4 ms·

My 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 $5

My 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 ago
Vaporflys 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 ago
  Still a far-cry even from a proper competition bicycle.
  - headsoup 7y ago
    The 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 ago
    Which is even further from a proper competition F1 racecar. But the two sports end up being very different.
  - hermitdev 7y ago
    I used to be an amateur road racing cyclist (no sponsorship or anything). The out of pocket expenses are not trivial. For a decent bike, looking around $5k and it won't even come with pedals. Pedals will set you back a moth $200-300. Shoes are around the same price. Mind you, this a little over entry level (you could probably get a bike in $2k range if you're talented enough). For serious professional racing, the costs can be quite a bit higher. High end bikes, especially time trial, can easily be $20k. Those are up front costs. Some of which are semi reoccurring. You put in enough miles, there are going to be accidents, you're going to go through tires and brakes. I dont recall what brake pads cost, but I think they were relatively cheap, like $15 per set. Racing tires were more expensive at $45 a piece. I used to go through at least 2 sets of tires per year, assuming no punctures. I'm also on my second road bike, after having been hit by a car on a training ride (car ran a stop sign and T-boned me). Thing about carbon fiber: you really cant repair it. You have to replace it. When I got hit by the car, it cracked the frame, bent both wheels, ruined the pedals, fucked up the shifters and handlebar; basically totalled the bike. Also, screwed up my +$200 shoes. So yeah, cycling is definitely more equipment intensive than even $300 running shoes. I also used to be a distance runner in high school, and replaced my shoes far too infrequently (basically only when my feet grew).
- keanzu 7y ago
  [Vaporfly] last about 150 miles for racing (important races) and further 400-600 miles for training. https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8908413 https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8908413
- catalogia 7y ago
  In competitive swimming, there have been expensive low durability swim suits that promise performance enhancement. There's nothing new under the sun.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Aren't the sharksuits banned in many contests? I mean, each sport basically throws arbitrary lines in the sand. You'll never get full consensus on which arbitrary lines are the right ones.
chrchr 7y ago
It's not exactly a matter of cost. The Vaporflys worn by top competitors are not off-the-shelf Vaporfly Next%, but rather are prototypes that aren't actually available on the market. The new regulations mandate that legal shoes must be on the market for at least six months so that all competitors have access.
- christoph 7y ago
  Yes, but I don’t believe it specifies how they have to be on the market. I say this because I listened to a running podcast a year or so back when they discussed these in depth, with somebody highly involved in trainer marketing. As long as they allow the public to buy them through a retail channel, I believe it ticks the box. So, they basically stick them on a no name web store, and deliberately describe them badly, so they are nigh on impossible to find to buy, but they are being sold to the public. The podcasters found this out, because somebody bought some random thing from a no name store and “accidentally” got these. The podcast for reference was “Bad Boy Running”, no idea which episode.
  - jontas 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that Nike's goal is actually to make it more difficult to buy shoes so they sell fewer?
    - midev 7y ago
      Sometimes, yes. This is common in sneakers. There are lots of limited releases that will retail for < $200, and then fetch thousands in the secondary sneaker market because of rarity. Getting a new sneaker on drop day is almost impossible. Nike just pulled its inventory from Amazon. They really do make it hard to buy shoes, so they sell fewer, but for oh so much more.
    - christoph 7y ago
      They are highly custom shoes for highly competitive athletes and for them to meet regulations they need to be sold (or available at least, as I understand) to the public. Marketing such items, that probably have a very limited usable lifespan, as well as being fairly custom fit, wouldn't make sense to market and sell to the general public. Nike make their real money through said athletes winning major events and the additional value it then adds to their overall brand. As an aside, the most expensive Nike's sold are the ones they make the least of.
cbHXBY1D 7y ago
Hoka One One Carbon Xs are currently all the rage in the running community (#1 trending shoe on Strava) and retail for much less. Similar technology to the vaporfly but more forgiving. I'm surprised no one has brought that up on here yet.
- rconti 7y ago
  We'll have to see the numbers. I bet the (US) olympic trials feb 29 will be interesting.
- sorenjan 7y ago
  Where do you see which shoes are trending on Strava? What does it even mean to be trending on Strava?
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    You can log the shoes you wore for any given run. And then you can see aggregate statistics for this across everyone's runs.
    - sorenjan 7y ago
      I know I can log the shoes I'm wearing, and when I look at other peoples activities I can see what shoes they used if they logged it, but where can I see the aggregated data and trending lists?
      - cbHXBY1D 7y ago
        They publish it at the end of every year. I remember seeing it on DC Rainmaker's site a month ago: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/12/fascinating-stravas-2019-annual-report.html https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/12/fascinating-stravas-2019...
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        You could scrape it, or buy a dataset from someone else who already has.

compiler-guy 7y ago

Vaporflys 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 ago
Still a far-cry even from a proper competition bicycle.
- headsoup 7y ago
  The 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 ago
  Which is even further from a proper competition F1 racecar. But the two sports end up being very different.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  I used to be an amateur road racing cyclist (no sponsorship or anything). The out of pocket expenses are not trivial. For a decent bike, looking around $5k and it won't even come with pedals. Pedals will set you back a moth $200-300. Shoes are around the same price. Mind you, this a little over entry level (you could probably get a bike in $2k range if you're talented enough). For serious professional racing, the costs can be quite a bit higher. High end bikes, especially time trial, can easily be $20k. Those are up front costs. Some of which are semi reoccurring. You put in enough miles, there are going to be accidents, you're going to go through tires and brakes. I dont recall what brake pads cost, but I think they were relatively cheap, like $15 per set. Racing tires were more expensive at $45 a piece. I used to go through at least 2 sets of tires per year, assuming no punctures. I'm also on my second road bike, after having been hit by a car on a training ride (car ran a stop sign and T-boned me). Thing about carbon fiber: you really cant repair it. You have to replace it. When I got hit by the car, it cracked the frame, bent both wheels, ruined the pedals, fucked up the shifters and handlebar; basically totalled the bike. Also, screwed up my +$200 shoes. So yeah, cycling is definitely more equipment intensive than even $300 running shoes. I also used to be a distance runner in high school, and replaced my shoes far too infrequently (basically only when my feet grew).
keanzu 7y ago
[Vaporfly] last about 150 miles for racing (important races) and further 400-600 miles for training. https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8908413 https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8908413
catalogia 7y ago
In competitive swimming, there have been expensive low durability swim suits that promise performance enhancement. There's nothing new under the sun.
- loeg 7y ago
  Aren't the sharksuits banned in many contests? I mean, each sport basically throws arbitrary lines in the sand. You'll never get full consensus on which arbitrary lines are the right ones.

chrchr 7y ago

It's not exactly a matter of cost. The Vaporflys worn by top competitors are not off-the-shelf Vaporfly Next%, but rather are prototypes that aren't actually available on the market. The new regulations mandate that legal shoes must be on the market for at least six months so that all competitors have access.

christoph 7y ago
Yes, but I don’t believe it specifies how they have to be on the market. I say this because I listened to a running podcast a year or so back when they discussed these in depth, with somebody highly involved in trainer marketing. As long as they allow the public to buy them through a retail channel, I believe it ticks the box. So, they basically stick them on a no name web store, and deliberately describe them badly, so they are nigh on impossible to find to buy, but they are being sold to the public. The podcasters found this out, because somebody bought some random thing from a no name store and “accidentally” got these. The podcast for reference was “Bad Boy Running”, no idea which episode.
- jontas 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that Nike's goal is actually to make it more difficult to buy shoes so they sell fewer?
  - midev 7y ago
    Sometimes, yes. This is common in sneakers. There are lots of limited releases that will retail for < $200, and then fetch thousands in the secondary sneaker market because of rarity. Getting a new sneaker on drop day is almost impossible. Nike just pulled its inventory from Amazon. They really do make it hard to buy shoes, so they sell fewer, but for oh so much more.
  - christoph 7y ago
    They are highly custom shoes for highly competitive athletes and for them to meet regulations they need to be sold (or available at least, as I understand) to the public. Marketing such items, that probably have a very limited usable lifespan, as well as being fairly custom fit, wouldn't make sense to market and sell to the general public. Nike make their real money through said athletes winning major events and the additional value it then adds to their overall brand. As an aside, the most expensive Nike's sold are the ones they make the least of.

cbHXBY1D 7y ago

Hoka One One Carbon Xs are currently all the rage in the running community (#1 trending shoe on Strava) and retail for much less. Similar technology to the vaporfly but more forgiving. I'm surprised no one has brought that up on here yet.

rconti 7y ago
We'll have to see the numbers. I bet the (US) olympic trials feb 29 will be interesting.
sorenjan 7y ago
Where do you see which shoes are trending on Strava? What does it even mean to be trending on Strava?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You can log the shoes you wore for any given run. And then you can see aggregate statistics for this across everyone's runs.
  - sorenjan 7y ago
    I know I can log the shoes I'm wearing, and when I look at other peoples activities I can see what shoes they used if they logged it, but where can I see the aggregated data and trending lists?
    - cbHXBY1D 7y ago
      They publish it at the end of every year. I remember seeing it on DC Rainmaker's site a month ago: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/12/fascinating-stravas-2019-annual-report.html https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/12/fascinating-stravas-2019...
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      You could scrape it, or buy a dataset from someone else who already has.