13 ms·
How the Nike Vaporfly War Was Lost
- scottlegrand2 7y agoSeems like running shoe Luddism to me. I've been using Brooks PureFlow shoes for years. They just happen to be at the slowest running shoe ever created. I'm looking forward to what happens to my running times in Nike vapor fly shoes if only because I love technology. Good thing I never want to compete and I'm also oldAF.
- balls187 7y agoHow often do you purchase new running shoes, and retire the old ones?
- scottlegrand2 7y agoEvery thousand miles or so. Which is to say three times a year because I walk/run about 10 miles a day, which I once thought was original behavior, but see Nikolai Tesla.
- rconti 7y agoStrava tells me "experts recommend" replacing shoes at 300-500 miles. I've got about 6 pair of the same running shoes that I rotate through. I can definitely say the cushioning wears down at some point, but haven't retired enough shoes to say for sure when. Over 500 miles for me, typically, though sometimes I notice a pair I haven't worn in awhile bugs me, then forget about it. Then they turn into gym shoes, or carwash shoes, or...
- nicky0 7y agoHowever long it takes for the hole at the big toe to get too big.
- alistairSH 7y agoFWIW, I can generally start feeling a pair of shoes going off at about 300-400 miles. And I get more prone to injury after 500-600. At this point, they are visibly worn and the foam is often visibly squished. The uppers are nowhere near worn out. If it’s a pair I like aesthetically, I’ll wear the casually for a lot longer.
- mrob 7y agoAgreed. The only limits should be for safety purposes. Allowing improvement is important, because the technology trickles down from elite athletes to ordinary runners and pedestrians. The faster the shoes, the more likely they are to use them, with great health and environmental benefits. I'd hate to see running tech crippled by regulation like the UCI did to cycling.
- all_blue_chucks 7y agoIf you keep adding technology to shoes eventually the high tech shoes will become something different entirely. For example, imagine the bottom of your shoes had something like tank treads or rectilinear (snake-like) sections on the bottom propelling you forward using stored energy while you run. Are you still competing in the same sport as someone without this tech? My point is there is definitely a line somewhere. "Springy" shoes like these Nikes might not be enough, but eventually we will need to define clearly where that line is.
- ultrarunner 7y agoImagine if your shoes had some sort of linear bearing system that would allow you to glide over the ground, preventing energy loss while allowing brief rest periods. I don't know if I can even satisfactorily define running itself on the spot, but I'm pretty sure I know it when I see it.
- hermitdev 7y agoI think you could succinctly define running as a motion similar to walking, except only one foot has contavt with the ground at the time.
- XMPPwocky 7y agoAnd, ultimately, what is a bicycle but a very efficient pair of running shoes?
- gherkinnn 7y agoLots of equipment-intensive sports like cycling fair well enough with regulations. It’s just a shame that a pure a sport such as running is being hit by a similar arms race.
- francisofascii 7y agoI commend the innovation involved in this shoe, but I wish this shoe did not exist. If you buy the shoe you are buying an advantage, but if you don't, you risk getting passed by those who do. With Boston qualifying times getting faster each year, people on the bubble will have no choice. With a cost of $250 and a shoe that only lasts two or three races, running got more expensive.
- draw_down 7y agoI suppose the cost is a good point, but I don't see a reason to have a problem with it besides that. Other modern shoes would probably represent an "unfair" advantage when compared with shoes from previous years. The easiest way to remove this variable, of course, would be to hold bare-foot races. But then, what about the shorts and the tank tops...
- alistairSH 7y agoIt sounds like the correct approach was eventually selected - set boundaries for what a shoe "is" - sole thickness, etc - and ban prototypes from competition. The first limits tech progress somewhat, but also ensures all sponsoring companies have a fair shot. The second ensures that less affluent nations and non-contracted athletes have a fair shot. Cycling has similar rules - World Tour riders must ride bikes that meet a laundry list of criteria (double-triangle frame, saddle placement in relation to pedals to limit aero, etc) and all equipment must be available retail. Within those boundaries, innovation still occurs - material tech, aero testing, etc all happen, just within a smaller defined set of rules.
- asah 7y agoproblem: pre-release shoes favor a tiny number of already-famous athletes proposed solution: athletes must use gear that's been GA for N years (5?), i.e. enough time to profuse into the market and for competitors to catch up. problem: wealthy athletes have an unfair advantage over less wealthy athletes. proposed solution: only allowed to use gear whose total price is below X. (street price? list price? I'm sure there's a solution...)
- sailfast 7y ago“All runners shall be barefoot” is the only natural solution to the argument, as the problem is posed if I’m reading this correctly. Swimming’s handling of the sharkskin suits is likely a good precedent for a rational settling of the argument, perhaps?
- yters 7y agoLet's just go back to naked athletics like the good old days of Grecian olympics.
- actusual 7y agoI think if someone is so good that the obstacle between them and a world record (or even placing in the top X%) is just a piece of gear, then they are likely to be sponsored. That calculus is easy for the shoe manufacturers. If you can give someone a pair of shoes, and have them perform in the top 10% of every athlete in that sport, you do that all day. Where that cutoff point is is kind of up to the manufacturer. Unfortunately, there will always be people on the bubble, whether it's from an equipment affordability perspective, or performance. It's still true with your solution. Additionally, the more rules you impose, the weirder shoe manufacturer behavior gets.
- gnopgnip 7y agoThe new rule for the Olympics is being GA for four months
- nimbius 7y agoChrist. Of all the litany of legitimate charges against the 36 billion dollar shoe company Nike, this feels absolutely comical. We basically slept through 35 years of sweatshops and child labor --and the Paradise papers tax evasion scandal-- to hand Nike free advertisement for their shoes that are too fast. This is not a scandal, its cheap advertising.
- rhacker 7y agoYeah I was going to say, normally the only people that see the performance of a shoe are spectators of the sport. Now everyone gets to know about Vaporfly and how awesome they are.
- gorgoiler 7y agoI don’t mind what anyone wears as long as you can buy a pair for $49 and run 1000 miles in them. What’s not cool is it being acceptable to use $250 to buy ones way into success, and it’s even less cool teaching the kids that money is required for attaining goals. Goodness knows they are under enough pressure on that front as it is. Perhaps a World Rally Championship style homologation, but where shoe manufacturers have to show they’ve sold X thousand pairs at Y multiples of the local Big Mac price, as proof of availability to general public at a price that doesn’t promote consumerist elitism. But where’s the profit in that?
- cbhl 7y agoThe obvious workaround to that regulation would be to make tweaks but try to call it the same shoe for certification reasons. Like, say, the Boeing 737.
- keanzu 7y ago> World Rally Championship style Such an odd example to choose. World Rally Cars are built on production 1.6-litre four-cylinder cars, but feature turbochargers, anti-lag systems, four-wheel-drive, sequential gearboxes, aerodynamic parts and other enhancements bringing the price of a WRC car to around US$1 million. Only $250 to have the exact same shoes as Eliud Kipchoge, wow!
- gorgoiler 7y agoWhen I was a teenager the “555” Impreza WRC seemed reasonably priced for consumers to buy. But the point was about homologation — competing with products that are general available to amateurs — ensuring accessibility to the sport. Rally driving is indeed pretty niche, so the entry fee for wannabe drivers being the cost of a reasonably specialist mass produced car seems fair. For running: the audience is wider and the cost should be lower. Race organizers that put a price cap on equipment help to hold back the tide of performance being affected by gear instead of grit.
- ThinkBeat 7y agoAs a now-former long-distance runner, you can buy any damn shoe you want and it wont make you run 40K. Hard work, dedication, sweat, pain, and perhaps a little genetic blessing can get you there over time. There is no magic here. but yes the right shoe, apparently, might give you an advantage but then you must already be running at a very high level.
- Zimahl 7y agoIt's an interesting conundrum - where does skill end and technology pick up the slack? This has played out so many places from the speedsuits in competitive swimming, to space-age materials used for baseball bats and golf clubs, and now running shoes. While these things probably won't help the average Joe much, even a minute change at the top end can mean the difference between millions of dollars in winnings and sponsorships.
- keanzu 7y ago> won't help the average Joe much Exactly, it's only a 4% edge. That's going to take my marathon time all the way from DNF right down to the amazing pace of DNF. > difference between millions of dollars in winnings and sponsorships. Worth the the $250 investment then.
- mikestew 7y agoMy problem with the complains of the Vaporfly is that we're not talking a few extra million F1 dollars just to stay competitive, or a $10K bicycle, or even a $500 tennis racket. Vaporflys are $250. In the world of competitive anything, that's cheap, and only about twice the price of regular racing flats. Add a $50 pair of shorts and a shirt, hey, the only reason you're not setting world records is because you suck, not because of your equipment. So if the shoes make a difference, tear up that Adidas contract and go run for Nike. Or go tell your current shoe sponsor to get off their arse and make a competitive shoe.
- compiler-guy 7y agoVaporflys are only good for 2-3 races, so if you run competitively, you are looking at six pairs a year or so. Which is quite a bit more than $250.
- wazoox 7y agoStill a far-cry even from a proper competition bicycle.
- headsoup 7y agoThe problem is not how much they cost, it's the clear and demonstrated competitive advantage. Basically, unless you use these shoes (or competition catches up), you are disadvantaged, unrelated to ability. And before you say 'but bikes,' cycling has always had a mechanical element. You might say that's just a competitive element, but then there needs to be a discussion about the point of the sports, human athleticism or human+technology? Sure, better shoes have always provided some advantage, but it's now clear there's a point where the capability of the athletes peaks and it moves (further) into a technology competition. I feel like we're heading towards transhumanism discussions, perhaps it's time to do so.
- compiler-guy 7y agoWhich is even further from a proper competition F1 racecar. But the two sports end up being very different.
- blang 7y agoone of the reasons that swimming records have continued to fall is they changed other rules to make swim faster while enacting stricter rules on suites. There is now a wedge on swimming blocks that allow for faster starts (a little like track starting blocks) They have also changed the breaststroke turn rule to allow for a dolphin kick.
- Lramseyer 7y agoI was always torn about the implications of Vaporflys. I can respect the fact that they skew the competition, but how is this any different than cycling? Pay a ton of money to reduce drag coefficient, moment of angular inertia, and weight to maximize energy return. The article even points out similarities in midsole thickness, ZoomX foam, and the Carbon fiber plate with other previous shoes that were completely legal with the IAAF. I love my Vaporflys and I run noticeably faster in them, but I think the most underrated thing about them is that they're way softer on the joints, and greatly improve running stability. They have the potential to make running safer and more accessible. Personally, I'd rather see more people maintaining and improving their fitness than some legacy goal post.
- uberduper 7y agoCycling wouldn't exist without the mechanical component. Performance of that component is an integral part of the sport.
- hermitdev 7y agoThere are also stringent restrictions on the mechanical components from the governing body, UCI. edit: wrong acronym
- Cyclone_ 7y agoIt's that running has never before seen one company get this far ahead of others and it historically been more egalitarian than cycling.
- bo1024 7y agoA lot of people with tech backgrounds seem pretty pro-Vaporfly. As a (former?) competitive runner you might find my anti-Vaporfly perspective interesting. To me, running is a non-mechanically-aided sport. The moment a shoe attempts to store and return mechanical energy in the stride, to me, that's a different sport. We already know that people can go faster and farther with mechanical aid, if you use big enough springs on your feet. Look at the discussion around Pistorius' blades. Let alone something like putting wheels on your shoes. So we know from first principles that there's going to be some limit to the mechanical advantage that footwear is allowed to provide. The only question is where to draw the line. Now you could draw the line at providing any mechanical advantage at all, and keep the sport the same as it's been since the dawn of time. Or you could draw the line a little bit farther along, making the sport partially about the runner and partially about the technology. I see no coherent reason to do the latter, except for shoe companies' profits. It hurts the fairness of the sport, it takes a bunch of fun out of it, it transfers a whole bunch of money from a previously-dirt-cheap sport to the shoe companies, etc.
- eigenschwarz 7y agoIf there were no shoes (and hence no shoe sponsor money) of any sort, who would pay for the sport? I say this as a former pro cyclist who whole-heartedly agrees with you in principle. However, there is already hardly any money in pro running how it is. Whether that is a good or bad thing for society is another issue.
- prostheticvamp 7y ago> If there were no shoes (and hence no shoe sponsor money) of any sort, who would pay for the sport? I assume this means that major , public competitions would diminish in popularity, and fewer people pursuing the sport as a job would choose that sport. I’m failing to see how either of those is objectively bad, though.
- bo1024 7y agoI'm just suggesting we keep the status quo as it was up till 2015ish. Plenty of room for sponsorship by shoe companies and others.
- Simulacra 7y agoI'm torn because I can see both sides. On the one hand, yay technology. On the other, as a former competitive cyclist, I understand why it's important to keep it grounded in the basics. I was unhappy when bicycle racing quickly adopted the electronic shifting - I felt that was a step away from the bicycle's original design. Just felt wrong.
- aledalgrande 7y agoI can attest that running on a thick plated pair of shoes like the Zoom Fly SP I had is exhilarating, especially after training in other "normal" shoes. I see how the competition should measure athleticism and not a sponsor/athlete unit, but all recent records have been broken because of technology, let's be honest. I suggest you watch this TEDx for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0
- minxomat 7y agoBTW here are some pictures and more details on the Alphafly Next%: https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30783617/nike-alphafly-next-percent/ https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30783617/nike-alphafly-ne... Released 2 days after the rule change.
- coding123 7y agoThat whole Next% feels like they named it due to a email software glitch that didn't replace a variable name. lol
- Cyclone_ 7y agoFrom a triathlete's perspective it's interesting to watch this, since bike technology has become quite more advanced over the years, whereas running has not improved as much. Of course there's much more that goes into the bike and components than what goes into a running shoe. The UCI does have regulations around the frame where the manufacturers have to meet those standards. But those standards are mostly related to safety, whereas the IAAF standards that were recently imposed are more related to making a level playing field.
- robocat 7y agoArtificial imitations on technology just ruin things. Make the rules something along the lines of making sure that the shoes are available to all: * Must be commercially available to all competitors * Must have been available for 6 months and have had minimum sales of say 5000 units more than 3 months ago * Price must be below $250 to allow all competitors to buy them * Some limitations to customisation
- sorenjan 7y agoSo you would be ok with running races being won not necessarily by the best runners, but by the racers with the best tech? Would you be ok with any of these? How about other sports, like jumping events, or basketball? I don't see anything wrong with rules limiting technology to keep a sport as it's supposed to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WnbD0YVAlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WnbD0YVAlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IpV0C6icY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IpV0C6icY
- Broken_Hippo 7y agoIn the first one: So long as they are available to the general public (easily!) and meet the other guidelines: Sure. They are still obviously shoes. Runners would choose which tech they want to go with and since there are price restraints and rules about them being available to everyone for months, I don't see an issue. The sport is going to look the same to everyone else. It isn't going to change anything: It isn't like professional runners are going to be using cheap, bottom-of-the-line running shoes any more than a swimmer is going to wear baggy swimming shorts. I don't mind customizing shoes based on activity and weight and so on. In your second example, he isn't testing shoes. His shoes are still on his feet as he uses the things. Obviously those wouldn't be left in running because you aren't really running. I'd understand much more if we were talking about amputees, and then it would really depend on how it compares to two-legged folks doing things (I don't know the advantage/disadvantage compares here).
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoThe exact same controversy happened a few years ago in competitive swimming when those full-body suits were causing world records to get annihilated. I like the solution that FINA put in place: only jammers (thigh-length shorts) are now allowed. Because the argument is that if the difference between two top level athletes is just their shoes or their swimsuits, what's the point of the competition anyway? I mean, a swimmer would also be a lot faster if they wore fins, but then what's the point? Why not just create a more level playing field in running where the shoe technology shouldn't matter.
- jccalhoun 7y agoIt seems like pretty much all sports have rules that limit how much technology can improve performance. I have always though it would be fun to do a mythbusters-style show that tried to see just how much faster/farther/longer people could go with no limits on mechanical aids (as long as there weren't motors). So how far could you hit a golf ball if there were no rules on how the club or the ball were made, how fast could someone swim if there were no rules on what you could wear, etc.
- tromp 7y agoTo me this comes down to answering "what is the simplest possible definition of a shoe?" A shoe could be anything without moving parts that attaches to your foot. No moving parts rules out skates. Foot attachment (below ankle only) rules out jumping stilts. Does this definition allow for any shoes that feel like obvious cheats?
- boublepop 7y agoIt rules out all modern shoes. And you’d have to make new ones out of concrete or thick metals. Though wooden clogs would likely be ok, though I doubt you’d want to run in those.
- todd8 7y agoThis reminds me of a great passage in Ray Bradbury's Dandelion Wine; I remember reading it 50 years ago! It captured the feelings I had about getting a new pair of shoes, the main character is musing over how to explain to his dad why he needs new shoes: > Somehow the people who made tennis shoes knew what boys needed and wanted. They put marshmallows and coiled springs in the soles and they wove the rest out of grasses bleached and fired in the wilderness. Somewhere deep in the soft loam of the shoes the thin hard sinews of the buck deer were hidden. The people that made the shoes must have watched a lot of winds blow the trees and a lot of rivers going down to the lakes. Whatever it was, it was in the shoes, and it was summer. > Douglas tried to get all this in words. > "Yes," said Father, "but what's wrong with last year's sneakers? Why can't you dig them out of the closet?" > Well, he felt sorry for boys who lived in California where they wore tennis shoes all year and never knew what it was to get winter off your feet, peel off the iron leather shoes all full of snow and rain and run barefoot for a day and then lace on the first new tennis shoes of the season, which was better than barefoot. The magic was always in the new pair of shoes. The magic might die by the first of September, but now in late June there was still plenty of magic, and shoes like these could jump you over trees and rivers and houses. And if you wanted, they could jump you over fences and sidewalks and dogs. > "Don't you see?" said Douglas. "I just can't use last year's pair." > For last year's pair were dead inside. They had been fine when he started them out, last year. But by the end of summer, every year, you always found out, you always knew, you couldn't really jump over rivers and trees and houses in them, and they were dead. But this was a new year, and he felt that this time, with this new pair of shoes, he could do anything, anything at all. So, yes, I want the new shoes.
- mensetmanusman 7y agoAs a materials scientist, it is sad to see athletics ban technology improvements. Similar to how automakers are able to test new technology with luxury buyers, and how the technology eventually reaches the masses; it would be great to consider elite (luxury) athletics a human+technology element. There are a lot of technologies that companies are unwilling to try if there is not a mass market. You need the elite performers to create a mass market and be a testing ground for performance/health enhancement.