Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 206
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,062
    Quote 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...
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,859
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In front of my computer
    Posts
    1,091
    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.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    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.
    That doesn't sound like a prohibitively high price for top-class runners. Other shoes don't come for free, either. And you probably don't need to do all your training wearing these shoes. Unless they're so different from regular running shoes that they require a change in running mechanics (which I haven't heard anyone say so far), they can be worn in competition only.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Havent composite shanks existed in cycling shoes for decades? Same with rigid full length spike plates in sprinting spikes. Making a (possibly) slightly more efficient shoe as a racing flat seems fine to me. I think people are just falling for marketing hype here.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,708
    $250 is nothing when you get to the top level...one of the Americans who ran 2:10 and is without a contract said the best part of being unsponsored is being able to buy the best shoe ....which he did ....

    How are you going to ban on thickness? Hoka has done it for years and a lot of recreational runners swear by them...

    Shoe technology has been trying to improve shoes for decades and finally do so...so let's ban it...the biggest complaint I have heard is it is too fast a change .... these shoes would be fine in 20 years but not now.

    Unlike drugs with their side effects....no one is going to do die because of these shoes....if you ban them then what is the criteria...
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,708
    Who gives a toss what the BMJ thinks...an arms race? Between whom.....Nike is by far the biggest company...the others are almost insignificant....

    The best thing about these shoes is perhaps longer careers....
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor Dary View Post
    $250 is nothing when you get to the top level...one of the Americans who ran 2:10 and is without a contract said the best part of being unsponsored is being able to buy the best shoe ....which he did ....

    How are you going to ban on thickness? Hoka has done it for years and a lot of recreational runners swear by them...

    Shoe technology has been trying to improve shoes for decades and finally do so...so let's ban it...the biggest complaint I have heard is it is too fast a change .... these shoes would be fine in 20 years but not now.

    Unlike drugs with their side effects....no one is going to do die because of these shoes....if you ban them then what is the criteria...
    Well said.
    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
  •