The carbon fiber plate is a spring. The spring absorbs energy as the foot rolls forward and releases the energy at toe off. Thus, the mechanical doping phrase. Nike has a pending patent applications for this “spring plate”. It is innovation, like fiberglass vaulting poles. All the records were broken, but everyone understood why. Aluminum baseball bats can hit further, but MLB doesn’t allow them. (There is a safety issue there too). Swimming banned high tech suits. Car racing restricts some technologies. All sports have equipment restrictions. I say no to the spring shoes regardless of who makes them.
Eric Cartman it's to show the technology dummy. they're a company that measure highly technical data and want to showcase what makes it possible. don't watch if you're so butthurt. it's not the same as smashing an iPhone...
yeah, there's really no way to measure how heart rate fluctuates depending on the shoe being worn. Heart rate monitoring for running is not accurate since there are so many factors that can affect it.
@@yellowplatypus2342 If you isolate all the other factors, then yeah, of course they can measure heart rate fluctuations depending on the shoe being used. Isolating variables is one of the foundations of scientific method
@@FabricioDestro Fair point - however we saw similar results when we tested the original Vaporfly against an Adios Boost, plus lower muscle activation with the Nike. If I were to re-run the test I'd run slower so I'm not so close to threshold; blame my lack of fitness for my HR staying pinned at 190+
Totally. They could’ve tested the shoe for a longer period of time, like a month, having him run the same distance at the same pace in the two shoes and on different days so he is not exhausted for the second pair. And then compare the average HR, cadence etc. of several runs. I’m kinda upset cause I would’ve been curious and they already cut the shoe in half 😅😅
I don’t think running shoe manufacturers should be punished for making something that is great. Likewise athletes should not be punished for wanting to utilise something that is great. Now that Nike have set the bar so high it is up to their competitors to make a shoe that is on par with or better than the Vaporfly. It would be counter productive to force manufacturers and athletes to make and use an inferior product. Better to buff than nerf!
people tend to forget a similar situation happening in swimming with the super-suits some years back, where it went so ridiculous swimmers wore two of them at the same time to get more buoyancy and it ended up all being about the suit and not the athlete. So they had to interviene and restrict/rule what the fabric is allowed to have and what not, which lead to a better/healthier competition and sport
@@MrPeter1337 that's the point! It should be the fight between athletes not technology. OK let the tech in, but it must not be a secret weapon! Want to see Tech supremacy over human? - see F1. Is Hamilton a worthy champion? - I don't know. He hasn't been put in a true test. I may call him a resident champ because all you need from him is to stay...
I think “great” in this circumstance is subjective. I think any technology that tries to give an energy return to the runners should be allowed because it’s running more efficiently. I do think if brands start coming up with shoes that replenish more energy to the runner than they exerted, at that point then technology has given too much of an advantage. But I do agree, just because the shoe is way better to the competition, doesn’t mean it should be banned
@@mikowhy9608 But we're always getting faster through technology. Be it nutrition, be it better sweat/heat transfer clothing, compression fabrics, be it track surfaces becoming rubberized, lightweight low profile near solid sprint spikes or whatever. You can't compare today's records to the records of 50 years ago because of the technological difference not only on the athlete but in the arenas they race in. To say F1 is tech supremacy over human is a stretch. That's like saying take the top constructor's car and give it to an F3 driver and he'll be top competition in F1 which is simply untrue. Also realize that in F1 being 2% off is huge. On a 2 minute course that means in 30 laps they're 72 seconds behind with no traffic or battling for position. Add that in you're probably lapped somewhere in 30-45 laps. So understand how tiny of a hair you're trying to split when comparing it to motorsport.
@@psycheout4733 Sure, innovation can't be stopped. Some thing will be bad and forgotten, some will bring a breakthrough and some will be called illegal. Life goes on - I am OK. F1 example - you got it wrong. The best car given to 2 drivers only shows who is the better from that pair! Make it 20! I don't want to see the same in running. I saw it in swimming and that was bad. All of a sudden an athlete didn't need to train so hard to break a record, he/she just needed a super suit! That was cheating.
the problem is when there are only a number of athletes that get "super tech gear" like in Rio 2016, when Kipchoge and 2-3 other runners were running prototypes that other Nike sponsored athletes could not use. as long as a shoe (or other tech) is only for a few people and not for the public to buy I think its OK to ban, but to ban because other brands cant keep up is just wierd.
Prototypes are now banned, so this isn't an issue. The issue, currently, lies in if we want to have the shoe help the runner as much as possible or if we want the runners to be on their own
Sports gear company -"We make gear to improve performance" The world - "cool" Nike - "Vaporfly is proven to improve performance " The world - "THAT'S CHEATING. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED "
Really? I have many Nikes but I also think an absolute freedom is no good. I vote against a secret advantage that one athlete or team could use to claim victory. Whatever the cost! Olympics should be all about human spirit, not toys...
Miko 'Why' I think we draw the line at rocket propulsion or those little wheels hidden on little kids shoes. Until then you still need to run your heart out. As long as the technology is available to everyone then let’s run fast without jelly legs the next% day!!!
@@tmallisnyc this is it. Until it isn't a secret or/and superexpensive technology it's OK. But if the technology will make top runners faster by 10minutes who will admire such athlete? Not me.
I just kinda think it's a bit sad that they seem to have a lot of "normal" runners convinced that they need Carbon plate shoes to run fast, I've got the hoka Carbon x and it's super fast and fun but I'm quite aware and conscious of the fact that it's a luxury rather than a need, i comfortably ran my fastest half marathon in Cliftons and had a great time doing it. Also with every major brands seemingly introducing Carbon plate shoes in 2020 doesn't it level the playing field anyway?
@@RunnersWorld when they talk about the midsole length or should you also talk about the hoka? i know top comment talked about it but what about without it is a maximal shoe after all
@@nguye578 do we really care that casual runners are using vaporflys? It makes sense since casual runners really don't know much about running shoes. There's a lot of marketing on the vaporflys right now so I can see everyone from high school kids to soccer mom's wearing these shoes.
This is not the first time shoe tech takes a great leap and drove an arms race between shoe makers. There wasn't any ban the last few times it happened, so why ban it now. World Athletics should really look at promoting the sports more than addressing 'shoe politics'...
people tend to forget a similar situation happening in swimming with the super-suits some years back, where it went so ridiculous swimmers wore two of them at the same time to get more buoyancy and it ended up all being about the suit and not the athlete. So they had to interviene and restrict/rule what the fabric is allowed to have and what not, which lead to a better/healthier competition and sport
I not convinced banning tech is right Are we still using wooden tennis rackets? Cyclists cycle the most high tech bikes F1 drivers race the most high tech cars So why shouldn't runners run in the most high tech shoes?
Yep agree, but there are limitations. For example, F1 cars have specific things they're allowed to change only. Often they change things and have to revert back because the rules don't allow it. Just look at Ferrari's engine 2019 and 2020.
True True, in fact they should be allowed to use rocket propelled shoes with spring loaded hydraulic energy systems counterbalanced to mitigate energy losses and improve friction coefficient for body to ground kinetic transfer
Well it also depends on the person. It is pretty good cushion and I feel I won’t get injured as easily. Also this shoe is not suppose to be used for anything less than a half to a marathon.
These shoes are very hard no ignore. I am becoming alot faster through my 5K to Half Marathons while my heart rate is slightly down. And my recovery is amazing as my legs dont feel like jelly afterwards. The hype is real and Nike is on top of the game. And everybody is catching up yet again.
The innovation in running shoes is just like the innovation in equipment in any other sport... it's just my opinion though. Would I spend $250+ on a pair of running shoes? No way! I'm not a professional and I'm not winning any races. I run because I enjoy it.
@@RunnersWorld Agreed! My thing is sports are always evolving. Spectators want to see athletes perform at their highest level and have events be more exciting. That's where this innovation comes from. Think about how baseball bats and hockey sticks have transformed over the years...
Trevor. Not tying to be a Boy Scout. I work in construction and job site safety is always a concern with tools. In short shop safety 101 will always read ...... Do not wear gloves, loose clothing or jewelry while using revolving power tools. Tie back long hair or wear appropriate hair protection to prevent hair from getting caught in moving parts of equipment. Long story short is a small motor and a small piece of fabric is a lot stronger than say your finger or wrist if it was to catch that band saw blade it could in proven theory every day on some unfortunate job site or carpenter shop pull your hand into the machine and well you could imagine the rest. And last but not least all hail the NEXT %!!!!!
Just like tennis from wooden, to metal, to graphite and to titanium racquets, the speed and power of each generation of players increase with the racquets technological advancement. A little bit of spring action in shoes I think is OK
its not spring..... its a higher shoe so it makes your strides bigger, it makes you run on your front so you have less ground contact, and the carbon plate centers the energy into the middle so you have more forward momentum and it stabilizes your foot..... this is great
I love the vaporfly. I really like what it has done for the sport of long distance running and I am so happy that it wasn’t banned. As I see it, it is a shoe that can allow you to run the best that your body is capable of, not one that provides an unfair advantage against competitors.
@@waterproof4403 I don’t. I feel it gives a target for lone world record chasers when there is no equal competition. It does nothing to physically push the athletes harder, it’s just an indication of how fast they need to go
@@benanastasoff8980 it literally gives the athletes a mental advantage. Long distance running is also tactics. To be able to time yourself and run it a lot harder than people think. That light indicates them weather they should go fast or to slow down if they are actually going faster than they need too.
@@waterproof4403 what’s wrong with a mental advantage? A simpler version of pacing lights have been in use for a long time. If I am not mistaken, some records from the 90s were set by programming lights to illuminate along the track when the runner should be passing by them. It wasn’t a consistent LED strip like the wavelight is, but it told runners they were behind, on, or ahead of pace. While many records have been set with wavelight recently, there have been many instances when the runners fell short with the technology. If the athlete isn’t in shape to break the record, wavelight isn’t going to help at all. Things that are rightfully banned in the sport are interchangeable pacesetters (create a draft), PED’s, and shoes that give more energy back than the runner exerts. Things that help with an athlete’s mindset have never been and will never be bad. Saying an athlete can’t know where they are relative to a world record with wavelight would be similar to banning timers on the track, or coaches on the sidelines shouting encouragement, or screens on the side of the stadium allowing championship runners to know where their competition is. Receiving a mental boost is a good thing for the athletes which means it’s good for the sport as a whole.
@@benanastasoff8980 the lights you mentioned that were used way back, did you know they were prohibited 🚫? And just recently they got reinstated. Suddenly all records start to fall. Not a coincidence and it's nothing similar to a coach shouting lol. For example The 10000m and 5000m for both men and women stood for years and years before it got broken with the help of organized events specifically to target the records. All broken within a span of months. For Cheptegei’s 10,000-meter record (26:11.00), except for his final 1,000-meter stretch, every other 1,000-meter split was within a second of 2:37, a metronomic mark that would be difficult to replicate with just a watch. There's no way Cheptegei would have broken thar that nigh. He had Nike(NN) stage that event for him to target the records which had him at an advantage. Kenenisa just ran against the clock setting his own pace and set these records! Also kipchoges marathon under 2 hours isn't official. Should be the same with Cheptegei and all the other records that were obtained with the help of those lights. Or just make those records stand separate/unofficially. Also why don't you see the lights at the olympics or other major world championships?
---running on fibre track is fun. as there is already fibre there. shoes hardly matter. any good shoes will do. ---running on mud tracks --natural -- is super fun as long as you do not have too much pebbles. ---running cross country on natural terrain is also fantastic but you need flexible but rugged shoes. ---all of the above have no cushion issues. but shoes have to be sturdy at the bottom with medium rigidity. Now HUGE PROBLEM: running on road! -- i have no idea if there are any shoes out there with serious cushioning in-front and still be flexible. Even vaporfly is doubtful. need 30 cm thick( if you are above 35) and 25mm is fine if you are a young runner! --Road and concrete: you have to solve the issues as the pounding is as real as it gets in the front foot area. normally they have plenty of cushioning and pulp at the heels! BUT --when you land the toe, you need to feel the cushion. Otherwise the pain will directly transfer to the knees. ----now west folks suffer more with ANKLE ISSUES. hence they add more cushion on the heels. ankle issue is less of a problem in other parts of the world-non west. as i said they have more problem in the front of the foot! because in developed countries they use heels more as roads and pedestrian are well developed. In developing countries where you have everything a mess on road and pavements, you tend to walk with toes first( to reduce surface area to minimize damage, and you are always cagey). so different folks have different issues depending on age,gender, geography,running style, foot type, style of run and nature of run. so road and concrete are the tough parts. but their advantage is that due to smooth nature the track is covered fast! Jesus, i gave everything away. may be nike should hire me!
@ king_has_no_cloths kul such a great comment. Although for running on track and for cx you need a lightweight shoe, because heavy trainers slow you down alot. Also, traction is very necessary for cx races.
Interesting. The shoes seem to me make the leg a lot fresher because you maximize the stride and the feel when you contact the ground. So I don't think it's cheating as long as everyone has the same access to the shoe. At the end of the day, the athlete has to have the speed and the fitness to go faster. The shoe is just there to help keep their leg muscle fresher for a longer period of time. It's no different that wearing a skin suit in cycling or swimming. Just because you wear that shoe that doesn't mean everyone will break WR.
Money money more money , Cheating is about money, America is about money Money is all that’s important God is money Peoples feelings don’t matter People don’t matter Just show me the 💰
I think a push for greater tech in shoes should happen. Improvement in training, shoe tech, methods, and everything only advances when there is competition to do so.
Why is it that everytime I see these shoes being tested against others, the VF always goes first? Why not go last so that the runner is weaker with a higher heart rate? There are way too many variables to ever make a fair comparison. The human body is not a scientific tool to make measurements with. Day to day, minute to minute, the human body is constantly changing. Anyway.... No, new technology should not be banned as long as it's available for everybody. Nobody wanted to ban Adidas Boost when it revolutionized the running shoe.
I am personally okay with the advantages shoes bring. One could arguably say that shoes five years ago are light years ahead of shoes from twenty years ago, do you go back and reevaluate those records too? Where would the line be drawn. There will always be those that have access to better coaching and nutrition etc, that is an an advantage that pros and elites have over most people that are training on the side with a full time job. I say those pros and elites most likely earned their way to those positions and deserve the rewards that come with it. Generally speaking, those shoes are more readily available to most people than the other things I just mentioned also. It’s not like there are external power sources in play. It still requires personal effort and dedication. Let them push the bounds of what can be done in the most self propelled efficient manner possible.
You, I, and everyone else knows that the carbon fiber in the Vaporfly is a spring. It acts like a spring, and was intended as a spring. Gimme a break. If it looks like a duck...
I didn't buy the Next% because of the price and that it is primarily a racing shoe. But I did buy the Nike Zoom Fly 3 when it went on a clearance sale. It is a bit heavier than the Next% and maybe more of a training shoe. I only have a few runs in them, but there is no doubt there is a difference. I am approximately 15 seconds per mile faster with the same effort as I was in a a similar weighted training shoe on easy runs. I have mixed feelings about the legality of the shoes. The carbon fiber plate does provide more energy return than the EVA foam sole. However, as others have said, we still have to do the work and be in shape. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. It is fun to go faster than I have in a few years as an older runner!
Man, I love the idea of the 4% & the Next %. For me, I see it as the track spike for marathon runners. For most average runners like myself, shoes have always been, pick what you like and use that. Now we have a specific marathon shoe that is good for everyone.
Doping is anything enhances performances AND harms people's health at the same time: these shoes do improve both performances and health of athletes (less strain, less heart stress). Ad meiora semper!
This is wrong, running is not F1 or cycling. I want my time to represent me, not a $300 + purchase. WA should have limited stack height/ carbon plates when it had the chance. (2016) It was weak, compromised and conflicted (as always) just like WADA. Swimming federations banned a suit yet WA fail. It’s identical, May as well give swimmers flippers. Shame on them for permitting mechanical doping. Money talks, and RW won’t give Nike a hard time either. C’mon the little people - don’t buy it. I don’t blame the athletes, but I strongly reject the tech evolution argument exactly like the swimmers. If a 5% advantage pushes a physiologically inferior athlete to gold. Running as a sport means something different. ( Don’t give me the banal running barefoot or evolving science of training nonsense as an argument.) I may be out of sync with opinion but I really don’t like this.
Someday we will be spectators of a virtual race of avatars. Each runner will stay in the gim running on treadmill. No ugly wind, rain, turns, hills... All drinks, doctors, friends, pacemakers naerby. So what about that marathon? I'm sure I will hear again "well, the runner still needs to use his own muscles. Why banning it?!" Absurd idea? No, a future record breaking attempt.
All top sports in the world are dictated by technology and its advancement. Cycling, football, swimming, running, baseball etc. People are just bitter that their sponsors have not developed a shoe as good as this. Nike have set the benchmark, and now the rest have to catch up. To the people stating Nike should be made to reveal their designs and secrets, wake up. Do F1 teams reveal all their designs and technological designs?
Hysteria over running shoes that will be the common shoe in 2 years. Ridiculous. Is it any wonder that the general public could care less about running when we’re measuring how many millimeters of stack there is?
I don’t have a problem with making shoes high tech and better. The problem is when the prices of these shoes are not affordable for most people and only the rich. Over $200 for shoes is too expensive, maybe some knock off competition might help lower the price some.
really you call that stiff, l can see it flex easily, any one says its not a spring is full of it, look at its shape, it doesn't go down the middle but way down to the ball back up to the toe, wonder why it looks like the prosthetic running foot, blade, hmmmmmmm why? are you guys paid by Nike?
I'm upset because these shoes are ugly and I see this is the way shoes are going. I'm all about performance when I need it, But all these shoes are starting to look the same. Minimal knit material With basic foam on the bottom. I used to love mizuno wave riders. They were comfortable and I could train in them if I wanted to. Now the look is basic.
Personally I think that nike vaporflys should be banned. I'm worried that the sport could become pay to win if shoe technology gets too good. The effort should just be from the runner not from a shoe. I don't blame anyone for wearing them though because elite runners will get left behind if they dont I more blame world athletics for not banning the shoes. Someone wont become an elite runner just because of these shoes but there is a significant and in my opinion unfair advantage.
One question ppl never can answer: when is it too much? How about in 2 yrs, theres a VF15% that cost 700$. How would that be fair in any way? How would a 15 yr old runner be able to afford and compete? Or a 22 yr old student? When do you draw the line of performance enhancement? Nobody have given me a satisfactory answer yet.
Blixten I don’t think that type of thing would get a shoe banned, although I’m no runner so I may be wrong, for biking, some bikes that are much faster cost over $10k and some cost only a few hundred dollars and are much slower, but yet they are still not banned. Idk how much stricter running is than biking tho so not sure on that
@@burino9162 Well, personally I think it's against the spirit of the sport. I prefer a sport where it's the physical performance that matters, not the gear.
