Nice.

My Next% Ekiden just came in the mail today - they look fast AF...

---

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

Best colorway in the market. Enjoy!

Someone already posted the original guardian report here but I guess we didn't already have enough vaporfly threads.



No matter what the IAAF decides, we, the 99% of amateur/recreational runners will continue to be able to run in whatever shoes we want so the Alphafly may yet come out for us if there even was a plan to release them.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

It stated that they were going to continue to investigate the vaporfly....I think they got the wrong shoe. They already did that and found it doesn't return more than 100% of the energy the runner put in it....in other words it's not a spring. I think they meant the Alpha fly which remains to be seen.

No shoe can return more than 100% of the energy you put into it. Nor can a spring. Nor can something like, say, a non-motorized bicycle.

If something is "returning" more energy than you put in, it means it has another power source. Like batteries, or a gasoline tank.

A cop out. IAAF simply frightened of a legal action by Nike. Entirely wrong decision and clearly the shoes break the current rules about unfair advantage and being reasonably available to all. They do give an advantage (look at the reviews) and it’s unfair because not everyone can afford the 250 dollar price tag. Triathlon is increasingly becoming a middle class sport/sport for the wealthy. If you can’t afford it you can’t compete. Back to basics please.
Sport for all not the wealthy few.

Also it appears allowing these but banning all new technology until after Tokyo prevents any competition shoe manufacturers from making something similar and closing that performance advantage gap. Nike huge winners, others losers, and athletes with other company sponsorship screwed for Tokyo now.

The argument these are problematic because of price is asinine. I didn’t realize you HAD to have $250 shoes to be competitive.

Might as well ban deep carbon wheels. Integrated cockpits are out. Carbon frames are out. Speed suits with aero fabric - out. They all give advantages and not everyone can afford them, right?

I agree barrier of entry to triathlon is too high, but that has nothing to do with the Vaporfly. You can do a tri in swim trunks, $50 garage sale huffy, and Walmart running shoes and do just fine. And if you have a good engine can still beat the hell out of the tubby dentist who has a $10k bike and $300 shoes.

+1
not just that. I am thinking about the triathletes compiting in Tokyo that have a deal with other companies....If there is an "doubtful advantage" with those trainers...what is going to happen? will they change to nike just to compete in the same conditions and spit on their sponsors´ hands meanwhile? IMO, wrong decission. 3-4% of advantage in times or recovery means half a minute at least for the 10k (rough calculation)...in this case, there should be always better go on a conservative approach to take a decission. When the studies are finished and well- contrasted, then, go ahead...but Tokyo is just round the corner.

---

Spaniard. Sorry for my english for the sensitive ones :P

I think you misunderstand the process used. The working group that is working on the outcome is made up of academics, engineers and ethicists. If this is the outcome, it is one taken on balance by well-qualified individuals spread across multiple disciplines. Your criticisms are reasonable but are not as clearcut as you suggest them to be.




(Note: Nike have already 'won' from the exposure of this case alone. The shoes have sold out and are in high demand.)

And that is the allegation for banning the shoe in the first place. You just said it more straight forward than I did....thanks

Actual equipment you show up with on raceday is the least expensive part about this sport no matter what you roll in on! Time has a cost, and if we all took our training regimes and cut out 10 hours a week, replacing that with a modest $15/hr job we're talking about $7,800/year. If you assume an average of 12 hours training a week, 800 calories burned per hour, and multiply by 52 weeks a year, we burn around 500,000 extra calories just training. Even if you replaced all those calories with the super-cheap banana option, you're looking at a $650 yearly banana bill! And if you're really concerned about people being able to "buy" performance, you have to figure in the cost of a coach. Say $300/mo for a year, that's another $3600. Just from those three things you're looking at $12,050 and we still haven't covered the race entry fee, travel costs associated with your race, transportation to/from your swimming location, pool fees if you don't have a free lake/pond nearby, bike maintenance costs, shoes you train in and wear out, other misc training gear, doctors bills, etc.

This is an exercise I could probably continue on for a long long time, but the long and short of my point is, the cost just to show up to the start line of a triathlon and be anywhere closely approaching the point where a $250 shoe makes the difference so vastly outweighs the training costs that your raceday equipment is almost trivial.

Take your class warfare jealousy nonsense elsewhere. This is one of the most affordable upgrades in the sport in terms of dollars/time saved. If you are in favor of banning these shoes, you should also be in favor of banning aero helmets, wetsuits/swimskins, race wheels, aero tri suits and a host of other equipment. The companies that make this stuff have employees to pay and are not charities that give away their hard work for free. Moreover, other companies are already developing similar technologies and the price should come down and the shoes should be more widely available.

---

Strava

Class warfare.....jealousy nonsense!! No neither.
I would ban all those things though. I started racing way back. I’m not saying there was complete equality, but look at footage of races from the late eighties/early 90’s. Basic bikes, trunks/vests, basic running shoes. I would say the racing was just as, if not more exciting and competitive. You think two athletes of equal ability but one with all the bells and whistles are gonna cross the line together. Of course not. People are put off sport by the cost of competition and the cost of triathlon can be astronomical. My view would be to standardise frames, wheels, helmets, ban swim skins (necessary why exactly?), disc wheels etc, so that everyone has a fair chance. Just an opinion though.

I haven't been following any of this potential shoe ban stuff, but it seems you saying the alleged grounds for the ban were that these shoes contravene the first law of thermodynamics? I suspect either you or I may be mistaken?

Seriously, on this type of mentality, why not use Rollerblades? Not sure if they are legally banned either in usat at least

I think the rule says walk, run, or crawl only so I guess that excludes rolling? Open to interpretation i guess

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

This has always been my thought also. How is the different from carbon wheels? They are expensive and make you quite a bit faster but oh no, we can't have a better shoe?

I think he means that nike is the winner if this means the arms race is stopped while they are in the lead. They broke out a shoe so different and fast that instead of banning it, other companies are just banned from copying it.... 😁

I too follow on Joss1965's thinking. I be seen many great potential athletes shut out of the sport. Clicking off 15 min 5k's while ceo lawyer seeking glory for breaking the epic 20 min barrier

No, the initial allegation is that they allow performance above and beyond what a competition running shoe ought to. The mechanism around that performance and whether it ought to be a rules violation are much more complicated questions than "does it have a motor?", which is what you're reducing it to.

Nike is the winner regardless of outcome. You'll all be killing yourselves to buy a pair regardless now. It was a masterclass in marketing.

So the 15 min 5k athlete is shut out by the 20 min 5k CEO? How do you figure that?

Are you going to suggest we shut down Kona because it costs ~$10k to travel and race there, and some great athletes are shut out?

What is it about the marginal performance benefit of this particular $250 piece of equipment that has everyone up in arms?

---

Strava

I race in Mexico, all races have prize $. Some these kids race to put food on their table. You can't eat a $250 shoe

So make everyone use equally cheap crappy shoes?

Sports socialism at its best.

Fine, then let the local Mexican race organizers ban the shoes if they feel like it is affecting the integrity or spirit of their races. I'm sure they want fast people to show up so it's a win-win.

Also, let the CEO buy his $250 pair of shoes and break 20 minutes in a local 5k.

Mind you, all new expensive technologies (consumer goods, at least) come down in price as competition enters the market. These shoes will be priced closer to other racing shoes in a few years.

---

Strava

“Make everyone wear cheap crappy shoes?” Is that what I said? No read what I said in the first place about why the shoe should have been banned.
As for socialism, Wtf has that got to do with having a level playing field in sport. It’s not just the shoes, it’s all the other stuff people have mentioned on here? I guess the ‘wealthy’ might be a wee bit worried they could no longer buy success so easily.

You call 4% marginal🤣

You call 4% marginal🤣 //

Of course, 4% is just the name of the shoe. You don't really think the pro runners are actually getting 4% time savings with them, do you??


And perhaps I misunderstood what is happening here, aren't other companies allowed to take their technology up to the point that Nike did? I dont believe any one shoe company has a full on monopoly on the foam they used, so what is the real problem here in fairness??

Their is no monopoly on the material. It's a short term problem for Nike's competitors. The issue though is we have the Olympics in just over 6 months time.

The issue though is we have the Olympics in just over 6 months time. //

Well Asics seemed to be able to whip out a pair for Frodo pretty quickly, so not sure what the problem is really? These companies can probably make a prototype in a week if they want, I would guess that most already have..

That shoe for Frodo had been in development for nearly 2 years. I held prototype pairs in my hands 8 months before Kona '19.

Most every major brand will have a carbon plated, "special" foam racer available to the general public before the Games this summer. Some may be better/faster then others but at the end of the day it will come down to the athlete, just like it always does

---

Boots
Fleet Feet Rochester, NY
Fleet Feet Buffalo, NY
YellowJacket Racing, Rochester, NY

Most every major brand will have a carbon plated, "special" foam racer available to the general public before the Games this summer. Some may be better/faster then others but at the end of the day it will come down to the athlete, just like it always does//

Well that was my main point, so I dont understand all the fuss here from people thinking everyone will have to wear Nike's to be competitive. They did not freeze every company in their tracks, they froze Nike, and everyone else can make a catch up shoe...

I know WTA have said that should the IAAF ban them, they would follow suit, but it seems everyone is forgetting that IAAF is athletics, and in running, shoes is the "only" equipment capable of providing gains. So the argument about carbon wheels etc, although true in the advantage they provide, is only 1 of many pieces of kit, unlike athletics.

Regardless, the number of companies with carbon plate in their shoes renders the whole argument of Nike having an advantage moot. Yes they were the first 'mainstream' shoe to the market, no doubt there were many before hand. There has been articles about Hoka starting to develop these years before, until Nike poached the head of development and then beat them to market. Either way, there is always going to be competition among shoe companies, just as there is among athletes. Competition is healthy, it drives us all to succeed

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Extending your logic, we cannot ride bicycles anymore because I am sure there is a significant proportion of the global population that cannot afford a bicycle let alone a superbike. What about the high quality breakfast I eat on race day? I'm sure many could not afford that either; we had better ban that too.

I'd love to hear the rationale behind whatever price point you establish that makes it "fair" and "back to basics." Is it $100? $125? $50? And why that price and not any other?

I get that you are concerned about the rising cost of competing in sports, but I do not get why you feel it's your prerogative to set the appropriate cost at a price point you feel comfortable with. No one is stopping you from running in a pair of $5 flip flops. In fact, I have a friend who runs a 2:40 marathon in flip flops...faster than me in 4%. You could explore this option if cost is a barrier as it is VERY true that sport is for everyone!

In addition, there are plenty of reasons to wear vaporfly beyond speed. As many have noted on forums around the world, these shoes are simply more comfortable for many than any other shoe they have tried. I feel far less beat up by a hard run in my 4% shoes than I did on the marathon flats of days gone by. We should not be banning innovation that makes running more comfortable/enjoyable.

Science and engineering happens; progress ensues. Change. Adapt.

If you factor in the cost of inflation, $250 for a top performance shoe with a huge lead in the market is not that out of line with similar innovations in the past. Better still, the very force you decry, the market, has already encouraged the development of competitors that will both increase innovation and compete on price too. Win win win.

Regulating innovation at a pro elite level-sure that perhaps makes sense, just as the IAAF has done in other sports. Denying someone a comfortable shoe of their own preference because you feel it costs too much? That does not make any sense.

Jared Ward performed studies that did validate that. You can also look at race times of many people before and after the shoe.

How absurd is it? I saw someone who struggles to crack 19:00 yet did a 1:19 half marathon when putting on the shoes... wtf


As for those who keep bring up the damn super bike argument, drop it. Compare to the real athletes, ITU WTS athletes, where all their bikes are pretty much the same

Are you sure you don’t work for Nike? 😂

I’m a low-19 PR. If I could drop from a 1:30:00.7 PR to a 1:18 by spending the equivalent of 2-3 pairs of shoes, sounds like an easy call! Hell, even for a 1:25.

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team

But some trials are taking place now. Other brands aren't able to respond fast enough and Nike already has a head start and is a generation or two ahead.

Have you even run in the shoes? I'm calling BS on that claim...

1) Any gains of the shoe will vary based upon their mass, step rate and subsequent running velocity. As a result, many recreational runners may not see the same gains as the elites as the shoes probably have not had their design tailored with that in mind.

2) Why not ? From a philosophical point of view, the principles are exactly the same (or at the very least should be debated).

3) The impact of technology will vary from sport to sport. You only cherrypicked one there. That doesn't mean that running should follow suit or attempt to match that one sport in principle. Besides, different sports have different constraints and the reason WTS probably sees a more neglible difference in bicycle technology is due to the allowance of drafting. This doesn't have to mean that running shoes should have a neglible contribution, just that its role should be debated.

People are not asking the most important question and the one that has to come first in these debates:

"Should shoe development be fundamentally part of the sport of running or not ?".

The answer to that will then suggest what limitations are required, if any, and how much.

The difference between the anti-disc brake zealots and the anti-Vaporfly zealots, is that occasionally the anti-disc brake folks would make a good point.

it's possible to hold two or more ideas in your head at the same time objectively... like, admit the Nike shoes give a huge advantage and are affecting record time progressions and will affect 2020 Olympics events, and regret that as a sports fan, but also think they are good, nay great shoes and use them. You can also like/love disc brakes and also acknowledge that they're an additional expense and don't make sense in some use cases and are pretty much mandatory in other use cases.

---

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.”

isn't it more likely that the shoes are a beard?

---

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'm curious how this will work, as NB, Saucony, Skechers and Brooks all have "Vaporfly similar" shoes coming out soon. Hoka is supposedly working on a new one as well. Will this mean all of these products are banned until after Tokyo, thus a major win for Nike.. or will they not be considered new tech, so it won't matter.

Or will nothing change at all, since this is primarily an issue online, and in real life no one actually pays attention or cares.

  

https://worldathletics.org/...modified-rules-shoes

• Prototypes are fine until April 30, 2020 (conveniently until right after the London Marathon)
• After April 30, a shoe must be on sale publicly for four months before it can be used in competition
• Effective immediately: Stack height limit of 40mm, only one plate can be use. It's a little more detailed in the article, but that's the essential.

Not a huge deal. It gives other companies a heads up that they can't use prototypes after 4/30. Also, it means Saucony and all the others have to start selling whatever shoe they want in the 2020 Olympics by April 9th.

Surely Nike got plenty of good press out of this, but I can't say the ruling was really in their favor. Their new shoe that Kipchoge used in the INEOS159 challenge looks to be banned from competition use. Although I don't know if Nike intended it to ever be used in competition.

Do I get it right? No Alphaflys nor rumoured zoom x spikes in Tokyo?

---

Instagram
Youtube Channel
Meta Endurance

No Alphaflys. Honestly, I didn't pay too much attention to the parts about spikes.

What’s the AlphaFly stack height btw? In any event it falls in the « two plates » category but I am curious by how much they’d have to reduce the sole to be within the limit

---

Instagram
Youtube Channel
Meta Endurance

Correct: VF 4% & Next% can be used, Alphafly can not.

The Nike prototype spike used by Nike athletes @ 2019 worlds is banned

Utilizing prototypes for elites before bringing them to market is no longer permitted

Deadline for shoe brands to release their Tokyo shoe is April: Tick Tock!!

---

Toro Performance

This is a dumb hill to die on for why these shoes should be banned.

So we ban all fast equipment, make everyone use the same bike, shoes, etc. But then there will be people who can afford a coach and those who cannot. Do we ban coaches?

There will always be avenues for advantages. And at the end of the day these advantages are (mostly) in the margins.

Someone with talent who trains well but rides a 35lb Walmart bike, and runs in Payless shoes will be the hell out of someone who doesn’t put in the same work and didn’t win the genetic lottery but rides a $10k bike and wears $200 shoes.

I 110% agree we need to make triathlon easier to get into, or at least break the stigma that you NEED to spend a ton of money. But banning expensive gear isn’t the way to do it. It’s idiotic logic at best.

Keep in mind, these shoe rules apply to elite runners in IAAF (World Athletics) sanctioned events. So for the age groupers, nothing really changes. A guy trying to go from 10:50->10:30 at Ironman Arizona will not be affected by this directly.

I work volunteer for a big running organization. I see the numbers. One thing I didn't mention this was achieved on downhill courses too. Another thing I am fighting. Ugh. Every one wants easy glory

What is it about the Alpha Fly that makes it against the rules?

Multiple carbon plates and a stack height greater than 40mm

I think world athletics got it right. A proportionate and balanced response. A few loopholes in the new rules I can see but probably enough to keep the sport ok until beyond the Olympics.

The AF's sole is roughly 50mm (according to Let's Run) and has (up to) 3 plates, but not confirmed.

---

Toro Performance

Idiotic logic? Charming.
My original point was two fold. In my opinion the shoes should be banned because they a) give an unfair advantage and b) are not readily available to all. I stand by this. I went in to say triathlon as a whole is expensive and should be more affordable. Let’s use an example. I’m a competitive age group athlete. I know that to podium/win at age group level (Kona slots/national champs etc) I cannot compete without a carbon aero bike, deep section/ disc wheel, good aero helmet, aero ski suit etc. So if all I can afford is a road bike with clip ons, a cheaper tri suit, normal helmet then I know for a fact that bloke who is similar ability to me is gonna win comfortably. I don’t know many other ‘self propelled’ sports where money makes such a difference. We can never make a completely level playing field because, yes some people can afford good coaches, better diets etc but at present the line is drawn in the wrong place. ITU/MDot could do more, that’s all I’m saying. Not what some people want to hear because triathletes are generally quite wealthy and love their tech.

NEWS FLASH- Triathlon is a luxury hobby. It isn't a necessity. In fact the same can be said about any hobby. Saying they aren't readily available and whinging about level playing fields for all of $250 is pretty silly though. What's even sillier is comparing it to cycling where you've just made a $250 outlay for a pair of magic shoes seem like an absolute bargain.

Ugh, you're just not getting it.

At IMFL I rode a creaky aluminum road bike with clip-on aerobars, a random sleeveless trisuit I've had floating around for a while, and a cheap aero helmet I got on clearance to a top 100 overall bike split. Where I spent my money on was a direct drive trainer, a bunch of money on upgrading my pain cave to keep me sane, good nutrition, and a solid training plan. Then it was a bunch of hard work. Yes clone me before the race and put the clone on a P5X with all the bells and whistles and my clone wins. Nobody is disputing that. But clone me before I jumped into my training plan, giving the clone the P5X but taking away the training equipment and giving him garbage nutrition, and let me keep my creaky road bike and sweet pain cave...I win. Every. Single. Time.

It's the dollars spent in training that make a triathlete fast, not the dollars spent on race day equipment. Not by a long shot.

If you want to make the sport appear more accessible, start up a race where only non-carbon bikes are allowed. I bet you would get a lot of experienced triathletes excited for a race like that to be honest. Start up a race that only allows new triathletes. (We have one of those here where I live and it's massively popular.) Become one of those Instagram influencer people by being the "poor triathlete" or something like that and show how you can have successes and enjoy the sport without spending a fortune. That's all great and I encourage things like this to help the sport grow. But advocating equipment be banned because it's too expensive and always sold out is not the way attract more than a small handful of people to your cause.

“Yes clone me before the race and put the clone on a P5X with all the bells and whistles and my clone wins.”

Who’s not getting it? Let’s just leave it there.

Would be interesting to know how much of an advantage does the Alphafly (banned) provide compared to the Next % (not banned).

Seems that for Kipchoge it didn't provided that huge advantage compared to Vaporfly 4% that he used in Berlin, considering all the other advantages he had in Vienna besides the shoe. We would never know how much % of those 2min difference were actually from the shoes.

Yes, 4 months before !

Saucony will need to advance the launch date of their Endorphin Pro (now planned in june)
Brooks planned some announcement in February for the Hyperion Elite
New Balance Racer : prototypes used for years... release date ?
Adidas : several prototypes spotted... release date ?
ASICS same ?

Even though it’s now banned at the elite level, I do hope Nike releases the Alphafly (probably will be over $300). It’s been an exciting time for shoe technology, hope these rules don’t kill advancement.

I think you're over-stating it. Give me $2000 and I can get you a bike good enough that it's extremely unlikely to ever be your limiting factor. Basically lower than the travel budget for the championship races you're talking about.

There's a wide gap between tech culture, and actual tech benefit. If you read this forum every day you might vastly overvalue the relatively marginal gains of expensive things.

https://www.believeintherun.com/...s-nike-alphafly-ban/

Makes sense

Stupid article written by a stupid Nike fanatic ("Nike haters"....). The guy is nuts. So many stupidities in the article, it will take 10 article to dissect them. A sort of BS eruption :-)

Yes, Nike will possibly deliver an Alphafly (or whatever the name) for the Olympic.
And probably Kipshoge will win the Olympic wearing them.
And probably many peoples will spend 300€ to buy them and run 4h marathons.
So it will be good marketing.

But they will be limited to 40mm, and a single plate.
So basically it will be a Next. With different colors, different marketing gimmicks. But.... just another 4% or Next.

And several other brand will propose equivalent shoes, with same level of performance, probably more stability, and much less expensive.

The Olympic will be fair race (if everybody goes through real and frequents antidoping controls).

And I will buy a competitive shoes at a reasonable price. While some others will still masturbate on their 300€ new Nike :-)

"but look at footage of races from the late eighties/early 90’s. Basic bikes, trunks/vests, basic running shoes. "
-----------------------------
There is an interesting quote: "Nothing is the same as it used to seem to be." That means that for all of us memory is selective, or poor, or distorted with age. You appear younger than me so I will eliminate the latter.


The "arms race" and human need to progress is much older than all of us. I remember racing in the very early '80s and was poor as could be. I missed a lot of patents e.g. We bought cheap foam rubber to put on our (very) old style handle bars to experiment with laying our elbows down for comfort, aerodynamics, and to take the pressure off our back. That was evolution and it continued with aero bars, which have continued to evolve.


We were all broke but somehow managed to find a source to order race tires from Europe that were supposed to be faster. These cost cost more than the tires on my 1976 Toyota Corolla that I was driving at the time. BTW, that car had crank windows and no AC. Then, a friend was going to a bike show and said he would look for a deal on a bike for me . . . 1983ish. $1300 later I had not a penny left in my pocket, but a Euro race bike with Campy components that cost more than my car was worth; but, it was faster. We experimented with clothes, transitions, accessories . . . you name it A bike shop got in the very first HED disc wheel . . . could they "sponsor" me by letting me use it on race days??? Man was that 2000g wheel fast! Nike came out with the sock racer that had no out sole. They only lasted a race or two, but man were they fast.


I remember when we cut the underwear band out to use it as a race belt (should have patented that too) so we would be faster and not have to slip a shirt on with the number pinned on anymore. Should they have limited what we were doing? In my first tri we leaned bikes against a tree in the park for transition . . . you had to get there early to get a tree. Then, they came out with transitions racks and race fees went up because expenses went up (racks cost more than the tree that was already there) .

We fiddled with and tried everything . . . and still do. We replaced the hardware on our bikes with aluminum so it would be lighter and faster. That was big money to me at the time. Harold Robinson (Stretch) showed up with his Trimble bike (more storage than a P5X) . . . we all wanted one b/c now he was faster. So, we found flat tubed bikes. A guy named Dan Empfield came out with a bike with 26" wheeled bikes and guess what we all got! Then titanium. Then, oh my gosh . . . some how carbon fiber got freed up from the aerospace industry and Kestrel and others started shaping their tubes even more. The innovation and progress were insane . . . full on tri-arms war!


Ah, those good old days when there was a level unchanging playing field . . . nonsense! That is either selective or poor memory.


Now, I am slightly improved economically; but, really nothing has changed. I piddle around with my P5D all the time. Just last week playing with the valve stems on the 858s (to be slightly faster of course), changed to a "faster" tire on the Sub 9 disc. And, oh, the Next % . . . I must have tried four or five different combinations or elastic laces and lace locks, because, you know, I just can't stop looking for that next little advantage.


Yet, as I begin my 39th consecutive year of racing triathlons it is all still the same. Just trying to figure out how to keep my old carcass in shape and moving as quickly as I can (even though that definition is slow down more slowly). I will keep fiddling and looking for more speed, more enjoyment, fun with friends, and continue to evolve as a human and an athlete. Just like back in your described good ole days.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

Joss: by this logic you would need to ban (at least) any piece of equipment that costs more than $250. This probably means just about all bikes and most wetsuits....

Sport for all?

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

Actually the new rule will put all the other brands behind Nike yet again. The Alpha Fly (Not the version Kipchoge ran in but one with a single carbon plate) will come out in time, will be legal and will be better than the Next % or at least that’s what folks are saying. All the other brands had the 4% and maybe a short view of the Next % before they could really plan on production. Since the Olympics are in August the shoe companies that had a June release of their shoes with carbon will now need to fly shoes in early to make the 4month window. That means if your planning to be in Boston, you’ll probably be able to purchase any one of the new shoes.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Ya Dave, I saw that info after I posted what I thought would happen. IT still may come to pass, just puts a lot of pressure to get some shoes to market. Not sure what that entails exactly, do you just have to have them in so many stores, or have so many sales, what is the bar for that??

I'm not on his side, but that's not a reasonable interpretation of his logic.

I think the wording is “released to the market and available to the public for 4 months” How the brand chooses to release a shoe is still up to them. The original Vapor Fly 4% was allocated across the world. Knowing how difficult it was to make and how much demand they could drive they simply made sure there was more demand than shoes available.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Thanks for the response. I actually think it is a very reasonable interpretation of the OP. (He said basically that the shoes should be banned in part because they cost $250 and that the sport is too much for the middle class and wealthy) He hasn’t objected to my post but I certainly welcome it.

I would however like to hear why you think it’s unreasonable because I’m sure like in most things in my life I probably missed an important angle.

Thanks!

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I think the wording is “released to the market and available to the public for 4 months” How the brand chooses to release a shoe is still up to them. //

Well then maybe it will get tested this games. I can see some new shoe hot off the waffle iron, make a couple 100 pairs in house(avoid Asian lag times), and put a few in a 100 different shops. I would imagine there might be some protests if that were to happen, perhaps even a challenge. But of course that would probably be after the fact, and only if Nike's got pummeled in some events they were slated to win...


I can see all sorts of loop holes that you can drive a truck through on this one..

Well, that's still not the Alphafly and is a different shoe. Will it hit the market by may? Well I hope the design was already finished and it has hit production.

It's still a better rule than what was previously on paper.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I think you're both right that there are loop holes here. The closest comparison I can think of is the track cycling bikes needing to be available in a similar way and we all know some are just doing the absolute minimum. The difference here is that running shoes are still made by commercial companies. Also maybe sizes make shoes harder to do on a small scale convincingly compared to bikes. In the end they want to make a profit. So I'm sure they'll be available eventually. In the short term I'd agree they'd do whatever they need to do to get stuff out for the games though. I'm not sure consumer availability is that important though and it's hard to be much less available than the current AlphaFly. The IAAF will of had samples of the shoes in advance. I think the main thing from a games point of view is that there will be no surprise shoes and them having to make rulings on the hop.

The regulations read like a start to dealing with this to me. If shoe companies don't play nicely maybe the next stage of regulation will need to take that into account.

Also the availability is only one part of it. The 40mm limit is probably more important in the long run.

99% of the runners can wear the Kipchogie brand legally in a race

I wonder if they will still bring it out with multiple layers of carbon and the same high stack height

Think of the publicity

You can now wear what the pros are not allowed to. Get the advantage over your competition

This is the first part. From what it sounds like kipchoge’s shoe is not one with the carbon plates that everyone was thinking it was so that will probably be used in the games with maybe some stack height modification.

This is the same stupid UCI rule that everyone gets around not sure why IAAF thought it would be any different they can release it to the public for $50000 each as a custom build. After the Olympics is over they release it for $300 and they’re still compliant.

Also the availability is only one part of it. The 40mm limit is probably more important in the long run. //

Not sure about your concern with the stack height, they just make it 40 or under. I'm sure all shoe companies have the ability to make prototype shoes, and small runs of those shoes pretty quickly, so it seems like if they have a mind to, they can put out whatever they have going on at the moment. Maybe even time to do something new, since it seems only a small run would be necessary. From my understanding the shoes we are talking about are not 50+mm, but within a mm or two of the new limit, so an easy fix..

Wasn't really a concern. I was agreeing with you. The release part is a logistics thing that probably isn't much of a hurdle but gets the shoes in IAAF hands in enough time for them to raise concerns. The 40mm limit will stop shoes as big as the ones used in the 1.59 so that seems to me more important overall.