• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

You are viewing page of 4.

Discussion Forum >>

International-conference-of-athletics-excellence
Reply to topic Go to last post
Avatar
Anonymous
Posts: 54188
thumbs_up 4
Report  ORIGINAL

Anonymous said 3 months ago

The Olympic Marathon Trials

Show Original Post
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #76 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    What could Reid have run, in his prime, with the Vapourflys.? It must grind at him a little.

    Quote comment
  • rsb3 User since:
    May 5th, 2015
    Posts: 110
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #77 

    rsb3 said 1 month ago

    Congratulations to Alan and the rest of the crew for putting on another great event. Huge congrats. to Trevor and Dayna for running fast and making our Olympic team. Also, big ups to Tristan and Emily and many other Canadians who ran well today ! Now, who knows who the top finishers were, in either the overall or the Canadian results, who were NOT wearing Nike racing flats, whether the Vaporfly or the Next, or whatever the latest edition is ?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #78 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: rsb3
    "Congratulations to Alan and the rest of the crew for putting on another great event. Huge congrats. to Trevor and Dayna for running fast and making our Olympic team. Also, big ups to Tristan and Emily and many other Canadians who ran well today ! Now, who knows who the top finishers were, in either the overall or the Canadian results, who were NOT wearing Nike racing flats, whether the Vaporfly or the Next, or whatever the latest edition is ?"


    Exactly

    Quote comment
  • oldlegs User since:
    May 1st, 2006
    Posts: 60
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #79 

    oldlegs said 1 month ago

    Great races today, with perhaps the best conditions in the last 25 years (and I have been there every year)....

    Dayna and Emily were simply amazing. I wish Elmore got to the start line, as I heard her workouts were off the charts before her hamstring tweaked. That would have been epic.

    Hofbauer and Woodfine were off the charts, and the way Cam held on at 2:09-high pace to 33k gives me hope he will get the standard. He looked a bit rusty out there, but I think he has a fast one in him soon.

    I do have to say, watching Preisner was incredibly impressive. At 18 km he went by me and he looked so easy. He was right with the leaders of the marathon and looked like he belonged there. The marathon is another beast, but I really hope he makes the jump up sooner rather than later.

    And, although I follow the sport fairly closely, who the heck is Josh Griffiths? 2.15-low. Wow. Nice.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #80 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    A decent number of open top finishers wearing Adidas flats.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #81 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: oldlegs
    “And, although I follow the sport fairly closely, who the heck is Josh Griffiths? 2.15-low. Wow. Nice."


    Welsh guy. He shows up as Canadian in certain results but that is an error

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #82 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Could the announcers on the webcast mentioned the humidity a few more times? Good god man it was perfect running weather. Boys you better check what the temps and humidity were in Doha and what they will be in Japan.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #83 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: rsb3
    "Now, who knows who the top finishers were, in either the overall or the Canadian results, who were NOT wearing Nike racing flats, whether the Vaporfly or the Next, or whatever the latest edition is ?"


    People need to stop with this. Should hockey players go back to wooden sticks? Should we all run on cinder tracks? Use bamboo pole vault poles? Sports equipment evolves and as a result records are broken. Nike is NOT the only company with a carbon plate in it. And while the VapourNexT%whatevers are expensive, paying $350-400 for a shoe (vs $200) is not going to break the bank so much that they aren't realistically available to all. This is the new normal.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #84 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "Evan had an off day, the talent is there. He will run a fast one.....

    Build others up, don't talk sh#t"


    First comment yes: as Hofbauer and Pidhoresky showed, the marathon is not a linear event.

    Second comment: grow up. The comment about Evan was accurate, the half marathon is NOT the marathon. It's not a slight to Evan it's an accurate assesment of the difficulty in predicting marathons.

    Quote comment
  • jlofranco User since:
    Apr 17th, 2014
    Posts: 36
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #85 

    jlofranco said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "To make it on Canadian teams for the marathon you essentially need money or funding. You need to be able to pay for Nikes unless you happen to be sponsored by them, for treatments/rehab to keep you healthy and to be able to cover costs to travel abroad for races."


    Haha this comment looks worse than my Rory prediction now. x2

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 19
    Report    REPLY #86 

    biomechanics said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "People need to stop with this. Should hockey players go back to wooden sticks? Should we all run on cinder tracks? Use bamboo pole vault poles? Sports equipment evolves and as a result records are broken. Nike is NOT the only company with a carbon plate in it. And while the VapourNexT%whatevers are expensive, paying $350-400 for a shoe (vs $200) is not going to break the bank so much that they aren't realistically available to all. This is the new normal."



    It's true that other companies are developing equivalent shoes, or already have shoes that have similar "checklist" features. However, the reason why the Nike 4% (and subsequent iterations) is improves efficiency in such an unprecedented fashion (~4%+ over the next best flat, the Adios Boost) is the geometry.

    Essentially, by making the stack height (sole thickness) very large, Nike buys more real estate to create a very effective "spring" by layering plates that are curved and using different high return foams layers. Some of this is from material innovation (low density foams that deform a lot while returning almost all the energy input into them with each footfall), but a lot of it is from optimizing the physical construction. For comparison, the Nike 4% has a stack height of >35mm, while most mainstream racing flats are ~20-25mm. A hefty shoe may have up to 30mm. It's not the plates or foam specifically, but how they are implemented in the vertical space (layers, curvature). If we limit stack height to 30mm, the 4% and its equivalents die.

    If we're fine with that, then there's just going to be an arm's race between companies with increasing stack heights (until the point of diminishing returns where the stack height is so high that it has a negative implication on biomechanics).

    When all the companies do the same thing, we'll have just shifted all of our results by -4-5% in economy and everyone will be in the same relative position at the elite level. What have we really achieved in doing this? Do we really want to be like other rich white people gated sports like triathlon and cycling where equipment really matters and exists as a barrier to entry at the elite level? To be clear, the "efficiency" of modern racing flats (prior to Nike 4%) was within the noise of data, so most likely wearing a shoe from the 80s wouldn't be much different. Advances in performances since then have mostly come from improved understanding of physiology/training and sneakier, more optimal doping (sadly).

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2576
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #87 

    Oldster said 1 month ago

    Quoting: biomechanics
    "It's true that other companies are developing equivalent shoes, or already have shoes that have similar "checklist" features. However, the reason why the Nike 4% (and subsequent iterations) is improves efficiency in such an unprecedented fashion (~4%+ over the next best flat, the Adios Boost) is the geometry.

    Essentially, by making the stack height (sole thickness) very large, Nike buys more real estate to create a very effective "spring" by layering plates that are curved and using different high return foams layers. Some of this is from material innovation (low density foams that deform a lot while returning almost all the energy input into them with each footfall), but a lot of it is from optimizing the physical construction. For comparison, the Nike 4% has a stack height of >35mm, while most mainstream racing flats are ~20-25mm. A hefty shoe may have up to 30mm. It's not the plates or foam specifically, but how they are implemented in the vertical space (layers, curvature). If we limit stack height to 30mm, the 4% and its equivalents die.

    If we're fine with that, then there's just going to be an arm's race between companies with increasing stack heights (until the point of diminishing returns where the stack height is so high that it has a negative implication on biomechanics).

    When all the companies do the same thing, we'll have just shifted all of our results by -4-5% in economy and everyone will be in the same relative position at the elite level. What have we really achieved in doing this? Do we really want to be like other rich white people gated sports like triathlon and cycling where equipment really matters and exists as a barrier to entry at the elite level? To be clear, the "efficiency" of modern racing flats (prior to Nike 4%) was within the noise of data, so most likely wearing a shoe from the 80s wouldn't be much different. Advances in performances since then have mostly come from improved understanding of physiology/training and sneakier, more optimal doping (sadly)."


    Just wanted to say, this is too good a post to make anonymously. Please register, preferably in your own name!

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #88 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: biomechanics
    "It's true that other companies are developing equivalent shoes, or already have shoes that have similar "checklist" features. However, the reason why the Nike 4% (and subsequent iterations) is improves efficiency in such an unprecedented fashion (~4%+ over the next best flat, the Adios Boost) is the geometry.

    Essentially, by making the stack height (sole thickness) very large, Nike buys more real estate to create a very effective "spring" by layering plates that are curved and using different high return foams layers. Some of this is from material innovation (low density foams that deform a lot while returning almost all the energy input into them with each footfall), but a lot of it is from optimizing the physical construction. For comparison, the Nike 4% has a stack height of >35mm, while most mainstream racing flats are ~20-25mm. A hefty shoe may have up to 30mm. It's not the plates or foam specifically, but how they are implemented in the vertical space (layers, curvature). If we limit stack height to 30mm, the 4% and its equivalents die.

    If we're fine with that, then there's just going to be an arm's race between companies with increasing stack heights (until the point of diminishing returns where the stack height is so high that it has a negative implication on biomechanics).

    When all the companies do the same thing, we'll have just shifted all of our results by -4-5% in economy and everyone will be in the same relative position at the elite level. What have we really achieved in doing this? Do we really want to be like other rich white people gated sports like triathlon and cycling where equipment really matters and exists as a barrier to entry at the elite level? To be clear, the "efficiency" of modern racing flats (prior to Nike 4%) was within the noise of data, so most likely wearing a shoe from the 80s wouldn't be much different. Advances in performances since then have mostly come from improved understanding of physiology/training and sneakier, more optimal doping (sadly)."


    Sure, but that's still analogous to hockey where everyone's shot is now as hard or harder as Al Macinnis' once was. Goalie equipment also got larger. I don't believe that the difference in price of racing shoes is really going to make marathon running a "gated" sport anymore than it already is. First, the price is likely to go down as companies compete and create their own equally good versions. Second, the stack height is going to have a limit beyond which it's not actually useful to raise it, so it's not like this is going to go on forever. Third, as far as I know most people don't train in these shoes as well, so the larger cost of shoes is still within the normal range. And finally if we are talking about elites, well, they don't pay for their shoes anyway. For those on the fringe of breaking through, investing in a pair of 4% is worth it and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. I mean, I don't know his personal financial situation, but from his blog, it appears Hofbauer works in a running store. So maybe he gets them at cost? But anyway, as much as these shoes ARE different, the noise is more about people being afraid of something new than any real inherent unfairness.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #89 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: biomechanics
    "It's true that other companies are developing equivalent shoes, or already have shoes that have similar "checklist" features. However, the reason why the Nike 4% (and subsequent iterations) is improves efficiency in such an unprecedented fashion (~4%+ over the next best flat, the Adios Boost) is the geometry.

    Essentially, by making the stack height (sole thickness) very large, Nike buys more real estate to create a very effective "spring" by layering plates that are curved and using different high return foams layers. Some of this is from material innovation (low density foams that deform a lot while returning almost all the energy input into them with each footfall), but a lot of it is from optimizing the physical construction. For comparison, the Nike 4% has a stack height of >35mm, while most mainstream racing flats are ~20-25mm. A hefty shoe may have up to 30mm. It's not the plates or foam specifically, but how they are implemented in the vertical space (layers, curvature). If we limit stack height to 30mm, the 4% and its equivalents die.

    If we're fine with that, then there's just going to be an arm's race between companies with increasing stack heights (until the point of diminishing returns where the stack height is so high that it has a negative implication on biomechanics).

    When all the companies do the same thing, we'll have just shifted all of our results by -4-5% in economy and everyone will be in the same relative position at the elite level. What have we really achieved in doing this? Do we really want to be like other rich white people gated sports like triathlon and cycling where equipment really matters and exists as a barrier to entry at the elite level? To be clear, the "efficiency" of modern racing flats (prior to Nike 4%) was within the noise of data, so most likely wearing a shoe from the 80s wouldn't be much different. Advances in performances since then have mostly come from improved understanding of physiology/training and sneakier, more optimal doping (sadly)."



    ok then i guess hoka will have to also can the carbon x and their entire gimmicky line of moon shoes while they're at it

    Quote comment
  • ahutch User since:
    Feb 21st, 2011
    Posts: 256
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #90 

    ahutch said 1 month ago

    Quoting: biomechanics
    "To be clear, the "efficiency" of modern racing flats (prior to Nike 4%) was within the noise of data, so most likely wearing a shoe from the 80s wouldn't be much different."


    I'll quibble with this a bit. There's a difference between a measurement that's hard to separate from the noise and a measurement that's actually zero. Way back in the early 2000s, Adidas's ProPlate (a carbon fibre plate that Geb wore in his first marathon world record) had peer-reviewed data from the University of Calgary suggesting a 1% improvement in running economy. People mostly ignored that, because the noise in measurements of running economy is of a similar magnitude, so you couldn't be sure the effect was real. Similarly, when Adidas's Boost foam was launched, a few different studies found a 1% improvement, which most people again ignored. And their second-generation Boost had a similar gain along with a reduction in mass that provided yet another 1% improvement in running economy.

    Individually, each of those improvements could be dismissed as "within the noise." But that doesn't mean the benefit was zero, it just means we didn't have sufficiently precise measurements to be sure of it. When Nike came along and added those three elements together (carbon plate, ultra-resilient foam, lighter weight), plus tweaked the geometry and thickness, they ended up with 4% -- a result that could no longer be waved away as noise or fluke (though plenty of people tried to do exactly that when the shoe was released).

    So to me, I look back and conclude that those measurements of the individual components were real. The plate helped, the better cushioning materials helped, etc. There's a reason that runners in Adidas shoes set five consecutive marathon world records between 2007 and 2014: those shoes were the fastest in the world at the time, featuring first a carbon plate and then the Boost foam. And personally, I'd say those shoes WERE demonstrably better than "a shoe from the 80s."

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 964
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #91 

    Meizner said 1 month ago

    Quoting: ahutch
    "I'll quibble with this a bit. There's a difference between a measurement that's hard to separate from the noise and a measurement that's actually zero. Way back in the early 2000s, Adidas's ProPlate (a carbon fibre plate that Geb wore in his first marathon world record) had peer-reviewed data from the University of Calgary suggesting a 1% improvement in running economy. People mostly ignored that, because the noise in measurements of running economy is of a similar magnitude, so you couldn't be sure the effect was real. Similarly, when Adidas's Boost foam was launched, a few different studies found a 1% improvement, which most people again ignored. And their second-generation Boost had a similar gain along with a reduction in mass that provided yet another 1% improvement in running economy.

    Individually, each of those improvements could be dismissed as "within the noise." But that doesn't mean the benefit was zero, it just means we didn't have sufficiently precise measurements to be sure of it. When Nike came along and added those three elements together (carbon plate, ultra-resilient foam, lighter weight), plus tweaked the geometry and thickness, they ended up with 4% -- a result that could no longer be waved away as noise or fluke (though plenty of people tried to do exactly that when the shoe was released).

    So to me, I look back and conclude that those measurements of the individual components were real. The plate helped, the better cushioning materials helped, etc. There's a reason that runners in Adidas shoes set five consecutive marathon world records between 2007 and 2014: those shoes were the fastest in the world at the time, featuring first a carbon plate and then the Boost foam. And personally, I'd say those shoes WERE demonstrably better than "a shoe from the 80s.""



    Interesting. Not to geek out too much out in the open here, but what was the basis of the concern about the early adidas studies? Was it that they saw a 'trend' of a small effect (e.g. 1% effect size but wide confidence intervals and p-value>0.05)) but were not sufficiently powered to detect such a small difference? Or, were they just dismissed as likely 'false positive' significant p-values given small sample size/ exploratory nature?

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 964
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #92 

    Meizner said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Meizner
    "Interesting. Not to geek out too much out in the open here, but what was the basis of the concern about the early adidas studies? Was it that they saw a 'trend' of a small effect (e.g. 1% effect size but wide confidence intervals and p-value>0.05)) but were not sufficiently powered to detect such a small difference? Or, were they just dismissed as likely 'false positive' significant p-values given small sample size/ exploratory nature?"


    I would argue that the 'real world' data suggests that the shoes are about a 2-3 minute advantage. If you take Tergat/ Geb vs. Bekele/ Kipchoge, whose results on the track are all in the same narrow interval (possibly no confounding effects of shoes), and all had contemporary success at the 'thon, you could hypothesize that the difference between their best times may be related to the different access to shoes. If Geb (and Tergat?) had access to some 1% advantages here and there, you could hypothesize that the gap is more like 3-4 mintues if you take that 1% away.

    It also 'jives' with the fact that 2:03 is the new 2:06....

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #93 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Wasn't Jordan Hasay wearing the 4%er's in Chicago? How'd she do?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #94 

    Anonymous said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "Sure, but that's still analogous to hockey where everyone's shot is now as hard or harder as Al Macinnis' once was. Goalie equipment also got larger. I don't believe that the difference in price of racing shoes is really going to make marathon running a "gated" sport anymore than it already is. First, the price is likely to go down as companies compete and create their own equally good versions. Second, the stack height is going to have a limit beyond which it's not actually useful to raise it, so it's not like this is going to go on forever. Third, as far as I know most people don't train in these shoes as well, so the larger cost of shoes is still within the normal range. And finally if we are talking about elites, well, they don't pay for their shoes anyway. For those on the fringe of breaking through, investing in a pair of 4% is worth it and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. I mean, I don't know his personal financial situation, but from his blog, it appears Hofbauer works in a running store. So maybe he gets them at cost? But anyway, as much as these shoes ARE different, the noise is more about people being afraid of something new than any real inherent unfairness."


    Vapors are $250 USD. How much are top marathoners paying for their shoes? $150-$200 For an extra $100 don't you think everyone will be wearing them so the net benefit is lost.

    To say these shoes knock 3-5 minutes off the average time is premature. If it does next year they will coming out with 55 version and so forth.
    Are women faster if they wear butt huggers versus shorts?

    It's not the equipment or clothing guys.

    Quote comment
  • ahutch User since:
    Feb 21st, 2011
    Posts: 256
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #95 

    ahutch said 1 month ago

    Quoting: Meizner
    "Interesting. Not to geek out too much out in the open here, but what was the basis of the concern about the early adidas studies? Was it that they saw a 'trend' of a small effect (e.g. 1% effect size but wide confidence intervals and p-value>0.05)) but were not sufficiently powered to detect such a small difference? Or, were they just dismissed as likely 'false positive' significant p-values given small sample size/ exploratory nature?"


    At the time, most people (including me) just ignored the results because (a) no one figured shoes really made much difference beyond weight, (b) the relationship between running economy and racing speed wasn't clear, and (c) most of the studies were funded by the shoe-makers. It's really only in retrospect, once people were trying to explain why the Nike shoes were clearly wrong but earlier "performance-boosting" shoes were fine, that people started downplaying the reliability of those earlier results. It's been particularly amusing to hear Adidas-affiliated people suddenly start insisting their earlier research was unreliable and their shoes weren't really *that* good.

    The U of C study on carbon fiber plates in 2006 had a p value of 0.014, with 11 of 13 subjects showing better economy in the experimental shoe. Given the small n, it's entirely reasonable remain on the fence about what this means. But in light of subsequent findings with nearly identical plates, I'm inclined to suspect they got it more or less right.

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 964
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #96 

    Meizner said 1 month ago

    Quoting: ahutch
    "At the time, most people (including me) just ignored the results because (a) no one figured shoes really made much difference beyond weight, (b) the relationship between running economy and racing speed wasn't clear, and (c) most of the studies were funded by the shoe-makers. It's really only in retrospect, once people were trying to explain why the Nike shoes were clearly wrong but earlier "performance-boosting" shoes were fine, that people started downplaying the reliability of those earlier results. It's been particularly amusing to hear Adidas-affiliated people suddenly start insisting their earlier research was unreliable and their shoes weren't really *that* good.

    The U of C study on carbon fiber plates in 2006 had a p value of 0.014, with 11 of 13 subjects showing better economy in the experimental shoe. Given the small n, it's entirely reasonable remain on the fence about what this means. But in light of subsequent findings with nearly identical plates, I'm inclined to suspect they got it more or less right."


    Thanks for the informative synopsis. Seems like these results are reproducible with similar shoe designs and by different group, which, as you said, increases our confidence in those early results not being spurious.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 54188
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #97 

    biomechanics said 1 month ago

    Quoting: ahutch
    "I'll quibble with this a bit. There's a difference between a measurement that's hard to separate from the noise and a measurement that's actually zero. Way back in the early 2000s, Adidas's ProPlate (a carbon fibre plate that Geb wore in his first marathon world record) had peer-reviewed data from the University of Calgary suggesting a 1% improvement in running economy. People mostly ignored that, because the noise in measurements of running economy is of a similar magnitude, so you couldn't be sure the effect was real. Similarly, when Adidas's Boost foam was launched, a few different studies found a 1% improvement, which most people again ignored. And their second-generation Boost had a similar gain along with a reduction in mass that provided yet another 1% improvement in running economy.

    ""



    Thanks for your response! I'm a big fan of yours, so it's awesome to receive some criticism from you. I was perhaps a bit hasty to say "within the noise," as it is true that carbon fiber plates (even relatively flat ones) within shoes do likely give a small edge. I have read the UofC study (in which they did the modification themselves based on a control/existing Nike racing flat).

    I would perhaps refine to say that the small advantage given by the modern but pre-4% shoes over a "random 80s racing flat" is small enough (and has been around for so long, as you correctly point out) that I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about from a regulatory standpoint. Once we start talking about >4% differences in economy, that starts to really change the character of the sport IMHO, especially if the "new" shoes create a class divide.

    At the very least, from a subjective point of view, I can't really tell much difference between wearing the Adios Boost over the other (non 4%) racing flats that I also wear. There is probably a slight measurable difference in my economy when wearing the Adios, but it's not enough to tip the scales in my purchasing decisions (would buy another shoe if it's not available, if there's a sale, if I find another shoe more comfortable etc.). A 4% difference in economy has certainly tipped the scales - people are willing to walk away from sponsorships for it. That to me, signals that we should be putting some limits on shoe design.

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitahutch User since:
    Feb 21st, 2011
    Posts: 256
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #98 

    ahutch said 1 month ago

    Quoting: biomechanics
    "I would perhaps refine to say that the small advantage given by the modern but pre-4% shoes over a "random 80s racing flat" is small enough (and has been around for so long, as you correctly point out) that I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about from a regulatory standpoint."


    Yeah, I agree. I'm in favour of some sort of regulation too--probably a stack height limit would make most sense and be easiest to implement. You obviously understand the context and the various issues. The only reason I decided to push back a bit is that a lot of people are painting this as a black-and-white issue: the Vaporfly improves performance and other shoes never did; the carbon fibre plate is clearly cheating that we would never tolerate; etc. etc. I think it's important to acknowledge that shoes have been steadily improving performance for years, and the means by which the Vaporfly improves performance (plate, foam, stack) have ALL been implemented individually by numerous shoe companies over the years with nary a peep of criticism. The reason the Vaporfly has sparked such pushback is simple: it works far better than any previous shoe has worked. And I totally agree that the magnitude of its advantage is skewing the competitive playing field, and thus we should introduce regulations to address that. But I find it a little tiresome when people (not you) grandstand about the cheating carbon plates, especially when those people run in shoes made by companies that had their own carbon fibre plates years before the Vaporfly.

    Quote comment
Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account

 

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1