Do you have a link to the patent? I'm curious, since Saucony and Reebok have used PEBA for years. As I understood it, PEBAX is just a name brand (not owned or patentable by Nike) of a PEBA and is still trademarked.

From an article when the shoe wars were kicking off.........


Pebax foam is a patented technology owned by Arkema, a French chemical company. Though it appears Arkema has not widely excluded access to this technology, as its Pebax foam is found in a number of shoe brands. The carbon fiber plate appears to be Nike’s own proprietary creation.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Isnt it the same foam that is used in airplanes to reduce sound?

Ok thanks. That's what I thought. Arkema lists pretty much every major shoe brand on their website as customers.

That's super scary. I guess the foam is acting as this same spring but in a clever low-key design. I wonder what Josh Amberger thinks of this since he's been an ON athlete for a while and Gustav gets the special shoe?

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

Probably something like "hmmm, he's a much higher profile athlete, multiple world champ, and has a real shot at winning Kona, so that makes sense."

The performance difference between PEBA and EVA is much less than leather soles and EVA when they were first introduced. Theyre marginal gains. In any case, why are you fine with EVA? Because they're cheap? You can now easily find plated PEBA shoes for less than a pair of Nike Pegasus. No matter the lense you're looking through, there's no reason to push back on this tech anymore.

If it's the cost to pay for performance, then things like aero helmets, tunnel time, disc wheels, and superbikes are worse examples of that.

If it's availability, we're past that initial supply issue.

If it's equality across sponsors, we're past that too since they've all caught up.

If it's advancement and thus "times aren't comparable," then welcome to every new tech ever.

1) Amberger, I guess, has more important personal matters to enjoy at present rather than thinking about stack height of running shoes.
2) There is close to zero coverage in any competitive race of Amberger running - he runs at a gentle speed (see Dallas) - though IM MT was good.

The foam has a higher absorbency than normal rubber, so it doesnt have rebound like a spring. This made it great for lining plane walls to absorb sound and vibration because you needed thinner lining. So in theory you could have a shoe with lower stack than normal but have the same cushioning

The extra stack lengthens the stride length that is possible, which is why its helps down hills. The carbon plate could act as a spring but more likely keeping the foot joints (26 bones per foot) more stable so you can toe off with less joint flexion (just like how stiff cycling shoes work)

This is just a genious moev from ON, lots of publicity that will trickle down to their normal super shoes.
They might develop a TRI only super shoe that all AG'ers will be drooling over.

It was my understanding that PEBAX is specifically the thermoplastic elastomer. An elastomer can be formed into a solid rubberized plastic or a foam as we see in running shoes. What makes PEBAX special is that the foam can be made with a much greater ratio of gas to elastomer, and that foam is both lighter and 'springier'. I don't know the details of the patents, but it seems possible that Arkema has a patent on the elastomer and Nike has a patent on the foam or specific expansion process.

I get the marketing part, BUY OUR SHOE, IT WON KONA, but still BS to ignore your loyal athletes like Josh, that could benefit from a faster shoe. The truth is, we don't know what this shoe has that's different and why aren't they planning on making a production run off them? I'd like to see a cut away. I guess at some point, with tech being pushed, we're going to have to rely on the athlete to decide what's morally right or we'll be scanning shoes like we do bikes for motors.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

If I were a competitive pro contracted to ON, I wouldn't be happy. Lets face it, I probably would not have signed with ON for performance in the first place. It would have been for the paycheck, and/or the ability to get in and develop something fast few others had. Therefore, if ON had the resources to hand build prototypes in presumably six-weeks, for one of my competitors whom hadn't put in the time with them, and I had been with them for six-months, a year or longer... where the eff are my shoes man!?!? But again, as a pro athlete whom signed with ON before "Gene Simmons Stage Platforms" won Kona, the bigger the monthly paycheck the less unhappy I would be.

Of course any brand will invest more in it's better athlete. Why is this surprising or offensive to the other pros? It's a business contract, not a family relationship where they need to treat all their kids equally.

PEBAX is a trademarked formula of PEBA. Arkema owns the PEBAX patent and I don't see what role Nike could play beyond that IP. I haven't seen any indication that Nike owns such a patent. Unless someone has a link to a Nike patent relating to the foam, the above comments about "Nike's patents" are likely just echoed from an unreliable source.

1) The best F1 drivers help their teams to make the cars go faster and not just by driving: by intelligent feedback (and more). Amberger runs so slowly that ON would not value his feedback, whereas Iden would be able to offer quality feedback, be engaged and running at relevant speeds (1:07 half and 2:30s not 3 hour pace).
2) We have heard how these shoes were developed: they didn't exist before August and Iden only decided to run in them after multiple iterations comparative (if subjective) personal testing. Being the ON shoe project engineer must have been a blast!
3) I'd be surprised if Amberger was receiving much for running in ON. In the same way as I doubt a MoP athlete who is a poor swimmer would manage to negotiate much from a wetsuit sponsor, besides support in kind.

Like any prototype, it will inform the next design. Did ON say otherwise, that they will not produce such a shoe?

unlikely to be that subjective is you have portable vo2 analyzer.

No idea if Nike has a patent or if it's patentable. Just saying that there are existing patents for processes or materials that are made directly from other patented materials. As an example, here's Nike's patent for 'bonding PEBA plastic composition with dissimilar materials".

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/...f1ce30/US9504292.pdf

Here's a second one pertaining to the specific molding process used to create a specific foam. (this may not be specific to PEBAX, but is illustrative of the theory that a patent may be held for something that utilized outside patented materials)

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2021/0079186.html

I'm not even on that discussion anymore. Here we have a case that not all athletes have the same shoe, and there is no regulation in tri which is problematic , I think last I checked the equipment rules roller blades are fine - as there is nothing defining such shoe

In your opinion, why is the lack of shoe regulation a problem? So far no one has worn roller blades or leaf spring shoes. We don't need rules for hypothetical that aren't going to happen.

Everyone is wearing what most of us would call running shoes, and the variance between super shoes is now as small as the variance between helmets and bike frames. A good example of more isn't better is the Prime X. Most people find it more comfortable but slower than the Pro 3, despite 50mm stack and 2 layers of carbon. Adidas sponsored triathletes aren't even wearing the Prime X.

So what if On or Nike or whoever goes to 50mm, or 60mm? There just isn't much, if anything, left to gain with additional stack.

Who was ON's most competitive professional triathlete prior to their Iden signing?

I shared this on the 'negative split' thread:
So to answer the Q, ?most competitive'? I guess Gomez or Spirig.

It's a fine line isn't it. Take the UCI, they banned the Obree and Superman positions, that's probably better than going all the way to allowing recumbents in time trials. They could have banned it at Lemond aero bars.

Is it better to nip it in the bud quickly? Classic example of letting a problem fester is baseball and steroids, where now home run records have an asterisk. Some may say the transgender sports issue could have been dealt with before it became a big thing as well. There's bound to be disagreement in these gray areas.

Generally whenever there is a big shift in sports technology there is outcry to ban it. These super shoes are inarguably a big shift. Personally I believe that of Nike had not fine it first the shoes would have been banned.

Interesting conspiracy theory that it didn't get banned because it was Nike. What was there to ban about the 4%? Zoot had carbon plates before. Many brands used non-EVA foams before. What is there to ban then: PEBA specifically? All non-EVA foams (some superfoams are EVA based, so that wouldnt help)? The plate? Stack height beyond X mm? Now that all brands have competitive supershoes there's even less reason to ban them in their current form. And going beyond 40mm isn't making faster shoes (yet). So what regulation do we need to prevent something significantly faster without knowing what the next revolution could be? It's difficult to ban things we aren't yet predicting.

I just don't know what the rules would need to be, and whether they'd be of any use, since "illegal" stack shoes arent proving to be faster yet. The 40mm limit seemed rather reactionary, which made sense at the time since we didnt have any data on 50mm shoes yet. Not to mention it would be unrealistic to write a rule book that excludes every imaginable hypothetical (e.g. roller blades).

If triathlon adopted marathon rules, it would be entirely fine, imo. Just playing devil's advocate. Until Blu tried to show up with Cadex roller blades, we don't need rule to ban them.