Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 205
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,613
    I like Ross Tucker...some of his posts I have linked to elsewhere....but on the Nike shoes he seems to think it is the end of the world...."The shoes that broke running" is ridiculous...

    I have given up arguing with him about it....
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 10-24-2019 at 08:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,068
    Quote Originally Posted by rsb3 View Post
    the 4% increase in running efficiency is real and seems to translate to an average performance benefit of about 2.7%
    This is the first I've seen this and altho I am an arch-skeptic, I'm willing to take it at face-value. At 120 minutes, a time benefit of 2.7% = ~3 minutes. My new problem with this is, I would believe that EK's sub-2 was benefitted by ~3 minutes, but that includes the pacing lights and the cordon around him, which seems to be worth about the same as the shoes, so I'm left with the idea that EK is only a 2:05 guy with 3 minutes from the shoes and 3 minutes from the pacing / cordon, which is a problem, because he's better than that.

    I believe him to be a 2:03 guy, so if we ascribe so much advantage to the 'drafting' and some to the pacing, and 3 min to the shoes, we should be seeing an even more stupendous time.

    Because I do believe the
    shoe advantage
    drafting (in this specific manner) advantage
    and certainly the pacing laser lights helped 'substantially'

    what are we to make of 'only' a 1:59:41 time?

    I need more data before I determine what is real, and what is placebo (I believe the hype, so then I make the hype come true).
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,613
    This "what is Real?" is long in the tooth....before if someone had an outstanding performance...I suspect many, including the general public who were paying attention, assumed it was PEDs....now it's shoes....I'll take the shoe accusation anytime over the alternative....
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,471
    The numbers are too large to be credible unless you think that Kipchoge has been dogging it a lot. He has beaten, often badly, a bunch of 2:03-type runners who did not have much of the advantage that Kipchoge has had. So, I am supposed to believe that instead of being the greatest of all time is mere about 5-10th right now. Give me a break, it does not pass the laugh test (unless all of those competitors are also wearing the 'special' shoes.

    Now, where are the error bounds on this 2.7% advantage, is it a single 'test' of the mean so that the standard deviation is so large as to not be defined or at least the n is small enough that the statistical significant is not very large. I am not always impressed with Tucker and there is a bit too much of the possibility of his position here having the effects of making him a 'famous expert'.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    This is the first I've seen this and altho I am an arch-skeptic, I'm willing to take it at face-value. At 120 minutes, a time benefit of 2.7% = ~3 minutes. My new problem with this is, I would believe that EK's sub-2 was benefitted by ~3 minutes, but that includes the pacing lights and the cordon around him, which seems to be worth about the same as the shoes, so I'm left with the idea that EK is only a 2:05 guy with 3 minutes from the shoes and 3 minutes from the pacing / cordon, which is a problem, because he's better than that.
    If you go back to the Runners World article you linked on #42, 4% improvement in energy return was the average of runners at different levels. Generally speaking, the improvement is greater in slower runners, and the fastest runners saw about 1.6% improvement.

    If 4% improvement in energy return leads to 2.7% less time, then other things being equal, 1.6% improvement in energy return would lead to about 1.1% faster time. (About 1:19 for a 2:00 runner.)
    Last edited by TN1965; 10-24-2019 at 10:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,471
    1.1% passes the laugh test, but this is a point estimate and only gives us an idea about the true level. Also, what is the comparison point, the best alternative racing shoe?
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235 View Post
    1.1% passes the laugh test, but this is a point estimate and only gives us an idea about the true level. Also, what is the comparison point, the best alternative racing shoe?
    Let Kipchoge go run a race in an oldfangled pair of shoes and wow us with the time, then that variable is off the table for once. If he's really that amazing, he doesn't need Vaporflippers.

    I always love kicking someone's ass in a pool when they're wearing flippers. Honest to God, get a life.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui
    Posts
    6,602
    blah, blah, blah with all the high falluting techo jabber. At the end of the day he ran under 2 hours and his shoes did not have a motor in them.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuariki View Post
    blah, blah, blah with all the high falluting techo jabber. At the end of the day he ran under 2 hours and his shoes did not have a motor in them.
    This guy's boots in the pic below don't have a motor in them either, but that doesn't mean anybody should be allowed to wear something like them in an official race.

    The line has to be drawn somewhere on the allowed characteristics of the footwear, even if it doesn't have a motor. So now the question is where to draw the line and does Vaporfly fit within the bounds of the line, not whether there should be a line. If there is no line whatsoever, a company with a big engineering department could come up with a better-designed version of these boots that enables a world class miler to run a sub-3 minute mile.


    https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/...eeds-Of-45-MPH
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    Let Kipchoge go run a race in an oldfangled pair of shoes and wow us with the time, then that variable is off the table for once. If he's really that amazing, he doesn't need Vaporflippers ...
    The thought occurred to me ... he already did. Berlin 2015, wearing Nike's then-new "InsoleFly 90%" shoe, where the insole comes out 90% of the way to massage the back of your leg. He ran 2:04, and won by over a minute in a world-class field. :-)
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •