Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IAAF getting complaints about Vaporfly?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IAAF getting complaints about Vaporfly?

    story now posted on home page says there is a backlash after the sudden improvement in marathon times

  • #2
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    story now posted on home page says there is a backlash after the sudden improvement in marathon times
    Same 'people' who complained about the fiberglass pole?

    Comment


    • #3
      fiberglass poles didn't violate any IAAF rules; it appears that these new shoes MIGHT.

      Comment


      • #4
        Briitsh Journal of Sports Medicine weighs in on new shoes... now also posted to home page.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gh View Post
          fiberglass poles didn't violate any IAAF rules; it appears that these new shoes MIGHT.
          Virtually everything about T&F today has been 'enhanced' since the early days. Lighter shoes provide an advantage over heavier ones. Blocks provide an advantage over no blocks. Track and spikes provide huge advantages. I understand that putting springs in shoes is over the line, I'm not feeling these Vaporflys as something a whole lot different from the other show innovations (all of which gave advantages. It gave EK maybe a couple of minutes? Hell, the cordon around him did at least that much. Brigid's two male lead runners did that much. Ordinary marathoners can duck into groups and get that advantage.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gh View Post
            fiberglass poles didn't violate any IAAF rules; it appears that these new shoes MIGHT.
            The articles says

            "rule 143.2 stipulates that shoes 'must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage'".

            That seems completely nebulous. Spikes obviously give sprinters an advantage over regular-soled shoes. Do they break the rules? The newer lightweight shoes do the same for distance runners.

            If the shoes had wheels or rocket boosters in them, I might agree. But optimizing the physics through careful engineering is a plus in my book, not a minus.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JRM View Post
              The articles says

              "rule 143.2 stipulates that shoes 'must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage'".

              That seems completely nebulous. Spikes obviously give sprinters an advantage over regular-soled shoes. Do they break the rules? The newer lightweight shoes do the same for distance runners.

              If the shoes had wheels or rocket boosters in them, I might agree. But optimizing the physics through careful engineering is a plus in my book, not a minus.
              light weight isn't the issue here. From teh BJSM article:

              <<The Vaporfly deviates from conventional running shoes in three ways: (i) an embedded carbon-fibre plate, (ii) its midsole material, and (iii) its midsole thickness (figure 1). Each of these components has design features that reduce energy loss in isolation and, perhaps more-so, in combination.>>

              this is much more than optimizing physics, methinks.

              Comment


              • #8
                If the Vaporfly really did give a 4% advantage, that should correlate directly to running time (not just the nebulous term, 'energy'), which would have been about 5 minutes. It was less, and well within the realm of normal shoe tech improvements.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gh View Post
                  <<The Vaporfly deviates from conventional running shoes in three ways: (i) an embedded carbon-fibre plate, (ii) its midsole material, and (iii) its midsole thickness (figure 1). Each of these components has design features that reduce energy loss in isolation and, perhaps more-so, in combination.>>
                  Fiberglass poles did a whole lot more than that!!
                  These so-called three 'deviations' have another term that applies: 'progress' in shoe technology.
                  I am definitely calling BS on the iAAF.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JRM View Post
                    The articles says

                    "rule 143.2 stipulates that shoes 'must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage'".

                    That seems completely nebulous. Spikes obviously give sprinters an advantage over regular-soled shoes. Do they break the rules? The newer lightweight shoes do the same for distance runners.

                    If the shoes had wheels or rocket boosters in them, I might agree. But optimizing the physics through careful engineering is a plus in my book, not a minus.
                    They're talking about unfair advantage. But how do you determine what is fair?
                    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                      If the Vaporfly really did give a 4% advantage, that should correlate directly to running time (not just the nebulous term, 'energy'), which would have been about 5 minutes. It was less, and well within the realm of normal shoe tech improvements.
                      That would depend on what unit of measure they're using. 4% greater energy efficiency doesn't mean 4% greater velocity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Powell View Post
                        They're talking about unfair advantage. But how do you determine what is fair?
                        Good point. I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder but as long as everyone has access to these shoes what's the big deal? The UCI drew the line in the advancement of bike designs when the designs got so exotic and expensive that it was becoming a contest between engineers and scientists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
                          Good point. I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder but as long as everyone has access to these shoes what's the big deal? The UCI drew the line in the advancement of bike designs when the designs got so exotic and expensive that it was becoming a contest between engineers and scientists.
                          I'm guessing it's Nike's competitors who have the biggest problem with the new shoes. But of course they can't say it openly, since that would amount to admitting their products are inferior. What struck me as odd in the article is that they're not quoting a single athlete criticizing the Vaporflies. It's just a nondescript 'group of top athletes'.
                          Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkY7W6kCRY4

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How do we go about defining "fair availability to everyone" of the Vaporfly? The retail price is $250 so most athletes who aren't sponsored by Nike are going to have a hard time affording them. Athletes who are sponsored by a competitor of Nike most likely aren't going to be allowed to wear them, and if the technology is patented then the competitors are limited in their ability to provide the same advantage to their athletes.

                              As for athletes not speaking out about it, I would imagine that other shoe companies are discouraging their athletes to speak up about it because of the free publicity that'd give Nike.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X