8 ms·
A lot of people with tech backgrounds seem pretty pro-Vaporfly. As a (former?) competitive runner you might find my anti-Vaporfly perspective interesting. To m
by bo1024 7y ago
A 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.
- jontas 7y agoOne of the points of the article is that the vaporfly isn't the first shoe to do this, in fact, it has been going on for decades now. Moving the tech back to 2015 would not achieve your goal of no energy return. So if there is some energy return allowed, how and where can we draw a line?
- bo1024 7y agoI don't know how to draw the line. It's a good question.
- ardit33 7y agoThey can introduce a rule to just limit the cushion height of shoes to a max 1 inch or 25mm, and the problem would be solved.... as it is an easy rule to follow/apply... Vaproflies have a ridiculous 31-36mm cushion....
- carterehsmith 7y agoSure, but why 25mm? Where is that number coming from, and why is it better than 36mm?
- tomrod 7y agoIt's what an inch is in metric, rounded down.
- nordsieck 7y ago> It's what an inch is in metric, rounded down. I'm pretty sure your parent was asking: why that particular height? 1 inch seems wildly arbitrary. And if the height is arbitrary, why the hate for the Vaporfly? What is the technical reason for setting the limit so as to exclude the shoe?
- tomrod 7y agoAgree with the sentiment. 1inch is sort of focal I figure. Kind of like so many people choosing random states to be 42
- hbosch 7y agoSo, you must be suggesting that all runners wear the same shoes or run barefoot? Because naturally, every different model of shoe will have slight variance in running performance -- even those shoes within the "legal" band. If we treat running more like Formula 1 racing, for instance, the sport is elevated beyond just that of runner vs. runner (or in F1, racer vs. racer). Technology improvements the the highest level allow for technology improvements for the rest of world, beyond the sport. This is one of my favorite aspects of F1 racing... the constant innovation that happens in these vehicles, and how that innovation reverberates through the auto industry in the form of aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, weight:stability improvements, and so on. I hear where you are coming from, but isn't the existence of the Vaporfly essential to push all footwear technology forward?
- bo1024 7y agoDifferent shoes are fine by me in all aspects, as long as they don't try to store and return kinetic energy.
- PierceJoy 7y agoThis is admittedly not my area of expertise, but don't all shoes do that? Unless the rubber permanently deforms, any rebound at all is returning energy.
- glenngillen 7y agoThey do, with possible the exception of Vibram Fingers, Lunas, and anything else in that category. Where the focus is mostly on avoiding punctures or lacerations of the sole and nothing in the way of support or cushioning. As someone who has multiples of the above, various trail and road shoes, and two pairs of Vapors too... to me the difference doesn’t appear to be obvious energy return like you’d expect with something like Pistorius’ blades. The return and cushioning seems on par with my old ASICS. The aggressive design underfoot though basically mandates efficient technique. My barefoot options do the same but through being quite unforgiving and painful if you get sloppy. Also worth pointing out that when I first put them on I definitely got the pace bump advertised but it came at a considerable stamina cost. They encouraged/forced me to run faster but it took quite a while to build back up to being able to maintain that for the distances I’d previously run.
- hrktb 7y agoI think the issue is that as a sport, what running is has never been that clearly defined. Even if we don’t go to the length of running without shoes, enforcing a single shoe model, with something as close as possible to bare 5 finger socks could have been a choice made a long time ago. But it didn’t happen, so why would we be now crying over shoes that do a little too much ?
- headsoup 7y agoBecause it does a little too much perhaps? Or not specifically that, but that these shoes have highlighted that the gear provides a distinct advantage (much as those advanced swimsuits did a few years ago). Most sports are well past the point of pure athleticism anyway, they're all somewhere on the scale of corporate entertainment now, as highted by the higher comment asking what would happen without sponsorship, as though just wanting to run for its competitive enjoyment is unviable...
- NwtnsMthd 7y agoA similar evolution in shoe technology revolutionized rock climbing. The first purpose built climbing shoe entered the market around 1935, then around 1980 the first "sticky" climbing shoes appeared. Today we have shoes like the La Sportiva Solutions and the Scarpa Drago, both incredible climbing shoes that provide a massive advantage over shoes of the past. Fortunately for climbing, this hasn't been much of a problem. Possibly due to the fact that everyone has access to the same shoes. Another possibility is that competition climbing has only become popular in something like the last decade, significantly after the shoe revolution started. The analogy is imperfect as climbing isn't timed* but it should be interesting to watch this play out. * Excluding speed climbing and maximum time limits.
- Intermernet 7y agoOddly enough, I feel that climbing shoe design has slowed down. I bought my first Solutions in 2007 and haven't upgraded since. They still seem to be one of the top shoes on the market (although I hear good things about the Drago). As a matter of fact, the last climbing shoes I bought were the Miura VS, which I'm pretty sure is even older than the Solution! The latest shoe from La Sportiva (I think it's the Theory) is designed for indoor / competition use, and basically has changes in design to cater for common materials and shapes of holds used in modern competition. It's not really an evolution of climbing shoe design, more a specialization.
- turbostyler 7y agoThere's a pretty large difference between running and climbing - a sport that has been literally shaped and defined by the gear used in it. Climbing is closer to Tennis than it is to Running, in that for most variations, the gear enables the sport to be possible.
- notatoad 7y agoIt seems like you want to draw the line at a completely arbitrary level of mechanical advantage (presumably corresponding to about the time you took up the sport), for reasons based entirely on emotion. All mechanical advantage based on earlier technology is cool, everything later is bad for the sport. I understand why you want that, i feel similar about my hobbies. but you can see how it's not really a reasonable position, right?
- bo1024 7y agoI think it's "unreasonable" in that it's difficult to argue from first principles, but it's an extremely pragmatic position. If you look at what's happened to the sport and discussions around competition, records, fairness, equality of opportunity, etc etc since the Vaporfly has been introduced, at both the elite and sub-elite level, it's clear: the shoes have been a huge negative for the sport in a way that has no past parallel.
- stickfigure 7y agoIf you want a pure "game of skill", there is only one solution to this - what some sailing races do, create a "one-design" class. Everyone runs in the same shoes. ...except that people's feet are different, and some people probably run better in different shoes. So technology is back. You need to force everyone to run in Roman caligae. Naked. But expect more injuries and forget breaking records.
- hermitdev 7y agoNASCAR (and I think F1) do this as well now. Used to be a bit of a wild west, but now all of the cars are to the same spec (which doesnt mean identical). Cars might be tuned differently, for example. For NASCAR, at least, I think it was to help level the playing field, so that lower funded teams could be more competitive. UCSI also has strict regulations about bike dimensions, weight and even the kind of brakes that can be used. The min weight for a bike is around 15 lbs (think its actually 14.9, but I'm not up to date on current rules as ive stopped racing). Last I heard, disk brakes were not allowed for road racing, despite significant improvements to braking distance and safety in inclement conditions (I know a rule change was being considered a few years ago, so this might be different now). Oddly, they allowed electric deralliers without a rule change.
- vbsteven 7y agoDisk brakes are legal now for most if not all UCI road racing.
- celticninja 7y agoWon't better shoes make it easier for non profoessionals to pick it up and also have fewer injuries?
- bo1024 7y agoI have no problem with people using whatever they want to train --- or even race at non-competitive levels.
- kaetemi 7y agoWait. Is there any rule that stops anyone from using shoes with wheels right now?
- dominotw 7y agothese ? https://www.amazon.com/Segway-Electric-Hovershoes-Ninebot-Rollerblades/dp/B07G34LL58 https://www.amazon.com/Segway-Electric-Hovershoes-Ninebot-Ro...
- ineedasername 7y agoWouldn't any shoe, and especially any running show of the last 40 years, return some level of energy? I mean, the entire concept of a shoe is a mechanical enhancement over running barefoot. Any equipment at all is a defacto enhancement above and beyond a "pure" non-mechanically aided base line. So if you accept and level of equipment, then it all becomes about where to draw the line, which type of enhancements are sanctioned, which not, etc.
- nradov 7y agoAll rubber soled shoes store and return mechanical energy in the stride. It's just a matter of how much. I do think it's reasonable to limit sole thickness in order to preserve the spirit of the sport. The Real Science of Sport Podcast has a great episode which dives into the technical details of how the Nike shoes actually work. https://play.acast.com/s/realscienceofsport/bee6a41a-0d6d-4d76-bfe8-f1c75f90f45a https://play.acast.com/s/realscienceofsport/bee6a41a-0d6d-4d...
- Fezzik 7y agoAdidas has been doing this (returning energy) with their Boost tech for quite a while. Should those shoes be banned? Should track spikes be banned, since they give an insane mechanical advantage vs non-spikes? If the rule is completely subjective it is not a very good rule. Nike has a huge a incentive to make this shoes available to all, which they will do, so availability is not really an argument against them (I realize that’s not your gripe). Let’s not kid ourselves, distance races are still all (99%) about the runner. You aren’t going to strap these shoes on and challenge Kipchoge in a marathon. You still have to put in an absolutely absurd amount of training time to compete. These shoes do not make you fit. For easy math, if you run a marathon in 2 hours and 5 minutes, the VaporFlys. may drop you down to 2 hours. Rallying against this just seems silly. And shoes of any type give all sorts of advantages that have “improved” running relative to how it was at the dawn of time: stability, grip, cushioning, warmth/cooling depending on conditions, and now a small kinetic energy return. Why is the last one the only one to go?
- bo1024 7y agoI don't have a good answer but I feel strongly there is a difference of kind here, not just degree. But I would say as far as the 'easy math', people at that level train years to drop 30 seconds. So I think you're being a bit too flippant about the 5 minutes. And yes I won't challenge Kipchoge but a lot of runners who were quite a bit worse than me are now running similar times to me, using the vaporflys. There is a competition/fairness issue at the sub-elite as well as elite levels. But anyway I feel that storing and releasing kinetic energy is different than stability, grip, cushioning, temperature control. By the way I don't care if people train in things like Vaporflys just like I don't care if they train on a bicycle. But this is all just my opinion.
- nradov 7y agoAll rubber soled shoes store and release energy. It is physically impossible to build a perfect energy damper. So the question is: how much should be allowed to preserve the sport and how do authorities enforce it?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> 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. Well, in a Greek race you had to run naked. ;p
- kova12 7y agoto make it fair, why don't we make everybody run barefoot? This way we don't skew the chances for sure. And to make it even more fair, we could just not run at all, but roll the dices instead. This way people with disabilities also have chance of winning marathons.
- Marazan 7y agoI was a slow runner just running for fitness. Back 15 years ago when I had just started running my one mile time was 7 minutes 30 Seconds running in my old trainers that I had lying around. I then bought a pair of 'mundane' running shoes (Mizunu Waverider 9s) and literally overnight my one mile time dropped to 7 minutes. Thirty seconds just gone after upgrading my shoes. Where do you draw the line at how much tech is too much tech?
- mensetmanusman 7y agoYou don’t, because it is good for all if there are those willing to test these things for the rest of humanity.
- kev009 7y agoHonestly who fucking cares. Run to run. If you care about someone's footwear you are a wanker.
- huffmsa 7y agoSo should sprinters be allowed track spikes? Even at my modest, better than average leg strength, I can easily exceed the frictional coefficient between my shoes and a track. As funny as it would be to see the entire field eat shit coming out of the blocks, it'd get old after the first dozen times.