Drugs in other sports and the media.

No_Ta_Doctor

The fun thing about the 1:59 is that everyone complaining about the shoe tech are doing Nike's marketing for them. If they just go out and say "4% gain" everyone says "marketing bollox". But Ross Tucker going out and saying "4% gain, CHEATING!" sells them like mad :-D

gsk82

No tA Doctor wrote:

The fun thing about the 1:59 is that everyone complaining about the shoe tech are doing Nike's marketing for them. If they just go out and say "4% gain" everyone says "marketing bollox". But Ross Tucker going out and saying "4% gain, CHEATING!" sells them like mad :-D

But no one cares what Ross Tucker says

Pross

larkim wrote:

EK's shoes were special ones, but the 4%s/Next% ones are available for all to buy. But the ones from the weekend may yet make it into mainstream.

Bound to happen surely? The 4% came out of the shoe developed for the original attempt. As I said before the main reason for the challenge was marketing.

m.r.m.

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

That's the key, they improve efficiency (providing your running form works with them) but mainly from the cushioning effect they provide so your legs stay fresher for longer and your form doesn't go out the window. The carbon plates have a bit of a spring effect but the cushioning is the key. Whilst the version he ran in this time are brand new the previous version, which is the second / third iteration, has been developed since the original Breaking 2 attempt are widely available. Pretty much everyone at the pointy end of local distance races are wearing them and whilst they are thought of as eye wateringly expensive for a pair of running shoes by most people (especially as the first version only lasted around 100 miles or so for some people) they are a lot more obtainable than a lot of the high tech equipment in other sports.

They cost £240 a pair. Which, for the level of runner who would need the gains, is not much.

I almost bought some a couple of months back, I tried a pair and they feel so comfortable, but thought I'd look a tit running my pace in them. Then I decided I didn't care and if they allow me to preserve my legs longer and recover more quickly then why not? I think Santa might be bringing me a pair of I'm a good boy. After all, I'm out there 75% longer than the likes of Kipchoge so they're more benefit to me than those part-timers!

I'm resisting them on moral grounds :-) They might mean I get beaten in races by people that I would usually finish ahead of, but I've worked hard to bring my 10k / HM / Marathon times down and it seems a little daft to just bring those times again by spending £240 on shoes. Perversly, I might be more enthusaistic about buying them as a training shoe if they kept me fresher for longer so I could do more miles in training, but on race day it is just me and my legs against the clock and I don't want any artificial boosts.

Then why use shoes at all or clipless pedals on a bike?
Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!

ocdupalais

M.R.M. wrote:

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

That's the key, they improve efficiency (providing your running form works with them) but mainly from the cushioning effect they provide so your legs stay fresher for longer and your form doesn't go out the window. The carbon plates have a bit of a spring effect but the cushioning is the key. Whilst the version he ran in this time are brand new the previous version, which is the second / third iteration, has been developed since the original Breaking 2 attempt are widely available. Pretty much everyone at the pointy end of local distance races are wearing them and whilst they are thought of as eye wateringly expensive for a pair of running shoes by most people (especially as the first version only lasted around 100 miles or so for some people) they are a lot more obtainable than a lot of the high tech equipment in other sports.

They cost £240 a pair. Which, for the level of runner who would need the gains, is not much.

I almost bought some a couple of months back, I tried a pair and they feel so comfortable, but thought I'd look a tit running my pace in them. Then I decided I didn't care and if they allow me to preserve my legs longer and recover more quickly then why not? I think Santa might be bringing me a pair of I'm a good boy. After all, I'm out there 75% longer than the likes of Kipchoge so they're more benefit to me than those part-timers!

I'm resisting them on moral grounds :-) They might mean I get beaten in races by people that I would usually finish ahead of, but I've worked hard to bring my 10k / HM / Marathon times down and it seems a little daft to just bring those times again by spending £240 on shoes. Perversly, I might be more enthusaistic about buying them as a training shoe if they kept me fresher for longer so I could do more miles in training, but on race day it is just me and my legs against the clock and I don't want any artificial boosts.

Then why use shoes at all or clipless pedals on a bike?
Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!

And let’s not forget those cheaty footballers and rugby players with their studded shoes for extra grip - or ice hockey players with their blades. I’d watch those sports much more if they did away with their doped shoes.

larkim

M.R.M. wrote:

Then why use shoes at all or clipless pedals on a bike?
Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!

Indeed. But I don't race at cycling, and equipment is inherently a part of cycling.

Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.

RichN95.

Are these shoes any different to LeMond and 7-Eleven using tribars back in 1989? I guess most keen amateur TTers of all levels soon picked up a version.

gweeds

Worth a read

https://kottke.org/19/10/how-eliud-kipc ... on-barrier

webboo

RichN95 wrote:

Are these shoes any different to LeMond and 7-Eleven using tribars back in 1989? I guess most keen amateur TTers of all levels soon picked up a version.

They didn’t in the UK as the RTTC banned them at first.

ddraver

Gweeds wrote:

Worth a read

https://kottke.org/19/10/how-eliud-kipc ... on-barrier

I guess part of the problem is that it feels a bit more like a science experiment than an athletic achievement.

A bit like a GCN video on "How fast can Dan go with aero everything"

No_Ta_Doctor

larkim wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

Then why use shoes at all or clipless pedals on a bike?
Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!

Indeed. But I don't race at cycling, and equipment is inherently a part of cycling.

Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.

And yet those standard shoes are faster than standard shoes twenty, thirty, forty years ago...

larkim

But not meaningfully so. There hasn't been a big leap forwards in a couple of years in the same way that there has with the Nike VF4%s and successors. That's the big difference.

I'm no luddite, you can't ignore tech advances, and you shouldn't either. Over time, if I'm still running in 20 years time, no doubt I'll be in shoes that are taking some if not all of the advantages that the VFs are introducing, I probably won't have a choice. But purely and simply for my own baseline assessment of whether I am running better than before, I'll try to limit improvements in my times which are just generated through equipment if I can, and just try to improve in my comfy, injury resisting shoes.

Alejandrosdog

larkim wrote:

But not meaningfully so. There hasn't been a big leap forwards in a couple of years in the same way that there has with the Nike VF4%s and successors. That's the big difference.

I'm no luddite, you can't ignore tech advances, and you shouldn't either. Over time, if I'm still running in 20 years time, no doubt I'll be in shoes that are taking some if not all of the advantages that the VFs are introducing, I probably won't have a choice. But purely and simply for my own baseline assessment of whether I am running better than before, I'll try to limit improvements in my times which are just generated through equipment if I can, and just try to improve in my comfy, injury resisting shoes.

Barefoot running is where its at. nothing but freedom.

m.r.m.

larkim wrote:

Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.

Having pride in yourself and wanting to "earn" achievements regardless of how you define them is nothing to scoff at. I applaud you for holding yourself accountable. I'm less strict with myself.

bobmcstuff

M.R.M. wrote:

larkim wrote:

Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.

Having pride in yourself and wanting to "earn" achievements regardless of how you define them is nothing to scoff at. I applaud you for holding yourself accountable. I'm less strict with myself.

It's only like TTing surely - of course you could just do all your TTs on a standard road bike, but it's a very small step to fit some aero bars... Then before you know it you're in a skinsuit with disc wheels on a full on TT bike

I guess with TTing aerodynamics is a really big part of it.

larkim

The difference being that the equipment for cycling has always been a huge part of the equation, whereas it's been a much much smaller part of running. Cycling fundamentally is about getting quickly from A to B under your own steam with as little effort as possible using mechanical aids. Running fundamentally is about getting quickly from A to B under your own steam. (Gross oversimplification, but you get the gist). One is not better than the other or more morally superior, they are just different.

tgotb

larkim wrote:

The difference being that the equipment for cycling has always been a huge part of the equation, whereas it's been a much much smaller part of running.

I got back into cross-country running a few years ago after a break of ~25 years, expecting the equipment side to be simple. Within a few months I had as many shoes as I have cyclocross tyres; they even fit into the same categories - road/files, intermediates, muds, extreme muds. Going for a run has become almost as complicated as going to a CX race...

shinyhelmut

I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

rick_chasey

ShinyHelmut wrote:

I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

It's funny with tech.

A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).

larkim

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

darkhairedlord

larkim wrote:

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

Just need these

itboffin

Rick Chasey wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

It's funny with tech.

A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).

I'd forgotten all about those swim suits, covered in dimpled scales to mimic sharks skin, which they banned very quickly

Wheelspinner

itboffin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

It's funny with tech.

A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).

I'd forgotten all about those swim suits, covered in dimpled scales to mimic sharks skin, which they banned very quickly

What’s surprising is that (I think) every single record time set in the banned suits has now been beaten again without them.

ridgerider

darkhairedlord wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

Just need these

Banned on our building sites...

twotoebenny

Ridgerider wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

Just need these

Banned on our building sites...

Who banned them and why?

darkhairedlord

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

Just need these

Banned on our building sites...

Who banned them and why?

difficult to hide behind the sand pile with those on.

No_Ta_Doctor

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

larkim wrote:

It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.

Just need these

Banned on our building sites...

Who banned them and why?

At a guess "health and safety" and because they'd rip your leg off at the knee if you had an accident in them.

ddraver

They look even more dangerous than skis* for knees...


(*with bindings too tight)

mididoctors

Is it against the rules? Yes no pass fail.

above_the_cows

To challenge the idea that running clothing/tech has not improved much in years I would like to counter with the sports-bra as a piece of equipment that has revolutionised running for many, many people.