3 ms·
I 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
by Lramseyer 7y ago
I 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.