This is not just an answer to the Vapor Fly. This is the fear most had. Where will the brands stop and who has the “right” to actually put some limits on them. When Hoka One One came to the market they looked radically different than all other shoes. Today they look normal as all the brands have “answered” Hoka One One in their own way. Look at that picture, the Vapor Fly looks “normal”.

Saucony, Brooks, Hoka One One, Skechers and New Balance are out or will be out with answers to the Vapor Fly. They are now behind in development (they always have been and this was inevitable). Will the IAAF have an answer and what will that answer be?

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Hoka already has 2 shoes out with a carbon plate. Sketchers has one too. Saucony is launching one in the spring. Sure, they're behind in development, but there's nothing stopping other companies from launching similar shoes with similar types of foam.

If you're going to ban a particular shoe trait, do it on sporting merits - e.g. that the shoe-type makes it more about the shoe than the runner, etc.

What you don't do is ban a particular shoe trait because Nike has a head start on everyone else, especially when anyone can walk into a store and buy a pair. Give it a year and every other shoe company will be marketing something along these lines. If you're a pro and your sponsoring company does make the type of shoe you want, well, then you have decisions. We see this all the time in triathlon with slower bike brands sponsoring riders.

Perhaps all they need is to be a bit stronger enforcing the rule that the equipment needs to be commercially available to all. Kipchoge can get the 1st shoe off the production line, but it needs to be off the production line.

Not high enough. I will wait till 2025, so somebody comes up with this high.

It’s not that easy and it never is. Nike spends more on R&D than all others combined. For the most part their innovations are there’s for a couple of years then the industry adopts without all of the costs associated to the R&D. Flyknit is a perfect example. Nike set out to build a better upper cheaper. They got both. Now everyone has a knit upper. Pbax the foam used in the Vapor Fly is not exclusive. If the brand has the means they can use the foam. It’s a different molding process so it takes some up front investment. Carbon fiber plates have been around. All Nike did was build a better plate and in this case they have patents around it. This adidas shoe is different (adidas probably spends more on R&D than all of the remaining companies outside of Nike combined) When Kipchoge broke 2 hours in the Alpha Fly it was totally cool. The shoe was a what if project. To commercialize that shoe would be extremely difficult. Commercialize is not 3-5 sizes of bike frames. It’s making a size 7 fit and feel the exact same as a size 14 does. It’s not just the size of the foot it’s the entire structure of the runner. We don’t know what’s inside that adidas foam but just on the surface it looks closer to the Alpha Fly then the Vapor Fly. So let’s assume the IAAF does nothing. At the US Olympic trials, adidas runners will have that shoe on, Nike runners will now have the Alpha Fly on. Both Nike and adidas can afford to make shoes just for their athletes without ever commercializing it. Similar to Formula 1. Scott Fauble will have whatever Hoka is developing and Jared will have the Endorphin Pro on. Just knowing that who’s making the team?

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

geez, when the vaporfly first came out i thought they were weird looking... these however are just plain ugly!
they had better be fast!

That’s the thing, they actually are, and by inference from that, many people’s favorite shoe companies have been marketing to them utter bullshit products for years and years.

There’s like 5 good shoes right now based on the latest data, which is sad.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I doubt any of the other brands you mentioned noticed the Hokas, let alone benchmarked them. The foam is key and there's nothing about Hokas that make them feel fast. The only similarity is a tall stack.

I don't know about Nikes looking "normal" but Hokas still look like snow boots because they are twice as wide. Sure it makes them more stable, but they still look like clowns shoes compared to the narrow/tall race shoes coming out

To get the best out of the Nike shoes design, individual tailoring of the sole construction is absolutely essential moving forwards. If you really want to see performance enhancement of such shoes- widespread commercialisation isn't going to be anywhere near as important as personalisation.

The foam is key because a lot of runners turned to Hokas for the cushioning. But don’t forget the rocker shape and that Nike poached a Hoka designer prior to some of their major new designs. Hoka deserves a lot of credit and thankfully they will remain a player providing products for triathletes and people with achy older knees.

Who is most????? And hopefully nobody will.....except for physics.

There is a reason TT bikes all pretty much look the same. There is a reason all deeper carbon wheels look the same. Soon running shoes will be in the same boat.....physics.

Physics will be the natural stop sign where you can't get any faster because the human is the limiter. Running shoes have been lagging in this area for years and now they are arriving. Its strange that people either think this is some kind of detrimental arms race. It was going to happen and it will end because at the top end of innovation the amount of improvement vs physics is so cost prohibited that you only get tiny improvements, if any, at a huge cost. After that "Big Shoe" will have to resort to gimmicks like disc brakes on TT bikes.

This^^^^ is spot on! What's really sad is that people want these shoes regulated. Its shoe socialism. Make everyone use equally crappy shoes.

I assume that the answer to your question is - whomever has the fast shoes?

My point is that even if it does come down to fast shoes, comparative advantage (on its own) isn't enough to ban the shoes. Just because one shoe is faster than another and it gives some athletes an advantage, doesn't mean you ban the fast shoe. You ban the shoe (fast or slow) based on external benchmarks for equipment - energy return, shape, weight, whatever the appropriate & enforceable metric is/should be... (if you're going to ban the shoe, that is)

Now, if you're an athlete sponsored by a slower-shoe company, then you have two choices.
1 - wait until you shoe company comes out with a fast shoe, or 2 - switch sponsors.

We see this all the time in Cycling and in Triathlon. Heck, Rohan Dennis was rumoured to have walked away from a $1M/yr contract because of equipment problems.

Flyknit, the worst upper on the face of the planet. Vaporweave has been better, the additional structure in the platform was nice. But on the ZoomFly and 4%...if you're a pronator at all, then stay away, very far away from those shoes.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

the problem is the IAAF will aim at Nike and hit HOKA. there's already been a lot of noise about max shoe height of 31mm, which grandfathers nike's shoes but outlaws all the HOKAs that have been around for 10 years.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks for confirming, I have been wondering about that with these potential stack limits. At least Hoka has enough influence in triathlon to keep any potential IAAF restrictions out of triathlon.


Now I may not know much about the men's US field but I still would put my money on Scott & Jared with Galen IF he is able to run, if not then Brogan (who wears Nike but is not sponsored, so no alphafly). The top of the men's field in the US is quite thin. Maybe it will have more impact in the women's race?

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

The company that is producing for Nike does have an exclusive. And, their process is a bit unique, which make the foam properties a bit different from a tradition PEBA. I'm not sure if this is the "molding" that you are talking about above. Regardless, to achieve this, we're talking millions of dollars to create a facility to manufacture the foam. Add to that the knowledge of how to do it, IP, etc. It's a pretty tall task and one that Nike is not doing on their own, nor are any other Brands.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

as you may guess, some of us are discussing this right now. it's your industry advocacy group at work ;-)

i would not assume the safety in size that you do. the default posture of the ITU is to follow the individual sports. they don't always, but, when they don't it's because they're shown the unique nature of triathlon and its need to deviate from single-sport rules. don't underestimate the capacity for the IAAF to wreak havoc on triathlon, if the ITU blanket adopts the IAAF's technical rules on shoes.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Which proves just how ridiculous an arbitrary criterion like stack height is, as there is zero evidence that Hoka shoes provide anywhere near the performance benefit of the Vaporfly despite their height.

I’m not suggesting the shoes are faster and by that the runners wearing the adidas or the Alpha Fly are the contenders and everyone else should bow out. I’m only saying it opens the sport up to that kind of question. Whatever the IAAF decides will have an impact.

Triathletes - Sponsors - Bikes, Clothing, Wetsuits, Running, Sunglasses, Nutrition, and more. drop one and it hurts but if you think you’ll be faster then maybe it’s worth it in bonuses from all of the other sponsors.

Cycling - If you are really good you can be a total d%&K and you’ll get picked up by another team.

Running - One piece of equipment. For most it’s the only source of income that includes salary and bonus. Scott Fauble joined NAZ Elite - in his first year he made no salary and wanted to prove himself worthy of a contract. He did that then NAZ and Hoka One One brought him on. There is a loyalty built in running between brands and athletes. Athletes are celebrated at the offices and some of them build brands. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to visit the Nike campus you would walk away with one thing Pre is right up there with Jordan, Mia Hamm and Tiger Woods. A runner! Go to adidas to the museum in Central Germany. There you can hold the spikes Jesse Owens wore. There you can hold the adizero adios Haile wore to smash the marathon world record. Right next to the cleats Beckenbauer wore. A rep for Hoka One One told me that they will have a new shoe on the feet of runners at the Marathon Trials. You can bet that shoe has been developed around one athlete. The same guy who took a no salary contract.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

I just love the fact that I will not be so short! A 5'9.5" person's dream to be about 6 ft tall!
Plus, the slanted lacing on the Next % is not good for tri, they need more of a straight lace--the tongue folds up on top of itself in transition and it's a PITA to straighten in seconds. We need a Vaporfly-like tri verson with speed lacing. Or an Adidas or whatever. As long as it's super light and easy to get on & performs...all for it.

31mm is just talk until anything is official.

AFAIK only the men's Bondi is taller than that, 33mm. Which is a long way off 'all the Hokas that have been around for 10 years'.

The Bondi is probably Hokas shoe least likely to be involved in any event covered by the IAAF.

There are just too many ifs here to discuss it sensibly.

Limits of this nature are arbitrary. You have to draw a line somewhere.

The line is in physics and mechanical engineering. They can’t design a machine or spring within the shoe to springload the person forward as that would be a device.

Anything else other than that with ‘springy’ materials should be game.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

I have no problem with arbitrary limits if you're limiting the thing that actually matters. If you're worried about the "springiness" of the shoe, then find a way to measure and limit that. Using stack height as a surrogate for springiness, and then setting some arbitrary limit on that, just invites companies to find all sorts of ways to engineer around the arbitrary limit and continue to come up with faster and faster shoes.

Edit: the analogy in golf would be driver distance. For the longest time they tried to limit head size and still couldn't stop the "arms race". They finally figured out that what they cared about was the 'trampoline effect' off the driver clubface. Once they came up with a way to measure that and limit it, they made real progress in stopping the 'super-driver' insanity.

Limiting stack height doesn't prevent you limiting other things. But it seems the simplest to measure and by limiting the height of a shoe you limit what can be packed in there.

I think the sensible discussion is if and what you do alongside limiting height. But this Adidas prototype seems to add to the idea that size is part of the equation.

Nike and other shoe companies have people sitting in a room everyday thinking shit up on how to make a faster shoe now. If anyone thinks stack height is going to limit the evolution of shoes they’re crazy. It may slow them down for a bit because they have to go another direction but the shoe improvements are going to be flying in the next 5-10 years. Nike opened the door and made everyone realize how much better a shoe could be for running and that they could make bank on it. That isn’t going away no matter what the stack height limit is.

Limiting stack height doesn't prevent you limiting other things.

I'm not sure where our disconnect is with that. Are people taking the position? Did something I say read that way?

Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just gain saying what others say? Apparently we might get an indication from the investigation at the end of the month. So I'd guess some decisions have been made and we are just chatting until that happens.

The counter argument is that the USGA's obsession with par. Who cares if a tournament is won by par or -20 under par??? Well I guess the USGA so they limited the drivers face, the ball, the shaft, the whatever....but again that was stupid because physics will be the natural limit because a human can only swing a club so fast. The only real reason that the USGA can argue their position is that its cost prohibited to change the golf courses themselves. Running doesn't have a course problem.

So it really is just a matter of style. If you want running regulated I guess you like slower times in general.

I think the USGA and the R&A have different agendas. The USGA has always wanted the US Open to be played roughly par. I agree with you, and couldn't care less about that. The R&A cares more about the required changes to golf courses, and how golf courses were just getting eaten up by the top pro's who could drive the ball 350+ yards. They were turning what were previously tough courses into jokes. I can sympathize with this a bit, as I've seen what they've had to do to courses like Pebble Beach to get it to stay a challenge.

That said, I do not support the same type of regulation for running. I think that Nike's current advantage is short-lived, as evidenced by the fact that Adidas (and likely almost everyone else) already has a shoe in development to compete with the Vaporfly and the Alphafly. I don't buy into the argument that equipment that gives an advantage somehow detracts from the sport or the individual's performance. It's just the nature of sport and technology. It's a bit naive to think that this is the first time in the history of running that shoes have made a performance difference. Why don't we go back to pre-foam shoes, or leather sandals, or barefoot running? Why not dirt tracks, or crushed marble? Why do we have starting blocks?

I agree but........IMO the answer to regulating shoes....and I think the panic button was hit too early on the VF...... is over energy return.

The vaporfly is the fist shoe to come close to or hit the 100% mark of energy return (it had not gone over 100%). In other words it returns the energy that the runner put in his foot strike to begin with. Or in better terms....the shoe isn't holding the runner back. Vaporflys have demonstrated that the shoes that came before it didn't come close to this, were crap, and were holding the runner back.

If a shoe is found to return more than 100% then the shoe is doing the work not the runner and I can see them being regulated....like the head of a driver or a golf ball. If a shoe or golf ball absorbs the energy put into it by the runner/player and doesn't return the energy then the runner/player effort is being wasted and his ability are being held back by something artificial.

The takeaway isn’t ban the shoes. The takeaway is that, since time immemorial, shoe companies have been marketing their shoes as “faster” or “high tech” or “new and improved” but that has been complete BS.

There were like three good shoes (Adios, Luna Racer, etc) and now the new Nike has changed the equation. Other shoe companies have a lot of explaining to do IMO.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

The vaporfly is nowhere near 100% energy return. It’s closer to 70%.

Its funny how all stone carved wisdom is revised

Back in my day race tyres were hard and skinny, bikes were light and trisuits were short, helmets long, and we swam with bent arms and loaded on carbs....and elite marathon shoes were flat as a slice of bread.... at least the gatorade and coke stayed sweet

The USGA tries to make whatever course they have that year the hardest on the tour that year...and good lord are they good at it. To the point that the US Open can suck a lot. The conditions of that course will never be remotely similar before or after the USGA.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Historically, I'd agree. However, I think they've heard the criticism and are dialing it back a bit I'm a Norcal local so I've had the opportunity to go to the Pebble Beach Pro Am several times, as well as the US Open there last summer. If I look at the condition of Pebble Beach for the US Open last June as compared to how it's set up for the Pro-Am in Feb, it was a night and day difference. However, I didn't hear anyone complaining that it was set up too hard or unfairly. I think the s&*%show at Chambers Bay a few years back really taught them a lesson.

Chambers Bay was pretty freakin wild.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Another exemple of sport regulation :

https://www.instagram.com/p/B70lMa3lEbj/

Clearly UCI is doing a better job than IAAF

Mustache doping!

Surely this can't be Adidas answer to vaporfly?

I hear that the proto was 50mm but the below is priced at £180 so expect there to be another shoe with bigger stack at around £220 mark.

https://www.t3.com/...ero-pro-announcement

Or do we think the Adizero Pro is there Olympic marathon shoe?

The Adizero Pro has been in use for a while now, or for the last year roughly, in major marathons in the specifications you see it in that press release. Adidas just finally announced it will be on sale and gave out some of the details. The "thicker midsole" adidas at the beginning of this thread popped up in January of this year.

Anyone proof read things before they publish anymore?

"used by Haile Gebrselassie to shattered his own marathon world record in 2008"

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

A photo from Rolows 13, of the "Adidas Adizero Pro" :

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8e3C0lnm_Z/

Does not seems very high stack. A bit like Carbon Rocket ?

  
From Adidas IG, the "Adidas Adizero Pro" official picture and availability date :

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8dtJBjI20K/

Launch 1st April (not a joke ?!)

For the picture, click to the right.... it is not a "thick midsole", indeed.

Slightly thinner than the Adios.

An article (in spanish :-) about the Adizero Pro :

https://www.runnersworld.com/...s-running-opiniones/

with price, weight, drop, ...

And then it's not going to be available in all retailers until 1 June. Your LRS may or may not have availability until June 1st.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Modelo: adizero Pro
Drop: 8,5 milímetros
Peso: 235 gramos
Fecha de lanzamiento: 1 de abril de 2020 en tiendas especializadas
Fecha de venta general: 15 de mayo de 2020
Precio: 180 euros.

Yes, apparently the "lanzamiento" (launch) is Olympic compatible, but the "venta general" (general availability) is 6 weeks later, or more.


They are not very light, neither very cushioned probably, but look large and stable. And look great.

When I checked the B2B site we didn't have availability until 1 June. We emailed the rep and were told we could probably order 1 pair to arrive between the launch date and June 1.

We've already had numerous asks for the shoe though. I suspect the launch of it will go well enough for Adidas

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I thought that the rule was that the shoe had to be commercially available for anyone to buy, 4 months before the games, in order for sponsored athletes to be able to use the shoe at the games

If general release is 6 weeks later, doesn't that mean they aren't available for everyone to buy and thus aren't legal for the Olympic games?

People here have been speculating about the details of that ruling. My guess is that Adidas are big enough that they have checked exactly what they need to do. If you just had the ruling to refer to you might not do it the way Adidas, and others, are choosing to. It would seem risky. But since the limited release is the only one done before the specified date, 30 April 2020, you'd have to assume they've checked and that is what they need to do.

If you want the exact text it's section 5.2 here. But since 'first release' and 'available for purchase by any athlete ...' is a little open to interpretation it's not completely clear.

In reality I think the important thing to world athletics is that they have a chance to vet shoes before competition. As enthusiasts we focus on the date we can get them because we want them. If you were in charge of manufacturing a product that had to be ok'd by a governing body you might want to delay as much ramping up of production as you could while you waited for the ok. It's also all happening pretty quickly so maybe there is some leeway because of that.

Part of me wonders if any shoe companies will be impacted by supply chain issues stemming from the coronavirus. Other industries are starting to feel it (smart phones especially).

Normally, a shoe company might just push back the release date for this kind of thing, but given that the shoes need to be released before a certain date and everyone cutting it close, you'd wonder if any companies are in danger of not releasing in time.

It's going to be released first in global major markets at select stores. If you're a local running shop selling 20 - 40 pair of Adidas per month you're not getting it until 1 June.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Drop 8.5

Looks like I'll have to wait for Altra to come up with a 4percenter (or more).