oh ffs i really want a pair now


  • Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭ Treviso


    A flip side to this, was wondering if people that wear Vaporflys/Next% in races, myself included, are or will wear the Nike Zoom Fly 3 Premium/ Pegasus Turbo 2 in training?

    I've been looking at both but I'm afraid I'll lose the "shoe" effect in races if I'm using a broadly similar shoe for my training. Just increase my training paces if I do wear them?

    I guess what will happen eventually is training paces will match race paces again, and the shoe effect will be no more (until the next advancement)


  • Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭ justdoit


    I think that's an interesting question- I started wearing Adidas Adios Boost 3 shoes about three years ago and have trained and run every race in them since. The 'shoe effect' is clearly not the same extent as the 4% or Next % but compared to what I wore previously, they felt incredible. I've been through several pairs of the same shoe since, and have worn nothing else, and now they feel... normal. I won't be able to justify buying the 4% or Next %, but I am seriously considering buying the Peg Turbo 2 as a racing shoe as Nike have reduced the price on some of the colourways...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭ IvoryTower


    I don't even run road races and i'm tempted. You'd have to wonder if you're running faster times in training despite same effort as your other runners is there a benefit. On one hand you would think same effort, same benefit. But on the other your body moving faster may have a benefit in itself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭ SuspectZero


    Murph_D wrote: »
    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 again


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭ Damo 2k9


    Treviso wrote: »
    A flip side to this, was wondering if people that wear Vaporflys/Next% in races, myself included, are or will wear the Nike Zoom Fly 3 Premium/ Pegasus Turbo 2 in training?

    I've been looking at both but I'm afraid I'll lose the "shoe" effect in races if I'm using a broadly similar shoe for my training. Just increase my training paces if I do wear them?

    I guess what will happen eventually is training paces will match race paces again, and the shoe effect will be no more (until the next advancement)

    T - I originally bought the Zoom Fly 3 as I didnt want to plunge into Next% at the time, I wasnt running enough. Zoom Fly 3 are a good training shoe, great fit for me personally, but sometimes they can feel fairly heavy.

    Definitely have a good try on of them first, or even buy on Nike and take them for a couple of runs and send back if ya dont like them (double check thats available still).

    I wore the Next% for Barcelona Half and they are a completely different shoe, a lot more of a cushion feel and also a lot lighter. Pity I cant bloody get them anywhere now, after sending the other ones back as they didnt fit well.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,799 ✭✭✭ OOnegative


    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 again

    Welcome back E.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,210 ✭✭✭ Murph_D


    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! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭ SuspectZero


    Murph_D wrote: »
    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 Adidas


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭ Marty Bird


    Damo 2k9 wrote: »
    T - I originally bought the Zoom Fly 3 as I didnt want to plunge into Next% at the time, I wasnt running enough. Zoom Fly 3 are a good training shoe, great fit for me personally, but sometimes they can feel fairly heavy.

    Definitely have a good try on of them first, or even buy on Nike and take them for a couple of runs and send back if ya dont like them (double check thats available still).

    I wore the Next% for Barcelona Half and they are a completely different shoe, a lot more of a cushion feel and also a lot lighter. Pity I cant bloody get them anywhere now, after sending the other ones back as they didnt fit well.

    +1 on the Fly 3 I find them exactly the same I find them that bit harder on the return still a good shoe. I bought another pair of Turbo 2s which I find are a great training shoe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭ and still ricky villa




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭ rovers_runner


    Remember when all anyone cared about was what shoes people were going to wear for a run. Simpler times...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,414 ✭✭✭ sideswipe


    Remember when all anyone cared about was what shoes people were going to wear for a run. Simpler times...

    Ah yes, I miss 2 weeks ago......simpler times.


Advertisement